DENTAL FLUOROSIS:
Smile, please -
but don't say 'Cheese'

"After a handshake, a friendly smile is one of the most important elements in creating a good first impression. However, it's hard to smile if you're self-conscious about teeth that are yellow or stained." (School of Dental Medicine at the University of New York). ⁽²⁾

A 1998 survey by the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry showed that:

Overall, the survey found that people with unattractive smiles are more likely to experience social and employment discrimination.

According to the UK Government's systematic scientific review on water fluoridation, carried out at York University, about forty eight per cent of people living in fluoridated areas are affected by dental fluorosis.

In England, this translates to nearly three million individuals who have fluorosed teeth to some degree. For three quarters of a million people , dental fluorosis is of the "moderate to severe" degree. The condition is characterised by white chalky spots or brown staining and pitting of their teeth. ⁽³⁾

In 1985, following a review commissioned by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, an independent panel of behavioural scientists found that people with moderate to severe fluorosis are at increased risk of experiencing psychological and behavioural problems. ^{(4) (5)}

People afflicted with dental fluorosis are more likely to experience discrimination from an early age. Teachers often prejudge a child's intellect and personality based on appearance alone. These children are more often likely to be considered as troublemakers or non-scholars. Such biassed views reinforce a negative stereotype, with self-fulfilling results. ⁽⁶⁾

Thousands of official documents confirm that artificial fluoridation of drinking water can, and does produce the "aesthetically objectionable" effect of moderate to severe dental fluorosis. The psychological damage suffered by millions of victims of dental fluorosis is given little attention.

Moreover, in the persistent drive to extend fluoridation schemes across the country, dental and public health officials dismiss this distressing condition as an acceptable public health trade-off, insisting that "the benefits outweigh the risks."

The Department of Health asserts that water fluoridation is the most cost-effective means of reducing tooth decay. However, the Department turns a blind eye to the huge financial burden on individual patients who require remedial treatment for unsightly fluorosed teeth.

Cosmetic veneers provide an extremely lucrative spin-off for the privatised dental profession. In England, charges range from £150 to £450 per tooth and repeat treatments are required every five or six years throughout the victim's life. People who cannot afford cosmetic veneers, professional bleaching or micro-abrasive treatment have no option but to live with their fluoride-damaged teeth and the attendant social stigma and psychological trauma.

While the York Review panel of experts acknowledged that dental fluorosis affects up to 48% of the British population, they signally failed to address the economic, social and psychological impact on the victims.

However, more perceptive scientists and dentists are sensitive to the social stigma of dental fluorosis.

Parents, too, commonly experience feelings of anguish and guilt over their children's fluorosed teeth.

For thirty years, until she discovered the scientific literature, Anita Knight endured a private agony over her son's lack of self esteem and emotional problems. "I was outraged," she said. "It was immediately obvious to me that so-called scientists and public health officials had arrogantly and callously written off my son as a laboratory rat in their inhuman experiment."

Dental fluorosis is extensively described by toxicologists as the first visible sign of chronic fluoride poisoning . The result of over-exposure to fluoride was well understood by the dental profession until the early 1950s.

Some prominent researchers have pointed out that dentists who knowingly promote treatment which leads to dental fluorosis place themselves at risk of litigation. ⁽¹⁵⁾ All researchers and government agencies acknowledge that dental fluorosis is a foreseeable , "objectionable cosmetic effect" that can and does occur following artificial fluoridation.

Despite anti-discrimination laws, the unattractive appearance of people with dental fluorosis can severely limit their academic performance, employment choices and future prospects. Teeth which appear "dirty" can seriously affect an individual's ability to interact and form relationships with members of the opposite sex, leading to exclusion, loneliness and long-term depression. Such conditions can precipitate feelings of frustration and anger which could, in turn, lead to criminal behaviour.

Promoters of water fluoridation are aware of, but do not warn the public about the foreseeable adverse effect of dental fluorosis or the foreseeable psychological damage which can and does occur to subsections of the population. When a plaintiff suffers harm, whether physical or psychological, it is only necessary for him to show the court that the injury was reasonably foreseeable . ⁽¹⁾

Meanwhile, three million English cases of dental fluorosis are officially ignored and three quarters of a million people have been severely, and foreseeably damaged.

References

1. Page v. Smith, House of Lords [1996] 1 AC 155; [1995] 2WLR 655 [1995] 2 All ER 736.

2. University of New York, School of Dental Medicine, Oral Health Letter.

3. McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, Sutton AJ, Chestnutt I, Cooper J, Misso K, Bradley M, Treasure E, Kleijnen J, Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ 2000; 321: 855-9.

4. Drinking Water Regulations; Fluoride. 50 Fed. Reg. 220, 47144 (1985).

5. Welbury, P., Shaw, L. A simple technique for removal of mottling, opacities and pigmentation. Dental Update 1990; 17: 161-3.

6. Tauber, Robert T. Good or Bad, What Teachers Expect from Students They Generally Get! ERIC Digest , 1998-12-00, Source: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education Washington DC.

7. Water fluoridation. Letters; BMJ 2001; 322: 1486.

8. Mwaniki DL, Courtney JM, Gaylor JD,. Endemic fluorosis: an analysis of needs and possibilities based on case studies in Kenya. Soc Sci Med 1994; 39: 807-13.

9. Clark DC, Berkowitz J. The influence of various fluoride exposures on the prevalence of esthetic problems resulting from dental fluorosis. J Public Health Dent 1997; 57:144-9.

10. Mothusi, B. Psychological Effects of Dental Fluorosis. Department of Health, North West Province, South Africa.

11. McKnight CB, Levy SM, Cooper SE, Jakobsen JR. A pilot study of esthetic perceptions of dental fluorosis vs. selected other dental conditions. ASDC J Dent Child 1998; 65: 233-8, 229.

12. Rodd and Davidson. The aesthetic management of severe dental fluorosis in the young patient. Dent Update 1997; 24: 408-11.

13. Riordan PJ., Perceptions of dental fluorosis. J Dent Res 1993; 72: 1268-74.

14. Rahmatulla. Clinical evaluation of two different techniques for the removal of fluorosis stains. Egypt Dent J 1995; 41: 1287-94.

15. Whitford, G.M. Physiological and Toxicological Characteristics of Fluoride, Journal of Dental Research 1990; 69, Spec No: 539-49; discussion 556-7.

More on Fluoride hazards

Did you know there's an "invisible" drug that a majority of Americans consume on a daily basis—a drug so harmful it's been proven to cause serious health issues, including damage to your bones and teeth, as well as your kidneys, thyroid, pineal gland, and even your brain. This drug is so pervasive that over 40 percent of all American teens between the ages of 12 and 15 show visible signs of having been overexposed to it, and, shockingly, recent international studies indicate that even small doses of this drug can lower the IQ in children.

What is this drug?

Fluoride.

You are Being Drugged Without Your Consent…

Many do not realize that fluoride is indeed a drug. In fact, if you decided you wanted to take it, you'd have to get a prescription for it. Yet it's added to municipal water supplies reaching more than 180 million Americans, including infants and the elderly. This is a significant problem, because once you add it to the water supply, you have no way of gauging how much of the drug any particular person will consume on any given day.

Consider this: It is illegal and unethical for a medical doctor to give you a drug without specifying dosage, and to fail to monitor your health for side effects from the drug. Yet, your water authority is not only allowed, but encouraged to add a toxic drug—fluoride—to your drinking water without your consent and without any way of knowing who in your household is drinking it, how much, and the effect it is having.

The Science Incontrovertibly Opposes Water Fluoridation

Water fluoridation began in the mid 1940's as a solution to fluoride pollution generated by the Atomic Bomb Program and the aluminum industry, but it was cleverly "sold" to dentists and the general masses as a preventive strategy for reducing tooth decay... It has been heralded as one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.

Alas, it may actually be more accurate to describe it as one of the greatest mass poisonings in our history. Sodium fluoride, which is a far simpler toxin than the fluoride compounds used for most water fluoridation, has been used for rat and cockroach poisons, so there is no question that fluoride is highly toxic.

In a sane world, public health policy would be based on sound and conclusive science. Unfortunately, that is not the case when it comes to water fluoridation. In fact, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that fluoride is not an effective preventive strategy against tooth decay and may be causing significant health problems in many individuals, the practice of adding fluoride to municipal water supplies continues unabated. A majority, 64 percent, of all drinking water in the United States still receives this ill-advised treatment.

Why does this practice continue when it flies in the face of all the current research?

The answer to this question is just one of the countless shocking revelations featured in Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation. The film, which features a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, scientists, dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field, reveals the science behind fluoridation, the effects it has on your health, and why there is no logical or rational reason to continue fluoridating ANY water supply.

Would You Drink Shampoo to Clean Your Hair?

The only science that mildly supports the use of pharmaceutical-grade fluoride as a preventive against dental caries is topical use of fluoride (although even that is debatable, based on more recent findings). There is really no scientific basis at all for ingesting fluoride to protect your teeth! In fact, when fluoride is taken internally, it actually damages your teeth, causing a condition known as dental fluorosis; the pitting and discoloration of teeth. Today, 41 percent of American children between the ages of 12 and 14 have dental fluorosis.  But that's not all. When you swallow, fluoride it can also cause:

This is what the science is telling us about the ramifications of fluoride ingestion. And, yet, rather than taking the precautionary approach and stopping fluoridation until we know more, our policymakers continue to blindly forge ahead; refusing to give the scientific evidence the attention it deserves.

The CDC and ADA Advise Against Fluoridated Water for Infants

In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to alert its members of their recommendation to parents to not use fluoridated tap water to make infant formula.

Why?

Because an average glass of treated water contains 250 times more fluoride than breast milk. A few days later, the CDC followed suit. But neither of them openly informed the public!

As a result, millions of parents are still using tap water to make up formula, completely oblivious of the fact that the agencies that promote fluoridation in this country have also issued a specific warning against using fluoridated water for this purpose. Not only that, but by fluoridating the municipal water supply, you doom many low income families to fail to protect their young children from this dangerous drug, even if they have this information.

The evidence suggests that minorities and low-income families are being disproportionately harmed by water fluoridation, and two Atlanta Civil Rights leaders, Andrew Young and Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, recently requested that Georgia legislators repeal the state's mandatory water fluoridation law based on this fact.

African American children have been found to consume significantly more total fluids and plain water, and thus receive more fluoride than white children. African American mothers are also less likely to breastfeed than most other racial groups, and since breast milk contains very low levels of fluoride, babies fed formula made with fluoridated water could receive up to 200 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. Thus African American children have a higher risk of being overexposed to fluoride from infancy on.

Get Informed; Get the Facts…

Knowledge is power, and you have the power to not only protect yourself, but also to help protect others once you know the truth. The United States is one of the few remaining developed countries in the world that still fluoridates a majority of its water supply.

Don't you agree that it's time for our policymakers to stop putting your and your family's health at risk? I strongly recommend viewing Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation. We can eliminate this harmful practice, but it's going to take people like you to make it happen—so please watch the film to get the cold hard facts, and share it with everyone you know.

How You Can Help END Water Fluoridation

home