Fluoride 'can affect brain'
JOHN ANTHONY
Relevant offers
New Plymouth will have fewer geniuses and more "mentally handicapped" people if the town keeps fluoride in its water supply.
Those are the findings of Cambridge University graduate professor of chemistry Paul Connett, a director of the international Fluoride Action Network.
He has travelled the world spreading his message that fluoridation of water supplies is ineffective, dangerous to health and lowers IQ.
Last night, he spoke to more than 80 people at the Plymouth International Hotel as part of his nationwide book promotion tour.
His visit comes as the New Plymouth District Council starts consultation to decide how much fluoride should be in its water supply.
Some people may regard Professor Connett as a conspiracy theorist but that did not stop a New Plymouth dentist, Dr Chris Taylor, from listening to what the man had to say.
Dr Taylor said health industry leaders should pay close attention to Professor Connett's case.
"I respect somebody as notable and dedicated as this and the profession needs to listen," Dr Taylor said.
The dental industry promoted the use of fluoride as a cost effective health measure to reduce tooth decay but it also needed to be open to advice, he said.
"You can't just close your ears the whole time," Dr Taylor said.
He would take a good look at studies Professor Connett referred to. "It's generating a lot of interest."
In an interview before the meeting, Professor Connett, who is the executive director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, spoke to the Taranaki Daily News about what he called the ineffectiveness of fluoridation and its "wildly exaggerated" benefits.
"It's a poison, it's a pesticide," Professor Connett said.
There had been a number of studies indicating water fluoridation decreased IQ and increased the number of intellectually disabled people in populations, he said. "We will see a decrease in the number of geniuses and an increase in the number of handicapped."
Regulating bodies had known about the ineffectiveness of fluoridation for a long time but would not admit it out of fear of losing credibility, he said.
"If you lose credibility you lose the people's trust."
New Zealand was one of only eight countries which had 50 per cent of the population drinking fluoridated water, he said. "It's an insane thing to do, especially if the benefits are so small."
Fluoride was used in a range of potent toxins ranging from chemical weapons to life-saving pharmaceuticals.
About 50 per cent of fluoride ingested was excreted through the kidneys, while the rest accumulated in the body, he said.
Most accumulated in the bones making them brittle, with similar effects to arthritis.
"It's not reversible."
In countries where fluoridation had been discontinued tooth decay had decreased, he said.
Professor Connett gained honours in a Bachelor of Art in natural sciences from Cambridge University.
He also has a PhD in Chemistry.
New Plymouth mayor Harry Duynhoven was asked by supporters of Professor Connett if he could present before council.
The request was declined because the council was not ready to hear submissions until August, he said.
"I haven't blocked anybody," Mr Dunyhoven said.
The council was only at the stage of debating the fluoridation consultation process, not the issue of whether it should be used or not, he said.
Following last night's meeting more than a dozen supporters of Prof Connett's findings rallied to form a New Plymouth against fluoride group.
The aim of the group is to put pressure on the council to stop treating the water supply with fluoride.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Random #85
Good post and thank you for showing a better ability to debate the topic than many others here.
I became interested in this topic when I was a reporter covered a story on the issue. I looked into it carefully and you are right. It's very hard to find websites that present both sides so the ones you do find all show their bias.
But there were a number of things that concerned me:
I discovered that all scientists accept that fluoride requires topical application. Noone from the pro-fluoridation side could explain how ingesting it actually provided any benefit. The website you linked to doesn't even mention this issue.
I found that there were no studies that could be termed conclusive. There were always other factors that muddied the water - flouride in toothpaste, better dental care, etc. In some ways it was like a person wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella who insists it is only the raincoat that is keeping them dry.
The fact that no studies were conclusive surprised me as there are good examples, such as Hastings (fluoridated) and Napier (unfluoridated). In fact, it appears people in Napier have better teeth.
http://peterdaniel.org.nz/issues/our-water-supply/
The other thing that surprised me was that the fluoride added to drinking water is silicofluoride, which is not naturally occuring (as claimed by the pro-fluoridation lobby) but is a highly toxic industrial waste product.
The website you point to also fudges this by only referring to "pure sodium fluoride". (I'm not getting at you for linking to this site. i agree with you when you say it's "no less reliable than anti-fluoridation websites" but that's not saying much.
I understand the point about dilution and the toxicity of other things in high doses (water, oxygen, etc) but name another industrial poison that is filtered through people as a means of disposal.
Then I discovered that the American Dental Associatioon refuse to debate the issue. Whay would that be? Surely after all this time they would have lots of studies to point to that would slamdunk the anti-fluoride lobby but no. They just refuse to justify their position.
Lastly I was struck by the number of well-qualified scientists who have switched from being pro-fluoridation to being anti-fluoridation. Canadian Dr Hardy Limeback being the best known...
http://fluoridation.com/LimebackHardy.htm
Prior to 1999 he was considered Canada's leading proponant of fluoridation. I know of noone who has switched sides the other way.
I like to think of myself as open-minded and I am as terrified as you of people using the net to garner half-truths and misinformation to justify their claims (anti-immunisation for example).
It frustrates me that I actually have looked into this subject, yet if I raise my concerns instead of actual debate I get pilloried for transposing two letters, accused of being anti-immunisation, offered bridges for sale, taunted about tinhats, etc. etc. etc.
So in America the dentists refuse to jusitfy their pro-fluoridation stance and here witless buffoons, bereft of an argument, resort to name calling, strawman arguments and irrelevancies.
So thanks again Random for making reasonable points reasonably. I don't think this issue can be resolved by the extremes shouting at each other. The open-minded need to converse.
john #87 Yea Fillings are FREE, Fixing FLUOROSIS caused by my Baby Eating Toothpaste is NOT!!! as Stupid as it sounds but that's what the dentist said, FUNNY. Considering She had no Teeth to brush I find it HARD to Believe. So I'll Be Like a Mind Poisoned Clown And Passively Accept The Claim And Believe What These PRO Fluoride NAZI's are Telling me NOT...
t #82 I'm pretty sure kids get free dental care until they are 18... Who pays? Us, the taxpayers.
Paul #83 He was being ironic, idiot.
Ken.M #81
So you think the sun shines out of Europe's back side and USA has it all wrong? Either way that's a silly leap of logic to make an assumption like that. Did you know that Fluoride is added to table salt in Europe?
"You tell me where to look for concrete evidence that flouridation is safe for babies also?" Overwhelming anecdotal evidnece of there being no problem in Auckland.
"You tell me where we all can find evidence that has not been altered or 'spun' to show something that does not exist" Certainly not from all the biased anti-fluoride websites you're so fond of.
"Or references to scientific studies that have been done without any of the evidence altered." There are plenty that are easy to google but I'm not going to bother because in typical conspiracy theorist fashion you'll probably just claim without proof that they were funded by corporations with a financial interest.
Here's a pro-fluoridation website for you though, you can't claim it's an less reliable than your anti-fluoridation websites. http://www.fluorideinfo.org/fluoride_claims-vs-facts.html
Paul #83 ...umm, I'm guessing your PhD isn't in Sense of Humour.
And to all you others out there in Blog Land, it's spelled FLUORIDE.
I love the fact that someone can quote the following "i have been drunking floride waters for 20 years and i am so smart i made it through high shcool and now have a suxcessfull job working for the NDPC" What an idiot to post but can't even spell or their place of work "NPDC", idiot! I have a PhD and have because of my UK upbringing had this crap in my water since birth, I have so many bad fillings, teeth and so on, until i used mouth wash, i heard recently that this was bad for cancer, bollocks! never had a filling or teeth issues since i was 19(I am now 44) because of mouthwash, if you want to slag anything off choose this idiot who apparently works for NPDC
Random #68 We moved of a Farm (Non-Fluoride Water) to New Plymouth My children's Teeth were Problem Free. My Youngest of four was three months old when we moved, She grew her first Teeth at around six months and White Chalky Markings Covered her Teeth. It has come through on her Adult Teeth as well. I NOW NO THIS IS FLUOROSIS!!! HOW DID THIS HAPPEN? WHO PUT THIS SH*T IN MY FAMILY"S WATER AND WHO PAYS TO FIX HER TEETH!!! NOT YOU!!
Random,
So what you are trying to tell me, the sun shines out of the USA's back side and Europe has it all wrong. If we were able to get hold of the data from both Auckland and Christchurch according to test results from around the world; the data will show there is no difference in recorded tooth decay per capita on similar income levels or standards of living. What you will no doubt see is higher cavities from the very low income levels and the South Auckland communities due to more sugar and less cleaning.
THE ISSUE IS that Flouridation is not needed and it never was. There are risk and if you read and open your eyes to it then it will become obvious. Or is it true that we in New Zealand are totally different from everyone else in the world and what we eat and drink will always have a different effect on us, so all the scientific proof does not apply to anyone of us?
You tell me where to look for concrete evidence that flouridation works and is safe for babies also? You tell me where we all can find evidence that has not been altered or 'spun' to show something that does not exist and maybe you might have a point but to believe in what your council tells you or the DHB's without them providing sound proof is like accepting that you're no better than a sheep.
Why don't you get Paul Connett's book and start there as all the study references ever done by (pro- flouride) are in there.
If you can then accept that someone is putting something in your water just because it seems like a good idea because 'so and so' says so, why not stick colouring in your water that stays blue when cold and turns red when hot. Now that's a good idea as no kids should get scoulded anymore from hot bath water or showers.
Here's a link for you to look at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/fluoridation.html
Please come back and provide some of your own, backing up your side of the story. Or references to scientific studies that have been done without any of the evidence altered.
If you had attended his meeting then we would be wasting our time with this.
Drum din prompts most noise complaints
Yarrow Stadium to come under TRC umbrella
Free Womad program - now everybody's appy
Lucky pair off to space centre
Council taken to task over sports plan
Fracking 'misinformation' scares: Heatley
Food bill opponents call for united effort
Vicious attacks extend woman's time in jail
Sex-accused admits lying to police
Surfer hopes more sponsors will help give her a break
Fracking 'misinformation' scares: Heatley
Sex-accused admits lying to police
Yarrow Stadium to come under TRC umbrella
Lucky pair off to space centre
Drum din prompts most noise complaints
Food bill opponents call for united effort
This study is a shocker: Wang SX et al. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water: children’s IQ and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives 115(4):643-7.
In the low fluoride area, there were 3½ times more bright children as in the high fluoride area. Also, the high fluoride area had 2 ½ times more mentally retarded children than the low fluoride area.
Sorta brings your children's welfare to a different level. Why would we even consider giving them fluoridated water, much less ADDITIONAL fluoride supplementation - or even fluoridated toothpaste?!
We didn't used to know these statistics. Now we do and can make better informed decisions. http://fluoridedetective.com/your-brain/