Get the F2 Out of My H2O! A Layman’s Look at Water Fluoridation

Preface: My Special Fluoride Connection

I was telling my mother about the fluoridation issue recently. (Actually I was preaching. Sorry, Mom.) When I questioned fluoride’s cavity-preventing powers, she reminded me about our family’s great teeth from living in Colorado Springs, where I was raised. There, naturally fluoridated water provided built-in cavity defense, she said.

Well, maybe the water had powers, but there was a downside. It also resulted in the notorious Colorado Brown Stain, common to natives. Luckily, my family seems to have mostly avoided that.

Colorado Springs was where young dentist Frederick McKay investigated the strange brown mottled teeth from 1902-1931, eventually linking the condition to high fluoride levels in local water, a condition which came to be called dental fluorosis. Ultimately, he also discovered that the locals also had fewer cavities, and thus began a movement based on the theory that fluoride prevents cavities.

Water fluoridation began in the early 50s with a limited test program in New York and Michigan, and then spread quickly. The test was supposed to last 10 years, but it found the fast track, and water supply fluoridation was introduced into many more communities long before the test period expired. The nascent movement picked up momentum and here we are today with nearly 70% of the U.S. public drinking fluoridated water.

Introduction

It can be challenging for a layperson to draw the truth out of complex issues. We don’t have the time and/or skills to understand all the science to sort fact from fiction and arrive at confident, rational decisions about complex issues; much less, decide which issues are worth considering in any depth. I decided to dive into the murky waters of fluoridation for the following reasons:

1. I wanted to make good on spouting off assertions to my mother without really having the research to back up my claims.
2. The issue has a chance to change, as it is attracting mainstream attention, and the government and academia are showing signs of backing down from promoting fluoridation as enthusiastically as in the past.
3. The good folks at Fluoride Action Network have a combination of objective information and scientific membership that is compelling in a similar way to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a group that was instrumental in awakening me about the the events of that day.

Is the mainstream media telling us the important facts we need in order to make an informed decision about water fluoridation? I’ve taken some time to dig deep in this topic and construct an informed layman’s perspective. And I’ve come to a conclusion I feel damn confident about:

I’d like to see public water fluoridation stopped. Right now. While it may have cavity prevention properties in small doses, it’s toxic at higher doses with a variety of ill effects, and we are getting way too much of it in these over-fluoridated United States.

I examined fluoridation from three different perspectives:

1. Is it effective at fulfilling its purpose – to reduce dental cavities?
2. Is it safe? Based on what criteria?
3. And is it the right thing to do? That is, how does it stack up morally and align with fundamental rights?

Rising Fluoride Awareness

In the last few weeks (as I write in early February 2011), fluoride and water fluoridation have leaped into the mainstream. The fluoride issue awakened a concern among the citizenry who are medicated through the common water supply. The government reacted with surprisingly swift, but cautious responses, lowering the maximum concentration of fluoride in drinking water and intending that fluoride-based pesticides be phased out. The stated purpose for these moves is concern that people are ingesting too much fluoride.

The January 2011 Fluoride Media Spike

The chart below shows the relative volume of people Googling “fluoride” (top panel of the chart), with a sharp increase at the beginning of January 2011. This corresponds to a similar peak in the news references (shown in the bottom panel). Interest has shifted up to a new level higher than anytime in the last year.

Is Fluoride Effective? Does It Reduce Cavities?

Fluoride is put into the public water because it prevents cavities, but does it? Unfortunately, there have been no statistically significant double-blind studies—the kind that get as close to proof as we’re going to get. Instead, the studies either compare fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, or examine dental health over time with respect to fluoridation. In both of these kinds of studies, variables like income, diet, genetics and the like are not controlled.

The early enthusiasm for fluoride was fueled by studies performed in the 50s by a group led by Trendley Dean, known as the Father of Fluoridation. But those studies were statistically flawed, as Dean actually admitted in court a few years later. Numerous additional studies have concluded that fluoride is connected to fewer cavities. But again, they have not been scientifically controlled. This is not proof.

(I do have my own study, although it has just one data point: My Colorado Springs dad. No cavities. Ever.)

Another reason to be skeptical that mass water fluoridation is the appropriate means to deliver fluoride is that many non-fluoridated nations in the world have dental health as good or better than similar countries that have substantial fluoridation programs.

Why are these non-fluoridated countries doing so well? There are many other sources of fluoride, such as the food we eat and the use of toothpaste. Plus, there are other factors besides fluoride that contribute the health of our teeth, including diet and hygiene.

Perhaps fluoride can be factor in stronger resistance to tooth decay, particularly when applied topically (i.e., toothpaste, prescribed treatments). But by ingesting it in unknown quantities, we could be getting too much of a good thing. Maybe we don’t need a fluoride supplementation program after all.

Is Fluoride In Our Water Safe?

Last month (January 2011), a holy trinity of government agencies – CDC, HHS & EPA – recommended reducing the amount of fluoride allowed in public water out of concern for public safety. Should we be concerned? And about what?

While the federal government recommends fluoridation of water supplies, it does not mandate it. That power is either at local community level (where it should be), or in some cases, mandated statewide. The federal agencies do have the power to regulate by setting standards.

Considering the federal government’s historical encouragement of water fluoridation throughout the country, you’d think there would be no major safety problem, right? Well, not so fast. Let’s walk through the claims of negative health impact from fluoride.

Dental Fluorosis

There’s little or no controversy over the effect of too much fluoride causing spots and mottling on tooth surfaces. This is called fluorosis. This is the stated reason that the CDC recommended in January 2011 that the maximum allowable amount of fluoride in public water systems be lowered to a more cautious level.

It’s also worth noting that the incidence of fluorosis in the U.S. is rising (CDC 2010), suggesting that other fluoride inputs are creating too much, since the amount in water supplies has remained relatively stable.

The Effect of Fluoride on Bones (Not Just Teeth)

If fluoride can do things to teeth like degrade and stain the enamel, while also lending a special power to ward off decay, it seems reasonable that ingesting this compound might have an effect on other bones in the body.

It is well known and accepted that too much fluoride can cause a crippling disease of the bones called skeletal fluorosis. It takes a lot of the fluoride over a long time to have that effect. But this is clearly something with toxic potential, not just a benign substance.

The science is also clear about links between fluoride and bone strength. Bones weaken and become vulnerable to fractures with too much fluoride. The science has progressed enough to warrant concern. (See Fluoride-Induced Bone Fractures, listing numerous studies documenting this.) Could this be why we see so many hip fractures in our over-65 population? There appears to be a significant correlation, according many studies, including Hip Fractures and Fluoridation in Utah’s Elderly Population (Journal of American Medical Association, 1992).

The early stages of skeletal fluorosis feature joint inflammation and pain similar or even identical to osteoarthritis (the most common form of arthritis) and rheumatoid arthritis. While it’s been pointed out that this could lead to misdiagnoses of joint problems, I could find no documentation of a pattern of the medical community attributing arthritis to what is actually fluorosis.

Other Possible Harmful Effects of Fluoride

In addition to the obvious effects on our bones and teeth, several other correlations have been documented from long-term fluoride ingestion. My impression is that the science has not yet proved that fluoride is causing the problems. But the connections are troubling and significant.

Pineal Gland: In 1997, Jennifer Luke published her doctoral thesis entitled, The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. She writes that the pineal gland “contains more fluoride than any other normal soft tissue.” Therefore, this gland is a prime target for accumulating fluoride. The pineal governs the progression of puberty by releasing hormones. The animal study performed as part of this dissertation found earlier than normal onset of sexual maturation. We know that the age of women puberty onset is trending to earlier ages. Perhaps there is a connection, but there are other variables at play as well – for example, a strong correlation between weight and menarche, as well as estrogen-mimicking chemicals in the environment.

Reproduction: Numerous human and animal studies find enough correlation between fluoride levels and reproductive capacity to raise some alarms. For example, a study by the National Center for Toxicological Research was entitled, “Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates.” But remember, it wasn’t proof, just a correlation.

Hypothyrodisim: The thyroid gland controls our body’s energy usage – our metabolism regulator. Hypothyrodisim is a condition that leaves its victims weak and fatigued, as well as many other possible unpleasant and even life threatening symptoms. In decades past, fluoride was used by physicians to treat over-active thyroid (hyper-thyroidism); that is, to depress thyroid activity.

Cancer: There is some evidence of fluoride connections to cancer, but this seems to me more tenuous then other ill effects. Studies show that fluoride has mutagenic propensity – that is, can alter genes, which is a precursor to cancer. So clearly, this area of study should be a high priority.

What’s Fluoridating Us and Is It Too Much?

According to the CDC’s 2006 study, 69% of the U.S. population received fluoride-treated water, with several states above 98%, including Illinois where I live (lucky me). Now, imagine all the foods that are touched in some way by public water supplies. Food grown in water, washed in water, cooked in water, beverages made with water, scotch on the rocks, etc. It also occurs in the ground as a mineral in its natural state, which results in it naturally propagating to food and water. It’s easy to see how we all take in fluoride from a myriad of sources far beyond tap water.

Fluoride is also in toothpaste and mouthwash, both of which are not intended to be ingested at all. They are topical applications. But naturally some fluoride will be swallowed or absorbed into the body, especially by young children who can’t help swallowing.

In 1997, the FDA mandated fluoride-containing toothpaste must be labeled as a poison. It turns out that there’s enough fluoride in a tube of toothpaste to kill a small child.

Now here’s one that might surprise you. Fluoride is a component in a pesticide called sulfuryl fluoride, commonly used to fumigate containers, warehouses and processing faclities that store fruits, vegetables and grains. The pesticide comes in contact with the food and we ultimately ingest it. But, we have good news! This past month, January 2011, the EPA proposed “withdrawing” sulfuryl fluroide for use on food.

There are many other sources of fluoride, which I plan to cover in more detail in a separate post. Meanwhile, you can survey The Fluoride Glut from FluorideAlert.org.

What Exactly Is the Fluoride In Our Water?

Pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride is used in over-the-counter toothpaste, mouthwash and rinses, and higher-concentrated levels prescribed by dentists. Most people think that’s the same substance that gets added to our water systems, but the truth is really quite different and frankly, not a little shocking.

Sodium fluoride would be too expensive as a mass additive. Instead, fluoride gas pollutants from phosphate fertilizer production are captured and sold to municipalities for water fluoridation. I kid you not. Instead of having to pay for expensive hazardous waste removal and storage, the fertilizer manufacturers repackage their pollution (hydrofluorosilicic acid & sodium silicofluoride) as a water additive for fluoridation. That seems like a pretty good scam.

Okay, I know this sounds bad, with the scary pictures above and this being a pollutant and all. But I have to ask: Is this method of getting fluoride actually worse for humans than the good stuff you get at the dentist? Water system agencies and corporations assert that the silicofluorides added to water break down into fluoride and benign constituent parts, and that levels of other impurities (including nasty stuff like arsenic, lead, and even uranium) are undetectable or extremely low, meeting all the applicable health standards. I’ve heard this kind of debate before.

Still, I’m not certain at this point that the active agents in fluoridation additives are any worse than pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride. But one thing appears certain. The EPA has not conducted clinical studies on the effects of phosphate-derived fluoride being added to water supplies. It’s like it was slipped in through the back door when nobody was looking. It doesn’t seem prudent or ethical, does it?

The Ethics of Fluoridating Public Water Supplies:

I examined the ethics of fluoridation along the follow lines (credit to James Beck for breaking it down like this):

1. Public Water Fluoridation (PWF) forces medication without the informed consent of all the recipients.
2. The PWF medication is not approved by the FDA.
3. PWF recipients have little or no options to stop receiving the medication.
4. PWF medication is “administered” in uncontrolled dosages.

1. Public Water Fluoridation is Forced Medication Without Informed Consent

For this to be true, we must agree that fluoride is a medication or drug and not simply a nutritional supplement. Medications are substances taken for treatment or healing. Nutrients are substances our bodies require.

From its inception in the early 1900s, there is no debate that the expressed purpose of water fluoridation has been to help prevent tooth decay. That by definition makes fluoride administration a medical treatment, a drug.

Furthermore, I was not able to find any studies showing that fluoride is an essential nutrient. In fact, the FDA defines it as a drug, and the National Academy of Sciences explicitly states that fluoride is not a nutrient. So I feel confident saying that fluoride is medicine/drug.

While water fluoridation is not mandated by the federal government, federal agencies make recommendations and determine guidelines for water application. There are some statewide laws, and otherwise fluoridation decisions occur at the local community level. Regardless of the governmental level, the decision to add this stuff to the public water will generally be made by a minority of the population and forced on everyone.

Then there is the issue of informed consent. It would be unimaginable for doctors to routinely force or sneak drugs into their patients without the patients’ consent, wouldn’t it? Why should fluoride be any different?

Here’s an analogy for you. On what planet would the general population agree to be mass administered Vicodin or Xanax or even something as relatively friendly as Ibuprofen? Well, that’s what’s taking place in our public water.

2. The FDA Hasn’t Approved Fluoride Water Additive

The FDA clearly treats fluoride as a drug in consumer products, and must approve these products. But bizarrely, according to the book, The Case Against Fluoride, the FDA has not approved fluoride, instead rating it as an “unapproved drug”. However, that assertion is based on a correspondence about fluoride supplements for children, not public water fluoridation, so the authors may be conflating two different versions of fluoride to make their point.

Nonetheless, I can’t find a mention of hydrofluorosilicic acid, the typical fluoride added to our water, in the FDA drug database. We pay through taxes for the FDA to monitor and regulate drugs. It appears that our government is not taking full responsibility for this massive medication dosing.

3. The Fluoridated Public Can’t Easily Opt Out

There is no reasonable alternative for those who don’t want their water treated this way, as the public water supply is a government monopoly with no competition. Sure, folks could try to find the exceptional bottled water that has no fluoride added. But wouldn’t it make more ethical sense to have untainted public water and have the exception be those who wish to fluoridate?

Were there competing water suppliers, the market would undoubtedly provide a no-fluoride choice for citizens who want non-fluoridated water. So this medication is forced on everyone in the fluoridation zone.

4. Uncontrolled Dosing

FDA drug regulations use measurements and dosages to accurately describe what is safe and allowable. We do have standards for how much fluoride additive can be in public water (thankfully recently lowered), but it’s easy to see that there is no way to control doses in the same way that the pharmaceutical industry handles pills—like ”Take three 25mg pills each day.”

And it’s not just about tap water. Considering all the other fluoride sources we ingest, the situation is completely uncontrolled!

Let’s Get Rid of Public Water Fluoridation

Here’s the situation… We have a drug of questionable effectiveness being added to public water and food system in uncontrolled dosages without our consent, and there is a preponderance of evidence for its toxicity and potential harm. Then, consider the evidence that most developed countries with non-fluoridated populations have dental health as good or better than the U.S.

The utilitarian cost/benefit view of fluoridation is not tenable. I don’t know the total cost of fluoridating the U.S., but my rough calculation puts it around a half-billion dollars ($2.50 per capita X 300-million people X 60%). And that doesn’t include the unknowable costs from the bodily harm from this mass dosing. While the utilitarians cite cost savings from better dental health, we know from the example of other countries that fluoridation is not required for good teeth. So this is a wasted expense.

Adding this drug (and it is a drug—make no mistake about it) to the public water supply is risky, uncontrolled & uncontrollable, unethical, and economically unjustified. We need to stop it now.

What’s Next?

This might seem hypocritical, but I have no immediate plans to change my behavior in any major way. I don’t have a tap water filter, and I don’t plan on buying one right now. You see, fluoride is so pervasive and nearly inescapable for someone living and working in a major metropolitan area like suburban Chicago, I would only make a dent in my own intake. Instead, I think my limited time and energy better serves the cause by working to stop the fluoridation of public water supplies. I hope this article contributes to that effort.

I feel similarly about making personal sacrifices in lightbulbs, the car I drive, and the food I eat. I’m all for living more efficiently, but the statement driving a Prius makes isn’t nearly as powerful as changing the ways of the massive government and corporate organizations and forces that are far more responsible for the shape we find our planet and societies in.

Talk to friends, coworkers and family. Post to FaceBook. Tweet about it. Bookmark it. The fluoride opposition community is gaining inertia, and it needs a little push from everybody to make this one small but significant change in the world.

Dave Lenef – Feb. 5 2011

P.S. – Please comment below or contact me if you see something that needs correcting, have an addition, or simply wish to add your voice to the growing campaign to end water fluoridation.

Acknowledgements and Further Education

The Fluoride Action Network (fluoridealert.org)
The hub of the fluoridation opposition movement. They’re well established, have a very straightforward, scientific approach, and the largest repository of information and references I’ve seen.

The Case Against Fluoride – A new book by Paul Connett, James Beck, and H. Spedding Micklem
Amazon.com, Chelsea Green (publisher), Google Books
I just began reading this after hearing two of the authors in podcast interviews. This may be the book that breaks this topic hard into the mainstream.

Second Look – A Rational Approach to Controversial Public Policy Issues (slweb.org)

Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation – Google Video

Series Navigation

Where We Get Fluoride. Oh Crap, It’s Freakin’ Everywhere.