Dr Vyvyan Howard,
toxico-pathologist and expert in chemical toxicity and infant health,
at Liverpool University:
There are a number of reasons why I think the fluoridation of the drinking water supply
is not a sensible thing to do:
Firstly,
the Government's own York Review found that long-term safety could not be guaranteed,
and that the benefits were far less than had been claimed.
This was meant to be a "once and for all" review,
and the conclusion of it was that there were no reliable pieces of research
on the broader question of fluoride and health.
There is a major deficiency in the scope of the York Review in that it
was forbidden to consider laboratory experimental data.
Secondly,
fluoridation is going to disadvantage some members of the community,
such as those with marginal kidney function and people who have got thyroid problems.
In addition, the Irish Government's Forum on Fluoridation reported that
in the case of young babies - that is, children under the age of four months -
being fed on formula milk made up with fluoridated tap water would be over-dosed.
Fluoridation is associated with increased incidence of fluorosis,
a condition where teeth are blemished.
Thirdly, does it work or not?
There are certainly indications fluoridaton may have long-term adverse effects on osteoporosis.
It is recognised as a cumulative toxic substance and the margin of safety,
compared to most medicines and even pollutants in drinking water, is very low.
I think any attempt at the mass introduction of fluoridation is likely to be challenged
under human rights legislation, and with very good grounds.
It is forcibly medicating a whole population without prior informed consent.
While it is agreed that if you apply fluoride to the surface of a tooth
it will have a beneficial effect on stopping caries, the same argument cannot be made for ingesting fluoride.
There are a number of European countries - such as Finland and Holland -
which have tried fluoridation, but it has been stopped because of health fears. The whole scientific literature surrounding the decision to start fluoridation is
of questionable quality, as confirmed by the York Review.
The whole concept of "a one dose fits all" regime is flawed. If you are small, you are more at risk from the ill-effects of fluoride, than if you are big.
Increasingly, dentists who have read around the subject are also coming to the conclusion that
mass medication with fluoride is not justified.
This must be doubly so because the agent that is put into drinking water supplies is not
pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (which you find, for example, in toothpaste),
but a waste product of the fertiliser industry, hexafluorosilicic acid.
This product has some heavy metal contamination,
and there is no convincing evidence that it has ever been adequately toxicologically tested.
In my mind there are both toxicological and ethical problems over mass fluoridation.
Please click your browsers back buton to go back to previous page.
Thank you kindly.
Source of Article:
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/
0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=14490999%26method=full% 26siteid=50061%26page=3%26headline=should%2dfluoride%2dbe%2dadded%2dto%2dour%2dwater%2d-name_pag e.html