THE USE OF FLUORIDE TO PREVENT TOOTH DECAY AND DENTAL MERCURY AMALAM FILLINGS
The use of fluoride, particularly as mass treatment has become under increasing scrutiny and deep concern is developing. Likewise the consequenses of using dental mercury amalgam fillings are causing increasing alarm. Below are some articles and further links.
What is Fluoride ?
The lethal dose of artificial flouride is 50 times smaller than naturally occuring fluoride.
The fluoride naturally found in water is calcium fluoride (CaF2 ) as fluorine has a strong affinity to calcium. When water is artificially fluoridated sodium fluoride (NaF), sodium silicofluoride or hydrofluosilic acid is added. Because calcium bonds relatively strongly with the fluoride ion, the fluoride ions are much less available than in the artificially-produced fluoride. The artificial compounds are more toxic because they are more soluble in water and the fluoride dissociates from the compound. In the body this fluoride becomes the "most exclusive bone seeking element, owing to its affinity for calcium phosphate". Studies have shown that the lethal dose of NaF is approximately 50 times smaller than that of CaF2 (naturally-occurring fluoride).
Fluoride can, however, be taken in through a number of sources. Cooldrinks and other processed foods made in fluoridated areas contain high amounts. Plants take up fluoride concentrating more in their outer parts with leafy plants containing the most. Tea can contain 160 - 660 ppm averaging at 1 mg per 6 cups. Insecticides sprayed on crops also contain fluoride as can tranquilisers (up to 1 mg per day if taken habitually). Other products containing fluoride which may inadvertantly be swallowed are toothpaste (1000 ppm), mouthwash (4000 ppm) and gel treatments (13000 ppm - half a teaspoon will poison a child)
Bearing in mind that people are individuals with differing sensitivities to substances and differing patterns of consumption it is difficult to recommend a safe level of fluoride for an entire population.
Each of us already consumes different levels of fluoride in our food and drinks. How much more is too much? Does fluoride prevent tooth decay ? Pro- fluoridators say that it does. The evidence supporting this must be closely examined - often studies have an insufficient sample size, look at age groups where decidous teeth are being replaced by permanent teeth, have no control areas or compare neighbourhoods where other factors influencing decay like nutrition, wealth, oral hygiene etc. differ greatly.
A few studies of the many which show that fluoride does not prevent decay are listed below :
A study has been done of the dental records of 39 207 schoolchildren aged 5 - 17 in 84 areas of the USA. These areas were divided according to not fluoridated, partially fluoridated ( less than 17 years or some of the time ) and fluoridated. No statistical difference was found in decay rates of permanent teeth or percentages of decay free children between the areas. The only group of children which showed a difference were 5 year olds who had less decay in decidous teeth in fluoridated areas. However, by age 6 this advantage disappears leading to the conclusion that fluoridation causes a delay in tooth eruption.2
R Ziegelbecker has made two studies by taking a random sample of all available data on caries (decay ) prevalence. He selected 48 000 12-14 year children from 136 communities in seven countries. No correlation was found between caries or dental health and fluoride concentration.3 Further studies have shown that not only does fluoride not improve dental health but it may cause decay.
A study of 400 000 Indian schoolchildren from 1973 -1993 showed that the higher the fluoride concentration in the water, the more caries ocurred.4
A similar study of 22 000 Japanese schoolchildren showed that above 0.4 ppm the decay increased significantly. When the concentration was below 0.2 ppm it also increased . This was thought to be caused by a lack of calcium in the water when fluoride was below 0.2 ppm.5
A study of 26000 Tuscon elementary school children was performed by Cornelius Steelink, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Chemistry, University of Arizona. He compared tooth decay with the fluoride in the water. He found that the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities ocurred. On further investigation it was also found that decay related to low family income, bad diet and oral hygiene and lack of access to dental facilities.6
The decline in DMFT (decayed, missing, filled teeth ) of 12 year old children in the USA declined by 25% from 1974 - 1988. The USA is partially fluoridated. Unfluoridated countries the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland had a decline of 36%, 40%, and 47% respectively in 12 year olds for the same period.7 Some european countries that do not fluoridate their water recorded a greater decline in tooth decay than America where water is mostly fluoridated What effect does fluoride have on the body ? Dental fluorosis : A defect in the formation of tooth enamel in children which results in mottled teeth. This is not reversible and remains for life. It is believed that when decay does set in these teeth are difficult to fill. Dental fluorosis can occur from 0.4 ppm.
Skeletal fluorosis : Early symptoms are back stiffness, pains in the bones and joints, sensations of burning, pricking, and tingling in the limbs, muscle weakness, chronic fatigue, gastrointestinal disorders, and reduced appetite. X-rays show abnormal calcium deposits in bone and ligaments. Osteoporosis develops in long bones and bony outgrowths may occur. Eventually the victim may be crippled and the vertebrae fuse together.8
Fractures : Researchers at the University of Bordeaux in France studied 3578 people of 65 years or older living in South Western France. They reported that the risk of hip fracture was significantly higher when water fluoride was greater than 0.11 ppm.9
Immune deficiency : Dr. Sheila Gibson from the University of Glasgow, showed that fluoride, at levels comparable to those found in the blood of people living in fluoridated areas, decreased the migration rate of human white blood cells (leukotaxis). [Also inhibits phagocytosis - another defence mechanism ] This adversely affects the immune system. Dr. Gibson found that only a six-hour exposure of white blood cells to as little as 0.1 parts per million fluoride inhibits the white blood cell migration rate by 21 percent. One part per million inhibits the white blood cell migration rate by 85 per cent and 2 ppm has a conclusive 0 percent relative migration rate. This indicates that a continued use of fluoride in the drinking water could result in the total destruction of the immune response.10
Cancer : Cancer researchers have found a 17% rise in 16 yrs of cancers in towns in the USA which are fluoridated in comparison with those which are not. A rise in a rare bone cancer, osteosarcoma, was recorded in men under 20 in fluoridated areas. This was confirmed in studies on rats in 1989 by the US National Toxicology Program.11
General side effects : George L. Waldbott, founder and chief of allergy clinics in four Detroit hospitals, reported treating at least 500 patients who he concluded reacted negatively to fluoridated water. The symptoms included muscular weakness, chronic fatigue, excessive thirst, headaches, skin rashes, joint pains, digestive upsets, tingling in the extremities, and loss of mental acuity. Waldbott used double-blind tests to determine whether fluoride was the cause of symptoms in many of his cases. In each of these patients, the symptoms disappeared when the fluoride was taken away without the patient's knowledge and reappeared when it was given again.12
Other ailments include :13
Destruction of about 60 enzymes including cytochrome C and cholinesterase which handle oxygen.
Genetic change in sperm and other cells.
Most processes which take raw materials from the earth's crust and subject them to high temperatures liberate fluorides. Fluorine compounds are involved in the production of aluminium, steel, uranium, beryllium, bricks, cement, pottery, enamel, plastics etc. The aluminium industry produces the highly poisonous by-product fluo-spar from aluminium slag. Hydrogen fluoride and elemental fluorine are also used in the nuclear industry in uranium production. For many of these industries fluorides present the biggest waste disposal problem. This begs the question who will be making profit by selling fluoride to our municipalities which would otherwise be very costly to dispose of ?14
Industries ( mostly steel and aluminium plants ) emmitting fluoride air pollution have been blamed for destroying crops and laming cattle, corrosion of steel bridges and killer smogs . In Donora, Pennsylvania from October 27-31, 1948 a fluoride rich smog from the town's zinc mill killed 20 people, numbers of livestock and pets and caused a further 6000 people to become ill.15
Phosphate fertiliser factories have also caused fluoride damage to animal and plant life in their vicinity. The application of phosphate fertilisers to soil dramatically increases fluorides in the soil which results in uptake by crops we later eat and contamination of drinking water through run off. In the district of Aichi in Japan people were taking in as much as 11mg of fluoride a day from foods they were eating.
What these examples indicate is that we are already exposed to high levels of fluoride. By fluoridating our water we will increase the load, dispersing fluoride further through the environment where it accumulates and finds its way back into our food products. Albert Schatz calculated that fluoride toothpastes alone were adding 116 000 pounds of fluoride to the environment in the 1970's.
Canadian Dental Association Advises AGAINST Fluoride Supplements in Young Children To avoid permanent tooth discoloration, the Canadian Dental Association (CDA) is now advising AGAINST fluoride supplement use for children before their permanent teeth have erupted, usually at about 6 or 7 years of age.
The CDA states in its revised guidlines:
There is "...weak scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of fluoride supplements."
"The use of fluoride supplements before the eruption of the first permanent tooth is generally not recommended," Anti-fluoridation forces had plenty to say on the matter. Lawyer Paul Beeber is President of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.
"Studies show that tooth decay is declining in both fluoridated and non- fluoridated areas while dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow or brown stained and sometimes crumbly teeth) is increasing, more so in fluoridated areas. Furthermore, fluoride poses harmful systemic damage as well as dental damage," he states.
The American Dental Association (ADA), which still recommends fluoride supplements for children from 6 months to 16 years old in non or low-fluoridated communities, "is clinging to outmoded ideas," says Beeber. "And they are trailing behind the CDA by failing to protect our children."
"Fluoride supplements and water fluoridation must stop immediately," says Beeber.
One of Canada's leading fluoride authorities is dentist Hardy Limeback, head of the Department of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, and past-president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research.
"New research shows that swallowed fluoride carries little, if any, benefit. Fluoride's enamel strengthening effects are primarily topical, or when fluoride touches the outside of the tooth," Limeback states.
Additionally, "Fluoride's adverse effects occur upon ingestion. Fluoride gets into every cell of the body and can especially damage the bones and teeth."
"Half of all ingested fluoride remains in the skeletal system and accumulates with age," says Limeback.
"Studies have linked fluoridation to hip fractures and high levels of naturally-occurring water fluoride to crippling skeletal fluorosis, a bone deforming arthritic-type disease endemic to India," says Limeback.
A study in progress by Limeback shows that residents of fluoridated Toronto have double the fluoride in their hip bones than residents of non- fluoridated Montreal.
"Worse, we discovered that fluoride is actually altering the basic architecture of human bones," says Limeback. Ironically, "Here in Toronto we've been fluoridating for 36 years. Yet Vancouver, which has never fluoridated, has a cavity rate lower than Toronto's," says Limeback.
"We are now spending more money treating dental fluorosis than we would spend treating new decay if water fluoridation halted," says Limeback.
"The safety of long-term fluoride ingestion has not been proven. The notion that systemic fluorides are needed in non-fluoridated areas is an outdated one that should be abandoned altogether." says Limeback. Children may get fluoride from many different sources:
food and beverages made in fluoridated cities
Canadian Dental Association Board of Governors March, 2000 and other information obtained from the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
ROOT CANAL TREATMENT: IS THERE A COVER-UP?
INTRODUCTION. For the past 50 years, dentists have saved millions of teeth by performing endodontic therapy, or root canals. Dental students and residents in Endodontics (the speciality in dentistry devoted to the diagnosis and treatment of diseases inside teeth) have been taught to perform various procedures to save injured, dead, and dying teeth. These procedures were taught purely to help the public, with absolutely no other reason. The dental profession succeeded in teaching the value of saving teeth. However, today, there has been some revealing research which may require the dental profession to reconsider conventional ideas about endodontically treated teeth.
Today, there are many reputable doctors (dentists, physicians, and PhDs) who are concerned about endodontic therapy and possbile systemic effects on other organs and tissues in the body. It may even astound most dentists that the organisms which may be present in dead teeth may be impossible to irradicate no matter how well the root canal procedure is performed! These organisms are not actually in the canal portion of the tooth, but in the tiny microscopic tubules which comprise the dentin (the material below the enamel which is more organic than enamel) of the tooth. Herein lies the scientific question: does it matter that these organisms remain viable even after endodontic therapy? Researchers on both sides of this heated issue agree that these organisms do stay alive after root canal procedures, but they can't agree whether this is important or not.
Dr. Weston Price's Research. Dr. Weston Price, the noted and honored dental researcher of the early part of this century, headed a team of America's finest scientific researchers, numbering 60 doctors. Their research was conducted under the auspices of the American Dental Association (ADA). From their 25 years of study, this research team published 25 scientific papers dealing with the effects of dead or endodontically treated teeth producing other diseases and disorders in remote areas of the body. The research was not only accepted by the scientific community, but served to form an important concept in medicine which is even taught today: the focal theory of infection. Anyone who has a prosthetic joint replacement or a mitral value prolapse will immediately understand this concept, as they cannot undergo any dental procedure without first being treated with certain antibiotics to stop the spread of bacteria from the mouth to remote areas of the body which may produce a fatal infection.
Since the advent of antibiotics, dentists and physicians have been taught that the focal theory of infection is erroneous and has no scientific basis. Further, they are taught that there is no modern evidence that endodontically treated teeth are the source of focal infections. However, again, recall that patients with joint replacements and certain heart conditions must take antibiotics before and after any dental procedures. Why? Because the bacteria which live in the mouth enter the blood stream because of the dental procedures and travel to the heart and joints, thus possibily causing severe and often fatal diseases. Now, think about what you've just read: how can any dentist or physician claim that the focal theory of infection has no scientific validity when dentists are required to premedicate their patients to avoid producing a distant or focal infection?
A series of Links related to above articles
Hennie van Dyk