In future newsletters we will demonstrate that, in the case of fluoridation, the safety factor of "1" chosen for humans by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was chosen arbitrarily and with very questionable criteria on what constitutes harmful effects. [See Terminology and Basic Scientific Facts] However, in this newsletter, we will briefly address the criterion of moderate dental fluorosis as a minimal symptom of an adverse effect.
If fluoridation were defined as a rigorous scientific measure, since its launch in 1945, we should have known and determined exactly:
1. The Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA)
2. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) (human dose)
3. The No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL)
4. The Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL)
5. The Safety Factor (FS)
The first four points to be expressed as mg fluoride per kg body weight per day (mg/kg/day).
To illustrate the amateurishness of health authorities regarding fluoridation, we could well go back to the beginning of the history of fluoridation in 1945. However, we will content ourselves here using the example of a Canadian document of 158 pages, written in 1974, by a group of expert dentists from the Quebec Ministry of Social Affairs (now called the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services), entitled Dossier technique sur la fluoration 1974 (Technical File on Fluoridation 1974). It served to convince the Parliament of Quebec to adopt Bill 88 in Quebec making fluoridation mandatory for all municipalities in Quebec with a potable water plant. There was a parliamentary commission on the issue of fluoridation, in which the medical and dental associations of Quebec supporting fluoridation participated. It was passed in 1975.
The Dossier technique sur la fluoration 1974 is therefore presented as a fundamental document on which rests all the science supporting this public health measure in Quebec. Here are some excerpts to illustrate its shortcomings in terms of scientific rigor.
[Our English translation]
(Page 11) “For Quebec, the ideal fluoride content has been set at 1.2 ppm (parts per million) or 1.2 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water. Thanks to the controlled fluoridation of water, the attack of dental caries can be reduced by up to 60% without causing undesirable side-effects."
(Page 16) “All the studies made on the extraordinary fluorine/caries phenomenon lead to the following conclusions:
1. We know exactly the ideal fluoride content of the water to achieve the protective effect against cavities without having to worry about the presence of fluorosis.
5. The ideal fluoride content of the water ensures maximum protection against cavities. Higher fluoride content will not increase caries protection but may cause fluorosis."
(Page 52) “The amount of fluoride ingested daily by a child should not exceed 2 mg if we want to avoid any risk of the appearance of mottled enamel.”
In a 158-page document aimed at promoting a measure that is claimed to be of "unquestionable scientific rigor", there is no data expressed in mg of fluoride per kg of body weight per day (mg/kg/day) as mentioned above.
This illustrates that with water fluoridation, a public health policy has been implemented which consists of the administration of a substance for therapeutic purposes without knowing either the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) or the minimum dose Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL) taking into account the weight of the subject. A 6-month-old, 7 or 8 kg baby should not be given the same dose of a drug or a nutrient as a 65 or 100 kg adult. This is fundamental in medicine.
Worse still, the Dossier technique sur la fluoration 1974 states that the maximum daily dose should not exceed 2 mg. Yet in this same document, the only table on this subject (page 52), reports that the total daily intake (water, food, pollution, toothpaste) for children in the age group of 10-12 years exceeds the maximum of 2 mg per day, at 2.16 mg. Note that this total intake was calculated based on the most conservative deviations for each source of fluoride exposure.
IS 2.0 MG PER DAY A "NO OBSERVED ADVERSE EFFECT LEVEL" (NOAEL)?
First, this is an archaic way of expressing a daily dose. The EPA publishes a database of toxicity values derived from dose-response relationships relating exposure (dose) to health effect for various chemicals found in the environment. This database, called the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS; U.S. EPA 2003), provides toxicity values. The Reference Dose (RfD) published by the EPA for fluoride is 0.06 mg/kg/day and is based on a NOAEL of 0.06 mg/kg/day.
The NOAEL is derived from a chronic critical effect study (moderate-severe dental fluorosis) in a susceptible human population (children). Moderate dental fluorosis is not just an aesthetic effect on the tooth, it is a serious manifestation of toxicity, but it is the toxicity threshold criterion used by the EPA. This toxicity threshold criterion is more than debatable. It should be remembered that during the parliamentary commission to implement fluoridation in Quebec, the authorities of the Ministry of Health swore that this measure would not result in more than 10% of cases of very mild fluorosis, at worst. Certainly, the recent statistics on dental fluorosis have shown that they were only 700% wrong!
Dental Fluorosis Trends in US Oral Health Surveys: 1986 to 2012, JDR Clinical and Tranlational Research, 6 mars, 2019—Neurath, C. Limeback, H, Osmunson, B.
MAXIMUM SAFE DOSE
Let's go back to the EPA Reference Dose (RfD) for fluoride which is 0.06 mg/kg/day, that is to say, the maximum safe dose and establish the calculations according to the average weight of the children according to age from the recommended daily intake of 2.00 mg for a child (whose age is not defined) as advised in the Dossier technique sur la fluoration 1974.
The daily intake expressed in mg/kg of weight/day and percentage of excess of the Reference Dose (RfD):
