Adding fluoride to community drinking supplies has always been a hot topic. Many experts argue that the addition of fluoride has a public health benefit. Others believe differently, and some opponents even claim conspiracy. While everyone is entitled to their beliefs, Delta Dental of Colorado agrees with the Centers for Disease Control when they named community fluoridated drinking water as 1 of the top 10 Public Health Achievement.
What many Coloradoans don’t know is the research on fluoride’s effect on teeth began right here in our own state. A dentist practicing in Colorado Springs named Dr. McKay discovered that children who drank water from a source with unusually high levels of fluoride had teeth that were inexplicably resistant to tooth decay. The rest is history!
Now, there is a lot of misleading information being spread about community fluoridation. To put our reader’s worries to rest, we have addressed the top 3 myths about fluoride.
Myth: “Fluoride is a poison that doesn’t belong in drinking water.”
Fluoride exists naturally in virtually all water supplies and even in various brands of bottled water. If the people making this outrageous statement truly believed it, they would no longer drink water — or eat fish, eggs, meat or other food products that contain small levels of fluoride1. To put this myth into perspective, a 30-pound child would have to ingest an entire six-ounce tube to be in any trouble, according to the Poison Center2. Even then, this child would vomit the toothpaste before any real harm would be done.
Myth: Fluoride causes bone cancer and lots of other major health problems.
This myth is more of a scare tactic than anything else. There have been no conclusive or accepted evidence to suggest that the fluoride level added to community water supplies cause any major health problems.
Myth: I heard that the EPA is reviewing the maximum fluoride level because fluoride can cause a condition called ‘fluorosis.’ That’s reason enough to oppose fluoridated water.
Dental fluorosis is a rare cosmetic condition that can leave a minor discoloration of teeth that is usually detectable only by a dentist. Adults are not at risk for fluorosis as it only affects children who are waiting for their second teeth to come in. The chance of fluorosis occurring, which has always been relatively small, will decrease, thanks to new federal recommendations that revise the optimal fluoride level in drinking water3. Federal health official are consistently reviewing the subject of community water fluoridation and update their recommendations when appropriate.
We hope that we were able to correct some fictional information that is being spread. Community fluoridation helps everyone. It does not discriminate and that is why we will continue to support this initiative.
What are your thoughts?
1. Ernie Mueller is a former research chemist with the Environmental Protection Agency who also served as Alaska’s Commissioner of Environmental Conservation. See: Ernie Mueller, “Some fluoride opponents are making misleading statements,” The Juneau Empire, April 6, 2004, accessed on January 20, 2011 at http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/040604/opi_fluoride.shtml.
2. “Milwaukee Alderman Says Fluoride in Toothpaste Is a Poison.” PolitiFact Wisconsin. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Sept. 2012.
II, Thomas H. Maugh. “HHS and EPA Will Recommend Lower Fluoride Levels in Water Supply.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 07 Jan. 2011. Web. 13 Sept. 2012.
Photo Credit: globalressearch.ca
Donna Mayne says
October 23, 2012 at 9:24 amFirst, if you’re going to quote the Center for Disease Control, why don’t you use more current quotes from them? Like how fluoride is more effective in topical applications or that more than 40% of U.S. adolescents have dental fluorosis (a sign of fluoride toxicity) or perhaps the caution issued to parents about feeding fluoridated water to infants. It’s all on their website if you care to read it.
Second, natural doesn’t mean safe. Arsenic is naturally occurring too. But in it’s natural form of calcium fluoride, the calcium counteracts the fluoride’s toxicity making it more tolerable and easier to eliminate. There is nothing natural about H2SiF6. Handlers have to wear respirators, goggles and hazmat suits around it.
Third, they used to claim there was no conclusive evidence smoking causes cancer either.
Fourth, it’s not the LEVEL of fluoride added to the drinking water that is harmful, rather the cumulative effects of chronic exposure over years. And fluoride IS a classified bio-accumulative toxin, making dilution a moot point.
Fluoridation does discriminate. Like any other toxin, it hurts the youngest, the frailest, those with the worst nutrition and those with kidney disease the most.
Finally, I’m surprised at how all of the promotors of fluoridation neglect to mention fluorides ability to suppress thyroid function. After all, it was used to treat people with over-active thyroids in the 1930s.
Lisa K. says
October 29, 2012 at 1:36 pmHello Donna,
Thank you for your comment. I rechecked the CDC website and found the following:
The CDC still recognizes water fluoridation as one of the great public health achievements of the 20th century. Tooth decay remains the most common chronic disease of children aged 6 to 11 years (25%), and of adolescents aged 12 to 19 years (59%). Tooth decay is four times more common than asthma among adolescents aged 14 to 17 years (15%).
Adding fluoride to municipal drinking water is an efficient strategy to reduce dental disease among Americans of all social strata. It is the most cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay among populations living in areas with adequate community water supply systems.
I’ve got to agree with the CDC – community fluoridation helps everyone!
Donna Mayne says
October 30, 2012 at 8:55 pmLisa,
If the CDC claims that tooth decay remains the most common chronic disease in kids within one of the most fluoridated countries (the U.S.) in the world, wouldn’t that prove artificial fluoridation is ineffective? Try going back to the CDC website and compare their own data. They have conveniently provided maps illustrating the fluoridation rates throughout the U.S. and percentage of tooth loss. One would assume, if fluoridation was effective, that the most fluoridated states would also have the lowest percentage of tooth loss. But that isn’t the case. Here are the sites: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/gisdoh/adult.aspx and http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/gisdoh/waterfluor.aspx
Or you can look to the north. British Columbia and Quebec are almost completely fluoride free (less than 4%) yet there is NO significant difference between their oral health and that of Alberta or Ontario.
There is a reason why 95% of the world’s population has rejected fluoridation. It doesn’t work, it’s unethical, it pollutes and there is no clinical evidence that chronic exposure does not do harm.
If fluoride causes cellular damage in the form of fluorosis, do you honestly believe it cannot damage other cells in your body. Do you know your total fluoride exposure? Have you ever been to a doctor that would prescribe without first assessing you? Has your doctor ever told you that you are fluoride deficient? Has he taken your F blood or urine levels? The World Health Organization says fluoride is NOT an essential mineral nutrient. So why do you believe your whole body requires it?