In 1931 at the University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station M. C. Smith, E.
M. Lantz, and H. V. Smith discovered that when given drinking water supplied with fluorine,rats would develop tooth defects. Further testing by H.
T. Dean and E. Elove of theUnited States Public Health Service confirmed this report, and stated that what is knownas mottled tooth. Mottled tooth is a condition in which white spots develop on the backteeth.
Gradually the white spots get darker and darker until the tooth is erodedcompletely. This was believed to be caused by fluorine in drinking water (Behrman pg. 181). A strong uproar was heard when this was released and people wanted all fluorineout of their water. But later tests concluded that communities with high levels of fluorinein their drinking water suffered less dental cavities.
Further testing concluded that at least1. 0 parts per million of fluorine could help to prevent cavities, but more than 1. 5 PPMwould cause mottled tooth, so basically a little fluorine would be okay but a lot of fluorinewould be bad (Behrman 182). In 1938, with this information, Dr.
Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute began topromote the addition of fluoride to public water systems, claiming that it would reducetooth decay, however there were two major obstacles in his path, The American MedicalAssociation, and The American Dental Association. Both associations wrote articles intheir journals about the dangers of fluoridation of water supplies. The American DentalAssociation wrote the following in the October 1, 1944 issue: “We do know the use ofdrinking water containing as little as 1. 2 to 3. 0 parts per million of fluorine will cause suchdevelopmental disturbances in bones as osteoslcerosis, spondylosis and osteoperosis, aswell as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemicdisturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to preventdevelopment of dental disfigurements among children.
” (Yiamouyiannis pg. 138)Despite these warnings Dr. Cox continued to promote fluoridation of watersupplies and even convinced a Wisconsin dentist, J. J. Frisch to promote the addition offluoride to water supplies in his book, The Fight For Fluoridation. Frisch soon garneredthe support of Frank Bull.
Frank Bull organized political campaigns in order to persuadelocal officials to endorse fluoridation. This began to apply heavy pressure on the UnitedStates Public Health Service and the American Dental Association. (Yiamouyiannis pg. 139)In 1945 before any tests had been proven to show that fluoride reduced cavities, itwas added to the drinking water supply of Grand Rapids, Michigan.
This was done as atest. It would be the experiment to see if fluoride would decrease the number of cavities. The data would be collected periodically over the next five years, and in 1950 the datashowed that the number of cavities was decreasing, but in the town of Muskegon, whichdid not have a fluoridated water supply, cavities decreased by the same margin. Howeverthe information about Muskegon was covered up (Waldbott pg. 262).
A few days after the information about Grand Rapids was released the UnitedStates Public Health Service called a press conference in which they said that: “Communities desiring to fluoridate their communal water supplies should be stronglyencouraged to do so. ” (Waldbott pg. 263)In June 1951, dental health representatives from around the U. S.
met with dentalhealth officials to discuss the promotion and implementation of fluoride. It was at thisconference that the United States Public Health Service formally endorsed fluoridation. Ithad finally succumb to the pressure. Two years later in 1953, the American DentalAssociation also began to support fluoridation, when they released a pamphlet, sending itto every dentistry office in the U. S. The pamphlet told the advantages of using fluoride,encouraged acceptance and use of fluoride, and sought to overcome public resistance tofluoride (Coffel).
From 1953 till 1977 the only debates going on about fluoridation was how to fundit. Most organizations supported fluoridation, and those that did not soon did, including,the National Research Council, the American Water Works Association, the AmericanMedical Association, and the World Health Organization. All of these organizationsendorsed fluoridation (Waldbott pg. 277).
However in 1977, the fluoridation controversy was brought back up by JohnYiamouyiannis. A committee was commissioned to clear up the fluoride controversy onceand for all. But it did not, it just raised it even more. Yiamouyiannis led this committee. Yiamouyiannis in his statement to congress referring to the results the committeegathered, said: “provide clear evidence that fluoride is a carcinogen”.
In his studyYiamouyiannis learned that people living in the nation’s ten largest fluoridated citiessuffered 15 percent more cancer than those living in the ten largest non-fluoridated cities. Backing up this report was senior science advisor for the Environmental ProtectionAgency, William L. Marcus. He stated that the committee report not only overlookedliver cancer evidence, but also would have reported clear evidence of carcinogenicity, hadthey not fallen to pressure from pro-fluoride groups to release a “sanitized” report(Coffel). In 1978 Dr.
Wallace Armstrong, Dr. Robert Hoover, and Dr. Stephen Barretpublished a two part report on fluoridation for “Consumer Reports”. These two articleswere meant to discredit Yiamouyiannis’ findings that fluoridation is linked to cancer. Theauthors deliberately lied and slandered Yiamouyiannis, so that the general public wouldfeel safe, after all, by now the majority of water supplies in the country had beenfluoridated. This battle waged on for several years, with people trying to discreditYiamouyiannis, but he would not go away.
The battle of whether to use fluoride or not isstill going on. It has been proven to be toxic and cause some serious health problems, butit is still widely used in dentistry, and more importantly, is still contained in our drinkingwater supplies (Yiamouyiannis pg. 144). Although fluoride is still used and fluoridated water is still drank, there are manydisadvantages that many people may not know about that could cause serious healthproblems.
The first major health threat, is fluoride’s link to cancer. The most recent studydone was conducted with rats. 180 male rats were given fluoridated water. Out of those180, 80 were given fluoridated water with a 78 parts per million fluoride count.
Out ofthose 80 rats three developed a very rare type of bone cancer called Osteosarooms. Sucha rare cancer should not be found at such a rate of three out of 80, but 78 parts per millionis 78 times what is in people’s water today, but if given enough water a person coulddevelop cancer. Of course more that 1 part per million would cause mottled tooth, or as it is alsoknown as, dental fluorosis. A condition in which white spots appear on teeth, andgradually become darker and darker until the tooth is completely eroded away anddestroyed (Coffel). In the town of Kizilcaoern, Turkey, the water has 5. 4 parts per million fluoride.
Inthis town all the people and animals age prematurely. Men that are 30 look 60, this is dueto the high fluoride content in the water. Their skin wrinkles excessively, they have severearthritic pain, and their bones shatter like glass after a fall. The fluoride in the waterbreaks down the protein Collagen.
Collagen makes up 30 percent of the body’s proteinand serves as a major structural component in skin, ligaments, bones, tendons, muscles,cartilage, and teeth. When the Collagen is broken down the skin and other parts of thebody weaken. As the skin weakens it wrinkles (Yiamouyiannis pg. 4).
There are many other problems attributed to increased aging due to fluoride. Likesevere arthritis. Also other body organs will not function properly because they get oldtoo fast, just like a person getting old, naturally their organs don’t function like they oncedid. Fluoride can also damage the immune system. Studies done by Dr. Sheila Gibson,from the University of Glasgow, show that fluoride slows the migration rate of whiteblood cells.
White blood cells must travel through the walls of blood vessels to fightdisease, but fluoride slows down white blood cells. They don’t work as fast as theyshould, and this weakens the immune system. The following table shows the migrationrates of white blood cells treated with different concentrations of fluoride. (Yiamouyiannis pg.
23)Another one of the most damaging health hazards caused by fluoride is fluoridepoisoning. This does not consist of one symptom or condition, but many. It begins withdental fluorosis. Then the bones begin to show signs of faster aging. The bones get whatis known as outgrowth. Bony outgrowth is when the bones get larger unnaturally.
This iscaused because fluoride redeposits calcium and other ions on the bones and teeth. Bonyoutgrowth can cause joints to lock because the bone will get too large and prevent thetendons and ligaments from working properly (Yiamouyiannis pg. 40). Other damage that can be caused is chromosome damage. When chromosomesare damaged by fluoride the children to be born of the person whose chromosomes weredamaged will have serious defects.
Other side effects of fluoride that are not as serious asthe ones mentioned above are, black tarry stools, bloody vomit, faintness, nausea,vommiting, shallow breathing, stomach cramps, tremors, unusual excitement, unusualincrease in saliva, watery eyes, weakness, constipation, loss of apetite, pain and aching ofbones, skin rash, sores in mouth and on lips, stiffness, weight loss, and white, brown, orblack discoloration of teeth. (Yiamouyiannis pg. 6)Besides all of these disadvantages of fluoride, it has been proven to reduce toothdecay by 25%. It does this by redepositing calcium and other ions onto the teeth, but thiscomes with many disadvantages, so it is not really beneficial to one’s health to use it. Itwill benefit one’s dental health, but will harm many other aspects of their lives.
(Coffel)Science
