Why I voted NO to fluoride in drinking water
Fluoride in drinking water is on the county ballot next week. There is much passion expressed on both sides, and plenty of pamphlets being circulated, signs posted, and even meetings with "expert" speakers. I set out on an Internet quest for first-hand information versus all the propaganda and opinion. Quackwatch (http://www.quackwatch.org/) had good information, but didn’t tell me much about the science. I eventually found the best information at the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm) where there is new 2004 recommendations.
Beyond the conspiracy and hype, it’s evident that the scientific issue boils down to prevention of dental carries while minimizing health impacts of fluorosis. Fluorosis in a mild presentation constitutes visible opacity or chalky bands or ribbons seen in the dentition of teeth. Historically, this kind of mild fluorosis is considered a cosmetic rather than a health concern. Fluorosis is a health problem only when the function of the tooth enamel is compromised and teeth underneath are subject to wear and disease.
I spent some time on CDC and other professional and government websites, and abstracts of the last 12 months of MEDLINE, and won't share all my notes. I understand that my discovery is far from a thorough or scientific coverage of the issue. Nevertheless, I stopped here with the following conclusions:
Properly supplementing the world’s drinking water supply can significantly reduce morbidity associated with dental carries. Fluoride can be in water naturally and as a byproduct/contaminant of industry. Fluorosis does become a health risk in some communities world-wide due to natural fluoride or contaminated drinking water/foods. In our society, supplemental fluoride is available in foods/beverages, toothpaste, inexpensive supplements, and professional dental treatments. Mild Fluorosis is present in the population to a degree with or without supplements of fluoride. Mild fluorosis is not known to be a true health risk. The degree to which fluoride prevents carries/causes fluorosis depends heavily on oral intake of fluoride and contact of teeth to fluoride, and the age of the individual. The CDC recommendations are based on a estimate of how much tap water each individual in the entire population ingests along with the fluoride toothpaste and other sources of ingested fluoride. Optimal levels of fluoride added to drinking water for the prevention of dental carries will likely result in a notable increase in the percentage of the population with mild fluorosis. Costs associated with cosmetic procedures for opacity or conditions associated with mild fluorosis are a reality.
Water fluoridation is dissimilar to the other government compelled health issue of vaccination in that associated mortality is not nearly as epic, there are proven alternatives, and there is no dependence on a "herd effect" for efficacy. Thus, I feel comfortable with the political arguments about less government coercion and/or bureaucracy.
Bottom line: A fluoride program for municipal drinking water in my community will directly cost the municipality tax money. There are adequate, alternate sources for fluoride supplements/treatments available in my community, that can also be perhaps tax subsidized for those who will most benefit from supplementation. There is a potential for no benefit to a significant portion of the population in my community, and there is an associated increased risk for mild fluorosis in my community associated with water supplementation.
Well, I’m off to the market to buy iodized salt, enriched flour and vitamin D milk before heading to the poll booth to vote NO.
Beyond the conspiracy and hype, it’s evident that the scientific issue boils down to prevention of dental carries while minimizing health impacts of fluorosis. Fluorosis in a mild presentation constitutes visible opacity or chalky bands or ribbons seen in the dentition of teeth. Historically, this kind of mild fluorosis is considered a cosmetic rather than a health concern. Fluorosis is a health problem only when the function of the tooth enamel is compromised and teeth underneath are subject to wear and disease.
I spent some time on CDC and other professional and government websites, and abstracts of the last 12 months of MEDLINE, and won't share all my notes. I understand that my discovery is far from a thorough or scientific coverage of the issue. Nevertheless, I stopped here with the following conclusions:
Properly supplementing the world’s drinking water supply can significantly reduce morbidity associated with dental carries. Fluoride can be in water naturally and as a byproduct/contaminant of industry. Fluorosis does become a health risk in some communities world-wide due to natural fluoride or contaminated drinking water/foods. In our society, supplemental fluoride is available in foods/beverages, toothpaste, inexpensive supplements, and professional dental treatments. Mild Fluorosis is present in the population to a degree with or without supplements of fluoride. Mild fluorosis is not known to be a true health risk. The degree to which fluoride prevents carries/causes fluorosis depends heavily on oral intake of fluoride and contact of teeth to fluoride, and the age of the individual. The CDC recommendations are based on a estimate of how much tap water each individual in the entire population ingests along with the fluoride toothpaste and other sources of ingested fluoride. Optimal levels of fluoride added to drinking water for the prevention of dental carries will likely result in a notable increase in the percentage of the population with mild fluorosis. Costs associated with cosmetic procedures for opacity or conditions associated with mild fluorosis are a reality.
Water fluoridation is dissimilar to the other government compelled health issue of vaccination in that associated mortality is not nearly as epic, there are proven alternatives, and there is no dependence on a "herd effect" for efficacy. Thus, I feel comfortable with the political arguments about less government coercion and/or bureaucracy.
Bottom line: A fluoride program for municipal drinking water in my community will directly cost the municipality tax money. There are adequate, alternate sources for fluoride supplements/treatments available in my community, that can also be perhaps tax subsidized for those who will most benefit from supplementation. There is a potential for no benefit to a significant portion of the population in my community, and there is an associated increased risk for mild fluorosis in my community associated with water supplementation.
Well, I’m off to the market to buy iodized salt, enriched flour and vitamin D milk before heading to the poll booth to vote NO.
posted by nawledge at
8:43 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home