A new report Bind bond fluorinated drinking water to reduce IQ scores in children The greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
The report published Monday in Jama Pediatrics synthesizes the results of dozens of research published since 1989. His global conclusion is that the more a child is exposed to fluorine, the more he tends to mark on intelligence tests.
The analysis was carried out for the National Program of American toxicologyAnd that has aroused a lot of criticism during the many years of its development. Among the greatest criticisms, it is based on the data in the premises where fluorine levels are much higher than the concentration recommended by the US public health service.
The addition of fluoride to community drinking water is credited to have reduced the average number of teeth with 44% cavities in adults and 58% in adolescents since the 1960s, The health service says. However, even with the proliferation of toothpaste containing fluorine and dental seals, dental caries is always the most common chronic disease affecting American children, and the average elderly person is missing At least 10 permanent teeth.
About 209 million Americans Receive fluorinated water in their taps, according to the centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president elected Donald Trump take To direct the Ministry of Health and Social Services, said he would like to see this issue zeropartly due to concerns concerning “Loss of Qi.”
The Jama pediatrics report is based on work prepared for the national toxicology program 324 pages monograph On the development of fluorine and brain, which was finalized in August. Here is an overview of what it does – and does not show it -.
Where does the data come from?
The report combines data from 74 studies on exposure to fluoride and children for children. Most of them – 45 – was carried out in China, and 12 others came from India. None came from the United States, although three came from Canada and four came from Mexico.
Ten of the studies were designed for Follow groups of people over time To see how their different levels of fluoride exposure affected IQ scores and other results. The rest of the studies evaluated the exposure to the fluoride of a population and qi at the same time.
IQ scores were generally reported on average of a group, although they sometimes reflected the specific level of exposure to the fluorine of an individual.
How much fluorors are we talking about?
Exposure to fluoride has been measured several ways.
Sometimes the researchers measured the amount of fluorine in the drinking water of a community, and sometimes they measured the amount of fluoride in the urine of the participants. Dental fluorosis – A condition that occurs when the teeth get too much fluoride and seem to be colored – has also been used to assess the exposure. Were therefore environmental factors, such as exposure to Pollution from burning coal with a high fluorine content.
Studies have been grouped into three categories: those in which exposure was less than 4 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water (the maximum concentration authorized in the United States by the environmental protection agency); Those in which exposure was less than 2 mg / l (EPA not enforceable secondary standard to prevent cosmetic problems in places where fluoride levels are naturally high); and those in which exposure was less than 1.5 mg / l (the Indicative value fixed by the World Health Organization).
So what is the link with IQ?
Of the 65 studies included in the primary analysis, 64 revealed that an opposite relationship between exposure to fluorine and the IQ of children – higher (or lower) fluoride was, the lower (or higher) Qi scores were.
The researchers have also grouped data on nearly 21,000 children from 59 studies that have reported medium IQ scores. These data have shown that children exposed at higher fluoride levels had lower IQ scores than children exposed to lower fluoride levels.
In addition, the authors of the report combined the data from 38 studies and criticized the numbers themselves to see if there was a global dose-answer relationship between fluorine and Qi. Indeed, they wrote: “IQ scores of lower children were associated with increasing levels of fluorine exposure.”
It sounds bad. Do I have to worry?
Not necessarily. The results are Only as strong As data, they are based and studies of this analysis have some problems.
To begin with, 52 of the 74 studies were judged by the authors of the report as having a “high risk of bias”. This undermines the validity and reliability of their results.
Another problem is that most studies have examined fluoride exhibitions well above the target level for the United States since 2015, the public health service struck the “Optimal” fluoride concentration at 0.7 mg / l, the equivalent About 3 drops of fluoride in a barrel of 55 gallons. (Before that, the target varied from 0.7 to 1.2 mg / L.)
Only seven of the studies evaluated children whose water contained less than 1.5 mg / l of fluoride. When they were considered by themselves, there was no relationship between exposure to fluoride and IQ.
Besides, the American Academy of Pediatrics noted This IQ assessment in children is not a simple matter, as measures can be biased by “socio -economic, physical, family, cultural, genetic, nutritional and environmental factors”. Comparison of IQ scores from several studies in several countries as if they were the same that worsens the problem, said the Academy.
Hmmm. What should I know about this report?
A lot. In fact, Jama Pediatrics published an editorial by Dr Steven M. LevyA dental health expert at Iowa University, to list the reasons why the report should not be taken at its nominal value.
Take the question of the bias. Of the 59 studies which included the heart of the analysis, only 12 had a low risk of bias, and eight of them found no opposite link between fluorine and Qi, wrote Levy.
Then there is the use of urine to measure exposure to fluoride. The authors of the report presented this as a more precise means of measuring the exposure of an individual to fluoride of all sources, not just drinking water. But this reasoning is contrary to “scientific consensus”, wrote Levy. Urinary fluoride measures vary considerably during a day and from one day to the next, therefore There is no way to know If a particular sample indicates long -term exposure of a person.
Levy has also reprimanded the authors of the report for the selection of studies of the studies they have included in their analysis. For example, given the choice of two data based on data from the Study of research on Canadian maternal children on the study of environmental chemicalsThe authors of the report opted against the one who included exposure to fluoride after birth. The publication they omitted No link between “exposure to fluoride during pregnancy, early childhood or childhood and IQ on a large scale,” he wrote.
Other high-quality recent studies showing that no association have also been short, he also added.
Is that all?
There are other criticisms on methodology and statistical analysis. But one of Levy's greatest complaints about the report is the “lack of transparency” about his background.
The authors have minimized the connection to the controversial monograph they produced for the national toxicology program, Levy wrote. The first two sketches of this monograph have received hard examinations by the peers of the National academies of science, engineering and medicine. The initial version was lacking in clear evidence to support the assertion of the authors that “fluoride is presumed to be a risk of cognitive cognitive developmental”, and the second that it was not equipped to shed light on the risks posed by the low concentration of fluorine in American water systems, said the Revisers of Nasem.
Nei, Levy wrote, the new report does not mention that animal studies using fluorine levels which reflect the American standard of 0.7 mg / L have found “no differences related to exposure in motor, sensory or learning and memory performance” in nearly a dozen tests, as Researchers reported in 2018.
How can I know if the fluorine is added to my water?
The authorities of the State and the premises decide by themselves the fluoridation of the water supply. In some places, the water is naturally high in fluorine, because it is largely found in the ground and the foundation. If the concentration is greater than 2.0 mg / L, the EPA forces those responsible to inform people who drink this water within 12 months. If the concentration exceeds 4.0 mg / l, officials must inform people within 30 days and take measures to reduce fluoride at safe levels.
Almost 63% of Americans receive fluorinated water, including 3.5% whose fluorine levels exceed optimal levels, According to the CDC. If you want to see if your water system adds fluorine, try Look at it on the CDC website. (Depending on where you live, you may need to contact your water supplier directly.)
If you live in the County of Los Angeles, you can use This card To see if you are among the 62% receiving “optimal fluorine” water, the 5% whose water is “widely fluorinated”, the 22% whose water is “partially fluorinated”, or the 11% whose water is not fluoridated.
This does not mean that water is fluoride: according to the Los Angeles water and energy department, the city's groundwater contains fluoride to concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 mg / l and fluorine levels in the water provided by the Los Angeles aqueduct between 0.4 and 0.8 mg / L. All the water delivered by the DWP is adjusted to a concentration of fluoride of 0.7 mg / l, The agency says.
So what is the net profit?
The authors of the report acknowledged that their analysis “was not designed to deal with the broader public health implications for water fluoridation in the United States”. Even so, they suggested that their results “could shed light on future evaluations of fluoride public health risks”.
A second editorial This supports the report indicating that it raises enough questions to justify a reassessment of “potential risks of fluoride during the development of the early brain”. The absence of a clear link between IQ scores and exposure to fluoride less than 1.5 mg / L “does not exempt fluoride as a potential risk”, argued the editorial.
Levy did not agree. “There is no evidence of an adverse effect at the levels of fluoride of lower water commonly used” in water systems in the United States, “he wrote. “The widespread use of fluoride for prevention (of the cavity) should continue.”
