A chemical
conspiracy?
The Fluoride Deception
by Christopher
Bryson
Seven Stories Press: 2004. 272 pp.
$24.95,
£17.99
James Clark
Fluorine chemists are proud of their unique and often unpredictable element.
It sits at the top right-hand corner of the periodic table above its domain of
conquests ? the range of compounds it forms is remarkable, with few elements
escaping its extreme reactivity and the strong bonds that it forms. The range of
fluorine compounds is extraordinary, from the extremely inert calcium fluoride
(the mineral fluorspar) to the highly aggressive hydrogen fluoride. This
versatility has been used to great effect in applications as diverse as
non-stick cookware (Teflon), high-temperature insulation (sulphur hexafluoride)
and many of the
most active pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals on the
market.
Fluorine has also been a key player in several more controversial
areas, although fluorine itself is seldom the culprit. It was vital to the
Manhattan Project (through the use of uranium hexafluoride for isotope
enrichment) and it is the major element in CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), but it is
not responsible for their destructive effects. More recently, the remarkable
stability of heavily fluorinated molecules has been shown to be an environmental
risk as a result of their persistence in the environment.
The uses of fluorine that have consistently received most
attention in the media and from the public are the fluoridation of water and
fluoride dental treatments. The arguments have raged for more than forty years,
and in The Fluoride Deception, Christopher Bryson raises the stakes by
reporting a great deal of relevant and often alarming research, and by telling a
series of human stories.
Bryson gives detailed consideration to the
scientific literature on the biological actions of fluorides and the major
debates about their use. Some of the findings he has identified are very
interesting, such as an article from researchers at the University of York
showing that water fluoridation may be responsible for reducing the incidence of
cavities by only 15% ? a far cry from the much higher figures suggested when the
fluoridation campaign was at its peak in the 1960s. A claim in the April 1944
edition of Time magazine was that it led to 3perfect teeth2.The evidence
for the harmful effects of fluoride at only slightly greater concentration than
artificial fluoridation levels is disturbing, especially when so much of the
research data have been widely available for many years. Some of this apparently
damning evidence was aired at a lecture to the US National Institutes of Health
more than 10 years ago.
Bryson also makes
several claims about the suppression of antifluoridation evidence, the
discouragement of related research (for example, through the withdrawal of
federal funds) and, most controversially, that fluoridation was a direct
consequence of a group of powerful industries seeking to solve the costly
problems they had in dealing with fluoride pollution. The nuclear, aluminium and
fertilizer industries (which are large-scale users or producers of fluorine
compounds) are subject to Bryson1s close scrutiny and criticism. In 1975, the US
government estimated that 350,000 people in 92 different occupations were being
exposed to fluoride
in the workplace. He suggests that the decision to
fluoridate the public water supply was made with incomplete test data and was
driven by the government as a means of disposing of large quantities of fluoride
waste.
Bryson shows skill as a writer and adds
colour to his account with many alarming and well-referenced stories, often
focusing on individuals. Unfortunately, his desire to make the book more
exciting leads him into the all-too-familiar trap of tarring with the same brush
anything associated with, or even sounding like, fluoride or fluoridation. This
is especially ironic after he starts the book with 3notes on terminology2,
saying 3fluorine and fluoride should not be confused2. However, in the next
section he tells us 3the same potent chemical that is used to enrich uranium for
nuclear weapons, to prepare sarin nerve gas ? is what we give to our
children2.No doubt we can expect a series of books on chlorine (3the same
potent chemical used in insecticides is what we put on our children1s food2) and
oxygen (3the same potent chemical used in the strongest acids is what we allow
our children to breathe2).
No chemist would dispute the extreme hazards
of many fluorine chemicals, but to group all fluorine chemicals together as
?bad1 is wrong. The book is peppered with similar absurdities, which will be
annoying to those who know their chemistry but dangerously misleading to those
who don1t. There are other errors of identification and labeling, such as the
description of Unilever as one of the 3world1s most powerful drug companies2,
leading to further confusion. These flaws detract from what is otherwise a
thought provoking and worthwhile book. €
James Clark is at the Clean Technology
Centre,
Department of Chemistry, University of York,
York YO10 5DD,
UK.
ホームページに戻る