Fluoride News
Push to end water fluoridation fails in Ft. Collins
By Monte Whaley, Denver Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
FORT COLLINS — Voters on Tuesday decided in a resounding fashion to keep fluoride in their drinking water. They turned aside a proposed ordinance that would have banished fluoride over concerns that it leads to health problems.
The measure failed by a 2-to-1 ratio.
The campaign leading up to Tuesday's vote was emotional, with charges that both sides of the issue were misusing scientific data.
"The people of Fort Collins demonstrated they could look past pseudoscience, quackery and scare tactics," said Fort Collins dentist Leslie Paris. "They realized and experienced in their own lives the enormous benefits of fluoridation."
Fluoridation proponents, including Paris, cited more than 30,000 studies that said fluoridation of drinking water is an inexpensive way to reduce tooth decay.
Fluoride opponents claim the substance is linked to cancer, thyroid disease and even attention deficit disorder and Alzheimer's disease. Fluoride in drinking water, they add, is not alone responsible for the decline in tooth decay during the past several decades. Better nutrition, the greater use of antibiotics and prenatal vitamins all played a larger role in reducing dental problems, said Clean Water Advocates of Fort Collins.
A city study later said that fluoride's benefits outweighed its risks. This has been proven time and time again around the country.
Response to anti fluoridationists' Letters to the Editor: 3/8/05
I am writing in response to Mr. Mark Dubrow's letter of March 8 entitled "Fluoride's many effects." As the title of his letter indicates, and in keeping with the best traditions of the antifluoridation movement (for a detailed explanation of their tactics (see http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html), Mr. Dubrow's letter contains so many allegations that it is hard to know where to begin. Having said that, it is clear that the basic fallacy in Mr. Dubrow's arguments is that he erroneously applies warnings related to concentrated fluoride supplements to community water fluoridation.
He mentions many warnings and attributes them to the National Institutes of Health, citing a website (www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/uspdi/202527.html) to give credence to his claims. If you take the trouble to go to this website, you will learn a fact that Mr. Dubrow apparently thinks is unimportant: The warnings given apply to fluoride supplements which typically contain 1 mg of fluoride, or the amount which is contained in over four 8-ounce glasses of water. Obviously, it is far easier to overdose on fluoride when taking supplements than when drinking it in water; in fact one would die of water intoxication long before being able to ingest a toxic dose of fluoride from drinking water. Moreover, the more water one drinks, the more one has to urinate (I don't think a reference is needed for this fact). Since most ingested fluoride is eliminated in urine, the concentration in one's body does not increase substantially even when drinking huge quantities of water. Clearly, this makes obtaining fluoride in drinking water much safer than taking it in supplements, which is what parents who want to protect their children's teeth would have to resort to if fluoridation were eliminated in Arcata.
Towards the end of his letter, Mr. Dubrow expresses surprise that Humboldt First 5 endorses community water fluoridation and again erroneously tries to apply a warning about concentrated fluoride rinses to community water fluoridation ("the ADA recommends the use of fluoride mouthrinses, but not for children under six years of age because they may swallow the rinse"). He then makes the completely unsubstantiated statement that "children in the 'First 5' category should avoid ingesting excess fluoride because for them it is especially toxic" and supplies a URL which, it would seem, lends credence to his statement(www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride_article01.asp). Again, if you visit the website Mr. Dubrow cites you will learn that the warning applies to the ease of overdosing younger children with mouthrinses because they may swallow the rinse - NOT because fluoride is "especially toxic" in this age group. Of course, he simply ignores the principle message of this website, which is that fluoride fights cavities and is safe when used properly. (Selective quotes are a favorite tactic of the antifluoridationists.)
Mr. Dubrow also questions a statement of mine that fluoridation saves substantial treatment costs by reducing dental decay. He cites a study done by the Fluoride Technical Study Group (FTSG) of Ft. Collins, Colorado and said that it shows that fluoridation saves only $4.25 per person per year in dental costs. Of course this is an average cost - but if you or your child gets a cavity which otherwise could have been prevented by fluoridation it will cost you a lot more than $4.25 to get it treated, even if you have the tooth removed. In any case, the FTSG study goes on to say:
"The burden of caries is disproportionately borne by those with lower socio-economic status. There is some evidence that water fluoridation reduces this inequality in oral health.... In summary, this cost analysis assumes that there is a significant benefit from community water fluoridation in preventing caries and that suspending community water fluoridation would result in a relative increase in caries."
In an appendix to the FTSG report, cost savings from a number of studies in the United States and abroad are given. They range from $2.60 to about $40.00 in fluoridation costs to save the cost of a one-surface filling (which is over $100 in California). In our state, the California Department of Public Health estimates that for every $1 spent in fluoridation, the savings in treatment costs are about $120 (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/cdcb/Medicine/OralHealth/Fluoride/), which is an even greater savings than the conservative figure I cited during the press conference that Mr. Dubrow referred to.
I find it particularly telling that Mr. Dubrow took the time to comb through the FTSG report to find a statistic that backs up his contentions while ignoring the key findings of the study:
"The group boiled its results into a set of four main findings. They are as follows:
"Water fluoridation at or near an optimal level leads to a reduction in dental caries, or cavities.
"Fluoridation does not represent a significant health risk for cancer, bone fractures, thyroid effects, skeletal fluorosis or immune system problems. Some of the research isn't conclusive, however, and the report notes that the absence of evidence does not clear fluoridation of possible concerns.
"The public health goal of a reduction in cavities is best and most equitably achieved through a community water fluoridation program.
"The addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid, used by the city to fluoridate the water, does not lead to an increase in contaminants such as copper, manganese, zinc, cadmium, nickel or molybdenum."
The above summary can be viewed at (http://vh80003.vh8.infi.net/news/stories/20030206/news/929020.html).
It should be noted that Arcata does not use hydrofluorisilicic acid, but rather sodium fluoride, to fluoridate its water. This relates to the letter in the same March 8 issue by Elizabeth Mackay in which she states that the bags containing the sodium fluoride are labelled "TOXIC." The bags contain pure sodium fluoride and this substance, if ingested in large quantities (such as dipping your spoon into the bag and eating it), is indeed toxic. Simply because something is toxic under certain circumstances (high dose) does not make it toxic under all circumstances, and certain "toxic substances" are actually necessary for life. Iodine, which is in the same periodic table group as fluorine, is also toxic when ingested in large quantities. However if iodine were not added to table salt, the incidence of thyroid disease (goiter) would increase because this element is necessary for health. Oxygen administered at 100% under pressure is also toxic, which is why divers do not use pure oxygen. Even water can be toxic if one ingests too much of it. Should we ban oxygen and water?
There are those who may be troubled by the statement that "some of the research isn't conclusive" (and note that I didn't selectively omit it) but this is because it is impossible to prove a negative using the scientific method. Nonetheless, the vast preponderance of credible studies (i.e. those studies published in peer-reviewed journals) has found that water fluoridation is both safe and effective. That is why community water fluoridation is endorsed by the World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Public Health Service, National Academy of Sciences, American Dental Association, American Medical Association, and every other bona-fide professional scientific or health organization with a position on the topic.
I urge you not to be tricked by the flawed arguments of the antifluoridation movement. Visit http://www.fluorideinfo.org for information you can rely on!
Steven E. Schonfeld, D.D.S., Ph.D
Behind the Redwood Curtain
http://www.gumdoc.com
General News About Fluoride
|
 |
|
“In the interest of public health, the American Dental Association unreservedly endorses fluoridation of community water supplies as safe, effective, and necessary in the preventing of tooth decay—and this has been the policy of ADA since 1950.”
American Dental Association Statement |
|
|
|
|
|
|
