Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

CDC Announces 2012 SC Public Water System Fluoridation Quality Award Winners

Drinking_waterEdgefield County Water & Sewer Authority is one of thirty-seven SC public water systems that have been awarded the Water Fluoridation Quality Award from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for 2012. Water fluoridation is the adjustment of fluoride in the drinking water supply to a level which safely and effectively reduces tooth decay and promotes good oral health. The award recognizes those communities that maintained a consistent level of optimally fluoridated water throughout 2012.

Community water fluoridation has been recognized by CDC as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. CDC recommends water fluoridation as a safe, effective and inexpensive method of preventing tooth decay. In fact, every $1 invested in fluoridation saves approximately $38 in costs for dental treatment.

6 Responses to CDC Announces 2012 SC Public Water System Fluoridation Quality Award Winners

  1. nyscof

    April 12, 2014 at 9:50 am

    The 7 Decade Fluoridation Experiment has Failed

    Instead of spreading less tooth decay across the land, fluoridation spread dental fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) into every nook and cranny of America. Even though the CDC reports up to 60% of adolescents are afflicted with dental fluorosis, 51% of them have cavities.

    Opposite to predictions, since fluoridation began in 1945:

    1) Tooth decay crises occur in all fluoridated cities.

    2) New dental professionals were created, e.g. dental therapists.

    3) New dental schools opened.

    4) Dental expenditures have gone up substantially, higher than the inflation rate.

    5) Poor children’s cavities are more prevalent, severe, occur earlier and more likely to be untreated.

    6) Despite dental spending growth, 42% percent of adults and 4 million children with dental problems could not afford dental care.

    7) Over 4 million Americans had to get dental care in hospital emergency departments, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association. One hundred and one of those patients died while in the ER.

    US Senator Bernie Sanders, in his 2012 report, “Dental Crisis in America,” says that 9,500 new dental providers are needed to meet the country’s current oral health needs

  2. kathleen krevetski

    April 14, 2014 at 10:40 am

    The Safe Drinking Water Act is the principal federal law that ensures safe public water supply and the Environmental Protection Agency sets the standards for drinking water quality and oversees all water suppliers implementing these standards. Water fluoridation has nothing to do with safe drinking water. Over 705 of municipalites across the United States add fluoride to water not to maintain purity and prevent disease but because we have been led to believe that adding fluoride to our drinking water prevents tooth decay. In 1950, before any studies were complete, it was circumstantial evidence- not science that supported the mass fluoridation of the population which was and continues to be promoted and endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association and the American Medical Association.
    Historically, there was never any solid scientific information and testing done to judge the safety of adding fluoride to water on people’s health. We now know better. The precautionary principle in public health mandates we err on the side of safety. Fluoridating water never involved scientific inquiry on whether such action was safe or harmful to human health. It was all about the teeth and getting rid of an industrial contaminant by selling the idea to the public. Rutland should now base such public health measures on current scientific studies about the health of the person.

    Current science shows that fluoride has a long term detrimental effect on the health of the population especially our young people. From a medical standpoint, water fluoridation can be considered mass medication of the public in uncontrolled dosages without informed consent. The more fluoridated water you drink, the greater the dosage you receive. The time is now for Rutland City to revisit this issue as water usage is down so we will have to pay more for using less. Considering current scientific evidence and as a cost saving measure, Rutland should not be paying over ten thousand dollars a year to have fluoride added to our Rutland City water.

    Historically, there was never any solid scientific information and testing done to judge the safety of adding fluoride to water on people’s health. In 1950, before any studies were complete, it was circumstantial evidence not science that supported the mass fluoridation of the population which was and continues to be promoted and endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association and the American Medical Association.

    If fluoride is released into the air, or water, it is considered a pollutant, but if our government puts it in our drinking water, it magically becomes a public health benefit. We now know better. For over sixty years in this country, public relations in the use of endorsements have trumped the scientific studies that have shown the negative health impact on the population ingesting fluoride in their water. As an informed public with the use of the internet, we now can easily research and study what we are being told and sold. We can speak up and get involved.

    The chemical added to many water systems is hydrofluorosilicic acid, an industrial grade fluoride which is a waste product of the pesticide industry and sold for millions of dollars to municipalities across the United States. In 1983, an EPA administrator described the fluoride recovery process from the fertilizer manufacturing practice as an ideal solution to a longstanding contaminant which minimized water and air pollution while providing a low cost source of fluoride to be added to our drinking water.

    We now know fluoridation of water causes an uncontrolled fluoride dose especially detrimental to small children and infants drinking formula made from fluoridated water. Athletes and laborers are also at risk for overdose. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis, a mottling and discoloration of the teeth that indicates overexposure to fluoride. Dosage received depends on how much fluoridated water you drink.

    The scientific evidence that fluoridation is causing a variety of health problems is getting stronger with each passing year. In the early 90’s, Dr. William Marcus with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) outlined the adverse effects of fluoride in drinking water and subsequently was terminated solely because he questioned and opposed EPA’s fluoride policy. Another EPA scientist, William Hirzy, PhD, speaking in 2000 before the U.S. Senate argued that the public water supply should not be used as a means to get rid of hazardous waste. It was not until 2006, that the first government appointed organization, the United States National Research Council, examined both animal and human studies on fluoride’s impact and concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. No further action has been taken but the studies against fluoridation of water are mounting. Politics has overruled science for quite some time in this country.

    Hydrofluorosilicic acid used for fluoridation is considered a corrosive industrial chemical that causes multiple health issues depending on the dose received. Science using animal studies shows repeatedly that fluoride accumulates in the body causing crippling skeletal fluorosis which weakens bones and causes arthritic symptoms. In one study, rats fed with fluoride in their water for a year caused an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain and the formation of beta-amyloid deposits usually associated with Alzheimer’s disease. As a neurotoxin to the brain, fluoride causes damage in areas involved with memory and learning, and results in difficulties in forming new memories and recall of events. Using circumstantial evidence similar to how fluoridation was sold to the public in the 1950’s, we could now question whether fluoridation has anything to do with the rising rates of dementia and Alzheimer’s in our population. The federal government should be following its own recommendations to further study the issue. It was Gandhi who said, “If the people lead, the leaders will follow.” Rutland must act.
    A recently-published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas. Meta-analysis is the science of using statistical methods to combine results of individual studies which allows for the best analysis of information collected in scientific studies. To date, there are many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride yet despite the evidence, fluoride is still added to public drinking water supplies.
    Science never showed that ingesting fluoride in the water reduces tooth decay. We now know fluoride’s benefits were due to topical application of pharmaceutical grade fluoride at the surface of teeth, not ingestion of an industrial waste product sold to us by the fertilizer industry. To date, fluoridation promoters have ignored the science of fluoridated water’s impact on the health of the population. Rutland must take the precautionary approach, forget the teeth and look at the science and the health ramifications of fluoride being added to our drinking water. Thinking that adding fluoride to water is a public health measure is incorrect in today’s world. Fluoridating water is practicing medicine without a license. Bad medicine. Fluoridation of our water must stop. You can help. Talk to your medical doctor and dentist. Ask them about current science. Read up on fluoride and become informed. You can make a difference. We can make a difference.
    Kathleen Krevetski is a Registered Nurse and activist who promotes healthy living issues and lives in the North West neighborhood of Rutland City, Vermont . She can be reached at kkrevetski@gmail.com . For more information go to the facebook page, Occupy Rutland.

    • Steve Slott

      April 14, 2014 at 2:15 pm

      Ms. Krevetski certainly has made a number of claims here….not one of which can be substantiated by valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence. This is a common tactic of antifluoridationists. Present numerous unsubstantiated claims, then proclaim there to be a “controversy” requiring the “Precautionary Principle” be invoked. There must first be valid evidence of risk before it is valid to invoke the “Precautionary Principle”. There is none in regard to fluoride at the optimal level.

      The “forced medication” ruse has been attempted in U.S. courts repeatedly. It has been rejected each and every time by those same courts. Fluoride, at the optimal level is not a drug, and it is not “forced” upon anyone. Fluoride is a mineral which the FDA must classify as a drug for the sole reason of its stated use in water as a therapeutic rather than as a disinfectant. No other reason. As the EPA regulates all mineral additives to water, it is the EPA, not the FDA, which controls and regulates fluoride in water. Fluoridated water meets all NSF Standard 60 certification requirements as mandated by the EPA. There are no dosage requirements for fluoride, nor is there any need for such, any more than is there any need of dosage requirements of chlorine in water.

      There are countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation. I will gladly cite as many as anyone would reasonably care to view.

      Humans have been ingesting fluoride in their water since the beginning of time. The process of fluoridation simply raises the existing level of that fluoride up to the optimal level of 0.7 ppm, that level at which maximum dental decay prevention will be attained, with no adverse effects. In water systems which are determined to have a fluoride level already at, or above the optimal, no fluoridation is required, and none is performed. In spite of proclamations by the uninformed, the fluoride ion added through fluoridation is identical to that which has existed “naturally” in water indefinitely.

      Making unsubstantiated claims then demanding that these claims be proven not to be valid, is demanding proof of a negative, and is not valid science. In order to demand proof that there are not problems, there first must be valid evidence that a problem exists. There is no such evidence of any safety problems, whatsoever, with water fluoridated at the optimal level. In the 69 year history of this very valuable public health initiative, there have been no proven adverse effects….and that is certainly not because antifluoridationists have not tried, by every means possible.

      “Current science” shows no adverse effect, long or short term, on the health of the population of water fluoridated at the optimal level. None.

      There is no “uncontrolled dose” in regard to fluoride at the optimal level. Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter. Thus for every liter consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources, 75% is derived from water and beverages. The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources, before adverse effects may occur, is, for adults and children over the age of 8 years, is 10 mg. Simple math demonstrates that before this daily upper limit could be attained, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride. For infants and children 8 years and younger, the daily upper limit is considerably less, but due solely to the risk of mild to very mild dental fluorosis during the teeth developing years 0-8. No other reason. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed to be more decay resistant, this effect is considered by many to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.

      ——–The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
      Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH

      http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf

      In regard to hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA)….. Hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is extracted from naturally occurring phosphorite rock. It is a co-product of the process which extracts the other co-product, phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid co-product is utilized in the soft drinks we consume, and in fertilizers which become incorporated into the foods we eat. The HFA co-product is carefully diluted to a 23% solution and utilized to raise the level of already existing fluoride ions in water by a few parts per million, up to the optimal level of 0.7 parts per million, in those water systems which are not already at that level naturally.

      Once HFA is added to drinking water, the pH of that water (~7) causes the immediate and complete hydrolysis (dissociation) of HFA into fluoride ions, identical to those which have existed in water since the beginning of time, and trace contaminants in minuscule amounts that fall far below EPA maximum levels of safety.  

      From the CDC:

      “Most fluoride additives used in the United States are produced from phosphorite rock. Phosphorite is used primarily in the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer. Phosphorite contains calcium phosphate mixed with limestone (calcium carbonates) minerals and apatite—a mineral with high phosphate and fluoride content. It is refluxed (heated) with sulfuric acid to produce a phosphoric acid-gypsum (calcium sulfate-CaSO4) slurry.

      The heating process releases hydrogen fluoride (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4) gases which are captured by vacuum evaporators. These gases are then condensed to a water-based solution of 23% FSA with the remainder as water.

      Approximately 95% of FSA used for water fluoridation comes from this process. The remaining 5% of FSA is generated during the manufacture of hydrogen fluoride or from the use of hydrogen fluoride in the manufacturing of solar panels and electronics.

      Since the early 1950s, FSA has been the chief additive used for water fluoridation in the United States. The favorable cost and high purity of FSA make it a popular source. Sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride are dry additives that come largely from FSA.”

      —–http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.html
      —–http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_flouride.pdf

      As far as the 41% of adolescents:

      That “41% of all children” is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable.

      The percentage of that 3.8% who may desire cosmetic treatment does not override the dental decay preventing benefit to the whole population. The cosmetics alone from dental decay are far worse than any from moderate dental fluorosis, and this not even take into account the amount of pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection that is prevented by water fluoridation. The cost savings of preventing the need for restoration of decayed teeth completely dwarfs any expenses involved in cosmetic treatment of the very few with moderate fluorosis who may desire to have it. 

      Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
      Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.

      William Hirzy is a long time antifluoridationist. He is the current paid lobbyist for the New York antifluoridationist group, FAN. In 2013 Hirzy petitioned the EPA to recommend cessation of use of HFA to fluoridate water because of what he had concluded to be excessive costs due to cancer incidence with HFA. He based this petition on a recent study which he and fellow antifluoridationist Robert Carton had completed. When EPA reviewers examined Hirzy’s evidence they found that he had made a 70-fold error in his math calculations. When they corrected for this error, they found that Hirzy’s data actually demonstrated the exact opposite of what he had concluded. Needless to say, the EPA rejected his petition. When Hirzy was notified of this error and rejection, he stated that he was “embarrassed “, as well he should have been. Hirzy could hardly be viewed as a credible source on fluoridation.

      The EPA response to Hirzy’s petition may be found:

      http://www.environmentguru.com/pages/elements/transporter.aspx?id=1297832

      The report of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride was hardly the “first government appointed organization….”. It was simply the latest NRC fluoride report dating back to the first one in 1951. The NRC issued such reports in 1951, 1977, 1993, and 2006.

      —–http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nas.htm

      The 2006 NRC Committee was charged with evaluating the EPA primary and secondary maximum contaminant levels. (MCL) for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm, respectively, to protect the public against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was that the primary MCL be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole stated reasons for this recommendation were due to risk of development of severe dental fluorosis and bone fracture with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. No other reasons. Had this committee been concerned with any of the other myriad disorders claimed by antifluoridationists, it would have stated so, and recommended accordingly. It did not.

      The NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the secondary MCL.

      In March of 2013, the Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride, made the following statement:

      “I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”

      —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

      The Harvard study referenced was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian village. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

      “–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

      –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

      As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. These studies were flawed that NOTHING could be “concluded” from them.

      The “topical versus systemic” is simply a “red herring” put forth by antifluoridationists. Effectiveness of public health initiatives is measured by effect on entire populations, not by individual mechanisms. As stated previously, countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation. It works, with no adverse effects. Thus it makes no difference whatsoever, what percentage of the effect is topical and what percentage systemic. At less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, there is no other means of dental decay prevention that even approaches the cost effectiveness of fluoridation. That said, however, the effect of fluoride is both topical and systemic. Any readers who would like to properly educate themselves on this aspect may find accurate information on topical versus systemic, as well as a wealth of other information on fluoridation:

      http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

      The problem with antifluoridationists such as Ms. Krevetsky is that they do not understand the difference between valid, peer-reviewed science and unsubstantiated “junk science”. Fluoridation proponents are fully aware of what is termed by antifluoridationists to be the “latest science”. In actuality, none of it is “new”. It is simply the same arguments that have been made by activist factions since the beginning of this public initiative 69 years ago. As I have demonstrated here, all of that which seems “new” to the current activist factions, has been long since considered and fully addressed by the appropriate organizations, healthcare experts, and regulatory agencies.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  3. Steve Slott

    April 14, 2014 at 10:48 am

    Nyscof

    As the “Media Relations Director” for the New York antifluoridationist group, FAN, it is understandable that you have little comprehension of science and healthcare.

    The causes of dental disease are myriad. As such, it is ludicrous to attempt to asses the impact of one preventive measure based on nothing more than snapshots of data which control for none of the numerous other causative and preventive factors. There are countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoride in the prevention of dental decay. I will gladly cite as many as anyone would desire to see. In the 69 year history of water fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects.

    Yes, there is a crisis with overwhelming amounts of untreated dental disease in this country and most others. This is a reason to fully support a proven beneficial public health initiative such as water fluoridation, not to oppose it.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  4. nyscof

    April 15, 2014 at 9:11 am

    slott show us the evidence that ingesting fluoride is safe for everyone. If you admit that nothing is safe for everyone, then who should be forewardned about fluoride ingestion?

    • Steve Slott

      April 15, 2014 at 9:55 am

      Nyscof

      If you want guarantees that every substance ingested is 100% risk free, then you will be able to ingest nothing, and will die within a week. We have 69 years of history with fluoridation. Hundreds of millions of people in all parts of the world have ingested it during that time, with no proven adverse effects. If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of ANY adverse effects of water fluoridated at the optimal level then produce it, keeping in mind that mild to very mild dental fluorosis is not an adverse effect. Otherwise you are demanding proof of a negative, which is not valid science.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS