Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Fluoride: a whiter than white reputation?
- John Graham (8 October 2007)
-
Fluoride: A Whiter Than White Reputation?
- Doris M Jones, MSc (18 October 2007)
|
|
|||
|
John Graham, Executive Member National Pure Water Association
Send response to journal:
|
Dr Griffiths’ opening paragraph is not original. The following appeared in Dr George Waldbott’s book ‘Struggle With Titans’ in 1965.
“A widely used promotional story has been circulated about Akron, O.; San Francisco, Calif.; Newburgh and El-mira, N.Y.; Charlotte, N.C.; E. Lansing, Mich.; Brantford, Ont., and many other places. It goes like this: Citizens swamped city hall with complaints of illness due to drinking fluoridated water when, to everyone's dismay, it was discovered that somehow fluoridation had not, as yet, been put into operation. Since the same events are alleged to have occurred in many cities and since, according to the story, after introduction of fluoridation in the above-named cities no further complaints were registered, the veracity of the story is doubtful.” (1) Dr Griffiths’, claim, to have, 30 years later, looked for evidence of harm from fluoridation, cannot be taken seriously. Not least because, as a pro-fluoridationist, he had an interest in not finding evidence of harm. Investigations into possible harms from fluoridation must be independent and seen to be so. Dr Yiamouyiannis was right to draw Dr Griffiths’ attention to the concept of confounding factors of which tea consumption is just one when considering total fluoride intake and any possible benefit to dental health. Perhaps the most significant confounding factor ignored since the 1960s is dental health expenditure. Fluoridation is claimed to be cost-effective, but this claim is not based on actual reductions in dental health expenditure as a result of fluoridation (2)(3), but on a questionable assumption that caries are reduced by 25-50% (4)(5). Dr Griffiths needn’t look to comedians to inform him about the incidence of dental fluorosis. The York Review found that 48% of those who receive fluoridated water will suffer dental fluorosis, and 12.5% will suffer dental fluorosis so severe it will be of aesthetic concern. This equates to 750,000 UK people suffering psychological stress due to damage inflicted upon them by water companies who believe they are obliged by current legislation to administer fluorosilicic acid to their customers. Natural fluoride is commonly calcium fluoride, a fact overlooked by Dr Griffiths. Calcium is essential for human health, and fluorine is not (6). Linking better dental health to the fluorine content in water whilst ignoring the role played by calcium was heavily influenced by fluoride-polluting US industry in the thirties. This set the scene for over 60 years of controversy, which will continue until Dr Griffiths and the fluoridation lobby accept the truth that fluoridation is medication without individual consent, and does more harm than good. References 1. A Struggle With Titans, George L Waldbott, MD, Carlton Press, New York, 1965, pg 195. 2. NHSBSA Dental Services Division (formerly Dental Practice Board) data. 3. Preventative Dental Treatments and Dental Health Expenditure in Wolverhampton 1997 – 2002, NPWA, June 2006. 4. Water Fluoridation – an Economic Perspective, D Sanderson, YHEC, 1998 5. BASCD Surveys. 6. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride (Request N° EFSA-Q-2003-018) (adopted on 22 February 2005). Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Doris M Jones, MSc, Independent Researcher IG2 6DZ
Send response to journal:
|
In his comments, Griffiths admits that whilst dental health in fluoridated Birmingham and the West Midlands is very good, there are high rates in obesity, heart disease and (lower) life expectancy. It might have been appropriate for him to question whether fluoridation could be a significant cofactor in the increased incidence of such health problems in these areas, as well as the lower life expectancy. The known effects of fluoride on thyroid functioning may be relevant, as detailed in Paul Connett’s 2004 comprehensive review ‘50 reasons to oppose fluoridation’. (1) The Cheng et al article mentioned that the MRC suggested research on the long latency in chronic diseases was needed and required special attention. (2)
A number of unsupported statements are made in his comments, i.e. that no-one had complained to him about problems with dental fluorosis. It is unlikely that people would make a point of complaining if such problems are common in fluoridated areas, but it is known that corrective treatments are expensive and are not covered by the NHS. He says it is irrational to consider naturally fluoridated water as safer than artificially fluoridated water. Fluorine has a strong affinity to calcium; naturally fluoridated water contains calcium fluoride and this is thought to pass through the body more safely. His statement that dental health deteriorates in areas where fluoridation has stopped is unsupported, as the graph in the Cheng et al article shows. His last statement that other toxic chemicals attract less attention is also untrue – there has been a huge amount of public concern over many toxic chemicals; regrettably not many of such details find their way into medical journals like the BMJ or the Lancet. Georgina Downs for instance has fought a much debated, publicized and prolonged campaign against the largely uncontrolled use of pesticides on farmland and in rural areas. Fluoride is one of many toxic substances, and one which could easily be removed without this measure causing any harm, but with a potential to reduce the frequency of many other common health problems. References 1) www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.pdf 2) Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies. KK Cheng, I Chalmers, T Sheldon. BMJ 2007;335:699-702), 6.10.2007. Competing interests: None declared |
|||