This page is for comments, questions and responses from researchers, parents, and other readers
Please include a title that reflects the specific chemical brain drain issue
This page is for comments, questions and responses from researchers, parents, and other readers
Please include a title that reflects the specific chemical brain drain issue
Moderation may result in slight delays
Follow the new insights via Facebook at Chemical Brain Drain
Join the conversation on Twitter with #ChemicalBrainDrain
E-book versions are also available both for Kindle and Nook.
"Only One Chance shaves off layer after layer of ignorance, naiveté, and corruption as it exposes the hidden dangers from industrial chemicals. Grandjean's book reads like a thriller and gives us a unique chance to decide that the next generation's brains must be protected against toxic brain drainers." - Devra Lee Davis, PhD, author of The Secret History of the War on Cancer and National Book Award finalist.
See scientific journal reviews here and here.
A Danish version now available from Gyldendal: publisher page. E-book and audio versions are also available in Danish.
A French translation ("Cerveaux en danger") was published by Buchet/Chastel in February, 2016. A Kindle version is also available.
In a review for Le Monde, Hervé Morin writes: "La démonstration de Philippe Grandjean est implacable et désespérante... son exposé invite à l’indignation... il est plus que temps de protéger le cerveau des enfants." In Cerveaux & Psycho, André Picot concludes: “Dans cet ouvrage passionnant, Philippe Grandjean delivre un message clair: il est urgent d’agir, sans quoi le prix à payer pour les générations futures risqué d’être lourd. Merci à lui de nous informer si précisément, son témoignage nous est essentiel.”
I heard the interesting presentation yesterday (November 3th) by Philippe Grandjean at SDU, and asked him afterwards if the 214 brain damaging compounds can damage adult brains as well. The answer was that they possibly do, but there are no research showing how much. Then I noticed that the test used to selected the 214 compounds was a rather simple brain growth test. Afterwards I was looking for the another well known brain affecting compound Benomyl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benomyl) which causes Parkinson’s – but it was not found in the list of 214 compounds. Am I right – and if why is this not in the list?
Thank you for the comment. The current list of 214 neurotoxic compounds that likely endanger brain development is based on published reports on human exposure cases where neurological symptoms indicate that the substance can pass into the human brain and negatively affect brain cells. Benomyl is not (yet) on the list, as we are not aware of case reports or other evidence that shows neurotoxicity in Benomyl-exposed humans. However, Benomyl is among the >1000 substances that are known to be neurotoxic in animal models.
A few days back an article was published in the US stating that the Food and Drug Administration indeed had restrictions on the use of mercury fillings ready for publication in 2011 but this was stopped by forces outside of the FDA:
” The proposal, approved by top FDA officials in late 2011 and kept secret since, would have told dentists they should not use mercury fillings in cavities in pregnant women, nursing moms, children under 6 and people with mercury allergies, kidney diseases or neurological problems.”
A few hours ago the American Dental Association responded, https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article28446745.html
Fluorosilicic acid breaks down after dilution around 240,000 times into fluoride ion, silicic acid, and other ingredients. Silicic acid is an excellent lead solvent. There is lead in most homes. The brass in water faucets is around 8% (except in California). Many homes have copper plumbing welded together with copper lead solder. Many homes, especially older ones, have lead service lines out to the street. Lead leaching of plumbing is a big problem. See: http://www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/Lead. See also http://www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/what-is-in-it for an analysis of the contaminants added through water fluoridation. Oh, and by the way, fluoridation is illegal. See http://www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/illegal.
The FDA has decided not to make any major changes to its recommendations regarding dental mercury fillings, http://www.orthodonticproductsonline.com/2015/01/fda-updates-dental-amalgam-consumer-advisory/
This is the response from International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, IAOMT,
NEW! A STORY OF HEALTH – A MULTIMEDIA eBOOK
RELEASE: Jan 22 2015
When people get sick or develop a disability, they often ask their health care providers how or why this happened. The answer might be clear and obvious but many times it’s more complicated.
A Story of Health is a multimedia eBook that explores these questions and delves into how our environments interact with our genes to influence health across the lifespan. We tell A Story of Health through the lives of fictional characters and their families – Brett, a young boy with asthma; Amelia, a teenager with developmental disabilities; and toddler Stephen, recently diagnosed with leukemia. Each fictional case features the latest scientific research about disease origin and helpful facts about disease prevention.
“Although our characters are fictional, the risk factors they face are real,” says Mark Miller MD, MPH, co-author and director of the University of California, San Francisco, Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit. “Our eBook brings stories of health to life through an interactive format that we believe will engage a wide range of audiences.”
Colorful illustrations, graphics and videos enhance each page. Links to a wide range of additional resources and hundreds of scientific papers enrich each story with information you can use today to promote health and prevent disease. A Story of Health is useful to readers ranging from health professionals to health advocates, from policymakers to those in the health and science media.
The eBook offers FREE continuing education credits through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). A Story of Health was developed by ATSDR, the Collaborative on Health and the Environment (CHE), the University of California, San Francisco, Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Unit (UCSF PEHSU), the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California EPA (OEHHA), and the Science and Environmental Health Network (SEHN).
Access and download A Story of Health eBook – http://coeh.berkeley.edu/ucpehsu/soh.html.
Go to the Collaborative on Health and the Environment to join/listen to a January 22 teleconference on “Stephen’s Story” featured in A Story of Health – http://healthandenvironment.org/partnership_calls/16163.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Maria Valenti, Collaborative on Health and the Environment – firstname.lastname@example.org
Brian Tencza – Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry – email@example.com
Let me just point out that a new paper on mercury/dental amalgam and neurobehavioral effects in genetically susceptible children has just been published ahead of print.
Woods et al strengthens the evidence of a substantial genetically susceptible subpopulation,
“Child law”, my book on the deficiencies of present domestic and international laws regarding children, has now been published by Springer. The immense importance of the research in “Only one chance” and the additional evidence present in the “comments” at this web site, needs to be echoed in radical changes in the present laws, including international human rights laws.
In 2006 UNICEF reported that children were both ignored and “invisible” in public policy. My book expands on that report, as well as the 2012 EDCs WHO Report, as it shows that no present law takes prebirth exposure in consideration. The difficulties for accepting the implications of your findings are immense. But the results of NOT accepting those implications are even greater: the voices of science and of common sense are ignored and stifled, and business continues as usual.
As you can tell from earlier postings I have been interested in CNS-affecting and other chemicals used in dentistry. It has been surprising to find the scarcity of information on ingredients in dental materials used daily all over the world. We know more about ingredients in cosmetics than in dental materials.
In the field of dentistry it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to disclose ingredients he think might be of importance to the dentist or the patient. The only mandatory legal regulation to my knowledge is that the manufacturer must provide a Materials Safety Data Sheet or MSDS. This is mandatory for any chemical product and lists ingredients that might be hazardous during transport, handling or in the case of fire. It does in no way take into account that the product is intended for use inside the body.
Most manufacturers provide an MSDS and nothing else. The result is that a majority of the ingredients are not disclosed. The database DMN (only in Swedish, Norwegian and Finnish unfortunately) said to provide information on ingredients of dental materials is a prime example on this lack of information, http://www.dmn.odont.umu.se/
This might serve as an example, http://www.dmn.odont.umu.se/default.aspx?id=4709#
Faced with the pressure to phase down the use of dental amalgam the Council of European Dentists, CED, has made the following statement also giving evidence of the fact that dental products of unknown content are marketed within the EU:
“3. The profession urges manufacturers to fully declare the chemical composition of the alternative materials;”
“6. In the best interest of the patient, dental professionals should consider not choosing to use a material where the manufacturer has not made a full qualitative declaration of its chemical composition.”
Back in 1990 I wrote a report on endodontic materials and medications (in Swedish unfortunately) finding a number of questionable ingredients including arsenic, cadmium, creosote of wood tar, phenol, lead oxide, chloroform and much more. I was told by the Swedish dental establishment at the time that many of these were no longer used even if they could still be present in individual patients. This was not true seen from a European perspective. Some of these dental materials and medications are still on the European market to this day. 24 years after my report the European Medicines Agency has recently acted on arsenic containing products used in dentistry,
The disclosure of the content of dental products must in my opinion be made mandatory as a first step towards removing unsuitable products from the market. Unfortunately the dental community has not been able to do that on their own as the example above shows.
My complaint about dental amalgam in the Cochrane paper mentioned in my previous posting was proceeded by some observations that made me write an open letter. It was addressed to the FDI World Dental Federation, the Council of European Dentists, CED, the International Association for Dental Research, IADR and the American Dental Association, ADA.
You can read the letter below. It was posted on January 28 this year. None of the above organizations has answered. I leave it to the reader to speculate on the reason why.
The open letter:
“Open letter to CED, FDI, IADR and ADA.
Dr Wolfgang Doneus,
Dr Tin Chun Wong,
Dr. Christopher H. Fox
Dr. Charles H. Norman
In a relative short period of time several big dental organizations have denied the existence of (credible) scientific studies showing any significant ill effects from dental amalgam.
• In a recent policy paper the Council of European Dentists, CED, says:
“Research over many decades has failed to show any significant health risk posed by dental amalgam either to patients, dental staff or the public.”(1).
• In a Press Release FDI World Dental Federation says:
“We are all delighted that the Minamata Convention allows the dental profession continued access to a key restorative material. Dental amalgam is safe and effective: it has been in use for over 150 years and no studies have demonstrated any harm to human health”(2).
• In an interview in Dental Tribune, the Executive Director for International Association for Dental Research, IADR, Christopher Fox says:
” Dental amalgam is a safe and effective restoration. The US National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research funded two large-scale randomised clinical trials on the safety of dental amalgam in children and failed to find any adverse health effects.”(3).
• In a Press Release the American Dental Association, ADA says.
” The segment, entitled “Are Your Silver Fillings Making You Sick?” erroneously portrays dental amalgam, or silver-colored fillings, as a health risk, when in fact not one credible scientific study supports such a position.” (4).
I am quite puzzled by these seemingly coordinated erroneous statements.
For example in a Dental Tribune interview Christopher Fox mentions two NIDCR funded trials. One of these, the Casa Pia trial initially did not find any ill health effects. This study has been extensively used by the dental community as proof of amalgam safety. However in the two last papers from this trial serious neurodevelopmental effects from dental amalgam in genetically susceptible boys (28%) have been found (5, 6). The cohort is the same as in the first study and the authors are partly the same.
These papers are published by the world leading group on genetic susceptibility to mercury headed by Research Prof. James Woods at the University of Washington. Woods and the group around him have published findings on health effects in patients and dental personnel for a number of years (7, 8, 9)
A number of other groups have also identified genetic susceptibility to mercury, both inorganic and organic (10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Why are CED, FDI, IADR and ADA denying the existence of easily verifiable scientific studies?
Researchers following the field are aware that there is an obvious paradigm shift under way when it comes to mercury toxicity. Due to the fact that genetic susceptibility in substantial parts of the population has been discovered and verified by multiple research groups our understanding of mercury toxicity is rapidly changing (15). Mercury generates ill effects in concentrations much lower than previously thought.
I would like to know why your organizations deny the existence high quality published scientific studies?
1st Research Engineer, University of Linköping
This document is in no way connected to my work at LiU. It is purely personal.”
Cochrane has corrected and published a new version of the paper “Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth” due to new information provided. See mine and their comments at the end of the link below,
The re-published version,
Sandie Barrie Blackley, MA/CCC
As dyslexia specialists we are seeing an increasing number of children with language processing disorders. Parents and teachers are really struggling with this. While we can diagnose and treat dyslexia and other language processing disorders it is not possible to determine what has caused these disruptions. Many clearly have a genetic aspect, but might there be an environmental trigger in some cases? We can’t tell at this point, but hope the research will begin to clarify this.
Thanks for the important work that you are doing!
Sandie Barrie Blackley, MA/CCC
Sandie, do you know if children you work with were born premature?
We typically collect a detailed history, including prenatal and birth histories, but the vast majority of children diagnosed with dyslexia do not have high-risk prenatal or birth histories.
Of course, such risk factors are somewhat predictive of more global language impairments (See: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/240270722_The_Language_of_Low-birthweight_Children_at_Four_Years_Preliminary_Report)
Mothers and Children Overdosed by Synergism of Fluoride and Acetaminophen
1) In the study published this week involving 64,322 children and mothers, children whose mothers used acetaminophen during pregnancy were at a 13% to 37% higher risk of later receiving a hospital diagnosis of hyperkinetic disorder, being treated with ADHD medications or having ADHD-like behaviors at age 7.
The longer acetaminophen was taken — that is, into the second and third trimesters — the stronger the associations. The risks for hyperkinetic disorder/ADHD in children were elevated 50 percent or more when the mothers had used the common painkiller for more than 20 weeks in pregnancy.
Acetaminophen can cross the placental barrier, a senior author noted, and it is plausible that acetaminophen may interrupt fetal brain development by interfering with maternal hormones or through neurotoxicity, such as the induction of oxidative stress, which can cause the death of neurons.
2) The authors of a 2012 study published in Pharmacological Reports concluded: “Our study demonstrated that subchronic treatment with fluoride and/or acetaminophen in sub-toxic doses induced oxidative and nitrosative stress in the liver and kidney of male and female rats…
“The most important finding of our study is, demonstrated for the first time, synergism of fluoride and acetaminophen in the kidney of male and female rats as compared to groups treated separately with fluoride and acetaminophen expressed as an enhancement of oxidative/nitrosative stress. Our results demonstrate a greater risk of kidney damage during co-exposure to both xenobiotics. Additionally, our experiment shows that acetaminophen significantly decreases urinary fluoride excretion.”
3) A 2009 study in Pediatrics looked at the prevalence of over-the-counter and prescription medication use among US children <12 years of age.
"Among OTC products in our survey, acetaminophen alone, ibuprofen alone, and multivitamins were widely used among all age groups, with acetaminophen leading the list for children <2 years of age."
Among prescription medications, multivitamins with fluoride were among the most frequently used products overall.
As a now-retired public health nurse and former midwife, I take an active interest in the health and well-being of families in Monterey County, California, the “salad bowl of the world”. The fumigant pesticides chloropicrin and methyl bromide are the current focus of
grassroots pressure on BigAg and the California Dept. of Pesticide Regulation. In early 2012 we were part of the effort to suspend the EPA-approved use of Methyl iodide in the vast strawberry fields of this county; the manufacturer pulled all methyl iodide from American markets based on the California effort but is selling it elsewhere in the world. If there is interest beyond our state in reducing and/or refusing these very toxic substances applied liberally and haphazardly near our workers, neighboring schools and residences, air, water and soil, please see
Californians for Pesticide Regulation, http://www.cpr.org .
While there are chemical exposures which are known to harm the developing human brain and to cause autism, prenatal ultrasound is probable cause of the rise in autism spectrum diseases over the last two decades.
Prenatal ultrasound is considered safe because it has not (sufficiently) been proved unsafe. Rather than repeat the info here, let me point you to my website which has a summary on the home page with links to over 50 papers relating to the topic of prenatal ultrasound and brain damage. http://www.ultrasound-autism.org
Dr. Pasko Rakic at Yale is nearing completion of a study with primates. His earlier study showed the positioning of neurons in mouse brains could be affected by prenatal ultrasound exposure. http://www.pnas.org/content/103/34/12903.full
The major CDC and NIH epidemiological studies are looking at ultrasound, but it was added as a suspect after the data collection was underway and may be of little value.
This is the policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics about Pesticide Exposure in Children from the COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/6/e1757
“This statement presents the position of the American Academy of Pediatrics on pesticides. Pesticides are a collective term for chemicals intended to kill unwanted insects, plants, molds, and rodents. Children encounter pesticides daily and have unique susceptibilities to their potential toxicity. Acute poisoning risks are clear, and understanding of chronic health implications from both acute and chronic exposure are emerging. Epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function, and behavioral problems.”
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Scientific Impact Paper No. 37 May 2013 Chemical Exposures During Pregnancy: Dealing with Potential, but Unproven, Risks to Child Health [Chemical exposure in pregnancy.pdf]
Increasing concern over chemical exposure, page 2: “In recent years there has been increasing concern over the potential for exposure of environmental chemicals to the mother and baby to cause adverse health effects in the child.4 Epidemiological research has linked exposure to some of these chemicals in pregnancy with adverse birth outcomes; pregnancy loss, preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital defects, childhood morbidity, obesity, cognitive dysfunction, impaired immune system development, asthma, early puberty, adult disease and mortality cardiovascular effects and cancer)5 .”
The College may have been a bit more circumspect “potential but unproven” because the Environment Minister Owen Paterson voted against the EU ban on neonicotinoid insecticides.
However, a Report from the US in October 2012 was forthright. http://www.KidsHealthReportOctober2012.pdf A Generation in Jeopardy: How pesticides are undermining our children’s health & intelligence. Extract page B1, page 5: “Compelling evidence now links pesticide exposures with harms to the structure and functioning of the brain and nervous system. Neurotoxic pesticides are clearly implicated as contributors to the rising rates of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism, widespread declines in IQ and other measures of cognitive function”
We are trying to persuade the UK Government to use the precautionary principle as in the European Union. But in 2012 Bayer expanded its domestic market: (products included imidacloprid, thiacloprid and Super Strength glyphosate).
I am afraid that Big Corporations rule in Britain.
Rosemary Mason MB ChB FRCA
Aircraft: Contaminated Cabin Air
In 2002 the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) stated (1):
FAA rulemaking may not have kept pace with public expectation and concern about air quality and does not afford explicit protection from particulate matter and other chemical and biological hazards
On 20-21 April 2005 the British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA) Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality International Aero Industry Conference was held at Imperial College (London).
In his closing address BALPA General Secretary Jim McAuslan said:
“This conference has been about something that has been under the radar in this industry for a number of years. The problem of oil leaks in aircraft…
Is there a problem?
The answer is quite clear – Yes.
Story after story, study after study, testimony after testimony from across the world and from other industries with similar exposures, show that chemicals exposures of the type experienced by workers in the aviation industry cause health problems.
There is a workplace problem resulting in chronic and acute illness amongst flight crew (both pilots and cabin crew).
Further, we are concerned the passengers may also be suffering from similar symptoms to those exhibited by flight crew.
Further, pregnant passengers are probably most at risk.”
It has become increasingly obvious that there is a fundamental design flaw in jet aircraft design. With the introduction of high by-pass jet engines it was decided that the previously used separate ram air provision of cabin air could be changed to tapping such air from the engine compressor system via medium and high stage bleeds, thereby achieving savings in both cost and weight. The breathing air supply still being delivered to the air-conditioning system unfiltered and only controlled for temperature and pressure. Only in the new Boeing 787 is the breathing air supplied by bleed free methods.
In 2006 Professor Chris Winder reviewed the subject (2) and the British Medical Association published its booklet: The impact of flying on passenger health – A guide for healthcare professionals 2006(3). At Appendix IV: “The regulations lay down specific requirements in some areas, such as minimum cabin air pressure, maximum levels of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and ozone, and minimum ventilation flow rates. There is also a general requirement that the crew and passenger compartment air must be free from harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapours (JAR 25.831).”
and yet there is currently no monitoring or control of CO2, CO and Ozone, to say nothing of ‘harmful or hazardous concentrations of gases or vapours’.
On 1 October 2011 this situation was discussed at the Inhalable Toxic Chemicals on Board Aircraft Conference at Cranfield University and the papers subsequently published in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry, Vol 11, No 4:
Professor Jeremy Ramsden, who chaired the conference, wrote a very helpful scientific overview of the present state of knowledge concerning neurotoxins in aircraft cabin air:
“Anything that promotes neural degeneration is, however, a matter of particular concern because our abilities to cope with the demands placed on us by high technology (as well as its effect of alleviating labour) might well require increasing intelligence, especially considering that coping may call for the development of even higher technology”
In 2012 the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM), in their published study (4) found that in terrestial forms of public transport “zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate additives generally being used in place of organophosphates”
In 2013 Professor Clement Furlong and co-workers demonstrated (5) that the commercial mixture of TCP isomers (Durad 125), which the industry
maintains to be non-toxic or safe, was only slightly less effective than tri-o-cresyl phosphate (ToCP) in generating potent inhibitors of
physically important enzymes. The mixed TCP isomers comprise approximately 3% of the engine oil. Importantly this paper also demonstrated that Durad 125 inhibited in vivo the enzyme acylpeptide hydrolase (APH). The late Dr David Ray, a member of the UK Committee on Toxicity (COT), and co-workers had previously identified acylpeptide hydrolase (APH) as an enzyme in brain that is very sensitive to inhibition by organophosphates and which
is likely involved in cognition (6).
Noteworthy is that passengers are never informed, even when all the crew have been taken to a medical facility, of an acknowledged cabin air incident.
1. Report to the Administrator on the National Research Council Report, “The Airliner Cabin Environment and the Health of Passengers and Crew” – Page 3 NRC Recommendation 1 – Air Quality Regulations
2. Air monitoring studies for aircraft cabin contamination
3.The impact of flying on passenger health – A guide for healthcare professionals
4. Cabin air – surface residue study (126.96.36.199 Non-aviation Transport Controls)
5 .P.E. Baker et al., Identifying safer anti-wear triaryl phosphate additives for jet engine lubricants, Chemico-Biological Interactions
6. Paul G. Richards, Martin K. Johnson, and David E. Ray.,
Identification of Acylpeptide Hydrolase as a Sensitive Site for
Reaction with Organophosphorus Compounds and a Potential
Target for Cognitive Enhancing Drugs, MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY Vol. 58, No. 3 The American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, Mol Pharmacol 58:577–583, 2000
As an outcome of my exchange with policy makers that propose water fluoridation, I investigated a safety study from New Zealand which was deemed to be of “high quality”.
I found the paper rather bizarre because not only does the paper use an incomplete analysis which allows safety problems to go undetected; it also cites a second paper by the same research group which explains precisely why the analysis in the first paper is misleading.
So we are in a situation where we are accumulating evidence associating fluoride in drinking water with decreased IQ scores in children, and we are lacking studies that establish a safe level of fluoride exposure with respect to the developing brain.
Given the precautionary approach that Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan motivate in their 2006 Lancet review for protecting our children’s vulnerable brains, one only has to connect the dots to come to the conclusion that now is the time to stop further expansion of water fluoridation and demand the needed safety studies.
You can find my investigation on my blog:
Philippe, I essentially agree with your comment that “We don’t know for sure that fluoride exposure at levels common in fluoridated communities causes brain drain”. However, in the context of artificial water fluoridation I think it misses the point. Even if common levels of exposure do not cause any measurable reduction in average IQ, it seems almost inevitable that some individuals will be significantly affected. There are large variations in both individual fluoride exposure and susceptibility, and when hundreds of millions of people are subjected to fluoridation there will be many who have an unusually high exposure and are also unusually susceptible. When this observation is combined with the precautionary principle, the continuation of fluoridation is surely unjustifiable.
To my knowledge you have not yet publicly opposed fluoridation. I understand that you are a scientist, and that there are legitimate reasons for not getting involved in political debates. However, as you know, fluoride is a cumulative toxin which can do permanent damage. Yours is not the only study which calls the safety of fluoridation into question. For example, Waldbott, Feltman, and Moolenburgh separately established the phenomenon of fluoride sensitivity, with major symptoms caused by fluoridated water or equivalent or smaller fluoride doses, beyond reasonable doubt in my opinion. I am fluoride sensitive, a fact which took me a very long time to realise, but for which the evidence eventually became overwhelming. I have a science education, and did not jump to conclusions. The way I see it, every day that fluoridation continues, more damage is done. Given the coercion involved, I believe it is imperative that everyone who understands the issue speaks up against fluoridation.
I have tried to put your excellent research on fluoride and IQ in a perspective, since it appears that the U.S. have not learned the lessons from the lead poisoning tragedy of the 60s and 70s. I look forward to seeing studies that establish a safe limit (if any) for flouride in drinking water with respect to children’s IQ. http://carlssonia.blogspot.com/2013/02/why-portland-water-fluoridation.html
Dear Dr. Grandjean,
May I applaud your courageous action in reviewing the science with a professional and unbiased approach and letting the evidence speak for itself.
I ranked the 50 USA states on the percentage of each state’s population fluoridated and the reported prevalence of mental retardation. The graph will not post here, but the trend is 50/10,000 population in the least fluoridated states to 160/10,000 in the most fluoridated states. y+1.2966x + 46.502 and R(squared) = 0.1762. Confounding factors I’ve considered such as socioeconomic and tobacco use do not appear to be significant. A tripling of mental retardation is about half a standard deviation shift which is about 8 IQ point loss. This would appear to be consistent with your study. Comparing Europe and the USA again supports the possibility of fluoride’s potential role in lowering IQ.
In today’s dollars, each IQ point is estimated to be about $800 to $1,000 negative economic impact per year per person. With 200 million on fluoridated water, the negative economic impact could well exceed $1Trillion/year. Certainly more than the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you were to do research to further test the hypothesis that fluoride exposure has “brain drain,” could such a study be done in the USA and what would be your estimate of costs? Could a grant request be submitted the NIH?
Thanks for your comments.
Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH
We don’t know for sure that fluoride exposure at levels common in fluoridated communities causes brain drain. Although ecological comparisons like the one you describe are of interest, they cannot settle the question of causality, as many other factors may also play a role. In 1999, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named water fluoridation one of the 10 greatest public health milestones of the 20th century, as it was associated with huge reductions in tooth decay (at least in some studies). Perhaps this decision calmed any desire to obtain better documentation of the benefits under current-day circumstances as well as possible adverse effects. Maybe the time has come to revisit these concerns. I hope so.
A very good source for studies on harms of flouride is the Flouride Action Network at flouridealert.org.
We should beware of claims of “greatest public health milestone” that may be more PR slogan than fact supported by careful studies.
Philippe, thank you for creating such a wonderful resource for people to understand the nuances of how toxins and chemicals affect the brain. I would ask that since the media has not reported on the most recent findings from the Children’s amalgam trials, that you weigh in on the findings of neurological harm in susceptible sub-populations.
Neurotoxicology and Teratology (2012)
Modiﬁcation of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children
Thanks, and keep up the great work !
Randall / Mercuryexposure.info / youputwhatinmymouth.com
Thank you for this suggestion. The European Commission has recently appointed a new expert committee to look into amalgam safety concerns in light of the Minamata Convention. The previous EU report on The safety of dental amalgam and alternative dental restoration materials for patients and users (http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_scenihr/docs/scenihr_o_016.pdf) was somewhat superficial and has been strongly criticized (http://www.occup-med.com/content/6/1/2). The new report will rely on new evidence when comparing needs and safety for both mercury amalgams and alternative materials, some of which may release other unwanted substances, such as bisphenol A. I would await this report before casting my vote, although I personally would advise against having dental work during pregnancy. I shall return to the issue when the EU report has been released some time in late spring or early summer.
Thanks for the response Philippe. So glad to see you were aware of the deficiencies of the SCENIHR report. But I fail to understand how you (or anyone) would wait on yet another report when the science has been clear for years. Dental amalgam presents the largest source of mercury in the populations who have them, exposing people daily to mercury above (the 18+ year old) EPA safety levels. Additionally, mercury vapor has a much lower RfC than methylmercury.
Then there is the enormous exposure during placement, polishing and removal which is thousands of times higher than safety limits.
The work of Jim Adams and many others has shown that fresh amalgams are off gassing hundreds of micrograms of mercury vapor. It took Haley over 2 months before he could measure new amalgams cause the amount of mercury was overloading his jerome analyzer.
While not as much has been published regarding polishing amalgams, we measured hundreds of micrograms ug/m3 per filling being released for several minutes. With the U.S. average of 8 amalgams, that is a considerable amount of mercury for one to be exposed to during a “cleaning”.
Then there exposure during the removal / replacing of mercury fillings which do not just release mercury vapor but thousands of micrograms ug/m3 of mercury contaminated particulate matter.
considering homes are evacuated at 10 micrograms ug/m3… how can one possible justify exposing another human being to those extremely elevated levels ?
Additionally, we have visualized (and measured) the mercury vapor generated during the routine dental procedures mentioned above and they are terrifying.
as far as concern over BPA, check out the risk assessment Mark Richardson PhD did comparing mercury from amalgam to BPA released from composites.
Great ! Thank you for this unique work !
So many questions…How could we protect brain’s development, when we know the degree of the global contamination ? How could we do to change the functionning of the decision-making ? And go toward the precautionnary principle ? The current and future generations will have to be in possession of all them capacities to face the world wich comes.
This site is meant to provide a forum for news, comments, and reflections on toxic effects on brain development associated with exposures to chemical pollutants. It is open to researchers, public health colleagues, parents, and others who worry about the adverse impact of chemicals on the brain power and health of the next generation. I shall provide feed-back when indicated and to the extent possible. I look forward to hearing from you! – Philippe Grandjean, MD