Fluoride – a saga (part three)

 

So by this stage I bet you’re wondering what fluoride is! Either that or you’ve just landed here from twitter at exactly the right moment….

Fluoride is actually represented in a collection of simple chemicals (fluorides) naturally occurring in all bodies of water. 

Evidence for fluoridation stems from research by Dean et al (1942) who showed low doses of fluoride protect against tooth decay. The fluoride concentration of samples was no greater than 2 ppm and most fluoridation programs operate to 1 ppm. To put this into perspective two foods naturally concentrated with fluoride, tea (1-2 ppm) and seafood (1-3ppm) can have more fluoride than fluoridated water. Whereas vegetables can also have notable fluoride content, this may not be independent of the area having a fluoridation system in place. 

Fluoride stops tooth decay by strengthening the surface of teeth during childhood when the second set of teeth are still inside the gums and by preventing the bacterial growth inside the mouth, allowing recovery of weak points.

It is true that care should be taken in the first eight years of life to not over-consume fluoride as the Enamel can be damaged causing permanent mottling of teeth. While most toothpastes contain up to 1000ppm, there are newer child-friendly products aimed at children who commonly over-use tooth pastes. These often have a limit of 400ppm fluoride. 

Keep in mind that non-fluoridated bottled water is responsible for 50% of tooth decay in 6yos; there is a place for less fluoridated products and potential users may want to seek advice from a dentist. (For more information regarding fluoride and dental hygiene see the Australian Dental Association Inc. and the British Fluoridation Society including expert opinion on fluoride use.) 

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Political Action

In the NSW parliament the opposition introduced a Bill (last year) which would have given control of water fluoridation to the Government. It was hoped this would quash debates in the municipal council chambers of Lismore and Byron Bay Shire, yet the Bill was rejected and the decision to fluoridate still rests with local councils. The QLD parliament seems to have gotten to the same point but from the opposite direction. The previous Labor government under Anna Bligh brought all fluoridation matters under state-control, only to have the incoming Liberal government reverse the decision back to the local level. QLD has had historically low levels of fluoridation but is now on par with other states.

It is interesting that nutritional guidelines be delayed for 40-some years after fluoridation of drinking water commenced in 1945 (US, Michigan), 1954 (NZ, Hastings), and 1953 (AU, Beaconsfield HOBART). US/Canada were first to adopt recommended daily intake guidelines for fluoride in 1997, followed by Europe (2001/2002) then  Australia/New Zealand (2005). Despite its benefit authorities have been slow to classify fluoride as an essential nutrient owing to the fact that it isn’t necessary for life. Fluoride does save lives, although indirectly as it prevents tooth decay which can lead to septicaemia / septic shock causing multi-organ failure and death! A less dramatic reason for its acceptance as an essential nutrient could be the great improvement to quality of life when taken as a preventative agent (as is the case when drinking water is treated).

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

Maybe supporters of water fluoridation need not be so fearful of a dramatic increase in dental caries. This is certainly the picture painted by the UK which has 10% fluoridation and has dental caries rates much lower than previous generations thanks to fluoridated toothpastes and topical treatments offered by dentists. This would require conscious and responsible action by the public to purchase fluoridated tooth pastes and visit their dentist regularly. Oh and people who cannot afford the dentist will be left without the public health  safety net that cheap water fluoridation currently provides.

If lobbyists want public justice on issues important to them they need to highlight were the lack of evidence lies and fight for a mandate for scientific clarification. This is a long road and seems beyond the capacity of many entrants to the anti-fluoride camp.

Jack

____________________________________________________________________________

 

Please remember that I’m a dietetics STUDENT, so none of my opinions should be trusted! PLEASE consult an Accredited Practicing Dietitian (APD) or your GP before applying anything discussed in this blog to your diet or exercise regime

Fluoride – a saga (part two)

Image: http://openparachute.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/fluoridation-the-violation-of-rights-argument/

Its unfortunate that simple fluoride has become controversial. Its a mute topic, never has any confirmed-evidence of fluoridated water causing harm emerged. In fact all the ‘evidence’ has in been in the form of internet memes. Meme: a pairing of pictures and words in which one party must humorously or shockingly complement the other. But I’m sure these are not that sort, these would be highly respectable works of scientific rigour which have stood the tests of time and countless challenges, no? Ah they must have just run out of time for all that, maybe they’re just desperate.

A good example of this is the commonly circulated meme of the ‘toxic if ingested’ label of a highly concentrated bottle of fluoride solution, the caption tries to recruit readers to campaign against their local fluoridation authority. The problem here is that too much of any nutrient will kill us, and that the bottle has many times over the limit for fluoride intake compared with our water supplies. Another silly piece of pseudo-evidence is a ‘land-mark’ Harvard meta-analysis article , often cited as proof that fluoridation affects the brain and lowers the IQ of children. I feel sorry for these authors whose hard work has been taken completely out of context.

The blatant disregard for science by lobbyists is unsurprising when the groups have shown how low they are willing to go, making death threats to the NSW health minister and the NSW chief medical officer while heckling them as they arrived to give evidence at a local council enquiry. These acts and the materials produced show a true ignorance of scientific rigour and a lack of respect for the transparency of the scientific and medical communities. The main anti-fluoride theories are listed below, along with the reasons for their inaccuracies.

The Free Will Arguement

Theorists blame parents uneducated or uncaring of their child’s dental hygiene for ‘mass medication’ of ‘toxic’ fluoride. This obviously appeals to a certain type of person who has a particular dislike of a welfare state. This theory has been tested countless times in US courts but never been won.

The Mind Control Arguement

Now comes the most absurd, that our very minds can be altered using fluoride, that water fluoridation is a form of government control with its roots in Nazi Germany. It’s said that IG Farben, producer of dyes and industrial chemicals fundamental to Nazi Germany’s success was also involved in polluting enemy countries water supply with fluoride to cause “slight damage to a specific part of the brain” making drinkers docile. There is of course no evidence for this, in fact history would have shown masses of people in countries surrounding Germany becoming zombified. Looking at other available evidence (science, physiology and anatomy) we see that there is no biological credibility to this theory as the pineal gland has nothing to do with behaviour.

The Invention Arguement.

That water fluoridation was invented by chemical companies to get rid of waste product (fluorides), but also raise money. This theory usually involves the chemical companies concocting fake science to show its effect on tooth decay so that they can flog it off to local governments. Yes, most fluoride comes from industry as it provides a cheap, sustainable and dependable supply, but there is nothing more to this theory.

A popular and persevering theory is that of Christopher Bryson author of “The Fluoride Deception” which is grounded in the above ‘invention’ theory. Bryson also questions the mechanism for action in preventing tooth decay, not directly but deeper within the body where he believes there is damage being done. The book uses logical, intelligent, and convincing arguments. For instance; do you know how much fluoride you’re exposed to, does your dentist? The answer is generally no, but I’ll hazard a guess and say it doesn’t much matter due to the ease fluoride’s removal from the body and its safety. The book draws you in with command of the descriptive language and hyperbole, once captive the arguments presented don’t seem half bad but only until you close the book and leave the author’s world.

TBC

________________________________________________________________________________

Bye for now.

Jack

Please remember that I’m a dietetics STUDENT, so none of my opinions should be trusted! PLEASE consult an Accredited Practicing Dietitian (APD) or your GP before applying anything discussed in this blog to your diet or exercise regime

Fluoride – a saga (part one).

Image: http://www.deardoctor.com/articles/fluoride-in-dentistry/

Ruin a night of food, wine, and fun with lively discussion about the placement of traffic lights and speeding cameras, about obesity and government responsibility or even about private vs public schooling (my favourite). These topics are offer far more productive discussion, I’m not saying that you’ll be singing kumbayah but at least some of your guests might walk away enlightened to the merits in your view (and you in their’s). The fluoride debate on the other hand will get you nowhere.

Better topics serve in the outcome of their debate and in our enjoyment. Each night we watch politicians stumble over a barrage of questions that they have no hope in answering; and really who wants that fun to stop? Current affair shows such as 7:30 and QandA are great, most of the time its like watching apes learning quantum mechanics through interpretive dance. The polly always tries his or her best to act with grace and poise but they usually slip up and say something idiotic (much to my pleasure). I’m sure there’s a handler of theirs just off-screen with a cracker waving it too and fro and trying to keep them on track.

Put bluntly this nutrient doesn’t do enough (yes it’s a nutrient now) and is easily removed from the body. That’s right, no need to detox* like some conspiracists believe. The mechanisms for its removal are well understood simple concepts for biologists (you may just have to take my word for it). Proving this point, scientists have measured the fluoride our body loses (faeces, urine, and sweat) and accounted for the amount stored in our bones then balanced this with our intake to show that there are no large harmful depositions anywhere in the body. Loss + Stored (bone) = Intake.

*Sidenote: There is never a good time to detox since our bodies are detoxing machines, they’ve got our back’s and don’t like us to help*. Our consciousness is like that skinny lanky kid from your childhood football or netball team, the one who can’t catch but tries really really hard. Better for the body to do its thing, while you do yours (*unless our kidney’s fail).

Anyway digs at politicians aside, people really need to start giving fluoride a break! Or at least the few causing all the fuss and capturing our attention with conspiracy theories with little or no scientific backing. Here’s a list of all the best sources I could find on the topic, notice how none of them say that fluoride can accumulate in our brains causing cancer or mind control.

• The global increase in dental caries. A pending public health crisis. [PubMed: 19281105].
• One in a million: The facts about fluoridation 
•  Domestic water and dental caries. [DOI: 10.2307/4584182]
•  Fluoridation of water and cancer mortality in the USA. [PubMed: 68395].
•  Systematic review of water fluoridation. [PubMed: 11021861].
•  Royal College of Physicians (1976) Fluoride, teeth and health.
•   A Summary of an Enquiry by the Royal College of Physicians into Water Fluoridation 
• An examination of the relationship between fluoridation of water and cancer mortality in 20 large US cities. [PubMed: 6930028].

The real danger really is the momentum that these lobbyists can produce with cheap social media, because not only are they raising awareness for their cause (which I find admirable), but they try to educate at the same time (using wacky pseudoscience). The result is high impact hyperbole describing Fluoride as an invented substance that we must detoxify ourselves of, lest we get brain cancer, kidney damage, damage to our very DNA, gastrointestinal damage, become mind controlled emotionless zombies, or god-forbid have greater protection from tooth decay (yeah its pretty magical).

While people with a basic knowledge of biology probably have a good laugh about how ridiculous the claims are, your average non-science person may be a little unsure, especially their evidence can be convincing at first glance.

TBC

___________________________________________________________________

Bye for now.

Jack

Please remember that I’m a dietetics STUDENT, so none of my opinions should be trusted! PLEASE consult an Accredited Practicing Dietitian (APD) or your GP before applying anything discussed in this blog to your diet or exercise regime