Join the Fluoridation Free coalition in calling for a nationwide ban on fluoridation of public drinking water

The most recent large scale study was carried out in Australia in 2004. It showed there was no difference in dental decay in 12 year children whether or not they had been receiving fluoridated water. [Jason M. Armfield and A. John Spencer, Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology Volume 32 Issue 4 Page 283 - August 2004].

World Health Organisation statistics (see Appendix 1) show there is no significant difference in tooth decay rates in unfluoridated versus fluoridated areas worldwide. These statistics are consistent with recent American studies. Results from the Yiamouyiannis study show there is little to no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas throughout America. [National Survey of U.S. schoolchildren, Yiamouyiannis JA. Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay : Fluoride 23 55-67 1990]. The Arizona Steelink study found “when we plotted the incidence of tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child’s neighborhood drinking water, a positive correlation was revealed. In other words, the more fluoride a child rank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth” [Jones T. Steelink C, Sierka J. Analysis of the causes of tooth decay in children in Tucson, Arizona. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, San Francisco, Feb 1994. Abstract in Fluoride 27 (4) 238 1994 and Steelink C. Letter. Chemical and Engineering News July 1992 2-3]. These trends are consistent with New Zealand statistics where there are many areas where tooth decay is lower in unfluoridated compared to fluoridated towns.

John Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland City Council and former pro-fluoridationist, discovered there was virtually no difference in tooth decay rates between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of the Greater Auckland Area. [Colquhoun J. Child dental health differences in New Zealand. Community Health Studies 11 85-90 1987]. In fact, teeth were slightly better in the unfluoridated areas.

There is a consistent trend in these studies clearly showing no significant difference in decay rates between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, which raises the question, why do we still fluoridate? In the words of a pro-fluoridationist who reversed his view, John Colquhoun, “The history of science shows what all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact – especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.” Appendix 2 “Why I changed my mind about Water Fluoridation, John Colquhoun 1997 University of Chicago Press. The report also shows how and why the original studies on fluoridation are seriously flawed and in some cases were rigged to report the desired data.

Fluoridation creates more health problems than it is alleged to fix

As early as 1983, studies have been emerging that link fluoridation with a number of other health issues ranging from dental fluorosis to bone cancer in young men. For the single questionable benefit fluoridation is purported to have, the number of health issues it can cause renders fluoridation an ineffective narrowly focused health policy.

Dental Fluorosis - Over exposure to fluoride has been proven to cause dental fluorosis. Pro-fluoridation lobbyists have long reported that there is no possibility of harm from fluoridated water. At worst dental fluorosis can occur, but this is a mild cosmetic change and no threat to public health, they would propose.

Dental fluorosis is a serious issue in New Zealand. “The Southland Study” [New Zealand Dental Journal 35 June 2005 Timothy D. MacKay, W. Murray Tompson, 2005 Enamel defects and dental caries among Southland children 2005] showed 29% of children in fluoridated areas had some form of dental fluorosis compared to 15% in non-fluoridated areas. The 2008 Auckland Study confirmed the same trend. According to recent American statistics 32% of American children have dental fluorosis, a significant increase from 23% since the 1980s.

Common sense would tell us that if a substance circulating in a child’s body can damage tooth enamel, then other harm is most likely. New evidence has emerged that shows dental fluorosis is not just a cosmetic problem. [Chlebna-Sokol D, Czerwinski E. Bone structure assessment on radiographs of distal radial metaphysic in children with dental fluorosis. Fluoride 26 37-44, 1993]. Polish researchers reported that boys with dental fluorosis also exhibit bone structure disturbances. In China children with dental fluorosis have on average lower intelligence scores. [Li XS, Zhi JL, Gao RO. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence of children. Fluoride 28 189-192,1995]. A Mexico study shows children with dental fluorosis have increased rates of bone fractures. [Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. (2001). Well Water Fluoride, Dental fluorosis, Bone Fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride 34(2): 139-149].

Hip Fractures - In 1990 the first study reporting an association between fluoridated water and hip fractures in the elderly was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association [264 500-502, Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Miles TP et al. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture among white women aged 65 years and older.] There have been several other studies linking water fluoride levels to hip fractures confirming that when fluoride accumulates in bones it weakens them. [Riggs BL, Hodgson SF, O’Fallon WM et al. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine 322 802-809 1990] and Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium Fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 4 223-225 1989].

Bone Cancer - In 1983 the IRCS Medical Science Journal [11 813-814 reported Kanwar KC< Parminderjit SV, Kalla NR] studied in vitro inhibition of testosterone synthesis in the presence of fluoride ions. The study found the incidence of a rare bone cancer, Osteosarcoma, in young male rats. This finding was dismissed by the pro-fluoridation lobby as unlikely to be important for humans. Yet this same rare bone cancer has increased dramatically in teenage boys aged 9-19 in the fluoridated areas of America but not in the non-fluoridated areas. The New Jersey Department of Health reported Osteosarcoma rates were three to seven times higher in fluoridated than unfluoridated areas. [Hoover RN, Devesa S, Cantor K, Fraumeni JrJF. Time trends for bone and join cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program, National Cancer Insitute].

Elise Bassin’s study, published in Cancer Causes and Controls 2006, showed boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of six to ten were 500–700% more likely to develop osteosarcoma in their late teens than boys that hadn’t been exposed to fluoride. While other studies in the past have shown no relationship between fluoride and bone cancer, Bassin discovered the missing link. The age that boys are exposed to fluoride is the determining factor. This research has not been disproven.

Adverse Thyroid Function The recent National Academy of Sciences report [NA: Toxicological Risk of fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006] also outlines the detrimental effect that fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Total endocrine function has never been adequately studied in relation to total fluoride intake.