PARA ENVIAR PETIÇÃO ASSINADA OU SOLICITAR MAIS INFORMAÇÕES CONTATE
PAUL CONNETT EM: ggvideo@northnet.org
A Petition to all Governments Practicing, and all Organizations Supporting, Water Fluoridation
We, the undersigned members of the scientific and academic
communities from many different countries, call upon professional associations
and government agencies in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New
Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, the UK and the US, to bring scientific
integrity to the issue of water fluoridation. To this end, we urge them:
1) To examine carefully all the literature which pertains to
fluoridation's dangers and benefits, in an open, honest and transparent manner.
We urge them to hear from experts on both sides of this issue who are prepared
to give their testimony under oath before a truly independent scientific panel,
the membership of which is approved by both sides.
2) To collect fundamental data such as fluoride levels in the bones and pineal
glands, measured during autopsy, and the prevalence of skeletal fluorosis and
hypersensitiy/intolerance to fluoride, of those who have lived for various
lengths of times in fluoridated areas, as well as using dental fluorosis (tooth
mottling) as a bio-marker to investigate the possible dangers to children of
being exposed to excessive levels of fluoride at an early age.
3) To halt immediately the practice of using untested and industrial grade waste
materials (such as hexafluorosilicic acid from the phosphate fertilizer industry)
in water fluoridation programs instead of pharmaceutical grade chemicals.
4) To renounce the use of any intimidatory pressures on those professionals
whose research or review has led them to adopt an anti-fluoridation position.
5) To renounce the widespread practice of misrepresenting scientific results in
order to achieve the fluoridation of more water supplies.
6) Either to defend water fluoridation in open public debate or to halt the
practice forthwith.
SIGNED
NAME:
POSITION INSTITUTION:
ORGANIZATION (for identification purposes only):
An Appeal to the Scientific and Academic
Community World-Wide
The following attendees of the XXVth conference of the International Society
for Fluoride Research held in Dunedin, New Zealand in January of 2003, resolved
to call upon our colleagues in the scientific and academic community worldwide
to help bring scientific integrity to the issue of water fluoridation (Please
note that the ISFR organization itself does not take a position on the
fluoridation debate.)
Our primary focus with this initiative is to encourage more scientists and
academics to examine this controversial issue with an open mind and ensure that
it is resolved scientifically and ethically. From the viewpoint of good
scientific method and scholarship, it is unacceptable that spokespersons for
several governments practicing fluoridation repeatedly claim that the practice
is 'safe and effective', while refusing to subject the issue to open public
debate. This refusal allows them to wrongly claim that the arguments mobilized
by opponents of fluoridation are "junk science" when in fact most of
the opponents' evidence is based upon peer-reviewed literature, including
important articles written by advocates of fluoridation themselves.
The signees of this appeal take the position that biased reviews;
misrepresentation and censorship of results; a failure to collect the basic
data; intimidation and harassment of opponents, as has happened in the case of
Dr. William Marcus, Dr. John Colquhoun, Dr. Bruce Spittle, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix,
Dr Mark Diesendorf and Dr. Hardy Limeback, to name a few, have no place in
science. In this appeal we first list 13 principal scientific findings that
concern us. Then we present the petition, which spells out the steps we believe
have to be taken to ensure that this issue is resolved properly. These findings
are :
1. Topical not systemic mechanism
The mechanisms of action of fluoride in reducing tooth decay are now
widely accepted to be predominantly topical, i.e. acting directly on the surface
of teeth, not systemic (CDC, 1999, 2001). In other words, there is no credible
justification for requiring people to swallow fluoride.
2. No deficiency
No-one has ever been identified as having a genuine deficiency of
fluoride. Fluoride, in the mg/day doses recommended by proponents of
fluoridation, is not an essential nutrient.
3. Negligible benefits
A major cross-sectional survey of 84 cities in the USA by the National
Institute of Dental Research found that children (aged 5 to 17) who had lived
their whole lives in fluoridated cities had on average only 0.6 fewer decayed,
missing and filled tooth surfaces (DMFS) per child than those in unfluoridated
cities (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). In Australia a survey by
pro-fluoridationists found an average reduction of only 0.12 to 0.3 DMFS per
child (Spencer, Slade & Davies, 1996). Since the total number of permanent
tooth surfaces in a child's mouth is 128, the US and Australian reductions are
less than one half and one quarter of one percent of tooth surfaces,
respectively. Both are negligible.
4. Excellent teeth in unfluoridated areas
Since the 1960s tooth decay has declined dramatically in both
fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions of the vast majority of developed
countries. Indeed, WHO figures, available online, show that in non-fluoridated
countries, including most of Europe, tooth decay in 12 year-olds is just as good,
if not better than in fluoridated ones. In several cases this decline also
commenced in fluoridated places before fluoridation and the uses of any other
fluorides were implemented. Clearly, factors other than fluoridation and
fluorides must be playing a major role (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1988; De
Liefde, 1998). In five recent studies it has been shown that when fluoridation
was discontinued in communities in Finland, Cuba, former East Germany and
British Columbia, tooth decay did not go up, but continued to go down (Maupome
et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000, and Seppa et al,
2000).
5. Medication with uncontrolled dose
Fluoridation is medication with uncontrolled dose (Diesendorf, 1995).
The daily fluoride dose received by people ingesting drinking water fluoridated
at a concentration of 1 ppm varies widely with water intake (Ershow & Cantor,
1989), diet, and kidney function. Those with high fluoride intake include athletes,
outdoor laborers, people with diabetes, people with kidney
damage and bottle-fed infants.
6. High dose to bottle-fed infants
In particular, bottle-fed infants, who ingest milk formula reconstituted
with fluoridated water, receive a daily fluoride dose that is 100 times that
of
breast-fed infants and at least 4-6 times that recommended by medical
authorities for fluoride supplementation in unfluoridated areas (Diesendorf & Diesendorf,
1997).
7. Dental fluorosis is rampant
When fluoridation was originally proposed, proponents claimed that it
would only cause 'mild' or even milder types of dental fluorosis (fluoride-induced
mottling of teeth) in 10% of the community and no 'moderate' or 'severe' types.
However, in practice, because of the combined exposure to both fluoridated water
and other sources, the prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis has increased
far beyond initial expectations. The York Review (McDonagh et al, 2000)
estimates that up to 48% of children in fluoridated areas have some form of
dental fluorosis. Even children in unfluoridated areas have dental fluorosis
rates exceeding those thought to be associated with the 'optimal dose'
originally proposed to prevent dental decay (Heller, et al. (1997).
8. Skeletal fluorosis and arthritis
Over a lifetime fluoride accumulates in bones, adding mass but gradually
destroying bone structure. The disease of bones and joints, skeletal fluorosis,
has been reported in the medical literature to be observed in naturally
fluoridated areas of several countries where fluoride concentrations in drinking
water are less than 4 ppm and in several cases where they are less than or equal
to 1 ppm (Singh et al, 1961; Singh et al, 1963; Siddiqui, 1970; Jolly et al,
1973). Of particular concern is the fact that the early symptoms of skeletal
fluorosis are identical to arthritis, and the incidence of arthritis is
increasing rapidly in several fluoridated countries. In America, one in three
Americans have arthritis (CDC, 2002). Incredibly, there has been no attempt to
check the fluoride levels in the bones of those inflicted by this disease. There
have been no scientifically adequate studies of the prevalence of skeletal
fluorosis in developed countries.
9. Hip and other bone fractures are a hazard
Many people in fluoridated communities will receive a cumulative dose of
fluoride during their lifetimes that exceeds the cumulative dose which in
clinical trials of large daily fluoride doses over a short period of time
clearly increases hip fracture rates (Riggs et al, 1990). Furthermore, in the
majority of epidemiological studies conducted since 1990, a higher rate of hip
fractures has been found in artificially fluoridated areas compared with
unfluoridated areas (http://www.SLweb.org/fluoride-bone.html). In particular, a
recent epidemiological study, which examined the elderly in six naturally
fluoridated Chinese villages, hip fracture rates doubled at 1.5 ppm, and tripled
at 4.3 ppm, when compared to the fracture rates at 1 ppm fluoride (Li et al.,
2001). This finding again suggests a very small (if any) safety margin for such
a serious outcome. In Mexico, Alarcon-Herrera et al (2001) have shown a linear
correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the incidence of bone
fractures in children.
10. Inadequate safety factor
In order to protect members of the population at greatest risk,
toxicology generally requires a safety factor of 100 between ingested and unsafe
concentrations of environmental chemicals. This allows for variations in
individual exposures and individual sensitivities, which each receive a factor
of 10. However, in the USA the maximum contaminant (i.e. unsafe) level for
fluoride in drinking water was unscientifically set at 4 ppm providing a safety
factor of only 4 for water fluoridated at 1 ppm. This is based on the fluoride
concentration at which it is officially accepted that some people will suffer
from skeletal fluorosis in the USA, despite the fact that in some other
countries this disease is occasionally seen at 1 ppm or less. Based on evidence
mentioned in this Appeal, the safety factor for hip fractures is a factor or 4 (or
possibly as low as 1.5, see Li et al, 2001); less than 3 for lowered fertility (Freni,
1994), possibly 1 for the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998)
and definitely 1 for dental fluorosis. In practice, even with a safety factor of
4, some people with high intakes of water fluoridated at 1 ppm
could consume the same daily fluoride dose as people with average intakes
of water containing 4 ppm fluoride. So, in reality, in terms of the fluoride
doses that they ingest, there is no safety margin for these people for any of
the above diseases.
11. Hypersensitivity/intolerance reactions
There is large body of clinical reports that some people suffer from
hypersensitivity or intolerance reactions to fluoride in drinking water, tablets
and toothpaste. These symptoms (which include excessive fatigue, excessive
thirst, gastric distress, muscular weakness, etc) are reversed when the source
of fluoride is removed and have been observed under double blind conditions (Waldbott,
Burgstahler & McKinney, 1978; Grimbergen, 1974). Inexplicably, these studies
have been dismissed out of hand by government agencies which have never followed
them up in any systematic fashion.
12. Numerous biological effects
Laboratory and animal experiments show that fluoride is highly active
biologically. Emsley et al (1981) have shown that fluoride forms a strong
hydrogen bond with the groups found in proteins and nucleic acids. In vitro
experiments demonstrate that fluoride inhibits enzymes; induces chromosome
aberrations (Susuki and Tsutsui, 1989); genetic mutations (Caspary et al, 1987)
and in the presence of aluminum disrupts G-proteins (Strunecka and Patocka,
2002). Animal experiments reveal that fluoride increases the uptake of aluminum
into the brain at 1 ppm in the drinking water (Varner et al, 1998). At higher
doses fluoride causes reproductive problems (Chinoy and Narayana,1994) and could
be a weak promoter (Taylor and Taylor, 1965) and inducer of cancer (NTP, 1990).
In US counties with 3 ppm fluoride in the water there is a significant decrease
in human fertility (Freni, 1994). Also, in humans, fluoride accumulates in the
pineal gland (Luke, 2001) and in animals it lowers melatonin production (Luke,
1997).
13. Industrial waste as a medication
The agents which are used to fluoridate over 90% of the water treated
in the US (hexafluorosilicic acid and its sodium salt) are waste materials obtained
from the pollution scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry and contain
trace amounts of arsenic, lead and other toxic chemicals. Even in their pure
state the US EPA confirms that the silicofluorides have never been subjected
to
chronic testing in animals. However, in two epidemiological studies they have
been shown to be associated with a greater uptake of lead into children's blood
and increased violent behavior (Masters & Coplan, 1999, 2000).
We cannot hope in the space available to present all our concerns (that
would take a book) or both sides of the issue. Hopefully we have said
enough to spark
your interest and you will find out more for yourselves. The pro-fluoridation
position is articulated at the American Dental Association web page http://www.ada.org;
the anti-position is further elaborated at http://fluoridealert.org and
a comprehensive and annotated bibliography can be found at http://www.SLweb.org/bibliography.html,
where all the references noted above can be found.
On the following page is the petition we hope that you will wish to sign.
SIGNED:
Dr. Miklos Bely,
National Institute of Rheumatology,
Budapest, Hungary.
Dr. Albert Burgstahler,
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry,
University of Kansas,
Lawrence, Kansas, USA.
Dr. N. J.Chinoy,
Zoology Department,
Gujarat University,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India.
Dr. Paul Connett,
Professor of Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY, USA.
Dr Mark Diesendorf,
Director, Sustainability Centre Pty Ltd,
Sydney, Australia.
Dr.William J. Hirzy,
Vice-President,
National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter 280,
US EPA, Washington, DC, USA.
Dr. Hardy Limeback,
Head of Preventive Dentistry,
University of Toronto,
Toronto, Canada
Dr. Bruce Spittle,
Senior Lecturer,
Department of Psychological Medicine,
University of Otago,
Dunedin, New Zealand.
Dr. Anna Strunecka,
Professor of Physiology,
King Charles University,
Prague, Czech Republic.