Beaumont, Texas, Considers Ending Water Fluoridation
Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) : Beaumont city water utilities director Hani Tohme told city council members that fluoride could be removed from the city’s treated water supply because the chemical corrodes pipes. The United States is one of few countries where water fluoridation is not either prohibited or shunned as outdated, inefficient and potentially harmful way of reducing tooth decay.
Ward II Council member Michael Gertz thanked Thome, adding that many constituents are concerned about fluoride. Ward I council member and dentist Dr. Allan Coleman bites back, claiming fluoridation is safe, effective, and that research provided by the “!Texas Dental Association” would prove it.
Water utilities director Hani Tohme in the Texan city Beaumont, told city council members that the concentration of fluoride in the water at a faucet in a city water customer’s home is .065 parts per million, adding that in a couple of weeks he would bring more date to the council to discuss.
The “beaumontenterprise.com” cites Tohme as saying that the problem, is the higher concentration of fluoride where it is added to the surface water supply at the city’s treatment plant on Pine Street.
Ward II Councilman Michael D. Gertz thanked Tohme for researching the issue and added that many of his constituents have expressed concerns about the effect of fluoride on public health.
The development in Beaumont comes as Dallas council members are working at ending water fluoridation against adamant opposition from Dallas County Dental Society. Equally adamant opposition is likely to be mounted in Beaumont.
The beaumontenterprise.com cites dentist and Ward I council member Dr. Alan Coleman as claiming that fluoride is safe and effective against tooth decay, and that he would make research from the Texas Dental Association available.
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 often ”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 along with the USA one of the few countries where fluoridation is still practiced or permitted.
USA and US Dental Associations are Internationally Isolated with Regard to Water Fluoridation.
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.
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.
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.
The Texas Dental Association is likely to bite back against any attempt to end the fluoridation of Beaumont’s water supply. Councilman Michael D. Gertz has good reason to the concerns of constituents, who contrary to Dental Associations, don’t have the backing of an industry that is backing aggressive pro-fluoridation campaigns, and “independent” research. One should presume that there has been a good reason for Dutch lawmakers to amend the constitution so that the practice of water fluoridation could not ever be introduced again.
Ch/L – nsnbc 01.05.2014
nsnbc international is free to read, free to subscribe to. – Get your free subscription at the bottom of this page. – nsnbc international is not state, corporate or foundation funded. Please consider showing your appreciation by using the “donate” button in the right column.