Declaring Fluoride An Essential Element
The Honorable Arlen Specter
U.S. Senate
Suite 2031 Federal Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
8 January 1999
Dear Senator Specter,
Thank you for your efforts in prompting Bruce Alberts,
PhD, and Kenneth Shine, MD, to respond to the letter
by Professor Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD, et al., (of
which I was a co-signer), regarding the inclusion of
fluoride in the Food and Nutrition board s 1997
report, Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus,
Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Because of your efforts,
Drs. Alberts and Shine eventually (20 November 1998)
wrote a reply of sorts. Because of your interest, I
wish to draw your attention to inadequacies and inconsistencies
in the reply that might not be noted by the casual reader.
The reply acknowledges that fluoride is not an essential
nutrient. That means there is no known minimum requirement
for fluoride. In that manner, it is similar to lead.
Since fluoride is so ubiquitous in nature, there is
no way to construct a diet with sufficient nutrients
that is, at the same time, void of fluoride. Despite
this inability to test zero fluoride intake, the fact
is that, no matter how little the fluoride intake is,
no deficiency state occurs. Unlike the other items listed
in the Food and Nutrition report, there simply is no
such thing as fluoride deficiency.
Alberts and Shine argue that "Because of its valuable
effects on dental health, fluoride is a beneficial element
for humans." There are several things wrong with this
statement. Fluoride is not a chemical "element"; fluorine
(a poisonous gas at room temperature) is. Fluoride refers
to a complex formed of the fluoride ion with some other
element or compound, such as calcium fluoride or carbon
tetrafluoride. The chemical nature of any fluoride compound
is determined not only by the fluorine (or fluoride
ion) but also by the element or compound to which it
is complexed. For instance, hydrogen fluoride (HF) is
considerably different in action than sodium fluoride
(NaF) and thousands of times more toxic than calcium
fluoride (CaF2) is. Similarly, toxic organochlorines
become many times more toxic when converted to organofluorines.
Further, there is considerable argument whether or
not fluoride is beneficial to dental health. The statement
by Alberts and Shine begs the question. I have challenged
fluoride spokespersons in numerous debates to provide
one valid reference showing any real dental benefit
from fluoridation, and none has ever been found. In
1981, the Rand Corporation, in an extensive review of
the fluoride literature on this subject, found that
Public Health fluoride studies "suffer from poor experimental
design and from analysis plans that largely ignore the
possible effects of other factors of tooth decay" with
the result that they (the studies) "have no relevance
to any criterion of public policy-making." The major
error cited by the Rand report was the use of age-related "surfaces
saved" or "percent reduction in decay" rather than the
rate of decay. Correcting this, the report states, "is
a first, necessary step in the development of life-cycle
models of treatment effect." For example, a cavity delayed
by a year is not a cavity saved. Unfortunately, this
first, necessary step is still lacking.
Another way of saying this is that fluoridation is
neither necessary nor sufficient to prevent dental cavities.
The majority of people exposed to very low water fluoride
concentrations have teeth just as healthy as people
exposed to higher water fluoride concentrations; and
many folks develop dental cavities regardless of the
water fluoride concentration.
Finally, the statement by Drs. Alberts and Shine that
fluoride be included in the Nutrition Board s
actions because it conveys a "beneficial element for
humans" is bizarre since that same argument would apply
to antibiotics, aspirin, and thousands of other agents
not to mention music, prayer, and cotton underwear.
Authors Alberts and Shine admit that infants who are
exclusively breast fed would have a low fluoride intake,
and yet these infants are not at greater risk for dental
caries than formula-fed infants are. Because of this,
the adequate intake (AI) of fluoride for infants 0 to
6 months of age is set at 0.01 mg/day. If a baby is
not breast-fed and the bottle formula used is mixed
in fluoridated tap water, the daily fluoride intake
would far exceed the recommended daily intake. Drs.
Alberts and Shine are surely aware of the studies by
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix et al that demonstrated brain damage
in newborn rodents exposed to fluoride. Why are they
not recommending the use of unfluoridated water in preparing
baby formula?
The authors further acknowledge that caries incidence
has declined in countries without fluoridated water.
In fact, the decline is equal to that of the fluoridated
countries. They then falsely attribute this decline
to national dental hygiene programs and the use of fluoride
in school-based programs and fluoridated toothpaste.
This is purely an opinion and not a statement of fact.
Drs. Alberts and Shine then claim that the majority
of animal studies have shown no effect on cancer, birth
defects, genetic disorders or bone strength of very
high and long-term fluoride exposure. This is an egregious
misstatement of fact. The National Toxicology Program
(NTP) found significant increases in the incidence of
cancer, thyroid tumors, and bone disease in rodents
to correlate with fluoride intake that resulted in tissue
concentrations in the same range as found in people
drinking fluoridated water for several decades.
Further, the fluoride compound used in most animal
studies is pure sodium fluoride (NF) and purified water,
not industrial grade hydrofluorosilicic acid as is commonly
used in public water fluoridation. The fluoride compounds
used in public water fluoridation are contaminated with
a number of toxic chemicals such as lead, mercury, and
aluminum which, by synergy, are known to increase the
toxicity of fluoride with the potential of brain damage
and other health problems. And, since rats are more
resistant to fluoride toxicity than humans, it would
seem that rat studies using pure NaF rather than the
industrial toxic waste used in public water fluoridation
are actually designed to obscure the true toxic risk
of the fluoride exposure humans face.
In discussing fluoride-induced osteofluorosis (osteosclerosis),
Drs. Alberts and Shine claim that skeletal fluorosis,
even in its earliest stages, has not been shown to occur
in the U.S. and Canada where water fluoride concentration
is less than 10 ppm (mg/L). This is another slippery
statement designed to obscure the facts. Worldwide skeletal
fluorosis, and even disabling osteo-fluorosis, is found
to occur commonly when water fluoride concentration
is less than 4 ppm. The fact that osteofluorosis is
rarely reported in the U.S. and Canada is more likely
due to three factors: (1) the relatively high calcium
intake we enjoy; (2) the poor diagnostic acumen of conventional
physicians; and (3) the low expectation of finding it
since they are not taught to look for it. When confronted
with a patient with osteofluorosis, the usual diagnosis
is arthritis and the usual treatment is aspirin or other
non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs.
Drs. Alberts and Shine conclude that "Given the complexities
of the issues the report considers, we are confident
that much room remains for further objective inquiry." Doesn t
this strike you as strange, considering that fluoridation
has been promoted for 50 years? Isn t it more
reasonable to conclude that because the important health
issues have not been resolved in 50 years that perhaps
we should avoid fluoridation until they are resolved?
How long are the U.S. Public Health agencies going to
continue their "objective inquiry"? The majority of
advanced countries have seen enough to know that public
water fluoridation should be abandoned.
The problem (of persistent, egregious fluoridation
promotion) is actually quite simple. Fluoride is an
industrial toxic waste product. A typical phosphate
fertilizer plant, for example, produces about 500 tons
per day. Disposal of this toxic waste is strictly controlled
by our Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the
exception of fluoride in drinking water which is under
the control (?) of our Public Health agencies. Fifty
years ago fluoride promoters gained control of our Public
Health agencies. Job security and career advancement
within the Public Health agencies are linked to fluoridation
promotion. This has led to the prostitution of science
in order to maintain this convenient, cost-saving method
of toxic fluoride waste disposal. Surely you have seen
the same problem (of science data manipulation) in venues
such as auto safety, pollution control, and other toxic
waste disposal.
Senator Specter, does it surprise you that the scientists
of the EPA unanimously voted to oppose water fluoridation?
Within the EPA, it is only the political administrators
that advocate continued water fluoridation. In fact,
they punish any scientist employee that publicly expresses
any doubt of the wisdom of fluoridation. To whom would
you go to find the scientific truth of fluoride exposure the
EPA scientists or their political administrators?
You have served well in prodding Drs. Alberts and Shine
to answer the challenging Burgstahler letter. Now that
you observe their disingenuous reply, perhaps you will
look further into the problem and join the ranks of
intelligent, responsible citizens opposing this unwise
practice.
Most sincerely yours, John R. Lee, MD
|