Ten Scary Facts about Fluoridation Promotion in Australia
By Paul Connett, PhD
With the Murdoch press campaigning to force water fluoridation on every town in Australia with a population over 1000 it is time to look more closely at those who promote this practice in Australia. Typically these promoters pour scorn and abuse on any citizen or scientist who has the temerity to question water fluoridation, even though the very same practice has been rejected by most industrialized countries, including 97% of Europe.
Typically opponents of fluoridation are accused of scaremongering. Well, let’s look at 10 facts that should make reasonable people “scared” of people that promote this practice.
Here are ten scary facts about proponents:
1) Proponents ignore the fact that there is no evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient. In fact, there is not one single biochemical mechanism in the human body that needs fluoride to function properly. So why on earth are we being asked (or rather forced) to swallow it?
2) Proponents further ignore nature’s verdict on fluoride as far as the baby is concerned. The level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is remarkable low – 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p. 40). This means that in a fluoridated community with fluoride levels in the water at levels between 0.6 and 1.2 ppm, a bottle-fed baby is getting between 150 and 300 times the level of fluoride that nature intended. That is a reckless thing to do.
3) Proponents are downplaying the knowledge that large numbers of children in fluoridated communities are being over-exposed to fluoride (from all sources) as evidenced by the high prevalence of dental fluorosis (a discoloration and mottling of the tooth enamel) (CDC, 2010).
4) Promoters have assumed that no other developing tissue in the baby’s body is negatively impacted while fluoride is damaging the growing tooth cells causing this condition (dental fluorosis).
5) Promoters of fluoridation can point to very few studies conducted in Australia or other fluoridated countries (from 1950 to the present) that have investigated the health of citizens in fluoridated communities. Like the US, where once the Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation in 1950 (with little science on the table), they switched from an investigative to promotional mode and have use PR not science to defend this practice.
6) No health agency in Australia has followed up the recommendation made in 1991 by the Australian government research body the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) that studies be conducted to investigate the many anecdotal reports from individuals who claim to be highly sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity even at the levels used in water fluoridation; nor the recommendation by the same body that fluoride bone levels should be carefully monitored.
7) While repeatedly claiming that fluoridation is “safe and effective” promoters are not willing to defend their position in open public debate when challenged to do so by qualified scientists who have studied the issue and reached opposite conclusions.
8) One of the reasons promoters give for refusing to debate leading opponents is not their lack of knowledge but their lack of debating skills, however even when three scientists outlined a full and documented case against fluoridation in writing (see The Case Against Fluoride, by Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck, MD, PhD and Spedding Micklem, D Phil, Chelsea Green, 2010) they still have been unable to refute the arguments in this text. However, that does not stop them labeling their opponents as being anti-science or practicing “junk science.”
9) When challenged fluoridation promoters have provided no substantial body of scientific research that could justify their confidently ignoring the large body of evidence in both animal and human studies that fluoride is neurotoxic (click here). This brings us to the scariest fact of all.
10) Australian health agencies – and other promoters of fluoridation – are prepared to put a known neurotoxic substance into the drinking water of millions of their citizens, when the last children that need their IQ lowered are the children from low-income families. These are the very same children being targeted for water fluoridation. This despite the fact that there are known ways of fighting tooth decay which are successfully being practiced in the vast majority of countries worldwide (e.g. the Childsmile program in Scotland) which do not force their citizens to swallow this toxic substance.