http://www.healthsentinel.com/news.php?event=news_print_list_item&id=1440

Dr. Limeback, "GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is
overwhelming", Standard Times, May 14, 2006,
Link: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-06/05-14-06/02opinion.htm

Dr. Limeback was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National
Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, "Fluoride in
Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards." Dr.
Limeback is an associate professor of dentistry and head of the
preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto.

The argument against fluoridation is strong when all the points listed
below are taken together.

1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.

Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth eruption and,
therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al, 2005,
Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work are
over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of
fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that
there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between
fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia
(Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology.
32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that
dental fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines
but there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et
al 2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47).

Public health services will claim there is a dental decay crisis. With
the national average in the U.S. of only two decayed teeth per child
(World Health Organization data), down from more than 15 decayed teeth
in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as much as half
of all children grow up not having a single filling. This remarkable
success has been achieved in other developed countries without
fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay in the U.S. often mentioned
is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially soda pop.
A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the Public
Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of their
daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft drinks
are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is obviously
not helping.

The families of these children with rampant dental decay need
professional assistance. Are they getting it? Children who grow up in
low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot afford dental
care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional intervention
result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to show that
fluoridation benefited poor people.

Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants (baby bottle syndrome)
cannot be prevented with water fluoridation. The majority of dentists
in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because they lose money
treating these patients. Dentists support fluoridation programs because
it absolves them of their responsibility to provide assistance to those
who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities where water
fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting similar dental
"crises."

Public health officials responsible for community programs are
misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride "makes the
teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It does not
make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay before
they erupt into the oral environment. The small benefit that
fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of
fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while
the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar
and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology
27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease
Control.

2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.

Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled when only one
concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is available in the
drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much fluoride when tap
water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback, 2003 Journal of
Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily fluoride comes
from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk for dental
fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences:
Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006).

We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since fluoridation was
conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third child with dental
fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a cosmetic effect. The
more severe forms are associated with an increase in dental decay (NAS:
Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006) and the
psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most children with
moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive restorative work
costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be reduced by
turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental decay rates
(Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).

3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for
safety.

All the animal cancer studies were done on pharmaceutical-grade sodium
fluoride. There is more than enough evidence to show that even this
fluoride has the potential to promote cancer. Some communities use
sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even that chemical is not
the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities instead use
hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is concentrated directly
from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate
fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants and trickled directly
into the drinking water. It is industrial grade fluoride contaminated
with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium,
which are harmful to humans at the levels that are being added to
fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using hydrofluorosilicic
acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has an added risk of
increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al 2000,
Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found in
the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in
their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives
114:130-134).

4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.

Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been identified as a
risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study (Bassin,
Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr. Elise
Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested and
contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the seven-fold
increase risk of bone cancer.

Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of naturally fluoridated
water at 4 parts per million increases your risk for bone pain and bone
fractures (National Academy of Sciences: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride
in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride accumulates in bone, the same
risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day of artificially
fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people with renal
disease. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that fluoride
is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in patients
who retain too much fluoride.

Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy of Sciences
report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006)
outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that fluoride has on
the endocrine system, especially the thyroid. Fluoridation should be
halted on the basis that endocrine function in the U.S. has never been
studied in relation to total fluoride intake.

Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the added accumulation of
lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in fluoridated cities,
fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only now starting to
understand how fluoride affects the brain. While some recent Chinese
studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ (NAS, 2006),
we need to study this more in depth in North America.

In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than
beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly
reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so
at risk of future litigation.