Jump to content

Water fluoridation controversy: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m per WP:EL
Just removing relevant links for no obvious reason is a bit much.
Line 126: Line 126:


==External links==
==External links==
* [http://www.fluoridealert.org Fluoride Action Network]
*[http://nteu280.org/ NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS]
*[http://nteu280.org/ NTEU CHAPTER 280 - U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS]
* {{DMOZ|Society/Issues/Health/Water_Treatment/Fluoridation/|Water fluoridation}}
* {{DMOZ|Society/Issues/Health/Water_Treatment/Fluoridation/|Water fluoridation}}
*[http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/the_fluoride_deception_how_a_nuclear Interview with Christopher Bryson], from ''Democracy Now!'', June 17, 2004
*[http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/157.full Oxford Jornals Harold Hodge
{{DEFAULTSORT:Water Fluoridation Controversy}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Water Fluoridation Controversy}}
[[Category:Dentistry]]
[[Category:Dentistry]]

Revision as of 02:34, 20 November 2010

Water fluoridation controversy refers to moral, ethical, and safety concerns regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies. The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation.[1]

Those opposed argue that water fluoridation imposes ethical issues,[2] may cause serious health problems[3][4][5][6] and is not effective enough to justify the costs. Dosage cannot be precisely controlled.[7][8][9] Compared with their healthier counterparts, senior citizens, people with calcium and magnesium deficiencies, and people with impaired renal clearance are more susceptible to the negative effects of fluoride.[10][11]

Opposition to fluoridation has existed since its initiation in the 1940s.[1] During the 1950s and 1960s, some opponents of water fluoridation suggested that fluoridation was a communist plot to undermine public health.[12] Sociologist Brian Martin states that sociologists have typically viewed opposition to water fluoridation as irrational, although critics of this position have argued that this rests on an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.[1]

Ethics

Many who oppose water fluoridation consider it to be a form of compulsory mass medication.[13] They argue that consent by all water consumers cannot be achieved, nor can water suppliers accurately control the exact levels of fluoride that individuals receive, nor monitor their response.

In the United Kingdom the Green Party refers to fluoride as a poison, claims that water fluoridation violates Article 35 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, is banned by the UK poisons act of 1972, violates Articles 3 and 8 of the Human Rights Act and raises issues under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.[13]

Water fluoridation has also been criticized by Cross and Carton for violating the Nuremberg Code and the Council of Europe's Biomedical Convention of 1999.[2] Dentistry professor David Locker and philosopher Howard Cohen argued that the moral status for advocating water fluoridation is "at best indeterminate" and could even be considered immoral because it infringes upon autonomy based on uncertain evidence, with possible negative effects.[14]

The precautionary principle

In an analysis published in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, the authors examine the water fluoridation controversy in the context of the precautionary principle. The authors note that:

  • There are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply;
  • Fluoride does not need to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay;
  • Tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with, and without, water fluoridation;
  • People are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply;
  • Studies indicate fluoride’s potential to cause a wide range of adverse, systemic effects;
  • Since fluoridation affects so many people, “one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventive actions.”[15]

Safety

Main article: Water fluoridation § Safety

Fluoride's adverse effects depend on total fluoride dosage from all sources.[citation needed] At the commonly recommended dosage, the only clear adverse effect is dental fluorosis, which can alter the appearance of children's teeth during tooth development; this is mostly mild and is unlikely to represent any real effect on public health.[16] Fluoridation has little effect on risk of bone fracture (broken bones); it may result in slightly lower fracture risk than either excessively high levels of fluoridation or no fluoridation.[16] A major Australian study found no clear association between fluoridation and cancer or deaths due to cancer, both for cancer in general and also specifically for bone cancer and osteosarcoma,[16] and other adverse effects lack sufficient evidence to reach a confident conclusion.[17] Several studies cited by opponents of community fluoridation have found associations, consistently finding that osteosarcoma rates are significantly higher in male children with raised fluoride levels.[18]

Constant ingestion of high levels of fluoride can cause adverse effects including severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and weakened bones; the WHO has a guideline of 1.5 mg/L.[19] In 2006, a 12-person U.S. National Research Council (NRC) committee reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride in the water[20] and unanimously concluded that the maximum contaminant level of 4 mg/L should be lowered. Although it did not comment on water fluoridation's safety, three of the panel members expressed their opposition to water fluoridation after the study[21][22][23] and the chair, John Doull, suggested that the issue should be reexamined.[4] Because the report recommended lowering the MCL, opponents argue that fluoridation has a lower margin of safety than previously realized.[24]

Because water fluoridation provided is not individually controlled, opponents express concern for vulnerable populations such as children, nutritionally deficient individuals, and renally impaired individuals. The National Research Council states that children have a higher daily average intake than adults per kg of bodyweight.[20]: 23  Those who perspire heavily or have kidney problems consume more water and thus also have a greater intake. A 2006 study reported an association between fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma, a rare bone disease affecting male children.[25] A 2009 analysis by the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC) stated that upon reviewing this and other similar studies, the weight of the evidence does not support a relationship. However, the CDC also calls for further research into this potential association to help support or refute the observation.[26] A study performed as a doctoral thesis, which is described as the most rigorous yet by the Washington Post, found a relationship among young boys,[27] but then the Harvard professor who advised the doctoral students determined that the results were not highly correlative enough to have evidentiary value; the professor then was investigated but exonerated by the federal government's Office of Research Integrity (ORI).[28]

An epidemiological connection between silicofluorides, an industrial byproduct which is used to fluoridate much of the U.S. water, and lead uptake in children was observed in a 2000 study.[29] A 2006 U.S. CDC-funded study was unable to replicate the results,[30] which the original researchers responded to in a 2007 rebuttal.[31] Aside from the lead connection, concerns are raised as to whether silicofluorides might have different effects on the body than sodium fluorides, and silicofluorides have not been rigorously tested for safety.[31]

Efficacy

Main article: Water fluoridation § Effectiveness

The available evidence shows that water fluoridation is effective in reducing cavities (see effectiveness section of the main article). The most comprehensive systematic review found that fluoridation was statistically associated with a decreased proportion of children with cavities (the median of mean decreases was 14.6%, the range −5 to 64%), and with a decrease in decayed, missing, and filled primary teeth (the median of mean decreases was 2.25 teeth, the range 0.5 to 4.4 teeth),[17] which is roughly equivalent to preventing 40% of cavities.[32] The review found that the evidence was of moderate quality: many studies did not attempt to reduce observer bias, control for confounding factors, report variance measures, or use appropriate analysis.[17] The effect is largely due to the topical effect of fluoride ions in the mouth rather than the systemic effect of ingestion.[33]

Fluoridation opponents have challenged the efficacy of fluoridation,[5] although their arguments have been accused of bias.[34] A large study of water fluoridation's efficacy was conducted by the National Institute of Dental Research in 1988, which officially found "20 percent fewer decayed tooth surfaces" corresponding to "less than one cavity per child".[5] Opponents argued that the study had errors, and the data was reanalyzed by fluoridation opponent John A. Yiamouyiannis, Ph. D., whose results indicated no statistically significant difference in tooth decay rates among children in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities.[5][35] Conversely, fluoridation proponents argued that Yiamouyiannis' work had errors.[36]

In 1986 fluoridation opponent Mark Diesendorf pointed out the substantial declines in tooth decay in nonfluoridated European countries.[37] Although fluoridation may still be a relevant public health measure among the poor and disadvantaged, it may be unnecessary for preventing tooth decay, particularly in industrialized countries where tooth decay is rare.[33]

Statements against

Since 1985, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters' union has expressed concerns about fluoride. In 2005, eleven EPA employee unions, representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals of the Civil Service, called for a halt on drinking water fluoridation programs across the USA and asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people.[38]

In 1992, speaking on the Canadian television program Marketplace, former EPA scientist Robert Carton claimed that "fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century." The practice was described as the "longest running public health controversy in North America" in the broadcast.[39]

In addition, over 3,038 health industry professionals, including one Nobel prize winner in medicine (Arvid Carlsson), doctors, dentists, scientists and researchers from a variety of disciplines are calling for an end to water fluoridation in an online petition to Congress.[40] The petition signers express concern for vulnerable groups like "small children, above average water drinkers, diabetics, and people with poor kidney function," who they believe may already be overdosing on fluoride.[40] Another concern that the petition signers share is, "The admission by federal agencies, in response to questions from a Congressional subcommittee in 1999-2000, that the industrial grade waste products used to fluoridate over 90% of America's drinking water supplies (fluorosilicate compounds) have never been subjected to toxicological testing nor received FDA approval for human ingestion."[40] The petition was sponsored by the Fluoride Action Network.[41][42][43][44]

Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the aforementioned report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards. Dr. Limeback is an associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto. He detailed his concerns in an April 2000 letter titled, "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water".[45]

In a presentation to the California Assembly Committee of Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Richard Foulkes, M.D., former special consultant to the Minister of Health of British Columbia, revealed:

The [water fluoridation] studies that were presented to me were selected and showed only positive results. Studies that were in existence at that time that did not fit the concept that they were "selling," were either omitted or declared to be "bad science." The endorsements had been won by coercion and the self-interest of professional elites. Some of the basic "facts" presented to me were, I found out later, of dubious validity. We are brought up to respect these persons in whom we have placed our trust to safeguard the public interest. It is difficult for each of us to accept that these may be misplaced.[46]

A 2001 study found that "fluoride, particularly in toothpastes, is a very important preventive agent against dental caries," but added that "additional fluoride to that currently available in toothpaste does not appear to be benefiting the teeth of the majority of people."[47]

On April 15, 2008, the United States National Kidney Foundation (NKF) updated their position on fluoridation for the first time since 1981.[48] Formerly an endorser of water fluoridation, the group is now neutral on the practice. The report states, “Individuals with CKD should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure by providing information on the NKF website including a link to the report in brief of the NRC [20] and the Kidney Health Australia position paper." [49] Calling for additional research, the foundation's current position paper states, however, that there is insufficient evidence to recommend fluoride-free drinking water for patients with renal disease.[50]

The International Chiropractor's Association opposes mass water fluoridation, considering it "possibly harmful and deprivation of the rights of citizens to be free from unwelcome mass medication."[51]

In the United States, the Sierra Club opposes mandatory water fluoridation. Some reasons cited include possible adverse health effects, harm to the environment, and risks involving sensitive populations.[52] In 2006, the Massachusetts legislature decided not to consider a bill that would have mandated water fluoridation throughout the state, because of concerns about health effects.[53]

Citing impacts on the environment, the economy and on health, the Green Party of Canada seeks a ban on artificial fluoridation products. The Canadian Green Party considers water fluoridation to be unsustainable. [54]

Use throughout the world

Main article: Fluoridation by country

Water fluoridation is used in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and Australia, and a handful of other countries. The following nations previously fluoridated their water, but stopped the practice, with the years when water fluoridation started and stopped in parentheses:

  • Federal Republic of Germany (1952–1971)
  • Sweden (1952–1971)
  • Netherlands (1953–1976)
  • Czechoslovakia (1955–1990)
  • German Democratic Republic (1959–1990)
  • Soviet Union (1960–1990)
  • Finland (1959–1993)
  • Japan (1952–1972)[citation needed]

In 1986 the journal Nature had a commentary, "Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries."[55]

In areas with complex water sources, water fluoridation is more difficult and more costly. Alternative fluoridation methods have been proposed, and implemented in some parts of the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) is currently assessing the effects of fluoridated toothpaste, milk fluoridation and salt fluoridation in Africa, Asia, and Europe. The WHO supports fluoridation of water in some areas, and encourages removal of fluoride where fluoride content in water is too high.[56]

History

Main article: History of water fluoridation

The first large fluoridation controversy occurred in Wisconsin in 1950. Fluoridation opponents questioned the ethics, safety, and efficacy of fluoridation.[57] New Zealand was the second country to fluoridate, and similar controversies arose there.[58] Fears about fluoride were likely exacerbated by the reputation of fluoride compounds as insect poisons and by early literature which tended to use terms such as "toxic" and "low grade chronic fluoride poisoning" to describe mottling from consumption of 6 mg/L of fluoride prior to tooth eruption, a level of consumption not expected to occur under controlled fluoridation.[59] When voted upon, the outcomes tend to be negative, and thus fluoridation has had a history of gaining through administrative orders in North America.[57] Theories for why the public tends to reject fluoridation include "alienation from mainstream" society, but evidence for that is weak. Another interpretation is confusion introduced during the referendum.[57] Some studies of the sociology of opposition to water fluoridation have been criticized for having an uncritical attitude toward scientific knowledge.[1]

Outside of North America, water fluoridation was adopted in European countries, but in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Denmark and Sweden banned fluoridation when government panels found insufficient evidence of safety, and the Netherlands banned water fluoridation when "a group of medical practitioners presented evidence" that it caused negative effects in a percentage of the population.[5]

Conspiracy theories

Flier issued in May 1955 by the Keep America Committee, alleging a conspiracy theory that water fluoridation is a communist plot.

Water fluoridation has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. During the "Red Scare" in the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, activists on the far right of American politics routinely asserted that fluoridation was part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime. They also opposed other public health programs, notably mass vaccination and mental health services.[60] Their views were influenced by opposition to a number of major social and political changes that had happened in recent years: the growth of internationalism, particularly the UN and its programs; the introduction of social welfare provisions, particularly the various programs established by the New Deal; and government efforts to reduce perceived inequalities in the social structure of the United States.[61]

Some took the view that fluoridation was only the first stage of a plan to control the American people. Fluoridation, it was claimed, was merely a stepping-stone on the way to implementing more ambitious programs. Others asserted the existence of a plot by communists and the United Nations to "deplete the brainpower and sap the strength of a generation of American children". Dr. Charles Bett, a prominent anti-fluoridationist, charged that fluoridation was "better THAN USING THE ATOM BOMB because the atom bomb has to be made, has to be transported to the place it is to be set off while POISONOUS FLUORINE has been placed right beside the water supplies by the Americans themselves ready to be dumped into the water mains whenever a Communist desires!" Similarly, a right-wing newsletter, the American Capsule News, claimed that "the Soviet General Staff is very happy about it. Anytime they get ready to strike, and their 5th column takes over, there are tons and tons of this poison "standing by" municipal and military water systems ready to be poured in within 15 minutes."[12]

This viewpoint led to major controversies over public health programs in the US, most notably in the case of the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act controversy of 1956.[62] In the case of fluoridation, the controversy had a direct impact on local programs. During the 1950s and 1960s, referendums on introducing fluoridation were defeated in over a thousand Florida communities. Although the opposition was overcome in time, it was not until as late as the 1990s that fluoridated water was drunk by the majority of the population of the United States.[60]

The communist conspiracy argument declined in influence by the mid-1960s, becoming associated in the public mind with irrational fear and paranoia. It was lampooned in Stanley Kubrick's 1964 film Dr. Strangelove, in which the character General Jack D. Ripper initiates a nuclear war in the hope of thwarting a communist plot to "sap and impurify" the "precious bodily fluids" of the American people with fluoridated water. Similar satires appeared in other movies, such as 1967's In Like Flint, in which a character's fear of fluoridation is used to indicate that he is insane. Even some anti-fluoridationists recognized the damage that the conspiracy theorists were causing; Dr. Frederick Exner, an anti-fluoridation campaigner in the early 1960s, told a conference: "most people are not prepared to believe that fluoridation is a communist plot, and if you say it is, you are successfully ridiculed by the promoters. It is being done, effectively, every day ... some of the people on our side are the fluoridators' 'fifth column'."[12]

In 2004 on the television program “Democracy Now,” investigative journalist and author of the book “The Fluoride Deception,” Chris Bryson claimed that, “the post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride–including the government’s nuclear weapons program.”[63]

Court cases

European Union

Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, when the High Council of The Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized.[64] Dutch authorities had no legal basis adding chemicals to drinking water if they will not improve the safety as such. The simple reason is that consumers cannot choose for a different tap water.[65] Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973.

In Ryan v. Attorney General (1965), the Supreme Court of Ireland held that water fluoridation did not infringe the plaintiff's right to bodily integrity.[66] However, the court found that such a right to bodily integrity did exist, despite the fact that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution of Ireland, thus establishing the doctrine of unenumerated rights in Irish constitutional law.

United States

See also: Water fluoridation in the United States

Fluoridation has been the subject of many court cases wherein activists have sued municipalities, asserting that their rights to consent to medical treatment and due process are infringed by mandatory water fluoridation.[2] Individuals have sued municipalities for a number of illnesses that they believe were caused by fluoridation of the city's water supply. In most of these cases, the courts have held in favor of cities, finding no or only a tenuous connection between health problems and widespread water fluoridation.[67] To date, no federal appellate court or state court of last resort (i.e., state supreme court) has found water fluoridation to be unlawful.[68]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b c d Martin B. (1989) The sociology of the fluoridation controversy: a reexamination. Sociological Quarterly.
  2. ^ a b c Cross DW, Carton RJ (2003). "Fluoridation: a violation of medical ethics and human rights". Int J Occup Environ Health. 9 (1): 24–9. PMID 12749628.
  3. ^ With Legislature considering fluoride mandate, health questions linger http://www.fluoridealert.org/media/2005j.html
  4. ^ a b Fagin D (2008). "Second thoughts about fluoride". Sci. Am. 298 (1): 74–81. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0108-74. PMID 18225698. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  5. ^ a b c d e John Colquhoun (1998). "Why I changed my mind about water fluoridation" (reprinted from Perspectives in Biology and Medicine). Fluoride. 31 (2): 103–118.
  6. ^ Second Look. A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride
  7. ^ American Public Health Association Community Water Fluoridation in the United States 10-28-’08 http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=1373
  8. ^ Recommendations for using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States, Centers for Disease Control 8-17-’01 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
  9. ^ Autio-Gold, Jaana; Courts, Frank, Assesing the effect of fluoride varnish on early enamel carious lesions in the primary dentition, J. Amer. Dent. Assn. http://www.jada.info/cgi/content/full/132/9/1247
  10. ^ Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, U. S. Public Health Service,pp. F1-F7 (1991)
  11. ^ Messenger Online, Fluoride Still in the News: Risks Noted for Kidney Patients, Children, Seniors http://www.topangamessenger.com/articles.asp?SectionID=1&ArticleID=3114
  12. ^ a b c Johnston, Robert D (2004). The Politics of Healing. Routledge. p. 136. ISBN 0415933390.
  13. ^ a b UK Green Party. (2003). Water fluoridation contravenes UK law, EU directives and the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. Press office briefing. accessdate 2008-08-03
  14. ^ Cohen H, Locker D. (2002). The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation. J Can Dent Assoc 2001; 67(10):578-80.
  15. ^ Tickner J, Coffin M. (2006). What does the precautionary principle mean for evidence-based dentistry? Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, Issue 6, pages 6-15.
  16. ^ a b c National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) (2007). "A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation" (PDF). Retrieved February 24, 2009. [dead link‍] Summary: Yeung CA (2008). "A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation". Evid Based Dent. 9 (2): 39–43. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400578. PMID 18584000. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  17. ^ a b c McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM; et al. (2000). "Systematic review of water fluoridation" (PDF). BMJ. 321 (7265): 855–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.321.7265.855. PMC 27492. PMID 11021861. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Full report: "Fluoridation of drinking water: a systematic review of its efficacy and safety". NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2000. Retrieved February 17, 2009. Authors' commentary: Treasure ET, Chestnutt IG, Whiting P, McDonagh M, Wilson P, Kleijnen J (2002). "The York review—a systematic review of public water fluoridation: a commentary". Br Dent J. 192 (9): 495–7. doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.4801410a. PMID 12047121.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  18. ^ Another Study Links Fluoride to Bone Cancer Reuters April 29, 2009
  19. ^ Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y (2006). "Human health effects". Fluoride in Drinking-water (PDF). World Health Organization. pp. 29–36. ISBN 92-4-156319-2. Retrieved February 28, 2009.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ^ a b c National Research Council (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-10128-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysource= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help). See also CDC's statement on this report.
  21. ^ Thiessen KM. (2006). Correspondence.
  22. ^ Budnick N. (2006). Fluoride foes get validation. Portland Tribune.
  23. ^ Limeback H. (2006). GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming. The Standard Times.
  24. ^ Connett, Paul. The relevance of the NRC Report to fluoridation. Fluoride Action Network.
  25. ^ Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 2006;17:421–428. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294
  26. ^ CDC Statement on Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma
  27. ^ The Washington Post: Professor at Harvard Is Being Investigated
  28. ^ The Harvard Crimson
  29. ^ Masters, R. D.; Coplan, M. J.; Hone, B. T.; Dykes, J. E. (2000). "Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead". Neurotoxicology. 21 (6): 1091–100. PMID 11233755.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Dartmouth press release
  30. ^ Macek MD, Matte TD, Sinks T, Malvitz DM (2006). "Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation in the United States, 1988–1994". Environ Health Perspect. 114 (1): 130–4. doi:10.1289/ehp.8319. PMC 1332668. PMID 16393670.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ^ a b Coplan, M. J.; Patch, S. C.; Masters, R. D.; Bachman, M. S. (2007). "Confirmation of and explanations for elevated blood lead and other disorders in children exposed to water disinfection and fluoridation chemicals". Neurotoxicology. 28 (5): 1032–1042. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2007.02.012. PMID 17420053.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ^ Yeung CA (2007). "Fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages". Evid Based Dent. 8 (3): 72–3. doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400506. PMID 17891121.
  33. ^ a b Pizzo G, Piscopo MR, Pizzo I, Giuliana G (2007). "Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review". Clin Oral Investig. 11 (3): 189–93. doi:10.1007/s00784-007-0111-6. PMID 17333303.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ^ Spencer AJ (1998). "New, or biased, evidence on water fluoridation?". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 22 (1): 149–154. doi:10.1111/j.1467-842X.1998.tb01161.x. PMID 9599869.
  35. ^ NIDR Study on Fluoridation
  36. ^ Horowitz HS (2000). "Why I continue to support community water fluoridation". J Public Health Dent. 60 (2): 67–71. doi:10.1111/j.1752-7325.2000.tb03297.x. PMID 10929563.
  37. ^ Diesendorf M (1986). "The mystery of declining tooth decay". Nature. 322 (6075): 125–9. doi:10.1038/322125a0. PMID 3523258.
  38. ^ Fluoride Summary
  39. ^ "Looking back at 40 years of fluoride" (Marketplace, Canadian Broadcasting Company, 11-24-92) http://archives.cbc.ca/programs/481-1844/page/1/
  40. ^ a b c Professionals' Statement Calling For An End To Water Fluoridation
  41. ^ http://www.fluoridealert.org/about-fan.htm
  42. ^ Dominion Post, Kapiti Council Keeps Fluoride, 11-6-2010 http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/local/3799506/Kapiti-council-keeps-fluoride
  43. ^ Dominion Post, Fluoride levels 'too high' for bottle-fed babies, 19-6-2010 http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/3830341/Fluoride-levels-too-high-for-bottle-fed-babies
  44. ^ Toronto Star, End water fluoridation, professor says People get enough from toothpaste, he argues, 11-18-'08 http://www.thestar.com/article/538700
  45. ^ Limeback, Hardy. (2000). Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water. Fluoride Alert.
  46. ^ http://www.sonic.net/kryptox/politics/lead20s.htm
  47. ^ Sheiham A. Dietary effects on dental diseases [PDF]. Public Health Nutr. 2001;4(2B):569–91. doi:10.1079/PHN2001142. PMID 11683551.
  48. ^ "Kidney Patients Should be Notified of Potential Risk from Fluorides and Fluoridated Drinking Water". Organic Consumers Association. 2008-06-03. Retrieved 2008-06-16.
  49. ^ Kidney Health Australia Fluoride Position Statement,” http://www.kidney.org.au/HealthProfessionals/PositionStatements/tabid/725/Default.aspx
  50. ^ National Kidney Foundation. Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease. April 15, 2008.
  51. ^ "ICA Policy Position Statements". International Chiropractors Association. Retrieved 2008-08-28.
  52. ^ Sierra Club Policy on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board of Directors, June 19, 2008 http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/water_fluoridation.aspx
  53. ^ Mandatory fluoride bill loses its bite http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/Massachusetts/Mandatory-fluoride-bill-loses-its-bite
  54. ^ Rodriguez-Larrain, Claudia, Ban on artificial water fluoridation, a new policy, Green Party of Canada http://greenparty.ca/blogs/15909/2010-08-26/engage-elizabeth-may-new-policy-ban-fluoridation
  55. ^ Nature 322, 125 - 129. 10 July 1986. The mystery of declining tooth decay. Mark Diesendorf
  56. ^ WHO World Oral Health Report (in pdf format), from the World Health Organization website, accessed on 4 March 2006.
  57. ^ a b c Musto RJ (1987). "Fluoridation: why is it not more widely adopted?". CMAJ. 137 (8): 705–8. PMC 1267306. PMID 3651941. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  58. ^ Wrapson J (2005). "Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies in New Zealand:'Magic Bullet,'Rat Poison, or Communist Plot?". Health and History. 7: 17–29.
  59. ^ Richmond VL (1985). "Thirty years of fluoridation: a review". Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 41 (1): 129–38. PMID 3917599. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  60. ^ a b Henig, Robin Marantz (1997). The People's Health. Joseph Henry Press. p. 85. ISBN 0309054923.
  61. ^ Rovere, Richard H. (1959). Senator Joe McCarthy. University of California Press. pp. 21–22. ISBN 0-520-20472-7.
  62. ^ Marmor, Judd (1974). "Psychodynamics of Group Opposition to Mental Health Programs". Psychiatry in Transition. Brunner/Mazel. ISBN 0876300700.
  63. ^ Bryson, Chris, The Fluoride Deception, How a Nuclear Waste Made its Way Into the Nation’s Drinking Water, Democracy Now, 6-17-’04 http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/the_fluoride_deception_how_a_nuclear
  64. ^ -Bram van der Lek, "De strijd tegen fluoridering", in De Gids, v.139, 1976
  65. ^ L.J.A. Damen, P. Nicolaï, J.L. Boxum, K.J. de Graaf, J.H. Jans, A.P. Klap, A.T. Marseille, A.R. Neerhof, B.K. Olivier, B.J. Schueler, F.R. Vermeer, R.L. Vucsán (2005) Bestuursrecht 1, 2de druk; Boom Uitgevers, Den Haag; 54-55 (ISBN 978-90-5454-537-8)
  66. ^ Ryan v. A.G. IESC 1; IR 294 (3 July, 1965) — text of the Irish Supreme Court's judgement
  67. ^ Beck v. City Council of Beverly Hills, 30 Cal. App. 3d 112, 115 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1973) ("Courts through the United States have uniformly held that fluoridation of water is a reasonable and proper exercise of the police power in the interest of public health. The matter is no longer an open question." (citations omitted)).
  68. ^ Pratt, Edwin, Raymond D. Rawson & Mark Rubin, Fluoridation at Fifty: What Have We Learned, 30 J.L. Med. & Ethics 117, 119 (Fall 2002)

Further reading

  • Freeze RA, Lehr JH (2009). The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America's Longest-Running Political Melodrama. Wiley. ISBN 0-470-44833-4.
  • Fawell, John Wesley (2006). Fluoride in drinking-water. Geneva: World Health Organization. ISBN 92-4-156319-2.
  • Connett, Paul, PhD; Beck, James, PhD, MD; Micklem, H. Spedding, DPhil (2010). The Case Against Fluoride; How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. p. 384. ISBN 9781603582872.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&oldid=397791534"