19 February 2013

Durango Water Commission Meeting Calendar

Don't forget to take action, folks!!!  Here is the link to the calendar, so make use of it!  It will update from month to month.

http://www.durangogov.org/calendar.aspx?view=list&year=2013&month=1&day=7

And here's the list of names of those helpful folks at the Water Commission, as well.

http://www.durangogov.org/index.aspx?nid=154


Cancer Agents in Water-Supply Fluoride


Available online 16 February 2013

Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as fluoridating agents—A cost–benefit analysis

  • a American University, Department of Chemistry, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC,. USA
  • b 4 Glenwood Terrace, Averill Park, NY, USA

Abstract

Water fluoridation programs in the United States and other countries which have them use either sodium fluoride (NaF), hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) or the sodium salt of that acid (NaSF), all technical grade chemicals to adjust the fluoride level in drinking water to about 0.7–1 mg/L. In this paper we estimate the comparative overall cost for U.S. society between using cheaper industrial grade HFSA as the principal fluoridating agent versus using more costly pharmaceutical grade (U.S. Pharmacopeia – USP) NaF. USP NaF is used in toothpaste. HFSA, a liquid, contains significant amounts of arsenic (As). HFSA and NaSF have been shown to leach lead (Pb) from water delivery plumbing, while NaF has been shown not to do so. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) health-based drinking water standards for As and Pb are zero. Our focus was on comparing the social costs associated with the difference in numbers of cancer cases arising from As during use of HFSA as fluoridating agent versus substitution of USP grade NaF. We calculated the amount of As delivered to fluoridated water systems using each agent, and used EPA Unit Risk values for As to estimate the number of lung and bladder cancer cases associated with each. We used cost of cancer cases published by EPA to estimate cost of treating lung and bladder cancer cases. Commercial prices of HFSA and USP NaF were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate. We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP NaF as fluoridating agent. The U.S. could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP NaF in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade fluoridating agents. Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize similar benefits by making this change. Policy makers would have to confront the uneven distribution of costs and benefits across societies if this change were made.

Fluoride *Use* Associated with Cavities

Caries Research 2012;47:229-308

Fluorosis and Dental Caries in Mexican Schoolchildren Residing in Areas with Different Water Fluoride Concentrations and Receiving Fluoridated Salt by García-Pérez A. · Irigoyen-Camacho M.E. · Borges-Yáñez A.

Abstract

Objective: To explore the association between fluoride in drinking water and the prevalence and severity of fluorosis and dental caries in children living in communities receiving fluoridated salt. 

Material and Methods: Participants were schoolchildren (n = 457) living in two rural areas of the State of Morelos, Mexico, where the water fluoride concentration was 0.70 or 1.50 ppm. Dental caries status was assessed using Pitts’ criteria. Lesions that were classified as D3 (decayed) were identified to determine the decayed, missing, and filled teeth index (D3MFT). Fluorosis was assessed using the Thylstrup-Fejerskov Index (TFI). Information regarding drinking water source and oral hygiene practices (tooth brushing frequency, dentifrice use, and oral hygiene index) was obtained.
Results: The prevalence of fluorosis (TFI ≥1) in communities with 0.70 and 1.50 ppm water fluoride was 39.4 and 60.5% (p = 0.014), respectively, while the prevalence of more severe forms (TFI ≥4) was 7.9 and 25.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean D3MFT was 0.49 (±1.01) in the 0.70 ppm community and 0.61 (±1.47) in the 1.50 ppm community (p = 0.349). A logistic regression model for caries (D3 >1) showed that higher fluorosis categories (TFI 5–6 OR = 6.81, p = 0.001) were associated with higher caries experience, adjusted by age, number of teeth present, tooth brushing frequency, bottled water use, and natural water fluoride concentration. 

Conclusions: The prevalence of fluorosis was associated with the water fluoride concentration. Fluorosis at moderate and severe levels was associated with a higher prevalence of dental caries, compared with lesser degrees of fluorosis. The impact of dental fluorosis should be considered in dental public health programs.

23 August 2011

Fluoride and (Radioactive) Mineral Ionization

Yikes.  We know that fluoride bonds with all sorts of otherwise ... erm... non-toxic... minerals (and chemicals?) in the water supply after it is added.  What about toxic waste?




Texas politicians knew agency hid the amount of radiation in drinking water




Superfund project looks to reduce toxic flow






Enough reading material for now?  I thought so.

04 April 2011

"FAN-Australia drops a bombshell on Water Fluoridation"

Media Release: Brisbane, Australia 4th April 2011



Merilyn Haines, the director of the newly formed group FAN-Australia (Fluoride Action Network Australia), has found some startling statistics buried deep in official research material by ARCPOH (The Australian Research Centre Population Oral Health at the Adelaide Dental School) that could scuttle the water fluoridation program once and for all.

Haines has found in the ARCPOH statistics that the permanent teeth of children in largely unfluoridated (<5% before 2009) Queensland were erupting on average two years earlier than the children in the rest of Australia, which is largely fluoridated (see the figure below). A two-year delay would negate all the small reductions in tooth decay claimed by dental researchers since 1990. In other words fluoridation doesn't work. Any difference in tooth decay claimed to be due to fluoride is simply an artefact of the delayed eruption caused by fluoride.



Source – Published and unpublished data from 2003- 2004 Australian Child Dental Health Surveys

( unpublished data obtained by Freedom of Information application)


According to Professor Paul Connett, director of the Fluoride Action Network, who is currently on a fluoride-tour of New Zealand, “Critics of fluoridation, like Dr. Hardy Limeback in Toronto, have long pointed out that any reduced tooth decay touted by promoters could easily be accounted for by the delayed eruption of the teeth. Even when this argument received strong experimental support from Komarek et al. in 2005, this has still has been ignored by those promoting fluoridation. But they cannot ignore it any longer: the figures of the dental department research team most associated with the promotion of fluoridation in Australia (and beyond) demonstrate that this delay is real.”



Less teeth erupted for any given age would mean less surfaces available for tooth decay to have taken place. A delayed eruption of one – two years would account for the small reductions claimed in ALL the US and Australian studies published since 1990 (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Slade et al., 1996; Spencer et al., 1996; Armfield et al., 2009; Armfield, 2010). These studies have found reductions ranging from 0.12 of one permanent tooth surfaces saved in Western Australia (Spencer et al., 1996) to 0.6 permanent tooth surface saved in the largest survey ever conducted in the US (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This is not very much when you consider that there are five surfaces to the chewing teeth and four to the cutting teeth, and by the time all the child’s teeth have erupted there are a total of 128 tooth surfaces. One tooth surface saved amounts to less than 1% of all the surfaces in a child’s mouth. Now even this small benefit has evaporated.



More on the history.



In 1999, the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia’s peak Medical Research body, stated that, “evidence exists that tooth eruption is delayed in fluoridated areas. It has been suggested that a proper comparison of caries rates should involve children one year older in fluoridated areas than in non- fluoridated areas.”


In 2000, the York Review pointed out that none of the studies that they had reviewed had controlled for "the number of erupted teeth per child” (McDonagh et al., 2000, p.24).



In 2005, Komarek et al. did control for eruption of teeth and reported no difference in decay between children living in Belgium receiving fluoride supplements (and those who weren’t) that was relatable to fluoride exposure (as measured by the severity of dental fluorosis).



In 2009, Peiris et al. reported that children in largely fluoridated Australia had a delay in "dental age" of 0.82 years compared to children in largely unfluoridated UK. However, the authors did not discuss the possible reasons for this delay and the number of children involved in the study (about 80 in each country) was not very large.

2011. Now the bombshell – the delay has been found and it is in the official statistics. ARCPOH has failed to respond to several inquiries on this matter. According to Haines, “Surely, this must end water fluoridation. If it doesn't work what's the point of putting this toxic substance into the drinking water and what reason can they possibly have for forcing it on people who don’t want it?”


However, this isn't just about teeth. The finding could be even more significant than that. If fluoride causes a delayed eruption of the teeth then the most likely mechanism for doing so is fluoride's ability to lower thyroid function (see chapter 8 in the 2006 National Research Council review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water.” According to Connett, “Lowered thyroid function in infants would mean slower growth of their tissues and could explain the 24 studies that have found an association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to moderate levels of fluoride in China, India, Iran and Mexico.”



It also raises the possibility that millions of people in fluoridated countries suffering from hypothyroidism have had this condition caused, or exacerbated, by exposure to fluoridated water. Haines’ asks “If ingesting fluoride delays tooth eruption for 1 to 2 years what other effects is it having on our bodies?”



Meanwhile, if swallowing fluoride does not reduce tooth decay, why would any reasonable person, decision maker or regulatory official continue to sanction adding fluoride to the public water supply?



Australian media contacts mobiles - 0418 777 112 and 0403029077

Media Release sent by Queenslanders For Safe Water on behalf of Fluoride Action Network Australia Inc

24 February 2011

NEGATORY: Fluoride does NOT provide benefits.

(from EarthTimes)

"Swallow Fluoride at Your Own Peril - Study Shows Risks without Benefits"


NEW YORK, Feb. 24, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Low-income children who consumed recommended fluoride doses have more fluoride-damaged teeth and high cavity rates, according to research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, January 2011.

Fluoride (hydrofluosilicic acid) is added to U.S. water supplies in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay. However, in Mexico fluoride is added to salt because water fluoride levels are low.

Mexican preschoolers and school-aged children in a low-income area were measured for cavities, fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) and urine fluoride levels.

Despite urinary excretion within an optimal fluoride intake range, 78% of 4- to 5-year-olds and 73% of 11- to 12-year-olds have cavities while 60% of the older children have dental fluorosis.

In this study, dental fluorosis was significantly associated with the amount of toothpaste used, age and frequency of brushing. Three-fourths of the parents used fluoridated salt for cooking.

Fluoride was measured in bottled water, juices, nectars and carbonated drinks (range 0.08 ppm to 1.70 ppm)

The researchers report that "the results of previous studies show that the consumption of fluoridated water in addition to fluoride-containing products may promote an increased development of dental fluorosis lesions, even in people living in regions considered to be non-endemic areas."

"Legislators cavalierly order fluoride into the bodies of American children without considering their individual total fluoride intake, clearly causing potential harm," says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. "Legislators who vote for fluoridation often base their decision on hearsay and fail to look at the science behind fluoridation."

The researchers stress individual variables be considered before fluoride is administered such as nutritional status, total fluoride ingestion and excretion. Also, environment and geographical factors should be evaluated, including location, weather and altitude.

The CDC admits that fluoride's predominant mode of action is topical and that "(t)he prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries."

This study adds to a growing body of evidence indicating that fluoride ingestion is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, therefore making water fluoridation an outdated drug delivery system. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html

Reference: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/8/1/148/pdf

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, 516-433-8882 nyscof@aol.com

http://www.FluorideAction.Net

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.



______________________________________

from the academic medical article : Fluoride Consumption and Its Impact on Oral Health (in Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 148-160) by María Dolores Jiménez-Farfán 1, Juan Carlos Hernández-Guerrero 1,*, Lilia Adriana Juárez-López 2, Luis Fernando Jacinto-Alemán 1 and Javier de la Fuente-Hernández 3.

"Abstract: Objective. The purpose of this study was to evaluate caries and dental fluorosis among Mexican preschoolers and school-aged children in a non-endemic zone for fluorosis and to measure its biological indicators. Methods. DMFT, DMFS, dmft, dmfs, and CDI indexes were applied. Fluoride urinary excretion and fluoride concentrations in home water, table salt, bottled water, bottled drinks, and toothpaste were determined. Results. Schoolchildren presented fluorosis (CDI = 0.96) and dental caries (DMFT = 2.64 and DMFS = 3.97). Preschoolers presented dmft = 4.85 and dmfs = 8.80. DMFT and DMFS were lower in children with mild to moderate dental fluorosis (DF). Variable fluoride concentrations were found in the analyzed products (home water = 0.18–0.44 ppm F, table salt = 0–485 ppm F, bottled water = 0.18–0.47 ppm F, juices = 0.08–1.42 ppm F, nectars = 0.07–1.30 ppm F, bottled drinks = 0.10–1.70 ppm F, toothpaste = 0–2,053 ppm F). Mean daily fluoride excretion was 422 ± 176 μg/24 h for schoolchildren and 367 ± 150 μg/24 h for preschoolers. Conclusions. Data from our study show that, despite values of excretion within an optimal fluoride intake range, the prevalence of caries was significant in both groups, and 60% of the 11- to 12-year-old children presented with dental fluorosis. In addition, variable fluoride concentrations in products frequently consumed by children were found."

18 January 2011

EPA to Bar Fluoride-Based Pesticide

  • CONTACT: EWG Public Affairs, 202-667-6982 leeann@ewg.org; Beyond Pesticides: Jay Feldman, 202-543-5450; Fluoride Action Network: Ellen Connett, 315-379-9200
  • FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 10, 2011

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today proposed to grant three environmental groups’ petition to end the use of sulfuryl fluoride, an insecticide and food fumigant manufactured by Dow AgroSciences.

The Dow product, approved by EPA as an alternative to methyl bromide, is used on hundreds of food commodities.

Citing concerns about children’s health and noting their current overexposure to fluoride through tap water, EPA’s decision is the second major federal action in three days to address the safety of fluoride for children. On January 7, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed to reduce its recommended maximum level of fluoride in tap water from 1.2 to 0.7 parts per million (ppm), a 42 percent decrease. [from my last post]

....