Disseminating
peer-reviewed
science on the
safety and
efficacy of
fluoridation



SPECIAL MANILA ELECTION 2008 SECTION





2/8/08: Manila Voters Resoundingly Reject Water Fluoridation



Several members of the No on Measure B Committee -- the advisory vote on whether to add fluoride to the water in Manila -- gathered at the community center Thursday to urge Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District to heed the results.

The vote -- with absentee and provisional ballots still out -- was 164 against the measure and 60 in support.

”It was a true landslide,” committee member Colleen Clifford said. “We hope that the board members of the Manila Community Services District as well as the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District will respect Manila's rejection of fluoridation of our water.”

Read the entire Times-Standard Article


View the Official Manila Ballot Measure



NEW: A Comprehensive Analysis of the Manila Ballot Measure
( with citations to peer-reviewed scientific literature and commentary from Humboldt FREE scientists )
View the Expanded Manila Ballot Arguments





Responding to the Claims of the Pro-Fluoride Manila Campaigners


1)
Claim 1: Consumer Reports says: "The simple truth is there is 'no scientific controversy' over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial."

The truth: That quote is from a 1978 Consumer Reports article. In 1990, Dr. Edward Groth III, the technical director for Consumer Reports, recanted that position stating: "The point is that this is a legitimate scientific controversy. Proponents of fluoridation insist that there are no grounds for controversy at all, and with that, I totally disagree." Then in 2000, Consumer Reports wrote a letter to Michael Easley, an active pro-fluoride campaigner. The letter stated: "We have asked you numerous times to cease and desist using any reference to Consumers Union and Consumer Reports and our 1978 article on fluoridation. As you are well aware, that is now 22 years old. I would hardly call that current. Given the new research ... we cannot state that we continue to stand behind that determination of 22 years ago."

2)
 Claim 2: "[Fluoridation] is the safest and most economical way to provide cavity-fighting benefits for all people. Every dollar spent on fluoridation saves $38-120 in dental care."

The truth: Many studies have attempted to assess the potential cost savings from fluoridation with regard to dental care. Perhaps the most comprehensive evaluation of potential cost savings can be found in a meta-analysis known as the "York Review," a summary of which was published in the British Medical Journal in 2000. The chairman of the advisory group for the review stated: "the review could come to no conclusions as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation" ( View the Letter ) If there really was such a dramatic cost savings from fluoridation, one would have expected the comprehensive "York Review" to have identified it.

In any case, none of the published studies concerning potential cost savings have attempted to factor in the cost of treating dental fluorosis, much less any of the other potential costs of treating the effects of fluoride on the brain, thyroid, bones, or other tissues. However, limiting the analysis to the consideration of dental fluorosis alone (since the treatment costs and incidence rates are well documented and accepted by both pro and anti-fluoridationists) it is difficult to see a significant cost savings.

A cursory cost analysis was performed by Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto. He considered only the direct costs of fluoridation and the costs of treating dental fluorosis, and then he balanced those costs against the potential savings from reduced dental decay treatment costs. Dr. Limeback determined that for a city with a population of 30,000 people, over the course of 20 years, $2.3 - $4.5 million would be spent on the direct costs of fluoridation plus the costs of treating dental fluorosis, and the cost savings from reduced dental treatment would be approximately $2 million. ( View the Complete Analysis ) Although his analysis was crude, it does suggest that the assertions of the pro-fluoride Manila campaigners are wildly off base.

Suggesting that fluoridation is the safest means of providing cavity-fighting benefits is also problematic. For example, it is quite clear that brushing the teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, which allows one to spit out the fluoride, is much safer than drinking fluoride. Even better, clinical trials of xylitol chewing gum have produced impressive results. As described in the Journal of the California Dental Association (March, 2003), "A field trial of the use of xylitol-containing candies among 10-year-old schoolchildren in Estonia showed a 33 percent to 59 percent caries reduction in the groups using the candies and a 53.5 percent caries reduction in the group using the gum relative to the control group." ( View the Full Article )












Back    Top