ISBN: 9781603582872 Year Added to Catalog: 2010 Book Format: Paperback Book Art: Tables, charts, graphs Dimensions: 6 x 9 Number of Pages: 384 Book Publisher: Chelsea Green Publishing Release Date: October 1, 2010 Web Product ID: 535
Also in Food & Health
The Case Against Fluoride
How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There
May 1, 2011 A publication of College and Research Libraries; A division of the American Library Association
Water fluoridation is a major controversy pitting prevention (dental caries) against ethics (involuntary drug exposure). Connett (emer., St. Lawrence Univ.), Beck (emer., Univ. of Calgary), and Micklem (emer., Univ. of Edinburgh) present compelling but not always convincing arguments for discontinuing fluoridation. They emphasize systemic treatment's low efficacy, alternative preventive approaches, the public's involuntary exposure, and potential toxicity. Although not uniquely American, water fluoridation is more popular in the US than in most countries. If ingestion of fluoride were very effective in preventing caries, the authors would still argue against the practice on ethical grounds. Six parts cover ethical arguments, lack of evidence of efficacy, the policy gamble, toxicity, the precautionary principle, and vested interests. Some inconsistencies are evident. The book emphasizes uncertainties in epidemiologic studies of efficacy, but deemphasizes uncertainties in toxicity reports, creating an imbalance appropriate for a polemic but not for a scientific treatise. Fluoridation advocates will interpret this as evidence that the antifluoridation point of view is exaggerated, whereas sympathetic readers will find their resolve strengthened. Alternatives such as fluoride supplements exist, but would not reach the poor populations that need them. This is a thought-provoking work for students of environmental policy and public health. Summing Up: Recommended. Lower-level undergraduates through graduate students; general readers. -- M. Gochfeld, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
*Starred Review* On the eve of the new millennium, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), listed water fluoridation as one of the twentieth-century's 10 greatest public-health achievements. Yet according to the authors of this painstakingly researched exposé of fluoridation's overall ineffectiveness and toxicity, endorsements such as these from the CDC and other health organizations are motivated more by face-saving politics than credible research. Fluoridation advocates who have previously branded detractors as conspiracy theorists and shills for junk science will be hard-pressed to debunk the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning presented here. In demonstrating fluoridation's ineffectiveness, the authors cite exhaustive evidence proving fluoride's only benefits are topical, as in tooth-brushing, as opposed to swallowing. But the case against fluoride's alleged safety, even in small doses, is more alarming, with multiple studies showing fluoride's probable complicity in lowered intelligence scores, thyroid dysfunction, hip fractures, and the ominously rising incidence of osteosarcoma in boys. The authors academic, hyperbole-free writing style serves them well in marshaling a series of facts that, all by themselves, expose fluoridation as a false panacea. It remains to be seen, however, whether the public-health community will give this landmark work due credit or continue to rubber stamp an outdated policy that, like bloodletting and trepanation, properly belongs on the scrap heap of sham medical interventions.
(Reprinted with permission of Booklist, copyright 2010, American Library Association.)
The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett and James Beck
Written by Tim Boyd - Wise Traditions - April 5, 2011
On the label of every tube of fluoride toothpaste is a statement which reads, “Drug Facts: Active Ingredient—Sodium Fluoride … Keep out of reach of children under six years of age. If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” The amount recommended for brushing is about the size of a pea. This pea-sized dab contains about the same amount of fluoride as one glass of water in areas that fluoridate the water. Do you drink the recommended eight glasses of water per day? Do you call the Poison Control Center when you do?
The insanity of intentional water fluoridation is examined from every angle in this book. International law forbids dumping fluoride waste into the sea but it is accepted in American drinking water. As stated in the toothpaste disclaimer above, the FDA officially considers fluoride to be a drug. This drug has never been approved by the FDA. Contaminating drinking water with fluoride can be most charitably characterized as an experiment which violates the Nuremburg Code prohibiting experimental human treatment without informed consent. China, India, Japan and most of Europe do not fluoridate their water.
One of the first studies claiming the safety of fluoride was done by Cox and Hodge. Cox worked for the giant aluminum company Alcoa. At that time fluoride was a major waste product of aluminum processing. It must have seemed like a wondrous miracle when Cox discovered that this toxic waste was safe and effective for preventing tooth decay when added to the water supply. The real miracle is that so many people apparently believe this. Hodge worked on the Manhattan Project supervising experiments on unsuspecting patients who were injected with uranium and plutonium. These guys have all the credibility of those famous leading scholars named Larry, Curly and Moe. If you believe the studies and health advice of Cox and Hodge, you might want to consider cutting back on eating those old lead-based paint chips.
Many other studies are reviewed, such as those of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, who not only had no conflict of interest with the commercial entities involved but in fact suffered professionally for daring to suggest that fluoride might be problematic.
John Colquhoun of New Zealand promoted fluoride enthusiastically around the country for years. After traveling the world to survey the effects of fluoride, he realized he was quite wrong. Colquhoun was a man of rare courage and integrity, and spent the rest of his life trying to undo the damage he had done.
When the National Research Council came out with a report—over five hundred pages long—unfavorable to fluoride, the American Dental Association took less than one day to dismiss it. The Centers for Disease Control rejected it six days later. The director of Quackwatch called fluoride opponents “poison-mongers.” The irony piles pretty high when you consider that most opponents are unpaid and do much of this on their own dime, they have nothing to monger or sell, and are trying to remove the poison, not add it.
Toward the end of the book the authors pull out one of my all-time favorite quotes from the late Michael Crichton. “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled….The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. . . There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” THUMBS UP.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2011.
About the Reviewer
Tim Boyd was born and raised in Ohio, graduated from Case Western Reserve University with a degree in computer engineering, and worked in the defense industry in Northern Virginia for over 20 years. During that time, a slight case of arthritis led him to discover that nutrition makes a difference and nutrition became a serious hobby. After a pleasant and satisfying run in the electronics field, he decided he wanted to do something more important. He is now arthritis free and enjoying his dream job working for the Weston A. Price Foundation.
The battle for and against fluoridation of the public water supply has entered a new phase. Three things have happened since I researched and wrote "Fluoride Follies" five years ago.
In their efforts to have all the community drinking water in the U.S. fluoridated, promoters of fluoridation are taking a different tack. Rather than grapple with community-level politics and local referendums on this matter, they are increasingly targeting state legislators and are pushing for statewide mandates to fluoridate the public water supply.
A second development has inflicted a chink in the Federal Government’s armor against antifluoridationists. The Office of Drinking Water in its Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) commissioned the government’s National Research Council (NRC) to examine the toxicology of fluoride. It was commissioned to assess the EPA’s 4 ppm (parts per million) maximum contaminant level goal, along with its 2 ppm secondary maximum contaminant level, a level set to keep children from having unsightly dental fluorosis, where white specks form on teeth, and with further fluoride exposure become confluent and turn brown. The council’s 506-page report was published in 2006. It unflinchingly faces up to the health-damaging effects of fluoride in public water.
The third development is the publication, in September 2010, of The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There by Paul Connett, PhD, the director of the Fluoride Action Network; James Beck, MD, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics at the University of Calgary, Canada; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil, Professor Emeritus in the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Edinburgh, UK. The Case Against Fluoride is well-written, which makes it easy to read; and it is comprehensive, citing more than 1700 references, pro and con, dealing with fluoridation of public water. This book is the ideal litigator’s brief for prosecuting the case against fluoride...
The Case Against Fluoride: Toxifying the Tap
By Rady Ananda
In July of this year, the United Nations declared access to clean water a human right. The United States was among 41 nations that abstained from supporting the resolution. Since October 15th is Blog for Water Day, a close inspection of a common US practice – fluoridating city water supplies – is in order.
“On the eve of the new millennium, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), listed water fluoridation as one of the twentieth-century’s 10 greatest public-health achievements. Yet according to the authors of this painstakingly researched expose of fluoridation’s overall ineffectiveness and toxicity, endorsements such as these from the CDC and other health organizations are motivated more by face-saving politics than credible research.
“Fluoridation advocates who have previously branded detractors as conspiracy theorists and shills for junk science will be hard pressed to debunk the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning presented here.”
In March of this year, the issue again made news when workers in the Amesbury, Massachusetts water plant found that the bags of fluoride the city had bought from China contained an unknown, non-soluble substance. It comprised 40% of the product.
This month, that video caught the attention of bloggers who focused on the warning label on the sodium fluoride bag seen in the video:
TARGET ORGANS: Heart, Kidneys, Bones, Central Nervous System, Gastrointestinal System, Teeth. Do not get in eyes or on skin. Do not ingest or inhale.
Why are they putting this in our water?
Many scientists oppose adding such a toxic substance to our main drinking supply, yet powerful forces keep our water fluoridated. A short 30-minute film, Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation, provides some chilling information.
Even assuming that the given reason for fluoridating our water – to prevent tooth decay – is legitimate, pharmacologists, toxicologists, dentists, and medical doctors explain how mass drugging a population violates medical ethics since it lacks informed consent.
Among the 2,000-plus professionals who call for the ban of this practice, Dr Carlsson states: “It’s absolutely obsolete.” Modern pharmacology recognizes that individuals react differently to the same dosage of a given drug.
“Now in this case, you have it in the water and people are drinking different amounts of water. So, you have huge variations in the consumption.”
Dr Phyllis Mullenix concurs. “The whole name of the game [of pharmacology] is to deliver the right dose to the right person at the right time. And that’s not what fluoridation does.”
Any benefit from fluoride on teeth is only topical. As one scientist put it, “If you want to prevent sunburn, you don’t drink suntan lotion. You put it on your skin.”
Yet, fluoridated municipal water exposes our internal organs to a toxic substance. Children are especially vulnerable, because the blood-brain barrier is not fully developed. Fluoride lowers intelligence. One in three US adults has arthritis, which is a symptom of skeletal fluorosis. Fluoride also causes depression and lethargy, they report.
The World Health Organization advised that a third of US children suffer from dental fluorosis caused by too much fluoride intake.
Professionals in the film also cite a 2006 report by the National Research Council, which urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water.
In the Amesbury news report, we saw bags of sodium chloride. But the form of fluoride added to most municipal water supplies is hexafluorosilicic acid, a waste product of the agricultural phosphate industry. It is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride.
When the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950, there was little evidence of its safety. Now, six decades later and after most countries have rejected the practice, many cities and towns across the United States continue to fluoridate their water supply and the Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association continue to endorse it, despite increasing evidence that it is not only unnecessary, but potentially hazardous to human health. In this timely and important book, Dr. Paul Connett takes a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argues that just because the medical establishment endorses a public health measure, that doesn't mean it's safe. In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals used to fluoridate the water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not pharmaceutical grade, but rather hazardous waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry; it is illegal to dump them into rivers and lakes or release them into the atmosphere. And water fluoridation is a prime example of one of the worst medical practices possibleforced medication with no control over the dose or who gets it. Perhaps most shocking of all, it is not subject to any federal regulation.At once painstakingly-documented and also highly-readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and kidneys, and argues that while there is possible value in topical applications like brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, the evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak. The Case Against Fluoride doesn't question the good intentions of dentists who support fluoridation, but rather explores the poor science, bizarre tactics, biased reviews, and puzzling motivations of a relatively small number of influential people who continue to push this practice on a largely ill-informed public.
If you are interested in the fluoride debate you should read this book. However, more importantly, if you are disinterested in the fluoridation of drinking water or are strongly profluoridation, you must also read this book. The authors have produced a wellresearched, cogently argued, and very readable text that summarises historical, political, ethical, toxicological, and epidemiological scientific data behind drinking water fluoridation. For the historical aspects of fluoridation, the three scientific authors were greatly assisted by Peter Meiers of SaarbruÌˆken, Germany. The authors stress that they are not arguing about the use of fluoride, for example in dentifrices, mouthwashes, etc., but about the intentional addition of fluoride to the drinking water supplies of populations. The book is divided into six sections, which are addressed below. The text is approachable by non-scientists and specialists, although an extensive technical bibliography is provided for those who wish to delve deeper...
In this timely and important book, Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. H. Spedding Micklem take a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the medical establishment endorses a public health measure, that doesn't mean it's safe. In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals used to fluoridate the water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not pharmaceutical grade, but rather hazardous waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry; it is illegal to dump them into rivers and lakes or release them into the atmosphere. And water fluoridation is a prime example of one of the worst medical practices possible-forced medication with no control over the dose or who gets it. Perhaps most shocking of all, it is not subject to any federal regulation.
At once painstakingly-documented and also highly-readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and kidneys, and argues that while there is possible value in topical applications like brushing your teeth with fluoride toothpaste, the evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak. The Case Against Fluoride doesn't question the good intentions of dentists who support fluoridation, but rather explores the poor science, bizarre tactics, biased reviews, and puzzling motivations of a relatively small number of influential people who continue to push this practice on a largely ill-informed public.
The Way I See It blog - December 26, 2010
Fluoridated Water Meets its Waterloo!
Major congratulations are in order for the Canadians! The residents of Waterloo, Ontario stopped adding fluoride to their tap water at noon, November the 29th, 2010 at four water treatment sites, after 33 years of fluoridation.
Wisdom finally won over ignorance and greed and an important step has been taken toward safeguarding the health of their children. Two years of advocacy and hard work by anti-fluoridation community members led to a winning campaign. The battle over fluoride, which was introduced to the water supply in Canada in the 1940s, is part of a growing movement across North America. In the early 2000s several communities in British Columbia voted to get rid of fluoride, as did Whitehorse in 1998.
The battle rages on and appears to be gaining traction as more health-conscious people, world-wide, become more educated about the dangers of fluoride to their health. A number of books on the subject have come out in recent years, particularly, "The Case Against Fluoride" by environmental chemist Paul Connett, Ph.D. He shows that many dentists are simply seriously stupid or misinformed about fluoride, warning that cavities and public health costs will rise and that low-income children are at special risk. Yeah right, like the little buggers will give up drinking soda now that fluoride is in the water. Reducing the rates of cavities requires education, not fluoridation!
Have you ever wondered why we need to have fluoride in drinking water when there is already fluoride in our toothpaste?
The October 2010 issue of the journal of the American Dental Association has confirmed that infants fed with formula milk prepared from fluoridated water run a greater risk of fluorosis (mottling and discolouration of teeth enamel).
On the same subject, another book published in September this year – The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, James Beck and HS Micklem argues forcefully against the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water supplies.
Among the countries which fluoridate their water supplies are Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Malaysia, Singapore, USA and Vietnam. Most parts of Europe have stayed away from the practice. The amount added varies from 0.6 to 1.2 mg/l.
Most dental associations, which endorse fluoridation of water supplies say it is a safe, low-cost way to prevent tooth decay, particularly amongst cavity-prone children.
But the new book quotes WHO statistics to indicate that the rates of tooth-decays in twelve-year olds have been coming down in non-fluoridated countries as fast as in fluoridated ones mainly because of rising income levels and better dental hygiene. “Meanwhile, the scientific evidence that fluoridation may be causing harm gets stronger with each passing year,” it says.
“I’m convinced, based on animal studies, clinical trials and epidemiological studies, that drinking fluoridated water for a whole lifetime will increase your risk of arthritis and also increase your risk of hip fractures, which is very serious in the elderly,” said Dr Connett in an interview with the Globe and Mail. “The reason for these problems is that half the fluoride people ingest is stored in the bone.”
Fluoridation of our Water Kills Animals and People
The Pet Whisperer - December 29, 2010
Dr. Blake and Dr. Louie’s new friend Patty Ducey-Brooks has written a beautiful article on why we must all stand up against big business and government who want to poison our drinking water with fluoride. The Fluoride is a by-product of industrial waste they are pawning off as health care. Please share her words with all you know and ask them to do the same.
Paying it forward is how the change you want to see in this world comes to pass. Be the change you want to see in the world.
OAO, Dr Blake and Dr. Louie
Be Not Afraid…To Be Heard
by Patty Ducey-Brooks
It’s election month and also when we celebrate Veteran’s Day. This issue reflects both of those causes. I applaud George Mitrovich who tells us to get off our buttocks and do something. He’s right, and I am doing my part.
This past month I helped coordinate speaking engagements for Paul Connett, author of “The Case Against Fluoride,” who helped explain the anti-fluoride campaign that’s currently taking place across the country and in Canada. San Diego has a pivotal role because currently our drinking water has not been treated with fluosilicic acid. The date for this to occur is now sometime in December 2010.
In this timely and important book, Connett, Beck and Micklem take a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the medical establishment endorses a public health measure, that doesn’t mean it’s safe. In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals used to fluoridate the water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not pharmaceutical grade, but rather hazardous waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry; it is illegal to dump these into rivers and lakes or release the parent gases into the atmosphere.
Some of you know that I am a member of a coalition of people, San Diegans Against Fluoridation (SAF), who are working feverishly to keep San Diego’s drinking water fluoride free. The coalition is made up of people of all ages, backgrounds and professions. We have dentists, doctors, nurses, toxicologists, professors, scientists, authors, journalists, teachers, homemakers, the list goes on. All ask the same question, “Why are we injecting fluosilicic acid in to our drinking water when it serves no purpose?”
There are no proven benefits (though we were led to believe there were). And, now, even the American Dental Association (ADA), has reported this past October that it may be harmful to youngsters. A new study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association is confirming fluoride as a toxic substance that actually destroys teeth, particularly those of developing young children and babies.
It states, when people are exposed to excessive levels of fluoride through sources like drinking water, foods and beverages and even swallowed toothpaste, it often results in a condition known as dental fluorisis. The internal uptake of fluoride into teeth over time causes their enamel to become mottled and discolored, the end result being damaged teeth that have essentially rotted from the inside out.
Dr. Steven Levy, D.D.S., and his team found during their study that “fluoride intakes during each of the first four years of a child’s life were individually significantly related to fluorosis on maxillary central incisors, with the first year more important.” They went on to warn that “infant formulas reconstituted with higher fluoride water can provide 100 to 200 times more fluoride than breast milk, or cow’s milk.”
In other words, young children have the highest risk of severe tooth damage from fluoride, especially those that are six months of age or younger, a time during which children’s blood-brain barriers have not fully formed. Even low ingestion levels cause the direct depositing of fluoride into the teeth, brain and other bodily tissues and organs which, besides causing fluorosis, may also cause disorders of the brain and nervous system, kidneys and bones.
The American Dental Association (ADA) has known that fluoride explosure causes dental fluorosis since at least 2006, but the group has done nothing to warn the 200 million Americans that live in communities with fluoridated water to avoid its use in babies and infants.
I wish I could get every citizen of San Diego to understand the severity of this issue, that soon our drinking water will be fluoridated. Those of us who are trying to stop this from happening will be active throughout the month of November.
Since 1950, the United States has been adding fluoride to drinking water to help prevent tooth decay. Is this practice effective? Is fluoridated water safe to drink and if not, why? The mounting scientific evidence presented in this book suggests it is not.
"The Case Against Fluoride" by Paul Connett, Ph.D., James Beck, M.D., and H.S. Michlen, D.Phil., will enlighten questioning citizens with documented research showing reasons to be concerned about fluoride in our drinking water.
January 8, 2011 - Calgary Herald - Robert C. Dickson, MD
I find it unbelievable that medical and dental professionals are still advocating for this antiquated, unethical, ineffective and unsafe practice. Nobel laureates have called water fluoridation the biggest scam ever propagated against society. There are so many good studies showing that water fluoridation is not effective while, at the same time, fluoride is accumulating in and slowly harming our brains, neurological systems, thyroid glands, kidneys and bones.
I encourage everyone to go to www.fluoridealert.organd also to read the latest excellent and well-documented book, The Case Against Fluoride.
It is not moral, ethical or safe to mass medicate without consent or monitoring. Nor should medical practice be decided by public vote or plebiscite, especially with the Calgary Health Region folks receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars to put out misleading information, as in the past two plebiscites. Let's put a stop to this harmful practice now.