Fluoridation

I have read a few papers on the subject and have found them all to be borderline fear-mongering and riddled with contradictory conclusions. I can say this: my wife and I grew up in communities where my water was fluoridated and hers was not. Her teeth are in much worse shape than mine. While genetics could have a large hand in our situation, I also have a family member with several children. Those children who spent their early adolescence with access to fluoridated water have far fewer dental problems than those children that spent their early adolescence away from fluoridated water. Of course, this is only anecdotal evidence and should be considered for what it's worth. While I recognize that fluoride above certain levels is certainly toxic, my personal experience points to a significant benefit from fluoridated water supplies.

I would agree with your experiences.

I was one of the first children to receive fluoridation treatments in the Pittsburgh Public School System (back in the 1940's) in experimental trials on the subject. Prior to those trials on a selected number of students, water fluoridation was not in practice with the water department. Results of those trials were so dramatic that the water department began fluoridation wholesale on the public water supply. To this day, my teeth are in relatively good shape. Most children growing up prior that time encountered massive tooth decay, many losing all there teeth (having to have false teeth) by 30 yrs of age. My own parents were included in the former group.

By comparison, my wife from the same area, but some 8 years younger has only had 3-4 dental cavities in her entire life. In addition, I am acquainted with a woman (in her late 80's) that lived in the area of Colorado where the dentist that first isolated the statistics showing the effect fluoride in water had on cavities. She has "if you will" the first test group. She still has perfect teeth.

The WHO has strict guidelines on the amount of fluoride in water because there are very definite statistics on the impact fluoride has on cavities. ON THE OTHER HAND, the WHO also has guidelines on the maximum fluoride acceptable in drinking water because of fluorosis and the impact it has on bone density and strength. The levels of Fluoride seen in water in Africa (near volcanic areas) can sometimes be in excess of 25ppm, well above the targeted maximum. This can be dangerous to health if one drinks it for 20-30 years.

There is an element of fear-mongering that is out there regarding chemicals (eg: arsenic, fluoride, lead, Nitrites/Nitrates, Bisphenol A, etc.) in water. The impact of most of these chemicals have been studied in major trials and their effects are well known. Most chemicals are harmless at the control levels even if one ingests them for 20-30 years.

For example, the arsenic in water issue. The US-EPA instituted a target of 10 ppb As in water primarily because the WHO guideline suggested it. the NIH more recently reviewed the data and statistics used by the WHO to achieve their conclusion. The NIH found that the WHO extrapolated the data on lung and bladder cancer for low As levels in the water. The NIH conclusion was in opposition to the WHO analysis and suggested there was no benefit to seting standards below 150 ppb. [Prior to the EPA involvement, the standard was 50 ppb]. Strike another blow for the EPA lawyers and their lack of scientific training. BTW, if you look at the numbers for the expected impact of the additional 20 Billion dollars expected to be spent on water treatment for arsenic (over 20 years/EPA numbers) in the USA, and look at the additional number of deaths due to lung and bladder cancer from arsenic, it come out that we will spend between $47 - $65 MM per CASE. IMHO, that is a high premium to set on water quality when we have the infrastructural problems we currently have in the USA. It seems the money would be much better spent on research into lung and bladder cancer treatment or better highways. But then, I am not receiving the graft from the companies that develop air and water treatment technologies and lobbyists.

My 2 cents worth.

There used to be a significant factor on the right who believed that fluoridation was a communist plot meant to weaken the moral constitution of good, strong hearted Americans. It's pretty much just a tiny whacko fringe now.

I grew up in a small Alaska town and all of the water we drank came from the ground "well". I know the water had no fluoridation and my teeth compared to the rest of my family is not even close. I have great teeth and the rest of the family aunts,uncles,cousins and even family friends all have had problems with their teeth.

The only difference between me and them is that i brushed my teeth when i was young at least 3-5 times a day.

so i dont think fluoridation is the key to good teeth.

Just my opinon.

Most toothpaste is flouridated...

I grew up without any flouride and I would trade all the communists in the world for a half dozen teeth that don't look like the rear quarter panel of a 55 chevy (full of rivets and bondo).

I can appreciate that.

I found this notice about the National Academy of Sciences, from 2006, in which they recommend to the EPA that fluoride levels in drinking water be reduced. They suggest present levels CAUSE dental problems, as well as weakened and diseased bones. I am just flabbergasted.

Then I went to the NAS site and found their actual report. It says that fluoride at 4 mg/L (same as 4 ppm) is dangerous for reasons above. The EPA max fluoride level in drinking water is 4 ppm, with a recommendation that 2 ppm is enough, sorta.

This document fairly well confirms information from the legal document from FSU that began this thread. I don't know what to say, or think.

Look it over.

The benefits and alleged contrary ill effects of floridation of municipal water supplies has been debated and litigated up one side and down the other for decades. It is generally accepted as safe in the low concentrations and beneficial in preventing tooth decay. First noted as a black or dark staining of the enamel in the teen of children who coincidently did not have cavities as did children in other area where there was no naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply.

Take you pick, fluoride and no cavities or no fluoride and cavaties.

To all, Some of the "problems" with early methods of Fluoridation were not with the process but with the type of fluoride used. The original compound was Stanis Fluoride also known as Tin Fluoride. As you know almost all compounds of tin are toxic due to metal poisoning. The formula was then switched to Sodium Fluoride in most cases.

The toxic effects were much abated, but the emotional residue from early cases of poisoning lingers to this day.

Regards Dragon

Had fluoridation been used when I was growing up there would not have been any silver/mercury amalgam filling in cavities in many of my teeth. Along about 19xx the safety of the mercury present in such fillings came into question and my dental professional recommended removal and replacement with new high tech light cured porcelain type fillings.

I have continued to research this issue. The main issue for me is effect of environmental issues on thyroid. I found reports that say fluoride is used to treat hyperthyroid. Others say it causes hypothyroid condition at levels quite low.

I know the chem issues in this are complex and I am not a chemist. I can provide this bibliography of what seem to scientific papers. Any thoughts?