SPIN, SCAMS AND IGNORANCE by Dr. James Beck, MD, PhD. Professor Emeritus, University of Calgary The statements in question are in bold italic font below, followed by criticism. Fluoride is everywhere. Fluoride is the monovalent negative ion of the element fluorine. In dry compounds such as calcium fluoride (fluorspar, found in nature) and sodium fluoride the fluorine atom is bound as part of a molecule. Put into water these compounds may dissociate to produce fluoride ions. Hydrogen fluoride is a gas which dissolves in water to produce hydrogen ions, fluoride ions. Fuoride is not a nutrient; it is not essential for human health. By fluoridating water we’re just topping up a natural substance. The natural fluoride compound found in water sources is calcium fluoride. It is only slightly dissolved in water. So when it is swallowed most of it remains in the gastrointestinal tract and is excreted in feces; most of it does not get into the blood. The chemical agent used to fluoridate public water supplies is almost always hexafluorosilicic acid (HFSA) or its sodium salt. It is not a natural substance. It is obtained from industrial processing. As delivered to water-treatment plants the solution of HFSA contains contaminants which include arsenic, lead, uranium and other toxins. Fluoride dissociates completely HFSA dissolves in water and dissociates almost completely when added in processing tap water. But some fluorosilicate compounds are present. However, when the fluoridated water is swallowed, the very acidic (lots of hydrogen ions) contents of the stomach cause the fluoride ions to combine with hydrogen ions to form hydrogen fluoride (HF). HF is electrically neutral and crosses the membranes of the stomach and intestines to enter the blood which distributes it to all tissues. Fluoride is a nutrient. A nutrient is a component of the diet that is necessary for life and normal health. It has not been demonstrated that lack of fluoride in the diet is associated with any impairment of health. The Institute of Medicine (US), an advocate of fluoridation once declared fluoride to be a nutrient, but subsequently after being challenged on the claim withdrew it and said that fluoride is an “essential element”. If the IOM meant essential to human health, then they just said it’s not a nutrient but it is a nutrient. If the IOM meant fluorine, not fluoride, and that it is essential for a complete set of elements, then they should be complimented on the insight. Fluoridation is just like dietary enrichment with vitamin D or iodide. Fluoride is not a nutrient for humans. Vitamin D and iodide are nutrients. Furthermore we know with certainty for vitanim D and iodide what the upper limits for safe doses are and what the lower limits for adequate doses for good health are. And those limits are far enough apart that safe concentrations in foods can be provided. It is misleading to equate the measures of fluoridation of tap water and dietary enrichment with vitamin D or with iodide. That is a diversion, just spin. Fluoridation is just like chlorination. Chlorination is the treatment of water with the element chlorine for the purpose of killing pathogenic microbes which cause contagious diseases. This is part of making the water potable. When drawn from the tap the chlorine diffuses out of the water on standing and faster when used in cooking. In contrast, fluoride (not atomic fluorine) is is added to treat people, not the water. It is not lost from the water. And using the water in ways that cause evaporation of water increases the concentration of fluoride. Equating the processes of chlorination and fluoridation just confuses the issue. It’s just spin. Fluoride is not a drug. By dictionary definition and common sense, a drug is a substance administered for the purpose of preventing or treating a disease or the result of a disease or condition. In fluoridating a public water supply fluoride in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt is administered for the purpose of preventing dental caries (cavities). So it is a drug—a medicine, a medication. Furthermore, it has been characterized as a drug by various courts and government agencies, including the Supreme Court of Canada (1957). Dental fluorosis is a cosmetic matter. Dental fluorosis is a disease. According to the Dean classification of severity it occurs as mild, moderate and severe. These terms are misleading in the context of everyday language. Mild fluorosis may present with white mottling of half the tooth surface. This may be considered cosmetic but it may have serious effects on the self-esteem and social relations of a person, particularly in the teen years. Moderate (as much as 100% of the tooth surface affected) and severe fluorosis include pitting and discolouration and brittleness of the tooth enamel. The York review says it’s safe and effective. The York review was done by a panel of specialists in evaluation of scientific studies. In an extensive search of scientific literature they found 214 papers to consider. On the effect on caries they found 26. They put these into three categories of value. None were first-class. The conclusions of the panel were that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that fluoridation was safe and that there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that it was effective. This was published in 2000. It was so often falsely cited by promotors of fluoridation as concluding that fluoridation was safe and effective that Professor Trevor Sheldon, who supervised the work of the York panel, issued a statement pointing out this misrepresentation and insisting that it should stop. The misrepresentation continues to be made today by medical and dental officers of health. Hydrofluorosilicic acid and fluoride are certified for addition to public water supplies. Some, perhaps all, provinces in Canada require certification by NSF International (a private consortium formerly named National Sanitation Foundation International) by its NSF/ANSI Standard 60, which requires toxicological studies. In 2004 the General Manager of the Drinking Water Additives Certification Program of NSF stated that for chemicals related to fluoridation NSF did not follow its Standard 60 and that NSF did not have the required toxicological studies. The “NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals” (June 2012) says that fluorosilicates don’t need toxicological assessment because of the conditions in potable water. But the significant conditions are those in animals, not just in the water, conditions which would be revealed in toxicological studies. James S. Beck, MD, PhD Professor Emeritus of Medical Biophysics
Posted on: Sat, 06 Jul 2013 04:55:36 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015