(Letters printed in British Medical Journal online in response to the Medical Research Council's report on fluoridation.).

Click here to see letters to the British Medical Journal

Dental fluorosis: Stolen smiles - ruined lives.

15 September, 2002

Dear Sirs,

The MRC report recommends research to ascertain the public's perception of "aesthetically unacceptable dental fluorosis." Although we have pertinent criticisms regarding some of the MRC's recommendations, we offer here the following comments on just one of them - dental fluorosis.

In a study on convict rehabilitation at the Federal Correctional Institution, Terminal Island, San Pedro California (1972), it was found that:

"The stains of endemic Dental Fluorosis can have a tremendous psychological impact on the patient. Perhaps this might be a contributory factor in the psychological make-up of the individual who displays anti- social behavior. If so, it might be possible to effect change by removing the stains. Many patients [convicts] have been pleased with the results [bleaching of teeth], and even displayed a willingness to smile." (P.G. Colon, Removal of Tooth Stains in Prisoner Rehabilitation, Dental Survey Publications, Vol. 48: No 22, 1972.).

Very Mild	Mild	Moderate	Severe

While artificial drinking water fluoridation is touted as "one of the top ten most significant public health measures of the twentieth century", 12.5% of children in fluoridated areas develop moderate to severe Dental Fluorosis (DF) (click on the photographs above to read fully referenced article.).

Masking of the worst effects of DF can only be achieved through costly cosmetic dental procedures, such as veneers, which must be repeated every five or six years throughout the victim's life.

Therefore, despite the Department of Health's laudable goal to impact "inequalities in dental health" via water fluoridation, the Government is inadvertently ensuring that many of the poorest people, further handicapped by DF, are destined to remain the most disadvantaged members of our society.

However, Government advisers and expert health professionals zealously promote water fluoridation KNOWING that a large percentage of the population will develop DF; KNOWING that DF has severe psychological impacts on many of its victims, and KNOWING that people with "dirty teeth" are very likely to experience discrimination in the vital areas of employment and personal relationships.

The "experts" regard DF as 'a classic public health trade-off' for a (highly questionable) reduction in cavities. The NHS CRD reported that 48% of people living in fluoridated areas have DF and 12.5% have aesthetically unacceptable DF. So, which individuals will draw the short straws in the great Dental Fluorosis Lottery?

In a revealing 1999 study, first year dental students were surveyed, with the aid of photographs of mild dental fluorosis, to ascertain their perception of the condition. The study found a heavily negative perception. A follow-up study in 2002 surveyed students in their fourth year of dental school. Again, they were shown photographs of mild dental fluorosis. This time, their perception was much more positive!

This raises the question of who will conduct new research to determine the public's perception of DF - dentists, who have been schooled to view it positively? We suggest that this work should be done by psychologists, who are qualified to determine the victims' self-perception and ascertain how DF impacts their lives.

Meanwhile, those who can't afford to pay the ransom for their stolen smiles must remain the forgotten victims of what must surely be the most disgraceful 'classic public health trade-off' in history: artificial water fluoridation.

Yours truly,

Jane Jones, Campaign Director, National Pure Water Association. http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk

Click here to read the fully referenced article:

Public Perception of Dental Fluorosis: "The crucial issue"?

Dear Editor,

Following the inconclusive results of the systematic review of water fluoridation carried out by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York University, (BMJ, October 2000), the Government asked the MRC "to determine what further research is required to strengthen the evidence base."

The long-awaited MRC report made yet another recommendation for further research into dental caries.

A Pubmed search today brought up 25,344 studies on "dental caries". Adding the word "fluoride" brought up another 4,997 studies. These 30,000+ studies by no means represent all the research carried out on tooth decay. One might, therefore, legitimately ask how much more taxpayers' money will be thrown into this redundant pursuit while more pressing health issues attendant on water fluoridation are ignored.

Concern over the known complexing of aluminium and fluoride in drinking water has caused the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to request the National Toxicology Program to commission long-term drinking water studies. These studies will address pharmacokinetics, neurotoxicity, bone development, and reproductive and developmental toxicity. Such testing will also investigate neurodegenerative disease in transgenic animal models exposed to drinking water contaminants with a high health research priority, i.e. known neurotoxicity of aluminium. The EPA and NIEHS further acknowledge the urgent need for better understanding of pharmacokinetics and toxicity of aluminium species occurring in drinking water.

Such concerns are clearly not shared by the MRC scientific panel, which inexplicably concluded:

"Fluoride appears to reduce the bioavailability of dietary aluminium."

And, how about this statement? "Fluoride in water at normal levels can increase slightly the amount of leaching of aluminium from cooking utensils. High concentrations of fluoride can also result in leaching of copper from pipework. These effects are considered to be of minimal health significance in normal circumstances."

Despite a plethora of published scientific work on adverse effects from exposure to fluorides, the MRC is unconcerned. They stated: "Further research on the possible effects of fluoride on immunological function, reproduction, birth defects, intelligence, the kidney, gastrointestinal tract and thyroid, and other suggested impacts, is considered to be of low priority."

Although asked by the National Pure Water Association to specifically address the fluoridation agent, (contaminated with cumulative toxicants including arsenic, lead, beryllium, mercury, vanadium, cadmium, silicon and radionuclides), and which has never been toxicologically tested, the MRC ducked the issue and wrote:

"Substances added to drinking water during the fluoridation process (including impurities of the added substances) are unlikely to add any significant toxic potential to the water."

For decades, health officials have insisted that the fluoridation agent dissociates completely in water, where "the fluoride ion becomes stable and non-toxic." However, this was debunked by the US Environmental Protection Agency which stated that ". . . metal cations [in drinking water] compete for the fluoride ion by orders of magnitude." (Urbansky and Schock, 2000), which was common knowledge to water treatment engineers in the 1940s.

The MRC curiously states: "Complexities associated with speciation, ionic interactions etc, yield uncertainties in a number of aspects. It is recommended that this area be kept under review."

The MRC does recommend research into TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE, but, paradoxically, minimises the need for studies into the critical areas of long-term health effects from TOTAL EXPOSURES TO FLUORIDES. The MRC does not appear to comprehend that fluorides have differing toxicological characteristics. Some fluoride species, such as aluminium fluoride, are much more insidious toxicants than others. (Aluminium is used in water treatment as a clarifier.).

The two chemicals permitted to dose entire populations via artificial fluoridation schemes, (industrial grade hexafluorosilicic acid and disodium hexafluorosilicate), Failed Formal Vote in Europe. Astonishingly, these "dirty chemicals" were given British Standard numbers and are described by the Drinking Water Inspectorate as "traditional chemicals"!

I would suggest that doctors, who may not prescribe any untested, industrial grade product as a prophylactic to a patient should question any expert body which bases its conclusions on conjecture, rather than on science. See http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/mccormick_letter.html and http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk/Public_comment.html

Yours truly,

George Glasser.