|
Water Fluoridation: Medicating the Masses In October 2005, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie announced that local councils would have five years to take up state government funding in order to introduce water fluoridation in their districts. If the councils refuse to do this, he said, the government will force it on them. He said the state government will give financial and legislative support to the councils but added that the law, which makes a referendum mandatory before councils can fluoridate, would be changed to make the referendum optional. The government would also repay all capital costs associated with fluoridation in communities with populations over 5,000; this cost is estimated to be $6 million across the 43 communities involved. However, Paul Bell, president of the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ), said the cost of fluoridation could be up to $85 million, including a $1.7 million annual cost of putting fluoride in water over a 30-year period. Premier Beattie retaliated by calling for councils to hand over control of their lucrative water supplies to the state government if they are worried about the costs. He said the government would then implement and manage the fluoridation. He also predicted that the councils would not give up control of water supplies because they make a 'killing' from water distribution. These water rights are worth about $16 billion annually. Fluoridation is the practice of adding compounds containing fluorine/fluoride to water supplies in an attempt to reduce dental decay. Trials began in the US in 1945 in three cities, and in 1950 – before these trials were completed – the United States Public Health Service endorsed mass fluoridation of public water supplies. The American Dental Association also endorsed it in 1950, ironically after opposing it in an editorial in its October 1944 journal, which read: "We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure…" The fluoridating agent most commonly used is a hazardous and contaminated industrial product. Hydrofluosilic acid and other fluorosilicates are not naturally occurring but, rather, are waste products derived from the industrial manufacture of aluminium, zinc, uranium, aerosols, fertilisers, insecticides, plastics, lubricants and pharmaceuticals. Alarming research studies Five major epidemiological studies from France, the UK and the US show higher rates of hip fractures in fluoridated areas – and the US has the highest number of hip and bone fractures and the longest history of water fluoridation (ISIS, 7 January 2005). A paper published in Science in 1983 (vol. 222, pp. 330-332) stated that fluoride directly affects bone cells by increasing proliferation and alkaline phosphatase activity. A 2001 Harvard School of Dental Health study found increased cancer risks at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. This research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and ten will suffer an increased rate of bone cancer between the ages of ten and nineteen. Professor Dr Hardy Limeback, a consultant to the Canadian Dental Association, studied the effects of fluoride on children in fluoridated Toronto and found they had double the level of fluoride in their hip bones compared to children in non-fluoridated Montreal. Originally in favour of fluoridation, Dr Limeback changed his mind about it by April 1999 as a result of his research (see http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/1537.html). He warns that children under three should never drink fluoridated water or use fluoride toothpaste or products, and baby formulas should not be made with this water. As the Toronto Star (25 April 1999) reported, Dr Limeback refutes the safety of fluoride and said he is concerned that no tests have been undertaken by the international pro-fluoride lobbyists to assess the effects of fluoride accumulation (and they've done little about this since). He said the World Health Organization (WHO) is aware of overexposure to fluorides, and in its 1994 monograph, "Fluoride and Dental Health", stated that dental and public health administrations should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride program for caries prevention. Nobel Prize winner for medicine, Dr Arvid Carlsson, said in 1978 that "water fluoridation adds to the already complex dangers of chemical exposure". About 60% of US drinking water is fluoridated. However, Europe has almost unanimously rejected it as a result of the more objective scrutiny its investigators have applied. Statistics collected and published by the WHO show that children's dental health is as good if not better than that of American children (see http://www.fluoridealert.org/WHO-DMFT.htm). Since 1990, 54 US and Canadian cities have rejected adding hydrofluosilic acid to their water supplies. Australian-based studies In 1997, a Task Force was formed by Brisbane's then Lord Mayor Jim Soorley to look into the pros and cons of fluoridating Brisbane's water supply (see http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-4/314-232.htm). The 17 members of this Task Force included experts from professional organisations which support water fluoridation – such as the Australian Dental Association and the Australian Medical Association – as well as representatives from other professional bodies with opposing views. The results were that a small majority (52%) said they opposed fluoridation, and a significant proportion (23%) who initially were supportive of fluoridation had changed their minds by the end of the process. Many Task Force members remained unconvinced by assurances that serious health risks were negligible or non-existent. They expressed particular concern about the ambiguous scientific evidence of an association between fluoridation and higher levels of hip fractures. Interestingly, around the same time back in 1997, US EPA scientists went on the record against the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water. The Task Force noted in its 1998 report that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Working Group, which had supported fluoridation, had expressed considerable concern that it could not find a single Australian study which had monitored adequately the impact of possible adverse consequences of fluoridation. It was also concerned that pro-fluoridation cases had relied heavily on studies from abroad, which did not account for aspects particular to Brisbane and its sub-tropical climate. The Task Force did not think that the evidence proved that Brisbane's rate of dental decay was serious enough to warrant fluoridation due to the (at the time) falling rates of tooth decay in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. The Task Force had considerable concern that fluoridation could increase the total fluoride intake in excess of safe levels for babies and children. What constituted a safe or toxic dose was uncertain and confusing, and the Task Force thought that the margin of safety between a safe and a toxic dose might not be sufficiently wide. The majority also accepted findings that there was a possibility of adverse effects on sensitive plant and marine species, and that there has been little examination of environmental effects of water fluoridation worldwide. Since then, a South Australian study involving dental examinations of 4,800 South Australian 10 to 15-year-olds' permanent teeth has been published. It revealed similar cavity rates whether the children drank fluoridated water or not, which suggests that fluoridation provides no benefit. The children sampled lived in fluoridated and non-fluoridated metropolitan and rural areas of South Australia. (Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, August 2004) Furthermore, a study of pre-school children's tooth decay rates doubled from 28% in 1987 to 47% in 2001 after fluoridation became law in the State of Kentucky, USA. (Pediatric Dentistry, July/August 2003) Research studies strongly suggest that fluoride works primarily by topical means through direct action on the surface of teeth and not through ingestion of it by drinking fluoridated water (Centers for Disease Control, 1999 and 2001). A growing number of very credible experts from around the world have been coming out against water fluoridation. Many of them put their name to an open letter of 31 August 2004 to Premier Beattie, the Queensland Minister for Health, the Lord Mayor and Deputy Lord Mayor of Brisbane, and Councillors in all cities and shires of Queensland, strongly urging them to reject any plan to fluoridate Queensland's water supplies (see http://www.fluoridealert.org). They said that no new evidence has been put forward to their knowledge that would warrant a revision of the Task Force's 1998 decision. There are now too many of these anti-fluoridation experts to ignore, and not enough good evidence to show that fluoridated water poses no health threat. Our dental health care crisis There is a dental crisis happening all over Australia, which has nothing to do with fluoridation and everything to do with poor nutritional habits and the lack of public dental health schemes. The Federal government, under Prime Minister John Howard, abolished the Commonwealth dental health care program in January 1997. Fluoridated Perth, for instance, has a major dental health crisis: "Toddlers as young as one are having general anaesthetics to remove or crown rotten teeth. Paediatric dentists say rotten teeth in very young Perth children is a massive problem, with about 20 children a week being given a general anaesthetic for extensive reconstructive dentistry and a further seven for extractions…" ("Toddlers teeth spoilt rotten", West Australian, 26 June 2004) Other fluoridated cities are having the same problem. An investigation in the Sydney Morning Herald (15 February 2005) said public dental patients in NSW are waiting up to eight years for attention, and the number of children needing hospital treatment has doubled in the past decade. One very important issue surrounding this fluoridation debate is whether or not we should be forced to have fluoride in our drinking water against our wills. This seems incredibly undemocratic and is surely unconstitutional. Whatever happened to freedom of choice? If people want to take fluoride, they can buy tablets and fluoride toothpaste. We need to change our habits to reduce tooth decay, which many believe is due to poor diet and lack of good dental hygiene. I grew up with fluoridated water and also had a mouth full of cavities. Many years ago, I stopped drinking tap water and discontinued using fluoride products. I practised good dental hygiene and never had any more cavities. Drinking fluoridated water is not the answer to tooth decay. Many people do not drink tap water anyway, and many children live on soft drinks and lollies. Obesity and other major health problems are increasing, and it shouldn't be a surprise to find increasing tooth decay is among them. Dietary habits are to blame for most of this, and it’s going to take more than adding some fluoride to our drinking water to overcome this huge health crisis. Why doesn't the government force better diets and good dental hygiene on us instead? I guess we will have to wait until they become by-products of some huge corporation, just as fluoride compounds are.
|
|
Address: 37 Maple Street, Maleny Qld 4552, Australia Telephone: (07) 5494 2088 (int'l +61 7 5494 2088) Fax: (07) 5499 9246 (int'l +61 7 5499 9246) Email: info@maplestreetco-op.com.au, or maplest.coop@serv.net.au Website: www.maplestreetco-op.com.au |