Earlier this month, Portlanders convened in the Smith Memorial Student Union to hear Dr. Yolanda Whyte present a talk on the health risks of water fluoridation. Opponents and proponents alike gathered to begin warming up for the heated debate that will play out over the next three months.
The fluoride debate
Earlier this month, Portlanders convened in the Smith Memorial Student Union to hear Dr. Yolanda Whyte present a talk on the health risks of water fluoridation. Opponents and proponents alike gathered to begin warming up for the heated debate that will play out over the next three months.
This May, Portland voters will decide whether to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water.
Portland is the largest city in the nation that does not fluoridate its water.
Although Portland City Council members unanimously approved a water fluoridation plan, opponents were able to gather more than 30,000 signatures from the public, leading to a referendum.
“The more people find out about the issue, the more they are concerned about it,” said Frances Quaempts-Miller, a chief petitioner with Clean Water Portland, an organization that opposes water fluoridation. Miller thinks voters will reject fluoridation in May.
“But people are a lot less educated [about fluoride] than one might expect,” Miller said.
Whyte underscored the broad lack of awareness.
“I grew up on fluoridated water in Brooklyn, N.Y. My first visit to the dentist was at age 17—I had 13 cavities and needed three root canals,” Whyte said.
An Atlanta, Georgia-based pediatrician who sits on the National Medical Association’s Environmental Health Task Force, Whyte speaks nationally on children’s health issues. She was brought to speak at Portland State by Clean Water Portland.
Whyte never questioned the safety or effectiveness of fluoride during her academic education. The medical community did not consider it a noteworthy concern, Whyte explained.
“And I was a biology major and a chemistry minor!” Whyte said. “So I decided to go back into books, back into school, and did my own research.”
According to Whyte, fluoridated water has potentially adverse effects on a wide swathe of the population. Seniors exposed to fluoride, she said, are susceptible to higher rates of arthritis and hypothyroidism, because fluoride is an endocrine disrupter.
But Whyte was most concerned about the way fluoridated water affects children.
“Children are at risk both in terms of the dose [of fluoride] and the timing,” Whyte said. “From age 6 to 8, secondary tooth development is occurring. Their organs are still developing.”
Whyte said that fluorine’s small molecular size and electronegativity causes it to bind to calcium, leading to changes in bones and the pineal gland. Fluoride, she explained, is able to easily cross the blood-brain barrier.
“Fluorine has very strong chemical properties. It is so corrosive it can etch glass,” Whyte said. “It can affect teeth, bones, kidneys.”
The National Institutes of Health classifies fluoride as a toxin, Whyte said, distinguished from the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of sodium fluoride.
Whyte projected an image of decaying, pigmented teeth.
“These aren’t stains. Blueberries leave stains,” Whyte said. “This is hypomineralization.” Fluoride, she said, makes teeth more susceptible to fractures even while protecting against cavities.
But some audience members disagreed with Whyte’s conclusions.
“She spoke about dental fluorosis as a disease and it being a sign of toxicity. It is not. There is no reputable scientific organization that backs that allegation,” said Dr. Kurt Ferre, a retired dentist.
“She overstated fluorosis when she showed slides of moderate fluorosis and called it mild fluorosis,” said Ferre, who cited a report that found that when fluoride concentration is reduced slightly, severe fluorosis virtually disappears.
Audience members could submit questions on index cards to be read by a moderator. Despite the divisions of opinion in the room, a debate format was not chosen for the event. Members from Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland, a pro-fluoridation group, were present.
“Anti-fluoridationists use scare tactics and pseudo-science to support their claims that fluoride in any amount is dangerous,” said Kristi Jo Lewis, a spokesperson for Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland.
“Over 3,000 scientific studies and 65 years of experience have reliably demonstrated that community water fluoridation at the optimal amount of 0.7 ppm is safe and effective,” Lewis said.
Whyte concluded that the risks of fluoridation outweigh the benefits.
Whyte recommended alternative forms of cavity prevention through dental hygiene and dental care access.
Miller praised Whyte’s presentation as she addressed the audience, saying, “[Whyte] is an inspiration because she has the courage to speak out.”
Perhaps fluoridation of water is “safe and effective” at 0.7 ppm, IF that was your ONLY source of fluoride each day. Fluoride bio-accumulates in the body from ALL sources regardless of the amount maintained in tap water. You can’t cook it out, nor does it evaporate. Fluoride is used as a pesticide on our foods in much higher amounts than is allowed in tap water. Fluoride pesticide residue is left on these foods. And you can’t determine the fluoride levels in the human body by counting cavities unless it is your intention to be unscientific, or deceptive. When are these so-called science wizards going to start measuring fluoride levels in the human body with lab work? It doesn’t matter what the dose of fluoride is in tap water if it is bio-accumulating in the body each day. At some point, it will reach toxic levels and cause harm. Its not like you can excrete 100% of ingested fluoride every 24 hours. Children excrete less than 20% of ingested fluoride. Adults with normally functioning kidneys excrete less than 50% of ingested fluoride.
The 2006 NRC review of EPA standards on this DOES take into account other sources of fluoride. And still they found no evidence of risk from concentrations at 0.7ppm. They found that there were serious long term health risks for populations with drinking water that had concentrations of fluoride at 4ppm or higher. They also found that further research was warranted for water at 2ppm and higher. But given that fluoride ions are ubiquitous in water and always have been (it occurs naturally to varying degrees), it only makes sense that the human body would be designed to deal with, even benefit from, moderate amounts.
Sounds like you missed this part …
Chapter 7: Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects: Recommendations (pgs 222-223)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=222
On the basis of information largely derived from histological, chemical, and molecular studies, it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means. To determine the possible adverse effects of fluoride, additional data from both the experimental and the clinical sciences are needed.
The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities. Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short-and long-term memory. Care should be taken to ensure that proper testing methods are used, that all sources of exposure to fluoride are assessed, and that comparison populations have similar cultures and socioeconomic status.
Studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride should be undertaken to evaluate neurochemical changes that may be associated with dementia. Consideration should be given to assessing effects from chronic exposure, effects that might be delayed or occur late-in-life, and individual susceptibility (see Chapters 2 and 3 for discussion of subpopulations that might be more susceptible to the effects of fluoride from exposure and physiologic standpoints, respectively).
Additional animal studies designed to evaluate reasoning are needed. These studies must be carefully designed to measure cognitive skills beyond rote learning or the acquisition of simple associations, and test environmentally relevant doses of fluoride.
At the present time, questions about the effects of the many histological, biochemical, and molecular changes caused by fluorides cannot be related to specific alterations in behavior or to known diseases. Additional studies of the relationship of the changes in the brain as they affect the hormonal and neuropeptide status of the body are needed. Such relationships should be studied in greater detail and under different environmental conditions.
Most of the studies dealing with neural and behavioral responses have tested NaF. It is important to determine whether other forms of fluoride (e.g., silicofluorides) produce the same effects in animal models.
A most excellent point.
Whales have spectacularly high skeletal fluoride which they also accumulate over a lifetime eating food which lives in about 1.4 ppm natural fluoride. The only species I’ve been able to find which is truly sensitive to low exposures of fluoride are air ferns whose normal water is distilled (dew).
Why did they have to find a pediatrician from Georgia to reiterate the talking points of Paul Connet and his Fluoride Action Network which is spearheading this national campaign to raise fears over fluoridation. I’ve looked at the papers they cite and they grossly misrepresent the findings. Plus in order to believe everything they’re saying you really have to accept the notion that the ADA, the AMA, the EPA and the CDC just to start with, are literally involved in a profit driven cover-up in order to purposely poison the American People. I don’t buy it.
Let’s start with this:
INVESTIGATION OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION (ADA)
Are children dying because of lack of fluoride? No, they’re dying because they consume too much sugar, plus the ADA does everything in its power to be exempt from medicare. This investigation reveals how the ADA maintains its exemption from Medicare and also how — and why — they enforce water fluoridation (because they profit from it!), not just at the federal level but also in each state, trickling down to Portland’s own “Healthy Kids Healthy Portland”.
2012-02-09: Access to Dental Care: A National Scandal
published by Hospitals & Health Networks, the flagship publication of the American Hospital Association (AHA)
http://www.hhnmag.com/hhnmag/HHNDaily/HHNDailyDisplay.dhtml?id=2540006049
After reading the history of dentistry being rejected by the Baltimore College of Medicine, I have a newfound sympathy for organized dentistry, BUT it seems they’ve been holding a grudge ever since that takes priority over what’s best for patients. This makes them potentially liable for manslaughter.
2012-06-22: Wall Street Journal: The Health PAC to Watch? Dentists
Powerful Group Fights to Keep Others From Lucrative Practice as It Prepares for High-Court Ruling
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304441404577478723769027162.html#articleTabs%3Dvideo
Nothing particularly sinister about the ADA wanting to protect its dentists but it demonstrates that they care a hell of a lot more about themselves than proper healthcare for patients.
ADA: Fluoridation “Facts”
http://www.ada.org/sections/professionalResources/pdfs/fluoridation_facts.pdf
And on page 2 we see this report is from 2005. That’s right, they haven’t updated it since the NRC 2006 report!!!
And ironically on page 23: “In scientific research, there is no such thing as ‘final knowledge’.”
Evidence of profit motive:
http://www.ada.org/news/1865.aspx
The first ADA Smile Healthy product, Kid Pure fluoridated water, is now on the shelves in Wal-Mart stores in four states: Florida, Illinois, Ohio and Indiana. Each jug bears the ADA’s Smile Healthy certification mark and contains 0.7-1.2 parts per million of fluoride, meeting the ADA recommended formulation. Kid Pure’s water is bottled by Water Source One, a leading producer of private label bottled water in the United States and the ADA’s first Smile Healthy participant.
The program is modeled after the American Heart Association’s Heart Healthy program for foods low in fat and cholesterol, and all proceeds from the program go to the ADA Foundation for access programs, research, education and public awareness.
And how much $$$ goes to ADA administrators and Water Source One?
ADPAC “Accomplishments” http://www.ada.org/7622.aspx
“The American Dental Association is one of the most influential trade lobbies in the country…”
– Wall Street Journal Capital Journal, Aug. 24, 2012
They quote that as though it’s a good thing.
“Ensuring that implementation of health care reform maximizes opportunities to improve access while not adversely affecting dental practices and patients.”
Yeah right, it’s actually about maintaining their exemption from Medicare which they’ve been fighting since 1965.
“Pushing for medical liability reform.”
No doubt to reduce the risk of being sued for things like, oh say, children dying because the ADA makes it so difficult to get dental care? And for shoving toxic fluoride down our throats:
“Fighting anti-fluoridation efforts on Capitol Hill and in the states.”
How ADA Corruption Trickles Down into Oregon and Portland
Oregon Dental Association (ODA)
http://www.oregondental.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3498
“The Oregon Dental Association is one of five constituent dental societies (including Alaska, Idaho, Montana and Washington) that comprise the American Dental Association’s Eleventh Trustee District.”
Portland based Oregon Dental Service (ODS) was created by the ODA and in 1995 the U.S. Department of Justice made a judgement against the ODS, found guilty of Sherman Act antitrust violations. Basically they acted like a mafia organization coercing member dentists to keep their prices high all over Oregon and prevent competition from other dental plans.
http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f211000/211054.htm
Dentists of Oregon Political Action Committee (DOPAC) appears to be the political arm of the ODA:
http://www.oregondental.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3333
https://secure.sos.state.or.us/orestar/sooDetail.do?cneCommitteeId=54
They’re both based in Wilsonville which does not fluoridate their water and would not “benefit” from Portland fluoridation (how convenient for them):
http://user.govoutreach.com/wilsonville/faq.php?cid=4882
2013-02-21: Dentists Toss First Big Money Into Fluoride Battle
http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-29799-dentists_toss_first_big_money_into_fluoride_battle.html
The Willamette Week reports that DOPAC is the major funder for the insidiously named “Healthy Kids Healthy Portland” (HKHP).
And finally, Seth Woolley (candidate for Oregon Secretary of State http://www.seth4sos.org) reveals how HKHP walks the fine line of legality to minimize their transparency:
http://www.facebook.com/sethwoolley/posts/437742426304636
The above statement, “At some point, it will reach toxic levels and cause harm” is rubbish. There have been many systematic reviews on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation over the last 20 years. One systematic review back in May, 2011 came from Europe:
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks SCHER
Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf
Pages 17-18 summarize the studies on IQ.
“Conclusion
Available human studies do not clearly support the conclusion that fluoride in drinking water impairs children’s neurodevelopment at levels permitted in the EU. A systematic evaluation of the human studies does not suggest a potential thyroid effect at realistic exposures to fluoride. The absence of thyroid effects in rodents after long-term fluoride administration and the much higher sensitivity of rodents to changes in thyroid related endocrinology as compared with humans do not support a role for fluoride induced thyroid perturbations in humans. The limited animal data can also not support the link between fluoride exposure and neurotoxicity at relevant non-toxic doses.
SCHER agrees that there is not enough evidence to conclude that fluoride in drinking water at concentrations permitted in the EU may impair the IQ of children. SCHER also agrees that a biological plausibility for the link between fluoridated water and IQ has not been established.”
Please go to their website. They review many other areas of the body that the opponents to fluoridation have raised.
What is the optimum dosage for a fetus?
At 0.7mg/L how much fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland over one’s lifetime?
How does fluoride effect the functionality of the pineal gland?
Whyte uses fear and hype and no scientific evidence to support outlandish claims of harm, while never even mentioning the benefits of fluoride. There are decades and thousands of studies proving the safety and efficacy of fluoride. There are many chemicals in our environment that we should work on reducing, like BPA; fluoride is not in this category. Yet Whyte and other opponents equally put any element into the same category. One could say the same thing of oxygen, it is absolutely a toxin in high doses, but no one would ever argue we should do away with it (maybe some would). At the levels recommended, fluoride is safe and extremely effective.
A case study of one in Ms. White’s case is hardly sound science. She drank water with flouride and had cavities, but myriad other sources of poor dental health exist. The truth is and science supports that for 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. The United States Centers for Disease Control has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. No systematic and evidence-based reviews of the past six decades have shown that adding fluoride to public drinking water poses a risk to human or animal health. Much to the contrary.
65 years doesn’t prove anything either. Our corrupt public health officials were also wrong about DDT, PCBs, lead, and asbestos.
Really, Kenric? 65 years doesn’t prove anything?! What is your baseline for scientific research then?
And then you trot out the anti- side’s old saws about a few things that happened in the 40’s (DDT, etc.) We’ve trusted the CDC, for example, to tell us what’s what with AIDS, H1N1 virus, and a host of other public health problems. Are they suddenly wrong about fluoride? And why do dentists overwhelmingly support it, when they could make so much money without fluroidation on even worse teeth?
The public should keep in mind that a half dozen of large systematic reviews of fluoridation research have concluded that fluoridation is safe and effective in lowering cavities by 20-40% over and above other dental health measures. Systematic reviews are the gold standard in science. If people are confused about fluoridation, I recommend they talk to their dentist or physician.
Dear Ravleen & readers:
I am surprised that a PSU event would have such a one-sided presentation format on a supposedly scientific controversy like fluoridation. In such a format, no one could show how false were many of Dr. Whyte’s claims:#1. the National Institute of Health does NOT classify Fluoride as a toxin. Every part of the NIH website calls fluoridation safe and effective and, along with vaccinations-many of which Dr. Whyte also opposes– 2 of the top 10 greatest health interventions of the 20th century. #2. No reliable literature, including The National Research Council’s 2006 review, has found that fluoride ingestion possible from community water fluoridation causes thyroid disease or arthritis, or is an endocrine disrupter. And Dr. Whyte, while her website portrays her as board certified, is not a board certified pediatrician. You can buy in-home radon detectors from her on her other website.
Yes, Virgina, very great point! Where is the debate? Why is it the pro-fluoridation group won’t debate? This is an extremely important decision and there should be a public debate wtih a neutral moderator.
I would love to see the pro-fluoridation group actually have to answer questions rather than changing the subject or bullying the person asking the question.
Fluorosilicic acid is an industrial waste by-product that has negative health affects for many people. It does no belong in a public wter system!
Vote NO fluoridation chemicals May 2013
Healthy Kids Healthy Portland is more than willing to send speakers and debaters to events and media outlets, quickly and without fuss. They did so for my radio show on KPSU. The organizers of the event above didn’t bother to invite them, apparently, and The Vanguard writer didn’t bother to call them.
Why did they have to go all the way to Georgia to find a pediatrician who will repeat the talking points of Paul Connett and his Fluoride Action Network which has been spearheading the national campaign to evoke fear around fluoride? I’ve looked at the studies they cite and they grossly misrepresent the findings. In order to believe everything they say about fluoride you also have to believe that the ADA, the AMA, the EPA, and the CDC, just to start with, are all part of a profit driven conspiracy to poison the American people. I just don’t buy it.
1. High profile, PhD dental researchers were at the talk and called it rubbish.
2.A few other health professionals were at the talk and called it an “evangelical show lacking in science”
3. Yolanda Whyte specifically said that “her friends in Haiti had beautiful white teeth, despite the fact that they use fluoridated salt”
4.Yolanda Whyte specifically stated she supports fluoridated salt as it has not caused fluorosis in Haiti.
5. Yolanda Whyte did not include reference citations in her presentation
http://www.kenricashe.com/intolerable/blog.cfm?cal=intolerable&ID=048316a6-347b-292d-a054-1b18675fdb1d
Whether or not fluoride is “safe and effective” is immaterial. The concepts of Informed Consent and appropriate dose for height/weight and medical history loom larger. People have the right to ingest as much of this stuff as they want, and others also have the right to decline. Addidtionally, note the the American Dental Association does not take payment from Medicaid (low income people) and has lobbies for years to keep it that way…and then they argue the fluoridation is for the poor kids, give me a break.
Here is an example of how HKHP censors information and reasonable debate: http://carlssonia.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-portland-water-fluoridation.html
Your article was heavy on anti-fluoridation sources, when many pro-fluoridation sources are available. I researched this issue heavily for my radio show on KPSU, and came to the conclusion that fluoridation is perfectly safe (3300 peer-reviewed studies and the CDC say so), that the anti-side cherry-picks science and then sensationalizes it. The anti-fluoridation activist I interviewed had a lame answer to my point that we already put chlorine, ammonia, and lye into our pristine Bull Run water.
“That’s water treatment,” he said. “Fluoride is medicating without permission.”
That’s semantics. Leaving aside the fact that fluoride is a natural-occurring mineral, we all drink the same glass of water, no matter how you frame it. Only with the minuscle amounts of fluroide to be added, we’d all have much healthier teeth. I never had a cavity until I moved to un-fluoridated Oregon.