1. There are many researchers who do not support fluoridation and do not believe it is either safe or effective in preventing cavities.

2. Early studies in support of fluoridation were seriously flawed. Many recent studies seriously question the effectiveness of fluoridation. If there is a real benefit, it appears to be fairly insignificant.

3. When fluoridation ceases, decay levels are often little changed or reduced, dental fluorosis is reduced, and health is improved (as supported by numerous studies).

4. Fluoride is a naturally occurring element, but a toxic one - more toxic than lead and almost as toxic as arsenic. The fluoride that occurs naturally in some water supplies is in the form of calcium fluoride. Water fluoridation uses silicofluorides (industrial by-products). These are more toxic than calcium fluoride and also contain small amounts of toxic metals and other impurities.

5. Water fluoridation results in an uncontrolled dosage of fluoride. Fluoride intake varies greatly with the amount of water consumed, use of fluoride toothpastes, supplements and dental treatments. Many fruit juices and other foods often contain high levels of fluoride. The nutritional status of the individual also impacts the amount of fluoride that can be safely consumed. Though fluoride consumption from other sources has risen, there has been no reduction in the recommended amount in water supplies.

6. There is a serious discrepancy regarding the EPA’s maximum contaminate level for fluoride vs. those for arsenic and lead, given the relative toxicities of these substances. Original recommendations of the Surgeon General’s panel were altered to allow a much higher level of fluoride.

7. Even at low levels, fluoride tends to accumulate in the body over time. Numerous studies point to potential harm, including
cancer risks, neurological and thyroid impacts, etc.

 

Throughout this article, I will often be presenting two opposing viewpoints. The "FOR" viewpoint is primarily taken from the American Dental Association’s writings, but also echoed in the writings of other key proponents. The "AGAINST" viewpoint is drawn from the writings of a number of opponents to fluoridation. See the list of references on page 28 for the source documents for this information.

Origins of Water Fluoridation

In 1944, after numerous discussions with public health agencies, the City Commission of Grand Rapids, Michigan, agreed to became the site of a test of Dean’s fluoride theory. Beginning in 1945, the city water supply was fluoridated and researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among the city’s almost 30,000 school children. After just 11 years of the 15 year study, Dean announced that the caries rate among the Grand rapids school children had dropped by more than 60%. [1]

What is Fluoride and Water Fluoridation?

FOR:

"Fluoride is a naturally occurring element that prevents tooth decay systemically when ingested during tooth development and topically when applied to erupted teeth." "Fluoride compounds are constituents of minerals in rocks and soil. Water passes over rock formations and dissolves the fluoride compounds that are present, create fluoride ions. The result is that small amounts of soluble fluoride ions are present in all water sources, including the oceans. Fluoride is present to some extent in all foods and beverages but the concentrations vary widely."

There are only three basic compounds used to fluoridate community drinking water: sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid, all of which are derived from the mineral apatite. "Apatite is also the raw material used for production of phosphate fertilizers; however, standards and minimum requirements have been established for all three compounds used in water fluoridation." Compounds used must conform to standards established by the American Water Works Association, that require that there be no impurities in sufficient quantity to result in harmful effects to those consuming the water. [2]

AGAINST:

 "The plain fact that fluoride is an insidious poison, harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amount, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of water supply is ‘safe’." (Dr. Ludwig Gross, Cancer Research Scientist, in N.Y. Times 3/6/57.) [3]

"There is no such thing as "fluoride-deficient" water. In 1979, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that all government documents remove all references to fluoride as an "essential nutrient" or even a "probable essential nutrient." [3]

"Water fluoridation is the process of adding silicofluorides, or sodium fluoride, to our drinking water." "Only calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water, and it has never been used for fluoridation." "Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic that natural occurring calcium fluoride." (see Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. July 1934, page 797). "Calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Soft waters to which fluoride is artificially added lack this calcium which is present in most waters that contain natural fluoride." [3]

Dr. J. William Hirzy, EPA Sr. Scientist, testified before a senate subcommittee in 2000, speaking as a "representative of EPA headquarters professional employees, through their duly elected labor union." A part of his testimony confirmed that EPA management viewed the process of "recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacture" for use in water fluoridation was an ideal solution for minimizing water and air pollution while providing low cost fluoride to local water authorities. To quote Dr. Hirzy, "In other words, the solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the pollutant is dumped straight into drinking water systems and not into rivers or the atmosphere." [4]

FOR:

"Overwhelming evidence already exists to prove the effectiveness of water fluoridation." "The effectiveness of water fluoridation has been documented in scientific literature for well over 50 years." [2]

"In 1993, the results of 113 studies in 23 countries were compiled and analyzed. … Taken together, the most frequently reported decay reductions observed were: 40-49% for primary teeth or baby teeth; 50-59% for permanent teeth or adult teeth." [2]

McDonough and colleagues reviewed over 200 studies on the health effects of water fluoridation. Although these studies were generally of poor quality, the authors found a median 15% reduction in tooth decay – or a median 2.25 fewer decayed, missing, and filled primary/permanent teeth – amongst children living in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. ("Water Fluoridation: Benefits Should Be Considered Alongside Risks", Editorial: Fluoridation, fractures, and teeth, British Medical Journal, October 5, 2000 .) [5]

"The original studies and many since then have proved that fluoridated water merely delays decay, it does not prevent it." [3]

"Today there is a great deal of scientific agreement that ingested fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. The largest study of tooth decay in America, by the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research in 1986-1987, showed that there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,207 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non-fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in the 84-city study. ("New Studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits," by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News. Vol 67, No. 19, May 8,1989). [3]

"‘Fluoride ions bind with calcium ions, strengthening tooth enamel as it forms in children.’ Many researchers now consider this more of an assumption than a fact, because of conflicting evidence from studies in India and several other countries over the past 10 to 15 years. Nevertheless, agreement is universal that excessive fluoride intake leads to loss of calcium from the tooth matrix, aggravating cavity formation throughout life rather than remedying it, and so causing dental fluorosis. Severe, Chronic and cumulative overexposure can cause the incurable crippling of skeletal fluorosis." (UNICEF’s Position on Water Fluoridation) [10]

One of the key early tests of the effectiveness of fluoride was in the neighboring communities of Newburgh and Kingston, New York. The children in both cities were examined by dentists and physicians and then fluoride was added to Newburgh’s water supply. [2, et al]

 "Ten years after fluoridation in Newburgh, New York, 6- to 9-year-olds had 58% less tooth decay than their counterparts in Kingston, New York, which was fluoride-deficient. After 15 years, 13- to 14-year-olds in Newburgh had 70% less decay than the children in Kingston." [2, 9]

 An incorrect reading of the statistics in this study led to the false conclusion of large reductions in tooth decay. "They ignored the fact that fluoride interferes with proper growth of children’s permanent teeth, which causes teeth to erupt later than normal. Teeth that have not yet erupted cannot decay, therefore, at first (at age 6) the fluoridated Newburgh children had 100% less tooth decay, by age 7 also 100% less, age 8 – 67% less, age 9 – 50% less, and by age 10 – 40% less. Realizing their experiment was going down hill, the USPHS stopped their experiment early, totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called "an over-all reduction of 70%." Obviously, the only reduction that counted at that time was the 40% (age 10)." [3]

"Had the Heath Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued down hill to 30%, 20%, 0% and eventually these children had more cavities – not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. ("Fluoridation Benefits – Statistical Illusion." Testimony of Konstantin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, Mar 6, 1957). [3]

"Data by Dr. David B. Ast, who was in charge of the fluoridation experiment (Tables, page 319, Journal American Dental Association, 1961) shows delay in decay only until age 15. Then Newburgh passes non-fluoridated Kingston in decayed and filled teeth, after 16 years of fluoridation." [3]

"A recent study by the New York State Department of Health, showed that after nearly 50 years of fluoridation, Newburgh’s children have a slightly higher number of cavities than never-fluoridated Kingston." ("New Studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits," by Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News. Vol 67, No. 19, May 8,1989). [3, 4]

 In 1993-4, an oral health needs assessment of children in California found that children living in nonfluoridated areas had more tooth decay than those in fluoridated areas. Of most concern was the high decay rate affecting young children from low income families. Specifically, children in grades K-3, whose families were lifetime residents of nonfluoridated communities and whose income was below 200% of the Federal Poverty Level, had 39% more decay in their baby teeth when compared to counterparts who were lifetime residents of optimally fluoridated areas." [2]

AGAINST:

The 1993-4 California Oral Health Needs Assessment was performed by the Dental Health Foundation (DHF) - a foundation created in 1985 for the sole purpose of promoting statewide fluoridation. "As a result, the findings were very biased. The first-ever independent review of the California Oral Health Needs Assessment of 1993-94 was delivered to the City of Escondido, California on February 1, 2000. The analysis of the Needs Assessment was performed by the international renowned Senes Oak Ridge Inc. Center for Risk Assessment in Tennessee. Escondido City Council Member Marie Waldron said the Needs Assessment report was "a classic example of the manipulation of science to prove a case. This study, in effect, compares non-poor children in fluoridated communities, with protective sealants on their teeth, against poor children in Head Start programs in non-fluoridated communities, with no sealants on their teeth." (Review of the California Oral Health Needs Assessment 1993-94" Jan 31, 2000). [3]

 "Dental decay can be expected to increase if water fluoridation in a community is discontinued for one year or more, even if topical products such as fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinses are widely used." The ADA cites a number of studies (Antigo, Wisconsin; Wick, Scotland; Stranraer, Scotland; Coldwater, Michigan; Galesburg, Illinois) indicating that decay increased when fluoridation was ended. [2]

 The ADA gives examples in which they totally ignore the "delay in decay" that occurs due to fluoridation. (Antigo, by Harvey Petraborg, MD, July 14, 1965)

Many other studies are cited indicating a result of no increased decay and reduced fluorosis when fluoridation ceases (Durham, North Carolina; Spremberg & Zittau, Germany; Kuopio, Finland; La Salud, Cuba). "The analysis of data however, show a significant decrease in dental caries (caries decline) after the stop of water fluoridation in Japan, in the Netherlands, in Prague, in the German Democratic Republic, and in others. Never was an increase of dental caries found after a stop of water fluoridation." (Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Alternative Gesyndheitspolitik, by Rudolph Ziegelbecker, Graz, Austria, June 1, 1998.) [3]

 "The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence indicates that fluoridation of community water supplies is both safe and effective." "In August of 1993, the National Research Council, a branch of the National Academy of Sciences, released a report prepared for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that confirmed that the currently allowed fluoride levels in drinking water do not pose a risk for health problems such as cancer, kidney failure or bone disease." "No charge against the benefits and safety of fluoridation has ever been substantiated by generally accepted scientific knowledge." [2]

AGAINST:

Opponents of fluoridation cite numerous studies indicating possible harm from fluoride. These include: increased hip fractures, cancer (bone and thyroid cancer are particularly cited), lead poisoning (fluorosilicic acid leaching lead from plumbing), poisoning and inhibition of bodily enzymes, increased incidence of Downs Syndrome births, neurological impact (fluoride is the primary agent in many pharmaceuticals specifically intended to affect brain activity: Prozac, Phen-Fen, Rohypnol, and is the only toxic element in Sarin, the nerve gas, virtually every general anesthetic also contains fluoride), possibly contributing to Alzheimer’s (low doses found to cause brain damage similar to Alzheimer’s and to contribute to higher levels of aluminum in the brain), possible contributor to heart disease (statistics for Grand Rapids and Newburgh and other locations), possible kidney damage, related to thyroid dysfunction, etc. [3, 4, 6, 8, 10]

Dr. Hirzy also refers to two prominent dental researchers (Dr. John Colquhoun and Dr. Hardy Limeback) who were leaders of the profluoridation movement who in recent years announced reversals of their former positions because they concluded that water fluoridation is not an effective means of reducing dental caries and that it poses serious risks to human health. [4]

12) If Natick fluoridates its water supply at the proposed level, most children under the age of three will daily receive more fluoride than is recommended for them. [8]

Andreas Schuld of Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children of Vancouver, B.C., Canada, writes of a number of other significant sources of fluoride. "Tea leaves accumulate more fluoride (from pollution of soil and air) than any other edible plant. Fluoride content in tea has risen dramatically over the last 20 years, as has tea consumption." (From "Green tea, Fluoride, and the Thyroid", a paper by Andreas Schuld, published on Dr. Joseph Mercola’s website (mercola.com). [6]

Many soft drinks, fruit juices, and even cow’s milk available from the store have been found to contain fluoride in levels equal to or exceeding the amount of fluoride in fluoridated water. Juice concentrates often resulted in concentrated levels of fluoride (attributed to fluoride-based pesticide residue and processing with fluoridated water. [3,6]

If your water is fluoridated and you are concerned about this, you should be aware of the following: "The fluoride molecule is smaller than the water molecule, therefore it cannot be removed by filtration – only by distillation. Reverse osmosis, however, will remove 80 to 90% of the fluoride." ("Intake and Metabolism of Fluoride," G. Whitford, from Adv. Dental Research, 8 (1):5-14, June 1994.) [3]