CDC reaffirms support for fluoridation
Published Friday, March 7, 2008
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!A dentist and public health specialist from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention told Fairbanks officials Thursday that his agency believes supplementing water with fluoride is safe and effective at fighting tooth decay.
The comments come as the Fairbanks City Council reviews the city’s 48-year practice of augmenting natural fluoride levels in public drinking water.
“What we have observed is that it’s safe, that it’s effective and that it’s healthy,” said the specialist, William Bailey.
Mayor Terry Strle said after the meeting that she supports continued fluoridation.
“I look to them as the authorities on water safety and fluoride,” Strle said of the CDC and other agencies that promote pro-fluoride policies. “If they say it’s safe and effective, I’m not in a position to dispute that.”
Bailey acknowledged disagreement exists in some communities over fluoridation policies. But he pointed to agencies including the CDC, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization and the American Medical Association that promote or endorse supplementing fluoride in public water to help people across the socio-economic spectrum prevent tooth decay.
Bailey said the CDC bases its recommendation on six decades of cumulative research.
“We know that older adults are keeping their teeth longer than they used to” before community fluoridation policies became popular in the middle of the 20th century, he said.
Councilwoman Vivian Stiver last month proposed ending the practice of increasing fluoride concentrations in Fairbanks’ water supplies.
Critics in Fairbanks have noted the fluoride compound added to water here is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Bailey said the compound is the most commonly used fluoride additive in fluoridation programs across the United States.
Stiver asked Bailey whether nursing mothers and young children can safely drink fluoridated water. Bailey said water containing optimal levels of fluoride is safe for everyone, although he acknowledged a 2006 study suggested exposure by children to excessively high concentrations can produce a defect in tooth enamel referred to as “enamel fluorosis.”
“For decades people have been mixing (baby) formula with fluoridated water, and children are at no greater risk than they’ve ever been,” he said.
Contact staff writer Christopher Eshleman at 459-7582.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
It seems to me that, if this article is accurate, the Fairbanks City Council didn't need a CDC rep to come before them to tell them what he's paid to say.
This is why we need William Bailey facing a Congressional hearing where's he's under oath to tell the truth when the important questions are asked. We don't care about endorsements. We care about the science which we, the tax payers, paid for which is telling us fluoride added to water supplies is not safe for everyone.
The truth is that the Academy of General Dentistry says "If you add fluoridated water to your infant's baby formula, you may be putting your child at risk of developing dental fluorosis," in a March 2007 news release.
The Food and Drug Administration says, "the health claim [that fluoride reduces cavities] is not intended for use on bottled water products specifically marketed for use by infants.
The CDC says on its web page, "Parents and caregivers of infants fed primarily with formula from concentrate who are concerned about the effect that mixing their infant’s formula with fluoridated water may have in developing enamel fluorosis can lessen this exposure by mixing formula with low fluoride water most or all of the time."
And why should parents be concerned because the CDC tells us that up to 41% of U.S. school children suffer with dental fluorosis, white spotted, yellow, brown and /or pitted enamel.
They are many studies which the 2006 National Research Council depended upon to warn you not to mix fluoride with infant formula because the resulting formula would contain 250 times more fluoride than mother's milk.
The NRC report Bailey references also revealed how fluoride damages the thyroid, bone, kidney and brain.
The questions ins't "Does the CDC endorse fluoridation." The questions is "Why does the CDC continue to endorse fluoridation in the face of the growing science indicating fluoridation is ineffective and harmful."
Please join our campaign to hold these public officials accountable here
http://www.FluorideAction.net/congress
New York - April 05, 2004 - Infant formulas prepared with fluoridated
water increase dental fluorosis risk, according to a research published
in the April 2004 Journal of the American College of Nutrition(1) and
other studies.
"Very young infants are unlikely to benefit from the caries-prevention
effects of fluoride," said Dr. Teresa A. Marshall, co-author of the
study reported Reuters Health. "They may be at increased risk of dental
fluorosis." (1a)
To prevent this tooth staining, researchers caution against mixing
infant formulas with fluoridated water.
Up to 63 percent of children living in optimally fluoridated areas
(from 0.7-1.2 parts per million, ppm) show fluoride overdose symptoms
as dental fluorosis according to Beltran-Aguilar and colleagues in
"Prevalence and trends in enamel fluorosis in the United States from
the 1930s to the 1980s. reported in the Journal of the American Dental
Association (13)
Researchers Marshall and colleagues found more fluorosed teeth in
children who consumed the most fluoridated water either alone or
through infant formulas(1).
Researchers, Brothwell and Limeback, urge breastfeeding, or mixing
infant formula with non-fluoridated water, to avoid dental fluorosis,
in a November 2003 Journal of Human Lactation study. They found three
times more fluorosis in children consuming 1 milligram per liter
fluoridated water compared to those who drank non-fluoridated water.(2)
Breastfeeding does not increase cavity risk, according to a recent
Journal of the American Dental Association study(3).
Researcher Mascarenhas also advised parents to avoid fluoridated water
for infant formula preparation to prevent fluorosis, in a 2000
Pediatric Dentistry study(4)
At least eleven other studies link reconstituted formula with
fluorosis.(5a-k).
Formula prepared with optimally fluoridated water provides 100 times
more fluoride than the amount in breast milk(7). And newborns do not
have "fully developed renal handling capacity for fluoride at this
early stage of life..."(8) which can lead to dangerous bone-fluoride
build up and more.
Not only is infant fluoride intake risky, it's unnecessary. According
to the CDC, "Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted?"(9).
Further, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration never safety-tested
fluoride for ingestion(10).
In 2000, after extensively reviewing fluoride and health studies, a
panel of British scientists report, "We were unable to discover any
reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature
world-wide,"(11) despite incorrect news reports disseminated by
prominent fluoride proponents about this review(12).
References:
http://groups.google.com/group/Fluoridat...
This is old and tired. The anti-fluoride group members continuously plaster every article related to the discussion with the the same drivel continuously. The most authoritative sources in the world say correct levels of fluoride is safe, in almost unanimous fashion.
I'm sure this article will be commented on by the same names as previous ones, repeating the same distorted information bent and pulled out of context to support their hypothesis.
The fluoride treatment product used in the municipal water supply has to be National Sanitation Foundation approved for the purpose. The regulators of toxics in the water stream is the Environmental Protection Agency. The use of fluoride for the purpose of treating drinking water is within the province of the Department of Environmental Conservation under the permit issued to the water company serving Fairbanks. The ordinance covering fluoridation in the City was enacted when the City owned the water system. Since the City no longer has a direct interest on the use of fluoride in the water system, any position that they take on the issue would be advisory.
Flouride, like other chemicals, can be harmful if misused. Thats why there is a warning label on your toothpaste. Water systems are operated by trained qualified professionals that must regularly monitor and report the water treatment and water quality.
Why is the CDC, a federal agency, using its time and our money to actively promote water fluoridation at the state and local level, when the practice is federally prohibited by the Safe Drinking Water Act?
"No national primary drinking water regulation may require addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water." -- Section 1412 (b)(l1) -- www.usda.gov/rus/water/ees/pdf/sdwa.pdf
Fluoride is both a drug regulated by the FDA and a contaminant regulated by the EPA. So for a third federal agency, the CDC, to fund and promote water fluoridation is an illegal subversion of this common-sense provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The debate is over. Fluoride is poison. Look at your toothpaste. It tells you to call poison control if you ingest it. And we let the CDC tell us to put it in the public water system. Here is the bottom line: if there IS a benefit from poisoning our water, that benefit is Topical NOT Systemic. So why are we drinking it? The other curious thing is the target demographic: Children from around 6-11 years of age. What a concept! Let's pay fertilizer companies to poison our water so that children may potentially benefit...but only if they rub the water on their teeth AND NOT DRINK IT! The fertilizer company wins; the city pays them and they no longer have to get a HAZMAT license to dispose of their hazardous waste. Why should the entire city drink poisoned water when the only segment that might benefit (and my using the word "might" is giving the poison people a huge concession) are children that rub the water on their teeth? That logic is similar to flavoring the water with lemons because some people like it. And why do we look to the government to tell us how great it is? The government just lost a lawsuit after a connection between autism and immunity shots was found. Let's not forget how Christy Todd Whitman of the EPA told the 9/11 rescue workers the air at ground zero was safe to breathe. They rescue workers are all dying now. The CDC should be looked at with skepticism. If people want to ingest poison for some phantom benefit, then they should buy pills.
I don't know much about the issue except that I had three children in Fairbanks and they all grew up drinking city water and all three are now in their 30's and two of them have never had a cavity. All three have been told by dentists that they must have drank floridated water when they were growing up because they have such beautiful, cavity free teeth!
Just to add some perspective Zimmerman Reed (attorneys) is now advising parents on potential litigation against Nursery Water with fluoride sold for infants. The FDA in Oct 2006 ruled you could make no claim of benefit for infants of fluoridated bottled water. You can contact attorney Tim Becker at 1 800 755 0098 for a free consultation. Nursery Water adds .7ppm sodium fluoride to distilled water.
Your friendly city will instead use pollution scrubber waste that NSF test to make sure the other contaminates do not exceed the MAL. To save people from the truth they do not release the laundry list of toxins and radioactive decay products. Florida has many phosphate mines and had 7 uranium extraction plants up until the 1990's when all but one closed. Now the uranium is just left in the many products or waste piles that are too radioactive for use. The simple fact that the FDA has never once reviewed any fluoride product for ingestion should not concern anyone because it did work real well for killing rats and insects before we started medicating people with it. All the testing they mention was with sodium fluoride for the most part and maybe some day they will do the first study with H2SiF6 which is used in over 90% of fluoridation schemes. There is not a single study for chronic use of FSA product to give emperical data for safety or benefit. Con men require trust. Maybe you should do some research? Ask some tough questions and they get stupid real fast. Rarely a straight answer just trust them. That works for most. Most of the world avoids fluoride in the environment if they can. Even China and India have huge fluoride toxicity problems and are working on removal. India thinks it causes cavities at .6ppm and above and Japan at .4ppm. 98% of western europe does not fluoridate now and have reduced cavities as much of more then us. The poor inner cities are where cavities are climbing and most are fluoridated for many decades. We lack dentist for the poor not fluoride. Restoration of ugly fluoride damaged teeth are big money makers for someone. Ever hear of follow the money? More industry and businesses use flouoride then you could imagine. No lawsuits if its safe enough to give your baby.
So the mayor looks to the CDC "as the authorities on water safety and fluoride”
It's depressing just how easily people roll over for the "experts," especially when it has been repeatedly demonstrated that government bureaucrats are often just industry shills, promoting an outdated and erroneous conventional wisdom. I wonder if the mayor is familiar with the CDC's documented history of coverup, denial, and conflict of interest.
Government policy is driven by industry to a disproportionate extent. Hopefully an enlightened populace will succeed in thwarting that dynamic. If I want medication, I'll administer it myself.
Government agencies protect policy and not people. the FEMA trailer issue proved that . From the very begining it was known the trailers were toxic but the attorneys for fema ordered to halt air testing that was starting. They thought it reduced risk of litigation if there was not any data to prove the risk. Works for fluoride and the FDA on drug approvals too. Approve killer drugs and move to the private sector. make a bundle of money and then pay out the claims after holding the money for years.
Just an observation...from one who listened to the CDC promotion of fluoride at this City Council work session: It seemed to me, that Dr. Bailey gave the impression that he was more interested in protecting policy, and the reputations of those who have promoted it for many years, than answering straightforwardly to the health of the American people.
Nature has given us a very clear guide as to what levels of fluoride are needed-and safe-for a newborn baby. The level in mothers milk is 0.0004 ppm (NRC, 2006, chapter 2). That is 250 times lower than the 1 ppm added to water. Put another way when parents make up baby formula with fluoridated tap water they are giving their babies 250 times more fluoride than nature intended. Not wise, especially knowing that the blood brain barrier is not fully developed at birth. There are numerous studies which indicate that fluoride can damage the brain.
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
http://www.fluorideaction.org/ethics.rel...
The whole thing is based upon endorsements by alot of agencies and like the ADA a trade association( sort of like a union with a self serving goal) who do no research on their own and the go to court and claim they can not be litigated against. A total house of cards based upon a foundation of fraud. This is ingrained in the methods the agencies use to delay or never do the necesary research. Pegeen you had a typo its 0.004ppm I think. Most of the highly paid professionals I have talked to are either liars or people who have never done their due diligence research. Second thought many are both. No one could see all the red flags of concern and not think it proper to verify the data. Most of this data we talk about is taxpayer paid for but overlooked in decision making. Fluoridation has never been about science- It was fraud and slick promotion by government agencies for special interest groups(industrial polluters and the AEC who could not make the bomb without protecting fluoride. The AEC had the legal authorization to rewrite reports to protect the bomb program and did so for both the AMA and ADA journals( per 1996 document release). Most of the dentists believe in fluoride like kids believe in the tooth fairy. It benefits them as its the care for the poor they do not want to provide. Its a sham poor kids are like latch key kids with fluoride taking care of the dentists duties. Problem is it doesn't reduce cavities systemicly but it increases tooth damage and makes teeth brittle both with can return big money if the person wins the lottery and can afford cosmetic restoration. Many dentist and doctors know this is a fraud but go along to get along as they could get hammered for being honest. This is truely is a sad situation for the healing arts. Jim Schultz
Yes, for the CDC and the ADA, it's really about saving face -- not teeth.
Don't be takin' fluoride.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.