The Health Forum

A place for open discussions – with no cover ups – about health issues

by Richard Seah

The harm of flu shots and fluorides – which James has highlighted in two earlier articles – are just two of many health issues that are not openly discussed. And this is why we feel a need for The Health Forum.

Let’s just look at the fluorides issue for now… I will discuss flu shots in another post.

Every once in a few years, a letter questioning the safety of fluorides might appear in the forum pages of the mainstream media (MSM) and this would inevitably be met by a government reply asserting that fluorides are safe. And that would be the end of the story. Follow-up letters are unlikely to get published, either because the MSM has no interest in pursuing the matter, or because they have been instructed by the government not to do so.

The Public Utilities Board is known not to take kindly to articles that question the safety of Singapore’s “world class” tap water.  Some years ago, I wrote an article suggesting that it might be a good idea for households to install water filters in order to remove traces of chlorine, fluorides and other chemicals. The response from the PUB was to threaten to sue me and the magazine that published my article and to demand that we publish retractions in ALL the major newspapers. In the end, upon the advice of its public relations consultants, it merely required the magazine publish a two-page retraction, saying my article was wrong, inaccurate, irresponsible, etc.

More recently, the issue of flourides was again raised when I mentioned it in passing in a letter to STForum, about the Health Promotion Board being behind time in its health recommendations.

In response, Dr Yik Keng Yong also wrote to the STForum to add: … fluoridation (one part per million) is superfluous as we get much more of this in our modern diet. Hard data exposes the uncertainty of a positive fluoride-tooth decay relationship while showing up the inimical effects of fluorides. The European Court of Justice has ruled that fluoridated water must be treated as a medicine and cannot be used to prepare food.

Then came a one-sided assertion from the Singapore Dental Association: The crucial role of fluoride in caries prevention has been well established since the early 1940s. The United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has selected water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

My response to the SDA letter was, not surprisingly, not published. For your benefit, here it is:

__________

The Singapore Dental Association (SDA) asserts that fluoridation of water “is proven to be an effective, safe and cost-effective method to reduce the rate of caries.” (Fluorides prevent tooth decay, says dental body, ST 24 Oct)

Regrettably, the SDA letter is full of “cavities” as it presents only one side of the fuller picture that surrounds the water fluoridation controversy. Allow me to fill in on the other side…

In an analysis published in the Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice (March 2006) the authors examine the water fluoridation controversy in the context of the precautionary principle (1). They note that:

1. There are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply;
2. Fluoride does not need to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay;
3. Tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with, and without, water fluoridation;
4. People are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply;
5. Studies indicate fluoride’s potential to cause a wide range of adverse, systemic effects;
6. Since fluoridation affects so many people, “one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventive actions.”

It is particularly regrettable that the SDA completely ignores fluoride’s potential to cause harm, which includes osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer. Here, the evidence is, at best, controversial, with scientific studies pointing both ways. It is not as clearcut as the SDA makes it out to be.

And while it is reassuring to note that fluoride levels in Singapore’s tap water are below the recommended 1.5 mg per litre, we should note that certain groups of people are at greater risk. They include young children, people with kidney disorders and (health conscious) people who exercise, sweat and drink plenty of water.

Meanwhile, the “safe level” of fluoridation has been questioned as well – by amongst others, a 12-person U.S. National Research Council committee that reviewed the health risks associated with fluoride in 2006. Three panel members expressed their opposition to water fluoridation after the study and chairman John Doull said the issue should be reexamined.

Is this asking too much? That issues such as the widespread use of fluoridation, chlorination, chemical food additives like MSG and aspartame, etc, be constantly discussed and re-examined? One-sided assertions by various health and government bodies do not contribute to better knowledge and understanding. Nor to better health.

Note (1):
The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the precautionary principle is also a general and compulsory principle of law.

________

By James Ong

Our local health authorities and the PUB have been assuring us, over the years, that fluoridated water (i.e. water coming out of our taps) is safe to drink.  It helps prevent tooth decay, they say.  It may shock or surprise you that there is now a huge number of scientists, more than 2,000  (comprising medical doctors, dentists, environmental scientists, lawyers, naturopathic doctors, nurses, etc.) calling for a worldwide ban on the fluoridation of drinking water.

What we need to know is that only about 60 countries worldwide, comprising a population of only about 330 million, fluoridate their drinking water.  Many of the advanced European nations do not fluoridate their water.  The vast majority of the world’s population (6 billion less 330 million) do not drink fluoridated water.  Studies show that those countries which do not fluoridate their drinking  water do not suffer from higher rates of tooth decay at all.  The answer to tooth decay is simple – avoiding sugary, refined and processed foods, eating nutritious foods that are high in calcium and other minerals and brushing teeth regularly.  Use of topical fluoride toothpaste may be of some benefit but not absolutely necessary so long as the other dietary and lifestyle habits are in place.  You see, fluoride works best topically, not when ingested.

In Singapore, drinking water is fluoridated at 0.7 parts per million.  That means that for every liter of water you drink, you are getting 0.7 milligram of fluoride.  Assuming an average person drinks 2 liters of water a day, over a lifespan of 80 years, he or she will be ingesting 40 kilograms of fluoride.  Many people drink more than 2 liters a day.  Fluoride is a known neurotoxin and carcinogen.  In fact, it is one of the most harmful substances known to man, almost on par with mercury.  Fluoride has been implicated in osteoporosis, arthritis, endocrine disorders, infertility, certain cancers, dementia, ADHD and autism.  All these diseases have been on the rise since fluoridation began in 1956.

I strongly encourage you to watch the following two videos which highlight the dangers of fluoridating drinking water:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/ You will see a video screen entitled, “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation”.  Click on the “Play” button to watch the video.

The Fluoride Deception Video

You will learn there there is no solid science behind the purported benefits of fluoridation.  You will learn that fluorides are toxic, chemical waste products of American industry.  These industries found a clever way of cheaply disposing of them without further treatment to make them non-toxic:  by convincing the water authorities that adding fluoride to drinking water will prevent tooth decay.  Once again, we find our local health authorities merely “parroting” the official statements of organizations like the FDA, AMA, ADA, WHO, etc., without doing any independent research or literature review of their own.  These are the same organizations that used to say that smoking is safe; encouraged women to smoke, and that lead in petrol is safe.  We now know these to be untrue.

Even the American Dental Association (ADA) has issued an official statement warning that infants should not be fed formula milk made up from fluoridated water because the levels of fluoride in that water may be harmful to the infants.  Yet, our local health authorities have not looked into this issue at all and mothers in Singapore still prepare infant formula with regular, fluoridated water.

Richer households can simply circumvent this problem by installing expensive water filters to remove the fluoride.  Poorer households cannot afford to do so.  They are thus most vulnerable to the cumulative toxic effects of fluoride.

If you would like to learn more about the dangers of fluorides, do visit the videos page of the Fluoride Action Network’s website:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/videos1.html