Public health Continued »
Sharma 2008; Duan 20ıı; Tye 20ıı) and they are complicated for a lay reader. While promoters of fluoridation are
content to dismiss dental fluorosis as merely a cosmetic effect, it is rash to assume that fluoride is not impacting other developing tissues when it is visibly damaging the teeth by some biochemical mechanism (Groth ı973; Colquhoun ı997).
8) There is no margin of safety for several health effects No one can deny that high natural levels of fluoride damages health. Millions of people in India and China have had their health compromised by fluoride. The real question is whether there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses shown to cause harm in published studies, and the total dose people receive consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and non-water sources of fluoride. This margin of safety has to take into
account the wide range of individual sensitivity expected in a large population (a safety factor of ı0 is usually applied to the lowest level causing harm). There is clearly no margin of safety for dental fluorosis (CDC, 20ı0) and based on the following studies nowhere near an adequate margin of safety for lowered IQ (Xiang 2003; Ding 20ıı; Choi 20ı2); lowered thyroid function (Bachinskii ı985; Lin ı99ı); bone fractures in children (Alarcon-Herrera 200ı) or hip fractures in the elderly (Kurttio ı999; Li 200ı).
9) Fluoride may damage the brain According to the National Research Council (2006): “It is apparent that fluo- rides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” In a review of the literature commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fluoride has been listed among about ı00 chemicals for which there is “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity”. There have now been 33 studies from
China, Iran, India and Mexico that have reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. One of these
studies (Lin ı99ı) indicates that even moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency. None of these studies indicate an adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking artificially fluoridated water from this effect. According to the National Research
Council (2006), “the consistency of the results [in fluoride/IQ studies] appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence”. The NRC’s conclusion has recently been amplified by a team of Harvard scientists whose fluoride/IQ meta-review concludes that fluoride’s impact on the developing brain should be a “high research priority” (Choi et al., 20ı2).
The above points may make one wonder
why our health authorities still endorse public water fluoridation, when Harvard scientists are saying the relationship to a lowered IQ in children should be a high research priority. Many anti-fluoridation activists too
often point to the conspiracy theories. The facts remain, however, that the people in Ireland responsible for making the decision on water fluoridation are for the most part not toxicologists, medical practitioners or epidemiologist that have studied the latest science, they are dentists who are most likely passionate about dental health and probably don’t want to admit they are wrong. We are learning more and more every
day about the harm of many environmental chemicals, toxins and even medical treat- ments that were thought to be safe in the past. We have no idea if the accumulative dose on fluoride-sensitive groups, such as children, are having a synergistic effect with other toxins to cause more harm. There are a huge number of people in
Ireland now spending significant money removing fluoride from tap water because they are afraid that they or their children may be sensitive to side effects. Is it right that these people are put through the worry and stress of avoiding tap water? Is it not more fair to let people choose to supple-
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Marcus Stewart is a television and docu- mentary producer for the past ten years. Originally studying science, he is passionate about science communication and strong journalism principles. His 2010 documentary ‘A Burning Question’ explored the huge gap between public understanding of the science of climate change and the science itself. It highlight the problems in today’s media leaving the public more confused than informed about a pressing issue with huge scientific consensus. Marcus is outspoken about the need for stronger journalism guidelines and the need for all media to play a much bigger part in keeping the wider public informed of facts, not mistruths from lobbying and advertorial.
ment their diet with fluoride rather than make them have to remove it? Is dental hygiene not a matter of personal responsi- bility and choice? It is the excessive consumption of sugar
and soft drinks that are posing the greatest risk to dental health today. This problem is also leading to a range of other public health issues that are hugely concerning. The anti water fluoridation lobby is
indeed a heterogeneous group, but they are going to be around for as long as fluoride is. Why not just stop the practice of water fluoridation and focus on public health initiatives that really matter? Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland all have better dental health than Ireland. Why not ask why?
Ireland’s Dental magazine 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52