News RSS Feed


Fluoride debate Tweet with the Daily Echo New Forest Lapland Controversy Ford's Future in Southampton


Fluoridation? World expert says 'It’s an American crackpot idea from the ’50s'

11:03am Monday 22nd September 2008

comment Comments (27)   Have your say »


ONE of the world’s leading experts on fluoride paid a flying visit to Southampton to join in the Great Fluoride Debate.

Dr Paul Connett is vehemently opposed to fluoridation and has jetted into the city all the way from his home in New York to add his powerful voice to the consultation on plans to add fluoride to the city’s tap water.

Southampton City Primary Care Trust wants to see the city’s water supplies fluoridated to improve dental health.

Dr Connett, director of Fluoride Action Network and a retired professor of chemistry at St Lawrence University in New York State, has spoken at conferences worldwide on fluoride since he began researching its health impact 12 years ago.

Most of the United States’ water supplies are fluoridated in a medical practice designed to improve children’s dental health.

Dr Connett told the Daily Echo: “Fluoridation is a clumsy form of medication. It’s attractive because you do not have to take any trouble to educate parents.

“But you are giving it to people who are sensitive to it and people who don’t want it. That’s very arrogant.

“There is a far stronger relationship between tooth decay and standard of living than you will ever find between tooth decay and fluoride.

Fluoride lowers IQ “The answer should be to target the kids that are most vulnerable, in low income families, and make sure the pregnant women in these areas are getting a good diet.”

Dr Connett is keen to see in-depth studies into fluoridation’s side effects.

“Fluoridation is an American crackpot idea from the 1950s,” he said. “It was a huge gamble. They knew one thing in 1950 and that was that if they put fluoride in the water, it would increase the number of children with dental fluorosis, which they thought was an acceptable trade off. The gamble was whether fluoride could do that to the growing teeth cells without damaging any other tissue.

“Countries that have had fluoridation since 1950 have never done the basic studies to check this hypothesis out.

“The other half of the scandal is that countries that have not done studies are ignoring studies from countries that do not fluoridate their water but have naturally high levels of fluoride.

“Fluoride causes health problems, damaging the bones and the brain. There have also been 23 studies done in China, India, Iran and Mexico showing fluoride lowers IQ levels in children.

“The health experts say they have been fluoridating for 50 years and if there were any problems we would know about them by now. But if you don’t study it properly, you don’t notice the subtle changes.

“No British authorities are studying the link between fluoride and lower IQ levels, and they are ignoring all the studies from the other countries.”

Dr Connett called for an open debate: “Now is the time to challenge the strategic health authority to demonstrate objectivity by having a balanced debate. I am prepared to do it.”


Your Say YourEcho

PeterQ, says...
11:33am Mon 22 Sep 08

There's only one crackpot here, its the "expert". We have had fluoridation in the water here in W. Australia for many years. In the two towns without fluoride (until a couple of years ago) the main difference was the wealth of the dentists: without fluoride they were performing over twice the remedial work performed elsewhere in the state.

Lib Lob, says...
11:39am Mon 22 Sep 08

"The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany's Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission."

Ref : The Crime and Punishment of I. G. Farben by Joseph Borkin

Of the Ilk, Eastleigh says...
11:54am Mon 22 Sep 08

The Echo has reported the views and opinions of an experienced and concerned scientist, who is using the rather sparse evidence to support his view. He may be correct - he may not be. We all need to look carefully at the evidence as presented by different studies and then make an informed decision - not just state entrenched opinions that may well be based on prejudice.

I think that education and encouragement of those who have a history of poor teeth is better than imposing mass medication that may or may not have long term side effects. Why should those who know they have a fluoride sensitivity be forced to spend money on expensive bottled water?

Condor Man, Southampton says...
1:09pm Mon 22 Sep 08

I wrote to my MP the other day about it, still hasn't got back to me because he'll be in Manchester this week giving his boss a huge pat on the back for making us all a lot poorer.

Andy Locks Heath, says...
1:21pm Mon 22 Sep 08

Of the Ilk wrote:
The Echo has reported the views and opinions of an experienced and concerned scientist, who is using the rather sparse evidence to support his view. He may be correct - he may not be. We all need to look carefully at the evidence as presented by different studies and then make an informed decision - not just state entrenched opinions that may well be based on prejudice.

I think that education and encouragement of those who have a history of poor teeth is better than imposing mass medication that may or may not have long term side effects. Why should those who know they have a fluoride sensitivity be forced to spend money on expensive bottled water?
I agree. What we have to do now is take the debate forward and come up with a better solution than fluoridisation rather than just attacking it with no alternative answer. We have to help the children of bad parents who do not look after their children's teeth - and a mouth full of bad teeth with severely impair your career and social prospects - and that's a fact of life. Do we a) force parents by law to take children to the dentists or prosecute them for neglect b) provide toothpaste and toothbrushes on the NHS (rather than just give tax credits to be spent on fags) c) provide subsidised fruit and veg tax free to parents of small children paid for by d) a tax on sweets and sunny delight..... or x) fluoridate the water? I am sick of people spoiling the argument by coming on here saying fluoridation doesn't work because it clearly does - it just has bad physical and political side effects. So let's discuss alternatives and see if any are better than madd medication, rather than just putting up scientific data that 99% of readers aren't going to check anyway.
By the way I'm in favour of (a)

Number6, Southampton says...
1:41pm Mon 22 Sep 08

If sterilization can be achieved by fluoridating tap water,then based on the affected areas, this sounds like a spiffing idea.

nyscof, Old Bethpage says...
2:03pm Mon 22 Sep 08

e) feed the greedy dentists

The number of people seen by NHS practices has dropped by more than a million since the contract was introduced.

Roger Goss, of the pressure group Patient Concern, said: “Dentists are getting more money while patients are getting a worse service.

http://www.express.c
o.uk/posts/view/6147
1/Anger-as-dentists-
pay-soars-to-100-000
-a-year

Bill Shatner, The enterprise says...
3:27pm Mon 22 Sep 08

Flouridation seems like the typical lazy British Cop-Out. I wish the government would just let those people that are too stupid to care for their own well being suffer the consequences of their actions rather than trying to steralise society.

stuartjebbitt, Eastleigh says...
5:57pm Mon 22 Sep 08

This is a most happy intervention!
Dr Connett is a respected academic and scientist, with a world wide reputation. I am quite happy at thought of him wiping the floor with the SHA in a live debate, who, after all, are just a bunch of overinflated dentists clinging to a
discredited and arcane practice.
(Because they have failed to do their jobs by proper means)
BRING IT ON!!!

Mary Williams, southampton says...
5:59pm Mon 22 Sep 08

If fluoridation is safe why have 17 out of 21 W.European countries refused or discontinued the prectice. Many top scientists agree that it is a harmful substance-Prof. Schatz who discovered the antibiotic streptomycin said that 'fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated..' It is criminal to use the water supply as a vehicle for drugs which could be toxic just because some parents are too lazy or ignorant to care for their childrens teeth. Surely the risks outweigh the benefits and I need to feel confident that the water I drink is not going to harm me.

Andy Locks Heath, says...
6:24pm Mon 22 Sep 08

Mary Williams wrote:
If fluoridation is safe why have 17 out of 21 W.European countries refused or discontinued the prectice. Many top scientists agree that it is a harmful substance-Prof. Schatz who discovered the antibiotic streptomycin said that 'fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated..' It is criminal to use the water supply as a vehicle for drugs which could be toxic just because some parents are too lazy or ignorant to care for their childrens teeth. Surely the risks outweigh the benefits and I need to feel confident that the water I drink is not going to harm me.
Like I said Mary, let's move the debate on from just slagging off fluoridation because you or the good doctor aren't offering any alternative. It's all very well to mention the bad lazy parenting but how to you then protect the child from the lazy stupidity of the parent? Fluoridation was the crude sledgehammer used to address that particular nut, so now we decide to remove it, how do we ensure that a young child's teeth are cared for? You can't just criticise parents then walk away, what is the plan? Let's keep this thread discussing sensible solutions rather than just continually slagging off the only idea that rightly or wrongly actually has a documented proposal.

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach FL USA says...
6:32pm Mon 22 Sep 08

Ingested fluorides nave no measurable value as the theory that infants teeth would form stronger enamel as they formed in the jaw before age of 8. It is now admitted by ADA researchers that these teeth are NOT more cavity resistant . It is a topical effect or reminerization or post erupted teeth . The British health services last month strongly stated that toothpaste below 1000ppm had weak benefit and advised up to 1500ppm for young kids. Non one can show the topical benefit at 1ppm. Read Featherstone 2000 CDC 1999,2001.
As far as scientists objecting it might be worth mentioning the Headquarters Union started it long objection to fluoridation safety. The first lawsuit was in 1986. You can go to fluoridealert.org and hear the 2000 testimony to congress to halt fluoridation. 11 unions of EPA asked in 2005 for a gaol of ZERO just like Arsenic and lead. Want full congressional investigation into the fraud. 19 as of feb 29 2008. see the EPA union position papers on their site nteu280.org .They give a time line to their growing objections to fluoridation.

chinesederek, Southampton says...
6:44pm Mon 22 Sep 08

Feeding children healthy food and cutting back on drinks like coke and regular brushing of teeth is in my opinion is a far better way of getting healthy teeth not putting additives in our water. Let the people Decide put it to the vote.

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach FL USA says...
6:48pm Mon 22 Sep 08

The government health services put the troops out to overwelm the anti fluoride behind the scenes with the commissions. Dentists mostly just parrot ADA talking points not even being up to date on current science. See pubmed.com and read a study which shows results of dental professional testing. 17% in Indiana and 14% in Illinois understood the current science. Most still blindly believe it has a ingested benefit.
Poughkeepsie NY asked detailed questions of health and benefit and got not one answer from the health department or 33 chemical suppliers. They ended 50 years of fluoridation.
There is a huge amount of government data showing risk with very little benefit but it is ignored in policy. The most current review Pizzo 2007 showed 51% with dental fluorosis. The York review showed fluoridation tripled this damage to enamel from 15% to 48% with 12.5% ugly enough for cosmetic work. Big bucks out of pocket for repairs and very rewarding for dentists.
The promoters just repeat like robot parrots long disproved twisted science. The York 2000 review even said not one high quality bias unlikely study ever. The smokestack scrubber toxic brew used for 90% of fluoridation has not had one chronic use study ever for safety or benefit.

chinesederek, Southampton says...
6:49pm Mon 22 Sep 08

Feeding children healthy food and cutting back on drinks like coke and regular brushing of teeth is in my opinion is a far better way of getting healthy teeth not putting additives in our water. Let the people Decide put it to the vote.

Adrian Smith, Planet Earth says...
8:26pm Mon 22 Sep 08

Andy Locks Heath wrote:
Mary Williams wrote:If fluoridation is safe why have 17 out of 21 W.European countries refused or discontinued the prectice. Many top scientists agree that it is a harmful substance-Prof. Schatz who discovered the antibiotic streptomycin said that 'fluoridation is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated..' It is criminal to use the water supply as a vehicle for drugs which could be toxic just because some parents are too lazy or ignorant to care for their childrens teeth. Surely the risks outweigh the benefits and I need to feel confident that the water I drink is not going to harm me.Like I said Mary, let's move the debate on from just slagging off fluoridation because you or the good doctor aren't offering any alternative. It's all very well to mention the bad lazy parenting but how to you then protect the child from the lazy stupidity of the parent? Fluoridation was the crude sledgehammer used to address that particular nut, so now we decide to remove it, how do we ensure that a young child's teeth are cared for? You can't just criticise parents then walk away, what is the plan? Let's keep this thread discussing sensible solutions rather than just continually slagging off the only idea that rightly or wrongly actually has a documented proposal.
Andy, I agree let's move the debate on.

What I would like to know is what other chemicals we can add to improve a wider range of health aspects.

Dr Cluck, Geelong, Australia says...
1:07am Tue 23 Sep 08

Several posters say that Dr Connett does not produce enough evidence that fluoride is harming people, and surely the state health authorities are right that it is safe.
You would like to think so I am sure. But when you look a little deeper its seems that it is only the health departments of 6 or 8 countries in the world that reckon fluoridating water is a safe trade-off between possible benefits and definite side-effects.
Sweden, Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany & on and on and on - most countries in fact, will not administer the drug by putting it into drinking water.
Many of these non-fluoridated countries have lower rates of child and adult tooth decay than the original champion of fluoridation, the USA. Interesting isn't it?
The side-effects of using fluoride water seem to be two fold, a long list of problems that develop as fluoride accumulates over years, and then those people who are highly sensitive or allergic. They get sick within hours of taking one or two glasses of fluoridated water, or some cooking in F water. Read the description of how these people were studied, and fluoridation stopped in the Netherlands, at http://www.baff.org.
au/archive/Moolenbur
gh%20affidvit.pdf

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach FL USA says...
2:23am Tue 23 Sep 08

Dr Douglas did put out a really excellent list of websites but waterloowatch.com has two studies at the top of the home page that show in great depth H2SiF6 used for 90% of fluoridation has the ability to leach lead from brass, solder and can pit copper pipe. Maas 2007 Coplan 2008. You usually have to pay for the full studies- Give a copy to your water department or health department. Most everyone knows increased lead levels are bad. The fluoridation product makes water much more corrosive to damage equipment in the water plant and home. Read the details. Jim

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach FL USA says...
2:27am Tue 23 Sep 08

Dr Douglas did put out a really excellent list of websites but waterloowatch.com has two studies at the top of the home page that show in great depth H2SiF6 used for 90% of fluoridation has the ability to leach lead from brass, solder and can pit copper pipe. Maas 2007 Coplan 2008. You usually have to pay for the full studies- Give a copy to your water department or health department. Most everyone knows increased lead levels are bad. The fluoridation product makes water much more corrosive to damage equipment in the water plant and home. Read the details. Jim

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach FL USA says...
2:41am Tue 23 Sep 08

Peter Q- Pray tell where is the data of a current large study showing this large decrease in cavities from fluoridation. The WHO data clearly shows the few fluoridated countries have no greater cavity reduction then the majority that abstain from fluoridation. In the USA there is no relationship in a single state showing fluoridation reduces cavities if the data is examined. Income is a far better predictor in every state. No trend is seen with low fluoridation or 100% fluoridation. Many of the 100% states have the very worst teeth and very few. Bill Osmumson DDS has a video on fluoridealert.org that shows the data. Several of the researcher videos are EPA union as of 29, FEB 2008 19 EPA unions want an immediate halt to fluoridation and full congressional investigations into the fraud. This is a huge red flag that was first raised in 1986 with a lawsuit. Is no one watching. nteu280.org is the website with 8 position papers giving the history with the science.

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach FL USA says...
3:00am Tue 23 Sep 08

Read AWWA b703-06 which is the standard for H2SiF6. It has a sample specification with a full page of contaminates found in the typical batch. NSF is only required to test one batch a year from each plant and the batch varies every day. The plants in Central Florida have triple the radiation of the North Florida phosphate. Arsenic and lead top the list and most are radioactive decay products but no one asked until 1997 in spite of the fact the mines had Uranium recovery facilities until about 1993 when the price fell. They just leave all the uranium and decay products as a free bonus now. Unmentioned and denied of course. Fond Du Lac Wis. just paid 31.5 million to remove radium when the allowed levels were lowered but no one told them they add it back in traces of many other radioactive unknown amounts . The fluoride itself most likely has greater cancer risk then what they pay to remove. The EPA in 2004 New Jersey testified the arsenic in the brew would cause about 20-25 cancers per million. The main source of arsenic for many cities is your fluoridation product. Read the b703-06 or demand your health department for a specification list. Almost all refuse and most have never seen one themselves. They just get a pass fail on the toxic waste product. If the MCL had been lowered more in 2006 from 50ppb to below 10ppb they admitted batches would fail the MAL and have to be rejected. Many pushed for 3ppb. Many think 1ppb still causes some cancers over time.

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach FL USA says...
3:13am Tue 23 Sep 08

Andy Lock- Point is ingested fluoride has ZERO benfit much ingested damage over time. It is cheap but the dental fluorosis damage even exceedes the claimed benefit. Blacks have been known to be damaged double as whites from the first study but this is never admitted to the public. It is in the data. Nutrition is the foundation and dental care if required but both of these are more expensive so government goes for a cheap fix that only damages. Lose lose. Education is not easy as the real crisis is in the low social classes In US and most everywhere. 5000 years ago the poor had great teeth and only the rich had processed foods and sugar with decay. Westonaprice.org shows this clearly with a 1938 book that primative peoples before processed refined foods rarely had cavities ,dental care or brushing but still perfect teeth with much better levels of minerals and healthy fats. Its the food that puts us at risk. How do you get away from that? With effort. Hard to force anyone--even your kids.

Jim Schultz, Ormond Beach FL USA says...
3:22am Tue 23 Sep 08

Sippy cups and even 100% healty juices are not healthy for young kids to sip on. Fizzy soda we sort of know but sports drinks are often worse as they have more acids for longer shelf life. They can and do soffen enamel and wear it away. Water calcium and magnesium rich but low fluoride is best. Once you add fluoride you must damage the water to get it out. There is no disease from lack of fluoride. You need vitamin D,and C for sure and Calcium Magnesium Phosphous and traces of things like boron etc. Not fluoride. Any benefit is topical see pubmed.com YoderK.M. to see how little dental health professionals know about the current science. Very shocking.

Anita Knight, St. Petersburg, Florida, US says...
3:33am Tue 23 Sep 08

I live near central Florida city, Tampa and Hillsborough and Polk Counties where the phosphate fertilizer industries mines are located. My family used to dig for prehistoric fossils in this area known as "Bone Valley", mastodon, mammoth, saber-tooth tiger, giant armadillo and more, until my uncle, a nuclear weapons officer from ww2, found out the area was radioactive from the phosphate formed from the bones.
Then found out in 1990, that those phosphate fertilizer industries were the source of the fluoridation agents. In my archaeological and paleontological book: "The Geology of Florida", 1997, University Press of Florida, page 143 gives the process:
"In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economical byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rock reacts with silica to form SiF4 gas. During acid production this gas is recovered as fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protec
tion equipment. Fluorosilicic acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water."
The journal: PHOSPHORUS & POTASSIUM, # 103 SEPT/OCT 1978, "Fluorine recovery in the fertilizer industry - a review",
pgs 33-39, has abstract that notes:
"The fluorine compouns liberated during the acidulation of phosphate rock in the manufacture of phosphoric acid and fertilizers are now rightly regarded as a menace, and the industry is now obliged to supress emissions of fluorine-containing vapours to within very low limits in most parts of the world.
"As with any pollution control operation, it is highly desirable for the operator of a fluorine scrubbing operation to find a use or market for the recovered fluorine to help defray at least partially the cost of the operation.
"This article reviews the chemical and technical principles of gaseous fluorine compound removal, the principal types of practical fluorine recovery processes that have been developed and their limitations, and possible methods of utilizing the fluosilicic acid solution which these processes generate."

Andy Locks Heath, says...
7:58am Tue 23 Sep 08

okay Jim okay! We can't have our own medical conference here so I'll shut up just and we can move forward. Let's say we don't fluoridate, then we can address the "root" problem which is tooth decay in children (which IMHO is caused by bad parenting). Here in the UK we have a National Health Service which includes free dentistry for the old the young the poor etc, Yet stupid lazy parents are still not getting their kids to take care of their teeth or supervising their regular check ups. So this is my plan. 1) Reintroduce dental checkups in school for all children. Any child with poor teeth results in warning letter to parent. If no improvement is noted after one year parent is charged with neglect. Failure to have a checkup for any reason (truancy) also results in charge so no escape. 2) Children must be accompanied by parents for dental checkup at surgery at least once per year. Failure to do this also results in a charge of neglect.
Lets not hear excuses from bad parents, because good parents including single mums and poor mums have always found ways to put their children first. This protects children's teeth by law, and removes the need to fluoridate water entirely. If adults want to let their teeth rot it's up to them.

Pavel, Hedge End says...
3:14am Fri 24 Oct 08

I have just done my own research recently and decided to stop using tooth pastes and mouth wash with fluoride. I feel that adding fluoride into drinking water really breaks human rights in this case. They can’t poison drinking water for all people with fluoride to improve kids’ dental health. It sounds as a very bad and poor joke. Someone should suspect there are some business interests behind it and investigate a possible bribery as no-one can seriously think fluoridation is good for a human body but may be good for someone’s business.

psybin, sherman oaks says...
9:48pm Mon 27 Oct 08

Hey pinheads. Fluoride is POISON. Read your toothpaste tube. IF you dont belive it than try swallowing a tablespoon and see how that grabs you. A previous post was correct, the nazis' YES NAZIs' used fluoride in the water in their concentration camps, I wonder why...
WAKE the hell up and stop doing what your government thinks is good for you, because they dont give a **** about you, they only care about $$$$$$$$$. peace

Your sayYourEcho

comment Add your comment

Register for a FREE Daily Echo account and you can have your say on today's news and sport by adding comments on articles we publish. The best comments may even get published in the paper.

Please register now or sign in below to continue.




Forgotten your password?
Video News Food & Restaurant Reviews

Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »