Commentary by Daria Barazandeh
As a resident of Chapel Hill and consumer of OWASA water who is deeply concerned about the effects of the commonly accepted practice of putting a toxic chemical in our water supply known as hydrofluorosilicic acid, or more commonly called fluoride, I have launched a local movement to have it stopped. The FDA classifies fluoride as a drug when used to treat or prevent disease and when added to the water, it is being used with the belief that it will prevent tooth decay. What happened to informed consent? Do we not have the right to refuse medication? Is this ethical?
How do we all accept this practice as normal and healthy by simply believing that the US Public Health Service had our best interests at heart in 1950 when they gave it a rubber stamp after poorly run/faulty studies led them to believe that it would help reduce cavities? Many involved in getting the US Public Health Service to endorse water fluoridation, including Andrew Mellon and Oscar Ewing, had financial interests with ALCOA (the aluminum manufacturer) as they were trying to figure out what to do with the fluoride that was left over after the company processed aluminum. The CDC and ADA followed suit with their endorsements based on the Public Health Service and few have questioned this since. It is important to note that although they endorse the practice of water fluoridation, there is not one health agency monitoring the health effects of it, nor has there ever been a single, randomized controlled trial to demonstrate the effectiveness or safety of fluoride.
Many people believe that fluoride is “natural” so it must be okay to ingest it. But so is arsenic. And lead. Did you know that OWASA’s fluoride is a by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry that has no safe way to dispose of it otherwise, since dumping it in lakes or on land kills all vegetation and animal life within a 100 mile radius? Some rationalize it with the thought that maybe it’s okay to drink since it’s in small doses. But the dose one gets is dependent upon how much water they drink and their size, as well as their overall physical health. As a grown woman, I am getting much less fluoride every day with my 8 glasses of water (I should be drinking) than my 4 year old who drinks water all day long.
It has taken grass roots efforts in municipalities and small towns around the country ever since the public started to become aware of the toxicity of what is being put in our water, to get town councils to pay attention to the mounting evidence that mass medicating 70% of the US population with fluoride in their drinking water not only does not help prevent cavities (the CDC has acknowledged that fluoride’s use is topical, not systemic), but causes serious damage to the thyroid, lowers IQ, is a known neurotoxin, and causes dental and bone fluorosis. Not to mention that it’s an infringement on our rights.
Since 2010, at least 220 municipalities have stopped fluoridating their water around the world. 97% of Western Europeans do not drink fluoridated water. When you look at a chart from the World Health Organization that tracks dental caries in developed countries in 12-year olds, whether they are drinking fluoridated water or not, the chart shows a sharp decline in all countries over time, causing one to conclude that the issue in reducing the rate of dental decay is about education and access to dental care.
In 2012, upon discovering I was drinking fluoridated water, I approached the OWASA board to request that they end this outdated practice and invited them to read some of the science and medical information available, including the book by chemist Dr. Paul Connett, “The Case Against Fluoride.” I also requested that Dr. Connett be invited to speak with them, as he does worldwide with other communities open to discussing this topic, even if it was via Skype. The OWASA board declined, stating that they didn’t have the technology to Skype someone in to a meeting. Upon leaving that meeting, a woman approached me in the lobby of Chapel Hill Town Hall saying, “They are lying to you. I am the AV person here and I have Skyped people in to their meetings many times. They just want to get rid of you.”
After many OWASA meetings, providing the members with countless articles and even a copy of the book for each, they said they would hold a fair debate with two professionals, OF THEIR CHOOSING, representing both sides of the issue. In the end, a meeting was held in May 2013; both professionals were pro-fluoridation and the board said we would continue this practice and no further discussion was welcome at their meetings. It was a sham of a debate. They stated they had spent one year discussing it and believed they gave it fair time and had not been convinced, but it was a set up from the start, with a pre-determined outcome.
On Feb 2, 2017 we had the fluoride overfeed incident, causing a water crisis in our community, bringing the overall issue of water fluoridation to light again. Several of those concerned in the community appeared at the OWASA board meetings immediately following and continue to do so. Every person from the public who has come to the meetings to speak about the subject has been in favor of removing fluoride from our water. The only people who have spoken in support of it are faculty and staff from the UNC Dental School, in addition to OWASA board members and staff. There is one member of the OWASA board, Yinka Ayankoya, who has gone on record as being against the practice of water fluoridation.
Our movement is growing, however, we need more public support in order to get the attention of the board to be able to effect change. Rather than placing the responsibility of proving there is danger in ingesting hydrofluorisilicic acid on the public and continuing to force it on us in the meantime, I challenge those in power to scientifically prove that water fluoridation causes no harm to the human body and significantly reduces tooth decay such that it is worth the risk.
If you are open and interested, I invite you to:
- do some real reading to educate yourself rather than just believing the government and corporate endorsements, dismissing the concerns without doing the research
- join us on Facebook at “FLUORIDE FREE CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO”
- sign our change.org online petition here
- get more information about this issue from fluoridealert.org
- join us at OWASA board meetings the fourth Thursday of each month at 7pm at the Chapel Hill Town Hall building where you can be one of the voices that is asking to be heard by petitioning the board to look at the facts with an open mind, rather than just repeating the same tired lines that have been repeated for decades
This is a local movement that needs your voice. Every voice matters.
Fluoridated Countries Do Not Have Less Tooth Decay Than Non-Fluoridated Countries
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between developed countries that fluoridate their water and those that do not.
Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can affect your bones, brain, thyroid gland, pineal gland and even your blood sugar levels.
In regard to the conglomeration of false claims and misinformation in this commentary:
1. Hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is not “more commonly called fluoride”. Fluoride is an anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. HFA is a compound containing fluoride ions. A compound is not “more commonly called” an atom. Once HFA releases its fluoride ions into water, it no longer exists in that water. HFA does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is of no concern, whatever. The fluoride ions released by HFA, or any other compound, are identical to those fluoride ions which have always existed in water.
2. Obviously what Ms. Barazandeh has “launched” is a campaign of misinformation sourced from antifluoridationist factions in New York.
3. The FDA does not classify fluoride as a drug when added to public drinking water supplies. The FDA has no jurisdiction over the contents of such supplies. This jurisdiction falls entirely under the US EPA.
Fluoride has always existed in water. Humans have ingested it in that water since the beginning of time. For antifluoridationists to suddenly proclaim this ion to be a drug is obviously ridiculous.
4. Informed consent applies to treatment rendered. It does not apply to a decision of local officials to adjust the concentration level of existing minerals in drinking water supplies under their jurisdiction. If Ms. Barazandeh desires informed consent before she lifts a glass of water to her lips, she is certainly free to inform herself, then give or not give consent to herself prior to “administering” that glass of water to herself.
5. The only ethical violations in regard to water fluoridation are the efforts by uninformed antifluoridationists such as Ms. Barazandeh to deprive entire populations of the valuable benefits of this public health initiative, based on nothing but false statements, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science, and misinformation.
6. Yes, we have the right to refuse medication. This, however, has no relevance to water fluoridation. No court of last resort has ever upheld the “forced medication” nonsense of antifluoridationists.
7. Water fluoridation has never been “rubber stamped” by anyone. It is an initiative born out of the observation early in the last century, that populations served by water supplies which had a certain level of fluoride in them, exhibited greater resistance to dental decay than similar populations which consumed water without that level of fluoride. After years of observing populations with different levels of fluoride, it was determined that the optimal level of fluoride in drinking water, at which maximum benefit was obtained, with no adverse effects, was 1.0 ppm. In order to allow for different levels of water consumption due to different climates, the USPH, in 1962, set the official recommended optimal level of fluoride as a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. In 2015, in response to recent science showing there to no longer be a difference in water consumption due to climate, the US DHHS eliminated the range and reset the optimal level recommendation at the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm
8. Conspiracy nonsense, while an integral part of antifluoridationist beliefs, is meaningless and irrelevant.
9. There has indeed been monitoring of the health effects of fluoride in drinking water. The US EPA which oversees the contents of drinking water supplies, periodically has an exhaustive review of fluoride literature performed for the purpose of evaluating the adequacy of EPA mandated maximum levels of fluoride in drinking water, the primary and secondary MCLs of 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm, to protect the public against adverse effects. These reviews have occurred in 1977, 1993, and 2006, the latest being the 3 year review by the NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. In addition, the EPA conducts extensive reviews of its water quality standards every 6 years.
As clearly noted by the 2000 York Review and its update, the 2015 Cochrane Review, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are infeasible for large population-based public health initiatives such as water fluoridation, and will therefore never be performed for fluoridation. Given this, peer-reviewed observational studies are the next best thing, and provide information which is entirely acceptable by respected science and healthcare.
While there are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation, during the entire 72 year history of this initiative, there have been no proven adverse effects…..in spite of continuous, ongoing efforts by antifluoridationists to find anything they could claim to be an adverse effect of optimally fluoridated water. Zero.
10. The transparent attempt to associate optimal level fluoride with substances such as arsenic and lead is a ploy frequently employed by antifluoridationists. Arsenic and lead are irrelevant to fluoride. Water is naturally occurring. Does this mean we should ceasing consuming water because arsenic and lead are also “natural”?
11. The substance most widely utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is a co-product of the process which extracts the other co-product, phosphoric acid, from naturally occurring phosphorite rock. Phosphoric acid is used in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into foods that we eat. The HFA co-product is diluted to a 23% aqueous solution which is utilized to fluoridate water systems. To irrationally fear one co-product of this process is to irrationally fear the other.
Once introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water (~7), the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts that are so far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainly that those detected aren’t that already exist in water naturally. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested.
12. When the maximum “dose” of a substance one can ingest is below the level of adverse effects, then “dose” is not of concern in regard to such effects. This is the case for chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, and the myriad other substances routinely added to water supplies.
Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. The US CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water.
The US Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. As can be noted from a simple math equation, before the daily upper limit of fluoride intake could be attained in association with optimally fluoridated water, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
The range of safety between the minuscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue.
13. The “grassroots efforts in municipalities and small towns around the country” are nothing but campaigns of misinformation unleashed onto communities, by antifluoridationists who rely solely on misinformation from antifluoridation factions.
14. The CDC has not “acknowledged that fluoride’s use is topical, not systemic”. The CDC has stated in the past that the effects of fluoride are predominantly topical. “Predominantly” does not mean “solely”.
In actuality, the effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic. The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which is the only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with optimally fluoridated water. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically.
Additionally, saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing if the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.
15. With the exception of mild dental fluorosis, there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimal level fluoride “causes serious damage to the thyroid, lowers IQ, is a known neurotoxin, and causes dental and bone fluorosis.”.
16. No one’s rights are infringed by optimally fluoridated water. There is no “right” to having fluoride-free water. People are entirely free to consume fluoridated water, or not, their choice.
17. Since 2000, more than 450 communities have either defeated antifluoridationist attempts to deprive their citizens of fluoridation, or initiated fluoridation. Over the past two years alone there have been nearly 50 communities to have done so. According to the latest CDC reports, water fluoridation in the US has increased from 73.4% in 2011 to 74.5% in 2014.
18. The “chart from the World Health Organization” is a graph concocted by personnel of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”. It is nothing more than a misrepresentation of WHO data in which a couple of points are cherry-picked from a cluster of points for each country, plotted on a graph, and claimed to be a “trend”. This type of misrepresentation is characteristic of antifluoridationists.
19. Paul Connett is a retired chemist in New York, founder of the antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”. In spite of promoting himself as being some sort of “expert” on fluoridation, he has not one, single piece of peer-reviewed scientific information on fluoridation to his name. His book is nothing but a non peer-reviewed piece of conspiracy nonsense, and his own personal opinions. The OWASA was indeed prudent not to waste its time reading his book, or listening to his presentation of erroneous claims.
20. Hydrofluorosilic acid is not ingested. Therefore, any danger of ingesting this substance is meaningless and irrelevant.
21. Ms. Barazandeh’s “movement” is nothing new for this area. Antifluoridationists have been repeatedly denied in their efforts at misinforming the public here, for decades. Each time they rear their heads here, intelligent leaders have performed due diligence, heeded the peer-reviewed science and recommendations of those most qualified to render appropriate ones, and have rejected their nonsense.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
I’m going to have to see your evidence of Paul Connett referring to himself as an “expert”.
When he came to our city, I asked him if I should introduce him as an expert, and he said: ” I don’t like that word”. Please show the evidence to back your claim.
I am also interested in having you provide the complete WHO data to back your claim that data points have been “cherry picked”.
I know you are aware that the CDC has said that the fluoride level found in the saliva of those living in fluoridated areas would not have any effect on decay compared to the level found in those living in non-fluoridated area. I thought the CDC was an esteemed organization. Who is wrong, you or them?
David Green
Oh my….I certainly don’t want to leave you with an unfulfilled need for things you are “going to have to see”, so let me see if I can help you out a bit.
1. In regard to Connett promotion as an “expert” :
A. From a headline on the website of Connett’s “fluoride action network” an antifluoridationist faction he founded, directed, and for which he now serves as Senior Advisor”:
“LEADING WATER FLUORIDATION EXPERT PROF PAUL CONNETT TO TOUR NEW ZEALAND”
http://fluoridealert.org/news/leading-water-fluoridation-expert-prof-paul-connett-to-tour-new-zealand/
B. From Ron Greinke, a member of Connett’s “fluoride action network”:
“On May 4, a public debate between Paul Connett, the most distinguished and nationally recognized anti-water fluoridation expert, and a pro-fluoridation advocate will offer Meadville citizens an opportunity to ask questions.”
http://www.meadvilletribune.com/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/letter-chemist-thanks-meadville-for-opportunity-to-inform/article_8b6578da-1fcc-11e7-84fe-7f7a1dd877ab.html#
“Ron Greinke of Medina is a retired Ph.D research chemist who was a corporate fellow for a local company and received the Pergamon Press Prize for one of his peer-reviewed publications. He is a member of the Fluoride Action Network.”
http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/10/fluorides_in_the_water_do_more.html
C. From Fluoride-Free Peel, an antifluoridationist faction in your country of Canada:
“Fluoride Toxicity Expert Paul Connett’s Commentary on Peel’s Illegallly Closed Fluoridation Meeting of January 21st, 2016”
http://www.fluoridefreepeel.ca/fluoride-toxicity-expert-paul-connetts-commentary-on-peels-illegallly-closed-fluoridation-meeting-of-january-21st-2016/
D. From a presentation by Connett in Denver
“Fluoride Expert Dr. Paul Connett Speaks To Denver Water”
—https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IgE9_bBI5hU
2. Regarding. WHO data
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/fluoridation-connetts-naive-used-of-who-data-debunked/
3. In regard to your half-truth plucked out-of-context from a CDC report ….the following is the CDC statement on salivary fluoride content, in its complete context:
“Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas (27). This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity. However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1–2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization (28).”
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
So now, other people referring to Paul as an expert is the same as Paul promoting himself as an expert? Bizarre.
Thanks for posting the statement from the CDC showing how their: ” This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity…” was translated by you into saliva fluoride providing “a very effective means of dental decay prevention”. Who is mistaken?
If you don’t have the WHO data I asked for, just say so. I am not saying Ken’s complaint wasn’t valid, but does it mean that the numbers for all the other countries most recent data (in other words, the last data point) is not accurate?
If that were the case, don’t you think the WHO would be suing Paul for misrepresenting their data?
It must be hard on your brain to never admit a mistake. What does your therapist say?
David Green
Since you obviously have not read the CDC statement either before you posted an out-of-context portion you copy/pasted from “fluoridealert”, or when I posted the full paragraph, here is the pertinent portion of that paragraph:
“However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1–2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization (28).”
The concentration reported to “not likely to affect cariogenic activity” is that fluoride level before it is raised 100-1000 fold by drinking fluoridated water, use of dental products, etc. One to two hours after this spike the fluoride concentration in saliva goes back to the previous level. Consuming optimally fluoridated water all during the day keeps the concentration of fluoride in the saliva at that peak level.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
D. Green says, “So now, other people referring to Paul as an expert is the same as Paul promoting himself as an expert? Bizarre.”
It’s not bizarre at all. If Connett is running the website, and a headline on the website says, ““LEADING WATER FLUORIDATION EXPERT PROF PAUL CONNETT TO TOUR NEW ZEALAND,” . . . then clearly he is not disagreeing with it.
What is bizarre is that you are actually trying to pass yourself off as a no-spin shill.