There must be something in the water
The good, the bad and the ugly of water fluoridation
Photo by Submitted
Water fluoridation helps prevent and decrease tooth decay and cavities.
You may or may not know that the water you drink is enriched with fluoride, but the question is if it’s necessary and completely safe.
Water fluoridation is the prevention or, in some cases, reversal of tooth cavity formation, which promotes the remineralization of teeth, strengthening their enamel and thus helping them fight off the bacteria that cause decay, according to an article posted by MedicalNewsToday.
According to Harvard public health, this discovery in the early 20th century was considered one of the 10 great public health achievements at that time.
So why is there controversy?
Like any helpful chemical, too much can be hazardous. A high concentration of fluoride can cause fluorosis, which is the changing of tooth enamel that ranges from barely noticeable white spots to staining and pitting, according to Harvard public health.
Stated in the same article by MedicalNewsToday, skeletal fluorosis, which causes pain and damage to bones and joints, damage to the parathyroid gland and neurological problems are some of the harmful effects resulting from excessive fluoride exposure.
Daily Beast stated that before there were anti-vaxxers there were anti-fluoriders. The effects that can occur with over exposure have caused mixed responses. Anti-fluoriders brought up controversy, hysteria, conspiracy theories, reasoned argumentation and bitter municipal friction since 1949.
With all these harmful outcomes that over exposure can cause, it’s hard to believe that the purpose of fluoridation is helpful at all.
The reason fluoridation was initiated to begin with was to reduce the amount of cavities and tooth decay, especially with children.
MedicalNewsToday said that water naturally contains fluoride. The article states that in a Cochrane review published in 2015, it found that when additional fluoride was introduced to water, children had 35 percent fewer decayed, missing or filled baby teeth. There was a 15 percent increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and the proportion of children with no decay in their permanent teeth rose by 14 percent.
Since the time fluoride was first added to water, toothpastes and dental hygiene products have also started using fluoride to help prevent decay and cavities. While these products help to ensure dental care, it’s not always beneficial for everyone.
According to MedicalNewsToday, many people worldwide cannot afford the cost of regular dental checks, so adding fluoride can offer savings and benefits to those who need them.
While there is still debate on whether fluoride is the best way to prevent dental problems, there has been evidence that the removal of fluoride from water can be harmful.
Concerns with fluoridation led the City Assembly of Juneau to direct the cessation of fluoridation of community water in their area, according to an article from MedicalNewsToday.
The article states that two research teams, one from the College of Health Sciences at Walden University in Minneapolis, Minn. and the College of Health at the University of Alaska Anchorage, investigated the effects of this decision on the oral health of young inhabitants in Juneau.
The study showed that the mean number of cavity-related procedures for the zero to 18 year-old age groups was significantly higher in the 2012 treatment group, when community water no longer contained fluoride, than in the 2003 group, before the decision to end water fluoridation.
The article said the odds of a child or adolescent undergoing a dental cavity procedure in 2003 was 25.2 percent less than that of a child or adolescent in 2012.
This suggests that the added fluoride did have a protective effect on oral health, which is missing now that community water supplies no longer go through the fluoridation process, according to MedicalNewsToday.
While there are major pros and cons to water fluoridation, I think the decrease in oral decay, that is shown in studies, is enough to continue the process of it. Fluoride in tap water helps prevent issues with oral health for people who can’t afford dental check ups and, overall, improves dental health for the majority of people.
The American Dental Association said they recommend that community water systems adjust the amount of fluoride to 0.7 milligrams per liter of water.
With regulations, the safe amount of fluoride is beneficial to hygiene health and saves people money that would otherwise be spent on cavity-related procedures. Overall, I think in safe measures water fluoridation is beneficial to people’s health but should be monitored like any other helpful chemical.
VanDenMeerendonk can be reached at [email protected]
Macey VanDenMeerendonk is a senior English Creative Writing major. She likes to cook, go camping, and travel every chance she gets!
R Johnson • Mar 4, 2020 at 9:33 am
I read Ms. VanDenMeerendonk’s, article, “There must be something in the water” last week and was impressed. I found it accurate and balanced – except for her statement “…there are major pros and cons to water fluoridation, I think…” The “cons” she mentioned were not major, and seemed to be mostly in reference to the strongly-stated opinions of fluoridation opponents – not to expert consensus. I would rephrase the sentence to a more accurate statement, “While there are major pros and some passionate, vocal opposition to water fluoridation, I think…”
That “pro/con” statement provided a perfect opportunity for anti-F activist, Carol, to manipulate the context and make the claim that, “as this article explains fluoride does have adverse health effects”, and then proceed to produce a list of standard anti-F opinions which claim (or imply) that exposure to any level of fluoride ion is harmful to health. In fact, there is no legitimate scientific evidence that proves (or even suggests) fluoride (at levels ~0.7 ppm in drinking water) has any measurable, adverse health effects.
I applaud Ms. VanDenMeerendonk for her balanced, truthful, in-context portrayal of the actual scientific conclusions as understood (and accepted) by the overwhelming majority of science and health professionals. By balanced, I mean presenting both sides of an argument accurately (not as equally valid). When discussing fluoride exposure, in-context statements like, “Like any helpful chemical, too much can be hazardous”, “harmful effects resulting from excessive fluoride exposure”, “effects that can occur with over exposure have caused mixed responses”, “harmful outcomes that over exposure can cause”, are critical to an accurate understanding of the issue.
Many articles about fluoridation mention all the potential health hazards of fluoride ions without any context of exposure levels (Fluoride is a poisonous neurotoxin). The anti-F opinions listed by Ms. VanDenMeerendonk (pain, damage to bones/joints/parathyroid, neurological problems, etc.) were presented with the critical qualifier that they are caused by excessive exposure. Of course, any substance is toxic at high enough exposure levels, so exposure-context is critical – unless, of course, the intent is to misrepresent the evidence and create unwarranted fear.
That accurately portrayed in-context balance is increasingly rare. Many journalists apparently understand a “balanced article” representing a controversial science-based issue to mean presenting both sides of the controversy as though they have equal validity, equally strong supporting evidence, equally legitimate conclusions, and equally strong support from relevant experts – that’s impossible when the two sides have completely opposing conclusions, presumably based on the same evidence.
Thank you, Ms. VanDenMeerendonk, for understanding that journalism is responsible for an accurate understanding and presentation of important issues that can be trusted not to push a specific agenda (or to present an equally-balanced article on an unbalanced subject) — and for constructing your article accordingly.
R Johnson • Feb 29, 2020 at 3:35 pm
The only argument I have with the article is the statement, “there are major pros and cons to water fluoridation”. In fact, the author described evidence for the pros of fluoridation and no evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any harm – because there is no evidence.
In response to Carol’s comment: She is presenting nothing but standard, unsupportable, anti-F propaganda. Specifically:
1)The original observation and study that linked exposure to fluoride ions at about 1.0 ppm in drinking water with a reduction in the risk of dental decay was not “mistaken” In fact, the benefits of fluoridation have been confirmed by 75 years of studies. “Modern Science” has not “disproved that theory. Read the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health describes the manner in which fluoride ions (at proper exposure levels) work both topically and systematically to reduce dental decay.
2) There is no evidence of “fluoride overdose symptoms”, (noticeable or harmful dental fluorosis) caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water – and there is certainly no evidence drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any bone issues.
3) As the article actually explains, the only harm that comes from fluoride in drinking water occurs at excessively high levels – far above the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.
The fact is that any substance is harmful at excessively high exposure levels. The recommended amount of water per day is about ~ 3 liters for adults (Mayo Clinic). If one ingests just 5 times that amount (about 4 gallons) the consequences will be far more severe than ingesting 5 times the optimal level of fluoridation. The concept of exposure-based consequences is completely lost on fluoridation opponents, and they typically use phrases like “fluoride is a poison”
Bottom line: There is no legitimate scientific evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any “adverse health effects”, the article does not explain anything of the sort, and evidence was presented that removal of fluoridation lead to an increase in dental decay rates. In fact, several other recent studies came to the same conclusion:
Three recent studies have demonstrated an increase in dental decay in cities after CWF was halted:
~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:215
~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016
In addition, the study “Contemporary evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of childhood caries: Spencer, et al., Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2018, also found fluoridation effective in reducing decay.
For specific refutations of anti-F propaganda and references that support fluoridation, search on:
> American Dental Association, Fluoridation Facts
> Fluoridation | Open Parachute
> What do health experts say about fluoridation: Campaign for Dental Health
> American Fluoridation Society
> Fluoridation Reviews and Studies – cyber-nook
> Fluoridation and the Scientific Consensus – cyber-nook
> Fluoridation References – cyber-nook
james Reeves • Feb 28, 2020 at 3:55 pm
Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste product (hexafluorosilicic acid) which may also be contaminated with lead, arsenic, radionucleotides, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. The fluoride added to municipal water supplies is not pharmaceutical grade.
The maladies from this forced pollution of your body include (but aren’t limited to) lowered IQ, impaired mental development (brain retardation) and dementia; damage to your kidneys, pineal and thyroid glands resulting in hyperactivity and/or lethargy, chronic fatigue and disrupted immune system; arthritic symptoms and digestive tract (gastrointestinal) problems.
Carol • Feb 27, 2020 at 6:38 am
Fluoridation began with the mistaken , but well-intentioned, belief that fluoride was essential to build decay-free teeth. However, modern science disproved that theory. Fluoride is not a nutrient or essential for healthy teeth which means that, consumming a fluoride-free diet, does not cause tooth decay. Fluoride’s benefits are topical; its risks are systemic.
However, as this article explains fluoride does have adverse health effects. The concentration of fluoride in drinking water does not equate to an individual’s daily dose. Fluoride is also in many foods either naturally high (ocean fish, tea) from fluoride-containing pesticides (grapes and grape products) or because fluoridated water is used in the processing. Also any formed meat products, when mechanically deboned, will have a high fluoride content because bone dust gets into the finished product. Bones of all animals contain fluoride. Since fluoride is not required on the labels, no one has any idea how much fluoride they are ingesting.
Fluoride overdose symptoms – dental fluorosis or discolored teeth – has grown in severity and incidence indicating that too many children are consuming too much fluoride; but we don’t know what it’s doing to their bones because it isn’t being studied.
Also many people drinks lots of water such as athletes, diabetics, out-door workers, dieters, etc. Fluoride should not be prescribed by lobbied legislators, delivered by chemically treated pipes and dosed based on thirst and not age, health, weight and need. Artificialy fluoridation is outdated and should be stopped.