Monday, January 21, 2008
Amazing Chiropractic results for TV host Montel Williams
Montel Williams suffers from Multiple Sclerosis (an autoimmune disease where an individual's body attacks the protective layer around the nerves). Like many autoimmune diseases, the severity varies with each individual. Often patients are prescribed heavy amounts of powerful drugs to suppress their immune system, in hopes to slow the progress of the disease. As Montel Williams discovered maybe there are other less volatile ways to get the body to work better........
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Recreational drugs less likely to kill than Prescription drugs
Readers,
I am choosing to reprint this article in an attempt to cause you to think of things in a different way. Like this blog, the article is written so that certain habits that have become very common place in our society, such as prescription drug use, may be looked at through more educated eyes and addressed with renewed vigor.
The following article is written by Christopher Kent a Chiropractor and Lawyer. His remarks may cause you to feel an emotional response. GOOD! Citations for Dr. Kent's statistics can be found at the bottom of the article: Enjoy....
Recreational Drugs FAR Less Likely to Kill You than Prescribed Drugs!
By Christopher Kent, D.C., J.D.
Recreational drugs, including cocaine and heroin, are responsible for an estimated 10,000-20,000 American deaths per year [1,2]. While this represents a serious public health problem, it is a "smokescreen" for America's real drug problem. America's "war on drugs" is directed at the wrong enemy. It is obvious that interdiction, stiff mandatory sentences, and more vigorous enforcement of drug laws have failed.
Recreational drugs, including cocaine and heroin, are responsible for an estimated 10,000-20,000 American deaths per year [1,2]. While this represents a serious public health problem, it is a "smokescreen" for America's real drug problem. America's "war on drugs" is directed at the wrong enemy. It is obvious that interdiction, stiff mandatory sentences, and more vigorous enforcement of drug laws have failed.
The reason is simple. Cause and effect have been reversed.
The desire to solve problems by taking drugs is a product of our culture. When a child is taught by loving parents that the appropriate response to pain or discomfort is taking a pill, it is obvious that such a child, when faced with the challenges of adolescence, will seek comfort by taking drugs.
Drugs are Dangerous Whether Pushed or Prescribed
While approximately 10,000 per year die from the effects of illegal drugs, an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported that an estimated 106,000 hospitalized patients die each year from drugs which, by medical standards, are properly prescribed and properly administered. More than two million suffer serious side effects. [3]
An article in Newsweek [4] put this into perspective. Adverse drug reactions, from "properly" prescribed drugs, are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. According to this article, only heart disease, cancer, and stroke kill more Americans than drugs prescribed by medical doctors. Reactions to prescription drugs kill more than twice as many Americans as HIV/AIDS or suicide. Fewer die from accidents or diabetes than adverse drug reactions. It is important to point out the limitations of this study. It did not include outpatients, cases of malpractice, or instances where the drugs were not taken as directed.
According to another AMA publication, drug related "problems" kill as many as 198,815 people, put 8.8 million in hospitals, and account for up to 28% of hospital admissions. [5] If these figures are accurate, only cancer and heart disease kill more patients than drugs. Has the situation improved since the publication of this information? Hardly. Null [6] et al have published the most comprehensive and well-documented study I have seen of deaths associated with medical practice. In this report, their research revealed some shocking facts. The findings are summarized in the abstract:
"A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million. Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics.
The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million. The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251."
Drugs Number One Killer
The authors conclude: "When the number one killer in a society is the healthcare system, then, that system has no excuse except to address its own urgent shortcomings. It's a failed system in need of immediate attention. What we have outlined in this paper are insupportable aspects of our contemporary medical system that need to be changed -- beginning at its very foundations."
A recent article in Archives of Internal Medicine [7] stated that in the seven year period from 1998 through 2005, reported serious adverse drug events increased 2.6-fold, and fatal adverse drug events increased 2.7-fold. The authors noted that reported serious events increased 4 times faster than the total number of outpatient prescriptions during the period. Another study concluded that the majority(86%) of the adverse drug reactions for which patients were admitted to a medical intensive care unit were preventable. [8]
One proposed solution to the illegal drug problem was encouraging potential users to ignore peer pressure and "just say no." Interestingly, this strategy is not being recommended for prescription drugs. Bruce Pomeranz, MD , one of the authors of the JAMA paper, said he is not warning people to stay away from drugs. "That would be a terrible message," he said. Lucian Leape, MD, of the Harvard School of Public Health said, "When you realize how many drugs we use, maybe those numbers aren't so bad after all." [4]
Does that mean that the number of deaths due to illegal drugs, suicide, HIV/AIDS, diabetes, accidents, and drunk driving "aren't so bad" either? Does it mean that we shouldn't discourage drunk driving or unsafe sex?
The folly of such double standards should be obvious to all. It is time to address the real drug problem -- the cultural notion that the first solution to seek for relief of life's problems is a drug. That's the drug culture we need to address.
References:
1. "Drug deaths." Globe & Mail (Canada). February 27, 1998.
2. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. CDC. 2007;56(05):93-96.
3. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN: "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients." JAMA 1998;279:1200.
4. Kalb C: "When drugs do harm." Newsweek. April 27, 1998. Page 61.
5. "Reaction." American Medical News. January 15, 1996. Page 11.
6. 1. Null G, Dean C, Feldman, M, Rasio, D, Smith D: "Death by Medicine." Life Extension. March, 2004. www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm
7. Moore TJ, Cohen MR, Furberg CD: Serious adverse drug events reported to the Food and Drug Administration, 1998-2005. Archives of Internal Medicine 2007;167:1752-1759.
8. Rivkin A: Admissions to a medical intensive care unit related to adverse drug reactions. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 2007;64(17):1840-1843.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Delicious snack tip of the week (****SARCASM ALERT Must read*****)
The McDonald's Chicken McNugget came out around 1983. Some estimated facts from the company are: they estimate 20% of Americans eat McNuggets during the year, to the tune of about 4.8 billion PER YEAR. McNuggets are clearly one of the top sellers, and are one of the most commonly consumed foods by children. Lets take a gander at the ingredients of a McNugget (from the McDonalds website):
Chicken McNuggets®: White boneless chicken, water, food starch-modified, salt, chicken flavor (autolyzed yeast extract, salt, wheat starch, natural flavoring (botanical source), safflower oil, dextrose, citric acid, rosemary), sodium phosphates, seasoning (canola oil, mono- and diglycerides, natural extractives of rosemary). Battered and breaded with: water, enriched flour (bleached wheat flour, niacin, reduced iron, thiamin mononitrate, riboflavin, folic acid), yellow corn flour, food starch-modified, salt, leavening (baking soda, sodium acid pyrophosphate, sodium aluminum phosphate, monocalcium phosphate, calcium lactate), spices, wheat starch, whey, corn starch. Prepared in vegetable oil ((may contain one of the following: Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, partially hydrogenated corn oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness), dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent).
Question: What the heck is dimethylpolysiloxane & for that matter TBHQ?????
Answer: (From Beth Greer)
Then there’s citric acid and Dimethylpolysiloxane (added as an anti-foaming agent). According to the Handbook of Food Additives this “is a suspected carcinogen and an established mutagen, tumorigen and reproductive effector: it’s also flammable.”
If that’s not enough, here’s the kicker: TBHQ is added to help preserve freshness. Pollan says in his book, “Perhaps the most alarming ingredient in a Chicken McNugget is tertiary butylhydroquinone, or TBHQ, an antioxidant derived from petroleum that is either sprayed directly on the nugget or the inside of the box it comes in to ‘help preserve freshness.’ According to A Consumer’s Dictionary of Food Additives, TBHQ is a form of butane (i.e. lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food.”
Wikepedia says:
Polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) is the most widely used silicon-based organic polymer, and is particularly known for its unusual rheological (or flow) properties. Its applications range from contact lenses and medical devices to elastomers, caulking, lubricating oils and heat resistant tiles.
PDMS is optically clear, and is generally considered to be inert, non-toxic and non-flammable. It has been assigned CAS number 63148-62-9, and is occasionally called dimethicone. It is one of several types of silicone oil (polymerized siloxane).
PDMS is optically clear, and is generally considered to be inert, non-toxic and non-flammable. It has been assigned CAS number 63148-62-9, and is occasionally called dimethicone. It is one of several types of silicone oil (polymerized siloxane).
Watch what you put into your mouth folks!
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Pregnant women do not tip over, and the reason has a lot to do with an evolutionary curve, researchers say
By JOHN SCHWARTZ (Seen in the New York Times)
Published: December 13, 2007
Published: December 13, 2007
Anthropologists studying the human spine have found that women’s lower vertebrae evolved in ways that reduce back pressure during pregnancy, when the mass of the abdomen grows by nearly a third and the center of mass shifts forward considerably.
Even without the benefit of advanced study in biomechanics, women tend to deal with the shift — and avoid tumbling over like a bowling pin — by leaning back. But the solution to one problem creates another, since leaning puts even more pressure on the spine and muscles.
And that, report researchers from Harvard and the University of Texas in the current issue of the journal Nature, is where evolution enters the story.
Anthropologists have long known that the lower spine in humans developed a unique forward curve to help compensate for the strains that arose when the primate ancestors began walking upright. Researchers looked for a mechanism that compensated for pregnancy’s additional burden as well.
What they found, said Katherine K. Whitcome, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard and the lead author of the paper, was evidence that evolution had produced a stronger and more flexible lower spine for women.
After studying 19 pregnant subjects, Dr. Whitcome found that the lumbar, or lower back, curve in women extends across three vertebrae, as opposed to just two in men. And the connecting points between vertebrae are relatively larger in women and shaped differently in ways that make the stack more stable and less prone to shifting or breaking.
Since the engine of evolution runs on the passage of genes from one generation to the next, pregnancy is a critical moment. Without that adaptation, Dr. Whitcome said, females would have been in considerably greater pain during pregnancy and might not have been able to forage effectively or escape predators, ending the pregnancy and the genetic line as well.
Working at the University of Texas with Dr. Liza Shapiro, an associate professor of anthropology, Dr. Whitcome found that the differences between male and female spines do not show up in chimpanzees. That suggested that the changes occurred in response to the pressures of walking upright.
When she moved on to Harvard and started working with Daniel Lieberman, an anthropologist with expertise in primate fossils, she was able to examine two sets of fossilized vertebrae. Of the two samples, she found the three-vertebra arrangement in one sample and not in the other. Separate evidence suggested that the extra-curvy spine belonged to a female and the other to a male. “It was very exciting” to have the fossilized puzzle fall into place, Dr. Whitcome said.
As solutions go, the extra flexibility is only partly successful, Professor Shapiro said, since women still commonly complain of back trouble during pregnancy. And that is the difference between the way that evolution works and the way that actual designers do their job, Dr. Whitcome said: nature tinkers. For natural selection to favor one feature over another, “It doesn’t have to be an ideal solution,” she said. “It just has to be better.”
Karen R. Rosenberg, an associate professor and chairwoman of the anthropology department at the University of Delaware, characterized Dr. Whitcome’s work as “way cool.” Dr. Rosenberg, who studies the evolution of childbirth, said the paper was the first published research that asked whether pregnancy caused evolutionary changes in the skeleton. “In hindsight,” she said, “Duh, of course it does.”
Even without the benefit of advanced study in biomechanics, women tend to deal with the shift — and avoid tumbling over like a bowling pin — by leaning back. But the solution to one problem creates another, since leaning puts even more pressure on the spine and muscles.
And that, report researchers from Harvard and the University of Texas in the current issue of the journal Nature, is where evolution enters the story.
Anthropologists have long known that the lower spine in humans developed a unique forward curve to help compensate for the strains that arose when the primate ancestors began walking upright. Researchers looked for a mechanism that compensated for pregnancy’s additional burden as well.
What they found, said Katherine K. Whitcome, a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard and the lead author of the paper, was evidence that evolution had produced a stronger and more flexible lower spine for women.
After studying 19 pregnant subjects, Dr. Whitcome found that the lumbar, or lower back, curve in women extends across three vertebrae, as opposed to just two in men. And the connecting points between vertebrae are relatively larger in women and shaped differently in ways that make the stack more stable and less prone to shifting or breaking.
Since the engine of evolution runs on the passage of genes from one generation to the next, pregnancy is a critical moment. Without that adaptation, Dr. Whitcome said, females would have been in considerably greater pain during pregnancy and might not have been able to forage effectively or escape predators, ending the pregnancy and the genetic line as well.
Working at the University of Texas with Dr. Liza Shapiro, an associate professor of anthropology, Dr. Whitcome found that the differences between male and female spines do not show up in chimpanzees. That suggested that the changes occurred in response to the pressures of walking upright.
When she moved on to Harvard and started working with Daniel Lieberman, an anthropologist with expertise in primate fossils, she was able to examine two sets of fossilized vertebrae. Of the two samples, she found the three-vertebra arrangement in one sample and not in the other. Separate evidence suggested that the extra-curvy spine belonged to a female and the other to a male. “It was very exciting” to have the fossilized puzzle fall into place, Dr. Whitcome said.
As solutions go, the extra flexibility is only partly successful, Professor Shapiro said, since women still commonly complain of back trouble during pregnancy. And that is the difference between the way that evolution works and the way that actual designers do their job, Dr. Whitcome said: nature tinkers. For natural selection to favor one feature over another, “It doesn’t have to be an ideal solution,” she said. “It just has to be better.”
Karen R. Rosenberg, an associate professor and chairwoman of the anthropology department at the University of Delaware, characterized Dr. Whitcome’s work as “way cool.” Dr. Rosenberg, who studies the evolution of childbirth, said the paper was the first published research that asked whether pregnancy caused evolutionary changes in the skeleton. “In hindsight,” she said, “Duh, of course it does.”
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
NEW STUDY: Honey is better than cough medicine for kids' coughs....
Honey works best to calm kids' coughs, study finds
Source: Reuters
By Michael Conlon
CHICAGO, Dec 3 (Reuters) - A spoonful of buckwheat honey quells a child's nighttime chest cold coughing better than the most common cough suppressant in nonprescription medicines, researchers said on Monday.
"Honey may be a preferable treatment for the cough and sleep difficulty associated with childhood upper respiratory tract infection," a team of investigators from Pennsylvania State University said.
Their study, paid for by the National Honey Board, an industry-funded U.S. Agriculture Department agency, compared honey to dextromethorphan -- or DM -- the most common cough suppressant in over-the-counter remedies.
Honey is not recommended for children under the age of one. Buckwheat honey is a dark variety that tends to have more compounds associated with honey's antioxidant properties, the researchers said. In addition, they said honey can sooth the throat and thus help control coughing.
The report said that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the American College of Chest Physician backs the use of DM for childhood cough.
In addition the substance has been implicated in drug abuse among teenagers who use cough medicine to get high.
The study, published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, comes just weeks after a government advisory panel recommended that many nonprescription cough and cold medicines in use for decades should not be given to children under 6 until their efficacy can be proven.
That move came after a group of pediatricians and public health officials petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict sales for children younger than 6 because of reports of deaths, seizures, hallucinations and other problems.
Makers have said the products are safe and effective, when given as directed, to children aged 2 and older.
The new study involved 105 youngsters age 2 to 18 who had been battling upper respiratory tract infections for seven days or less. Some were given 10 milliliters -- about one tablespoon -- of buckwheat honey 30 minutes before bedtime, others got DM and others nothing at all.
Honey was found to make the best improvements in cough control and sleep followed by DM, while doing nothing showed the least improvement.
"Parents rated honey most favorably for symptomatic relief of their children's nocturnal cough and sleep difficulty," the study concluded.
"While our findings and the absence of contemporary studies supporting the use of DM continue to question its effectiveness for the treatment of cough associated with upper respiratory tract infections, we have now provided evidence supporting honey, which is generally regarded as safe for children older than 1 year, as an alternative," the authors said. (Editing by Andrew Stern and Eric Walsh)
CHICAGO, Dec 3 (Reuters) - A spoonful of buckwheat honey quells a child's nighttime chest cold coughing better than the most common cough suppressant in nonprescription medicines, researchers said on Monday.
"Honey may be a preferable treatment for the cough and sleep difficulty associated with childhood upper respiratory tract infection," a team of investigators from Pennsylvania State University said.
Their study, paid for by the National Honey Board, an industry-funded U.S. Agriculture Department agency, compared honey to dextromethorphan -- or DM -- the most common cough suppressant in over-the-counter remedies.
Honey is not recommended for children under the age of one. Buckwheat honey is a dark variety that tends to have more compounds associated with honey's antioxidant properties, the researchers said. In addition, they said honey can sooth the throat and thus help control coughing.
The report said that neither the American Academy of Pediatrics nor the American College of Chest Physician backs the use of DM for childhood cough.
In addition the substance has been implicated in drug abuse among teenagers who use cough medicine to get high.
The study, published in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, comes just weeks after a government advisory panel recommended that many nonprescription cough and cold medicines in use for decades should not be given to children under 6 until their efficacy can be proven.
That move came after a group of pediatricians and public health officials petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to restrict sales for children younger than 6 because of reports of deaths, seizures, hallucinations and other problems.
Makers have said the products are safe and effective, when given as directed, to children aged 2 and older.
The new study involved 105 youngsters age 2 to 18 who had been battling upper respiratory tract infections for seven days or less. Some were given 10 milliliters -- about one tablespoon -- of buckwheat honey 30 minutes before bedtime, others got DM and others nothing at all.
Honey was found to make the best improvements in cough control and sleep followed by DM, while doing nothing showed the least improvement.
"Parents rated honey most favorably for symptomatic relief of their children's nocturnal cough and sleep difficulty," the study concluded.
"While our findings and the absence of contemporary studies supporting the use of DM continue to question its effectiveness for the treatment of cough associated with upper respiratory tract infections, we have now provided evidence supporting honey, which is generally regarded as safe for children older than 1 year, as an alternative," the authors said. (Editing by Andrew Stern and Eric Walsh)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
New thoughts on BRAIN FOOD....
This is an article from the Mercola.com newsletter......
Newest Thoughts on Brain Food
Fish have long been regarded as “brain food” because of their high content of omega-3 fatty acids.Historically, omega-3 fats have been said to improve brain development and maintenance. Now, two new studies in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition provide further evidence for the beneficial effects of omega-3 fats, including better performance or preservation of your brain function as you age.While numerous studies exist showing diets high in omega-3 fats lower your risk of dementia, these newer studies looked at the benefits of omega-3 fats among healthy people, with the hope that they would prevent progression to dementia. More than 5 million Americans have some form of Alzheimer’s disease, and just as many suffer from vascular dementia, so preventing and slowing the progression of neurodegenerative disorders is a public health imperative.The studies found:
A diet high in fish and fish products is associated with better cognitive performance
Higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids were associated with less decline in the speed-related cognitive domainsIt often takes decades for dementia to develop and brain volume to shrink. These studies of the benefits of omega-3 fats on brain function offer an opportunity for early intervention to maintain your brain function and slow progression to dementia.
Sources:
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 86(5), 1259-1260, November 2007
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition November 2007, 86: 1470-1478
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition November 2007, 86: 1479-1485
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Flouride in the drinking water. Is it safe?????
This is a great article from Canada.
Critics raise red flag over fluoride in tap water
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Friday's Globe and Mail
November 23, 2007 at 9:27 AM EST
Nearly a half-century after water fluoridation became widespread, a small but growing number of medical officials and environmentalists are again raising concerns over the practice.
Recent research is suggesting that fluoride may be connected to a number of serious conditions, including the development in teenage boys of osteosarcoma, the rare bone cancer that killed Canadian icon Terry Fox, reduced intelligence levels in children, and impaired thyroid function.
In Waterdown, Ont., a suburb of Hamilton, Cindy Mayor has approached her city council and asked that it stop fluoridation for the area's 500,000 residents. "Here we are, mass-medicating with a drug," she says. The activist frets that fluoridation could be one reason for the growing number of people being treated for lowered thyroid hormone levels.
She isn't alone in worrying about fluoride, placed in many municipal water supplies to make teeth more resistant to decay.
Enlarge Image
While those complaining about fluoride were often portrayed as a kooky fringe - typified by the 1964 movie classic Dr. Strangelove, in which a demented U.S. general feared fluoridation was a communist plot - fluoride criticism has recently gone mainstream.
Although the research linking the chemical with serious conditions is disputed, critics of fluoridation say that at the least it indicates a review of the practice needs to be conducted.
A review is even more pressing, in the view of critics, because scientists now believe that the main protective action from fluoride does not come from ingesting the chemical, with the teeth absorbing it from inside the body, but from direct absorption through topical application to teeth.
This means swallowing water is a far less effective way to fight cavities than brushing with fluoridated toothpaste. That may explain the steep decline in cavity rates observed in industrialized countries since the 1970s, irrespective of whether they fluoridate water. Almost all of Europe does not, and yet has seen a sharp reduction in dental caries.
"I think there is a much broader understanding that there might be some legitimate concerns with fluoride," said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, a public-interest group that has been lobbying the U.S. National Institutes of Health to provide a second opinion on fluoridation.
About 13.5 million Canadians, or about 43 per cent of the population, live in communities with fluoridated tap water, but almost no fluoridation is done in British Columbia or Quebec, according to Health Canada.
The EWG worries that the public is being overexposed to fluoride, and says water is the easiest source to eliminate.
Fluoridation is based on research from the 1940s, and Mr. Wiles contends that it wouldn't be able to pass a modern risk assessment used for drugs or pesticides.
"We took a look at the science and it was really apparent to us that the current levels of fluoride exposure were unsafe," he said.
The view on fluoride's potential downside is rejected out of hand by Health Canada, as well as the Canadian Dental Association.
"The fluoridation of drinking water supplies is a well-accepted measure to protect public health that is strongly supported by scientific evidence," Health Canada said in an e-mailed statement.
Nonetheless, the department said it is currently studying the recent scientific findings and may adjust the amount it recommends for water.
The Canadian Dental Association also endorses fluoridation. "It's among the greatest public-health measures that has ever been put in place, right up there with vaccination," said Darryl Smith, president of the association.
Dr. Smith worries that if fluoridation critics have their way, it will lead to a loss in the hard-won gains against tooth decay. Currently, about half of the children in Canada younger than 11 don't have cavities.
Although health authorities are confident fluoridation is a good idea, they haven't been very good at picking the optimum dose.
Many jurisdictions have, with little fanfare, recently cut the amount they add, to minimize chances that children will get dental fluorosis, or mottled teeth.
The cuts have been substantial enough to suggest that previous levels to which the public was exposed for more than three decades were too high. Toronto's drinking water, after several reductions, now contains half the fluoride it did before 1999, while the province of Quebec cut the recommended amount by 42 per cent in 2004.
Fluorosis, if severe, causes unsightly staining of teeth, but in mild cases the result is white streaking that many dentists consider cosmetic. During the 1990s, anywhere from 20 per cent to 75 per cent of children were afflicted in fluoridated areas.
Both Toronto and Quebec fluoridate below the level Health Canada believes is optimum: 0.8 to 1 part per million fluoride to water. Toronto is at 0.6 ppm.
Among the recent studies, the most worrisome is the possible association with childhood osteosarcoma.
The disease, the cause of which is unknown, is fatal in about one-third of cases and almost always leads to amputations.
The research indicates that fluoride exposure among boys, but not consistently among girls, during a critical period of bone growth from age 5 to 10 makes them more susceptible to the bone cancer during their teenage years.
Scientists are on the lookout for effects on bones, because they absorb half the fluoride people ingest.
A paper outlining the finding was published in 2006 in the journal Cancer Causes & Control and produced by Harvard University researchers.
Researchers found that boys aged 6 to 8 who were exposed to more fluoridated water were about four times more likely to develop the cancer than those exposed to lower levels. The researchers called their results "remarkably robust."
Although similar findings in young male rodents have been seen in laboratory experiments, other studies that investigated lifetime human exposure to the chemical did not detect any association with osteosarcoma.
The EWG's Mr. Wiles said these findings are the kinds of research clues that should cause governments to consider listing the chemical as a probable carcinogen.
In its statement, Health Canada says it wants to see whether further research confirms the cancer finding before taking action. "The findings of the study are in contradiction with the majority of current science," it said, although it said health authorities around the world "have taken seriously the suggestion that fluoridation might increase bone cancer rates."
Also worrisome are four studies in China, published in scientific literature from 1996 to 2007, that found a strong association between water with high fluoride levels and sharply reduced IQs in children.
Some parts of China have water naturally rich in fluoride and the chemical was not deliberately added, as it is in Canada.
Although the concentrations that led to the reduced intellectual functioning were far higher than found in Canada, the studies weren't designed to discover whether neurological effects occurred at the lower levels typical of the West.
Fluoride has also been found to disrupt normal thyroid hormone functions. There are concerns that fluoride exposure may be associated with hypothyroidism, a condition of lowered thyroid hormone levels. Those with the illness often experience depression, fatigue and weight gain.
Hardy Limeback, head of protective dentistry at the University of Toronto and a former advocate of fluoridation, is alarmed by these studies.
"We don't know what the health implications are of a lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water," he says.
If fluoridation is ended, it may lead to a modest increase in tooth decay, which Dr. Limeback estimates at one extra filling in every fifth child. Given the emerging data on its possible risks, he says, this would be a small price to pay.
Ms. Mayor in Waterdown isn't waiting for Health Canada to complete its study of the new research. She doesn't drink or cook with tap water, and instead buys distilled water that has had fluoride removed.
Fluoride primer
Researchers hit upon adding traces of fluoride to water after observing that people living in areas with drinking water naturally rich in the element had lower cavity rates.
Fluoridation is primarily done in Canada, the United States and Australia, but almost nowhere else in the world. Western Europe and Japan have almost no fluoridated water supplies.
Small amounts of fluoride make teeth stronger so they resist decay better. Too much fluoride causes teeth to be mottled.
A typical big city that fluoridates will spend about $1 per resident each year to add the chem- ical to drinking water supplies.
Although fluoridation has been practised for nearly half a century, it has always been controversial. Critics contend that if fluoride had to pass a modern assessment for a new drug, it would flunk.
But health authorities insist that fluoridation is a good thing and that the benefits of better oral health outweigh potential risks.
Once fluoride is added to water, it isn't easy to get out. It can't be captured through simple filtering devices. It can be removed through reverse-osmosis filters or through distilling.
Many bottled waters don't contain a lot of fluoride, but some are rich in it. Those worried about fluoride should check the labels.
Martin Mittelstaedt
*****
Fluoride facts
Fluoridation practices vary widely around the world and in Canada. Most of Europe doesn't fluoridate, and practices vary across the country. There are no national figures to show whether cavity rates differ substantially as a result of fluoridation.
SOURCE: HEALTH CANADA, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Critics raise red flag over fluoride in tap water
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
From Friday's Globe and Mail
November 23, 2007 at 9:27 AM EST
Nearly a half-century after water fluoridation became widespread, a small but growing number of medical officials and environmentalists are again raising concerns over the practice.
Recent research is suggesting that fluoride may be connected to a number of serious conditions, including the development in teenage boys of osteosarcoma, the rare bone cancer that killed Canadian icon Terry Fox, reduced intelligence levels in children, and impaired thyroid function.
In Waterdown, Ont., a suburb of Hamilton, Cindy Mayor has approached her city council and asked that it stop fluoridation for the area's 500,000 residents. "Here we are, mass-medicating with a drug," she says. The activist frets that fluoridation could be one reason for the growing number of people being treated for lowered thyroid hormone levels.
She isn't alone in worrying about fluoride, placed in many municipal water supplies to make teeth more resistant to decay.
Enlarge Image
While those complaining about fluoride were often portrayed as a kooky fringe - typified by the 1964 movie classic Dr. Strangelove, in which a demented U.S. general feared fluoridation was a communist plot - fluoride criticism has recently gone mainstream.
Although the research linking the chemical with serious conditions is disputed, critics of fluoridation say that at the least it indicates a review of the practice needs to be conducted.
A review is even more pressing, in the view of critics, because scientists now believe that the main protective action from fluoride does not come from ingesting the chemical, with the teeth absorbing it from inside the body, but from direct absorption through topical application to teeth.
This means swallowing water is a far less effective way to fight cavities than brushing with fluoridated toothpaste. That may explain the steep decline in cavity rates observed in industrialized countries since the 1970s, irrespective of whether they fluoridate water. Almost all of Europe does not, and yet has seen a sharp reduction in dental caries.
"I think there is a much broader understanding that there might be some legitimate concerns with fluoride," said Richard Wiles, executive director of the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, a public-interest group that has been lobbying the U.S. National Institutes of Health to provide a second opinion on fluoridation.
About 13.5 million Canadians, or about 43 per cent of the population, live in communities with fluoridated tap water, but almost no fluoridation is done in British Columbia or Quebec, according to Health Canada.
The EWG worries that the public is being overexposed to fluoride, and says water is the easiest source to eliminate.
Fluoridation is based on research from the 1940s, and Mr. Wiles contends that it wouldn't be able to pass a modern risk assessment used for drugs or pesticides.
"We took a look at the science and it was really apparent to us that the current levels of fluoride exposure were unsafe," he said.
The view on fluoride's potential downside is rejected out of hand by Health Canada, as well as the Canadian Dental Association.
"The fluoridation of drinking water supplies is a well-accepted measure to protect public health that is strongly supported by scientific evidence," Health Canada said in an e-mailed statement.
Nonetheless, the department said it is currently studying the recent scientific findings and may adjust the amount it recommends for water.
The Canadian Dental Association also endorses fluoridation. "It's among the greatest public-health measures that has ever been put in place, right up there with vaccination," said Darryl Smith, president of the association.
Dr. Smith worries that if fluoridation critics have their way, it will lead to a loss in the hard-won gains against tooth decay. Currently, about half of the children in Canada younger than 11 don't have cavities.
Although health authorities are confident fluoridation is a good idea, they haven't been very good at picking the optimum dose.
Many jurisdictions have, with little fanfare, recently cut the amount they add, to minimize chances that children will get dental fluorosis, or mottled teeth.
The cuts have been substantial enough to suggest that previous levels to which the public was exposed for more than three decades were too high. Toronto's drinking water, after several reductions, now contains half the fluoride it did before 1999, while the province of Quebec cut the recommended amount by 42 per cent in 2004.
Fluorosis, if severe, causes unsightly staining of teeth, but in mild cases the result is white streaking that many dentists consider cosmetic. During the 1990s, anywhere from 20 per cent to 75 per cent of children were afflicted in fluoridated areas.
Both Toronto and Quebec fluoridate below the level Health Canada believes is optimum: 0.8 to 1 part per million fluoride to water. Toronto is at 0.6 ppm.
Among the recent studies, the most worrisome is the possible association with childhood osteosarcoma.
The disease, the cause of which is unknown, is fatal in about one-third of cases and almost always leads to amputations.
The research indicates that fluoride exposure among boys, but not consistently among girls, during a critical period of bone growth from age 5 to 10 makes them more susceptible to the bone cancer during their teenage years.
Scientists are on the lookout for effects on bones, because they absorb half the fluoride people ingest.
A paper outlining the finding was published in 2006 in the journal Cancer Causes & Control and produced by Harvard University researchers.
Researchers found that boys aged 6 to 8 who were exposed to more fluoridated water were about four times more likely to develop the cancer than those exposed to lower levels. The researchers called their results "remarkably robust."
Although similar findings in young male rodents have been seen in laboratory experiments, other studies that investigated lifetime human exposure to the chemical did not detect any association with osteosarcoma.
The EWG's Mr. Wiles said these findings are the kinds of research clues that should cause governments to consider listing the chemical as a probable carcinogen.
In its statement, Health Canada says it wants to see whether further research confirms the cancer finding before taking action. "The findings of the study are in contradiction with the majority of current science," it said, although it said health authorities around the world "have taken seriously the suggestion that fluoridation might increase bone cancer rates."
Also worrisome are four studies in China, published in scientific literature from 1996 to 2007, that found a strong association between water with high fluoride levels and sharply reduced IQs in children.
Some parts of China have water naturally rich in fluoride and the chemical was not deliberately added, as it is in Canada.
Although the concentrations that led to the reduced intellectual functioning were far higher than found in Canada, the studies weren't designed to discover whether neurological effects occurred at the lower levels typical of the West.
Fluoride has also been found to disrupt normal thyroid hormone functions. There are concerns that fluoride exposure may be associated with hypothyroidism, a condition of lowered thyroid hormone levels. Those with the illness often experience depression, fatigue and weight gain.
Hardy Limeback, head of protective dentistry at the University of Toronto and a former advocate of fluoridation, is alarmed by these studies.
"We don't know what the health implications are of a lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water," he says.
If fluoridation is ended, it may lead to a modest increase in tooth decay, which Dr. Limeback estimates at one extra filling in every fifth child. Given the emerging data on its possible risks, he says, this would be a small price to pay.
Ms. Mayor in Waterdown isn't waiting for Health Canada to complete its study of the new research. She doesn't drink or cook with tap water, and instead buys distilled water that has had fluoride removed.
Fluoride primer
Researchers hit upon adding traces of fluoride to water after observing that people living in areas with drinking water naturally rich in the element had lower cavity rates.
Fluoridation is primarily done in Canada, the United States and Australia, but almost nowhere else in the world. Western Europe and Japan have almost no fluoridated water supplies.
Small amounts of fluoride make teeth stronger so they resist decay better. Too much fluoride causes teeth to be mottled.
A typical big city that fluoridates will spend about $1 per resident each year to add the chem- ical to drinking water supplies.
Although fluoridation has been practised for nearly half a century, it has always been controversial. Critics contend that if fluoride had to pass a modern assessment for a new drug, it would flunk.
But health authorities insist that fluoridation is a good thing and that the benefits of better oral health outweigh potential risks.
Once fluoride is added to water, it isn't easy to get out. It can't be captured through simple filtering devices. It can be removed through reverse-osmosis filters or through distilling.
Many bottled waters don't contain a lot of fluoride, but some are rich in it. Those worried about fluoride should check the labels.
Martin Mittelstaedt
*****
Fluoride facts
Fluoridation practices vary widely around the world and in Canada. Most of Europe doesn't fluoridate, and practices vary across the country. There are no national figures to show whether cavity rates differ substantially as a result of fluoridation.
SOURCE: HEALTH CANADA, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
