Ian: Just walk me through the fluoridation process. Thru trucks arrive and what is the fluoride delivery system like? What do they do? How do they get it and how do they monitor the levels of fluoride that are going into the water supply. I can understand checking the PH balance of a pool in the backyard but that water is not going anywhere and you can walk around the pool and check it in 3 or 4 j places and get a real idea of how much choline for example to add h to a backyard pool but how did they do that with fluoride in a fluid system where you are f going to be running water down through pipes?
Paul: Most of the communities which are fluoridated are now using a liquid, they use hex fluorolistic acid or silicone acid to the water and they drip it
Ian: they drip it into a pipe as the water is leaving the plant?
Paul: Yes but when you talk about how you control the dose top people that’s when you get into one of the absurdities of this practise. The argument that you are getting to is how do you control the concentration in the water but that’s not the issue. the issues is how do you control the dose going to people and the answer is you can’t control the dose because you can’t control how much water people drink and some people drink a huge amount of water , people who work outside in the hot climate, people who have diabetes. There’s a huge range of dose that people are getting and ask any pharmacist if these any drug that you can give to people and say take as much as you like. is there any drug that you give to everybody whether they are very young with a baby , with an infant , whether a child , whether they are elderly , sick or they have poor nutrition or good nutrition . It’s absurd, it’s a very bad medical practise as you earlier indicated. You are depriving individuals of informed consent. its pernicious to families of low income because they can’t afford avoidance measures but they’re really crippling arguments against fluoridation is that you can’t control the dose , you can’t control who gets it . It’s a lousy medical practise and there is no way around that.
Ian: I’m going to read something to you and I’m going to encourage you not to go ballistic but i want to encourage you for a second. Knowing what i know about your work i anticipate your response. I’m reading this from the CDC’s website on fluoridation. Here’s what it says /” two published studies conducted by CDC reaffirmed the benefits of community water fluoridation. Together the studies continue to show that wide spread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money both for the families and the health care system. in fact the economic analysis found that for larger communities have more than 20 000 people where it cost about 50 cents per person to fluoridate the water , every dollar invested in this preventative measure yields approximately $38 in savings in dental treatment cost . ”
Paul: i know the study that they are refereeing to that was done, the lead author was Susan Griffin who is an economist, worked for h the CDC. the trouble with that study is it completely ignored the cost of treating dental fluorosis which can cost up to a $1000 per tooth and we have at least 4% of 12-15 year olds with moderate or severe dental fluorosis so you can imagine the huge cost of treating that condition and ignored of course any other health ailment which might be related to fluoride exposure and also they exaggerated the benefits in there calculation ,they assume a greater benefit than they are actually retrieving .Of course it also ignores the reality that they are using a hazardous grade material instead of a pharmaceutical grade. if they were forced to use pharmaceutical grade then you would go to a more rational delivery system which would be a an optional use of fluoridated bottle water where you make fluoridated bottle water available as pharmacist say and you can choose whether you use it or not . If you use that approach you can use pharmaceutical grade instead of this industrial grade hazardous waste material.
Ian: I’m going to read you another paragraph here. it says ” fluoridation reports indicate 12 year old children living in states where more h than half the community have fluoridated water have 36% fewer decided tooth surfaces per year than 12 year old children living in states where less that 1/4 of the community have fluoridated”
Paul: first of all look at the way they used percentages there. This is based upon this study of the august <inaudible> this is the study that look at 39 000 <inaudible>, 84 communities and the average difference in tooth decay was .6 of one tooth surface. that’s what you find out if you actually go to the table and look at the number but they didn’t report .6 of a tooth surface , they describe it as 18% savings in tooth decay and they also did some hand waving if you subtract the benefit from fluoridated toothpaste, it may be as high as 24 %or 25 % figure but notice they do this all the time ,, they convert a very small savings . When you are comparing two small numbers into what sounds like an impressive percentage. for the average person when they 18% less tooth decay they imagine 5 or 6 tooth decaying and reduce that by 18% but the difference is .6 of 2/3 is absolute savings is less than 1%.
Ian : it says here a related j analysis found here in children again I’m reading from the CDC’s website a related analysis found that children living in non-fluoridated community in states that are highly fluoridated receive partial benefits of fluoridation just from eating foods and drinking beverages processed in fluoridate communities . if you don’t have fluoride in your water you are still benefitting from the fact that the beverages that you drink might have been r processed with fluoridated water or that you may get produce coming out of farms that have sprayed fluoridated water on the crops .
Paul: Yes. This is the so called halo effect. the y are arguing that the treason that there is so little tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities is that the non-fluoridated communities is getting fluoride from other sources , beverages and so on and that is true but they are also getting the harm . When i said the 41% of children age 12-15 have dental fluorosis that was for all American children. even children today from non-fluoridate communities are getting non fluoride by this dedication of fluoride through the beverages and the food chains and so on . The halo effect does not apply when you are looking at Europe because you have such we countries that are fluoridated in Europe so the less children in Sweden arte drinking Guinness from Ireland which is one of the countries that is fluoridated. There is no halo effect there. In other words fluoride in beverages and food produced in a fluoridate community are not getting into the fluoridated community. You can’t use that as an argument as to why there is so little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated countries and non-fluoridated country in Europe. Again i think those things that you have read indicates very clearly that the CDC is acting like a propaganda operation. It’s promoting fluoridation, that’s their function, they promote fluoridation and they don’t have the toxicologist on staff to do it independent. it’s certainly not an independent assessment of the damaging’s instead you get this propaganda material and it’s not what would have expected 15 years ago before getting involved that health agencies should be s doing . You would think the bureaucrats, the civil servants working for health agencies would be giving objective information to the public and the decision maker and that the spinning should not begin with them. if there is any spinning involved it should come from pollutions later on but it shouldn’t come from the civil servants and this is eroding the public’s trust in this country in their health agencies , not only this kind of shenanigans when bureaucracies are protecting a practise rather than protecting the health but also the big money from economic interest , the pharmaceutical industry for instance influencing the national institute of health and other health agencies. We are losing the public’s trust and one way to regain it is to admit that they are wrong on fluoridation and stop this stupid practise.
Ian: i don’t think i have ever lived in a community that hadn’t fluoridated the water , i could be wrong but i assumed it was .
Paul: if you tell me the names of the community you were living in, about 70% Americans now are drinking fluoridated water, over 180 million. Tell me the towns that you have lived in and i will tell you.
Ian: I live right now in South Paulo, Minnesota
Ian: Atlanta Georgia
Paul: Georgia has mandatory fluoridation
Ian: Nashville, Tennessee
Ian: Chicago, Illinois
Paul: fluoridated, Illinois has mandatory fluoridation
Ian : I’ve made my point and then i lived in a whole in new jersey on the jersey shore .
Paul: New Jersey doesn’t have many communities fluoridated so when you are living in New Jersey you probably escaped fluoridation.
Ian : just to make the point again , this is a medicine that they are touting at the CDC that they are force feeding a medicine and on that basis alone it really makes you have to wonder . that’s odd that they are doing that and there’s no proof other that what we ‘ve been getting into a little bit here that the e ingestion of this medicine is the way to go . It has a topical benefit but we was just sharing some of that right there. Have you had any successes as the head of the fluoride action network? have you any to talk communities out of that were withier offering it that were no longer putting it in their water supply or cities that were thinking about it that decided not to do it.
Paul: it’s much easier to stoop today, to stop communities putting it in that to reverse the h status quo of stopping communities that are actually doing it but we have had some significant victories. Did you know Alaska followed by Fair Banks Alaska have stopped, some communities in Texas have stopped. in Canada major cities lie Calgary has stopped, that’s 1.1 billion , most of brattish Columbia is non-fluoridated , most of Quebec non fluoridated , Quebec city stopped . Only 3% of Quebec is fluoridated a day communities in Ontario have stopped fluoridating very recently this year. Very recently this i year Waterloo in last October Waterloo voted it out by referendum. If we can get it to referendum we have a very good chance of stopping fluoridation.
Ian: Ok. As you are doing that , as you are f going across the country and you are making your case against fluoridation are there then people that are on the other side of it paid for n by the fluoride industry that come along on your heels or on either same time and debate you on fluoride .
Paul: by and large they will not debate. The closest we had to a debate recently was in front of a community for Austin Texas, the counsel there a doctor and a dentist spoke in favour of fluoridation, another dentist and i spoke against it and that was not actually a debate so much. Each side presented their case and then answered question and that’s on video you can access that. I’m sure if you go to austintexasfluoride.com you will be able to see that. incidentally talking about videos if you go to our webpage , flouridealert.org if you scroll down you will find a video take called professional perspective of water fluoridation and its 15 scientist on that , doctors, dentist , scientist like myself explaining the arguments , 28 minutes i think people will be convinced. Aim not the only scientist opposed to fluoridation,
Ian: one argument we haven’t discussed for fluoride next on Coast to Coast. Now we’re talking about fluoride into the water and the case against it. There is one argument that we haven’t dispelled which we will next on Coast to Coast this is Ian Punnett. , talking with Dr Paul Connett with St Lawrence University and the case against fluoride. You can link up to him through coasttocoastam.com. we kind of touched on it but we kind of gave it a glancing glow and i think its way more interesting than that since we talked about that fluoride is a drug and not a nutrient but it’s also not an approved drug . that’s the part that got me confused especially as i was reading the CDC website and the way in which they made the case for fluoride in thaw water but you argue that it’s an unapproved drug that according to the government .
Opal: other is no agency in the United States that takes responsibility for fluoridation. The EPA regulates fluoride as a contaminant not as an additive. The FDA had never approved fluoride for ingestion. The FDA has a warning for fluoride on toothpaste, on the back of a tube of toothpaste it says only use a small amount, pea sized amount. You should keep always form children under 6, if you should accidentally swallow more than the recommended amount contact a poison centre and get medical help.
Ian: that’s if you swallow too much of your own toothpaste?
Paul: An ova sized amount Ian is a quart of a milligram of fluoride. That the equivalent of one glass of floriated water, van you imagine the same warning on the tap?