Monday, August 29, 2011

Fluoridation - Logic, or Lack Thereof?

I, like everyone else, need to take someone else's word on some issues. For example, I depend on those who test cars and tires.

On the issue of water fluoridation, I have to depend on scientists on issues of safety and whether it produces fewer cavities. Since it is very complex, the question of whether to fluoridate drinking water has had its proponents for a long time.

Part of the complexity is the fact that the bad effects of diluted fluoride (1ppm) take, in most cases, a long time to show up. It is a little like termites. Time has passed and now research finding about fluoride's negative effect on health have reached the point of being irrefutable.

It has taken time to get past the roadblocks to what would seem a no-brainer; this is especially true where moneyed interests are involved, as in the long battle with the tobacco companies.

Does it make sense to drink a poison—even a highly diluted poison—for several decades and expect it not to damage the various cells of our bodies? I hope you are open to reading the various scientific reports at this web site and elsewhere.

Maybe someone will compose a comic opera on how fluoride is treated as a very toxic substance, one which cannot be dumped on the ground, etc., but which is put into the public drinking water.

Some fluoridated cities have changed their minds. One of these is Wasilla, Alaska; they stopped fluoridation and tried to give their last 100 pound bag of fluoride to a neighboring city, but the Federal Government said that would make the fluoride a toxic waste (and must be dealt with as such); however, if they were to charge for the bag then it would be classified as a product and then be OK. Wasilla sold the bag for 25 cents.

Part of this comic opera should include what happens to fluoridated water. Where does it go? It's a stretch, but let's say that about 5 percent of fluoridated water is drunk by people. The question of the other 95 percent of fluoridated water is…Where does it go? It doesn't evaporate the way chlorine does. Where does it go?

The lead tenor in the opera would keep repeating the aria about where does the rest of the fluoride go while the chorus would chant, “In the ground, in the rivers, in the ocean.”

Of course, it will take a long time to build up—at least we can assume this. I don't really know how long, and neither does anyone else. I get confused, though, when such a toxic substance (more toxic than lead, which we banned from gasoline many years ago, and only slightly less toxic than arsenic) cannot be dumped on the ground or in the rivers, yet we put it in our drinking water— which mostly ends up in the grounds and rivers . There is something wrong with our logic here—if I could just put my finger on it—DUH! Pollution control scientists call fluoride the “protected pollutant.”

If you read up on the history and skewed science of fluoridation you will see a money trail . To be fair, you will also see some sincere hopes and some fragments of evidence on its behalf. Good intentions, career protection, a theory of disillusion or the breakdowns of fluoride compounds into stuff that the body eliminates, and corrupted science all played huge roles in the beginning of water fluoridation.

Promoters of fluoridation have long claimed that fluoride does not accumulate in the body, but that it does like chlorine does and evaporates. However, we now know that the exact opposite is true. In fact, the Columbia University School of Dental and Oral Surgeries Guide to Family Dental Care 1997 states, “The effect of ingesting fluoride is cumulative.”

A very visible sign of this is mottled teeth. The incidence of dental fluorosis (mottling and tooth defects) in children is increasing in the United States . Both the Federal Register 60(194):5247911995 and Pediatric Nursing 23(2); 155-159, 1997, report that studies indicate an increase in recent years of dental fluorosis. In fluoridated communities fluorosis increased 35 to 60 percent. In non-fluoridated communities, fluorosis increased 15 to 45 percent. The increase in the non-fluoridated areas is due to the fact that some of our food is processed in fluoridated areas.

Not only does fluoride cause problems like teeth mottling and brittle bones, but it also interferes with the functioning of your body's enzymes. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the World Health Organization and others have published lists of enzymes that are inhibited by fluoride at levels of 1 ppm or less.

The U.S. Public Health Service, among others, were once opposed to fluoridation; however, they later changed their policy—not because of conclusive studies showing it was safe but rather as a belief that the unknown risk was less than the perceived value of reducing dental caries. They also changed their belief because of a faith in the studies that were modified and/or selectively presented to them—and because of pressures from the service's administrators.

For more information on water fluoridation, go to or check out our website at and

No comments:

Post a Comment