Dallas County Dental Society “Bites Back” Against Fluoridation Stop
Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) : Dallas County Dental Society responded to council members who plan stopping the fluoridation of the city’s water supply, stressing professional organizations and research verifies the benefit. Council members discuss ending fluoridation. Dallas could save about $1 million by ending fluoridation, argue council members. New studies strongly suggest that water fluoridation contributes to the epidemic rise in neuro-developmental disorders. The United States is one of the few nations, worldwide, in which water-fluoridation is practiced or even permitted.
The “fluoridation debate” in Dallas, Texas, continues. Dallas County Dental Society has begun to bite back.
Last Wednesday, three Dallas council members, including Sheffie Kadane, supported the ending of the fluoridation of the city’s water supply. The local NBC5 Dallas Fort Worth cited council member Kadane saying he had discussed ending fluoridation with City Manager A.C. Gonzalez, and as saying:
“We don’t need it and we’d just save a million dollars that we can use for something else. … We’re looking into seeing what we can do immediately so we can get those funds up front now.”
Kadane was backed by Council members Scott Griggs and Jennifer Staubach Gates. Anti-fluoridation activist Regina Imburgia said:
“Yeah. … This is major big. I knew we would prevail. It only makes sense. We’re spending too much money on an ineffective program”.
Anti-fluoridation advocates had lobbied the Dallas council for months. Wednesday’s support, by Dallas Council members Kadane, Griggs and Staubach Gates, for ending the practice which is prohibited or shunned in most European countries, came as a positive surprise for Imburgia. In a comment to a previous nsnbc report she wrote:
“I was excited to see you pick up this news story!! Councilman Kadane is a wise man. He realizes Dallas’ raw water already contains fluoride! The money spent on adding more fluoride can be put to better use! April 24, 2014 the RAW water level of fluoride exceeded the max the City has set!”
The Dallas County Dental Society responded to the developments, stressing that fluoridation programs are supported by more than 125 professional health-related organizations and years of peer-reviewed scientific research that verifies the benefit. The society issued a statement on Friday, saying that:
“We don’t want to see citizens of the city of Dallas jump on the anti-fluoridation bandwagon because of scare tactics and misinformation. We want to encourage all members of the public to contact us or their own dentist (or medical doctor) if they have questions,” said the Dallas County Dental Society, in a statement released Friday.
The fact that Dallas County Dental Association “bites back” is not surprising.
Anti-fluoridation advocates have consistently addressed incestuous relationships between dental associations and the fluoride industry. Another problem that is internationally addressed by independent scientists is that association or industry-funded research is”peer-reviewed” by industry funded “experts”.
The problem with incestuous relationships can be observed anywhere where fluoridation is practiced. Thus, the University of Melbourne has a “Colgate Chair of Population Oral Health”. Australia is one of the few countries where fluoridation is still practiced or permitted.
Internationally, the United States is increasingly coming under fire for incestuous relationships between its regulatory agencies and industry. Recent studies show that the US public is generally misinformed about the value of FDA approvals. A recent study by Harvard scientists, published in the Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics stressed that the USA is facing an epidemic of side effects due to corruption.
USA and Dallas County Dental Society are Internationally Isolated with Regard to Water Fluoridation.
European experts and public health experts, worldwide, repeatedly expressed that they are puzzled about water fluoridation in the USA, many of them are suggesting serious ethical flaws and incestuous relationships between US Dental Associations, regulatory agencies, and industry.
In 1975 German lawmakers rejected a heavily industry-sponsored, Europe-wide pro-fluoridation campaign, describing the practice as inefficient, irresponsible, and unnecessary.
In 1976, Dutch lawmakers banned fluoridation and amended the Dutch constitution to ascertain that the practice “could not ever be introduced again”.
In 1977, Danish law-makers rejected industry-funded pressure. The lawmakers in the Danish Capital Copenhagen stressed that there were no adequate studies about the effect of long-term exposure to fluoride available.
During the 1970s-80s, the Scandinavian countries Sweden, Norway and Finland (Suomi) all banned fluoridation, stressing that there were no sufficient data about the long-term health and environmental effects of the practice available.
Today, most European countries don’t fluoridate citizens drinking water. Lawmakers in the few remaining countries which still practice fluoridation are met by growing popular and professional demands to put an end to the practice. Indeed, more people drink fluoridated water in the USA than in the rest of the world combined.
Adverse Effects of Fluoridation. The internationally renown anti-fluoridation campaigner and expert on the issue, Dr. Paul Connet, cites 50 reasons to oppose fluoridation.
Dr. Connet’s concerns are largely identical with those of the European lawmakers who ended or even banned the practice. In an article, published on the website of the Fluoride Action Network, Connett argues among others, that:
Fluoridation is bad medical practice – Swallowing fluoride provides no (or very little) benefit – Children are being over exposed to fluoride – Evidence of harm to other tissues – There is no margin of safety – Environmental justice, targeting especially low-income families – Largely untested chemicals are used in fluoridation programs – Continued fluoridation is unscientific – More and more independent scientists oppose fluoridation – Proponents of fluoridation use dubious tactics, including censorship and intimidation. Connett points out that key health studies have not been done, stating:
In the January 2008 issue of Scientific American, Professor John Doull, the chairman of the important 2006 National Research Council review, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards, is quoted as saying:
What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long really—and now we need to take a fresh look . . . In the scientific community people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the top 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on.
Fluoride and the Epidemic Rise in Neuro-Developmental Disorders, including ADHD, Dyslexia and Autism.
Researchers from Harvard and Mount Sinai have recently added fluoride to a list of industrial chemicals known to cause developmental disorders including autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments which are affecting millions of children worldwide, and which seem to be increasing in frequency.
In an article, published in The Lancet, Philippe Grandjean MD from the Department of Environmental Health at the Harvard School of Public Health, and Philip Landrigan MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt Sinai, New York, state that industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for the rise in prevalence. Grandjean and Landrigan had previously identified five industrial chemicals, lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene, as environmental neurotoxicants.
Since 2006, however, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants, wrote the two researchers. These six additional toxins are manganese, fluoride,dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and polybromated diphenyl ethers.
Grandjean and Landrigan postulate that there are even more neurotoxicants which remain undiscovered, and propose a global prevention strategy to control what they describe as the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.
The two scientists warn that untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development and that chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
Grandjean and Landrigan suggest to coordinate these efforts and to accelerate the translation of science into prevention, and propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse. Grandjean and Landrigan’s study supports previous scientific studies which have correlated fluoride with developmental and cognitive impairment.
Regardless, the Dallas County Dental Society is biting back against council members Kadane, Griggs and Stabach Gates, as well as anti-fluoridation campaigners like Regina Imburgia. One could sum-up the situation by saying:
- The Dallas County Dental Society backs its bites by referring to 125, often industry funded professional associations and often industry funded, peer-reviewed studies which many European lawmakers reject as insufficient and riddled by ethical flaws and incestuous relationships.
- Dallas Council member’s considerations are based on economic factors but ending fluoridation makes sense, especially when independent scientists call for precaution, warn about serious neuro-developmental effects and incestuous relationships between regulatory bodies, research and industry.
- Independent studies show benefit from topical use of fluoride which can be applied with fluoridated toothpaste, while ingesting fluoride has shown little, if any effect against tooth decay.
To use the words of William Shakespeare, “there is something rotten in the state of Denmark (Dallas)” and it appears as if the pro-fluoridation lobby already has responded by pressuring local media into “warning citizens not to jump on a bandwagon”. To add international perspective. In New Zealand the local Waikato Times was caught redhanded in falsifying the results of an opinion poll about fluoridation.
Ch/L – nsnbc 28.04.2014