FLUORIDE DATE LECTURE #26 - VULNERABLE SUB-POPULATIONS PT. 2: MINORITIES AND THE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
At Risk Doubly At Risk
Good afternoon, Mayor Leffingwell and Councilmembers. Two weeks ago, I spoke of some large Austin subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable to health damage from fluoridated water. I mentioned people who already have certain medical conditions like diabetes, arthritis, kidney or thyroid problems; also, those who consume exceptionally large amounts of fluids, like athletes, and, of course, infants. But I neglected to mention another large group, the economically-disadvantaged. That sector suffers disproportionately from the pre-existing health conditions fluoride aggravates. They also have poorer dental health.
The Surgeon General’s year 2000 report, Oral Health in America, warned of “a silent epidemic” of oral diseases from cavities to mouth cancer afflicting minorities and low-income Americans. The Texas Dental Association’s comparable report of a year ago came to the same conclusions. Both reports fingered the refusal by 80% of dentists to accept Medicaid patients as the core cause. This is very important because the corporate promoters of mass water fluoridation use the poor, and poor children in particular, to justify their position. They hype fluoride as a social equalizer even while they admit it’s not working—an attitude known as doublethink.
How many Austin children are we talking about? Well, according to your first handout—which comes from the U.S. Census Bureau—in year 2008, 23.8% of our city’s children age 18 or younger lived below the poverty line. We had 172,185 children in that age group, and 23.8% of that number is about 41,000. So something like 41,000 Austin youngsters are at risk first for serious dental disease that fluoride won’t cure despite all the money we throw at it and second, for adverse health effects from the fluoride itself.
In his year 2000 oral health report, the Surgeon General rightly identified “low income Americans” and “minorities” as separate demographics though they disproportionally overlap. It so happens that Afro-Americans of all income levels—that’s about 61,000 Austinites—also constitute a vulnerable group, absorbing fluoride more readily and experiencing more severe effects from it than the general population. Scientific studies and observations by health care professionals both bear this out. I’ve been collecting materials on the subject, which I’ll be glad to share with anyone upon request. Thank you.
HANDOUT #2: http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/Oral%20Health%20in%20America.pdf
Categories: health wellness environment
Tags: fluoride water fluoridation
All very true but safe for all and everyone benefits are still the health department talking points. Pure lie but plays well to those trusting soles thinking they and the dentists are actually experts on fluorides.
The 1993 US Tox profile also stated seniors 50 and over which is a huge group. Heart patients, kidney disease, low on calcium, magnesium, vit c and also low protein intake. The majority of America is in one or more risk groups and many all. The CDC has even refused to warn risk groups like blacks after ethics charges in 2007. This was not just about double moderate and severe dental fluorisis but the double kidney disease also. They ignored the risk their data proves.
The EPA data also had shown 1 gal water put a person in the top 1% of risk. Of course they never told the public but instead say optimal dose is safe for all. The Warren Levy Iowa 2008 study reminds us there was no solid science basis of the optimal dose theory. The Levy Eckland Dental Textbook also confirms the term should not be used. I see it in every statement about total safety along with the wide margin of safety because it is less then 4ppm.
They forget to mention the 12-0 vote by NRC in 2006 4ppm is not protective (safe) and the EPA was directed to revise down. The 1986 Surgeons Generals report said by a 7-2 vote it was not safe to raise the Max from 2.4 to 4.0ppm but it happened anyway with no science to show it true. That is why the EPA unions got involved in calling fluoridation fraud. Because by magic the report was altered and findings reversed to opposite of the truth.
Canada has lots of energy in a fight and have attorneys speaking up to help.So many things about fluoridation are illegal but ignored by government.It never was about protecting the poor or cavity prone. Follow the money makes more sense always.
Maybe if dentists see potential lawsuits endorsement and supplemention would need more science. They feel immune now and only repeat talking points or say I can always tell fluoridation teeth. So can I with all the dental fluorosis. Sometimes from across the room ugly. See www.nidellaw.com for sample form and pictures for litigation. Is fluoride the new asbestos. Very soon maybe. Not soon enough for me.
Reply to this
It's beyond sad. No one making decisions that put fluoride in the municipal water seems to care about the babies!!!
Reply to this
It is about more then the babies. In 1996 I think the Nrc looked at 10 studies on hip fracture in senior populations with fluoridation exposure. Seven had 20 years and over exposure and 3 had only short term 7 and under and post memopausal exposure after most of the bone is already developed. The long exposures all showed from 50% to double the hip fracture. The short term did not so they did not find fluoridation a risk because the three did not show risk. The simple fact is at 1ppm it takes many years exposure to reach a point of damage. Canada did bone fluoride content comparisons in two cities one with fluoridation and non. Very consistantly the numbers were much lower in the non fluoridated one. The strange thing is there was huge variation in the range in the fluoridated one but much higher on average also. The Rohlm 1938 cryolite mine studies showed very few could put more then a dozen years in the mine with out huge physical damage. Like clockwork it grew as the years pasted until the persons spine was fused and twisted and all the joints painful. Our exposures are rocketing up from dental,and beverage and food contamination at levels once rare except in pandemic exposure regions. It can take many decades but it still happens. For kids only a few months exposure can damage specific teeth that are forming enamel at that time. 5 years later the ugly surprise pops out.
A new site for showing your damaged teeth and not the total face. You can get feedback or maybe look into a lawsuit that nidellaw.com is now collecting pictures and information for future lawsuits. They also have a contact number to talk to a expert.
Also spotsonmyteeth.com is that contact. This just started so is in the growth stage but does have pictures of damage and lots of links so you can see exactly what the wide range of damage looks like. The mildest is simply white chalky splotches but it can get much worse with ugly brown on whole teeth with pits and crumbling edges very cavity prone. Blacks get about double the most ugly damage as has been know by the CDC for decades. They tell no one.
Reply to this