Hardy Limeback Dr. Limeback was one of the 12 scientists who served on the National Academy of Sciences panel that issued the 2006 report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA's Standards." Dr. Limeback is an associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto.
The argument against fluoridation is strong when all
the points listed below are taken together. 1. Fluoridation is no longer effective. Fluoride in water has the effect of delaying tooth
eruption and, therefore, simply delays dental decay (Komarek et al,
2005, Biostatistics 6:145-55). The studies that water fluoridation work
are over 25 years old and were carried out before the widespread use of
fluoridated toothpaste. There are numerous modern studies to show that
there no longer is a difference in dental decay rates between
fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, the most recent one in Australia
(Armfield & Spencer, 2004 Community Dental Oral Epidemiology.
32:283-96). Recent water fluoridation cessation studies show that dental
fluorosis (a mottling of the enamel caused by fluoride) declines but
there is no corresponding increase in dental decay (e.g. Maupome et al
2001, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47). Public health services will claim there is a dental
decay crisis. With the national average in the U.S. of only two decayed
teeth per child (World Health Organization data), down from more than 15
decayed teeth in the 1940s and 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste, as
much as half of all children grow up not having a single filling. This
remarkable success has been achieved in other developed countries
without fluoridation. The "crisis" of dental decay in the U.S. often
mentioned is the result, to a major extent, of sugar abuse, especially
soda pop. A 2005 report by Jacobsen of the Center for Science in the
Public Interest said that U.S. children consume 40 to 44 percent of
their daily refined sugar in the form of soft drinks. Since most soft
drinks are themselves fluoridated, the small amount of fluoride is
obviously not helping. The families of these children with rampant dental
decay need professional assistance. Are they getting it? Children who
grow up in low-income families make poor dietary choices, and cannot
afford dental care. Untreated dental decay and lack of professional
intervention result in more dental decay. The York review was unable to
show that fluoridation benefited poor people. Similarly, early dental decay in nursing infants
(baby bottle syndrome) cannot be prevented with water fluoridation. The
majority of dentists in the U.S. do not accept Medicaid patients because
they lose money treating these patients. Dentists support fluoridation
programs because it absolves them of their responsibility to provide
assistance to those who cannot afford dental treatment. Even cities
where water fluoridation has been in effect for years are reporting
similar dental "crises." Public health officials responsible for community
programs are misleading the public by stating that ingesting fluoride
"makes the teeth stronger." Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. It
does not make developing teeth better prepared to resist dental decay
before they erupt into the oral environment. The small benefit that
fluoridated water might still have on teeth (in the absence of
fluoridated toothpaste use) is the result of "topical" exposure while
the teeth are rebuilding from acid challenges brought on by daily sugar
and starch exposure (Limeback 1999, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology
27: 62-71), and this has now been recognized by the Centers for Disease
Control. 2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental
fluorosis. Fluoride doses by the end user can't be controlled
when only one concentration of fluoride (1 parts per million) is
available in the drinking water. Babies and toddlers get too much
fluoride when tap water is used to make formula (Brothwell & Limeback,
2003 Journal of Human Lactation 19: 386-90). Since the majority of daily
fluoride comes from the drinking water in fluoridated areas, the risk
for dental fluorosis greatly increases (National Academy of Sciences:
Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). We have tripled our exposure to fluoride since
fluoridation was conceived in the 1940s. This has lead to every third
child with dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005). Fluorosis is not just a
cosmetic effect. The more severe forms are associated with an increase
in dental decay (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water,
2006) and the psychological impact on children is a negative one. Most
children with moderate and severe dental fluorosis seek extensive
restorative work costing thousands of dollars. Dental fluorosis can be
reduced by turning off the fluoridation taps without affecting dental
decay rates (Burt et al 2000 Journal of Dental Research 79(2):761-9).
3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have
not been tested for safety. All the animal cancer studies were done on
pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride. There is more than enough evidence
to show that even this fluoride has the potential to promote cancer.
Some communities use sodium fluoride in their drinking water, but even
that chemical is not the same fluoride added to toothpaste. Most cities
instead use hydrofluorosilicic acid (or its salt). H2SiF6 is
concentrated directly from the smokestack scrubbers during the
production of phosphate fertilizer, shipped to water treatment plants
and trickled directly into the drinking water. It is industrial grade
fluoride contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead,
arsenic and radium, which are harmful to humans at the levels that are
being added to fluoridate the drinking water. In addition, using
hydrofluorosilicic acid instead of industrial grade sodium fluoride has
an added risk of increasing lead accumulation in children (Masters et al
2000, Neurotoxicology. 21(6): 1091- 1099), probably from the lead found
in the pipes of old houses. This could not be ruled out by the CDC in
their recent study (Macek et al 2006, Environmental Health Perspectives
114:130-134). 4. There are serious health risks from water
fluoridation. Cancer: Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) has recently been
identified as a risk in young boys in a recently published Harvard study
(Bassin, Cancer Causes and Control, 2006). The author of this study, Dr.
Elise Bassin, acknowledges that perhaps it is the use of these untested
and contaminated fluorosilicates mentioned above that caused the
seven-fold increase risk of bone cancer. Bone fracture: Drinking on average 1 liter/day of
naturally fluoridated water at 4 parts per million increases your risk
for bone pain and bone fractures (National Academy of Sciences:
Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006). Since fluoride
accumulates in bone, the same risk occurs in people who drink 4 liters/day
of artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million, or in people
with renal disease. Fluoridation studies have never properly shown that
fluoride is safe in individuals who cannot control their dose, or in
patients who retain too much fluoride. Adverse thyroid function: The recent National Academy
of Sciences report (NAS: Toxicological Risk of Fluoride in Drinking
Water, 2006) outlines in great detail the detrimental effect that
fluoride has on the endocrine system, especially the thyroid.
Fluoridation should be halted on the basis that endocrine function in
the U.S. has never been studied in relation to total fluoride intake.
Adverse neurological effects: In addition to the
added accumulation of lead (a known neurotoxin) in children living in
fluoridated cities, fluoride itself is a known neurotoxin. We are only
now starting to understand how fluoride affects the brain. While some
recent Chinese studies suggest that fluoride in drinking water lowers IQ
(NAS, 2006), we need to study this more in depth in North America. In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more
harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid
thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation
schemes do so at risk of future litigation.
Date of Publication: May 14, 2006 on Page B02