Ian: That idea as fluoride as a medicine lets hang on to that thought for a moment because that’s going to open up a whole other aspect of this conversation. Just to amplify it for people who are still catching on then about what year was it when people started saying “hey when are we ever going to have those studies that prove that this is actually good to put in the water?” Where was it that scientist began to say “what a second, why are we doing this again?” when did the movement start against fluoride?
Paul: Almost immediately. The first opponents of fluoridation were in Wisconsin. there were some dentist that was really pushing it like crazy in Wisconsin and the first opponent were bio chemist and because those bio chemist had used fluoride in their laboratory experiments to inhibit enzymes it was a very good tool in bio chemistry to find the metabolic pathways of how sugar was broken down in the body and they often use poisons to block steps in the pathway to study those pathways. bio chemist had use fluoride to poison enzymes and they were horrified that anyone would add this deliberately to the body systems and put it in the drinking water but their voices were drowned out by the dental community and those who had a huge self interest in propelling this thing .
Ian: So the dentist then let’s say they had their heart in the right place and they said look fluoride is great in toothpaste on the outside , we don’t have the science yet to prove it but it must be good on the inside so we’ll just start putting it in there and the idea was they were going to stop tooth decay among people who weren’t incline to use fluoride toothpaste .
Paul: Can i say that didn’t comet ill later, the fluoride toothpaste actually didn’t come till the 60s. In the beginning they only had fluoride to put into the water.
Ian: So then the fluoride toothpaste comes along and i grew up with fluoride toothpaste , i know of nothing else to be in my toothpaste e other than fluoride and so when someone said ” they put fluoride in the water I would think fine “I’m already putting it in my mouth anyways , what is fluoridated water? Is there any difference between the brushing my teeth with fluoride toothpaste and me drinking water with fluoride in it? I wouldn’t have known the difference.
Paul: absolutely and the fact that every few countries have succumbed to this practise, there’s only 8 countries in the world that have more than 60 % of their population drinking it. Despite that 98% of Europe is not fluoridated you cants see difference in tooth decay between the child who has grown up in fluoridated communities or non-fluoridated community or countries. That’s World Health Organization data. The world Health Organization tracks tooth decay in 12 year olds in many different countries and if you look at the tooth decay today there is practically no difference from those children whether they live in a fluoridated ire non fluoridated country.
Ian: Are we 3% more likely to not have tooth decay in the United States because we have fluoridated water?
Paul: That a good question. the arrest survey ever done in the United States was conducted in 86 or 87 by the National Institute od Dental Research and they looked at it and 39 000 children in 84 different communities and at the end of the day they found practically no difference whatsoever in the tooth decay . The average difference for a child that lived all their lives in a fluoridated community from a child who lived all their life in a non-fluoridated community the average difference was 0.6. You have four tooth surfaces on the cutting teeth and five surfaces on the chewing teeth and overall by the time the team would come out you have 128 tooth surfaces. so out of 128 tooth surfaces a difference of 0.6 of 1 tooth surfaces, let’s say 1 5 of the total tooth surfaces actually is safe and even that study didn’t demonstrate that the finding was statistically significant and other larger studies since then , especially in Australia have found even less savings .
Ian: I’ll be darned. That doesn’t surprise me. the Case Against Fluoride, How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and the Powerful Politics That Keeps It There , that’s the title of the book . Dr Paul Connett is one of three very smart people who have been working on this book. We are talking about noble rose winners have come out against fluoride in the water. Let’s just get back to cases fluoride is like a medicine. It’s not even ethical to force feed people a medicine. At what point to do you have a right to say no to a medicine just put in the water. what if it wasn’t fluoride , what if it was just anti-depressants , what if it was just some other sort of narcotic out in the water just because they want you to be medicated and then on top of that hats the expense of fluoride in the water and how can they say no . You will hear all about that next on Coast to Coast this is Ian Punnet.
I was at U2 earlier, it was a fabulous show but most importantly it would be a beautiful say for some of you soon. it’s going to be a hot day for many more tomorrow before the cool front get there but for some there will be some relief on the way, it’s just coming down from Canada and it will create some rain and some turbulent weather but i would take that trade off. Better that then facing more days of under Armageddon which i know that many more people will suffer from before it’s over. When you get rely hot you can always cool off in a bath tub full of hazardous waste. That’s what fluoride is and more than that fluoride is also a medicine. Test take a look at both of those, the ethics of both of those hazardous materials and a medicine in your body against you’re will. We’ll get to that coming up next, the case against fluoride on Coast to Coast this is Ian Punnet.
Dr Paul Connet is a very well respected member of the chemical community. As a professor at St Lawrence’s University as somebody who is a graduate of Cambridge and of Dark Mirth. this is not a fringe since he’s working on in the case against fluoride but as we were talking about earlier i remember when i was growing up my grandmother who i love very much who is very exercised about fluoride in the water but then again she though Dwight Eisenhower was a communist it was like that type of thing that would get rolled together until i actually sat down and read your book i didn’t realize how right she really was , not about Dwight Eisenhower bout about fluoride and one of the things i never really thought about was if fluoride is a medicine that we intentionally purchase and use in toothpaste how dare we pump it into the water as a medicine that’s unethical; even if it is good for somebody that person would make the choice on whether or not they want to take that medico. I couldn’t think of any other modification that we force people to take against their will.
Paul: No. there was a short experiment with iodine to fight hypothyroidism <inaudible> but they quickly sopped that because they found that people were overdosing on iodine when they put in the water so that experiment short lived but since fluoridation was introduced we never ever used the water supply to deliver a medico.
Ian: what about iodized salt, you mentioned do dine. Would that be a comparison?
Paul: first of all iodine is a nutrient, the body needs it, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the body needs fluoride. there’s not one biological process in the body that requires fluoride so it’s quite different from the other nutrients which are added to food. In all those other cases there is some choice in the manner but when you put it in the water there is no choice and especially for families of low income there is no choice.
Ian: Again to amplify that then iodized salt in the water and as a medicine its unique then this means that the governmental body has decided that you need this for your teeth and they are going to give t to you whether you like it or not. It’s not a nutrient and i can also be a hazardous waste.
Paul: That’s exactly right and unfortunately the agency that is most involved in promoting fluoridation is the Oral Health Division of the centre for disease control in Atlanta. The total body control many thousands of scientist with many credentials butt the Oral Health Division is only 30 people and they are largely dentally trained. There’s not any toxicology on the staff, there is very few specialized in different forms of medicine. So you have people whose preoccupation is teeth, teeth, teeth who are promoting this and making statements for which they have no credentials in terms of the safety. That’s a very unfortunate situation. The centre of disease control in this case is like tittle dump to tittle Dee with j the ADA the American Dental Association that promotes fluoridation. The CDC is like an adjunct of the ADA, preoccupied with teeth and very credential when it comes to safety issues.
Ian: Again fluoride very topically applied, yes. there is aplenty of evidence that says when fluoride is brushed unto teeth when it is absorbed through toothpaste into the teeth , to the gum area , that’s a positive thing you’re not disputing that .
Paul: Some people that oppose to fluoridation don’t even want fluoridated toothpaste. I personally don’t use fluoridated toothpaste for 15 years. The thing is to brush your teeth and the key thing is to have a good diet if you want to protect t your teeth and i would want to advocate the use of xylitol in the use of toothpaste. Xylitol is a natural sugar and it prevents the bacteria from sticking to the surface of the teeth and therefore the bacteria do not strive in the mouth. Put that aside if you had to choose between adding fluoride top t the water or encouraging persons to use fluoridated toothpaste that’s a no brainer, brushing only takes spitting out, don’t put it in the water.
Ian: There’s actually if i remember from the case against fluoride there is some evidence that says fluoride applied topically works. you’re not disputing that it works typically it’s just that there is zero proof and this is where we start getting into as you were talking about in different economic groups for a lot of people putting it in the water is not only does it not only help their teeth it may degenerate different aspects of their health.
Paul: Absolutely. We have 41% of American children, this is the Centre of Disease Control now admitting this 41% of children ages 12-15 have a condition called dental fluorosis. This is a damage to the enamel which can discolour the enamel and be <inaudible> in the most sever forms. when they started they thought that 10% of children would have dental fibrosis and its very mild form but today as i said 41% of children ages 12-15 in the United States including children in non-fluoridated areas have dental fluorosis. Our kids are being over exposed to fluoride. The fact which made me blink 15 years ago when i read in the afternoon the papers my wife put on the table, the thing which made me blink was the level of fluoride in mothers milk. This is the baby’s first meal, developed over millions of years to be the best meal for the baby, the level of fluoride in the mother’s milk is extremely low. If in a non-fluoridated community it can be as low as .004 parts of a million. We fluoridate at about 1 path of a million. what this means is that the parent bottle feeds there baby and makes up the formula with tap water is going to be given her baby 250 times more fluoride than a breast fed baby, 250 times more fluoride than nature intended and i think that there h are clearly on the line the fact that fluoride is not a nutrient because if it is a nutrient that clearly nature screwed up a babies fords meal.
