by Paul Connett
ADVANCE PRAISE FOR
The Case Against Fluoride
“For anyone who has ever wondered why cities add fluoride to water—and questioned whether they should. Written with clear and easy-to-read prose, and supporting citations, The Case Against Fluoride carefully lays out the arguments against fluoridation and reasons why it should be discontinued. The authors examine the evidence on fluoridation and conclude convincingly that it should now be considered ‘harmful and ineffective. ’”
—DR. HARDY LIMEBACK, Professor and Head of
Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto
“Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s, and in this excellent book these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause. In any case, since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, you don’t have to force it on people. ”
—ARVID CARLSSON, Nobel Laureate in Medicine
or Physiology (2000) and Emeritus Professor of
Pharmacology, University of Gothenburg
“This book clearly shows that water fluoridation is poor public policy and must end. As a concerned citizen, I applaud the authors for bringing this issue to the world’s attention. ”
—ED ASNER
“Alfred North Whitehead said the scientific method means leaving ‘options open for revision. ’ An ancient Roman adage says that ‘whatever touches all must be approved by all. ’ These characterizations of science and democracy are the reasons for reading this book. Especially if you and your family are drinking administratively mandated fluoridated water. ”
—RALPH NADER
THE CASE AGAINST
Fluoride
How Hazardous Waste
Ended Up in Our Drinking Water
and the Bad Science and
Powerful Politics
That Keep It There
PAUL CONNETT, PhD
JAMES BECK, MD, PhD | H. S. MICKLEM, DPhil
Foreword by
Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD
CHELSEA GREEN PUBLISHING
WHITE RIVER JUNCTION, VERMONT
Copyright © 2010 by Paul Connett
All rights reserved.
No part of this book may be transmitted or
reproduced in any form by any means without
permission in
writing from the publisher.
Project Manager: Patricia Stone
Developmental Editor: Jill Mason
Copy Editor: Jill Mason
Proofreader: Nancy Ringer
Designer: Peter Holm, Sterling Hill Productions
Printed in the United States of America
First printing September, 2010
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 10 11 12 13 14
Our Commitment to Green Publishing
Chelsea Green sees publishing as a tool for cultural change and ecological stewardship. We strive to align our book manufacturing practices with our editorial mission and to reduce the impact of our business enterprise in the environment. We print our books and catalogs on chlorine-free recycled paper, using vegetable-based inks whenever possible. This book may cost slightly more because we use recycled paper, and we hope you’ll agree that it’s worth it. Chelsea Green is a member of the Green Press Initiative (www.greenpressinitiative.org), a nonprofit coalition of publishers, manufacturers, and authors working to protect the world’s endangered forests and conserve natural resources.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Connett, P. H. (Paul H. )
The case against fluoride : how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful politics that keep it there / Paul Connett, James Beck, H. Spedding Micklem.
p. ; cm.
eBook ISBN: 978-1-60358-313-8
1. Water--Fluoridation--Health aspects--United States. 2.
Water--Fluoridation--United States--History. 3. Fluorides--Toxicology. I.
Beck, James S. II. Micklem, H. S. III. Title.
[DNLM: 1. Fluoridation--adverse effects--United States. 2.
Fluorides--adverse effects--United States. 3. Health Policy--United States.
4. Water--adverse effects--United States. WU 270 C752c 2010]
RA591. 7. C67 2010
363. 739’4--dc22
2010024925
Chelsea Green Publishing Company
Post Office Box 428
White River Junction, VT 05001
(802) 295-6300
www.chelseagreen.com
CONTENTS
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Introduction
PART ONE: Ethical and General Arguments against Fluoridation
1. Poor Medical Practice
2. An Inappropriate and Inefficient Practice
3. The Chemicals Used
4. Who Is in Charge?
5. An Experimental Program
PART TWO: The Evidence That Fluoridation Is Ineffective
6. Fluoridation and Tooth Decay
7. The Early Evidence Reexamined
8. Key Modern Studies
PART THREE: The Great Fluoridation Gamble
9. The Great Fluoridation Gamble, 1930–1950
10. The Great Fluoridation Gamble, 1950–
PART FOUR: The Evidence of Harm
11. Dental Fluorosis
12. Fluoride’s Chemistry, Biochemistry, and Physiology
13. Fluoride Poisoning of Humans: Early Reversible Effects
14. The 2006 National Research Council Report
15. Fluoride and the Brain
16. Fluoride and the Endocrine System
17. Fluoride and Bone
18. Fluoride and Osteosarcoma
19. Fluoride and the Kidneys, and Other Health Issues
PART FIVE: Margin of Safety and the Precautionary Principle
20. Margin of Safety
21. The Precautionary Principle
PART SIX: The Promoters and the Techniques of Promotion
22. Weak and Inadequate Science
23. Promoters’ Strategies and Tactics
24. Self-Serving Governmental Reviews
25. A Response to Pro-Fluoridation Claims
26. The Promoters’ Motivations
Review and Conclusion
Appendix 1: Fluoride and the Brain
Appendix 2: Fluoride and Bone
Endnotes
About the Authors
FOREWORD
In an age of increased awareness of the hidden, often insidious, hazards of many environmental pollutants, it is tragically ironic that fluoride—one of industry’s most widely dispersed and persistent effluents—is inadequately assessed and poorly understood.
No doubt one of the main reasons why the toxicity of the continual exposure to comparatively low levels of fluoride is not better known is because of the generally favorable image that still surrounds the fluoridation of drinking water. Even though much contradictory evidence exists, dental and public officials persist in promoting and upholding the procedure because they evidently continue to believe “it is medically safe for all people. ”
Fluoridation is motivated by the well-intentioned desire for better teeth and less tooth decay, but even that result is questionable or, at best, marginal. A laudable dental goal has been allowed to outweigh the extensive, well-verified medical evidence collected in this book. . . .
The above words are from the description of a book, Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma, I coauthored in 1978. That text, and the personal context behind its writing,
informs the historical significance of this current text by professors Paul Connett, James Beck, and Spedding Micklem (with important support from Peter Meiers on the historical details) and deserve a quick reflection.
While working at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, KS, starting in the mid-1950s, I developed a low-thyroid condition that was not relieved by taking thyroid extracts. In 1964, I became aware of clinical reports of verified illness from fluoridated water by the distinguished Michigan allergist George L. Waldbott, MD (1898–1982), appearing mostly in specialized foreign journals. From these reports I learned that fluoride in drinking water at the recommended level of 1 part per million (or 1 mg of fluoride per liter of water) could cause a wide variety of reversible toxic effects, including excessive tiredness, aching joints, neuromuscular pains, and other symptoms often associated with hypothyroidism. Knowing that Lawrence had fluoridated water and that I was consuming four or five times the amount mentioned by Waldbott, I switched to distilled water and found that my low-thyroid symptoms quickly began to disappear. My wife, Patricia, who had been experiencing back pain for some years, also found her discomfort was completely relieved after she also changed to distilled water.
With these experiences fresh in mind, I contacted Dr. Waldbott and arranged to visit him, and we soon became close friends. In 1966 he founded the International Society for Fluoride Research and, in 1968, inaugurated its journal, Fluoride Quarterly Reports (now simply Fluoride). Waldbott started the new journal because major U. S. medical journals, due to unqualified endorsement of fluoridation by the U. S. Public Health Service in 1950, had systematically declined to publish reports of adverse ill effects from fluoridated water.
In 1957, Dr. Waldbott collaborated on a preliminary account of his research on fluoride in The American Fluoridation Experiment (Devin-Adair, 1957; revised 1961). Eight years later he published his monograph A Struggle With Titans—Forces Behind Fluoridation (Carlton Press, New York, 1965). However, he also wanted to write a more comprehensive book dealing with the ever-growing body of research on adverse health effects of fluoride.
When he sent me drafts of this new book, my late colleague Professor H. Lewis McKinney (1935–2004), who taught the history of science at the University of Kansas, and I began editing the book that became, with McKinney and me as collaborating coauthors, Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma (Coronado Press, Lawrence, KS, 1978). This book probably helped set the stage for later books on fluoridation, including The Fluoride Deception by journalist Christopher Bryson (Seven Stories Press, NY, 2004) and now the present book, The Case Against Fluoride, by my good friend Paul Connett and his coauthors Drs. Beck and Micklem.
In this new book, the authors have assembled their wide-ranging backgrounds in several scientific disciplines to explore the controversy of water fluoridation. Like Dr. Waldbott and others before them, they have followed the best science wherever it leads. Doing this has inevitably led them to conclude, as I have, that on ethical grounds water fluoridation never should have been started, and on scientific grounds it should be ended as soon as possible. Anyone reading this text with an open mind will reach the same conclusion.
It is my hope that this book will enable good science to prevail over dogma on this issue. This is important not only to end a significant health threat to fluoridated populations but also because it is critical for a civil society to be informed by honest science. This change can occur only if enough people—especially new generations of scientists, doctors, and dentists—want it to happen.
Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD
Professor Emeritus of Chemistry
The University of Kansas
Editor, Fluoride
www.fluorideresearch.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost we would like to acknowledge the solid foundation provided to us by the Health Effects Database of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN; www.FluorideAlert.org). This comprehensive summary was compiled by author Paul Connett’s son Michael, who ran the FAN Web site from 2000 to 2008. Michael also provided additional help in his coauthorship of many reports published by FAN, including submissions to both the NRC fluoride review panel in 2003–2006 and the EPA’s Office of Pesticides. With all these, the authors have taken full advantage of what former BBC journalist Christopher Bryson has called Michael’s “encyclopedic knowledge of the scientific literature on fluoride. ” FAN’s research director, Chris Neurath, also helped with these submissions and has been particularly helpful in reviewing the literature on fluoride and osteosarcoma (see chapter 18), as well as preparing a graphical summary of the World Health Organization data on tooth decay discussed in chapters 5 and 6. The FAN critique of the use of sulfuryl fluoride was masterminded by Paul’s wife, Ellen, and sprang from her work in maintaining the world’s largest database on the dangers posed by fluorinated pesticides and other fluorinated products (http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-pesticides.htm). Ellen has also provided huge support in the monumental task of compiling the endnotes, as well as making key supporting documents available on the FAN site, which she manages.
We are also greatly appreciative of the help given to us on various aspects of the book by the following individuals: Peter Meiers, who shared his unique knowledge of the early history of fluoridation—we are especially grateful that he coauthored chapters 7, 9, 10, and 11; Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, to whom we are particularly grateful for allowing us to reproduce in chapter 14 excerpts from her public statements refuting claims by the ADA and the CDC that the 2006 NRC review (on whose panel she sat) was not relevant to water fluoridation; Jack Cook, who helped in many ways, ranging from preparing most of the graphics and tables to offering sage advice on many aspects of the book; Wendy Varney, who assisted greatly in our understanding of the history of fluoridation in Australia, first through her text Fluoride in Australia: A Case to Answer and, second, through an updated essay on the subject that she kindly sent to us; and Gail Cooper, who expertly edited the text pro bono, prior to submission to the publisher. Many members of the Fluoride Action Network around the world have provided all kinds of help to us, ranging from moral support to very specific suggestions on the text. They include Ailsa Boyden, David McRae, Philip Robertson, and Daniel Zalec (Australia); Carole Clinch, David Hill, and Hardy Limeback (Canada); Robert Pocock (Ireland); Miriam Westerman (Israel); Mark Atkins, Mary Byrne, and Bruce Spittle (New Zealand); John Graham, Vyvyan Howard, Elizabeth McDonagh, and Stephen Peckham (United Kingdom); and Jeanette Bajorek, Albert Burgstahler, Doug Cragoe, Mike Dolan, Danny Gottlieb, Bette Hileman, Bob Isaacson, Maureen Jones, David Kennedy, Carol Kopf, and Eleanor Krinsky (U. S. A). Notwithstanding all this, any errors in the text remain the sole responsibility of the authors.
We also would like to thank our publisher, Chelsea Green, for having the courage to take on this project. Brianne, Pati, Susan, and Joni have been a joy to work with. We would also like to acknowledge the herculean feat accomplished by our final copy editor, Jill Mason.
Finally, we would like to thank our wives, Elia Beck, Ellen Connett, and Damaris Micklem, for their patience and support during the many hours spent writing this text.
INTRODUCTION
If you picked up a book that described a government plan to put a hazardous industrial waste product into the public water supply to deliver a topical medical treatment, without fully investigating its long-term health effects and without receiving the informed consent of all the citizens involved, you might well think you had picked up a science-fiction novel. But this is not Orwell, or Kafka, or even Hans Christian Anderson; it is a matter of historical fact. We are talking about water fluoridation.
Yet fluoridation has the wholehearted support of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and most professional dental and health bodies in the English-speaking world. How can this be?
In this book we do not argue against the use of fluoride in toothpaste or dental dressings and sealants; but we explain how fluoridation—the addition of fluoride to the
public water supply—is a house of cards, propped up by very poor ethics and very poor science, and waiting to fall.
The Structure of the Book
The book is written in six parts: “The Ethical and General Arguments against Fluoridation, ” “The Evidence That Fluoridation Is Ineffective, ” “The Great Fluoridation Gamble, ” “The Evidence of Harm, ” “Margin of Safety and the Precautionary Principle, ” and “The Promoters and the Techniques of Promotion. ”
We do not presuppose any great scientific knowledge on the part of the reader. Numerous references to the primary scientific literature and other sources are provided, but attention to those is entirely optional: The text is intended to be intelligible and sufficiently comprehensive on its own.
Politics versus Science
From its inception, fluoridation has been more about politics than about science. That is not unusual. Politics and science have to rub shoulders in many contexts; the contact can be abrasive, and the result is rarely beneficial to the conduct and quality of science. Two consequences of this are (1) that the amount and type of science that is done can be largely determined by political influences; and (2) that the relatively rational discourse that usually accompanies scientific disagreements, at least in public, may be replaced by outright hostility even to the point of personal abuse and discrimination. In the case of fluoridation, political influence has ensured that remarkably little scientific work has been done on the issue, and it has generated a high degree of animosity between promoters and opponents. Not for nothing was a recent book titled The Fluoride Wars. 1 The sections “A Little History” and “Endorsements versus Science” below hint at the extent to which science has been sidelined and emasculated. Later in the book, we shall also see many examples of how science has been manipulated and misrepresented to serve an essentially political end.
