|
Sep
2000: Professor Perry
Roehl, PhD, Emeritus
Perry
Roehl
A Case Against Forced Fluoridation
By Perry Roehl, PhD, Emeritus
Professor Of Geology Trinity University.
The issue of massive fluoridation of local water supplies has once more
risen from the ashes like the Phoenix bird.
The
latest hard sell is advanced by none other than the Express-News "Our Turn"
editorial of June 29, 2000. The editorial speaks of new "ballot
opportunities" and collateral "political courage". It speaks of zero medical
risks and the savings of millions of dollars. And it pins scare tactics on
those that in the past were brave enough to resist!
Well, someone needs to address all of these gross errors and innuendoes and
redirect attention to a vast literature of recent research and action
concerning the dangerous folly of employing fluoridated water for dental
caries.
A
myriad of first class national and international scientific laboratory
studies are now available that bridge the time gap since 1985, a date
pertinent to the local scene. These have been widely used, together with
detailed population histories describing adverse ingestion results, to cause
numerous U.S. and international cities and foreign countries to drop, not
commence, fluoridation, and to cite the imperatives for so doing.
Documentation would fill more pages than this newspaper. However, some
ongoing citations with this commentary will be given for the benefit of the
concerned reader.
Consider the fact that in April 1998, 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers
and other professionals at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the
Washington Headquarters, filed as a union, a formal brief against the EPA to
protest fluoridation of drinking water. Why? Because the EPA was being
forced politically to revise fluoridation standards beyond an already unsafe
health-based level! To quote: "These hazards include acute toxic hazard,
such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic
hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone
pathology and dental fluorosis".
In
addition, it is shown that fluoride: - decreases the IQ in children in the
8-13 year age group·- interferes with the pineal gland, affecting onset of
puberty - via convergent epidemiological studies, resulted in osteosarcomis
(cancer) in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa. - is directly
related to higher hip fractures - as calcium fluoride, is softer than the
natural tooth - together with aluminum, as AlF3, is suspect in the
development of Alzheimer's (ref. Isaacson, R.I., et al, 1997 Neuroprotective
Agents. Ann., N.Y. Acad. Sci. 825, 152-166).
The
list goes on and on.
But
how about our current concern with the application to dentistry? Another
quote (EPA lawsuit, May 1, 1999): "…there has not been any double blind
study of fluoride's effectiveness as a caries preventative. … the largest
and most comprehensive (conventional) study, one done by dentists trained by
the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children
aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed,
missing and filled teeth) among caries incidences in fluoridated,
non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities." (Yiamouyiannis, J.,
1990, Journal. Fluoride, vol. 23, p 55-67).
A
second comprehensive study has been conducted by Dr. John Colquhoun, one of,
if not the most famous name in international dentistry. He was a staunch
supporter of fluoridation until given the task of reviewing the worldwide
effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth caries. In a landmark paper, he
details how data were manipulated to support fluoridation, especially in the
United States and New Zealand. One ethical public health professional was
cited as having been (administratively) compelled to reverse his opinion on
fluoridation (Colquhoun, J., 1997, Perspectives in Biol. and Medicine, vol.
41, p29-44).
Additionally, Albert Schatz, PhD, states: "What fluoride has in common with
low-level radiation and low exposures to pesticides and other toxic
chemicals which exhibit paradoxical effects is that very low doses may be
harmful." Consequently, there is no such thing as a threshold level below
which fluoridation is not harmful. In other words, there is no safe dose.
"What are "paradoxical effects"? Schatz relates it to trying to model
nonlinearity. It is like chaos. Nonconformable results can be obtained with
many experiments but none are reproducible! (Schatz, A, 1999, Jour.
Fluoride, 33. 1).
Finally, for those not impressed with the scientific argument, I now refer
to other disciplines for collateral persuasion:
Statistics: P.R.N. Sutton, 1994, The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation. Factual
Book, Kurudu Pty, Ltd. Australia. This massive tome by a doctor of dental
science provides the detailed analysis of errors in over 40 years of early
statistics that lauded fluoride.
Sociology: B. Martin, 1991, Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The social
Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate, State Univ. of N.Y. Press, 266p. A
discussion of the ethics of science, the power of prodigious institutions of
science, and the control of results by respective administrative
hierarchies.
In
conclusion, it is noted that in addition to many cities and states currently
embroiled in this controversy in the U.S.A., Japan and most of Europe (95%),
have already rejected fluoridation. At the moment, there is a California
Safe Drinking Water Initiative that attempts to mandate an amendment to the
Health and Safety Code to read: "No fluoridation or fluoride containing
substances may be added to public water systems. All laws to the contrary
are hereby repealed." The result of this initiative should interest Texans.
The
scientific, social and political literature on the topic of fluoridation is
vast. I have barely touched the surface. However, based on peer reviewed
research and expert summations, I suggest that the city of San Antonio, and
especially the Express-News editorship, avail themselves of all the known
facts and consequences before subjecting the populace to an unwarranted and
even dangerous action.
Let
those individuals who desire to risk their total health do so individually
and if necessary, subsidize those groups foolish enough but incapable of
collectively funding an erroneous program.
(A
download to this article is a complete copy of the Natick Report)
ADDENDUM. September 12, 2000
A
local ad hoc Committee on "Science and Fluoridation" has since been formed.
The objective of the Committee is an attempt to provide the metropolitan
public of San Antonio an opportunity to become informed concerning the
latest knowledge about the science, technology, medicinal properties and
pharmacology of fluorine and its many compounds in the context of their
potential toxicity to humans. The Committee has arranged for two forthcoming
seminars to be presented by nationally recognized scientific experts on
September 23 and October 24, 2000. A panel discussion will conclude each of
the seminars.
The
first Seminar will be held by invitation only, being restricted to
physicians, dentists and other concerned professionals. Members of the STGS
who are interested in attending should contact committee member Perry Roehl.
The second Seminar will be conducted in open attendance for the general
public.
Further details concerning the presenters, agendas and venue will shortly be
available by public announcement, or STGS members may contact Dr. Roehl.
Editor's note: Dr. John Colquhoun's paper "Why I Changed My Mind About Water
Fluoridation" is a must read. His paper can be accessed at
www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm. It was originally published in
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1, Autumn 1997. |
