불소는 영양소가 아닙니다! 1950년대에 사는 사람들~

불소는 필수 영양소가 아닙니다!

 

아직도 불소를 영양소의 하나라고 생각하는 사람들이 있습니다. 여전히 불소를 먹어야 한다고 말하는 용감한 사람들도 있습니다.

지금은 1950년대가 아닙니다! 불소가 섭취하지 않아서 어떤 질병을 얻었다는 말을 들어 본 적 있으신가요? 불소는 영양소가 아닙니다.

 

1950년대의 치과의사들은 불소가 ‘영양소’라고 믿었습니다. 영양소란 건강을 유지하기위해 필요한 미네랑이나 비타민을 말합니다. 당시의 치과의사들은 유년기에 불소를 섭취하면 튼튼하고 건강한 치아를 갖게 될 것이라고 생각했습니다. 일명 ‘불소결핍’이 충치의 원인이라고 믿었던 것이죠. 마치 칼슘결핍이 골다공증을 유발하고 비타민 D의 결핍이 구루병을 유발하는 것처럼요… 그러나 불소는 영양소가 아닙니다. 미국질병통제센터(CDC)가 인정하듯이 치아에 있는 불소의 양은 충치가 생기는 것과 별 상관이 없습니다.

 

쉽게 말하면, 사람들은 불소화 된 물이나 기타 제품을 사용하지 않고도 얼마든지 튼튼한 치아를 유지할 수 있습니다. 치아를 포함에서 다른 어떤 조직도 세포작용도 불소를 필요로 하지 않습니다. 결론적으로 불소는 필수 영양소가 아니라는 뜻입니다.

 

불소가 영양소가 아니라는 논문과 근거들!

“Safe, responsible, and sustainable use of fluorides is dependent on decision makers (whether they be politicians or parents) having a firm grasp on three key principles: (i) fluorine is not so much ‘essential’ as it is ‘everywhere,’ (ii) recent human activities have significantly increased fluorine exposures to the biosphere, and (iii) fluorine has biogeochemical effects beyond bones and teeth.”
SOURCE: Finkelman RB, et al. 2011. Medical geology issues in North America in O. Selinus, et al. (eds). Medical Geology. Springer Publishing.

“Fluoride is not essential for human growth and development.”
SOURCE:  European Commission. 2011. Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water. Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER), page 4.

“Fluoride is not in any natural human metabolic pathway.”
SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. 2007. Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335:699-702.

“[F]luoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth and development…”
SOURCE: National Research Council. 1993. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC. p. 30.

“These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluorine as an essential element, according to accepted standards.”
SOURCE: National Academy of Sciences. 1989. Recommended Dietary Allowances: 10th Edition. Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press. p. 235.

Statements from U.S. Government Agencies:

“In summary, FDA does not list fluorine as an essential nutrient.”
SOURCE: Food & Drug Administration, October 1990. [See letter]

“The United States Public Health Service does not say that sodium fluoride is an essential mineral nutrient.”
SOURCE: U.S. Public Health Service, May 10, 1966. [See letter]

“Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient. Fluoride has not been determined essential to human health. A minimum daily requirement for sodium fluoride has not been established.”
SOURCE: Food & Drug Administration, August 15, 1963. [See letter]

The Institute of Medicine Report (1997)

Some commentators have cited a 1997 report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as demonstrating that fluoride is an essential nutrient. The IOM report, however, does not do so — a fact confirmed by both the President of the Institute of Medicine (Kenneth Shine), as well as the President of the National Academy of Sciences (Bruce Alberts). In a jointly authored letter on November 18, 1998, Alberts and Shine unequivocally stated:

“Nowhere in the report is it stated that fluoride is an essential nutrient. If any speaker or panel member at the September 23rd workshop referred to fluoride as such, they misspoke. As was stated in Recommended Dietary Allowances 10th Edition, which we published in 1989: ‘These contradictory results do not justify a classification of fluoride as an essential element, according to accepted standards.’” [See letter]