As the final decision by South Central and the threat of fluoridation of water in Southampton and Hampshire draws ever closer. I am printing in full, submissions from another four leading authorities on fluoridation and its toxic effects.
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK http://www.fluoridealert.org/ FAN Bulletin 1047: Professionals ask SHA board members to reject fluoridation. Part 4.Feb 14, 2009Dear Gayle,We print out four more statements of concern which have been sent to the Southampton (UK) Strategic Health Authority (SHA). They come from a professor from Scotland; a radio host; a former Federal Health Minister from Australia; a grass roots organizer and a university professor from Massachusetts. I think you will agree that based on what you are reading from these people, who have all signed the Professionals' Statement, that they are highly qualified and/or experienced people, who have thought deeply about this issue. There is much ammunition in their statements - both individually and collectively - to help all of us fight this battle. Meanwhile, the national significance of the decision in Southampton is discussed in the Feb 15 issue of The Observer, New fight to stop mass fluoridation. While the number of signers continues to rise on the Professionals' Statement (we are now up to 2,143) we still need many more. I have prepared an appeal for professionals in Europe to sign on. Do you have any colleagues or friends in Europe who might be willing to add their moral support and sign this statement? If you do we will gladly forward a copy of this appeal to you so that you can send it to them. Please email us at http://uk.mc867.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=info@fluoridealert.org and we will send you a copy of this appeal.Paul Connett____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _A statement from Professor Henry Micklem from ScotlandDr Geoffrey Harris, Chairman, NHS South CentralDear Dr Harris,I am emeritus professor of immunobiology at the University of Edinburgh and have been studying the literature on the effects of fluoride on health for several years, with particular reference to the pros and cons of water fluoridation. Living in Scotland, I did not contribute to the formal consultation. However, the decision in Southampton, whichever way it goes, has more than local significance and I hope you will allow me to put an oar in at this late stage.I endorse what Drs Paul Connett, Hardy Limeback and some others have recently written to you on this subject, and only wish to add some remarks about risk. Advocates and opponents of fluoridation approach risk in completely different and conflicting ways. Advocates state that hundreds of studies carried out over more than 60 years show that fluoridation is safe. What they actually mean is that population comparisons of various diseases have not proved conclusively that fluoridation is harmful. That is not at all the same thing, since these studies rarely concerned themselves with potentially vulnerable subgroups, nor were they sensitive enough to detect small differences. Moreover, as shown by the York Review (A Systematic Study of Water Fluoridation, 2002), many were of inherently low quality. This much-cited review was unfortunately restricted by its terms of reference to the impact of fluoridation per se on human health. It did not deal with wider evidence. It did not conclude that fluoridation was safe, as advocates of fluoridation constantly claim, merely that it found little evidence, except for fluorosis, that it was not safe.Proponents of fluoridation work on the assumption that unless fluoridation, per se, has been proved to be harmful, then it is perfectly legitimate to continue and extend the practice. They are very clear about it: the onus of direct proof is on the objectors. They show no interest in indirect evidence of harm and if they have ever heard of the precautionary principle, they do not care to mention it in public.For example, they dismiss as irrelevant the authoritative National Research Council (Fluoride in Drinking Water: a Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, 2006) on the specious grounds that it does not deal specifically with water fluoridated at 1 part/million. Yet the report does provide a wealth of evidence that 4 parts/million in drinking water is _not_ safe in a range of health contexts including the skeleton, thyroid and, perhaps most ominously, the developing brain. I don't believe that any toxicologist would regard a safety factor of less than four as adequate for continuous mass-medication, particularly when athletes, diabetics and kidney patients may drink far more than the generally assumed one litre/day. I doubt that you would either. In sum the many studies reviewed by the NRC panel are indeed highly relevant to fluoridation and identify risks that are far from trivial in scale and variety. Even if some of the studies are not quite ofgold-standard quality, to ignore them and insist on direct proof is wholly irresponsible and smacks of hubris.Even when confronted with a careful study (Bassin et al 2006, cited in SHA Consultation Document) demonstrating directly that consumption of fluoridated water in childhood can lead to a several-fold rise in the incidence of osteosarcoma in young men, fluoridation proponents have brushed it aside on the pretext that it needs repeating and falls short of definitive proof. (Bassin herself described it as 'exploratory' . However, the cautionary note by Douglass, also cited in the Document, should be given little weight since the author had a large axe to grind.) It is true that, like all important findings, it needs confirmation. But such work is difficult and may take years. Meanwhile, fluoridationists appear to think that the risk of this unpleasant and life-threatening (albeit rare) tumour can be ignored, while fluoridation continues in the interests of its alleged benefits. If ever there was a situation in which the precautionary principle should apply, mass medication of large populations, potentially over an entire lifetime, must surely be it. Dental caries in children is a real problem that has been dealt with in other parts of the world through education, better diet and improved access to dental care. I appreciate that the SHA has been pursuing these approaches in Southampton and still feels that further intervention is desirable, but fluoridating the water is not the answer. I trust you will agree that it is important not to extend this imprudent and unethical practice.Yours sincerely,Henry MicklemH S Micklem D Phil (Oxon)Emeritus Professor of ImunobiologyUniversity of EdinburghA statement from Charlie Spencer, radio host, environmental activist and humanitarianDear Southampton Strategic Health Authority:As a radio talk show host for over 15 years, I've often featured the topic of water fluoridation, attracting knowledgeable and noted guests. However, no matter how many proponents exist, I've yet to hear a convincing argument favoring water fluoridation. Unfortunately, decisions seem all too often to be based on politics, rather than science. In addition, most talk show hosts, and seemingly public decision makers, don't know enough about the issue to even ask the right questions. One of the most frequent supportive arguments notes support of certain professional dental organizations. However, you'll find these organizations are more representative of the economic concerns of their members, than health concerns of the public. Learning that the fluoride in question is not the same substance used in toothpaste, but rather a hazardous waste rerouted from chemical fertilizer plants, it raises flags of caution, and for this I join FAN, and hope you would, as well, in opposing forced fluoridation on your community. Thank you.Sincerely,Charlie SpencerA statement from former Australian Federal health minister Dr. Douglas EveringhamDear decision-makers, I'm advised by Professor Paul Connett that you are soon to decide whether to support the official policy of increasing fluoride content of public water supplies in the Southampton region.I ask you to resist this increasingly discredited policy. Here's why. 1. In my first public statement on the subject as a family doctor and local government medical officer I supported the policy as do most of the Australia government authorities still. This prompted opponents of the policy to bring my attention to specific scientific reports about 50 years ago. It has been my intention ever since to satisfy myself of the reliability of arguments on both sides. As national Minister for Health 1972-75 and regional (western Pacific) Vice President at the 1975 World Health Assembly I was unable to get reassurance from my departmental experts and advisers who supported fluoridation. 2. There is no minimum water fluoride intake claimed by pro-fluoride officials as necessary to prevent dental decay. There are decay-free teeth among unfluoridated communities and rampant decay leading to nearly total dental clearance among consumers of water fluoridated at officially recommended levels. Breast milk in both fluoridated and other communities contains below 0.5 per cent of the officially "optimum" fluoride concentration of water. 3. Official drives for more fluoridation in my country claim fluoridation reduces decay by "up to 40 per cent". That is selective assessment. Some studies show the "up to" difference closer to 0 per cent, with the 40 per cent more decay affecting a fraction of a single decayed tooth surface on average. Several studies have concluded that application of fluoride to tooth enamel by dental therapy or tooth paste is much more effective than fluoridation while avoiding swallowing of fluoride which benefits no-one. 4. Tooth enamel is the only tissue known to include fluoride normally. Swallowed fluoride is not proven harmless in studies aimed at testing effects beyond the teeth. Pro-fluoridation authorities acknowledge that levels not greatly above their recommended "optimum" are dangerous, and fluoridation increases the prevalence of dental fluorosis - mottled teeth, the earliest sign of fluoride toxicity. 5. Ill effects in other organs and functions including bone, brain and thyroid are still awaiting confirmation or disproof, and medical precautionary policies should rule out fluoridation till such studies are made. There has been unexplained delay in publishing Harvard University findings of increased bone sarcoma in young males. [I believe that Dr. Everingham is referring here to the long delay in the promised study by Douglass et al. which purportedly refutes the Bassin et al. (2006) study which found a 5 to 7 fold increase in osteosarcoma associated with young males exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th, 7th and 8th years. In the same issue of the journal where the Bassin study was published Douglass promised a study by the Summer of 2006. After two and half years we are still waiting for the refutation. Meanwhile, Douglass's letter is being used by proponents as if it was study!]6. Officials in fluoridating regimes may be deterred from frank testing of toxic outcomes by fear of loss of professional acceptance. Dr Waldbott who once led the US AMA's allergy section was apparently ostracised when he published findings of fluoride allergy. Whistleblower scientists and clinicians in the few remaining fluoridating countries have noted that fluoride waste in fertiliser and metal smelting industries, formerly costly to dispose of without agricultural and other environmental damage, has become a profitable by-product in water used much more for cleaning and other uses than for drinking.7. Those opposing fluoridation should have the right to refuse mass medication at an uncontrolled dosage in accord with medical ethics. I hope you will favour basic researchers in toxicology, epidemiology and clinical statistics rather than administrative officials with less specific experience. Sincerely, Douglas N. Everingham MB, BS 5 Eriboll Close MIDDLE PARK QLD 4074 AustraliaA statement from Ralph Ryder, editor of Toxcat, and director of Communities Against Toxics, UKDear Members of the Southampton Strategic Health Authority (SHA)Have you ever met someone whose lack of dental hygiene has made you feel sick?I ask this because as a child in the 1950s I remember a number of children in our village whose teeth were actually green, a result of a complete lack of dental care. I couldn't look at these children without baulking. During a visit to the United States in 1994 I met a young lady during a conference on 'Dioxin' in St Louis. We began talking about toxins as one does in such a situation and when she opened her mouth I was appalled at the state of her teeth. They were heavily mottled brown and white, something she was very aware of by her manner of bringing her hand to cover her mouth whenever she laughed.I know now that there was nothing wrong with this young lady's dental hygiene, in fact she was exemplarity in her cleanliness, but she lived in a fluoridated town in the US.Meeting people face to face is an important part of life. To be embarrassed by the state of your teeth when you smile restricts the opportunities available to anyone in many walks of life, socially and professionally.It is all very well saying sufferers of dental fluorosis (the obvious visual sign of fluoride poisoning) can have 'cosmetic treatment. ' The reality is cost restricts the number of people who can actually afford this treatment.As the editor and publisher of ToxCat and Director of Communities Against Toxics I have researched the impact of various chemicals on human health. The meeting in St Louis alerted me to one of the realities of fluoride being added to drinking water.Another meeting I attended opened my eyes even more of this issue. I attended an interview conducted on Manchester breakfast TV where Dr. Paul Connett was invited to comment on fluoridation. Also invited was Economist Guy Harkin of the North West Fluoridation Evaluation, a group that had the task of recommending on whether to add fluoride to the drinking water of Manchester.Even though Harkin's was supposed to be looking into the issue of fluoride and his recommendations would be very influential, it was blatantly obvious he was already a strong supporters of fluoride 'mass medication', despite demonstrating no knowledge (or even interest) in the studies indicating health risks. He shamefully regurgitated parrot-fashion the pro-fluoride script, showing no original self-thoughts.When asked by Dr Connett after the programme if he had read the latest 500 page report from the US National Research Council Harkin replied after some embarrassing coughing and spluttering "I have read a summary.""What were the conclusions? " asked Dr Connett. Harkin couldn't answer, made a feeble excuse and rushed away out of the studio.It was obvious this man hadn't read the summary and I personally doubt he even knew of existence of the US National report. Yet he was going to recommend adding fluoride to the drinking water of millions. Unbelievable! The blind ignorance of the pro-fluoride lobbyists has to be seen to be believed.I am 62 years of age and have never had a filling. The last serious dental treatment I had was for the removal of a troublesome tooth in 1966. The way to prevent bad cavities is by good dental practices like brushing frequently. It is not ethical to expect everyone to swallow an industrial poison with every drink, salad washing or shower because some parents are too lazy to teach their child good dental hygiene. Also, we are advised not to take or share medications prescribed to us or others, yet the government is proposing to do exactly that by mass medicating us all.How can you calculate the safe dose for a 1 week old baby and a 20 stone man? Why are there warnings on fluoride containing toothpaste stating if a child swallows more than a pea sized quantity of toothpaste to seek medical help, if fluoride is harmless if swallowed?Also, how does this warning tie in with the additional fluoride the adding of fluoride to our drinking water will exposure our children to? (Washing, showering, food washing, concentrated soft drinks etc).The science /evidence being pushed by the government is extremely dubious.I am asking you to look seriously at this issue not only on health grounds but also ethically, and ask you not to blindly follow the governments wishes. Their refusal to debate this issue openly and seriously throws serious doubts on their claims of fluorides safety. The precautionary principle must be applied.History shows many times where so-called experts have been wrong on a multitude of health damaging chemicals.(See Late lesson from early warnings, Environmental report No 22 European Environment Agency ISBN 92-9167-323- 4 for a few examples).I fear the Government is wrong about fluorideWishing you good healthRalph Anthony RyderDirector, Communities Against ToxicsPO Box 29, Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, CH66 1NUA statement from Michael Dolan, PhD, University of Massachusetts at AmherstDear Mr. Howell et al.,Hope you are well. It is my understanding that the Southampton Health Authority is contemplating a program of water fluoridation for the city of Southampton. I am writing to let you know that this practice has come under considerable criticism in the USA in light of recent findings that fluoride is a neurotoxin and increases the risk of bone cancer in young boys. The National Research Council here has concluded that the current regulation of water fluoridation does not protect the whole population (as required by our Safe Drinking Water Act). The union representing scientists at our Environmental Protection Agency (the toxicologists and epidemiologists who provide the professional analysis of toxic chemicals) have called for an end to water fluoridation in the USA.Even the two leading proponents of fluoridation, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, have conceded that infants are harmed by the use of fluoridated tap water in reconstituted infant formula. If the infants are harmed by this chemical, how on Earth can you put it into the water supply?At a time when Europe is leading the world in the proper regulation of toxic chemicals it would be a terrible mistake for your Authority to begin fluoridating Southampton' s water. I would be grateful if you could write back to confirm that you received this message.Thank you for your attention.Sincerely,Michael F. Dolan, Ph.D.Research ProfessorUniversity of Massachusetts, Amherst USA
No comments:
Post a Comment