Fluoridation is again among issues Davis County voters will be asked to decide upon Tuesday. Currently, Davis County water is fluoridated after voters narrowly approved the issue, except in Woods Cross, where voters defeated it. West Bountiful, Sunset, South Weber and West Point also rejected the measure four years ago. But those cities share a drinking water system with cities that approved it and therefore were required to fluoridate. In Woods Cross, a court order upheld the citizens' vote, since the city has what was determined to be a separate water system.
The revote came about as the result of a signature petition presented to the Davis County Commission on behalf of fluoride foes after cost estimates of adding fluoride to the water in some Davis cities exceeded the cost projections initially given by Davis County health officials.
Davis Health Department director Lewis Garrett has said he doesn't believe voters will reject the measure and end fluoridation because of the benefits residents are now receiving, and because the majority of the expense came in installing the equipment.
However, opponents say cities can save as much as $500,000 in operating and maintenance expenses yearly if the fluoride is turned off.
But while cost is at issue, the major issue remains whether fluoride is a boon to health in stopping dental caries or a detriment in contributing to a host of health problems.
Utah for Better Dental Health -- Davis cite several studies which show fluoride in water systems nationwide has contributed to fewer cavities in children.They have the majority of doctors and dentists on their side.
But opponents cite studies showing the chemical contributes to a host of disease from bone cancer in young men, to brittle bones in the elderly -- studies that fluoridation advocates say are based on faulty science.
To help address the questions for voters, the Clipper is re-printing an extensive analysis of the key issues surrounding fluoridation. First published prior to the initial vote authorizing fluoridation, it contains answers to dozens of key questions.
All answers -- pro or con -- were prepared, reviewed and approved by the leaders of each side of the issue.
Section 1: Key questions about fluoridation
Following are answers to dozens of key questions about fluoridation. The answers represent the positions of both sides of the issue: Fluoridation advocates have reviewed all answers in favor of fluoridation while leading opponents have done the same for all answers representing their points of view. This is a reprint of the information published in November 2000 and retains the original information.
1. Is fluoridation really safe?
Proponents: Fluoride is naturally found in water. Fluoridation of water will occur at one part fluoride to one million parts of water. At this low level, fluoridation is not a risk to anyone. Fluoridation of water has been studied and endorsed by the American Dental Association, the American Medical Associa-tion, Primary Children's Medical Center and the vast majority of Davis County doctors and dentists.
Often it is hard to comprehend the low levels being discussed. To help understand one part per million (1 ppm), here are some similar comparisons:
- 1 inch in 16 miles
- 1 minute in 2 years
- 1 cent in $10,000
Fluoridation has never been discontinued because it has been found harmful in any way. Any controversy over the issue has stemmed from the blurring of scientific issues among health professionals, and lack of leadership by elected officials.
Opponents: The union for the scientists, engineers, and professionals at the Environ-mental Protection Agency (EPA) unanimously oppose fluoridation. "As the professionals who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply...Our members' review of the body of evidence over the past 11 years...indicates a casual link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology."
The claim that fluoridation is completely safe for every person is false. The FDA and EPA admit that they have no studies showing the safety of the kind of fluoride chemicals actually used in 90 percent of the fluoridation programs in the U.S.
2. How are safe fluoride levels in the water maintained?
Proponents: Community water supplies are checked on a regular basis. The amount of fluoride in the water can be checked at the same time the water is checked for levels of chlorine. The American Water Works Association and the National Science Foundation have established standards for any chemicals, including fluoride, which are added to water.
The EPA requires that public water not exceed fluoride levels of 4 ppm. This level would be exceeded in water with naturally high levels of fluoride rather than in water which has fluoride added to it systematically, which is what will happen in Davis County.
Opponents: It can't always be adequately controlled. When "surges" or "overfeeds" occur, those who suffer most from the toxic effects of fluoride include the elderly, those with heart and kidney problems, including diabetics, and those with nutritional deficiencies. Children from low-income families are particularly im-pacted because of nutritional deficiencies.
There have been many malfunctions in fluoridation equipment and/or human error which have resulted in fluoride poisoning -- including one death in Alaska and one death in Maryland -- as well as lawsuits: by Pepsi Cola for damage to product, and one by the wife of a brain-injured diabetic husband in Maryland.
3. Is it possible to overdose on fluoridated water? What if you drink a lot?
Proponents: No! People would overdose on water long before they would overdose on fluoride. Fluoride levels in fluoridated water are so low that an adult would have to consume 660 gallons of fluoridated water in a 24-hour period in order to get a toxic level of fluoride. A 12- to 18-month-old child would have to drink 85 gallons of fluoridated water in that period of time. Drinking this much fluoridated water is physically impossible.
Children living in communities with water fluoridation get about half their daily fluoride intake from water and the rest from food and other beverages. When an individual consumes one liter of water fluoridated at 1 ppm, he/she receives one milligram (1 mg) of fluoride. On average, children under six years of age consume less than one half liter of water a day, thus receiving less than .5 mg of fluoride a day from water.
At least half of the ingested fluoride is excreted. Even when people drink a lot of water, such as in the summer time, there are no adverse health effects. A 10-year comparison study between two Texas cities -- Bartlett (8 ppm) and Cameron (.4 ppm) -- indicated that even when fluoride levels were considerably higher than recommended for decay prevention, there were no clinically significant physiological or functional effects.
Opponents: It is impossible to control the amount of water people drink; therefore, it is impossible to control how much fluoride is consumed. Current pediatric/dental recommendations for fluoride supplements for pregnant women -- one; infants up to 6 months -- none. Overdosing is inevitable.
Many beverages, baby foods, cereals and juices already contain unsafe levels of fluoride because they're processed with fluoridated water, which concentrates the fluoride, or have fluoride-based pesticide residue. Artificially fluoridated water contains 1ppm (1 part per million) of fluoride. Coke and orange juice contain .98 ppm: Froot Loops, 2 ppm; Wheaties, 10 ppm; tomato paste, 45 ppm; raisins, 55 ppm; head lettuce, 180 ppm.
Dental fluorosis (mottling/
discoloration of teeth), affecting 48 percent of the population, is one result of too much fluoride.
4. How does fluoride affect the environment?
Proponents: Fluoride being introduced into the water does not have any negative effects on the environment. Fluoride is added to the water at one drop per 16 gallons of water, and it is such a minute amount that it is not harmful to the environment.
Fluoride is currently being added to the water in 10,500 U.S. cities. The amount that is added is minimal, and if it is added correctly then no adverse effects occur in the environment.
Opponents: Fluoride cannot legally be dumped into the ocean, rivers, or onto the ground, yet more than 143,000 tons are dribbled into the environment annually via water fluoridation.There is growing concern about its effect on wildlife, fish and crops. Dr. Gene Miller, former head of the Department of Biology at Utah State University, says that fluoride inhibits plant enzymes and slows germination of seed.
The first part of October 2000, 3.5 million gallons of partially treated sewage spewed into Coos Bay, Ore., after 400 gallons of fluoride flowed into a sewage treatment plant, killing the bacteria-munching organisms used to treat sewage. Fecal coliform count far exceeded state standards and slowed commercial harvest of oysters in the bay.
5. Is there validity to the claim that fluoridated communities pay more for dental care?
Proponents: There is less decay in communities with fluoridated water. If there are increased costs, it would be because cavities are not filled. Sometimes when people do not use their dental dollars for fillings, they may use them for cosmetic reasons, such as to straighten the teeth.
The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented for over 50 years. Even before fluoridation was introduced to drinking water, studies from the 1930s and 1940s showed a reduction in tooth decay in naturally fluoridated areas.
A 1993-94 year study done in California found that children living in non-fluoridated areas had 39 percent more tooth decay than children who were lifelong residents of fluoridated areas.
Opponents: "When the actual costs of dental care delivered in fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities are compared, residents of fluoridated cities seem to reap no economic benefit from fluoridation." (Chemical and Engineering News. August 1, 1988.)
"Dentists in fluoridated communities serve a substantially larger patient load than dentists in fluoride-deficient communities..." (Journal of the American Dental Association. 84:255-367, 1972)
6. What are some sources of fluoride?
Proponents: Fluoride is found naturally in our water, soil, and produce. You can use fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash. Also you can have your dentist write you a prescription for fluoride.
Opponents: The most common kind of fluoride used to fluoridate drinking water is not the naturally occurring calcium fluoride already present in our water. Nor is it the pharmaceutical grade in dental products. It is a toxic waste by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, a cumulative poison, more toxic than lead.
Many foods and beverages contain large amounts of fluoride because they are pro-cessed with fluoridated water or have fluoride-based pesticide residue on them. Artificially fluoridated water contains 1 ppm (1 part per million) of fluoride. White grape juice contains 6.8 ppm fluoride; Shredded Wheat 9.4 ppm; cabbage 45 ppm, tomatoes 30 ppm, peaches 10 ppm.
Airborne fluoride from manufacturing and processing plants plus fluoridated dental products, add significantly to total exposure to fluoride.
7. What will it cost to add fluoride to the water and monitor its safety?
Proponents: The Davis County Health Department has consulted with Weber Basin Water Conservancy district and a private water engineer to determine costs. Estimated county-wide costs will be approximately $2 per person per year. Only potable water will be fluoridated, not the secondary water used to water lawns and gardens. Residents in Brigham City, which has no secondary water sources and must use potable water for all needs, pay an annual cost of $1.09 per person for fluoridation.
Opponents: There has not been a full disclosure to the public of all related costs, including, but not limited to, installation, maintenance, insur- ance, adequate building facilities and labor. Cities, not counties, will have to cover uncalculated costs for fluoridation. Legally, a water district can cover its costs through water bills or increased property taxes or both.
To be accurate, the cost of fluoridation should include -- among others -- the cost of repairing dental fluorosis and the price of surgery, treatment and convalescence for in-creased hip fractures in the elderly.
8. Who locally could profit from the sale of fluoride?
Proponents: This is not known.
Opponents: Any connection to the source of chemicals, equipment companies or to vendors would determine if there was any profit locally.
However, those who sell the silicofluoride chemical used in 90 percent of fluoridation systems will profit greatly. It is classified as toxic waste which cannot be diluted enough to legally be dumped into the ocean, rivers, or onto the ground. It has to be disposed of in expensive toxic waste dumps.
But if it can be sold for use in a fluoridation system, it is no longer classified as a toxic waste, but as a "product" and expensive toxic waste disposal is avoided.
More toxic than lead, slightly less toxic than arsenic, fluoride has had this protected legal status -- which Congress is investigating -- since it was involved in the manufacture of the atomic bomb during WW II.
9. Where can I go for information on fluoride?
Proponents: Your own doctor and dentist are excellent sources. The Davis County Health Department has resources they could share with you. The best Web sites we know of are the American Dental Association site found at www.ada.org and the Centers for Disease Control at www.cdc.gov
Opponents: Citizens for Safe Drinking Water-Utah. 801-221-5815 or 801-492-0217.
www.StopFluoridation
.homestead.com
www.nofluoride.com
www.FluorideAlert.org
Local libraries
10. Is there any way to filter out fluoride from the water system?
Proponents: Reverse osmosis and distillation units are the most effective ways to remove fluoride. Fluoride is tasteless, odorless and colorless. Fluoride is safe, and people are not allergic to fluoride, nor will they be irritated by fluoride at one part per million. Other than personal preference, there is no health related reason to filter out fluoride.
Opponents: Ordinary filtration systems do not remove fluoride. It requires expensive distillation or reverse osmosis equipment costing approximately $500-$1,200 installed.
People who are at risk from fluoride and want to avoid drinking it would be disenfranchised from the public water system if we fluoridate our water. They would not be able to drink water at school, at church, in public places or in restaurants. They also still have the problem of dermal absorption in bathing and swimming.
11. Is fluoride a waste product of the aluminum and/or
fertilizer industries?
Proponents: The best answer regarding toxicity and purity of fluoride is one I've seen which was submitted to Governor Jeb Bush from Van R. Hoofnagle, P.E. Adminis-trator of the Drinking Water Program in Florida. The Governor asked about the toxicity of a common agent used to fluoridate water, hydrofluorosilicic acid. Because this same issue is being raised in Utah, the response seems appropriate: "Our agency has the responsibility to regulate water treatment chemicals such as hydrofluorosilicic acid. We require that all water treatment chemicals be certified to be in conformance with ASTM/NSF Standard 60 and AWWA Standard B703.
"Chemicals that meet these standards are deemed safe to be added to treat drinking water within specified limits. When fluoride is added to drinking water, it is not a toxic or hazardous waste. It must meet strict standards. It exceeds the food grade standards of the FDA."
Saying that toxic waste, scrubbed from industrial smokestacks of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturers is used to fluoridate water as a convenient way for chemical manufacturers to turn their "problem" into profit by adding it to public drinking water is extremely irresponsible. This is one of the chief ways opponents try to scare people. It is just not so!
Opponents: Yes. "Fluoride is a discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories." (Federal Register. 63(30):
7606-7633, 1998)
Most people don't realize that there are different kinds of fluoride. The kinds that are used in fluoridation systems are not the naturally-occurring calcium fluoride already present in our water, nor are they the kind in over-the-counter or prescription products. They never have been approved by the FDA for reducing cavities, and the FDA admits that it has no long term studies showing the safety of these kinds of fluoride mixed with tap water.
It has enjoyed a protected legal status since the days when it was used to separate uranium isotopes to make atomic bombs during the Manhattan Project. U.S. Senators Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter said in September 2000, that they will conduct an investigation into the Manhattan Project.
12. Why have a number of U.S. cities, as well as cities and countries of Europe, quit their fluoridation programs?
Proponents: controlled water fluoridation is practiced in some 40 countries other than the United States. Some of these countries use fluoridation for virtually all of their populations, e.g., the city-states of Hong Kong and Singapore -- or for major portions of their population, e.g. Australia, Canada, Ireland, Malaysia and New Zealand. Some countries, because of the complexity of their water systems, fluoridate salt. This is especially true in France and Germany.
The reunification of Germany has resulted in a decrease in water fluoridation, mainly because of technical problems with fluoridation equipment. There are a number of countries without fluoridation, but this should not be construed as concern for safety or effectiveness. In many parts of the world, fluoridation is not feasible due to the lack of central water supply, the presence of more urgent health needs, and the lack of sufficient funds for start-up and maintenance.
There are currently 10,500 U.S. cities that are on a community fluoridation program.
The World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization have endorsed community water fluoridation since 1964. Community fluoridation is not banned in Europe, nor is the practice condemned.
Opponents: Common reasons for quitting fluoridation programs include;
- Unwillingness to use the public water supply to deliver medicines or drugs
- Desire to keep the water supply pure and safe for as many people as possible.
- Decreased decay rates without fluoridation
- Desire to avoid dental fluorosis
- Concern for the ecosystem
Three out of four referenda to fluoridate fail. A number of cities in California have refused to comply with a state legislative mandate to fluoridate, including Santa Cruz, Escondido, and Santa Barbara. Japan does not fluoridate. Ninety-eight percent of Europe have either rejected fluoridation outright or have abandoned it after trying it.
Section 2: Fluoride's impact on tooth decay
1. Does fluoride really protect against tooth decay?
Proponents: Absolutely! Fluoridation began on an experimental basis in 1945. Four cities with fluoridation were paired against four cities without fluoridation. Early findings of reduced dental decay in the cities which pioneered fluoridation -- Grand Rapids, Mich.; Newburgh, N.Y.; Brantford, Ont.; and Evanston, Ill. -- were so profound that water fluoridation grew rapidly as a public health measure.
Findings reported between 1956 and 1979 showed that dental decay in the permanent teeth of children who grew up drinking fluoridated water declined by 50-70 percent. Other comparisons showed that more than six times as many school-aged children were caries-free in fluoridated communities and that the number of first molars requiring extractions was reduced by 75 percent.
Because dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century, water fluoridation was endorsed by the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and other professional and scientific organizations.
Opponents: Any benefit from fluoride is on smooth surfaces of the teeth only; pits and fissures are not affected.
The largest modern study on DMFT (decayed; missing, and filled teeth) rates in the United States (39,207 children) found no difference between the DMFT's of fluoridated vs. unfluoridated communities. (Fluoride: Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research. 23(2); 55-67, 1990)
The July 2000 cover story in the Journal of the American Dental Association should provide an end to the decades-old myth that drinking/ingesting fluoride prevents tooth decay: "Fluoride...works primarily via topical mechanisms...systematically incorporated [swallowed] fluoride has only a minor role in protecting against dental [cavities]."
2. Don't some studies show that tooth decay rates are almost the same for cities without fluoridation as those with fluoridation?
Proponents: This is not true. Cities with fluoridated water have less decay than those without it. History has shown that adding fluoride to water reduces decay. A 1993 compilation of 113 studies showed that fluoridation reduced decay by 40-49 percent for primary or baby teeth and 50-50 percent in permanent teeth.
Decay has lessened across the board, since the water was first fluoridated in 1945. This is because we are all exposed to some degree of fluoride. Most people brush with fluoridated toothpaste. Many use fluoridated mouthwash. Sometimes we consume canned goods processed with fluoridated water from another city or beverages might have been bottled in a fluoridated community. All of these have had some degree of impact, although not to the extent we can expect when the water is fluoridated.
Opponents: Two famous fluoridation experiments began in the 1940's in Grand Rapids, Mich., and Newburgh, N.Y. In 1995, the teeth of the children in fluoridated Newburgh were compared to those in unfluoridated Kingston. There was little difference in DMFT (decayed, missing and filled teeth) between the two cities. However, there was one big difference: the children in fluoridated Newburgh had about twice the dental fluorosis as the children in unfluoridated Kingston.
In 98 percent unfluoridated Europe, the DMFT's for children in many countries are actually lower than in the U.S. Declines in cavities began before the introduction of fluoride toothpaste and are attributed primarily to better dental hygiene.
3. Can reducing sugar in one's diet have the same effect as fluoride in the water?
Proponents: Certainly reducing sugar is helpful in preventing tooth decay. However, it would be virtually impossible to reduce sugar consumption enough to match the protection teeth get from fluoridated water.
Opponents: When teeth are bathed in sugar, there is an "acid challenge" to the teeth. If they are not cleaned or rinsed immediately with water, it may take an hour for the saliva's buffering effects to restore the pH (acid/alkaline balance) to normal. During that hour, minerals in the teeth may leach outward to help neutralize the acid.
Repeated acid challenges and disturbance of minerals may create an area on the tooth which can become an actual cavity. The fewer exposures to sugar, and the shorter the exposure time, the less chance of tooth decay.
4. If fluoride can be found in fruits and vegetables naturally, does it need to be added to the water?
Proponents: We get about half our days' allotment of fluoride in optimally fluoridated water (1 ppm). The rest is expected to come from the foods we eat.
Opponents: Definitely not. We're already getting higher than safe levels of fluoride from many foods and beverages because they are processed with fluoridated water -- which concentrates the fluoride.
Since fluoride is not an essential nutrient, fruits and vegetables contain very little naturally-occurring calcium fluoride, but most of them have high fluoride pesticide residues many times greater than what would be consumed in fluoridated water.
Drinking fluoridated water will overdose many people, particularly infants who should have no fluoride supplementation at all.
5. Rather than advocating fluoride, why not promote better eating habits?
Proponents: Nutritionists and health professionals have always promoted good eating habits. However, the effects of diet on reducing tooth decay are not nearly as successful as optimal levels of fluoride. The Institute of Medicine (1997) classified fluoride as a micronutrient, citing it, along with calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, and vitamin D, as an important constituent in maintaining health." Fluoride is an integral part of the tooth structure. When fluoride is ingested before permanent teeth erupt, fluoride becomes incorporated into the forming tooth structure, making teeth strong and cavity resistant. After teeth have erupted, ingested fluoride, which is present in small amounts in the saliva, continually bathes the teeth and is uniquely able to reduce tooth decay. Fluoride is also incorporated into the dental plaque which facilitates remineralization (ADA, 1999, pg. 8).
Opponents: Great idea! Young children can be taught which foods contain vital substances for healthy, attractive teeth, and which foods create an acid, decay-promoting environment in the mouth.
Of course that requires parental responsibility and effort. Most worthwhile things do. Roses need cultivating; weeds don't.
Section 3: Fluoride and its effect on health
1. Can fluoride contribute to osteoporosis?
Proponents: There are two problems with the data Antifluoridationists use related to bone health and fluoridation. One is that they often quote studies which are old and have since been refuted. The other is that they fail to look at the "body" of research. All evidence points to no deleterious effects on bone health from fluoridation. In fact, some recent studies show a slight diminishing of hip fracture in fluoridated communities.
Opponents: Fluoride is the most bone-seeking element known to mankind. Half of all ingested fluoride remains in the skeletal system and accumulates with age. Several recent epidemiological studies suggest that only a few years of fluoride ingestion from fluoridated water increases the risk of bone fracture. The U.S. Public Health Service states that fluoride makes the bones more brittle and dental enamel more porous. FDA has not approved the use of fluoride for osteoporosis.
2. Does fluoridated water cause heart defects or heart disease?
Proponents: The American Heart Association reaffirms that the main causes of heart disease are cigarette and tobacco smoke, high blood cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, physical inactivity and obesity.
Studies done between 1950 and 1970 in 473 cities across the U.S. showed no direct link between heart disease and fluoride.
Opponents: There is evidence that fluoride accumulates in the heart muscle of some people. Since fluoride is an extremely active element, biocumulative, and forms complexes with toxic metals such as mercury, an interesting study might be to find out why mercury levels in hearts are 20,000 times above normal in some cases of cardiac myopathy.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services says that people with heart problems are susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride.
3. Is fluoride linked to bone cancer or gene mutations?
Proponents: A study reported by J. Yiamouyiannis appeared in 1975, reporting that people who lived in the 10 largest fluoridated communities had more cancer than those in 10 selected non-fluoridated communities. Upon examining the data, reputable scientists found obvious shortcomings in the statistical methods used.
For instance, crude death rates were used rather than making an adjustment for population factors which must include age, as older people have more cancer than younger people; race, blacks have higher cancer rates than whites; and gender, males have higher cancer incidence than females.
Secondly, the study compared highly industrialized cities of the Northeast (fluoridated), which have more industrial pollution, with cities from the south and West (non-fluoridated).
Third, researchers failed to consider cancer data prior to fluoridation. That is, in 1950 each of the fluoridated cities had higher cancer death rates, and they still did 20 years later.
Later studies in the United States, Canada and New Zealand which did adjust for age, race, and sex found no evidence that fluoride increases the incidence or mortality of cancer in any organ.
A National Toxicology Program study completed in April 1990 showed that male rats developed bone cancer after drinking water containing 24-100 times the amount used in public water supplies. Since no cancers were seen in female rats, antifluoridationists often use this data to claim that fluoride causes bone cancer in males.
They fail to disclose the conclusion of the scientists conducting the study that the tumors in male rats cannot be used as firm evidence to link fluoride ingestion to cancer.
In February 1991, the Pubic Health Service reported the results of year-long survey that showed no evidence of an association between fluoride and cancer in humans. The survey which involved a review of more than 50 human epidemiology studies produced over the past 40 years, led the investigators to conclude that optimal fluoridation of drinking water does not pose a detectable risk of cancer to humans.
In one recent study, scientists at the National Cancer Institute evaluated the relationship between fluoridation of drinking water and the cancer mortality (deaths) in the United States during a 36-year-period and the relationship between fluoridation and the cancer incidence (rate) during 15-year period. After examining more than 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 cancer case records in counties using fluoridated water, the researchers saw no indication of a cancer risk associated with fluoridated drinking water (National Cancer Institute Information Resources)
Opponents: Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological program. (Mauerer, et. al., NCI 82.1118-26, 1990)
Further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health confirmed a 69-fold increase in bone cancer in young males. (Cohn, Perry D. Ph.D. An Epidemiological Report on Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma in Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health and Environmental Health Service, Trenton J, November 8, 1992).
Earlier studies had found a 5 percent increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities. (Yiamouyiannis, J.A. and Dean Burk. "Fluoridation and Cancer: Age Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation." Fluoride. 10(3:102-123, 1977). It is plausible that fluoride could interfere with DNA and protein synthesis.
4. What about infant mortality and/or Down Syndrome?
Proponents: A new, comprehensive study from the British Medical Journal reiterates what other studies have shown...there is no connection between fluoridation and Down syndrome. Fluoride has not been found to be related to infant mortality rates.
Opponents: Early research by endocrinologist Ionel Rapaport at the University of Wisconsin presented evidence for a fluoride link to Down Syndrome. Erickson et al later concluded that there was no association, but there have been valid challenges to his methodology.
In fact, the dose-response line for daily fluoride intake may have no allowable level that does not induce fluoride-linked Down Syndrome births. Fluoride may be one of the major causes of Down Syndrome other than aging of mothers.
5. Does fluoride build up in the body and become more toxic over time?
Proponents: If this were true it would be seen in cases of skeletal fluorosis. Advanced skeletal fluorosis has not been demonstrated to occur even when people spend their entire lives drinking water with naturally occurring fluoride levels of as much as 20 parts per million.
Opponents: "The effect of ingesting fluoride is cumulative." (Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgery's Guide to Family Dental Care. 997) 50 percent of the fluoride consumed daily stays in the bones, making them more brittle and subject to fractures.
The pineal gland also attracts fluoride. Fluoride accumulation inhibits pineal gland melatonin synthesis and is associated with accelerated onset of puberty in both female animals and humans. (Luke, J. Caries Research. 28: 204, 1994)
6. Does fluoride cause allergic reaction and/or rashes?
Proponents: No! Dr. Craig Moffat, M.D., an allergist practicing in both Davis and Salt Lake counties, has answered the question regarding allergies to fluoridated water in this way:
"There is no convincing scientific evidence that fluoridated community drinking water causes allergies in humans. While scattered and largely anecdotal reports of a variety of symptoms ascribed to drinking fluoridated water have been published, review of these reports by academic allergy medical organization, the U.S. Public Health Service, and independent investigators have failed to confirm that these adverse effects are either allergic or immunologic in origin, or are indeed caused by fluoridated community drinking water."
Dr. E. Edgar Allen, M.D., a dermatologist in Ogden responds: "A number of highly respected national and international organizations have considered the possibility of allergic reactions to fluoride and have concluded that allergic reactions to fluoride as used in community water supplies just do not occur. The American Academy of Allergy reviewed reports of possible allergic reactions and concluded there is not evidence of allergy or intolerance of fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.
"Nevertheless, I have been told by a number of individuals that they knew of people who were 'deathly allergic' to fluoride. I have tried to get names and follow up on such claims. In every case where people were willing to give me the name or detailed information I have learned that the claim has had to do with a perceived worsening of perioral dermatitis by exposure to fluoride in toothpaste.
"I treat perioral dermatitis in my practice and have studied it for many years. There is a theory that fluoride in toothpaste may make the perioral dermatitis worse. This theory has never been universally accepted....
Since fluoride placed in water supplies is a relatively very simple structure, one would not expect allergic reactions to occur. Also, if allergic reactions were a real possibility it would be necessary to put severe warnings on canned goods. It seems likely to me that virtually everyone in the main stream population of the United States has exposure to at least some fluoridated water on a regular basis. While this is not enough to receive the benefits to dental health, it is further powerful evidence against claims of allergic reactions to fluoride."
Opponents: "Some individuals do react adversely to fluorides. The degree and nature of the response will vary from individual to individual.
"This being true, the debate should not be the merits of fluoridation of the water supply, but rather the ethical aspects of universal fluoridation which creates an untenable situation for those individuals who are intolerant to fluorides.
"The answer thus becomes very simple. Each individual should be granted the option to choose fluoride prophylaxis depending upon his need and tolerance." (Letter from Ben F. Feingold, M.D. Chief Emeritus, Dept. of Allergy, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center, 1976.)
Dr Feingold identifies the central issue in artificial fluoridation: It is not ethical -- even if it's legal -- to force a medication on our neighbors without their consent and against their will, especially when we now know that we don't have to drink fluoride to have its best effect.
There is a difference between treating water with chlorine to make it safe and treating people. Water should be for everyone. It isn't if it's fluoridated.
7. Can fluoride affect children's IQ's?
Proponents: In articles published regarding fluoridation, former Davis County Health Director Dr. James Saunders commented about a Chinese IQ study.
"What other differences are there between the two groups?" he asked. "Does one group live in the city and the other in a remote mountain village where fluoride occurs naturally in the water?
"If IQ were affected by fluoride, Utah school children should be the brightest in the nation. We love them all, but we know that's not true. Unfortunately, we do know that Utah children have more decayed, missing or filled teeth than the national average."
Opponents: Observations on the destructive effect of fluoride on the fetal brain were published as early as 1982. Masters and Coplan (International Journal of Environmental Studies. 56:435-449, September, 1999) found significantly elevated blood lead levels in 40,000 children living in fluoridated communities. Low levels of lead exposure early in life lead to increased problems later with reduced IQ, inattention, memory, delinquency and aggressive behavior. The CDC warns that excessive levels of lead in the blood can cause learning disabilities, behavioral problems and seizures.
Two studies in China showed a pattern of depressed IQ at all ages from fluoride exposure at levels currently pronounced "safe" by fluoride proponents. It also showed that fluoride passes through the placenta and impacts the brain of the fetus.
8. What about headaches?
Proponents: There are no studies supported by science that show fluoride has caused headaches. Dr. Waldbott's study is inconclusive. The removal of fluoridated water does not prove that fluoride was the cause of the headaches since the water may have contained other substances that were causing them. In addition, lifestyle factors, such as stress, sleep, eating habits, etc. were not taken into account.
Opponents: Headaches are just one of many allergic reactions cited in fluoride literature. The issue of caffeine interaction with fluoride may be an important factor here: Fluoride in tea, Coca-Cola and coffee results in a significantly higher plasma fluoride level than intake of the same amount of fluoride in decaffeinated beverages. There is approximately a two-fold increase in bio-availability of the fluoride.
9. Can chemicals in tap water react with fluoride and become a potential danger?
Proponents: Absolutely not. Fluoride being added to the water is safe. The compound of fluoride that is added to the water will not react with any chemicals that are already present in the water. The fluoride compound is compatible with all the chemicals that are used to purify the water.
Opponents: Fluoride combines with every element except the three inert gases.
It leeches lead out of the solder in water pipes. Four hundred thousand children in fluoridated communities in Massachusetts and Georgia had significantly higher blood lead levels than children in unfluoridated communities. (Masters/Coplan, International Journal of Environmental Studies. 56:435-449, September, 1999) Lead can cause learning disabilities and hyperactivity.
Aluminum with low levels of fluoride is able to pass the blood brain barrier, resulting in morphological alterations in the brain. (Brain Research. 784:284-298, 1998)
Recently a chemical reaction caused a fluoride storage tank to burst at the Hanahan Water Treatment Plant in South Carolina. "They reacted; it released a large amount of heat; the fiberglass essentially melted; it just burst." Cost for treating the spill and a new tank is expected to be in the tens of thousands of dollars." (Jason Hardin, Post and Courier, August 4, 2000)
10. Can fluoride cause hypoactivity--or the reverse, hyperactivity?
Proponents: There have been no scientific studies that support the claim the fluoride causes slowness or sluggishness. Many of the studies done on laboratory animals use huge amounts of fluoride and inject directly into the bloodstream.
No studies have been done that show fluoride can cause hyperactivity in children or adults. Fluoride does not have a negative effect on unborn children either.
Opponents: Fluoride accumulates in the brain. Animals exposed to fluoride before birth were hyperactive; when exposed after birth, they become hypoactive (couch potatoes"). The amount of fluoride injected into the rats was the amount needed to bring blood serum levels of fluoride in the rats to the level of fluoride in people who drink fluoridated water. (Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D. et al, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats." Neurotoxicology and Teratology. 17: 169-17, 1995)
11. Does fluoride contribute to gastric ulcers or gastrointestinal problems?
Proponents: There are no scientifically supported studies indicating that gastric ulcers or gastrointestinal problems are caused from small amounts of fluoride added to the drinking water.
Opponents: A.K. Susheela reported that of 1,958 persons drinking water containing .25-8 ppm of fluoride, 58 percent had dental fluorosis, 27 percent had skeletal fluorosis, 41 percent had non-skeletal manifestations and 26 percent had gastrointestinal complaints. Complaints disappeared within two weeks when fluoride levels dropped.
12. Why has the EPA opposed adding fluoride to the water?
Proponents: The EPA went on record stating that fluoride was a danger at 4 ppm. However, since adding fluoride to drinking it is only 1 ppm, the EPA is in support of fluoridating the drinking water at that level. The EPA states that there is an adequate margin of safety between the amount added to the drinking water and the amount that would be considered a hazard.
Opponents: EPA's union of scientists and professionals unanimously oppose fluoridation: "As the professionals who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, we conclude that the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply. Our...review of the body of evidence over the past 11 years...indicates a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children." (Call Bill Hirzy, EPA, 202-260-468)
Rigorous scrutiny of fluoride research by the EPA has prompted many health officials and dentists to abandon the decades-old love affair many trade associations still have with fluoridation. Dr. Hardy Limeback, head of the preventive Dentistry Department at the University of Toronto, and for 15 years a leading proponent of fluoridation, recently apologized to his students and faculty: "Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from public health and the dental association. Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."
Like a huge inverted pyramid, lists of endorsements for fluoridation rest on a narrow base of selected, outdated experimental information which is extremely vulnerable to scientific scrutiny. The result is a political and legal dilemma almost impossible to imagine for those who have rubber-stamped the extravagant assurances of safety and efficacy of fluoridation for so long. Given the commercial, professional and legal implications involved, backing away from fluoridation -- as Dr. Limeback and many others are dong -- may not be an entirely painless process; it hasn't been in similar situations before when we've finally faced up to the facts and assumed responsibility relative to leaded gasoline, benzine and tobacco.
13. Is it safe to make baby formula with fluoridated water?
Proponents: The concentration of fluoride in the water will not have any negative effects on babies or baby formula. If anything, it will be beneficial and helpful for baby and the forming of healthy teeth.
Opponents: Absolutely not. Mothers are not being warned by ADA that infants up to six months of age and pregnant women are to have no fluoride supplementation.
Current dental research shows that since the effect of fluoride in reducing cavities is topical (toothpaste, gels, etc.) children don't need fluoride exposure at all until they have teeth. Journal of the American Dental Association, July 2000: ([S]tudies have illustrated the weak pre-eruptive effects of fluoride," and "Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in [cavity] protection."
14. A 1995 study linked fluoride to problems of the central nervous system. Is this true?
Proponents: Scientists have reviewed the 1995 study and found that inadequacies in the experimental design may have led to invalid conclusions. The rats in this study were injected with levels of fluoride that were up to 125 times greater than the level of fluoride that will be introduced into community water. Anything is toxic in mass amounts. There have been no other studies that link fluoride to central nervous disorders.
Opponents: Yes, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix reported in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 1995 that functions of the central nervous system are vulnerable to fluoride, that the effects on behavior depend on the age at exposure, and that fluoride accumulates in brain tissues.
A 1994 review in International Clinical Psychopharmocology listed case reports of central nervous effects in humans excessively exposed to fluoride, information that spans almost 60 years. Reported effects included impaired memory and concentration, lethargy, headaches, depression and confusion.
15. In 1994, the U.S. Department of Health said fluoride is a risk to the elderly and others. Is this correct?
Proponents: On the contrary, fluoride is a safe, effective way for every member of the population to have access to the benefits that fluoride offers. There are no scientific studies to support the claim that fluoride poses a danger to any member of the population.
Opponents: Yes. In its Toxicological Profile on Fluoride-TP91/17 April 1993, p. 112 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warns that "subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride...[including] the elderly [increased risk of hip fractures], people with [nutritional] deficiencies...and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems."
16. What is fluorosis and how does it affect us?
Proponents: Antifluori-dationists like to portray children in optimally fluoridated communities as having mouths full of brown, pitted teeth. Nothing could be farther from the truth. One of the main reasons fluoride levels are limited to 1 ppm is to avoid visible fluorosis which may occur in communities with higher than optimum natural fluoride levels.
The types of fluorosis seen in the United States are the questionable, very mild, and mild forms. Questionable and very mild fluorosis result in changes in teeth so subtle that only trained dental examiners are likely to discover them.
Mild fluorosis is characterized by a subtle while lacy appearance of the teeth, barely discernable by someone looking closely at the teeth. None of these minor forms of fluorosis are considered abnormal or of any health consequence.
Most fluorosis is caused when children swallow too much fluoride toothpaste or from the inappropriate supplementation with prescription fluoride products. This is why we see the warning on toothpaste tubes.
The results of fluorosis may be seen as an alternative to having unsightly dental decay, which is a much more severe problem both cosmetically and financially.
Opponents: It is the mottling/discoloration of teeth. It occurs when fluoride poisons the enzymes involved in laying down tooth enamel. Fluorosis ranges from chalky white spots on the teeth to disfiguring brown stains and pitting. Fluoride is the only known cause of dental fluorosis.
Fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride overdose. Increasing numbers of children in both fluoridated and unfluoridated communities have dental fluorosis (48 percent average) because of the "halo" effect from ingesting fluoride from soft drinks, foods and beverages which are processed with fluoridated water or which contain fluoride pesticide residues.
17. Does fluorosis cause discoloration of the teeth?
Proponents: Fluoride may cause discoloration of the teeth in a few people, but this is a minor cosmetic effect that outweighs the benefits of fluoride and the reduction of dental caries.
Fluorosis occurs due to exposure to fluoride during the period of enamel formation.
Fluorosis can occur in children who are not exposed to fluoridated drinking water. Regular well water causes fluorosis.
If fluorosis does occur, it usually occurs in only mild cases, and most people are not aware that they have even had it. Rarely does it occur moderately or severely.
Opponents: Fluoride inhibits enzymes called proteases which normally digest the little amount of protein left between the mineral prisms immediately before they fuse to form the smooth enamel surface of the teeth. The little pieces of protein left cause white patches on the tooth.
Instead of smooth, glossy translucent teeth, fluorosis teeth appear paper white, opaque, with increased porosity, and more susceptible to fracture. The increased porosity of the enamel makes it very vulnerable to increased discoloration over time.
18. Does fluoride cause skeletal fluorosis?
Proponents: Skeletal fluorosis is related to extreme industrial exposures to fluoride, not to drinking the minuscule amount of 1 ppm fluoride in optimally fluoridated water. Advanced skeletal fluorosis has not been demonstrated to occur even when people spend their entire lives drinking water with naturally occurring fluoride levels of as much as 20 parts per million.
Opponents: Absolutely. Skeletal fluorosis is the gradual loss of mobility of the spine and connective tissue due to increased bone mass and calcification of ligaments that attach to the bone. Severity is directly correlated to kidney function, nutritional status, and the amount of fluoride accumulation over one's lifetime. While crippling skeletal fluorosis may be rare in the U. S., the preceding stages may be prevalent; increased bone mass, stiffness of joints, chronic joint pain, and arthritic symptoms.A study of fluoride levels in bones in non-fluoridated Montreal and fluoridated Toronto indicate that the levels are about twice as high in Toronto.
There is concern that the increasing incidence of dental fluorosis in our children today may foreshadow damage to their bones in the years ahead. Ten studies, including one in Utah that was reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, demonstrate an association between hip fractures in the elderly and exposure to low levels of fluoride.
Post a Comment
