|

























































| |

| I receive a lot of mail, and most of it is fairly complimentary.
However, sometimes I get flames, and most often it is from someone who has an ax
to grind about amalgam or another dental material which I advocate. I
present here an example of one which is unique because the writer makes a lot of
claims against fluoride which are fairly common in conspiracy theorist circles.
I am much indebted to him for giving me the opportunity to rebut each of his
claims with appropriate links to prove my case. |
|
I call this letter:
Dear Doctor Dumb Ass
Both elemental fluorine and fluoride ions are highly toxic.
Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production,
according to the documents. Massive quantities of fluoride –
millions of tons – were essential for the manufacture of
bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout
the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known,
fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard
of the U.S atomic bomb program--both for workers and for nearby
communities, the documents reveal. Much of the original proof
that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by
A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to
provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense
contractors for fluoride injury to citizens.
Fluoride was found to be an
equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute
Toxicological Program.
Further studies by the New
Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold
increase in bone cancer in young males.
Earlier studies had found a
5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated
communities.
Opaque white spots and
brown ugly teeth caused by fluoride is called Fluorosis.
Fluorosis currently affects one out of five or more
children in this nation although it is rarely seen in
California. California is the least fluoridated state
with less than 16% of the population drinking
artificially fluoridated water.
Fluoride is not
effective in reducing tooth decay. No correlation
was found between the level of fluoride in water and
dental caries.
The FDA
considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for
which there is no proof of safety or
effectiveness. The FDA does not consider
fluoride an essential nutrient.
The
International Academy of Oral Medicine and
Toxicology has classified Fluoride as an
unapproved dental medicament due to its high
toxicity.
THE POINT IS DOCTOR DUMB ASS ANY
FLUORIDE POISON!!!!!!!!!
|
The reality
(My Reply)
My correspondent's observations
are in blue.
My replies are indented and in black.
"Fluoride
was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents.
Massive quantities of fluoride – millions of tons – were essential for the
manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons
throughout the Cold War."
Fluoride is used in an intermediate step in the
processing of of U-235, the radioactive metal used in nuclear reactors
and in atom bombs. Uranium hexafluoride is a gas. This gas
is placed in a very expensive gas centrifuge and the U-235 is separated
from U-238 because of a very marginal difference in the mass of the two
isotopes. Once the uranium hexafluoride containing the correct
isotope is separated from the others, it is further processed to form
pure metallic uranium-235 which is the active ingredient in both nuclear
reactors and in nuclear weapons. During this processing step,
all the fluoride is removed. There is no fluoride in the
nuclear fuel used in either atomic bombs, or in nuclear reactors.
Finally, the fluoride used during processing is recycled and reused in
refining new batches of uranium-235
The mythology that somehow fluoride is involved in the
lethality of nuclear weapons goes back to a newspaper article written by
Chris Bryson & Joel Griffiths, and commissioned by the
Christian Science Monitor in the spring of 1997.
The Monitor is a reputable publication and they stake
their reputation on the integrity of the material they print. The
authors made clear that the information in the article was based on
"hundreds of declassified documents". Unfortunately, if there ever
were any documents, they apparently did not prove the thesis of the
article, because the Christian Science Monitor who paid for the article
refused to publish it. Furthermore, you will not find a link to
any of these documents anywhere on the web, including on the most
ardent antifluoridationist site. (Note that every link on my page
connects directly to an independent source, most of them to government
sites which can be verified by looking for the .gov domain in the
address bar at the top of your browser.)
The article itself centers on a series of 1944 lawsuits
against the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company chemical factory in
Deepwater, New Jersey. The factory was then producing fluoride for the
Manhattan project, the ultra-secret U.S. military program racing to
produce the world's first atomic bomb. The suits asserted that
there was a massive industrial release of toxic fluoride compounds into
the local environment, and the
government was responsible because it held the contract. The
article tries to draw a link between:
-
The atomic bomb
-
Stonewalling by the government
-
The injuries to persons and property by a
massive industrial
release of toxic fluoride compounds
-
Fluoridation of municipal water supplies as
a public health measure
Q. One of these things does not belong
with the others. Can you guess which one?

A. The concentration of fluoride added to
municipal water supplies is minute in comparison to the amount that would be required to
produce the toxicity alleged in the lawsuits. Furthermore,
fluoride in municipal water systems has absolutely nothing to do
with atomic bombs!
Antifluoridationists claim that the Bryson/Griffiths article is
the most censored article in the US. However, the facts don't
support this contention since the article is reprinted on huge
numbers of antifluoridationist websites. You can find the
article featured, or referred to, on about 35,300 sites (at time of
this writing) just by Googling the authors' names;
Chris Bryson
& Joel Griffiths.
"Much of
the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was
generated by A-bomb program scientists, who had been secretly ordered to
provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defense contractors for
fluoride injury to citizens."
As
a matter of fact, Dr. H Trendley Dean and a team from the US public health
service had spent ten years studying the effects of naturally occurring
fluoride on the dental health of 7000 children in four southwestern states from 1931 until 1941.
While the team's emphasis was on determining the effects of fluoride on
teeth, they observed no ill effects on overall health caused by the
differing concentrations of fluoride in the drinking water of the various
populations they studied. It was Dr Dean and his team that established the
optimum fluoride concentration for cavity prevention without fluorosis at 1 ppm
(parts per million). It is likely that the government called on
scientists involved in that study to defend itself in the 1944 litigation
against the E.I. du Pont du Nemours Company. It is also possible
that some of those scientists were also involved in the development of
the atomic bomb. However, the observations made by Dean and his team
had already established the safety and efficacy of low concentrations of
fluoride in drinking water well before the invention of the atomic bomb or
the chemical spill that caused the
lawsuit. The first public health experiment in the use of
intentionally fluoridated water was carried out in 1945 in the city of
Grand Rapids, Michigan. Grand Rapids was paired with the city of
Muskegon, Michigan which received no fluoride in their water. The
experiment was performed to see whether deliberate addition
of fluoride at 1 ppm to a water supply that had little natural fluoride
would provide the same benefits as had been observed in the 1931 - 1941
study. Over a period of ten years, the children of Grand Rapids developed
60% fewer cavities than the children of Muskegon. During the same
period, other paired cities were selected to widen the experiment. All
showed the same results. No adverse health effects were noted during this experiment,
and as the results of this experiment began to leak out, even before the
official results were released, neighboring cities began their own
fluoridation programs. This effect snowballed until today
approximately 65% of all US citizens drink water from municipal water
supplies that are fluoridated at 1 ppm.
"Fluoride was found to be
an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological
Program."
Wrong!! Nothing could be further from the truth!
(actually, I think he meant unequivocal)
The National Cancer Institute has the following on their web
page: (click
here to see the actual page)
|
Many studies, in both humans and animals,
have shown no association between fluoridated water and risk for
cancer. |
Further studies
by the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in
bone cancer in young males.
| In April 2006, a preliminary study was published that observed
an association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and
the incidence of osteosarcoma in young males . No apparent
association was found in females. (Bassin EB, Age-specific
fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma) The
author acknowledges that this study has limitations and further
research is required to confirm or refute this observation.
This study is addressed by the US CDC at
this link. "The principal investigator for the overall study cautions
against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin
analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of
cases does not appear to replicate the findings (Douglass et al.,
2006)."
"The weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent
committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review
of the findings of individual studies does not support an
association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral
health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma." |
The New Jersey Department of Health website does not cite
this study. The only mention I could find of a link between bone cancer
and fluoride using the search function on their website was this one:
| Exposure to fluoride was
linked to osteosarcoma in male rats, but epidemiologic studies
have generally not supported this finding.
(Click
here for the link) |
The New Jersey Department of Health issues numerous
hazardous substance fact sheets on fluoride compounds, one of which can be
accessed here. They refer to
sulfuryl fluoride, sodium hydrogen fluoride, lead fluoride, vinylidine
fluoride, and numerous other compounds of fluoride. All of these
compounds are gasses. They are released in industrial processes and
are toxic when breathed into the lungs in high concentration. They
are listed as corrosive chemicals, and I have been unable to find any
that are actually listed as carcinogens (cancer causing substances).
All this is beside the point, however, because NONE of these
substances are used in either water or toothpaste (only sodium fluoride or
stannous fluoride are found in consumables). Furthermore, all of the
factsheets state quite plainly:
"This effect does NOT occur at the
level of fluoride in water for preventing cavities in teeth."
The
National Cancer Institute addresses the cancer question specifically (Click
here to go to the site itself). There is a LOT of good info
on this site.
- In a February 1991 Public Health Service (PHS) report,
the agency said it found no evidence of an association
between fluoride and cancer in humans. The report, based on
a review of more than 50 human epidemiological (population)
studies produced over the past 40 years, concluded that
optimal fluoridation of drinking water “does not pose a
detectable cancer risk to humans” as evidenced by extensive
human epidemiological data reported to date (4).
In one of the studies reviewed for the PHS report,
scientists at the National Cancer Institute evaluated the
relationship between the fluoridation of drinking water and
the number of deaths due to cancer in the United States
during a 36-year period, and the relationship between water
fluoridation and number of new cases of cancer during a
15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer
death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties
using fluoridated water, the researchers found no indication
of increased cancer risk associated with fluoridated
drinking water (5).
In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested
Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the
National Academy of Sciences, conducted an extensive
literature review concerning the association between
fluoridated drinking water and increased cancer risk. The
review included data from more than 50 human epidemiological
studies and six animal studies. The Subcommittee concluded
that none of the data demonstrated an association between
fluoridated drinking water and cancer (5). A 1999 report by
the CDC supported these findings. The report concluded that
studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an
association between fluoridated drinking water and an
increased risk for cancer (2).
|
In any case, since fluoride has been in widespread use in
the US since the mid 1940's, if there were a link with any form of cancer,
someone someplace (besides the antifluoridationists) would have noticed an
epidemic of cancer in areas where there is a high naturally occurring
concentration of fluoride in the local water supply, or at least a major
difference in cancer rates between the 65% of Americans living in
fluoridated communities and those who live in non-fluoridated communities. Nothing of the
sort has been noticed.
"Earlier studies
had found a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities."
I am unable to find ANY studies that show this. I
refer you instead to the following US Government links:
The national cancer Institute website on fluoride
The US Center for Disease Control and prevention (The
CDC) systematic review
CDC Statement on the 2006 National Research Council
(NRC) Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
The CDC Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent
and Control Dental Caries in the United States
(The CDC is the US government agency responsible for
tracking any and all disease processes that affect the population.
They keep statistics on all epidemiological problems including sicknesses
caused by widespread use of toxic materials.)
"Opaque white spots and brown
ugly teeth caused by fluoride is called Fluorosis."
I can't argue with this one, however the truth is that fluorosis in
children's teeth is not due to the fluoride in the water system. It
turns out that unsupervised children will swallow large amounts of
fluoridated toothpaste because it tastes like candy to them. This is
what causes the white fluorosis spots you see in many children's teeth.
These spots show up all over the country, even in areas where there is no
fluoride in the drinking water.
"Fluorosis
currently affects one out of five or more children in this nation although it is
rarely seen in California. California is the least fluoridated state with less
than 16% of the population drinking artificially fluoridated water."
Wrong on all counts
Actually, if you want statistics on ANY health issue, go to
the US government agency which is tasked with the job. The US Center
for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC) keeps fluoridation statistics
on
this page. More statistics can be
found
here. California does rank low in
percentage of fluoridated towns, but it is by no means the lowest. Montana,
New Jersey, Oregon, Hawaii and Utah rank MUCH lower in percentage of the
population living in fluoridated areas. The percentage of the
population drinking fluoridated water in California is not 16%, but a
bit over 27%. On the other hand, 65% of all Americans live in areas
with fluoridated municipal water supplies.
No official government agency keeps statistics on the
incidence of fluorosis, however you should read the
US CDC report on fluorosis which asks,
among other questions:
In which communities can enamel
fluorosis be found?
Enamel fluorosis occurs among some persons in all
communities, even in communities with a low natural
concentration of fluoride and no fluoride in the municipal
drinking water.
|
The reason for this is that most dental fluorosis in the
US is caused by the unsupervised use of high fluoride toothpastes by
small children who tend to swallow the toothpaste rather than spit it
out. Between birth and about the age of ten, the crowns of teeth
are developing. While small amounts of fluoride, such as that
found in water systems, is helpful because it is incorporated into the
tooth enamel making it harder and less prone to decay later in life,
large amounts can cause deformation and discoloration of the enamel.
The amount of fluoride in the average fluoride containing toothpaste is
vastly greater than the daily intake of fluoride in any municipal water
system.
From my own experience, the most fluorosis I have seen
was in the Los Angeles suburbs, although Los Angeles is not unique in
this respect. There seems to be a correlation between family
income and the level of fluorosis. From my own observations, more
fluorosis is found in children from high income areas than in low income
areas. The reverse can be said about the incidence of tooth decay.
"Fluoride is not effective in
reducing tooth decay. No correlation was found between the level of fluoride in
water and dental caries."
Wrong again.
The CDC Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent
and Control Dental Caries in the United States has this to say:
(And I urge EVERYONE to read this authoritative report if they have concerns
about the safety of fluoride.
Fluoride's ability to inhibit or even reverse the
initiation and progression of dental caries is well documented. The
first use of adjusted fluoride in water for caries control began in 1945
and 1946 in the United States and Canada, when the fluoride
concentration was adjusted in the drinking water supplying four
communities (2--5). The U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)
developed recommendations in the 1940s and 1950s regarding fluoride
concentrations in public water supplies. At that time, public health
officials assumed that drinking water would be the major source of
fluoride for most U.S. residents. The success of water fluoridation in
preventing and controlling dental caries led to the development of
fluoride-containing products, including toothpaste (i.e., dentifrice),
mouthrinse, dietary supplements, and professionally applied or
prescribed gel, foam, or varnish. In addition, processed beverages,
which constitute an increasing proportion of the diets of many U.S.
residents (6,7), and food can contain small amounts of fluoride,
especially if they are processed with fluoridated water. Thus, U.S.
residents have more sources of fluoride available now than 50 years ago.
The prevalence and severity of dental caries in the
United States have decreased substantially during the preceding 3
decades (39). National surveys have reported that the prevalence
of any dental caries among children aged 12--17 years declined from
90.4% in 1971--1974 to 67% in 1988--1991; severity (measured as the mean
number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth) declined from 6.2 to 2.8
during this period (40--43).
Finally, the US center for Disease Control has listed
fluoride among the
ten greatest
public health achievements of the 20th century.
"The FDA
considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety
or effectiveness."
Wrong again.
The US Food and Drug Administration makes the
following recommendations: (Click the link for the
citation.)
Recommendation for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control
Dental Caries in the U.S.
"Widespread use of fluoride has been a major factor in the
decline in the prevalence and severity of dental caries
(i.e., tooth decay) in the United States and other
economically developed countries. When used appropriately,
fluoride is both safe and effective in preventing and
controlling dental caries. All U.S. residents are likely
exposed to some degree of fluoride, which is available from
multiple sources." (Summary section, page 1)
"Community water fluoridation is a safe, effective,
and inexpensive way to prevent dental caries. This modality
benefits persons in all age groups and of all SES, ...."
(Recommendation section, page 24)
Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General
(2000):
"Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in
preventing dental caries in both children and adults. Water
fluoridation benefits all residents served by community
water supplies regardless of their social or economic
status. Professional and individual measures, including the
use of fluoride mouth rinses, gels, dentifrices, and dietary
supplements and the application of dental sealants, are
additional means of preventing dental caries." (Executive
summary)
Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks (Public Health
Service, 1991):
"Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established
that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a
reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree
of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other
fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoride
areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly
evident." (Conclusions section, page 87)
"The FDA does not
consider fluoride an essential nutrient."
He's got me here. He's right about fluoride not being an
essential nutrient. But then neither is penicillin or Lipitor.
If you could take a pill for ten years with the result that it makes you
less likely to get a serious disease for the rest of your life, wouldn't you
take it? Tooth decay is the most prevalent disease in the world.
I was born in 1947, before municipal water fluoridation became widespread. I
also have a mouth full of fillings. My son was born in 1971. He
hasn't had a cavity for 35 years (and he used to drink regular
Coca-Cola
all the time). He also had the benefit of fluoride since he was a
baby.
"The International
Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified Fluoride as an unapproved
dental medicament due to its high toxicity."
The International
Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology is not a respected
academic or government affiliated website. It is a great example of an
antiamalgamist/antifluoridationist construction. It was created
specifically to advance health conspiracies, and you will find numerous
similar examples all over the web. They always choose an official
sounding name that sounds like it is affiliated with the government, the UN
or an academic institution, but the people who write them are devoted to
spreading unsubstantiated health conspiracies. For more on assessing conspiracy
websites see my page on dental
amalgam.
|
| |
|
Click the button above to email
Doctor Spiller.
Your browser must be Java
enabled to use the email button.
If the email button does not work on your browser,
click here.
I do not answer LONG emails. If
you don't receive a reply, then your letter was too
long. Make your questions short and precise. I
don't have time to answer rambling, multiple
questionnaires.
I cannot diagnose something I cannot see. Don't ask
about sores in your mouth. See a dentist.
Please do not inquire about
fees. See
this page
instead.).
I DO appreciate your help in
correcting typos and broken links.
|
|
Copyright 2000
by Doctor Martin S. Spiller, DMD
Please click
here to see
the terms of fair use. |
|