The Water Fluoridation Issue
How do we avoid fluoride once in the water?
Water fluoridation is the addition of fluoride bearing chemicals to drinking water, ostensibly to prevent dental caries (cavities). In Massachusetts, the recommended "optimum" level is 1 ppm (parts per million). In other regions of the United States, this recommended level varies from from 0.7 to 1.2 ppm.
This level seems
extremely high when comparing the recommended level to the Environment Protection Agency's
(EPA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride.
|
|
Compares to |
Compares to |
|
Recommended fluoride level (1 ppm) |
1 cent in $10,000 |
1 inch in 16 miles |
|
EPA MCL * (4 ppm) |
4 cents in $10,000 |
4 inches in 16 miles |
|
EPA Secondary MCL ** (2 ppm) |
2 cents in $10,000 |
2 inches in 16 miles |
*The EPA MCL is
intended to be protective regarding skeletal fluorosis.
**The EPA Secondary MCL is a non-enforceable level intended to be protective regarding
"objectionable dental fluorosis".
When fluoridation
was first implemented in the U.S. in the 1940's, it was expected that approximately 10% of children exposed to 1 ppm
in drinking water would exhibit dental fluorosis. The rate is significantly higher now, due to
fluoride exposure from additional sources (toothpaste, prepared foods, etc). (Fluorosis
on the Rise)
The acute toxicity
level for fluoride is higher than lead and slightly lower than arsenic. However, the MCL for
lead is 0.015 ppm and the MCL for arsenic is 0.010 ppm, while the MCL for fluoride is 4
ppm. (EPA's
Drinking Water Standards)
In other words, we allow 267 to 400 times as much fluoride in water supplies as we do lead
or arsenic, while all of these materials are in the same ballpark with respect to acute
toxicity. (Fluoride/Lead/Arsenic
toxicity comparison)
Naturally occurring fluoride in water is usually calcium fluoride. The chemicals
added to the vast majority of water supplies are silicofluorides. They come from the
pollution emissions of the phosphate fertilizer industry which are captured by recovery
units (scrubbers) and become condensed fluorosilicic acid. Sodium fluoride and sodium
fluorosilicate are also made from this waste product. (Center for Disease
Control's description of the process)
Silicofluorides contain a wide variety of contaminants including arsenic, lead and
possibly radionuclides.
You'll have to decide for
yourself whether you believe water fluoridation improves oral health or not. You'll
also have to decide whether any assumed benefits are worth the associated risks.
A close look at both sides of the issue is called for. Don't forget that in the USA
and a few other places, we have been subjected to a great deal of one-sided fluoridation
promotion. Opinions based on science must be open to new information. Too many
people have taken a position on fluoridation long ago and have closed their minds on the
issue.
Here are some reasons for skepticism regarding fluoridation's benefits.
1. The city of Boston has been fluoridated since 1978, yet 20 years later, it is facing a severe dental crisis. If fluoridation works, should this be happening in Boston and other longtime fluoridated cities? (Fluoridated Boston Experiencing "Dental Crisis") Massachusetts cities in the same situation include Taunton, Southbridge, Lowell, Chelsea, and others with similar population demographics.
2. Research shows that ingested fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. Fluoride's action appears to be primarily topical. This was the front-page story of the Journal of the American Dental Association of July 2000. The CDC also concedes that fluoride's "actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" .(CDC, MMWR Weekly - October 22, 1999)
3. Most European countries have rejected or even banned fluoridation and still have better dental health than the USA, where 62% of us have fluoridated water supplies. (50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation-Appendix 1)
4. Several
studies indicate that dental decay has declined at approximately the same rate in
fluoridated as well as unfluoridated cities worldwide over the last several decades.
Data
from New Zealand shows a decline in dental cavities was well underway long before
fluoridated toothpaste or water fluoridation were introduced. (Why Dr. John Colquhoun changed his
mind about fluoridation)
5. Older members of fluoridated communities are exposed to risks while they have virtually
no likelihood of receiving benefits, especially those who have no teeth.
Many opponents of fluoridation consider the right of individuals to choose their own medications to be the primary reason for opposition.
Is it acceptable
for either a minority, or a majority, to forcibly expose everyone in a community to a chemical which may have benefits for some but, risks for all?
A
person with no teeth has risks with absolutely no benefits. Some individuals who are very sensitive to fluoride are placed at very high risk.
Some of us
drink a great deal more water than others. Meanwhile, there have been no long-term studies to evaluate the effects of fluoride accumulation in the body
over many decades.
It is impossible to completely avoid fluoride in a fluoridated community. Many cannot afford the expense, time, and/or effort required to avoid fluoridated
water. Even if we manage to use only distilled water for drinking and cooking, we will still absorb some fluoride through bathing. (Fluoridation: A Violation of Medical Ethics and Human
Rights)
Silicofluorides, the primary fluoridation chemicals, have never been tested for
safety in fluoridated water.
Although fluoride supplements have been in use for more than 50 years, they have never gone through an FDA approval process to evaluate safety and
effectiveness. (Fluoride
Supplements Still Unapproved) If pharmaceutical grade sodium
fluoride supplements have not even been FDA approved for safety, how can proponents affirm that
industrial grade sodium fluoride or silicofluorides are safe?
It is estimated that 1% of the total population has allergic reactions of different degrees to fluoride.
(Reactivity Percentages)
Every liter (approx. 32 ounces) of fluoridated water contains the equivalent of one daily (1 mg) fluoride supplement tablet.
In addition, we get fluoride from
processed foods and beverages produced using fluoridated water (Sources
of Fluoride Exposure), fruits and vegetables treated with fluoride based pesticides, and
fluoridated oral care products.
An infant drinking 20 to 30 ounces of formula made with fluoridated water gets 0.6 to 0.9 mg of fluoride.
This comes close to the daily supplemental dose of 1
mg which is commonly given to much older children in non-fluoridated communities. Mothers' milk contains 100 times less fluoride.
The World Health Organization recommends that the total intake of fluoride should be evaluated before prescribing fluoride supplements.
Regarding fluoride
supplements, many parents are concerned that fluoride supplements are being widely prescribed, although they have never gone through FDA
approval. (Fluoride
Supplements Still Unapproved)
There are no definitive recommendations for "optimal" daily doses, other than the 60-year-old dose assumption of 1 mg/day, and there are no studies that show
how much fluoride people are actually consuming each day. Nobody evaluates
individuals fluoride intake before putting fluoride in the water. Proper dosage for age, weight, and health status is impossible to
establish.
There is enough fluoride to kill a small child in a single large tube of toothpaste. The maximum fluoride concentration in toothpaste is 1,500
ppm. Having a much smaller fluoride concentration in water does not make it a safe substance, as
fluoride accumulates in the human body as well as in the environment. There are still risks associated with a fluoride concentration of 1 ppm and accidents do
happen in water plants, putting both workers and the public at risk. (Accidents)
From dental fluorosis to skeletal fluorosis, from increased lead levels in children's blood to effects on the thyroid gland's activity, fluoride has been
linked to a myriad of adverse health effects. While proponents argue that none of it (except fluorosis) has been definitely proven, we believe there are
enough red flags raised by good, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to stop feeding fluoride to entire populations through drinking water.
To find out more about specific health effects or studies relating to such, please refer to Second Look's
BIBLIOGRAPHY
or the
Fluoride Action Network.
The margin for safety is the difference between the "therapeutic" dose and the
onset of toxicity. At what dose does it heal (or prevent in this case) and at what dose does it cause damage?
In the development of drugs, even for life-threatening diseases, a margin for safety of at least 100 is
generally required. (Former
NIH scientist opposed to fluoride).
So, to be protective with regard to skeletal fluorosis one would expect the maximum concentration in
water to be 0.04 ppm instead of 1 ppm. To be protective regarding dental fluorosis 0.02 ppm would be more appropriate.
These levels, 0.02-0.04 ppm are
lower than the levels frequently found in unfluoridated water supplies.
In several countries severe skeletal fluorosis has been documented resulting from water supplies containing only 3 or 4 parts per million.
Since
April 1998 the union which represents approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers
and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. has opposed
fluoridation of water supplies. (Why
EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation)
Some children get dental fluorosis with a concentration of 1 ppm.
There is evidence that thyroid function can be decreased with just 2.3 to 4.5 mg per day.
Proponents of water fluoridation often use the argument that "everything can be toxic".
While this may be true, oxygen, water or sodium (to use the few
examples they often use), are used with a proper margin for safety of at least 100. This is not the case with fluoride.
In calculating the cost of fluoridation, proponents completely ignore:
· The cost of bottled water, reverse-osmosis
filtration, or distillation systems for those who choose to avoid fluoride;
· The more frequent breakdown of equipment due
to silicofluorides' corrosive properties;
· The protective measures
(gear, training, etc.) required to protect water department personnel who work with fluoride;
· The cost of treating dental fluorosis;
· The cost of medical treatment for those who
are sensitive to fluoride;
· The need to use more chemicals in water
treatment to regulate the pH level, offset by water fluoridation;
· The damage done by the widespread
dissemination of an
environmental cumulative toxin. (Fluoride
Accumulations Killing Fish, Pine Trees, and Poisoning Environment)
Less than 1% of drinking water is actually consumed. The rest is used for bathrooms, laundry, watering lawns, washing cars,
industry, etc.
It would probably cost substantially less than fluoridation to provide fluoride supplements to those who desire them.
In addition to avoiding environmental problems and being
more cost conscious, this solution would respect everybody's freedom to chose their own medication.
Back to Top
We can limit our exposure to fluoride by:
· Buying non-fluoridated bottled water;
· Using distillation or reverse-osmosis
filtration systems (carbon filtration doesn't work),
· Avoiding products made with fluoridated
ingredients,
Even with the above, people still must bathe in fluoridated water and fluoride can be absorbed through the skin.
Fluoride is still present in most foods you buy (processed food, coffee or food at the restaurant,
tea at the neighbor's place, water fountain in
school, etc).
We consider www.fluoridealert.org to be the
best single source of information about fluoridation on the internet. (Caution: If you accidentally type .com
instead of .org, you will be involuntarily transported to the American Dental
Association's website for a dose of their pro-fluoride propaganda).
www.slweb.org has a very large and easy to use
BIBLIOGRAPHY of peer reviewed scientific literature from mainstream journals on fluoride
health effects.
If you are in New England, please check back here at www.orowma.org from time to time for related local issues.
If you would like to be alerted via e-mail whenever this site is updated please send an
e-mail to mail@orowma.org.
Free
web hosting for non-profit Community Service Organizations
provided by 1-2-Wonder Hosting