Ald. Bohl responds to Journal Sentinel Politifact verdict
July 9, 2012
Statement of Alderman Jim Bohl
One big cavity in Journal Sentinel PolitiFact piece on fluoride
“I understand that it’s toxic — but so are many things. But where do you see it (fluoride) defined as a poison?”
When Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Jim Nelson asked me this question in an email during his lead up to today’s PolitiFact Wisconsin article, I knew the truth COULD be the victim in a faulty verdict by our city’s “Judge and Jury” news media outlet.
I was right to have that opinion.
To read Nelson’s piece today is to believe that for a poison to truly be a “poison,” it must kill you.
This is, obviously, a ridiculous position.
We define lead as a poison, yet when children eat lead paint chips, they typically do not die; rather, they get lead poisoning. Lead collects in the blood and manifests in serious physical, behavioral and cognitive effects that impair their ability to learn and develop normally.
The same can be said of fluoride – classified by the Centers for Disease Control and the EPA as a “poison” (please go to the web pages referenced below – also shared with Mr. Nelson during his “research” for the article – for more information). Fluoride is a cumulative poison that can have very serious neurological and other negative effects over time. Does it kill a person immediately after ingestion? No.
And you do not need to just take my word on it, either.
The National Research Council’s (NRC) 2006 fluoride report revealed that fluoride, even in low doses, can harm the thyroid gland, kidney patients, babies and high water drinkers. They also report studies linking fluoride to osteosarcoma (bone cancer). A study conducted at Harvard in 2001 and published in 2006 showed that young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th to 8th years had a 5-7 fold increased risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma by the age of 20. Despite promises that this study would be refuted, no published study has done so.
Another troubling statement Nelson makes is that fluoride is a toxin “some of the time.” This is flat out wrong – fluoride is a toxin ALL OF THE TIME.
The “some of the time” statement shows a lack of understanding on his part for what a toxin truly is. In the definition he cites for a poison it states “a substance with an inherent property that tends to destroy life or impair health.”
If one followed my entire line of argument in the debate on my fluoride bill (and in addition to my time before the MJS editorial board) at no time did I refer to the substance as being lethal. When I and the other medical and scientific experts testified, we were very clearly pointing to fluoride as a cumulative poison which, like lead which is also cumulative, will produce an increasing likelihood of impairment to health if greater amounts of it are consumed.
The issues that were most focused on during the debate are the neurotoxic effects (brain/IQ diminishment), and its effects on the thyroid and kidney. Along with lead, fluoride has been listed by the EPA’s Neurotoxicological Division as a “Chemical with Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity” http://epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy%20TDAS.pdf .
The point being that fluoride is a poison. I never made a claim that its use in toothpaste or water is lethal. The author of this article has made that false assumption on his own. The statement I made is correct and PolitiFact once again FAILS.
Again, I want the Milwaukee Water Works to stop adding fluoride to our water because studies have shown it does NOT provide the claimed dental health benefits when ingested in drinking water, and because fluoride IS a poison that can cause harm.
These two websites also offer additional information about the poisonous nature of fluoride:
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/substances/toxsubstance.asp?toxid=38
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Howard on Mon, 9th Jul 2012 5:18 pm
After you have finished splitting hairs over usage and syntax, please see the following scholarly articles covering decades of actual research that show the overwhelming benefits of water fluoridation, and please concentrate on bringing positive, meaningful change to our city.
Achievements in public health, 1900–1999: fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. MMWR 1999;48(41):933–940.
Bailey W, Duchon K, Barker L, Maas W. Populations receiving optimally fluoridated public drinking water – United States, 1992–2006. MMWR 2008; 57(27):737–741.
Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker L, Dye BA. Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis in the United States, 1999–2004. NCHS data brief, no 53. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2010.
Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Griffin SO, Lockwood SA. Prevalence and trends in enamel fluorosis in the United States from the 1930s to the 1980s. J Am Dent Assn 2002;133:157–165. View full text.*
Engineering and administrative recommendations for water fluoridation, 1995. MMWR 1995;44(RR–13):1–40. Also available as a PDF file (PDF–338K).
Griffin SO, Beltrán E, Lockwood S, Barker L. Esthetically objectionable fluorosis attributable to water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2002;30(1):199–209. View abstract on PubMed.
Griffin SO, Gooch BF, Lockwood SA, Tomar SL. Quantifying the diffused benefit from water fluoridation in the United States. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001;29:120–129. View abstract on PubMed.
Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Publ Health Dent 2001;61(2):78–86. View abstract on PubMed.
Lalumandier JA, Hernandez LC, Locci AB, Reeves TG. U.S. drinking water: Fluoridation knowledge level of water plant operators. J Publ Health Dent 2001;61(2):92–98. View abstract on PubMed.
Macek M, Matte T, Sinks T, Malvitz D. Blood lead concentrations in children and method of water fluoridation, United States, 1988–1994. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114(1):130–134. View full text.*
Populations receiving optimally fluoridated public drinking water—United States, 2000. MMWR 2002;51(7):144–147.
Promoting oral health: interventions for preventing dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries: a report on the recommendations of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services. MMWR 2001;50(RR-21):1–13.
Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. MMWR 2001;50(RR-14):1–42.
Ten Great Public Health Achievements—United States, 1900–1999. MMWR, December 24, 1999;48(50):1141.
Water fluoridation and costs of Medicaid treatment for dental decay—Louisiana, 1995–1996. MMWR 1999;48(34):753.
G. on Mon, 9th Jul 2012 8:15 pm
Howard,
All those reference are in regards to oral health and teeth. I’d like to see its effects on the brain, the thyroid gland, the kidneys, bones, the heart, intestinal tract, etc. Where are those studies? Unbeknownst to some, a human body actually comes attached to those teeth.
G. on Mon, 9th Jul 2012 8:37 pm
Studies by Dr. Jennifer Luke reveal that fluoride calcifies the Pineal Gland in the brain. Among other things this regulates sleep by way of Melatonin and regulates the onset of puberty in females. We now have some female children beginning puberty at 6 years of age. Have you noticed how many people are now taking medications to get to sleep? A calcified Pineal Gland is also linked to Alzheimer’s Disease.
Have you read the 2006 National Research Council’s (NRC) report on Fluoridation? See “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA Standards”. It is free to read the entire book online.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html
Ron Eheman on Tue, 10th Jul 2012 5:44 am
Regardless of your belief of being pro or anti, laws are being broken an ignored.
Force the FDA to do it’s job
Fluoridation started in 1945 in Grand Rapids Michigan. The very first drop was illegal and millions of gallons later nothing has changed. NaF, Na2SiF6, and H2SiF6 have never been approved by the FDA for internal ingestion intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and … intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals. Furthermore, all fluoride vitamins, drops and pills would fall into this category.
The entire chain, from the manufacturer, shippers, middlemen, distributors, pharmacies, doctors, dentists, cities, mayors, city boards, commissioners private and public water distributes and all personal, and the National Sanitation Foundation are liable for criminal charges and direct action by the Food and Drug Administration at any time.
Potentially, all food manufactured using fluoridated water could be exposed to the same liabilities.
Why has the FDA failed to act on the issue of unapproved fluoridation drugs? The FDA is ignoring the law. FDA’s actions are contrary to law, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. The plain language of the law says an article that appears to be misbranded or unapproved shall be in violation. The FDA should notify immediately anyone in possession of foreign or domestic-manufactured fluoridation chemicals/drugs that its use is prohibited by law and that the drug must be returned to the FDA. It is unlawful to import or introduce into interstate commerce any unapproved drug. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration should seize supplies because they are illegal or because of questions over how they were manufactured. The FDA is undermining its own policy of maintaining a closed drug distribution system designed to keep dangerous drugs out of U.S. Commerce. Opening up the ‘closed’ drug system by allowing an unapproved drug, the FDA is jeopardizing their own system and threatens the public health by creating a risk that could cause harm the general public.
jwillie6 on Tue, 10th Jul 2012 7:08 pm
Mr. Bohl is entirely correct about fluoride. At least one young child died in his dentist’s office when he mistakenly swallowed the fluoride treatment fluid. Several deaths occurred when dialysis was needed. Doctors later learned that fluoride excessively builds up in the body when the kidneys are weak (like diabetics).
F
luoride is one of the most poisonous substances on Earth; more poisonous than lead and only slightly less poisonous than arsenic. 50% of all you consume over a lifetime is retained in the bones, the brain, the thyroid and pineal glands, and other organs. It is no wonder that it causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, and other serious health problems.
Read the best scientific information on fluoridation in Dr. Paul Connett’s book, “The Case Against Fluoride,” published last year. It contains over 1200 peer reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning showing the ineffectiveness and dangers to health from fluoride.
Justmerk on Tue, 10th Jul 2012 8:41 pm
Paul Connett is affiliated with a group called the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Dr. Stephen Barrett, the physician who founded Quackwatch.org, has carefully researched many organizations claiming to be experts on health or medical issues. Quackwatch.org reports that FAN is a group that “we distrust” on dental issues: http://www.dentalwatch.org/org/nonrec.html. It’s easy to understand why – FAN’s website cites many “studies” that are flawed or have not been peer-reviewed by independent scientists.
I prefer to get my information from organizations that I my families best interest in mind… American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, Center for Disease Control and Prevention. These are organizations that have the knowledge and expertise to evaluate the science. I trust them much more than I do the claims made by any blogger.
Justmerk on Tue, 10th Jul 2012 9:12 pm
http://tinyurl.com/c2wc39r
Thanks Alderman for sharing this link. I wanted to learn more so I read the entire document. This has NOTHING to do with community water fluoridation!!!
This is fear mongering at it’s finest! Post something that is scientific in nature and beyond the ability of most readers to comprehend while making the claim that this proves that community water fluoridation is harmful. This is absolutely shameful!!! I believe it’s time to get back to what you know best…… and clearly the science of water fluoridation is not your expertise.
More than 3,000 studies or research papers have been produced about fluoridation and fluoride. After all of these studies, if there were any evidence of these supposed harms, we would know about it by now. Two facts are clear: Americans have been drinking fluoridated water for over 65 years, and there is overwhelming evidence showing it is both safe and effective.
Mother Voltaire on Tue, 10th Jul 2012 9:27 pm
Fluoride is actually a common mineral that has been in the environment for longer than humans have been around. We evolved with fluoride in our water/food and developed a use for it, i.e. to strengthen our teeth and bones. Like other nutrients, e.g. iron and calcium, there is an optimal/safe dosage.
Some community water sources have too much fluoride, and treatment plants need to remove some; others need more to get the beneficial effect. After decades of research, we understand that fluoridation is safe, beneficial and saves us a bundle in dentist bills.
Why we have people who needlessly spread fears about fluoridation is the real mystery.
Dr. Know on Tue, 10th Jul 2012 10:57 pm
@Justmerk,
I don’t know what axe you have to grind? The issue raised by the Journal Sentinel was whether or not sodium fluoride that is used in toothpaste is a poison/toxin or not, and they stated that it came from a previous conversation with the paper’s editorial board.
I believe that EPA document you sited covers this issue from pages 5-8 where the EPA lists it as an element that is “acutely toxic”, particularly by oral consumption. I’m not sure about your slanted read, but to me that translates that as sodium fluoride is very poisonous. I’m not sure what you read, as you claim, but this seems to reveal that the Alderman was correct in his statement.
On another issue you brought up, I’m pretty sure that the Journal Sentinel picks the issues to investigate and not the person whose claim is being checked. As a result, I’m not sure where your “fear mongering” comment comes into play…again unless you are in the dental community or a paid lackey here trying to subvert the issue. It seems pretty open and shut that the newspaper botched this one. If you don’t believe it folks then open the document and read it yourselves. Sheesh.
Tooth Truth on Tue, 10th Jul 2012 11:40 pm
Dr. No, The problem with you fluorophobics is that you are not concerned about quantity of NaF ingested over a very short amount of time. Plus the fact that any chemical with a fluoride atom in it must be toxic.
Let me share with you part of the most balanced review of one of the FAN’s bibles, “The Fluoride Deception” by Bryson.
NATURE | VOL 4 34 \ 17 MARCH 2005 [ http://www.nature.com/nature
“Unfortunately, his desire to
make the book more exciting leads him into
the all-too-familiar trap of tarring with the
same brush anything associated with, or
even sounding like, fluoride or fluoridation.
This is especially ironic after he starts the
book with “notes on terminology”, saying
“fluorine and fluoride should not be confused”.
However, in the next section he tells
us “the same potent chemical that is used to
enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, to prepare
sarin nerve gas… is what we give to our
children”. No doubt we can expect a series of
books on chlorine (“the same potent chemical
used in insecticides is what we put on
our children’s food”) and oxygen (“the same
potent chemical used in the strongest acids
is what we allow our children to breathe”).
No chemist would dispute the extreme
hazards of many fluorine chemicals, but to
group all fluorine chemicals together as ‘bad’
is wrong. The book is peppered with similar
absurdities, which will be annoying to those
who know their chemistry but dangerously
misleading to those who don’t”.
I’m sure there is a LD 50 for one of my favorite foods: a Wisconsin brat, not to mention the beer that I would wash them down with. •
jwillie6 on Wed, 11th Jul 2012 12:46 am
Fluoridation is a Waste of Tax Money
As a Civil Engineer, I know that people drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining 99 ½ % of the water with this toxic industrial waste fluoride chemical (Hexafluorosilicic acid) is dumped directly into the environment through the sewer system.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this outdated practice. Your water department can confirm this information.
That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.
The company CEO would be arrested immediately if they dumped their toxic waste fluoride into a river. The only way they can do it legally is to run it through the community drinking water system first. It is an absolutely insane condition.
Fluoridation surely is in contention as the most wasteful and most polluting government program. Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them or adding it to salt would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.
Picker22 on Wed, 11th Jul 2012 1:33 am
It is difficult to understand how anyone with jwillie’s apparent credentials could actually make this argument.
Obviously, the legit question is fluoridation’s effect on saving dental bills.
For adult teeth each $1 spent on fluoridation saves $38 in dental bills. The study was published in the J Public Health Dentistry and can be read here:
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/griffin.pdf.
Savings are underestimated because modern dentistry uses far more expensive treatments – implants for example. The study assumed that only inexpensive “silver” or amalgam fillings were used. Also, only the cost savings for cavities in adult teeth were included.
One of the strongest economic reasons supporting of fluoridation should come from savings in children’s dental care. A very large huge Louisiana study showed that 2/3rd of the operations for terrible cavities and 50% of the dental bills were avoided with CWF.
see: Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay — Louisiana, 1995-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention September 03, 1999 / 48(34);753-757
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4834a2.htm
The Texas legislature commissioned a study of children’s dental bills saved with fluoridation with similar findings.
These operations can include extractions, root canals and stainless steel crowns. Each can cost upwards of $15,000. These are real and common cases. They will happen more often in Milwaukee if CWF is stopped.
New research shows that if the effect on severe cavities in young children were the only benefit, and it certainly is not, the return on the fluoridation investment dollar would be just under 150%.
see: A simulation model for designing effective interventions in early childhood caries. Prev Chronic Dis 2012;9:110219. http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd9.110219
The PEW Trust has a nice summary of how CWF saves money and improves oral health.
http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Savings-from-Fluoridation.pdf
Across the USA CWF is the rule, not the exception. Fluoridation is the foundation for a community’s better oral health, especially the children’s. Hopefully Phoenix’s City Council will affirm its importance and vote with the overwhelming consensus of public health, dental and medical experts.