The question was posed-
Dr Bakland can you give us some professional input on the taking Floride out of the drinking water debate?
I don’t know the first thing about it but lately I’ve been getting a ton of press releases on it.
Much like the “don’t get your kid vaccinated” push I don’t want to put out a bunch of statistics put together by pseudo scientists.
Can you shed some fact based light on the issue before it comes in front of the City Council?
Update: Dr Bakland’s Office Assistant Angela just called to tell me the Good Doctor is out of the office currently but she will relay the message
Update #2 The good Doctor has spoken.
I said I’d wait to hear from someone I knew and trusted that had a ton of experience in first hand dentistry to hear what they had to say on the Flouride in water issue. Dr Leif Bakland is my guy. If you know Dr Bakland then you know he doesn’t have any hidden agenda other than to put his patient care first. I value his opinion and he gave it-
Leif Bakland
HarborCoveDental.com
Submitted on 2014/07/21 at 10:43 pm
Hi Joey, evidently, fluoride is a hot topic. I will say that I am definitely for fluoridated water supply. It’s safe and effective. I’ve been in practice for over 30 years and have treated families from fluoridated and non fluoridated communities, there Is a difference!
There you have it. I have a feeling it doesn’t matter to those who already had their minds made up but I’m going with the local guy without an agenda and with over 30 years first hand experience.
Harbor Cove Dental, where all the cool kids get their teeth taken care of.
Updated 7/23/14
July 23, 2014
City health chiefs back continuing fluoride use
By James Niedzinski Staff Writer
Gloucester’s public health leaders support the continued addition of fluoride to the city’s drinking water, but a local anti-fluoridation group is trying to have the mineral removed.
The debate surfaced earlier in Rockport, where voters at an upcoming Town Meeting will decide whether to put a fluoride question on a ballot for the next local election.
The issue was raised by the Cape Ann Fluoride Action Network, a group that is trying to remove fluoride from the city’s water, as well.
“Our mission is to educate the public on the dangers of fluoride and petition the city to remove fluoride from the drinking water,” said Tracey Chiancola, member of the action network and a Gloucester resident.
She said sodium fluoride first surfaced as a byproduct of the aluminum industry in the 1940s and 1950s.
“I became concerned we’re drinking this substance that’s toxic,” she said. From there, she reached out to doctors, dentists and members of various institutes. She said some problems caused by sodium fluoride include learning disabilities and brain development. She also said a majority of Europe has unfluoridated water, with similar rates in tooth decay.
In response, however — and in an effort to better educate the public about their view — Dr. Richard Sagall, who chairs the city’s Board of Health and Noreen Burke, Gloucester’s public health director say the benefits of fluoride are clear.
For the entire article at the Gloucester Daily Times website click here
Good Morning Gloucester 
Oh my goodness, Joey! I’m so glad you posted this. I’ve been wondering too. I’ve been living life feeling proud that our kids rarely drink soda (maybe the occasional sprite at a restaurant or if we’re at a BBQ and all the other kids are doing it) and they hardly drink juice. They’ve never had a problem having just water with lunch and always tote around a water bottle wherever they go. Now I have to feel like I’m a bad mom for giving them the “wrong” water. Sometimes I feel like I can’t win.
LikeLike
You’re not a bad Mom, you are doing what is best for your children. It is not your “fault” that we have been victims of the fluoride marketing machine. Please come on Saturday night and bring your friends. There is reason to be concerned.
LikeLike
It is 2014 and we are still fighting the pseudo-scientific battle about a municipality putting fluoride in the water? It really does not surprise me because I see a wave of anti-science, pseudo-science, anti intellectual bullshit sprouting up everywhere. Is it accelerated by the internet and social media? Maybe not the cause but it sure allows the spreading of pseudo-science like I have not seen in years.
Fact: there is no controversy in medical and science circles about the efficacy of fluoride in municipal water systems. When I was 14 and I opened my mouth up for the first time for my Woods Hole dentist he said, ” you must have grown up where your town does not believe fluoride is a commie plot!” Why? Because my teeth were white. That is anecdotal but the consensus of all scientific and medial associations that matter say that fluoride is awesome, cheap, no downside. If you think it is bad because it is a “chemical” go join the Food Babe and wallow in idiocy.
Anti-fluoride, anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, even anti-GMO, different people, same problem. The data are all on the science side.
(You can swap out vaccine in this gif and add any of the others.)
http://bit.ly/1stTlOq
LikeLike
… but the great thing about true science is that everything can change if enough evidence shows the contrary. For example this ~50 year old idea that saturated fat is bad for you and is the main cause of heart disease had “no controversy in medical and science circles,” yet general consensus is slowly starting to change in the face of much evidence to the contrary. It is harder for the consensus to change when people have based their entire livelihood around an assumption, it makes them look bad. I don’t know anything about fluoride and have not looked into the issue myself. It could be totally ridiculous, I really don’t know. I like Joey’s call for more info and opinions.
LikeLike
Yep, that’s all I’m saying is that I want opinions from people I trust like Dr Bakland rather than some folks that may or may not be obsessed with the fame of riding some new idea that some trend is providing
LikeLike
Fluoride is a big issue right now on Cape Ann. Soon, both Gloucester and Rockport will be making decisions about whether or not to continue adding Sodium Fluoride to the water supplies.
The residents of Cape Ann have heard conflicting evidence on the benefits vs. hazards of water fluoridation and are seeking clarification.
Dr. Paul Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. In May 2006, he retired from his full professorship in chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY, where he taught for 23 years. His expertise lies in environmental biochemistry and toxicology. For the past thirteen years he has traveled the world giving over 2,000 lectures, in the areas of waste management and water fluoridation, in over 50 countries and 49 of the United States.
He will be coming to Cape Ann on August 2nd and 3rd.
On August 2nd Connett will give a lecture for everyone interested in this important topic. On August 3rd he invites all doctors, dentists and fluoride proponents and, especially, the general public to an open forum debate. The purpose is to educate the residents of Cape Ann on water fluoridation. On both evenings the presentation will be held at the Rockport High School Auditorium on Jerden’s Lane in Rockport and start at 7pm. The public is encouraged to attend both sessions if possible.
All health professionals in both the medical and dental fields are encouraged to attend. Their input will help educate the residents of Cape Ann and other local communities on the water fluoridation issue. Here is a chance to hear both sides of the controversy of water fluoridation and make up your own mind with the science presented. We are hoping for a lively discussion.
All members of the Boards of Health, Gloucester City Council, and Rockport Board of Selectmen are invited as well all other town and city officials.
This will be a fantastic opportunity to hear the facts from both sides and make an informed decision about water fluoridation.
Karen Tysver
LikeLike
I don’t know that it’s “anti-science, anti-vaccine,” etc. It’s a pretty different issue. And the science is coming around. There was a big, in-depth article about toxic materials, including fluoride, in the Atlantic recently (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/the-toxins-that-threaten-our-brains/284466/). And I definitely remember a local news story a few years ago about the fluoride Amesbury was getting from China (where ours comes from) gumming up the water works machinery (they stopped using fluoride after that)(http://www.wcvb.com/Chinese-Fluoride-In-Mass-Water-Raises-Concern/11295748#!bhP6Nx). And one more thing that struck me: A little while back I heard Kathleen Sebelius on On Point with Tom Ashbrook, and when he asked her if there was one thing she would suggest for every American family to do to improve their health, without hesitation she said everyone should own a good water filter. Which blew my mind a little. There is a very informative FB group called the Cape Ann Fluoride Action Network that is providing lot’s of well documented evidence against it, much of it from the E.P.A. Anyway, there’s a reason you rinse and spit. Fluoride is fine as a topical agent. As something we ingest? Maybe not so much. I’m glad to hear about the forum mentioned above. Cheers!
LikeLike
Yikes, I live under a rock and so did not know this had become a contentious item on Cape Ann. Joey is right, let us listen to people who should know a thing or two. I would have a suggestion for people who go to google to become acquainted with any controversial scientific subject:
1) Check the source. If the website also is against vaccines or believes Subway subs are full of yoga mat or espouses the chemtrail conspiracy or believes big pharma is hiding the cure for cancer or maybe the government too then you might want to find a better source of info.
2) I guess there is no 2. Fluoride has been attacked over the decades with 200 different scary reasons all of which have been shot down except for “what about this”, the last reason.
Random facts: fluoride is a poison. So is naturally grown broccoli and blueberries. They both have chemicals in them that will kill you. (Organic natural blueberries contain polystyrene! OMG!) Sodium will burn your house down and kill you when ingested. Sodium Chloride is table salt. But it will kill you too if you ingest too much. Random facts can be made to scare the hell out of anyone. Dig for information but try to find the majority consensus opinion of our leading scientists. Those kinds of scientists write the stuff found on the CDC website, the National Academy of Science website etc. Which I guess does bring me to a 2.
2) Do not fall for the few scientists with lofty degrees who are in the minority opinion. There is a reason why it is the minority opinion and that they have committed the rest of their life to proselytizing one view. Not sure what that reason is. Might be money or they banged their head. If they are retired because they banged their head, bingo.
And this is the last time I ever post on a controversial topic on GMG. How about those oysters last night? Rumors aside I did not stab myself and got some awesome lessons on how to open an oyster. I just need more practice. When are we doing that again?
LikeLike
The World Health Organization has issued a list of the industrialized countries with the best oral health. Of the top seven countries, six of them do not fluoridate their water and only one fluridates at 11% of its population. Clearly it is not fluoride which lowers tooth decay. At the same time that fluoride was added to the water antibiotics became availabe, refridgeration became available making access to fresh fruits and vegetables easier to the consumer year round, and fluoride toothpastes became common practice. Application of fluoride to the tooth surfaces hss been shown to be effective, not ingesting fluoride. The U.S ranked 12th in the list and fluoridates at 74%. Finland stopped fluoridating their water and their tooth decay rate continued to decline.
This is mass medication. It is an individual’s right ot choose which medication they wish to take. Fluoride tablets can be made avaiable to the public if they want it. We can simply use the money we use to fluoridate the water to make these free to the public.
LikeLike
I’m a drinking water engineer. Honestly, the thing you need to be more worried about in your municipal water supply in Gloucester is the disinfection byproducts caused by chlorinating/chloraminating water that is insufficiently filtered. Your water plants are in desperate need of updating. The type of filters they use is out of date an ineffective for the water that is being treated. The issue is that they do not remove enough of the organic matter in your drinking water, and they require high chlorine doses prior to the filters in order to keep the filter media from growing stuff. These two processes create DBPs (disinfection byproducts) that, over time, have been proven to be carcinogenic. You should, at minimum, be filtering your water in your home prior to drinking it, and in reality the City needs a grass roots campaign to demand a higher quality of water be delivered to our homes. The water bills are pretty darn high for water of the quality that we’re receiving.
If you’d like further information on drinking water treatment, supply and quality, or wastewater for that matter, I’d be more than happy to answer any questions.
LikeLike
You bring up really good points and something that I think we all need to be concerned about. I know that we use a form of chlorine that is impossible to filter out. I also heard that a few years back a group tried to get them to swithc back to regular chlorine. If Gloucester updated their water treatment plants could they go back to the less toxic form of chlorine? Also, is there an organic method available for water treatment?
LikeLike
Mr. Water Engineer, I would welcome an opportunity to speak to you about the grassroots movement that we all move forward in demanding and receiving quality town water. Can you please reach out to us at the Cape Ann Fluoride Network.
LikeLike
To Nichole, the first commenter– Don’t ever feel that you are a “bad mom”! I think most people make the best decisions they can with the information they have available at the time. As additional information becomes available, people may change their opinions or the actions they take. To Paul M:: Did Galileo “bang his head?” or were his opinions the result of his taking money from someone? It actually takes extraordinary courage to hold to a view that invites ridicule, could bankrupt you or, even worse, put you in jail. A scientist, like any person, has an obligation to tell the truth about where his investigations lead, even when his or her peers disagree, or powerful entities threaten.
To the Water Engineer, your point is really important. Perhaps the need for these additional filters can be addressed at the same time, since the topic of water quality is on people’s minds. I am sorry that I am not in town to attend this discussion, but I applaud the towns of Rockport and Gloucester for recognizing the topic’s importance and holding the forum.
LikeLike
All I care about is: is it harmful to butterflies???
Knitting, Birkenstock wearing moon bats, enter now…
LikeLike
James Dowd forwards this info from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-
National Academy of Sciences on Fluoride in Drinking Water
What is the National Academy of Sciences and why is its opinion important?
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is one of four organizations that comprise the National AcademiesExternal Web Site Icon — the other three are the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council (NRC). The National Academies perform an unparalleled public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono to advise the federal government and the general public on scientific and technological issues that affect people’s lives worldwide.
There have been several reports and booklets by the NAS and NRC with references to water fluoridation.
The 1951 NRC Fluoridation Report
NRC first reported on fluoride in drinking water November 29, 1951, and found that fluoridation was safe and effective. It was recommended that any communities with a child population of sufficient size, and that obtained their water from sources free from or low in fluoride, should consider adjusting the concentration to optimum levels for oral health. This report is not available through the NRC at this time, although copies may be found in libraries. A summary and presentation of the findings of the original report was published in the January 1952 edition of Journal American Water Works Association Vol 44, no. 1, p1–8, January, 1952. National Research Council Fluoridation Report, Kenneth F. Maxcy, J.L.T. Amleton, Basil G. Bibby, H. Trendley Dean, A. McGehee Harvey, Francis F. Heyroth. Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 24–33, 1952 by the American Association of Public Health Dentistry.
The 1977 NRC Report on Drinking Water and HealthExternal Web Site Icon
In this 1977 report, the NRC included ingestion of fluoride in drinking water as part of its evaluation to support the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the effort to comply with the 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act on the scientific basis for the Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations that were part of the Act. This scientific study specifically considered potential adverse health effects of substances in drinking water. The central effort of the study was an assessment of the long-term biological effects of ingesting the variety of different substances present in trace amounts in drinking water. The volume included an extensive analysis on fluoride intake and concluded that “There is no generally accepted evidence that anyone has been harmed by drinking water with fluoride concentrations considered optimal.” Only two adverse health effects were identified including dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis “occurring when fluoride is at levels in excess of the concentrations recommended for good oral health.” This report can be purchased from the National Academy of Sciences and is identified as Library of Congress Catalog 77–089284 or International Standard Book Number 0-309-02619–9.
The 1993 NRC Report on Health Effects of Ingested FluorideExternal Web Site Icon
In 1993, the NRC concluded that the EPA maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L in drinking water was an appropriate standard and was safe for ingestion at levels considered optimal for oral health. The report also identified additional studies to address fluoride intake, dental fluorosis, bone strength, and carcinogenicity.
The 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s StandardsExternal Web Site Icon
In 2006, the NRC stated in this report that in developing regulatory standards for high levels of fluoride in drinking water, three adverse health effects warranted consideration: severe enamel (dental) fluorosis from exposure to these high levels between birth and 8 years of age, risk of bone fractures, and severe forms of skeletal fluorosis (a rare condition in the United States) after lifetime exposure.
See the Community Water Fluoridation: Questions and Answers for further information about the responsibilities of the EPA for setting standards for fluoride in water.
The 2007 NRC Report on Earth Materials and Health: Research Priorities for Earth Sciences and Public HealthExternal Web Site Icon
In this report, the NRC considered research issues related to the medical geology field on connections between earth science and public health, addressing both positive and negative societal impacts. This report identified fluoride as a mineral that can positively influence human health, and although earlier NRC reports were not conclusive in their opinions, this report concluded that fluoride was considered to be an element essential for human life based on its role in cellular functions involving metabolic or biochemical processes. The report further stated that fluoride in drinking water has two beneficial effects: preventing tooth decay (dental caries) and contributing to bone mineralization and bone matrix integrity.
Does CDC consider the opinion of the NRC on fluoride in drinking water in its own recommendation on community water fluoridation?
Yes, CDC considers comprehensive reviews by the NRC and other systematic scientific studies in its recommendation that community water fluoridation is a safe, effective, and inexpensive method to reduce tooth decay among populations with access to community water systems. Water fluoridation should be continued in communities currently fluoridating and extended to those without fluoridation.
LikeLike
Just check it out – http://livefreelivenatural.com/proves-water-fluoridation-murder/
LikeLike
livefreelivenatural is a perfect example of a website totally full of woo as defined as anti-science, pseudo science. Anti vaccine, 19 ways THEY are killing us with cancer (who is they? Government scientists of course.), chemtrails galore but all you have to do is purchase their magnets to purify your body.
Fluoridation is murder? At least some of these sites sound reasonable in the title. That one blows a seal right out of the gate.
What really sucks is that there are things wrong with our water, something is killing bees, our food system is broken driving towards processed food and monoculture. But if your answer to these problems our completely wrong and you fixate on them the right answers have a hard time being found because of all this junk in the way.
LikeLike
So, you don’t believe the scientist? Where else would you find this video? The ADA isn’t going to post it. The CDC isn’t going to post it. Obviously the websites are going to post the science and facts that they agree with. The pro-fluoride sites do it as well. Plus, a lot of things so “suck” in this country and our food system is broken (GMO’s). But those are different issues. I don’t want a hazardous waste by-product from China in my drinking water and I shouldn’t be forced to take medication.
LikeLike
Ran out of replies so posted this above Tracy’s question:
“So, you don’t believe the scientist?”
I am a scientist. (Researcher for 35 years at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute) Would I believe one scientist? Of course not. If I wanted to learn something about a scientific topic I needed to know something about I would first read consensus opinion from leaders in the field with established records of expertise in the field. Then I would read peer reviewed papers. I might later use Google Scholar to find more papers that focused more clearly on the parts I did not understand.
What I would not do is google for videos and take the word of one scientist in a video posted on a web site that had as its only mission the spreading of fear of the unknown for profit. Because I am a scientist a lot of people get the wrong impression that I know everything about science. Because of that I daily get the “what do you think of this” which half the time involves a new cure for cancer or something about a normal substance that suddenly can give us cancer. The first thing I usually ask is what website did they get the information from. That is why one thing I am now an expert in is what web sites are full of pseudo-science to sell and make a profit on selling fear. That is why I did not watch the video. Nor would I listen to one man especially if he gave over two thousand lectures on the topic in question. That is not a true scientist. That is a true believer.
LikeLike
Are you familiar with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix of the Forsyth Dental Institute? Check out her research, I did. I am not going by one scientist. We just have one who was gracious enough to except our invitation.
LikeLike
Many times in the history of medicine we have had breakthrough “miracles’ which, when studied in the long term turned out to be not so great. We considered estrogen a cure for many conditions until we linked it to breast cancer. DES was given to women to prevent miscarriages, but was later found to cause birth defects. The list goes on. Today when we listen to TV commercials there are many drugs advertised with a long disclaimer at the end with all the adverse effects. That’s because these drugs don’t just affect the disorder for which they are being given, they affect the whole body. Lipitor, used for cholesterol, can cause liver and muscle damage. Motrin can cause stomach and liver disorders. Fluoride doesn’t just affect our teeth.
When fluoride first came out the focus was on tooth decay prevention. We have had sixty years now and the opportunity to do many long term studies on the effects of fluoride on the whole body, not just the teeth.
The most incredible turn around on fluoridation is that of the EPA Union of Scientists and Engineers. These professionals are responsible for determining safe fluoride levels in our drinking water. They announced opposition to their own agency’s policy on fluoridation.
“Recent peer reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, requires an immediate halt to the use of our nation’s drinking water supplies as disposal sites for toxic wastes of the phosphate fertilizer industry…In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk.” (William Hirzy, PhD, Senior Vice President, EPA Headquarters Union, 2000)
When fluoridated water was used during dialysis it caused death, now they use filtered water, but kidney patients, as well as diabetics, infants and children, and the elderly are very susceptible to fluorides adverse effects. The Lancet Neurology, one of the oldest and most prestigious medical journals in the world, published a peer-reviewed article in March 2014 indicating that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin, in a class with arsenic and lead. It falls just below arsenic and just above lead in toxicity. It crosses the blood-bain barrier. It is linked to ADHD, Autism, cognitive disorders, and behavioral disorders which are not reversible.
WHEN IN DOUBT, GET IT OUT. There is no reason to continue adding fluoride, an industrial toxic waste product from China, to our water supply. If someone wants to take it, there are much more effecient ways to provide fluoride.
LikeLike
I’m eagerly awaiting Dr Bakland’s response because he is a man I can trust to cut separates the wheat from the chaff.
LikeLike
What would a dentist know about the harmful effects of fluoride on our liver, kidneys, bones, pineal glad and endocrine system? For them to claim ingesting fluoride is safe is irresponsible and simply isn’t true; it falls outside their area of expertise. You should seriously consider coming this weekend; you can even question Dr. Connett on your understanding of fluoride and what your dentist, doctors tell you; what is everyone afraid of?
LikeLike
I don’t know crop about fluoride. I’ll say it again for you- I trust the CDC. I trust my dentist and I trust my local board of health more than a guy selling a book. If any of those three change their stance I’ll reexamine it. But it’s easy to scare the crap out of people using terms like poison and working people up into a frenzy over numbers they don’t really understand. That’s why we hire dentists to fix our teeth and put trustworthy people on board of health, so we can listen to the people who have practiced medicine for years rather than listen to some rogue bookseller. I’m not even saying I won’t change my mind, what I am saying is I’m listening to people I know and trust
LikeLike
“Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed by the masses” – Plato
As long as you blindly follow the status quo, you will not change your mind. I say blindly because you say you don’t know crap about fluoride, yet you won’t listen to both sides. As long as you only listen to one side, you will blindly follow. I use to think nothing of water fluoridation, the internet has afforded us the great gift of information. The information on fluoride is alarming and we should be concerned.
LikeLike
What is funny to me is that you refuse to listen to local health officials who say it’s safe, which is fine for your decision making but when I say I trust my local health and dentist and the cdc that means my sources are no good.
You feel free to listen to who you want, I’m not saying you shouldn’t. Again I’ll reiterate my stance- I trust my local health officials. I trust my dentist with over 30 years in practice and I’ll trust the CDC. I do not have as must trust in a guy who is out promoting a book. If any of my aforementioned people came out with a position that said the amount of fluoride we are using is bad I would completely reexamine the subject. Until then I’m listening to those I trust and not someone who maybe a scaremonger riding a rest of fame on a rogue position.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I listened to the local health officials, I just don’t agree with them and I don’t think they have the expertise to say ingesting fluoride is safe. I understand the CDC endorses water fluoridation; it is my understanding that fluoride falls into the oral health department of the CDC, the Oral Health Department consist of 30 Dentist – not scientist. That is why I do not listen to the CDC. The EPA’s own Union of Scientist and Engineers do not endorse water fluoridation and have testified before Congress to try to stop the practice, much to no avail I’m afraid.
LikeLike
Hi Joey, evidently, fluoride is a hot topic. I will say that I am definitely for fluoridated water supply. It’s safe and effective. I’ve been in practice for over 30 years and have treated families from fluoridated and non fluoridated communities, there Is a difference!
LikeLike
The question is: are you aware of the long term harmful effects fluoride has on our bodies? You may not be, which is why the dental community should attend this weekends presentation. You have nothing to lose by attending; what is everyone afraid of?
LikeLike
Fluoride & Babies: DON’T MIX
Government, health and dental groups now caution that mixing infant formula with fluoridated water increases the risk of babies developing fluoride-discolored teeth – dental fluorosis, white spotted, yellow,brown and/or pitted teeth – with no benefit of less tooth decay (See http://www.FluorideDangers.Blogspot.com ) . Parents also need to know that fluoride in infant foods can contribute to fluorosis (reference: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/study-hidden-fluoride-in-infant-foods-can-mar-babies-teeth-251923331.html )
Because fluorosis is increasing in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, total fluoride intake should be closely monitored in the first 3 years of life, according to University of Iowa’s fluoride researcher, Stephen Levy, DDS, in the textbook “Fluoride and the Oral Environment.”
“ In the 1980’s a paradigm shift regarding the cariostatic mechanisms of fluorides was proposed. This considered that the predominant, if not entire, explanation of how fluorides control caries development is their topical effect,” he writes.
Even though the CDC reports up to 60% of adolescents are afflicted with dental fluorosis, 51% of them have cavities This is another reason why the US Dep’t of Health and Human Services recommends that water fluoride levels be lowered to 0.7 mg/L – which many states ignore.
Fluoridation began with the now disproven theory that ingested fluoride reduces tooth decay. Fluoride hardens outer enamel topically as with toothpaste. Swallowing fluoride only causes adverse effects. According to Dr. E. Angeles Martinez-Mier of the Indiana University School of Dentistry and a dental scientist who has worked more than 20 years on fluoride research, “the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendation of not using fluoride in baby formula was made because a study found that fluoride is not effective when the person has no teeth. She said she participated, not only in that study, but in four of the five CDC studies on fluoridation.” ( A)
Also, 18% of US adults have no teeth The toothless need to know that fluoridated water delivers them risks without benefits, also.
A CDC slogan is often used to promote fluoridation. However, the CDC wants you to know that “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe”
In fact, carefully reading CDC reports reveals fluoride doubts. CDC writes: “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…” and that ingested fluoride emerges from saliva to bathe teeth topically but that level is too low to prevent tooth decay
The CDC also admits that “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”
Preferably fluoridation should be stopped because it has been proven a dismal failure and harmful.
Tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities and states (See: http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com )
Fluoridation began in 1945 when it was wrongly believed that ingesting fluoride was safe without any consideration for how fluoridation could harm any body part that wasn’t a tooth. Now we know http://www.FluorideAction.Net/issues/health
LikeLike
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
HARVARD UNIVERSITY STUDY ON FLUORIDE AND ITS DETRIMENTAL EFFECTS.
LikeLike
This all goes to show that the debate is far from over. Fascinating stuff.
LikeLike
I think we have way too much time on our hands. I’m with Paul, I have to say. So yes, I have a bias. People, there are far more important issues out there. Just read the news. This is fiddling while Rome burns.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Fluoride is one of the easiest fixes to make in Rome or anywhere else. Simply stop adding it. There are far too many studies indicating that it causes serious health issues.
No one can argue with the Law of Halogen Displacement. It would be like arguing with the Law of Gravity. The halogen group is made up as follows, with atomic weight following: Fluorine 19, Chlorine 35.5, Bromine 80, Iodine 127. The clinical activity of these four halogens is in inverse proportion to its atomic weight. This means that nay one of hte four can displace the element with a higher atomic wight, but cannot displace an element with a lowe ratomic weight. For example, fluorine candisplace chlorine, bromine, and iodine because fluorine has the lower atomic weight than the other three. Chlorine can replace bromine and iodine, etc., but a reverse order is not possible.
To our body this means that when our thyroid gland produces Thyroxine 3, which means it has three receptors for iodine, if there is fluoride in our body the fluoride replaces the iodine at these receptor sites making the thyroxin 3 unusable by our bodies. In doing so it disrupts our endocrine system and our metabolism. Synthroid, a synthetic thyroid hormone is the third most prescribed drug in the U.S. There are over 70 million scripts written for synthetic thyroid hormones per year. Synthetic thyroid hormones increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer by 200%.
Consensus science is when enough people say something for so long it becomes true and unquestionable. This is not real science. Asbestos was safe, cigarettes were safe, Thalidomide was safe, Talcum powwder was safe for babies.
The science is out there, but you must go beyond the American Dental Association which reeived 28 million dollars in funding from 2006-2008 from Proctor and Gamble, Colgate, Smith-Kline, and other fluoride concerns. Toxicologists and epidemiologists study toxins and their effects on the whole body. Would you ask a podiatrist about cardiac surgery? Don’t ask a dentist about Fluoride’s effects on dementia and its affinity for aluminum and how it carries aluminum across the blood-brain barrier, or how the elderly in fluoridated areas have higher bone fracture rates, or why we have a virtual thyroid epidemic. Ask a toxicologist.
I hope everyone who has been following this comes to the fpresentations at Rockport High School Auditorium on August 2 and 3 at 7pm and listen to anit and pro fluoride experts discuss the issue.
LikeLike
But according to our city health officials they stated there are far too many studies advocating for its benefits
LikeLike
There’s a good way to set this record straight. why doesn’t Dr. BAkland and everyone else come to the Sunday evening open forum debate at the Rockport HIgh School Auditorium. Unless, of course, you don’t want to hear both sides of this issue! Challenge accepted!
LikeLiked by 1 person
An open forum with one speaker, the Dr. Paul Connett, who has spent the past years giving over 2,000 lectures for profit (it is on his website) to describe the toxicity of fluoride? Who is going to be on the other side? The pro-fluroide side of that debate?
There is not much money on the other side. Just the majority of scientists and concerned citizens. But there is not much money in speaking about the boring scientific and governmental guidelines.
But if you want to hear one weird side of the issue without dentists or scientists, Sunday evening is the time to convene.
LikeLike
The medical and dental community who claim that ..”in 33 years of practice have not seen one case of dental fluorosis.” Dr. Ben Polan, BOH ad hoc committee.
LikeLike
The ADA received 28 million dollars from fluoride concerns just between 2006 to 2008 so there’s plenty of money, just no argument. Why do the dentists and doctors here who are pro-fluoride need money to speak about it. Dr. Connett gives lectures on waste management more than fluoride and has been paid for them He offered his time to us for free and even offered to use his own air miles to get here. So get off the doing it for money spiel, it doesn’t work.
The dentists here have used fluoride their whole practices, often over thirty years, as Dr. Bakland stated. If he doesn’t have an argument to support it, he shouldn’t be talking about it.
LikeLike
He stated that in his thirty years he has seen a difference. How in the world you can say he shouldn’t have an opinion on it is beyond me. Oh but he doesn’t agree with you so I guess that goes in the anyone that doesn’t agree with me shouldn’t speak or have an opinion about it column.
Apparently you’d rather get angry with me when I’ve simply said I chose to take someone else’s advice. I’m not telling you who to listen to, I’m just stating who I choose to listen to and who I trust. Is it not OK to agree to disagree on who we choose to listen to?
It’s as if your mind is going to explode unless I agree with you. I’ve stated before and I’ll state it ASAP, if the local board of Health, my dentist or the CDC say that it’s a bad idea, I’ll reexamine my position. I don’t believe our own Board of Health is on the take and I’ll trustworthy I trust. I respect your decision to listen to who you want to listen to without getting angry.
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person