Fluoride Vol.28 No.4 209-212 1995
Historical Piece
In the October 1992 issue of Fluoride, we published
tributes to the late John Marier, of the National Research
Council of Canada. One tribute mentioned the award to John, in
1985, of a Certificate of Merit from the American Society for
Magnesium Research. The other, commenting on John's lack of
formal scientific training, recalled his "remarkable ability to
read scientific papers, to retain details of what he had read, to
mull them over in his mind seeking the inter-relations of items
from different authors and to formulate therefrom a suggestion
for further research or even a new scientific hypothesis." In
light of the subject of the current issue's guest editorial, and
the continuing debate on fluoridation, it seemed appropriate to
publish the following piece, written 29 years ago. - Editor
THE QUESTION OF FLUORIDATION
the late J R Marier
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
To many people, the above title might seem inappropriate,
because many are of the opinion that fluoridation is beyond
question. However, to one who has delved into the scientific
aspects of the subject, fluoridation can remain as contentious
and unresolved as ever before. This summary attempts to show, on
the basis of scientific evidence, why the fluoridation topic
should still remain a subject of much soul-searching, not only by
scientists directly involved in fluoride research but by all
scientists and interested (and informed) laymen. The main
difficulty, in assessing the situation was touched upon recently
by a world-famous researcher in a private letter to a fellow
researcher. "I have carefully avoided getting into the
controversy, which is a political and not a scientific one".
During the past two decades, it has become fashionable to brand
opponents of the fluoridation program as "cranks... sensation
seekers... quacks... pseudo-scientists... misinformed...
biased..." and other unflattering terms. Along with this, it has
become customary, to give widespread publicity only to those
scientific reports which supports the fluoridation program.
Adverse findings are available, but they are scarcely (if ever)
mentioned in the wide-circulation news media. Whatever the merits
or demerits of the fluoridation program, the strict avoidance of
negative findings is not healthy to the cause of fluoridation,
nor of Science itself, because Science depends for its survival
on the unrestricted dissemination of all scientific
findings in its quest for truth. So, for the truth to be known
about fluoridation, it is essential that all sides of the
question be given close scrutiny and, also, that a sense of
objectivity should prevail. Fluoridation should not be a matter
of "faith", but a matter of "fact".
Space does not permit the re-telling of the entire history of
the fluoridation program. Such information is readily available
in the numerous books devoted to the subject, most of which have
championed the advantages of the scheme. Because this summary has
as its specific goal the bringing to light of little-known
information, let us merely remember that 20 years ago, it was
stated that no undesirable effects of fluoride would occur in
regions using water containing less than 10 parts per million
("ppm") of fluoride. A few years later. this was as lowered to 8
ppm, then 4 ppm. Recently, Dr Bertram Sauerbrunn and his
colleagues at the Washington DC Veterans Administration Hospital
have reported a fatality in Texas. The man had advanced skeletal
fluorosis, yet had never lived in a region where the fluoride
content of the water was higher than 3.5 ppm (on a life time
basis, the man had been exposed to an average concentration of
only 2.5 ppm of fluoride in the water!). This revelation received
no publicity. Instead, the public was bombarded with
press-releases claiming that fluoride was "beneficial" to the
bones of the aged, and the claim made that fluoride would
eliminate osteoporosis (a rarefaction of bone which occurs in old
age). Yet even this claim was incomplete, because no
mention was made of the fact that when fluoride is used to combat
osteoporosis, the new bone formed is abnormal, i.e., it
is the same kind of pathological bone encountered in skeletal
fluorosis! At least two diseases (or conditions) have been
reported in which fluoride actually aggravates the condition: in
(a kidney ailment) and post-parathyroidectomy patients.
Yet, despite the availability of many such reports, the
concentration of fluoride recommended for fluoridation programs
(the sacrosanct "1.0 part-per-million") is deemed to be entirely
safe. An examination of the scientific literature reveals that
this is not the case. Dr M A Roshal, in a 1965 issue of the
journal issued by the Leningrad Medical Institute, reported that
intake of fluoride--even at the apparently "safe" concentration
of 1.0 ppm--caused derangements in blood sugar balance. The
implications of these findings as regards those afflicted with
diabetes should become a concern. The effect of fluoride on
people afflicted with the reverse condition of hypoglycaemia
should also be borne in mind. And yet, this is another finding
that received no publicity; nor is it the subject of any general
follow-up research--even though a case-history was recently
described in a 1966 issue of the University of Ottawa Medical
Journal.
Another finding of interest is the recommendation that
fluoridated water (at 1.0 ppm) should be avoided for
haemodialysis (i.e., artificial kidney) treatments. This
is another case that terminated with a human fatality, yet still
another that went unpublicized. Convulsive seizures were one of
the symptoms, along with an abnormally-high serum phosphorus
level. The same symptoms had been described by Detroit's Dr G L
Waldbott in a 1957 report dealing with an adverse effect of water
containing 1.0 ppm of fluoride. Strangely enough, the later
haemodialysis report did not refer to the symptoms described by
Waldbott. here we see a case where the failure to publicize
adverse findings may well have hindered the fluoride researchers
themselves. The recent increase in scientific output throughout
the world has made it almost impossible for researchers to keep
completely abreast of all developments in their field, unless
all aspects of the field (even if they run counter to
"established" beliefs) are given equal publicity in those
periodicals devoted to scientific commentary. It was once deemed
"heresy" to advocate that the earth travelled around the sun -
yet we all know (or should know) what eventually
happened.
There have been other revelations in connection with 1.0 ppm
water. In a 1963 report, Dr H C Hodge of the University of
Rochester described cortical defect in the long bones of children
living in Newburgh NY (using artificially-fluoridated water
containing 1.0 ppm of fluoride). Although, at the time, these
bone changes were considered to be "normal variants", Dr Hodge
suggested that the cases deserved "additional study". No report
dealing with such "additional study" has yet appeared.
In the mid to late 1950s, Dr lonal Rapaport of Wisconsin
University published a series of articles in which he warned that
the incidence of mongoloid births would increase in districts
using fluoridated water. His reports were scarcely referred to by
advocates of the fluoridation program and, when they were, they
were downgraded by recourse to the uncomplimentary terminology
cited at the outset of this article. No follow-up study was ever
undertaken to fully assess the merits of Rapaport's conclusion,
even though he had suggested that the cause of the mongoloid
disorder was a (fluoride-induced) interference with the
metabolism of tryptophan (an essential amino-acid). Now, in 1967,
an article in the British medical publication Lancet
reveals that the administration of 5-hydroxytryptophan to
mongoloid infants greatly improved the muscle-tone in such
infants. So, it would seem that Dr Rapaport was not altogether
crazy, even though the vital connection with fluoride still
remains to be elucidated.
In 1963, a group of Canadian scientists caused a furore by
publishing a review article asking that more thorough research be
done on the fluoride subject. They were concerned about the
crucial roles of minerals such as calcium and magnesium, and of
Vitamins such as D and C. They feared the effect of fluoride on
the solubility of bone mineral (since confirmed), the increasing
infusion of fluoride into all our food products (the result of
the use of fluoridated water for processing), and recommended the
fluoridation of milk rather than water. They pointed out that, in
North America, most of the "natural" fluoridated waters are hard
waters, containing considerable amounts of calcium and magnesium.
Thus they questioned the wisdom of fluoridating soft waters. The
Canadian group has authored two subsequent articles, showing that
many of their contentions have since been borne out by other
workers, and have themselves shown that food items processed with
fluoridated water contain from 0.6 to 1.0 ppm of fluoride,
instead of the "normal" 0.2 to 0.3 ppm. The presence of so much
more fluoride in our present-day food products calls for a
critical examination of the baseline" on which the fluoridation
program was founded 20 years ago, when the large metropolitan
food and beverage processors were not using fluoridated water.
The Canadian researchers had also stated that intake of fluoride
by pregnant mothers was useless, in terms of conferring a dental
benefit to the offspring. This has since been admitted by
Schlesinger, who, however, questioned the economics of
fluoridating milk, even though Switzerland's Dr Robert Wirz had
shown that the dental benefits obtained with fluoridated milk
"are comparable to those of water fluoridation with the
advantage of considerable less cost".
In addition to the above reports, the Canadian researchers
have been interested in the connection between magnesium
deficiency and fluoride-induced ailments. There are many symptoms
common to both conditions: unusual bone growth, soft-tissue
calcification, muscular twitching, tetaniform convulsions with an
increase in serum phosphorus level, etc. But, to date,
no scientific study has been undertaken to correlate the two
syndromes, although a few preliminary trials have been revealed
that the result depends on the type of animal tested (note: the
same observation was made during the recent "cobalt in beer"
trials after the Quebec City fatalities).
Another condition deserves mention. Workers in Russia, India,
Yugoslavia, and in the United States, have called attention to
the close resemblance between skeletal fluorosis and scurvy. This
deserves much closer study, especially when we remember that a
Vitamin C deficiency is fairly common in the Western World. It
would not be too surprising to find that people who are Vitamin C
deficient are more susceptible to fluoride-induced ill-effects.
Unfortunately, there seems to be little awareness of this in the
Western World.
Leningrad's Dr G S Konikova has devoted two scientific
articles to his results showing that fluoride intake increases
the level of blood cholesterol, the so-called "killer" in heart
disease. Another Leningrad worker, Dr Y A Federov may have
suggested the ideal solution to the entire fluoride controversy:
he has demonstrated that the compound calcium glycerophosphate is
twice as effective as fluoride for the reduction of dental
caries. The attractiveness of this finding is that calcium
glycerophosphate is non-toxic, so would present none of the
problems encountered with fluoride. Although the original Federov
report came out in 1961, there is still no sign that follow-up
research is being done anywhere in the Western World. Should we
not make every effort to study this non-toxic alternative to
fluoride?
In a 1966 article devoted to this general subject, Clair Nader
asked: "If scientific evidence (eventually) should go against
fluoridation, would scientists have the courage to retract,
especially when the problem has generated so much emotion? And
what would their retraction do to the public image of scientific
prescience?"
In his last word, Clair Nader has hit upon the "nub" of
fluoridation's biggest dilemma. Most of the basic concepts
attending the "launching" of the fluoridation program, some 20
years ago, were based on prescience. At that time, there were
almost no data regarding the comportment of fluoride in cases of
specific illnesses. Lacking these data, the opinion prevailing at
the time seems to have been motivated by a blissful wish that
"all would go well". However, the time has now arrived for
reckoning, for a "facing of facts", unpalatable though they may
be. Although the world has not yet learned the lesson in the
field of diplomacy, a loss of face should never be as important
as a saving of lives. And yet, one cannot help but wonder just
when this attitude will come about. In 1963, a large
volume appeared bearing the title "Fluorine Chemistry, Volume
4". Although it is entirely devoted to the subject of
fluorine (and fluoridation) it makes no mention of the cases
cited in this summary, nor does it discuss any of the conditions
presented here. This is so, even though the authors of the book
have themselves presented some of this evidence in the
past. Are these health problems to be conveniently buried and
forgotten? Is the same lack of consideration to be accorded those
human beings who react adversely to fluoride? If this is
symptomatic of modern research, someone who has spent more than
two decades in a research laboratory might well wonder just
where Science is going.
This page was first uploaded to The Magnesium Web Site on
September 4, 1996
http://www.mgwater.com/
Healthy Water
Association--USA