8/11/2009 9:24:00 AM Fluoride in water: good or bad? Towns required to add fluoride by next June
DENNIS MEYER/DAILY NEWSIt looks like nothing more than a crystal-clear glass of ice water, being poured by a waitress at Daddy’s Country Cafe in Neligh recently. But it’s what's in the water — fluoride has been added in Neligh since the 1970s — that can be a source of disagreement of opinions.
Frequently asked questions:
What is fluoride? Fluoride is a compound of the element fluorine. In the form of calcium fluoride, it exists naturally in rocks, water and air. As hydrofluorosilicic acid, it is added to drinking water to prevent dental cavities. What does fluoride do? Bacteria in the mouth demineralize the tooth's enamel (the hard outer shell). Demineralization causes cavities. Proponents say fluoride helps remineralize the enamel. In addition, they say it makes it harder for bacteria to produce the acid that removes the minerals from the tooth's surface in the first place. How much does fluoride help? Some studies have found fluoridated water to prevent up to 40 percent of cavities. Opponents cite other research that concludes fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities have basically similar rates of tooth decay. Where does the fluoride added to drinking water come from? Hydrofluorosilicic acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry. During production of phosphoric acid, the element fluorine is formed and later captured. It is then sprayed with a spring water solution, forming hydrofluorosilicic acid. Has hydrofluorosilicic acid been proven safe? The safety of the acid itself has not been tested because studies are not conducted on concentrated chemicals. However, chemicals used to fluoridate water must be certified by the National Sanitation Foundation International. Studies suggest it is safe to ingest fluoride when it is diluted in water at recommended amounts. Other research shows fluoride in high doses - above recommended amounts - causes adverse effects, such as weak bones, infertility and dental fluorosis (spotting of the teeth).
The idea of fluoridation being added to a community's water supply is tough for some people to swallow.
They wonder if fluoridated water is one of the reasons behind soaring cancer rates throughout the country. They speculate it may be the root of thyroid problems and rampant obesity, too.
An active legion of opponents argue that fluoride - a compound added to water to prevent dental cavities - hasn't been proven safe. Indeed, they suggest it has has instead been shown to cause spotty teeth, weak bones and other ailments.
But supporters say water fluoridation is safe and effective in helping prevent dental problems.
After all, they say, calcium fluoride occurs naturally in soil, rocks and air. In some areas of Nebraska, particularly in the southwest, the "optimal level" (approximately 1 milligram fluoride per liter of water) naturally is part of the water supply - helping to fight tooth decay.
And in areas where there is less natural fluoride, an inexpensive fluoride compound called hydrofluorosilicic acid can be added to drinking water to achieve the same benefits.
So, which is it? Good or bad?
Since fluoridation began in the 1940s, proponents have seen fluoride as a cost-effective boost for public wellness. For opponents, it's long been a costly form of unsafe mass medication.
The back-and-forth arguments have intensified recently, spurred by a legislative bill passed by state senators in 2008. The law requires all communities with populations over 1,000 to fluoridate their water by June 2010 unless they vote to opt out of the mandate.
Nebraska legislators passed LB245 over Gov. Dave Heineman's veto. In his veto statement, Heineman called the bill "an unfunded mandate."
But the bill's introducer, former state Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney - a physician - said the state would spend less for dental Medicaid payments if more water was fluoridated, thus benefiting taxpayers and Nebraskans as a whole.
Dental care accounted for $35 million of Nebraska's nearly $1.5 billion Medicaid program in 2008.
"I thought it was one of the least expensive ways to improve the health of a large group of Nebraskans," Johnson said.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, for every $1 invested in fluoridation, $38 in dental expenses are saved.
But former Omaha state Sen. Don Preister, a vocal opponent in the Legislature, said the compound's production and potential dangers are good reason to be skeptical.
In reference to the way it's made, Preister charged that "the solution to pollution is not dilution."
The element fluorine is a byproduct of phosphoric acid production. Fluorine is captured during production and sprayed with a spring water solution, creating hydrofluorosilicic acid, said Russell Schweiss, a spokesman for The Mosaic Co. of Plymouth, Minn., which manufactures the chemical.
While concentrated, the compound is corrosive and highly toxic, but "it's a fallacy to say it's toxic when diluted," Schweiss said.
When the concentrated acid is diluted in water, it "dissociates" into the same fluoride ion that is found in water fortified by naturally occurring calcium fluoride, supporters say.
The Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have both concluded the chemical dissociates successfully.
But the idea of having a "known pollutant" in the drinking water leaves a bad taste in Preister's mouth.
"They say it's such a small amount that it's not harmful," Preister said. "But there's no way to determine how much one person consumes."
The Rev. Arin Hess of Norfolk - who has been concerned about fluoridation for many years - said he worries that "after months and years of ingesting fluoride in small amounts, it will take its toll."
Studies have linked high doses of fluoride to decreased IQ, increased hip fractures, thyroid problems, mental retardation, infertility, dental fluorosis (white and brown spotting on the teeth) and other health problems.
But fluoridation supporters blast the opposition's research, calling it "junk science."
On the other hand, some opponents allege the studies that show fluoride prevents up to 40 percent of cavities were the result of posh financial deals between benefiting parties.
"You'd just have to look at the source of research and (whom) you trust to be the expert in looking at the science," said Jessica Meeske, a pediatric dentist in Hastings.
"You'll find these offshoot organizations that are against (fluoridation)," she said, while the CDC, World Health Organization, American Dental Association and others support it.
Meeske noted "more than 50 years worth of solid research" and "hundreds of studies" prove fluoride is beneficial.
David O'Doherty, executive director of the Nebraska Dental Association, added this: "When you look at it as a whole, there's really no sound evidence against (fluoride)."
But Bill Osmunson, a spokesman for the anti-fluoride coalition called the Fluoride Action Network, said dentists rarely look at studies.
Instead, they trust the word of their dental associations and university professors who are part of "incestual cesspools of infantile intellect."
Dentists who spoke to the Daily News disagree with that contention, but Osmunson isn't one to back down from his opinions.
"We know we are frying our brains with fluoride and fluoridated water," said Osmunson, a dentist in the Pacific Northwest who pushed fluoridation for 25 years before jumping ship seven years ago.
Fluoridation supporters say people wouldn't drink enough water to "fry" any brains or to cause the other health problems opponents cite.
But Osmunson and others said they believe fluoride levels in the water are not monitored as well as people are told. And the possibility of an equipment malfunction - which they fear could pump hazardous doses of the chemical into drinking water - is too dangerous to risk.
The Nebraska Health and Human Services Department's reports of monthly fluoride samples - dating back to July 2008 - from 21 artificially fluoridated communities in Northeast Nebraska show that three had levels above the recommended high of 1.5 mg/L in the past year.
Wausa's 1.8 mg/L - still far from a toxic dose, it should be noted - in September 2008 was the highest recorded sample.
As both sides' supporting arguments mount, the differences of opinion stand to only become more contentious.
The case has been settled - at least technically - for the roughly 185 million people already drinking fluoridated water in the United States. That's nearly 70 percent of public water consumers, according to the CDC.
But for Norfolk, which must soon gear up to either fluoridate or to opt out of the state mandate, the battle ensues.
* * *
Coming tomorrow: In communities across Nebraska, many are avid proponents of fluoridation, but others are not.
Reader Comments
Posted: Thursday, August 20, 2009
Article comment by:
Philip Robertson
I see in the article promoters have listed their support for this fluoride health treatment that is raising too many questions.
Could those authorities claiming fluoride is safe answer an important question. They must be required to answer this before ever again endorsing fluoridation.
The question is: "How do people treated with fluoride delivered by the water authority who become ill from the treatment then avoid it once the chemical has been added to their water"?
Can any doctors provide me with an answer?
I certainly could not get any answer when I visited my local member of Parliament in Geelong Australia. I work as a Naturopath in Australia. Our government has fluoridated my town of Geelong just 9 weeks ago.
When I asked my MP what could be done he repeated what every fluoridating authority says i.e. that fluoride won't cause harm to anyone as it must be safe as doctors endorse it (remember the tobacco industry got them doing the same for smoking too).
But such a claim of complete safety is totally misleading. When evaluation of my patients by myself, dentists and medical experts ALL show fluoridated water is causing harm, the government then tries to ignore the evidence.
Even our Health Minister after being supplied with the medical confirmation that fluoridated water will cause harm just said that the patient will have to purchase their own unfluoridated water. Are we to accept this sort of rampant bad advice keeping coming from government?
Why should government be trying so desperately to cover up these side effects? I can only quess that they are becoming aware that the litigation that may be coming (if they admit they are making people sick by forcing fluoride treatment onto them) could be greater than for asbestos injuries.
So HOW DO PATIENTS AVOID THIS FLUORIDE TREATMENT?
Daily the phone rings with patients now experiencing the common effects from fluoridated water poisonong. Apart from those in a position to get filters supplied none can find an answer to how to protect themselves from this fluoride injury. I will be interested to see if any of those in government doing the damage can find an answer.
In case any of them still believe there is no medical record of fluoride causing side effects I have pasted a small section of Dr Bruce Spittle's ( a medical doctor who has researched the evidence) recent book "Fluoride Fatigue..." that can now be found online in a google search.
Medical researchers have summarized some of the confirmed symptoms below (it is noted that the symptoms could still have other origins even in someone suffering from chronic fluoride poisoning):
1 chronic fatigue, not relieved by extra sleep or rest 2 headaches 3 dryness of the throat and excessive water consumption 4 frequent need to urinate 5 urinary tract irritation 6 aches and stiffness in the muscles and bones arthritic-like pains in the lower back, neck, jaw, arms, shoulders and legs 7 muscular weakness 8 muscle spasms, involuntary twitching 9 tingling sensations in the feet and, especially, in the fingers 10 gastrointestinal disturbances: abdominal pains, diarrhoea, constipation, blood in stools, bloated feeling or gas, and tenderness in the stomach area 11 feeling of nausea, flu-like symptoms 12 pinkish-red or bluish-red spots, like bruises but round or oval, on the skin, that fade and clear up in 7–10 days (Chizzola maculae.a They were first recognized by an Italian general practitioner, Dr M Cristofoloni, in the neighbourhood of an aluminium factory near the village of Chizzola in northern Italy). 13 skin rash or itching, especially after showers or bathing 14 mouth sores, also with using fluoridated toothpaste 15 loss of mental acuity and the ability to concentrate 16 depression 17 excessive nervousness 18 dizziness 19 tendency to lose balance 20 visual disturbances, temporary blind spots in the field of vision, a diminished ability to focuss 21 brittle nails
Posted: Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Article comment by:
Jim Schultz
Mosaic distorted reality with only a fraction of the story. The EPA ordered smokestack pollution scrubbers installed about 1970 to reduce destruction downwind to cattle and crops and groves. Cattle died from tooth and bone destruction down wind of the phosphate plants. This recovered toxic waste with about 20 toxic contaminates is the collected slurry held in cooling ponds. Unmentioned is the phosphate contains about 200ppm uranium which used to be collected in 7 recovery units in Florida with the last one stopping production in 1998 said AEC production documents. A wide range of radioactive decay products do make it into the H2SiF6 AWWA b703-06 product. Get the specification sheet showing the 20 or so contaminates many radioactive because it is recovered toxic waste from a uranium mine/phosphate mine. All the tons of uranium are just left in the products or stored in huge mountains of radioactive gypsum. We eveh had one fall into a sinkhole near Tampa Fl in the 2004 Hurricanes. The piles hold billions of gallons of highly contaminated water also besides cooling ponds on top. This product the EPA admitted in 2000 has never been tested for safety or benefit in a chronic study in any country. The FDA also never has approved or even reviewed any ingested fluoride product ever. The 2006 NRC by a 12-0 vote said the allowed fluoride levels are not protective(safe). EPA management has refused to set a safe level yet. The Science unions at the EPA have over 2 decades asked congress to halt fluoridation calling it a huge fraud starting in 1985 after they discovered altered documents and ignored studies. By 2005 11 EPA unions asked congress to halt fluoridation and said the standard protocall required a MCLG of ZERO for fluoride just like other cumulative toxins arsenic and lead. Schweiss sounds like some Bozo distorting the truth. 29 Feb 2008 19 EPA unions asked for the immediate moratorium. Thats 10,000 professionals with the skills to make the decision. Only a fool would ignore this warning and claim due diligence happened. The ingested fluoride theory is now proven invalid as any benefit is topical with proof more in the 1000ppm and above range if at all. Featherstone in 2000 showed in JADA fluoride in enamel does not make teeth acid resistant as claimed for decades. He is only one of over 20 researchers that prove this the last 2 decades. Warren
Posted: Saturday, August 15, 2009
Article comment by:
Anita Knight
Proof is in the pudding! Library can provide these government documents: 1."Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F)" 1993 and 2003, US Dept of Health & Human Services. 2. "Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride" National Academy of Sciences Report for Congress. And this one from state of Florida: 3. "The Geology of Florida" 1997, Univ. Press of Florida, see page 143 for this paragraph: "In addition to uranium, fluorine is an economical byproduct of phosphoric-acid production. The fluorine from the rock reacts with silica to form SiF4 gas. During acid production this gas is recovered as fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) in wet scrubbers that are part of the environmental-protection equipment. Fluorosilicic acid is widely used in the preparation of chemical compounds and in the treatment of public drinking water."
Lastly, request from your local utilities dept. the AWWA (American Water Works Association) Standard for Fluorosilicic Acid B703-06. The foreword gives the same data as the book above, and notes concerns for the contaminants in the commercial grade product. Then, page 13 is an entire page of contaminants ranging from heavy metals as arsenic, lead, mercury and more down to "Radionuclides" as uranium, radium 226-228, Alpha and Beta particles. They are all low levels but can be cumulative in the body particularly if the diet is poor in calcium, magnesium and vitamin C. Calcium gluconate is the most effective antidote for fluoride poisoning (ref. pages 112, 125 and 128 of 1993 Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F)noted above.
Posted: Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Article comment by:
Clean_SafeH2O
Know that the AWWA [American Water Works Association] has reported in a ‘Water Conservation pamphlet’: “Less than 1% of utilities treated water is ever consumed [e.g. swallowed] by human beings.” The rest goes to landscape watering, washing uses, and down drains. An analogy to AWWA statement…Would anyone purchase a bottle of 100 EXPENSIVE ‘medicant’ pills, take just one, and throw the rest away only to pollute our “safe” habitats? Logically, NOT! ‘Fluoridation’ is the World’s most economically Wasteful, ‘dosage uncontrolled’, illicitly lobbied, illogical ‘prophylactic medicant’ delivery system on the face of this Earth! Why WASTE water ratepayers’ dollars? ‘Fluoridation’ is primarily the way phosphate mining companies ‘illegally’ get rid of their ‘hazardous fluoride waste’. And it’s sold by chemical company ‘intermediaries’ by contract to many. many city governments’ Water Treatment Utilities’. The gov’t purchasing depts.. sign Contracts with clause excepting ‘the Liability’, and relinquishing ‘Liability’ from the mining companies, and sellers of the ‘hazardous waste – Silicofluoride’. Worse, water Ratepayers PAY FOR THIS ‘fluoridation’ in their water bills!!
Posted: Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Article comment by:
Joy Warren
The article is reasonably well-balanced but …. The World Health Organization’s maximum level for drinking water is 1.5 mg fluoride per litre of water (1 ppm) so 3-4 Nebraskan communities have been drinking too much. Fluorine gas is a poisonous gas and its electro-negative ion, fluoride (F-), when added to water and silicate minerals, creates a fuming corrosive acid, even when only a 25% solution. Granted that it’s greatly diluted when added to drinking water, but even at 1ppm it’s BIOACCUMULATIVE. There are a huge number of fluoride atoms in 1ppm! The first proof of bioaccumulation in the human body is Dental Fluorosis in children’s secondary teeth. At the same time, it’s also accumulating in bones. The greater the degree of Dental Fluorosis, the greater chance of a child breaking its bones. This is not anecdotal – read the research ("A linear correlation between the Dean index of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures was observed among both children and adults." SOURCE: Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. (2001). Well Water Fluoride, Dental fluorosis, Bone Fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride 34(2): 139-149.)
Dental Fluorosis is damage to teeth caused by the same chemical which is meant to strengthen them. Moderate Dental Fluorosis is permanent brown staining with pitted enamel and is often accompanied by misaligned, oddly-shaped teeth. In many cases in later life the enamel starts to chip off, allowing decay to take a hold. If fluoride does such damage to the teeth, the bones are also being compromised. There is a greater incidence of osteosarcoma in young fluoridated boys than in non-fluoridated boys (Bassin, E. et al. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma’. Cancer Causes Control (2006) 17:421–428.)
Fluoride also bioaccumulates in the pineal gland and incorporates itself into the calcifying tissue in that gland. This affects the synthesis of melatonin. Melatonin governs our body clock. If our body clock is disrupted, then our metabolism is disrupted.
Fluoride displaces iodide in the thyroid gland. If thyroid function is disrupted, metabolism is disrupted.
The bottom line: if you want a sick population, continue fluoridating them!
