This episode is from the WNYC archives. It may contain language which is no longer politically or socially appropriate.
Hosted by Martin Birmingham.
Dr. London and Dr. Wolf, who are opposed to fluoridation, answer questions about fluoridation of water.
Panelists: Sue MacMahon, Bob Krauss, and Barry Ruben.
Not enough research has been done on the topic yet. Fluoride should be given in pill form so that people can have full control. Calcium fluoride is less toxic. Cases where removal of fluoridated water eliminated some diseases.
Audio courtesy of the NYC Municipal Archives WNYC Collection
WNYC archives id: 71984
Municipal archives id: LT6610
This is a machine-generated transcript. Text is unformatted and may contain errors.
Dr London happened previous test the fluoridated water proving beneficial Dr work do you feel if there had been insufficient study a clear day from two largest introduction to The New York City water supply Dr London how much would the fluoridation of water cost the taxpayer for the answer to these and other questions listen now to campus press conference or transcribed program in which college editors interview a prominent personalities in the news now to introduce today's panel and their guests here is Martin Birmingham substituting for your regular moderator Gabriel Pressman good morning a couple of weeks ago on this program we had Dr William Frankel present a case for Florida a New York city's water supply because of the unusual interest in that problem today we have with us both a medical doctor and a dentist who are opposed to fluoridation Dr Alan London is president of the New Jersey section of the American Academy of Dental Medicine and president of the Board of Health of point in New Jersey don't want to OK Also with us is Dr William Wolfe clinical professor at New York University Staffel school your energy of Dr London and Dr Wolfe are college editors so McMahon from Hunter Bob Cross from New York University and Barry Roman from Brooklyn College press questions from so McMahon Dr London if you feel there's been insufficient study of Florida action toward its introduction of the New York City water supply I most certainly do well and Dr how do you account for the statement of the director of the den of dental health for New York state that no other public health measure has been test airily studied and tested before it was introduced there is sufficient evidence to prove that this is a fallacy that there are many on answered questions regarding the safety of the program also the validity of these of these statistics being used to prove reduction in D.K.A. is questioned. Baccarat Dr are you and your the rather serious statement that you've made are it would seem unusual but almost well known certainly large majority the medical profession has come to come out in favor of coordinating water supplies how do you account for this the statistics on their own carries have been examined and they've been the found to be unreliable and misleading and as an example the Grand Rapids or unless Kagan reports upon which the advocates of lean most heavily were submitted to statistical experts for study and the resulting authentic statistical critique invalidating this report has been published in the study or a nine hundred fifty four a few of the Hudson County dental Society bulletin this today has never been refuted Incidentally the study of Muskegon was lost as a control because the advocates claim the inhabitants there insisted that their water be fluoridated and to my mind it is a strange procedure for a controlled city to be lost in so important experiments on one doctor what would you say then that the matter the dental professionals been taken in by these claims of the odd kids of ordaining water supplies I have actually written and article which was published in The New Jersey State devil Society journal in which I raise the question has the dental profession been misled in the dedication of communal. Fluoridation of communal water supply and from that article it is pretty evident that that is what I mean well Dr I notice that fluoridation has been recognized by the American Medical Association the American Dental Association the National Research Council and the United States Public Health Service do you feel that the organizations are irresponsible in recommending clarity. I do not beyond that they are a responsible organization but I do feel that they have not evaluated this properly now. I'll give you an illustration as to how little study and how much parenting and Doris meant has been done on this fluoridation the parenting of opinions by organisations which have done no research of their own on Florida that water is very well illustrated in a letter from the American Medical Association which reads as follows We have taken the liberty to refer your letter concerning the effect of universal fluoridation water supplies on those individuals who have malfunctioning kidneys to the American Dental Association this organization has published many articles on fluoridation and we believe that they would be in a better position to answer your inquiry then we are also in the statement of the American Medical Association which many people have been Eroni sleeve led to believe is an endorsement it is far from being an endorsement it is so qualified that it's not applied to this being it's an endorsement that states that wherever communities fluoridate they should not eat products or that they should not use products which are naturally high in fluorine such as bone meal. And it seems to me that this is not sound medicine when they will take and advise you not to have a recognized nutritious item as bone meal and substitute for it instead a toxic agent such as sodium chloride Well Dr. Hasn't there been a recent evaluation by a committee of the St Louis medical and Medical Association where they found that the third day she had been introduced and there was no unusual guess rate rise from two general to generate an event cancer this went on they said we're going to take America. I was speaking just now about cancer and regenerate and. Well as far as you speaking mostly about. The morbidity or the vital statistics as far as morbidity is concerned that's been not studied it has been an objective really pointed towards morbidity So you would say then that this Medical Association is set low is not objective and I would say that they have not properly evaluated it and that there are many fallacies in their statements. Dr world what are the means available to the public which are really beneficial and as inexpensive as for the agent would you suggest in its place the problem. Then towards the K.. As a gauge presented here would seem to resolve itself that fluoridation is there one where dental decay is reduced most dentists. Who have studied the problem. Have clearly shown that they really best way every Goshen dental decay is to teach people how to eat properly and how to brush their teeth however if one wants to experiment with flurried they shouldn't. This can be given very easily a fluoride can be given very easily in tablet form and drop in milk in various food products and then one could have total control first of raw. About how much they individual take per day and secondly one could increase or decrease the amount that the patient would take in at will otherwise one could give more tablets or more drops or more milk or more cereals containing fluoride and at times when they should be less flouride given this could be easily reduced such a procedure is entirely impossible when all that water is Florrie dated and this is one of the main objections today for the relation program namely that no one could possibly escape the floor and intake once it is in the water supply in other words persons who are on doing the same today to flourish and such as for example people wish kin diseases people with a low calcium in their system people with that kidney troubles people that have diabetes and drink a great deal of water all of those people are extremely sensitive to florin and an amount which would be almost non toxic to a normal person will be extremely toxic to such a person and in a program of communal water for the organization control is entirely impossible. Well doctor Dr Walsh there are many areas in the country which have corn and the water naturally would surely see the recommended amount which I believe is one part per million. Has it has been shown that there are higher incidence some of these ailments that you just pointed up yes that has been shown first of all that people in areas where fluid where water is naturally where the water naturally contains flirting and high percentage and high concentration have a considerable amount of modeling they have an increased amount of kidney every patient but what is even much more important they have a great many conditions which ordinary clinical examinations will not show because the changes are so subtle and so small and so long in developing just like for example cancer is very slow in developing a person may have the initial evidence and initial. Activity of cancer going on for twenty years and it will not be evidence. The same is true with people having forgotten in their system they will be intoxicated without this showing clinically and therefore since the program thirty day sion of artificial thirty day Sion is only a short time only ten years this has not been to discover it now in pig in places where they have any Naturally it is in an entirely different form it is usually there as a calcium for dog and calcium for Ed has been shown in experiments to be very very much less toxic to the same tradition. Then that in sodium fluoride I showed him silica for the raid which is being used Well Dr you said you were referring to areas in which margin amounts of flooring are present in the water now would you consider one one part million for a large amount yes it is so large it must be large enough to produce dental then the structural changes if it doesn't produce dental structural changes it would have no effect so therefore it would be no point in putting it in that must be a sufficient to get high concentration which in this case would be one in a million which that's produced toxic effects and then there's a toxic effect that is one of the early ones I would like to to Dr Well Dr world statement that is it is recognized by the advocates. Least they say that one part of the million is state one part one point five parts per million borders on danger and two parts per million is dangerous does damage now you have to remember that they have. Reduced the amount of chlorine in the water in the areas where it is. Where the climate is warmer. Dude of the fact that people will drink more water therefore they will get a higher dose that in itself shows that those cannot be controlled in as much as that those depends upon how much you drink there are any number of people who will drink three four five or even ten times as much as another individual doctor London do you feel that fluoridation of public drinking water is socialized medicine but I feel that a patient an individual has the right to decide for himself whether or not he should take a medication which for a non contagious disease which he can can control himself and could be controlled by a patient doctor relationship. We had just comment on this and say that. When you speak of social but socialized medicine there are certain features in medical practitioners which properly belong to a show Sure go through legislation and social handling such as for example infectious diseases and food. Protection and things of that nature however when it comes to a problem simple as dental decay which is a purely individual problem which cannot be transmitted from one person to another day and doesn't even lay person nap but simply age an inconvenience it doesn't seem to be a show short problem altogether Dr London you said a moment ago before you go into the question I would like to add one more word and that is that an absence of fluorine in the water is not harmful to an individual or soul it's. An absence of chlorine in the water is by no means any cause of dental decay. Dr but to get back to the statement you made a minute ago that you thought it should be up to the individual to choose what drinking water would you take that stand also chlorine and drinking water that is an altogether different problem where you have two factors here one with chlorine one with chlorine with chlorine chlorine water that makes the water safe for human consumption otherwise there would be contagion whereas with chlorine chlorine treats human beings not only that with chlorine in the water and the chlorine that it's still in there is a gas has evaporated and if anything any of it is converted is converted to a harmless sort of salt sodium chloride which. Will not hurt anyone it is not cumulative and it's not toxic fluorine that's put in as a salt and if you boil the water the concentration is increased and it becomes more dangerous Dr you mentioned before that calcium was not dangerous and it was helpful more helpful than the other that was used what is to prevent the program from using calcium. What I said is that calcium fluoride is much less toxic. The proportion is about one eighty first a toxic gas fire is a leap of faith although she's concerned now to put in calcium for the right to use calcium chloride it would be your question whether whether it wouldn't be desirable to use calcium chloride that if you did you would have to put in so much as to be equivalent to one part of sodium floor at a million I don't why they wouldn't have the effect on their teeth that you wanted to that you wanted to accompany so therefore you would gain nothing by and get they. Naturally flirty they did what do you also have a great many other metallic ions such as magnesium and demand in the conference at it which all reduce the toxicity of the fluid or entire and itself I'm glad you brought that point out Dr Walker about reducing the toxicity of the fluoride ion it so it must be remembered that in order to get the fluoride ions into the water the flow right on first must be broken out of the soil and as that is broken out of the soil other mineral ions are broken out of the so also there therefore you will have a hike concomitant amount of the minerals in the water along with the flooring that in itself may modify it toxicity there's only one study that we know of that has very few men will then and that's Colorado Springs and there you have a very high rate of model you know a doctor in the places where they have already used artificial fluoridation have there been any serious harmful effects to the people now now in November get it it is admitted that modeling is occurring. But it is stated that no disfiguring modeling is occurring it's also known that this figure in modeling increases with time there has not been enough time you left to show how much disfiguring will take place. May I comment on day three doctors. Only recently I have seen three cases of floating poisoning in people who were brought to me for an entirely different condition in other words. Many physicians in fact most physicians do not recognize floating poisoning when they see because it is a new and very difficult for a recognized condition for example to cases that I've seen one of them was simply a mench girl difficulty I met this sort of thing isn't very frequently associated or in the mind of the position with flurried and another one