The FLUORIDE Report Fluoride Free Canada |
|
|
Hello : DEBUNKING THE MYTHS – EPISODE #4 |
|
|
MYTH #4 – That an optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm of fluoride in drinking water will ensure the administration of an optimal and safe daily dose of fluoride for the health of each citizen, dose-adjusted according to their weight, age, gender, state of health, diet, environment and physical activities, regardless of the amount of water consumed. |
|
|
Today we will debunk Myth #4 by detailing the reasons why the "optimal concentration" is actually NOT scientific! THE ESSENTIAL MISSING PARAMETER: CONTROL In the previous newsletter, we raised the fact that fluoridation lacks an essential parameter to administer an appropriate daily dose of fluoride to each citizen, which is: CONTROL of the amount of water consumed directly or indirectly.that fluoridation lacks an essential parameter to administer an appropriate daily dose of fluoride to each citizen, which is: CONTROL of the amount of water consumed directly or indirectly. Indirectly, because in the calculation, account must be taken of the fluoride used for food prepared at home, in restaurants or in industry. So how is it possible to establish an optimal fluoride concentration, to administer a recommended daily dose of fluoride according to age, weight and diet, if we ignore one of the two essential parameters: SPECIFICALLY THE TOTAL AMOUNT CONSUMED? ______________________________________________________________________ HOW "AVERAGE" CONSUMPTION IS ABSURD What would you say if the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) determined that the amount of income tax due, be based only on an average of hours worked in a general population, for example 35 hours per week? It would be ridiculous, because there is no guarantee that you would be an average worker (as well as all the other factors that go into the calculation of income tax). In the case of fluoridation, the fixing of the ideal concentration of fluoride is based on an absurd premise: that the "average" is "optimal"…ignoring the reality of individual deviations. It's like pretending there are no poor people in Canada because the average Canadian earns $46,460 a year. Another comparison: we would be just as surprised if a chief of police refused to observe a drowning in a river because the average water level in the river is 15 centimeters and one cannot drown in 15 centimeters of water. Yet we all know there can be deep basins in a river. ______________________________________________________________________ UNCONTROLLED VARIABLE: CLIMATE Fluoridation claims to be a rigorous and scientific measure. If so, how is it explained that, in similar climatic conditions, health authorities around the world propose different optimal concentrations of fluoride? During the first 50 years of fluoridation, the ideal concentration was set according to the average temperature of the country: - 0.6 ppm in tropical countries such as in Africa
- 0.8 ppm in subtropical countries
- 1.0 ppm in temperate countries such as England and the United States
- 1.2 ppm in cold countries such as Canada
Obviously, temperature is a factor that determines water consumption. The warmer the climate, the more we drink, but not necessarily water. Many can drink other things, including soft drinks or beer, which may or may not contain fluoridated water depending upon the fluoridation status of the municipality where they are bottled. Depending on the place of production, the fluoride concentration of these drinks can vary not only from one brand to another, but also from the same bottler. The multiple options in the consumption of liquids to quench one's thirst make fluoride intake random from one individual to another and even in the same individual from one day to the next. Consequently, attempting to determine the ideal concentration of fluoride in drinking water, in order to determine an optimal dose to the citizens of a municipality according to the climate, is based on a set of uncontrollable variables: it is a fanciful dream. |
|
|
In the world, there are approximately thirty countries that use fluoridation. Of this number, there are only ten where more than 40% of the population receives fluoridated water. Due to a high incidence of dental fluorosis, several countries have decided to lower the optimal concentration from 1.2–1.0 ppm to 0.7 ppm (mg/liter). |
|
|
This is the case for Canada since 2004 and Ireland since 2007, while England maintains its optimal concentration at 1.0 ppm and the United States is in the process of lowering theirs from 1.2–0.8 ppm, according to climate zones, to 0.7 ppm. Even in Canada, Toronto and the Region of Peel have opted for an optimal concentration of 0.6 ppm. So why is there, in countries with relatively similar climates, so much disparity in the setting of the optimal concentration of fluoride in drinking water by their health authorities? 0.6 ppm is only 50% of the original concentration of 1.2 (considered the only safe and effective level). Until recently, during the optimal concentration debate in the United States, the United States Center for Disease Control and Prevention claimed that each concentration reduction of 0.2 ppm (0.2 mg/litre), would result in a loss of effectiveness of fluoridation in reducing dental caries by 20%. By this logic, three reductions of 0.2 mg/liter to fix the optimal concentration at 0.6 ppm would mean a reduction in the effectiveness of fluoridation by 60%. Which health authority in which country should be relied upon to determine the optimal concentration? Which of these health authorities is misinformed? If there is so much disparity on the setting of optimal fluoride concentration from one country to another, on what scientific basis is fluoridation based? Shouldn't science be universal? It was only in the face of alarming rates of dental fluorosis approaching 90% in fluoridated municipalities that the United States health authorities proposed in 2022, a reduction in the recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water. There is still a lot of resistance to doing so. Admitting a mistake is very difficult. ______________________________________________________________________ UNCONTROLLED VARIABLE: RACE Setting the optimum concentration of fluoride in drinking water should also take race into account. This is not the case. Often located at the bottom of the economic ladder, certain racial groups from Central America drink more water and less milk or juice. They therefore consume more fluoride from drinking water. The rates of dental fluorosis are about 50% higher than in Caucasians, who suffer more from dental caries. Calcium intake reduces fluoride toxicity, so lower milk consumption contributes to this greater susceptibility to dental fluorosis. Logically, the optimal concentration of fluoride for these citizens should be lowered. In this case, it would be necessary to build two aqueduct networks: one having a lower optimal fluoride concentration for citizens of less privileged classes of society. Absurd, right? This is one more flaw in the idea of being able to set an optimal concentration of fluoride in drinking water. ______________________________________________________________________ UNCONTROLLED VARIABLE: DIET Diet greatly influences daily fluoride intake. The English and Irish drink a lot of tea, a drink rich in fluoride. Marine fish also contain fluoride levels that are 3 to 4 times higher than meat; therefore populations consuming more fish have a greater fluoride intake. Vegetables and fruits from the garden watered with fluoridated water or grown in industrial regions generating fluoride pollution (iron smelters, aluminum smelters, production of phosphate fertilizers) contain 2 to 7 times more fluoride. The environment can therefore also be an important factor in fluoride intake. These variables should be taken into account when establishing the optimum concentration of fluoride in the water. ______________________________________________________________________ FACED WITH A SET OF UNCONTROLLABLE VARIABLES, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESTABLISH AN OPTIMAL CONCENTRATION OF FLUORIDE FOR FLUORIDATION Variables that determine the intake of fluoride: |
|
|
In a population, these 16 variables are interrelated and the total fluoride intake of individuals varies according to the various sources of exposure in an uncontrolled fashion. There are 16 parameters characterized by individual variability, which makes the predictability of fluoride requirements and total intake for each individual impossible. It is even more impossible collectively. For example, can you estimate the amount of fluoride that a 5-year-old child will swallow from 1200 ppm bubblegum-flavoured fluoridated toothpaste, when unsupervised by parents, as most children are when they brush their teeth? Health authorities do not know exactly the optimal daily dose of fluoride to consume in mg/kg/day. How would it be possible to establish an optimal concentration of fluoride in drinking water? As a panel of experts (among the leading experts on fluoridation in the United States) from the Department of Preventive & Community Dentistry, at the University of Iowa, concluded: recommending an “optimal” dose of fluoride is problematic: "Results: The estimated mean daily fluoride intake for those children with no caries history and no fluorosis at age 9-years was at, or below, 0.05 mg F/kg body weight for nearly all time points through the first 48 months of life, and this level declined thereafter. Children with caries had generally slightly fewer intakes, whereas those with fluorosis generally had slightly higher intakes.
Conclusions: Given the overlap among caries/fluorosis groups in mean fluoride intake and extreme variability in individual fluoride intakes, firmly recommending an "optimal" fluoride intake is problematic." (1) (1) [Abstract] Warren, J.J., Levy, S.M., Broffitt, B., Cavanaugh, J.E., Kanellis, M.Jé, Weber-Gasparoni, K., Considerations on Optimal Fluoride Intake Using Dental Fluorosis and Dental Caries Outcomes - A Longitudinal Study. J Public Health Dent., November 21st, 2008. Gilles Parent, N.A.
Member of the Board of Fluoride Free Canada
Co-author of Fluoridation: Autopsy Of A Scientific Error |
|
|
FLUORIDE FACT Our health authorities in Canada, both provincial and federal, promote fluoridation by stating that it is safe and effective at the optimal concentration, but this setting of the recommended concentration varies from country-to-country and it does not have any basis in science, as we have just demonstrated in this newsletter. |
|
|
HOW CAN YOU HELP TODAY? Think of everything you ate or drank today that contains tap water. Calculate how much tap water you consumed. Now ask a friend to do the same and compare. What did you discover? |
|
|
Sincerely, Dr. James Winter, Ph.D. Fluoride Free Canada Newsletter Director |
|
|
|
|
