The Case Against Water Fluoridation The Case Against Water Fluoridation Paul Connett, PhD Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry St. Lawrence University,

The Case Against Water The Case Against Water Fluoridation Fluoridation

Paul Connett, PhDPaul Connett, PhD

Professor Emeritus of Environmental ChemistryProfessor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry

St. Lawrence University, Canton, NYSt. Lawrence University, Canton, NY

Director, Fluoride Action NetworkDirector, Fluoride Action Network

www.Fluoridewww.FluorideALERTALERT.org.org

[email protected]

Auckland, NZ, April 2, 2011Auckland, NZ, April 2, 2011

Outline of talkOutline of talk1. Fluoridation is a poor medical practice1. Fluoridation is a poor medical practice

2. Fluoridation is unethical2. Fluoridation is unethical

3. The evidence of any benefit is very weak3. The evidence of any benefit is very weak

4. There is no adequate margin of safety to 4. There is no adequate margin of safety to protect the brain from harm and other protect the brain from harm and other KNOWN health effectsKNOWN health effects

5. Why does the NZ MOH continue to push 5. Why does the NZ MOH continue to push fluoridation?fluoridation?

6. The next steps. 6. The next steps.

Part 1.Part 1.Fluoridation is a poorFluoridation is a poor

medical practice medical practice

Fluoridation is a poor medical practiceFluoridation is a poor medical practice

1. Fluoridation is the only 1. Fluoridation is the only time since 1945 time since 1945 we have used the public water supply to we have used the public water supply to deliver medicine.deliver medicine.

2. You can control CONCENTRATION 2. You can control CONCENTRATION (mg/liter) at the water works but you (mg/liter) at the water works but you can’t control DOSE (mg/day) that people can’t control DOSE (mg/day) that people drink.drink.

3. You can’t control who gets the medicine.3. You can’t control who gets the medicine.

Fluoridation is a poor medical practiceFluoridation is a poor medical practice4) There is no individual oversight by a 4) There is no individual oversight by a

doctordoctor

5) No health agency is monitoring for side 5) No health agency is monitoring for side effectseffects

6) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient. 6) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient.

7) Fluoride is a known toxic substance that 7) Fluoride is a known toxic substance that interferes with many fundamental interferes with many fundamental biochemical functions biochemical functions

Fluoridation is a poor medical practiceFluoridation is a poor medical practice

8. The chemicals used are not pharmaceutical grade as used 8. The chemicals used are not pharmaceutical grade as used in dental productsin dental products

They come from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate They come from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industryfertilizer industry

A spray of water captures two very toxic gases (HF and A spray of water captures two very toxic gases (HF and SiFSiF44) that have caused a great deal of environmental ) that have caused a great deal of environmental

damage.damage.

This hazardous waste cannot be dumped into the sea by This hazardous waste cannot be dumped into the sea by international law, BUT if this waste is PURCHASED by international law, BUT if this waste is PURCHASED by someone it becomes a PRODUCT and is no longer someone it becomes a PRODUCT and is no longer

covered by US covered by US hazardous waste regulations!hazardous waste regulations!

Fluoridation is a poor medical practiceFluoridation is a poor medical practice

9. The main chemicals used are the silicon 9. The main chemicals used are the silicon fluorides:fluorides:

HH22SiFSiF66 (hexa fluoro silicic acid) or its (hexa fluoro silicic acid) or its

sodium salt Nasodium salt Na22SiFSiF66 (sodium hexa (sodium hexa

fluorosilicate).fluorosilicate).

Neither of these chemicals, either in their Neither of these chemicals, either in their pure form, pure form, or the contaminated solutions or the contaminated solutions used, used, have been put through any rigorous have been put through any rigorous toxicological testing. toxicological testing.

Proponents claimProponents claim

1.1. That they are merely That they are merely adjustingadjusting the levels of a the levels of a naturallynaturally occurring element. occurring element.

2.2. Just because a substance occurs naturally does Just because a substance occurs naturally does not make it safe – not make it safe – arsenic occurs naturally!arsenic occurs naturally!

3.3. As far as nature is concerned it has made a As far as nature is concerned it has made a determination of how much fluoride the baby determination of how much fluoride the baby needs – and it is VERY, VERY small.needs – and it is VERY, VERY small.

4.4. The proponent’s The proponent’s adjustment adjustment is to give a new is to give a new born baby up to 250 times the level of fluoride in born baby up to 250 times the level of fluoride in mothers’ milk (1 ppm = 250 x 0.004 ppm)mothers’ milk (1 ppm = 250 x 0.004 ppm)

Fluoridation is a poor medical practiceFluoridation is a poor medical practice

In NZ 0.7 – 1.0 ppm fluoride added In NZ 0.7 – 1.0 ppm fluoride added to water (average 0.85 ppm) to water (average 0.85 ppm)

0.85 ppm is over 200 times the 0.85 ppm is over 200 times the level in mothers’ milk (0.004 ppm)level in mothers’ milk (0.004 ppm)

A bottle fed baby gets 20,000% the A bottle fed baby gets 20,000% the dose a breast fed baby getsdose a breast fed baby gets

Proponents claimProponents claim

1.1. That water fluoridation is not medication, That water fluoridation is not medication,

2.2. But the definition of a medicine is a substance But the definition of a medicine is a substance given to people to help prevent or combat a given to people to help prevent or combat a disease.disease.

3.3. Fluoride is added to water to help combat or Fluoride is added to water to help combat or prevent tooth decay (a disease).prevent tooth decay (a disease).

4.4. Fluoride is being used as a medicine and water Fluoride is being used as a medicine and water fluoridation is “mass medication.”fluoridation is “mass medication.”

Fluoridation is a poor medical practiceFluoridation is a poor medical practice

The official classification of the The US Food The official classification of the The US Food and Drug Administration: Fluoride is “an and Drug Administration: Fluoride is “an unapproved drug.” unapproved drug.”

The FDA has never regulated fluoride for The FDA has never regulated fluoride for ingestion. As a result…ingestion. As a result…

Fluoridation has never been subjected to Fluoridation has never been subjected to randomized clinical trials (RCT) for randomized clinical trials (RCT) for effectiveness or safety as required for other effectiveness or safety as required for other drugs.drugs.

The FDA does regulate The FDA does regulate fluoridated toothpaste in the USfluoridated toothpaste in the US

A Pea Size amount of Tooth Paste contains 0.25 mg

A Pea Size amount of Tooth Paste contains 0.25 mg equivalent to 250 ml of water at 1 ppm

A Pea Size amount of Tooth Paste contains 0.25 mg equivalent to 250 ml of water at 1 ppm i.e. 1 large glass of water

Part 2.Part 2.Fluoridation is not ethicalFluoridation is not ethical

Fluoridation is not ethicalFluoridation is not ethical

1. No government has the right to force 1. No government has the right to force medication on its people to fight a non-medication on its people to fight a non-contagious, non-life-threatening disease.contagious, non-life-threatening disease.

2. It deprives individuals of their right to 2. It deprives individuals of their right to “informed consent to medication.”“informed consent to medication.”

3. With fluoridation a government is doing to 3. With fluoridation a government is doing to EVERYONE what a doctor can do to NO EVERYONE what a doctor can do to NO ONE.ONE.

Part 3.Part 3.The evidence of benefitThe evidence of benefit

is very weakis very weak

Only EIGHT Countries have more Only EIGHT Countries have more than 50% of the population than 50% of the population drinking fluoridated water drinking fluoridated water (Australia, Colombia, Ireland, (Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States)Singapore and the United States)

98% of Western Europe now drinksNon-Fluoridated Water

AustriaBelgiumDenmarkFinlandFrance

GermanyGreeceIceland

ItalyLuxembourgNetherlands

Northern IrelandNorwayScotlandSweden

Switzerland

98% of Western Europe now drinksNon-Fluoridated Water

Austria*BelgiumDenmarkFinlandFrance*

Germany*GreeceIceland

ItalyLuxembourgNetherlands

Northern IrelandNorwayScotlandSweden

Switzerland*

*Some fluoridate their salt

Most countries don’t fluoridate their Most countries don’t fluoridate their water, water, but according to WHO data but according to WHO data

their kids’ teeth their kids’ teeth are as good as those that doare as good as those that do

SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)

Comparing US CommunitiesComparing US Communities

NIDR conducted the largest survey of tooth NIDR conducted the largest survey of tooth decay ever conducted in the US (1986-7)decay ever conducted in the US (1986-7)

The teeth of over 39,000 children in 84 communities The teeth of over 39,000 children in 84 communities were examined.were examined.

The largest US survey of tooth decay

Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS

3.4 DMFSNF

2.8DMFS

F

Brunelle and Carlos, 1990

Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS = 0.6 tooth surfaces (5 surfaces to a tooth)

3.4 DMFSNF

2.8DMFS

F

Studies in Australia have found Studies in Australia have found even less saving than O.6 DMFS!even less saving than O.6 DMFS! SpeSpencer et al. (1996) found a saving in two states ncer et al. (1996) found a saving in two states

of ONLY 0.12 – 0.3 permanent tooth surfaces.of ONLY 0.12 – 0.3 permanent tooth surfaces. Armfield and Spencer (2004) found Armfield and Spencer (2004) found no no

statistically significant difference in tooth decay in statistically significant difference in tooth decay in the permanent teeth the permanent teeth between children in South between children in South Australia who had drunk fluoridated water all their Australia who had drunk fluoridated water all their lives and those who had drunk bottled or tank lives and those who had drunk bottled or tank water.water.

“The magnitude of [fluoridation’s] effect is not largein absolute terms, is often not statistically significant,

and may not be of clinical significance.”

SOURCE: David Locker for the Ontario Ministry of Health & Long Term Care, 1999

Studies in NZStudies in NZ

Dr. John Colquhoun (1984, 1985, Dr. John Colquhoun (1984, 1985, 1987) 1987) found no difference in tooth found no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in NZfluoridated communities in NZ

Hastings-Napier trial: A Fraud?Hastings-Napier trial: A Fraud?

Studies in NZStudies in NZ

De Liefde, 1998 De Liefde, 1998 described the difference in described the difference in tooth decay in the permanent teeth as tooth decay in the permanent teeth as “clinically meaningless”“clinically meaningless”

Studies in NZ (MOH)Studies in NZ (MOH)

Recent studies reported in MOH (2010), Recent studies reported in MOH (2010), “Our Oral Health”“Our Oral Health”

“… “… found that 9-10 year olds continuously found that 9-10 year olds continuously exposed to water fluoridation exposed to water fluoridation had half the had half the dental caries experience…”dental caries experience…”

The MOH cites four recent NZ studiesThe MOH cites four recent NZ studies

Lee and Dennison, 2004Lee and Dennison, 2004 WellingtonWellington versus versus CanterburyCanterbury saving of saving of 1 1

DMFS DMFS (2.4 – 1.4), MOH, 2010, p.28.(2.4 – 1.4), MOH, 2010, p.28. 1/2.4 x 100 = 1/2.4 x 100 = 41% saving41% saving If Lee and Dennison had compared If Lee and Dennison had compared non-fluoridated non-fluoridated Canterbury Canterbury (1.28 DMFT) (1.28 DMFT)

with with fluoridated fluoridated Waikato Waikato (1.68 DMFT) and (1.68 DMFT) and fluoridated fluoridated Otago Otago (1.42 DMFT). NF (1.42 DMFT). NF Canterbury is Canterbury is 31% 31% andand 11% better11% better than F than F Waikato and F Otago respectively (MOH, 2009 Waikato and F Otago respectively (MOH, 2009 data).data).

Kanagaratnam et al., 2009 Kanagaratnam et al., 2009 ““no significant relationship was no significant relationship was

found between residential found between residential fluoridation history and dental fluoridation history and dental caries in the permanent dentition..”caries in the permanent dentition..”

Schluter et al 2008Schluter et al 2008 Prevalence of caries:Prevalence of caries: Deciduous teeth, Deciduous teeth, prevalence: F = 54.9%, prevalence: F = 54.9%,

NF = 62.0 % (p=0.05) Saving = 7.1%NF = 62.0 % (p=0.05) Saving = 7.1% Permanent teeth Permanent teeth prevalence F = 15.9%, NF prevalence F = 15.9%, NF

= 11.7% (p=0.14) Permanent teeth worse in = 11.7% (p=0.14) Permanent teeth worse in F-areas but not statistically significantF-areas but not statistically significant

Mackay and Thomson, 2005Mackay and Thomson, 2005 Residence in F area up to age 9Residence in F area up to age 9 Permanent teethPermanent teeth: DMFS: DMFS None 1.22None 1.22 Intermittent 1.18Intermittent 1.18 Continuous 0.70 Continuous 0.70 Saving = 1.22 – 0.70 = 0.52 DMFSSaving = 1.22 – 0.70 = 0.52 DMFS % saving = 0.70/1.22 x 100 = 43%% saving = 0.70/1.22 x 100 = 43%

Savings in the four studies cited by MOHSavings in the four studies cited by MOH

0, 0, 0.53 and 1 permanent tooth surfaces 0, 0, 0.53 and 1 permanent tooth surfaces out of about 100 permanent tooth surfaces out of about 100 permanent tooth surfaces in a child’s mouthin a child’s mouth

Percentage savings Percentage savings versusversus absolute savings absolute savings

Proponents frequently report their findings as Proponents frequently report their findings as percentage savings. This can be very deceptive.percentage savings. This can be very deceptive.

We saw in the We saw in the Mackay and Thomson, 2005 Mackay and Thomson, 2005 study that a saving of one study that a saving of one half of a permanent half of a permanent tooth surface tooth surface (note there are 4 or 5 surfaces to a (note there are 4 or 5 surfaces to a tooth) equates to a percentage saving of tooth) equates to a percentage saving of 43%. 43%.

The latter sounds more impressive to the general The latter sounds more impressive to the general public.public.

Delayed eruption in F areasDelayed eruption in F areas There is some evidence that fluoride delays There is some evidence that fluoride delays

the eruption of the permanent teeth the eruption of the permanent teeth (Komarek, 2005)(Komarek, 2005)

A delay of one year would eliminate all the A delay of one year would eliminate all the benefits seen in recent studies in NZ.benefits seen in recent studies in NZ.

According to the York Review (McDonagh et According to the York Review (McDonagh et al. 2000) “No study used an analysis that al. 2000) “No study used an analysis that would control for the frequency of sugar would control for the frequency of sugar consumption or consumption or the number of erupted teeth the number of erupted teeth per child”per child” (York, p.24) (York, p.24)

Original Data – Age Based Shifted Data – Post-Eruption Based*

Recent Trends in Dental Caries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation by J.A. Brunelle and J.P. CarlosJournal of Dental Research February 1990 (Volume 69, Special Issue, Pages 723-727)

*Fluoridated data was shifted back by one year; e.g. age 6 Fluoridated aligns with age 5 unfluoridated, etc.

Mea

n D

MFS

Mea

n D

MFS

Adjusted for one year Delayed eruption of teeth William Kiel, Alamo Heights.

Delayed eruption in F areasDelayed eruption in F areas

““The DA (dental age) of the AUS and UK The DA (dental age) of the AUS and UK populations was found to be different (Fig. populations was found to be different (Fig. 5). The AUS population had a 0.82 year 5). The AUS population had a 0.82 year delay in their DA compared to the UK delay in their DA compared to the UK population. This difference was compared population. This difference was compared and was found to be very statistically and was found to be very statistically significant (P < 0.001).” significant (P < 0.001).” Peirisi et al. Peirisi et al. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 2009; 19: 367–3762009; 19: 367–376

Important recent studiesImportant recent studies

Komarek et al., 2005 Komarek et al., 2005 (controlled for delayed (controlled for delayed eruption of teeth in F-communities).eruption of teeth in F-communities).

Found no difference in tooth decay between Found no difference in tooth decay between F and non-F communities.F and non-F communities.

Warren et al., 2009 Warren et al., 2009 (measured tooth decay as (measured tooth decay as a function of individual exposure to fluoride). a function of individual exposure to fluoride).

Found no relation between tooth decay and Found no relation between tooth decay and amount of fluoride ingested.amount of fluoride ingested.

An explanation for weak evidenceAn explanation for weak evidenceof benefit in recent studiesof benefit in recent studies

The major benefits of fluoride are The major benefits of fluoride are TOPICALTOPICAL not not SYSTEMIC. SYSTEMIC. (CDC, 1999, (CDC, 1999, 2001). In other words fluoride works on 2001). In other words fluoride works on the the outside surface outside surface of the tooth not from of the tooth not from inside the bodyinside the body

Fluoridation should have ended in 1999!Fluoridation should have ended in 1999!

Fluoride’s main benefit is TOPICAL.It works on the outside of the tooth.

“Its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." Centers for Disease Control, 1999

"Fluoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical." Centers for Disease Control, 2001

“In pharmacology, if the effect is local (topical), it's awkward to use it in any other way than as

a local treatment. I mean this is obvious. You have the teeth there, they're available for

you, why drink the stuff?”

-Dr. ARVID CARLSSON, NOBEL LAUREATE in MEDICINE 2000

Part 4.Part 4.There is no adequate There is no adequate

margin of safety margin of safety to protect everyone from to protect everyone from

knownknown harmful effects of fluorideharmful effects of fluoride

Harmful effects have been Harmful effects have been

carefully documented in a 507-carefully documented in a 507-page (1100 references) report by page (1100 references) report by

the the US National Research CouncilUS National Research Council

published in 2006.published in 2006.

National Research Council (2006)

Harmful effects of Harmful effects of FLUORIDEFLUORIDE include: include:

1. Dental fluorosis 1. Dental fluorosis 2. Brain damage2. Brain damage3. Lowered thyroid function3. Lowered thyroid function4. Accumulation in the pineal gland4. Accumulation in the pineal gland5. Bone damage5. Bone damage6. Osteosarcoma?6. Osteosarcoma?7. Some people very sensitive to very low 7. Some people very sensitive to very low

levelslevels

Dental FluorosisDental Fluorosis

Early promoters thought that at 1 ppm F Early promoters thought that at 1 ppm F they could limit dental fluorosis to they could limit dental fluorosis to 10%10% of children in itsof children in its very mild very mild form.form.

Very Mild Dental Fluorosis

Impacts up to 25% of tooth surface

Mild Dental Fluorosis

Impacts up to 50% of tooth surface

Moderate Dental Fluorosis

Impacts 100% of tooth surface

Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004in the United States, 1999-2004

November 2010: CDCNovember 2010: CDC update on fluorosis update on fluorosis by Beltrán-Aguilar et al.by Beltrán-Aguilar et al.http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm#findings

CDC, 2010CDC, 2010

CDC, 2010CDC, 2010

41%

Sensitivity to fluoride’s toxicity Sensitivity to fluoride’s toxicity may have an ethnic componentmay have an ethnic component

Afro Americans and Hispanic Afro Americans and Hispanic Americans appear to be more Americans appear to be more sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity. – sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity. – They have HIGHER dental They have HIGHER dental fluorosis rates than white fluorosis rates than white Americans in same communities.Americans in same communities.

Dental Fluorosis in NZDental Fluorosis in NZ

NZ dental fluorosis rates = about NZ dental fluorosis rates = about 30%30%

A KEY QUESTIONA KEY QUESTION

When fluoride is damaging the When fluoride is damaging the baby’s growing tooth cells baby’s growing tooth cells (causing dental fluorosis)(causing dental fluorosis) what is it what is it doing to its other developing doing to its other developing tissues?tissues?

The baby’s developing brainThe baby’s developing brain

The baby should NOT be exposed to The baby should NOT be exposed to fluoride of up to 250 times the level of fluoride of up to 250 times the level of fluoride that occurs in mothers milkfluoride that occurs in mothers milk

“ “One wonders what One wonders what …an increase in the …an increase in the exposure to fluoride, exposure to fluoride,

such as occurs in such as occurs in bottle-fed infants …bottle-fed infants …

may mean for the may mean for the development of the development of the brainbrain and the other and the other

organs…” 1978organs…” 1978

Arvid Carlsson Nobel Prize for Arvid Carlsson Nobel Prize for Medicine, 2000Medicine, 2000

National Research Council (2006):Fluoride & the Brain

“it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”

Fluoride and the BrainFluoride and the Brain

Many more studies on the brain have been Many more studies on the brain have been published since the NRC reviewpublished since the NRC review

The panel reviewed FIVE IQ studiesThe panel reviewed FIVE IQ studies

Human studiesHuman studies

As of 2011, there areAs of 2011, there are nownow 24 24 published studies published studies (from China, (from China, Iran, India and Mexico) Iran, India and Mexico) indicating that moderate to high indicating that moderate to high fluoride exposure is associated fluoride exposure is associated with lowered IQ in childrenwith lowered IQ in children

Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)

Compared children in two villages ( <0.7 ppm Compared children in two villages ( <0.7 ppm versus 2.5 - 4.5 ppm F in water)versus 2.5 - 4.5 ppm F in water)

Controlled for lead exposure and iodine intake, Controlled for lead exposure and iodine intake, and other key variables (NOTE: both lead and other key variables (NOTE: both lead exposure and low iodine also lower IQ).exposure and low iodine also lower IQ).

Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole age rangeage range

The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and femalesfemales

Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) MALES

Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)FEMALES

Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)

Estimated that IQ in Estimated that IQ in children lowered atchildren lowered at

1.91.9 ppm fluoride in water ppm fluoride in water (threshold)(threshold)

There is no adequate margin of safetyThere is no adequate margin of safety If fluoride is associated with lowering IQ of If fluoride is associated with lowering IQ of

children at 1.9 ppm children at 1.9 ppm in a small population studyin a small population study we need to apply a safety factor to protect the we need to apply a safety factor to protect the whole population of childrenwhole population of children

Normally we use a safety factor of 10 to do thisNormally we use a safety factor of 10 to do this If we assume that the Chinese children were If we assume that the Chinese children were

drinking one liter of fluoride per day the dose drinking one liter of fluoride per day the dose that lowered IQ was 1.9 mg/daythat lowered IQ was 1.9 mg/day

That would mean to protect the intelligence of That would mean to protect the intelligence of ALL the children in a large population a safe ALL the children in a large population a safe dose would be 0.19 mg/day (1.9 divided by 10)dose would be 0.19 mg/day (1.9 divided by 10)

Xiang et al. (2010)Xiang et al. (2010) Xiang et al. elaborated on their 2003 study.Xiang et al. elaborated on their 2003 study. Added in more details of methods etc.Added in more details of methods etc. Added in data showing an association between plasma Added in data showing an association between plasma

levels of fluoride and lowered IQ.levels of fluoride and lowered IQ. Accepted for publication by Accepted for publication by Environmental Health Environmental Health

PerspectivesPerspectives the journal of the National Institute of the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS)

NIEHS is an agency of the US Department of Health and NIEHS is an agency of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).Human Services (DHHS).

Pre-publication copy of this article published onlinePre-publication copy of this article published online Article withdrawn because Xiang had published some of Article withdrawn because Xiang had published some of

the data before (conflicts with EHP policy)the data before (conflicts with EHP policy)

Xiang et al. (2010)Xiang et al. (2010) Please note:Please note: Xiang et al. (2010) paper was NOT Xiang et al. (2010) paper was NOT

withdrawn because the methodology withdrawn because the methodology was considered inadequatewas considered inadequate

The methodology was PEER The methodology was PEER REVIEWED and the study REVIEWED and the study considered acceptable for considered acceptable for publication in the leading US publication in the leading US environmental health journal.environmental health journal.

Ding et al. 2011 Ding et al. 2011 (J. Hazardous Materials)(J. Hazardous Materials)

“ “Mean value of fluoride in drinking water was Mean value of fluoride in drinking water was 1.31 ±1.05mg/L (range 1.31 ±1.05mg/L (range 0.24–2.840.24–2.84).” ).”

“ “ ConclusionsConclusions Overall, our study suggested that low levels of Overall, our study suggested that low levels of

fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence... effects on children’s intelligence...

The results also confirmed the dose–response The results also confirmed the dose–response relationships between urine fluoride relationships between urine fluoride concentrations and IQ scores…concentrations and IQ scores…””

Ding et al. 2011Ding et al. 2011

Fig 2. The relationship between IQ differences and urine fluoride concentrations. Multiple linear regression model was carried out to confirm the association with urine fluoride exposure and IQ scores (F=9.85, p < 0.0001)

Ding et al. 2011Ding et al. 2011

“ “an increase in the urine fluoride concentration of an increase in the urine fluoride concentration of 1 mg/L associated with a decrease of 0.59 IQ 1 mg/L associated with a decrease of 0.59 IQ scores.”scores.”

Two preposterous notionsTwo preposterous notions

What parent in their right mind would put their What parent in their right mind would put their children’s teeth above their brains?children’s teeth above their brains?

What government would support a program aimed What government would support a program aimed at lowering tooth decay - by at most 0.6 of one at lowering tooth decay - by at most 0.6 of one tooth surface – if it lowered the IQ of the tooth surface – if it lowered the IQ of the population by even a small amount?population by even a small amount?

Other health concernsOther health concerns(see chapters 13-19 in (see chapters 13-19 in The Case The Case

Against Fluoride )Against Fluoride )

Fluoride may cause Fluoride may cause bone cancer bone cancer

(osteosarcoma)(osteosarcoma)

Osteosarcoma: Science vs PoliticsOsteosarcoma: Science vs Politics

The The science:science: In 2001, Dr. Elise Bassin (a dentist) In 2001, Dr. Elise Bassin (a dentist) successfully defended her PhD thesis at Harvard.successfully defended her PhD thesis at Harvard.

She found (in a matched case-control study) that if young She found (in a matched case-control study) that if young boys were exposed to fluoridated water boys were exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th,7th or in their 6th,7th or 8th years8th years, they had a 5-7 fold increase in developing , they had a 5-7 fold increase in developing osteosarcoma by the age of 20, compared to non-exposed osteosarcoma by the age of 20, compared to non-exposed boys. boys.

Now the politicsNow the politics Between 2001 and 2005, Bassin’s thesis adviser - Prof. Between 2001 and 2005, Bassin’s thesis adviser - Prof.

Chester Douglass three times concealed her findings (1. Chester Douglass three times concealed her findings (1. From his peers - a meeting of the BFS in 2002; 2. The From his peers - a meeting of the BFS in 2002; 2. The NRC panel and 3. His funder - the National Institutes of NRC panel and 3. His funder - the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Health (NIH).

OsteosarcomaOsteosarcoma The Science: The Science: Bassin publishes research in the May Bassin publishes research in the May

2006 issue of the journal 2006 issue of the journal Cancer Causes and Control.Cancer Causes and Control. The politics againThe politics again. . In a letter published in the same In a letter published in the same

issue, Douglass promises a study that he claims will issue, Douglass promises a study that he claims will discount Bassin’s findings. discount Bassin’s findings.

This promise of a study is being used by promoters of This promise of a study is being used by promoters of fluoridation to negate concern over Bassin’s findings.fluoridation to negate concern over Bassin’s findings.

Douglass promised his study for the Summer of 2006 – Douglass promised his study for the Summer of 2006 – we are still waiting!we are still waiting!

National Research Council (2006):Fluoride & the Thyroid

“several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.”

IF fluoride lowers thyroid IF fluoride lowers thyroid functionfunction

It could explain:It could explain: 1) delayed eruption of primary teeth1) delayed eruption of primary teeth 2) lowered IQ in children2) lowered IQ in children 3) Increase in hypothyroidism among US 3) Increase in hypothyroidism among US

population, plus the accompanying symptoms population, plus the accompanying symptoms – obesity, lethargy, tiredness not relieved by – obesity, lethargy, tiredness not relieved by sleep etcsleep etc

Fluoride & Pineal GlandFluoride & Pineal Gland

In 1997 Jennifer Luke confirmed that In 1997 Jennifer Luke confirmed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland. She found an average of gland. She found an average of 9,000 ppm9,000 ppm on the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals on the calcium hydroxy apatite crystals (highest 21,000 ppm) (Luke, 2001).(highest 21,000 ppm) (Luke, 2001).

In animals (Mongolian gerbils) fluoride In animals (Mongolian gerbils) fluoride lowers melatonin production and shortens lowers melatonin production and shortens time to puberty (Luke, Ph.D. thesis, 1997).time to puberty (Luke, Ph.D. thesis, 1997).

Schlesinger et al. (1956)

Fluoride and Children’s BoneFluoride and Children’s Bone

The Newburgh-Kingston, NY trial The Newburgh-Kingston, NY trial (Schlesinger et al, 1956) also reported (Schlesinger et al, 1956) also reported about twice the about twice the incidence of cortical incidence of cortical bone defects in the children in the bone defects in the children in the fluoridated community (13.5%) fluoridated community (13.5%) compared with the non-fluoridated compared with the non-fluoridated community (7.5%).community (7.5%).

Alarcon-Herrera et al. (2001)Alarcon-Herrera et al. (2001)

In a Mexican study researchers In a Mexican study researchers found that as the severity of dental found that as the severity of dental fluorosis went up so did the fluorosis went up so did the incidence of bone fractures in both incidence of bone fractures in both children and adultschildren and adults

ArthritisArthritis

The first symptoms of fluoride’s poisoning of The first symptoms of fluoride’s poisoning of bone are identical to arthritis (stiffness, aching bone are identical to arthritis (stiffness, aching joints and pain in the bones)joints and pain in the bones)

According to the CDC, arthritis affects 68 million According to the CDC, arthritis affects 68 million people in the US - 1 in 3 American adultspeople in the US - 1 in 3 American adults

No fluoridated country is collecting fluoride bone No fluoridated country is collecting fluoride bone levels in a systematic fashion to check a possible levels in a systematic fashion to check a possible connection with arthritis or other bone problems! connection with arthritis or other bone problems!

"All members of the committee agreed that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions

fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures.”

National Research Council (2006):Fluoride & Skeletal System

Li et al (2001)Li et al (2001)

Fluoride levels in teaFluoride levels in tea

High concentrations of fluoride have High concentrations of fluoride have been reported in the tea drinks of been reported in the tea drinks of India, Tibet, and China:India, Tibet, and China:

Gulati et al. 1993:Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l1.55 – 3.21 mg/l

Cao et al. 1996: Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l0.76 – 4.32 mg/l

Fung et al., 1999: Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

Fluoride levels in teaFluoride levels in tea

Gulati et al. 1993:Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l1.55 – 3.21 mg/l

Cao et al. 1996: Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l0.76 – 4.32 mg/l

Fung et al., 1999: Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

I liter = 8 cups or 4 mugsI liter = 8 cups or 4 mugs

8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day

16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day

A heavy tea drinker could damage their A heavy tea drinker could damage their bonesbones

Fluoride levels in teaFluoride levels in tea

High concentrations of fluoride have High concentrations of fluoride have been reported in the tea drinks of been reported in the tea drinks of India, Tibet, and China:India, Tibet, and China:

Gulati et al. 1993:Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l1.55 – 3.21 mg/l

Cao et al. 1996: Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l0.76 – 4.32 mg/l

Fung et al., 1999: Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

Fluoride levels in teaFluoride levels in tea

Gulati et al. 1993:Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l1.55 – 3.21 mg/l

Cao et al. 1996: Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l0.76 – 4.32 mg/l

Fung et al., 1999: Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

I liter = 8 cups or 4 mugsI liter = 8 cups or 4 mugs

8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day

16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day

A heavy tea drinker could damage their A heavy tea drinker could damage their bonesbones

Key Health Studies have NOT been Key Health Studies have NOT been done in most fluoridating countries done in most fluoridating countries

NO INVESTIGATION of a possible relationship NO INVESTIGATION of a possible relationship between consumption of fluoridated water andbetween consumption of fluoridated water and

lowered IQ in children (except one small study in NZ), lowered IQ in children (except one small study in NZ), behavioral changes in children (attention deficit etc)behavioral changes in children (attention deficit etc) arthritic symptoms in adults,arthritic symptoms in adults, hypo-thyroidism (underactive thyroid),hypo-thyroidism (underactive thyroid), increased bone fractures in children,increased bone fractures in children, Melatonin levels in childrenMelatonin levels in children Earlier onset of puberty,Earlier onset of puberty, Alzheimer’s disease in adults, andAlzheimer’s disease in adults, and

There has been NO FORMAL There has been NO FORMAL INVESTIGATION INVESTIGATION of the many of the many anecdotal reports and case studies (and anecdotal reports and case studies (and one clinical trial) that some individuals one clinical trial) that some individuals are highly sensitive to fluoride (e.g. are highly sensitive to fluoride (e.g. gastrointestinal, neurological and skin gastrointestinal, neurological and skin conditions)conditions)

See Fluoride Fatigue (Spittle, 2008) See Fluoride Fatigue (Spittle, 2008)

If you don’t look, you don’t find!If you don’t look, you don’t find!

The absence of studies, does not mean the The absence of studies, does not mean the absence of harmabsence of harm

Dr. Peter Cooney, the Chief Dental Officer Dr. Peter Cooney, the Chief Dental Officer of Canada, told an audience in Dryden, of Canada, told an audience in Dryden, Ontario (April 1, 2008),Ontario (April 1, 2008),

““I walked down your High Street today, and I walked down your High Street today, and I didn’t see anyone growing horns, and you I didn’t see anyone growing horns, and you have been fluoridated for 40 years!”have been fluoridated for 40 years!”

WHY?WHY? The only rational explanation for so much The only rational explanation for so much

irrational (or irresponsible) behavior on the irrational (or irresponsible) behavior on the part of health agencies that continue to part of health agencies that continue to promote water fluoridation promote water fluoridation even though the even though the science indicates that it is neither effective science indicates that it is neither effective nor safe, nor safe, IN MY OPINION is becauseIN MY OPINION is because

it has become more important to protect this it has become more important to protect this practice than it is to protect the health of the practice than it is to protect the health of the people they represent…people they represent…

Why should that be?Why should that be?

Why does the dental lobby Why does the dental lobby continue to promote fluoridation?continue to promote fluoridation?

TheThey are very proud of this practicey are very proud of this practice Fluoridation helped to establish Fluoridation helped to establish

dentistry on a par with medicinedentistry on a par with medicine Fluoridation is the backbone of public Fluoridation is the backbone of public

health dentistryhealth dentistry Fluoridation has made careers, Fluoridation has made careers,

reputations and provides money for reputations and provides money for endless research on teethendless research on teeth

Why do health bureaucracies Why do health bureaucracies continue to promote fluoridation?continue to promote fluoridation?

We have to do look at this at three levelsWe have to do look at this at three levels::At the bottomAt the bottomIn the middleIn the middleAt the top of the bureaucracies (or At the top of the bureaucracies (or

chain of command)chain of command)

At the bottom of the chain of At the bottom of the chain of commandcommand

We have thousands of doctors and dentists We have thousands of doctors and dentists who truly BELIEVE that fluoridation who truly BELIEVE that fluoridation works. This was all they were taught at works. This was all they were taught at dental and medical school. dental and medical school. Now most are so Now most are so busy treating patients that they don’t have busy treating patients that they don’t have time to read the literature. time to read the literature. They take the They take the word of professional bodies and health word of professional bodies and health agencies at face value.agencies at face value.

In the middle of the chain of In the middle of the chain of commandcommand

Within the chain of command we have Within the chain of command we have bureaucrats who are trained to bureaucrats who are trained to PROMOTE NOT to QUESTION PROMOTE NOT to QUESTION policy (i.e. their jobs depend upon policy (i.e. their jobs depend upon promoting fluoridation)promoting fluoridation)

At the top of the chain of commandAt the top of the chain of command

At the top of the chain of command of the At the top of the chain of command of the health agencies in fluoridating countries the health agencies in fluoridating countries the major concern is:major concern is:

Losing credibilityLosing credibility

Why do health agencies like the NZ MOH Why do health agencies like the NZ MOH continue to promote fluoridation?continue to promote fluoridation?

Lose fluoridation = lose credibilityLose fluoridation = lose credibility Lose credibility = lose (or threaten) the public’s Lose credibility = lose (or threaten) the public’s

trust in other important public health policiestrust in other important public health policies Public health policies require the public’s trustPublic health policies require the public’s trust MY RESPONSE: I argue that by coming clean MY RESPONSE: I argue that by coming clean

and stopping their support for fluoridation and stopping their support for fluoridation (switching to promoting TOPICAL treatments (switching to promoting TOPICAL treatments and investing in education for a better diet) and investing in education for a better diet) health agencies (like NZ MOH) would improve health agencies (like NZ MOH) would improve their credibility and regain the public’s trust.their credibility and regain the public’s trust.

Heavy tea drinkers are already Heavy tea drinkers are already getting too much fluoridegetting too much fluoride

MY RESPONSEMY RESPONSE

I argue that by coming clean and I argue that by coming clean and stopping their support for fluoridation stopping their support for fluoridation (switching to promoting TOPICAL (switching to promoting TOPICAL treatments and investing in education treatments and investing in education for a better diet) health agencies (like for a better diet) health agencies (like NZ MOH) would improve their NZ MOH) would improve their credibility and begin to regain the credibility and begin to regain the public’s trust.public’s trust.

THE SCIENCE INDICATES THAT THE SCIENCE INDICATES THAT FLUORIDATION SHOULD BE ENDEDFLUORIDATION SHOULD BE ENDED

SEE FAN-NZ’s website SEE FAN-NZ’s website FANFANNZNZ.org.nz.org.nz SEE FAN’s website FluorideSEE FAN’s website FluorideALERTALERT.org.org SEE FAN’s health data baseSEE FAN’s health data base SEE the NRC (2006) report ONLINESEE the NRC (2006) report ONLINE SEE the 28-minute video SEE the 28-minute video “Professional “Professional

Perspectives on Water Fluoridation”Perspectives on Water Fluoridation” SEE our book, “The Case Against SEE our book, “The Case Against

Fluoride”Fluoride”

Book to be published by Chelsea Green

October, 2010

Can be ordered now on Amazon.com

Meanwhile, see

FluorideAlert.org

for more information

The Next StepThe Next Step We have done our job as scientists We have done our job as scientists We have outlined our case in detailWe have outlined our case in detail We have documented every fact and We have documented every fact and

argument we have presentedargument we have presented Now we need health authorities to do their Now we need health authorities to do their

jobjob Either respond scientifically to our case or Either respond scientifically to our case or admit that fluoridation was a HUGE admit that fluoridation was a HUGE

MISTAKE and STOP IT NOW!MISTAKE and STOP IT NOW!

EFFECTING CHANGE

Is like driving a nail through a piece of wood

EFFECTING CHANGE

Experts may sharpen the point

EFFECTING CHANGE

Experts may sharpen the point

But you need the hammer of public opinion to drive the nail home

More evidenceMore evidence

More evidence that promoters of More evidence that promoters of fluoridation are more interested in fluoridation are more interested in

protecting this practice protecting this practice than than protecting our healthprotecting our health

In Nov, 2006, the American Dental

Association told its members

"If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using

water that has no or low levels of fluoride." SOURCE: American Dental Association, Nov 9, 2006

BUT parents are notBeing warned!

"If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using

water that has no or low levels of fluoride." SOURCE: American Dental Association, Nov 9, 2006

We need to get this warning to parents

This warning should be inserted in water bills: “Parents should not use tap water to make up

baby formula”

The difference between science The difference between science and politics and politics

In science In science you examine the data and you examine the data and draw a conclusiondraw a conclusion

In politics In politics you reach a conclusion and you reach a conclusion and then select the data to support that then select the data to support that conclusionconclusion

POLITICS versus SCIENCEPOLITICS versus SCIENCEA good example of A good example of how promoters’ put how promoters’ put politics above sciencepolitics above scienceis the way they treated is the way they treated the landmark NRC the landmark NRC (2006) report.(2006) report.

The NRC reportThe NRC report NRC published their report on March NRC published their report on March

22, 200622, 2006 The panel concluded that the “safe” The panel concluded that the “safe”

drinking water standard for fluoride drinking water standard for fluoride (the MCL and MCLG of 4 ppm) was (the MCL and MCLG of 4 ppm) was not protective of healthnot protective of health

They recommended that the EPA do a They recommended that the EPA do a health risk assessment to determine a health risk assessment to determine a new MCLGnew MCLG

POLITICS versus SCIENCEPOLITICS versus SCIENCE On the same day as the NRC published On the same day as the NRC published

its report its report the ADA declared the NRC review the ADA declared the NRC review was irrelevant to water fluoridation! They stated was irrelevant to water fluoridation! They stated that 4 ppm was much higher than the level used in that 4 ppm was much higher than the level used in fluoridation (0.7 - 1.2 ppm)fluoridation (0.7 - 1.2 ppm)

Six days laterSix days later the CDC declared that NRC report the CDC declared that NRC report was consistent with their promotion of was consistent with their promotion of fluoridation at 1 ppmfluoridation at 1 ppm

In 2007, the Australian NHMRC said NRC report In 2007, the Australian NHMRC said NRC report not relevant to Australianot relevant to Australia

In Feb. 2009, the Strategic Health Authority in In Feb. 2009, the Strategic Health Authority in Southampton, UK, said NRC report not relevant Southampton, UK, said NRC report not relevant to fluoridation in UKto fluoridation in UK

POLITICS versus SCIENCEPOLITICS versus SCIENCE There are FOUR problems with these dismissals of the There are FOUR problems with these dismissals of the

relevance of the NRC (2006) review:relevance of the NRC (2006) review: 1) They didn’t wait for the EPA to determine a new 1) They didn’t wait for the EPA to determine a new

MCLG, or attempt their ownMCLG, or attempt their own 2) They are confusing 2) They are confusing concentrationconcentration and and dose. dose. Someone Someone

consuming a lot of water at 1 ppm could get a consuming a lot of water at 1 ppm could get a higher dose higher dose than someone consuming a little water at 4 ppm (or less than someone consuming a little water at 4 ppm (or less than 4 ppm when a new MCLG is determined)than 4 ppm when a new MCLG is determined)

3) They didn’t attempt a margin of safety analysis on the 3) They didn’t attempt a margin of safety analysis on the levels causing harm reported in the NRC report.levels causing harm reported in the NRC report.

4) They didn’t note that in chapter 2 the NRC panel 4) They didn’t note that in chapter 2 the NRC panel showed that subsets of the population were exceeding the showed that subsets of the population were exceeding the EPA IRIS reference dose drinking water at 1 ppm fluorideEPA IRIS reference dose drinking water at 1 ppm fluoride

THE US EPATHE US EPA

On Jan 7, 2011 (after 5 years) the On Jan 7, 2011 (after 5 years) the EPA EPA has begun a process that will eventually a has begun a process that will eventually a determine a new “safe” drinking water determine a new “safe” drinking water standard (MCL) or goal (MCLG) standard (MCL) or goal (MCLG)

If EPA did this job honestly using routine If EPA did this job honestly using routine assumptions and methods used in regulatory assumptions and methods used in regulatory health risk assessments it would force a new health risk assessments it would force a new MCLG LESS than 1 ppmMCLG LESS than 1 ppm

And end water fluoridation overnight!And end water fluoridation overnight!

THE US EPATHE US EPA However on Jan 7, 2011 EPA spokesperson made However on Jan 7, 2011 EPA spokesperson made

it clear that they will be determining a new “safe” it clear that they will be determining a new “safe” MCLG which would not interfere with the MCLG which would not interfere with the “benefits” of the water fluoridation program.“benefits” of the water fluoridation program.

In my view that would be impossible to do In my view that would be impossible to do honestly (note my calculations on IQ lowering)honestly (note my calculations on IQ lowering)

It is also a violation of the Safe Drinking Water It is also a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which it makes it clear that the MCLG should Act which it makes it clear that the MCLG should protect all the people from both known and protect all the people from both known and reasonably anticipated health effects– any reasonably anticipated health effects– any consideration of “supposed” benefits should not consideration of “supposed” benefits should not interfere with this determinationinterfere with this determination

Extra slidesExtra slides

Sensitivity analysis for IQ risk assessment Sensitivity analysis for IQ risk assessment If the Chinese children were drinking 0.5 liter, If the Chinese children were drinking 0.5 liter,

LOAEL for lowered IQ = 0.95 mg/day. Safe LOAEL for lowered IQ = 0.95 mg/day. Safe dose to protect whole population = 0.095 dose to protect whole population = 0.095 mg/day.mg/day.

If the Chinese children were drinking 2 liters, If the Chinese children were drinking 2 liters, lowered IQ at 3.8 mg/day. Safe dose to protect lowered IQ at 3.8 mg/day. Safe dose to protect whole population = 0.38 mg/day (less than two whole population = 0.38 mg/day (less than two glasses of water)glasses of water)

If we reduced margin of safety to 5 (instead of If we reduced margin of safety to 5 (instead of 10) Safe dose = 0.19- 0.76 mg/day (equivalent to 10) Safe dose = 0.19- 0.76 mg/day (equivalent to 190 -760 ml of water at 1 ppm a day)190 -760 ml of water at 1 ppm a day)

Fluoride & the thyroid glandFluoride & the thyroid gland

European doctors (1930’s to 50’s) used European doctors (1930’s to 50’s) used sodium fluoride to reduce thyroid sodium fluoride to reduce thyroid activity in patients with activity in patients with hyperhyperthyroidism thyroidism (over active thyroid gland)(over active thyroid gland)..

The doses used by Galletti and Joyet The doses used by Galletti and Joyet (1958) - (1958) - 2.3 - 4.5 mg of fluoride per day2.3 - 4.5 mg of fluoride per day - are currently exceeded by some - are currently exceeded by some people living in 1 ppm communitiespeople living in 1 ppm communities

Bachinskii 1985Bachinskii 1985

2.3 ppm of fluoride in water2.3 ppm of fluoride in water

“ “was a risk factor of more rapid was a risk factor of more rapid development of thyroid development of thyroid

pathology.”pathology.”

Lin et al., 1991Lin et al., 1991

Lin et al. found that for mothers Lin et al. found that for mothers with borderline iodine exposure with borderline iodine exposure the IQ in their offspring was the IQ in their offspring was further lowered by drinking further lowered by drinking water at 0.9 ppm fluoridewater at 0.9 ppm fluoride

i.e. fluoride exposure makes low i.e. fluoride exposure makes low iodine intake worseiodine intake worse

Fluoride levels in teaFluoride levels in tea

High concentrations of fluoride have High concentrations of fluoride have been reported in the tea drinks of been reported in the tea drinks of India, Tibet, and China:India, Tibet, and China:

Gulati et al. 1993:Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l1.55 – 3.21 mg/l

Cao et al. 1996: Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l0.76 – 4.32 mg/l

Fung et al., 1999: Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

Fluoride levels in teaFluoride levels in tea

Gulati et al. 1993:Gulati et al. 1993:1.55 – 3.21 mg/l1.55 – 3.21 mg/l

Cao et al. 1996: Cao et al. 1996: 0.76 – 4.32 mg/l0.76 – 4.32 mg/l

Fung et al., 1999: Fung et al., 1999: 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l. 1.60 – 7.34 mg/l.

I liter = 8 cups or 4 mugsI liter = 8 cups or 4 mugs

8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day8 cups of tea/day = 0.76 – 7.34 mg/day

16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day16 cups of tea/day =1.5 -14.6 mg/day

A heavy tea drinker could damage their A heavy tea drinker could damage their bonesbones

Comparing US StatesComparing US States

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

% of Residents with Water Fluoridation

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

% of Residents with Water Fluoridation

Lo Income with Very Good/Excellent Teeth

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

% of Residents with Water Fluoridation

Lo Income with Very Good/Excellent Teeth

Hi Income Very Good/Excellent Teeth

50 USA States and DC

Perc

en

t

National Survey of Children's Health. http://mchb.hrsa.gov/oralhealth/portrait/1cct.htm U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. The National Survey of Children's Health 2003. Rockville, Maryland: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2005

http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/waterfluoridation/fact_sheets/states_stats2002.htm

Fluoride and the Pineal glandFluoride and the Pineal gland

Pineal GlandPineal Gland

Fluoride & Pineal GlandFluoride & Pineal GlandTRYPTOPHAN

SEROTONIN

MELATONIN

Enzyme 1

Enzyme 2

Enzyme 4

Enzyme 3