<p>The question of whether Oak Bluffs should continue to fluoridate its water supply drew strong opinions on both sides of the issue at a public hearing before the board of health last Thursday.</p>
The question of whether Oak Bluffs should continue to fluoridate its water supply was the subject of heated debate Thursday before the Oak Bluffs board of health, with emotions running high on both sides of the issue.
The question remains unresolved after Thursday’s meeting; the board did not vote and board members said they would take the issue under advisement and discuss it at the next few board of health meetings. At least one board of health member said he thought the matter should be decided by a town meeting vote.
John Leite was critical of fluoride.
John Leite was critical of fluoride.
Oak Bluffs has been adding fluoride to the water supply since 1992, and it is now the only town on the Island to do so. The discussion about eliminating fluoride began last spring. Board of health member Dr. John Campbell said he had received calls from people concerned about fluoride. The water district also advocated for removal, saying it costs the town about $15,000 a year.
A June hearing about the issue was sparsely attended. But about 40 residents gathered in the Oak Bluffs library meeting room Thursday for a second hearing, with many offering comments. Some members of the public said they were concerned about risks associated with fluoride and the lack of control over what goes in the drinking water. Others, including several Island dentists, said concerns were based on misinformation and fluoride is important for public health.
Mr. Campbell, the board of health member, spoke at length early in the meeting about the history of fluoride use in the United States, and argued that fluoridating the public water supply denied people the right to choose.
“It’s about the relative safety or lack thereof of chlorides in our drinking water and the choices that we have on how we are or are not to be medicated,” he said.
Board of health member John Campbell, a chiropractor, said he was concerned about the safety of fluoride and the lack of consent.
Board of health member John Campbell, a chiropractor, said he was concerned about the safety of fluoride and the lack of consent.
Some in attendance made heated remarks saying that it was inappropriate for a board member to present opinion as fact during a public meeting.
Clarissa Stead, 22, of Oak Bluffs, said she believed people should be able to decide the matter for themselves, adding that bottled drinks, toothpaste and mouthwash contain fluoride. “So if you are for fluoride, you have the option to have fluoride when you want it,” she said. Her remarks were followed by applause.
Scott Pieringer of Oak Bluffs spoke about the health risks of fluoride, which he said is more toxic than lead and only “slightly less toxic than arsenic.”
Those in favor of fluoridation said that major health organizations, including the American Dental Association and the World Health Organization, support fluoride in drinking water.
Jennifer Kingsley, a biologist, cited the Center for Disease Control, which says that fluoridation is one of the top 10 advancements in public health over the last 100 years.
Ms. Kingsley was interrupted by those who oppose fluoridation. Tensions were high throughout the meeting, and board chairman William White reminded the crowd to be civil.
Endodontist Karen Gear said fluoride is especially important to those without access to dental care.
Endodontist Karen Gear said fluoride is especially important to those without access to dental care.
Garrett Orazem, a dentist with a practice in Vineyard Haven, said he has seen a clear change in his patients’ dental health with fluoride added to the water, especially among children. “The decay rate is remarkably low,” he said. “They are still getting cavities,” he added. “But the cavities are small. They are easy to fix. They don’t make me do things that may cause trouble later.”
Bruce Golden, an Island pediatric dentist, said he had done a Google search for fluoride. “The entire first page is anti-fluoridationists with half-truths and lies,” he said. After a few pages, he said, “you get to the science.”
Myron Allukian, a clinical assistant professor at the Boston University school of dental medicine, joined the meeting for five minutes by phone. He said that in Boston, fluoridation has made a huge difference in the health of children. “There are still dental needs, but we have cut the extent of the disease and the amount of disease in half if not more,” he said, adding that every surgeon general since 1951 has supported fluoridation and every major reputable health organization also supports it.
He said studies of the internet have shown “shocking” misconceptions.
Island endodontist Karen Gear said “fluoride is extremely important” for those without access to dental care.
At the end of the meeting, Herbert Combra said he was more confused than before the meeting began. While $15,000 was not much to spend when considering the potential benefits, he said, “I’m more confused because I don’t know who to believe.”
Comments
Believe the science.
Nathalie WoodruffBelieve the science.
I agree completely.
Carol formerly ChilmarkI agree completely. Obviously, believe the science!!
Data from the World Health
jwillie6 lafayette, LAData from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation.
The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
just saying the teeth I see
Bob Edgartownjust saying the teeth I see in England are not pretty
Fluoridation of public water
Mari McAvenia ProvidenceFluoridation of public water supplies does NOT improve the dental health of children. Do Island dentists earn less money, now, because it's there? Mass fluoridation does reduce the learning capacity of kids, adults, dogs - what have you? Fluoride, as added to municipal water supplies, is a toxic, powdered substance derived from aluminum refining waste matter. They need to dump it somewhere for a profit. So, they dump it EVERYWHERE! OB, get it out of your water, please. Too late for us, maybe, but not too late for the rest of your progeny.
Would you be so kind as to
Bob OBWould you be so kind as to cite credible sources for any of your claims?
Nope. I was too kind - look
Mari McAvenia pNope. I was too kind - look it up for yourself - while lived there, raised 2 kids, paid heavy taxes, supported the community with good deeds and still had to drink the filthy contaminated OB water for 13 years, year round. You Edgartonians are so damned smaaht and sophisticated. Do the research, yourself. It's eminently available to lazy laymen all over the world.
Yup. That's what I thought.
Bob OBYup. That's what I thought. By the way, I'm not from edgartown - and whatever it is that you have done cannot accurately be called "research".
As the person making the
Neil Off IslandAs the person making the claim, it's your responsibility to provide your sources. We're still waiting.
It's disappointing to see
Janet Nagel North CarolinaIt's disappointing to see dentists and scientists we want to believe are competent and knowledgeable publicly expressing their "shocking misconceptions" about fluoridation.
Belief colors perception. People who believe the oft-repeated claim that fluoridation reduces tooth decay think that's what they see. Actually US and WHO data show that tooth decay has declined everywhere in the US and around the world in both fluoridated and not-fluoridated areas over the past 70 years. A 1990 study of 39,000 American children conducted by the National Institute of Dental Health, part of the CDC, found NO DIFFERENCE in decay rates between children drinking fluoridated water and children drinking not-fluoridated water. The CDC is continues to claim that fluoridation reduces tooth decay, even though it's own research shows it does not. Cherished beliefs certainly die hard!
Fluoridated personal dental
Janet Nagel North CarolinaFluoridated personal dental care products are readily available to all, and public education about their use is the least burdensome method of promoting oral health--legally, physiologically and financially.
Where are all these terribly
Carla Cooper EdgartownWhere are all these terribly diseased people who have been drinking flouridated water their whole lives? Worse than lead and arsenic? come on. Are these the same folks who dont want to vaccinate their kids "because it causes autism"? Believe the science.
But "believing" in global
Kurt FerreBut "believing" in global warming is not like believing in reincarnation or original sin. It's not even like believing in states' rights or the progressive income tax. There are many subjects on which one person's beliefs and opinions are just as good as anyone else's. The science of climate change is not one of those subjects. It is either a scientific reality or it is not. Our personal preferences or opinions are irrelevant. Debate over global warming has to be based on scientific evidence and the scientific method.
Substitute "fluoridation" for "climate change", and this quote is spot on.
Many anti-fluoronistas base their support for climate change based on the overwhelming consensus by the scientific community, ignoring the small handful of scientists who deny that climate change exists. Yet, when it comes to fluoridation, the anti's base the anti-fluoridation beliefs by a small handful of scientists, ignoring the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community that fluoridation is safe and effective.
This is intellectual dishonesty at its finest.
Were the people who believed
David GreenWere the people who believed the world was flat before Columbus sailed in the majority or not? Consensus should not be a factor in determining what is accurate.
Medical professionals should
jwillie6 Lafayette, LAMedical professionals should be ashamed to support such a crude and unethical practice as fluoride which results in cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, lowered IQ, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.
See “Dangerous Health Effects” at http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/
Fluoride Carries Aluminum
aluminum/fluoride geoengineering/drinking water modification Vineyard HavenFluoride Carries Aluminum Into The Brain
“This should be enough. This obviously IS more than enough – but unfortunately this isn’t all that fluoride does to the brain. Fluoride has a frequent companion: aluminum – and when the two of these guys hang out together (which they commonly do), all hell breaks lose. Aluminum in the brain is a possible causative factor in Alzheimer’s Disease. Fluoride is the key that allows aluminum to pass the blood brain barrier and set the stage for dementia and Alzheimer’s Disease through the formation of beta-amyloid plaques.
I avoid aluminum based deodorants and don’t cook in aluminum pans because of the Alzheimer- aluminum connection. But I never realized that fluoridated water promotes aluminum getting lodged in the brain.”
http://fluoridedetective.com/your-brain/
“Nanosized aluminum being sprayed in the atmosphere, causing degenerative disease, says neurosurgeon”
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/nanosized-aluminum-being-sprayed-in-…
It seems clear that if there is geoengineering in this area that aluminum will eventually get into our drinking water along with fluoride and increase the rate of degenerative brain disease.
Is it?
Sure looks like it. If you watch the sky you see planes going in the same direction making parallel lines many miles long. These turn into clouds. You can see it, you can photograph it, but you can't prove it. But is sure looks like it.
As Dr. Campbell reminds
Janet Nagel North CarolinaAs Dr. Campbell reminds everyone, fluoridation is dental treatment without the possibility of obtaining the consent of each person treated. Or of stopping treatment of those for whom it is not appropriate. That's the bottom line. Informed consent is the basis for all ethical health care practice. This was clearly spelled out during the Nuremberg trials of the National Socialist doctors after WWII and again in 2005 by the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights:
"Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice." Article 6 – Consent, Para 1. Fluoridation violates this basic principle. What extreme exigency warrants overriding it when personal hygiene is much more effective in the first place?
You can believe what you like
EUES Ireland Ireland, Europe's ONLY mandated fluoridated countryYou can believe what you like. Here in Ireland in the past couple of years an environmental scientist and industrial risk assessor called Declan Waugh has compiled over 1200 studies , the overwhelming indications are that fluoridation does indeed cause many health problems, including soft tissue and bone cancers. This is not something he has made up, in many cases the science has been there for anyone to see it for decades. Just no one bothered or had the commitment to gather it all together. It has taken him 2 years so far, but his testimony to the Israeli government and judiciary has resulted in their stopping fluoridation this year, for a start. There are many governments that would not allow fluoridation and think it is a terrible idea. You have to look at the context of how fluoridation of public drinking water began almost 70 years ago and who started it and why. When you look at those basics you will be surprised to find that U.S. industry and the military came together to push fluoridation for a number of reasons, with very little research done on the health effects and even the initial 1950's Kingston, NY and Grand Rapids testing was stopped 5 years into the ten years trials as the results began to show that fluoride was ineffective over a longer time span. Cancer institutes and dental associations do not do their own research, they rely on what they are told by the vested interests. Science is continually adding to the research showing fluoridation is harmful.
The NRC concluded that there was evidence to demonstrate that fluoride exposure
contributed to causing cancers and well as promoting cancers, fluoride exposure
impairs glucose metabolism, causes impaired glucose tolerance and decreases
insulin production.
Fluoride exposure increases the production of free radicals in the brain, impairs
brain function, causes neurotoxic effects on the brain, affects the general nervous
system and increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s. Cytogenetic effects of
fluoride exposure may contribute to Down’s syndrome.
Fluoride exposure contributes to musculoskeletal disease with associated symptoms
such as chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, calcification of ligaments, and
osteosclerosis of cancellous bones as well as weakens bone and increases the risk
of fractures.
Fluoride exposure contributes to hyperparathyroidism, increased calcium deficiency,
osteoporosis, and may be associated with hypertension, arteriosclerosis,
degenerative neurological diseases, diabetes mellitus, some forms of muscular
dystrophy and colorectal cancer.
Fluoride contributes to other adverse health effects including increased
concentration of lead in critical organs and nutritional rickets. Fluoride is an
endocrine disruptor contributing to hypothyroidism and hyperparathyroidism.
Fluoride exposure decreases melatonin production that may indirectly contribute to
increased anxiety reactions, development of postmenopausal osteoporosis,
anticarcinogenic effects and psychiatric diseases.
Fluoride directly affects the immune system while silicofluorides inhibit
cholinesterases, including acetylcholinesterase which is a contributory factor in
Alzheimer disease. Human leukemic cells lines are also susceptible to the effects of
silicofluorides and symptoms such as oral ulcers, colitis, urticaria, skin rashes, nasal
congestion and epigastric distress may be due to sensitivity of some sufferers to
silicofluorides or fluoride.
Fluoride also forms complexes with other elements including aluminium, sodium,
iron, calcium, magnesium, copper and hydrogen that may have implications for
neurotoxic effects.
The science of tobacco, DDT,
jwillie6 LouisianaThe science of tobacco, DDT, and asbestos were wrong. The 70 year old "science" of fluoride is wrong as well. Recent studies tell the true story.
There are many PubMed ( US National Library of Medicine®) scientific studies showing that fluoride in drinking water causes cancer. Here are a few. Go read them yourself.
We were warned in a 2006 study by Dr. Elise Bassin, DDS, Harvard University, published in a cancer journal, "Cancer Causes Control." May 2006. It shows a fivefold increase in bone cancer in young people who have consumed fluoride in their drinking water.
See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294
Another PubMed scientific publication shows that fluoride concentration in drinking water correlates with uterine cancer.
"A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9002384
Cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with water fluoridation. This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin's disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with fluoridation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/115125
Also a PubMed study that shows fluoride is ineffective for teeth.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9758426
Fluoridation isn't "mass
LindaRosaRNFluoridation isn't "mass medication" or "toxic waste." It is just the adjustment (up or down) of fluoride ions, a nutrient mineral that is found in all ground water, much like other nutrient minerals such as calcium and iron.
Nothing takes the place of fluoridation, because via the saliva it can *continually* remineralize teeth which are continually attacked by acid in the mouth. It's also incredibly cheap and benefits everyone.
Fluoridation helps everyone avoid cavities. Studies have found that fluoridation can reduce cavities an additional 20-40% over other forms of fluoride or dental hygiene.
That means more teeth when we're old codgers.
Fluoride is not a nutrient
David GreenFluoride is not a nutrient and not a mineral. Look up the definitions of those two words in the Oxford dictionary. Why do you keep repeating things which you have been shown are not true? No wonder people don't trust the promoters of fluoridation.
Oh my dear Linda! Please do
EUES IrelandOh my dear Linda! Please do some research of your own and realize that the repetitive mumbojumbo you are claiming is not the facts. A simple search of the history of fluoridation, together with the negative health effects of fluoride should lead you inevitably to the correct assumption that no human being should be forced to drink this disgusting chemical cocktail, at the very least without their informed consent. For you to force it on others, no matter what their age, physical condition or tolerances goes against every principle I believe most nurses hold dear.
Where is the valid,
Steven Slott North CarolinaWhere is the valid, documented evidence to support the nonsensical claims by antifluoridationists on this page? There is none. Simply the same unsubstanted claims and personal opinions that characterize all attempts by these activists to impose their ideology.
The only comments that even come close to recognizing the need for evidence are in regard to the mention of WHO data. Even this is nonsensical, however, as it is ludicrous to attempt to assess the effectiveness of but one preventive measure, fluoridation, on snapshots of data which control for none of the other countless variables involved with development of dental decay.
Personal opinions, personal ideology, unsubstantiated claims of this "disorder" or that, out-of-context information from studies which are not cited, half-truths, unqualified opinions as to how dental decay prevention should be accomplished........none of this is worth the time to even read it, much less serving as "evidence" of anything.
Civic leaders should listen to the advice and recommendations of those best qualified to offer proper guidance......their own respected healthcare community........and discard all the rubbish that is funneled by antifluoridationists, directly from New York antifluoridationist factions seeking to impose their ideology onto the local citizenry of Oak Bluffs. This includes the irresponsible Chiropractor who regurgitates the same junk, verbatim, from the same websites, as do all other antifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
It is interesting that Declan
Steven Slott North CarolinaIt is interesting that Declan Waugh has been cited in an above comment. Waugh is an Irishman who has no degree higher than the undergraduate college level. His "paper" has not been peer-reviewed, has not been published in any respected journal, and has been completely rebuked and discredited by his own Irish government. This type of blatant misinformation and deceptive references to it by antifluoridationists, is characteristic of the insidious tactics employed by these activists as they seek to impose their personal ideology on entire populations.
The rebuke of Waugh's conglomeration of nonsense may be found:
http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/download/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_…
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Readers may want to take a
deborah forest hart oak bluffsReaders may want to take a look at this, and judge for themselves. There is a book by the name (iirc) of The Fluoride Deception, which I read about a decade ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo
There are several installments; this is the first.
From the Harvard School of
Science MVFrom the Harvard School of Public Health
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-gra…
July 25, 2012 — For years health experts have been unable to agree on whether fluoride in the drinking water may be toxic to the developing human brain. Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults, and negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.
The study was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012.
The researchers conducted a systematic review of studies, almost all of which are from China where risks from fluoride are well-established. Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance in groundwater, and exposures to the chemical are increased in some parts of China. Virtually no human studies in this field have been conducted in the U.S., said lead author Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH .
Even though many of the studies on children in China differed in many ways or were incomplete, the authors consider the data compilation and joint analysis an important first step in evaluating the potential risk. “For the first time we have been able to do a comprehensive meta-analysis that has the potential for helping us plan better studies. We want to make sure that cognitive development is considered as a possible target for fluoride toxicity,” Choi said.
Choi and senior author Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, and their colleagues collated the epidemiological studies of children exposed to fluoride from drinking water. The China National Knowledge Infrastructure database also was included to locate studies published in Chinese journals. They then analyzed possible associations with IQ measures in more than 8,000 children of school age; all but one study suggested that high fluoride content in water may negatively affect cognitive development.
The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15.* Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
* This sentence was updated on September 5, 2012.
Let people choose what they
Jonathan Scott New HampshireLet people choose what they are medicated with. It's obvious what is going on. Take the toxic waste out of the water. If someone wants fluoride they know where to get it.
Add new comment