Fluoride-Related Bone Problems, Part One |
Dr Mansfield of the National Pure Water Association claims that in a few years time we will see an explosion of fluoride-related bone problems in artificially fluoridated areas, but that he is not being taken seriously by the NHS. How do you know that he is wrong if nobody is looking into his claims?
BFS suggested answer
Firstly Dr Mansfield’s claims rely on his other claim that there is a difference between artificial and natural fluoridation. There is no difference. Secondly, his work on fluoride intakes in the West Midlands has been reviewed by public health experts in the West Midlands and at the Department of Health, and has been found to be seriously flawed.
Experts at the MRC Environmental Epidemiology Unit conclude that ‘the burden of evidence suggesting that fluoridation might be a risk factor for hip fracture is weak and not sufficient to retard the progress of the water fluoridation programme’.
Furthermore, large epidemiological surveys of radiographs in the British population show no evidence of skeletal fluorosis, and neither the early nor late stages of skeletal fluorosis are seen in areas with fluoride at 1 ppm. Nor is there any evidence that other skeletal problems such as stiffness, pain in the joints, backache or osteoarthritis are associated with water fluoridation.
We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2–3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurements.
Editorial, Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1944
Clearly, fluoride is not as benign a substance as those who promote its use would have us believe. As the quotation from the Journal of the American Dental Association above shows, dentists are aware of the dangers at levels above 1.2 ppm. But is it dangerous if our intakes are restricted to the ‘optimal’ dose of 1.0 ppm or only dangerous if taken to excess? Not that we know how much fluoride is an ‘excess’ (see Chapter 4), and not that 1.2 ppm is significantly different from 1.0 ppm.
Little research has been conducted into harmful effects of fluoride in Britain and Ireland. Research of this nature is expensive. Normally, only large organisations, such as universities, or bodies funded by industry, can afford to undertake the large and extensive studies needed to achieve statistical significance. But none of them is doing this.
Dr Peter Mansfield, a Lincolnshire GP, director of the Templegarth Trust and, until July 2000, president of the National Pure Water Association, was surprised to discover in 1983 that one of his patients, a girl then aged five years, had ‘ailed dramatically’ on two occasions, two years apart, when using fluoridated toothpaste. As she recovered promptly when the toothpaste was withdrawn, he came to the conclusion that the girl had been poisoned by the fluoride. Dr Mansfield could find no NHS clinical test for fluoride to help him confirm his diagnosis. He also became concerned at the complete lack of confirmatory evidence of the benefits of fluoride and at the growing incidence of fluorosis, particularly in fluoridated areas. After some preliminary enquiries, he set up his own laboratory facility and began routinely testing for fluoride in 1990.
Mansfield’s tests with his patients for fluoride built up a database of more than 700 people living in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas of the East Midlands. Disturbed by his findings on these unfluoridated patients, he advertised free fluoride tests in the Birmingham Evening Mail, asking for people in the ‘flagships of fluoridation’ – Coventry, Birmingham and Wolverhampton – to send him samples of their urine for analysis. He initially had replies from 225 people, which, under the circumstances, was a terrific response. Analysis of the samples showed that 57 per cent were ingesting higher than safe levels of fluoride1 and that the average daily fluoride consumption was more than 4 mg – around 50 per cent higher than government estimates – and in some cases was as high as 17 mg!2 This is nearly six times the government’s estimate.
In co-operation with a Coventry osteoporosis support group, Mansfield then checked people with a medical diagnosis of osteoporosis and compared their results with other people from the West Midlands of the same age and sex and with no known medical problems. He discovered that those with osteoporosis consumed nearly twice as much fluoride – an average of 6.3 mg per day, compared with 3.4 mg per day for those who were symptom-free. Mansfield says: ‘This substantiates our fear, that a high daily fluoride intake, based on artificially fluoridated water, causes bone disease well before old age – unacceptable if confirmed.’3
Knowing the amounts of fluoride that have been proven to cause skeletal fluorosis within an average lifetime, based on Roholm’s calculations4 and Hodge’s corrected figures,5 Dr Mansfield has frequently warned the government of the dangers inherent in water fluoridation. His claims have a solid scientific background and deserve to be taken seriously.
The problem for government, of course, is that if it admits that fluoride is as toxic as we know it is, and if government agencies are found to have known about this all along, it could open the door to compensation claims of such magnitude that the financial stability of the NHS would be threatened. Thus, the government simply dare not do anything that might uncover the truth. But this attitude itself could have serious implications: the more government officials are shown the evidence of harm in interviews such as that between Mrs Tessa Jowell and Professor Susheela in 1998, and the longer the government goes on ignoring them, the greater the likelihood that compensation claims will be successful in the courts.
1.Fluoridistas stunned by fluoride lab findings. Fluoride Watershed. National Pure Water Association, Crigglestone, South Yorkshire, March 1998.
2.Mansfield P. We underestimate the damage done by fluorides. 1997.
3.Mansfield P. Fresh evidence: Fluoride does damage bones! Press release, Louth, Lincolnshire, 5 May 1998.
4.Roholm K. Fluorine intoxication: A clinical–hygienic study. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk, and London: HK Lewis, 1937: 281–2.
5.Hodge HC. The safety of fluoride tablets or drops in Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. American Association for the Advancement of Science, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, USA, 1979.