1. Why are you opposed to fluoridation of our water supply?
Most people do not realize that the fluoride chemicals placed in water are not the same fluoride chemicals placed in toothpastes, mouth rinses, and topical gels. More than 90% of the chemicals used to fluoridate water in the US are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals, known as silicofluorides, are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid and are classified by the EPA as hazardous wastes. But when they are sold for as little as a penny, they are classified as a product. Silicofluorides are contaminated with toxic metals and trace amounts of radioactive isotopes such as lead, mercury, arsenic, uranium, radium, and cadmium. In fact, recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are high and of significant concern.
Another concern is that the Food and Drug Administration has never approved fluoride products for safety or effectiveness. Chemicals added to water make it safe or potable are within the jurisdiction of the Environmental Protection Agency. When a product, substance or chemical is added to the public water supply for the purpose of treating or preventing a disease, that chemical must have an approved health claim by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. To say that "fluoridated water will decrease tooth decay" is an illegal health claim.
The National Research Council (NRC) is currently reviewing the Toxicologic risk of fluoride in drinking water. The NRC’s final report is due November 2004.
Recently, major large cities are reporting a "Dental Crisis" -
(a) Cincinnati, fluoridated since 1979, reports October 6, 2002:
(b) Boston, fluoridated since 1978, reports November 11, 1999:
(c) Kansas City, Missouri, fluoridated since 1981, reports July 10, 2003:
Of course, none of the above articles mention the fact that their water has been fluoridated for decades.
There are no long-term oral health benefits with fluoridation.
2.) Is fluoridation cost effective?
No, fluoridation is NOT cost effective. Proponents tout that for every dollar spent on fluoridation, a person saves $38.00 in dental expenses. Let's look at that by using Salt Lake County, Utah, as an example: As reported to the Salt Lake County Council, March 3, 2004, "With less than half the Salt Lake County water districts costs being included in this sum, the current cost to fluoridate Salt Lake County is $11,717,084. The final costs, countywide, are estimated to be between 15M and 20M - far exceeding the high estimate of $2,695,161.00 the Salt Lake Health Department represented to the Salt Lake County voter."
With that in information in mind and using the low-range estimated cost for fluoridating Salt Lake County: $15,000,000.00 x $38.00 = $570,000,000.00!! The population in Salt Lake County is 898,387 and if every person saved $38.00 that would be $34,138,706.00. Seems to me that the people in Salt Lake County are spending more on water fluoridation!!
Another way to look at the figures: Money spent on fluoridation ($15,000,000.00 - again the low-range estimate) supposedly saved in dental costs ($570,000,000.00) far exceeds the revenue brought in by Utah's ski resorts and natural food products industry combined!
Now that fluoridation has begun in Davis and Salt Lake Counties, the proponents are saying that "the money has already been spent" so let's continue with fluoridation and not waste money. They overlook the escalating expense for the water companies to maintain their facilities. Don't be fooled again by the rhetoric of fluoridation proponents!!
2. What alternatives do we have available to help promote dental health (especially in low-income areas)?
Target that population. Provide them with the proper dental hygiene education and accessible dental treatment (over 80% of the dentists in the country do not treat Medicare patients), with parental consent, provide fluoride rinses in schools, and provide fluoride tablets to parents for their children (a much lower cost to the public).
3. Once a public water supply is fluoridated, can you avoid fluoride?
No, we cannot avoid fluoride. The best solution is to not fluoridate the water in the first place. However, the only way people can "avoid" fluoride at home is to install a reverse osmosis system that will remove close to 98% of the fluoride chemical. This is a very expensive system and many people cannot afford it -- especially those on a fixed income. Also, when the water supply is fluoridated, public drinking fountains contain fluoride not to mention restaurants will cook with fluoridated water. There is very little that can be done to avoid fluoridated water once it is in the system.
4. Is the amount present in Utah's water supply really enough to cause fluorosis and other adverse effects?
Yes. Utahans will inevitably be overdosed with fluoride. The "one-size-fits-all" dose is very misleading. For example: A construction worker will drink more water than a school teacher. There is no way to control the dose of fluoride consumed because of the "one-size-fits-all" approach without regard to the quantities of water consumed over a lifetime, age and weight of individuals, or preexisting medical conditions. There are many foods and beverages that are processed in fluoridated areas that contain fluoride which also makes it impossible to control the dosage received by individuals.
The York Review showed that 48% of people in fluoridated areas suffer from dental fluorosis (stained and mottled teeth due to a fluoride overdose). 12.5% have moderate to severe dental fluorosis that will require extensive cosmetic dentistry. One study in particular, analyzed over 280,000 children, (Roger D. Masters, Professor of Government Emeritus at Dartmouth College, and Myron J. Coplan, Emeritus Professor of Government at Dartmouth College) and reported that levels of lead in children's blood were significantly higher in Massachusetts communities using the silicofluorides (fluosilicic acid and sodium silicofluoride) than in towns where water is treated with sodium fluoride or not fluoridated at all. It was this study that raised a red flag to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This past April, the EPA announced a Request for Assistance (RFA) asking for research entities to investigate the reactions that take place among the chemicals added to drinking water to make it safe to drink and the fluoroilicates added to the water in fluoridated communities.
5. Is topical use of fluoride ok?
(a) Although the CDC endorses fluoridation, they have reported numerous times that "[F]luoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical." - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14): 1-2. And again: "[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 48: 933-940.
(b) "Current evidence suggests that the predominant beneficial effects of fluoride occur locally at the tooth surface, and that systemic (preeruptive) effects are of much less importance." - Formon, SJ; Ekstrand, J; Ziegler, E. (2000). Fluoride Intake and Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis: Trends in Fluoride Intake with Special Attention to Infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.
6. Do you think if people would change their viewpoint to one opposing fluoride if they knew about the adverse effects?
Absolutely, yes!. One thing that health officials are NOT telling the public is: According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1993), some people are particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects. These include: the elderly, diabetics and people with poor kidney function or heart disease. Again, can we in good conscience force these people to ingest fluoride on a daily basis? According to the ATSDR report, also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g., calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein-poor diets). Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation proposals. (Link)
Proponents refuse to debate the issue. As stated by a former Salt Lake Valley Health Department member prior to the November 2000 vote on fluoridation:
“I don't want fluoridation opponents to have the opportunity to speak publicly because they might sway someone's opinion to be different from mine.
People who are against fluoride won't change their minds through debate, but people who are for it might when they are presented with information that creates doubt in their minds. I don't want to let you [opponents] create doubt in their minds.”
Tony Tidwell, DDS,
Former member, Salt Lake Valley Health Department
August 16, 2000
There have been countless cities that have rejected fluoridation when the people were given both sides of the issue. (Link)
7. Why do dentists support water fluoridation and why does the government support it?
Not all dentists support water fluoridation. Those who do were taught in dental school that fluoridation works and that it is a good thing because of the endorsements by trade organizations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and others. There has been an enormous amount of new information concerning the adverse effects of water fluoridation. Proponents rely on decades-old science to substantiate their support.
Despite dental pressure, 99% of western continental Europe has rejected, banned, or stopped fluoridation due to environmental, health, legal, or ethical concerns. The World Health Organization (WHO) may endorse fluoridation but many of its countries DO NOT practice fluoridation because of health concerns.
Not until the chemicals used to fluoridate water supply systems are approved by the FDA for safety and effectiveness and the chemical is not use to mass medicate the population, will the six decade old controversy of fluoridation end!
8. What can Utahans do to help stop water fluoridation?
Ask local and state government officials to have fluoridation banded from Utah until the ongoing Congressional investigation is complete. If there were any question concerning the health and well being of the citizens of Utah, the Health Departments should realize that such a practice [fluoridation] should be stopped until all questions are answered. Ask state government officials to look at the full range of considerations – health, cost, moral and ethical issues involved in forced medication, efficacy, and safety of the product. Insist on public debate on these considerations which proponents consistently refuse to do. The more people learn about fluoridation, the more they will realize that the only thing that supports fluoridation is the endorsements.
No chemicals, fluorides or otherwise, should be added to the public water supply for the intended purpose of preventing a disease unless the health claim made for that chemical has been first approved as both safe and effective by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration – the only agency that can approve health claims.
9. Does fluoridation of the water supply have environmental implications?
Environmentally: 99.94% of fluoride in water systems ends up in the environment. It is non-biodegradable and a cumulative poison. Fluoride affects the reproductive cycles in fish and animals, and over time, the cumulative effects sterilize the ecosystem. Environmental impact studies should be conducted before any consideration to fluoridate water in any community. Utah's lakes do not drain to the ocean -- we live in a "bowl" - fluoride accumulation in our environment will surely accumulate. To date, no environmental studies on the effects of fluoride chemicals have been done in Utah.
