Water Fluoridation

Do you know what is in your WATER?
A recent article published in the UK publication, Positive Health Magazine, has stirred the controversial debate over fluoridation of public water supplies. The article –‘Water Fluoridation -Therapy or Fallacy?’ – was written by a well-known advocate of the anti-fluoridation argument, Sheila.L.M.Gibson. Through her article, Gibson has taken a mighty swipe at the scientific and dental community by claiming that not only does water fluoridation not benefit children’s teeth (or anyone’s for that matter), but that even in small amounts, fluoride can be a serious health risk to anyone consuming it. She even states that fluoride is "more toxic than lead and only marginally less so than arsenic’ and that the environment is also at risk, for fluoride is not biodegradable leaving it to slowly accumulate in the earth’s water supply.

HISTORY
The fluoridation of public water in Australia began in a small town called Beaconsfield, Tasmania (just north of Launceston) in 1953 after fluoridation received alleged success in the US, with a radical reduction in tooth decay in only a few short years. The following decades saw every capital city (except Brisbane) fluoridated, as well as a number of smaller cities and towns across the nation. Brisbane remains the only major city in Australia to be without a fluoridated water supply as fierce debate still rages among officials.

Even though every major health organisation in the world, including the ADA (Australian Dental Association) have deemed fluoride safe in small monitored doses; academics like Gibson argue that before fluoride was used for dental purposes, it was actually a "troublesome industrial pollutant". She states that in the early part of the twentieth century, the brick, glass, iron smelting, aluminium and ceramics industries had a major dilemma – how to get rid of their toxic fluoride wastes. The companies had already seen the devastating effect that fluoride emissions had on almost anything living (including people) and due to that level of toxicity they would have realised the enormous cost involved with disposing of such a deadly substance. There seemed to be no answer.

That was until, according to Gibson," American aluminium giant ALCOA (Aluminium Company of America)… first suggested that if naturally fluoridated water prevented tooth decay, then it was logical to add fluoride to all drinking water to achieve the same benefits for all people." Suddenly fluoride was no longer a problematic toxic waste, but a "desirable medication’, one which ALCOA and other fluoride-producing industries could supply in large quantities. After preliminary testing, it was in the next few years that a flurry of enthusiasm about fluoridation spread throughout the dental and health communities and US society at large, which lead to mass-fluoridation of almost all major US cities. This supposedly major breakthrough did not take long to spread to the rest of the Western World – Australia among some of the first countries to introduce its implementation.

HEALTH DANGERS
The possible health dangers from exposure to fluoride outlined in Gibson’s article are as follows:

Dental Fluorosis
• Dental Fluorosis (or mottled teeth) can be the result of excess consumption of fluoride. The symptoms range from a light mottling or staining of teeth to decayed and missing teeth (usually the result of a very high consumption of the toxin).

• Gibson states that in 1994 a "prestigious American dental journal, effectively showed that there is a linear relationship between the dose of fluoride and the degree of fluorosis of the tooth enamel, even at very low doses." This means that even when the level of fluoride in water is low, some fluorosis will still be found and therefore fluoride is not safe at any level.

Toxicity
• Gibson claims that fluoride is a toxin and that it is only "marginally less (toxic) than arsenic and mercury".

• The Australian Dental Association does not deny fluoride’s toxicity, but defends its use stating that "toxicity is related to the dose of a substance rather than merely the exposure to the substance itself." In other words, as long as we are only exposed to a certain level of fluoride, we are safe (1 part per million to be precise).

• But Gibson argues that fluoride is poisonous, even at argued ‘safe’ levels and that fluorosis is only one of the many health problems that can arise from long term exposure to this toxin. In some highly fluoridated areas possible health problems include: infant mortality; delayed tooth eruption; bone defects; stomach, liver and kidney problems. Just to name a few.

Osteoporosis
• In Gibson’s article ‘Water Fluoridation – Therapy or Fallacy’ it is suggested that almost 50% of ingested fluoride is "stored in the bones and teeth, with some in the soft tissues." In the 1970s and 1980s it was thought that fluoride helped to strengthen teeth and bones, and sodium fluoride was regularly used to help prevent the risk of hip fractures. Gibson said, "This practice has now largely been discontinued (to be replaced by HRT) since it was discovered that osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride were more likely, not less likely, to sustain hip fractures."

• But the ADA argues that "previous studies claiming a link between water fluoridation and hip fractures had not taken into account the potential confounding effect of other factors known to be associated with fractures," (eg. smoking, oestrogen use and bodyweight.

• A study in the UK took these factors into account as a part of an in depth look into the effect of fluoride on the population in highly fluoridated areas. They concluded "there was no indication that fluoride was associated with a higher risk of hip fracture than normal in people with low intakes of dietary calcium."

THE ENVIRIONMENT
The effect of any toxic substance upon the environment is always a concern for the inhabitants of that area – both animal and human. Fluoride used to be a substance mainly found in the form of complex, fluoride ores, buried deep below the earth’s surface. Over centuries past (especially during the twentieth century) man has mined these ores, releasing fluoride from its prison and letting it flow free into the surface environment where it continues to accumulate today.

The ADA have admitted that fluoride is a toxin, but argue that "damage to aquatic life is possible only at much higher levels than that found in optimally fluoridated water". The problem then concerns the fact that fluoride is not biodegradable and will not break down like other substances released into our water systems. The argument of environmentalists is: that if fluoride is only dangerous at much higher levels, and it is not biodegradable, then logic suggests that it will continue to accumulate until it is at a much higher level and therefore become poisonous to anyone or thing that comes into contact with it. Though this may not happen for some time, by their own argument, the ADA has admitted that they are slowly poisoning the Earths water supply – the lifeblood of the planet.

CONCLUSION
The debate over water fluoridation is a controversial topic that does not seem to have a clear-cut answer. Major health organisations across the globe have made the point clear that they believe that the health benefits for children’s (and adults) teeth far outweighs any possible health concerns and that the opposing studies are basically flawed by not taking into account all the possible contributing factors. But Gibson makes one argument that neither the ADA or any other health organisation in any freethinking country can oppose – a person’s right of choice.

In the conclusion of her article Gibson makes the argument that "it is unethical to mass-medicate whole populations irrespective of their need or their state of health." The ADA argue that ‘not only does the government have a right to introduce water fluoridation, it has the responsibility to do so."

But Gibson and other academics raise the argument that the government do not mass-medicate for any other type of disease and that even if the possible side effects of exposure to fluoride are only speculation, there is enough speculation and argument for the product to only be available as a distinct choice by individuals after they have weighed all the possible risks in their own mind. Fluoride can be offered in pill form or even as an inclusion in toothpaste as an alternative to exposing the entire population to a potentially deadly toxin. If the government cannot see sense in this assumption, then maybe there is another agenda that has yet to be exposed. Whatever the reason, the public have a serious interest in this debate and it is one that should not be ignored by anyone.

By Adrian Want

Back to top