Letter writer: Let’s stop outdated water fluoridation

Graphic by Lori Deaton

I want to commend the editorial staff of Mountain Xpress for the article in the Sept. 9-15 edition covering the Asheville Buncombe Food Policy Council’s asking the City Council to stop adding “fluoridation” chemicals to the public water supply [“Protection or Poison? Food Policy Council Urges Asheville to Stop Fluoridating Water.”]

Water fluoridation has always been a matter of “tobacco science,” meaning that the real science to support the practice was never there to begin with. It’s always been a corporate scheme to profit from a toxic byproduct rather than having to spend money to properly treat and dispose of it. The citizens of Asheville fell for the scam back in 1965, and it’s been harming the populace ever since.

But over the last 25 years, literally every independent study of “water fluoridation” has shown two things: (1) the adding of fluoride chemicals to public water supplies has no appreciable effect on dental health; and (2) these neurotoxic chemicals have multiple negative effects on the human body — especially for children and blacks.

I encourage everyone to read the [article] itself on the MX website [http://mountainx.com/?p=538106] — it’s very good!

I also love the quip by dentist Matthew Young, “Putting fluoride in the drinking water for cavities is like drinking sunblock to prevent sunburns.”

Exactly. Let’s remove this outdated, barbaric practice and have better drinking water in Asheville.

— Michael Ivey
Asheville

SHARE
About Letters
We want to hear from you! Send your letters and commentary to letters@mountainx.com

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

7 thoughts on “Letter writer: Let’s stop outdated water fluoridation

  1. HuhHuh

    Mommy, look! They’ve deleted our comments again! This is what happens to you when you vote for the crazy liberals!

    • HuhHuh

      Now before anyone says it — ISRAEL HAS FLUORIDE IN THEIR WATER.

  2. Michael Ivey says, “But over the last 25 years, literally every independent study of “water fluoridation” has shown two things: (1) the adding of fluoride chemicals to public water supplies has no appreciable effect on dental health;” Here you go, Michael. How many did you want. There are literally thousands:

    A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18584000
    “Fluoridation of drinking water remains the most effective and socially equitable means of achieving community-wide exposure to the caries prevention effects of fluoride. It is recommended that water be fluoridated in the target range of 0.6-1.1 mg/l, depending on the climate, to balance reduction of dental caries and occurrence of dental fluorosis

    Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children’s Dental Disease
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/
    “children residing in areas with ≥0.7 ppm fluoride in the water supplies had both lower caries prevalence and lower caries experience.”

    Fluoride Concentration of Drinking Water in Babil-Iraq
    http://docsdrive.com/pdfs/ansinet/jas/2011/3315-3321.pdf
    “… it is found that the level of fluoride is far below the upper level recommended by WHO and by Bureau of Iraqi Standards. To prevent dental caries, it is recommended that drinking water in iraq should be fluorideated.”

    The York Review – A systematic review of public water fluoridation
    http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/full/4801410a.html
    “The review concluded that no associations between cancer and water fluoridation were able to be detected.”
    “The outcomes examined included Down’s Syndrome, mortality, senile dementia, goitre and IQ levels. Overall, the included studies examining other possible negative effects provided insufficient evidence on any particular outcome to permit confident conclusions.”
    “The best available evidence suggests that fluoridation of drinking water supplies reduces caries prevalence, both as measured by the proportion of children who are caries free and by the mean dmft/DMFT score”

    Water fluoridation in 40 Brazilian cities: 7 year analysis
    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext
    “The majority of samples from cities performing fluoridation had fluoride levels within the range that provides the best combination of risks and benefits, minimizing the risk of dental fluorosis while preventing dental caries”

    Seven years of external control of fluoride levels in the public water supply in Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil
    http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext
    “The benefit of the fluoridation of public water is proportionally larger in the segments of society that do not have access to other fluoride sources such as fluoride dentifrices and which, therefore, need it the most”

    Fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages
    http://www.nature.com/ebd/journal/v8/n3/pdf/6400506a.pdf
    “These findings suggest that fluoride is effective in preventing caries in adults of all ages.”

    Water fluoridation in the Blue Mountains reduces risk of tooth decay
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/…/j.1834-7819.2009…/pdf
    “The caries reduction observed in the Blue Mountains corresponds to the high end of rate reductions reported elsewhere and demonstrates the substantial benefits of water fluoridation. General practitioners and the public can be assured that water fluoridation continues to reduce the risk to tooth decay.”

    Drinking water fluoridation and oral health inequities in canadian children.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23618050
    “The robust main effect of fluoridation on dmftDMFT and the beneficial effect across socio-economic groups support fluoridation as a beneficial and justifiable population health intervention.”

    Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550501
    “Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.”

    Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23488212
    “The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age.”

    Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23252588
    “Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years.”

  3. In regard to the litany of unsubstantiated nonsense posted by this uninformed letter writer, Mr. Ivey, funneled directly from New York antifluoridationist factions::

    1. Ivey: “Water fluoridation has always been a matter of “tobacco science,” meaning that the real science to support the practice was never there to begin with.”

    Facts:
    A. Tobacco, obviously, is irrelevant the public health initiative of water fluoridation.

    B. The science has always fully supported water fluoridation. The problem with antifluoridationists is that they, for the most part, have very little understanding of science. The following are but a few of the peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. I will gladly cite as many as anyone would reasonably care to read.

    1). Conclusion
    The children living in the well-established fluoridated area had less dental caries and a higher proportion free from disease when compared with the other two areas which were not fluoridated. Fluoridation demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of better oral health for young children.

    —The Dental Health of primary school children living in fluoridated, pre-fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New South Wales, Australia
    Anthony S Blinkhorn, Roy Byun, George Johnson, Pathik Metha, Meredith Kay, and Peter Lewis

    2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550501

    Research Design:  Consecutive clinical case series: clinical details (diagnoses and the treatments provided) were recorded for children who had received comprehensive dental care under GA between 2000 and 2009. Age, gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status and fluoridation status (determined from the residential address) were also recorded.

    CONCLUSIONS:
    Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.

    ——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
    Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
    Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
    Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

    3). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23488212

    CONCLUSIONS:
    The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.

    —–Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
    Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
    Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
    Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland. joej.mullen@hse.ie

    2. Ivey: “It’s always been a corporate scheme to profit from a toxic byproduct rather than having to spend money to properly treat and dispose of it.”

    Facts:
    A. “Corporate scheme” and other such conspiracy nonsense, while a staple of antifluoridationist arguments, are, obviously, irrelevant and meaningless.

    B. The fluoride destined for water treatment is an inconsequential portion of the mined fluoride.  The mining companies incur no special cost in the normal disposal, and avoid no costs whatsoever from water additive sales.  Because the process requires energy and reagent inputs it saves no money.  Recently almost all of the sodium fluoride comes from overseas sources because the phosphate rock based manufacture is too expensive to be price competitive.

    3. Ivey: “The citizens of Asheville fell for the scam back in 1965, and it’s been harming the populace ever since.”

    Facts:
    A. There is no “scam” involved in water fluoridation. It is simply the adjustment of the existing level of fluoride in water, up to the optimal level of 0.7 ppm, at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. Cessation of fluoridation does not cease the ingestion of fluoride in water. It simply removes the benefit we receive from a substance we will continue to ingest in water anyway, fluoridated or not.

    B. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of harm to anyone, from optimally fluoridated water. Anyone who disagrees needs to provide such evidence, properly cited.

    4. Ivey: “But over the last 25 years, literally every independent study of “water fluoridation” has shown two things: (1) the adding of fluoride chemicals to public water supplies has no appreciable effect on dental health; and (2) these neurotoxic chemicals have multiple negative effects on the human body — especially for children and blacks.”

    Facts:
    A. Countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. See my item #1 above.

    B. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any neurotoxicity of optimal level fluoride.

    C. There is no, valid peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride, over “the past 25 years” or any other time frame.

    5. Ivey: “I encourage everyone to read the [article] itself on the MX website [http://mountainx.com/?p=538106] — it’s very good!”

    Facts:
    Anyone who desires accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation should consult respected, trustworthy sources. The websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate information on fluoridation readily available to anyone.

    6. Ivey: “I also love the quip by dentist Matthew Young, ‘Putting fluoride in the drinking water for cavities is like drinking sunblock to prevent sunburns.’ ”

    This is a quote copy/pasted from an antifluoridationist website numerous times daily. It is indicative of a profound lack of understanding of healthcare in general, and fluoridation specifically. This is precisely the type of nonsense constantly being disseminated by antifluoridationist factions, spoon-fed to those such as the uninformed author of this letter, who then funnel it into local communities.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  4. Kurt Ferre DDS

    The opponents to fluoridation repeatedly mention that most countries in Europe do not have controlled fluoridation to their public water supplies. There’s are several reasons for this:

    Fluoridation began on January 23, 1945 in Grand Rapids, MI. Europe was in the midst of the Second World War and by the end of war that summer, much of the infrastructure throughout Europe was destroyed and potable water was a luxury. A culture of drinking bottled water developed throughout Europe, and it didn’t make sense to use the public water systems to promote better dental health.
    While adding fluoride to public water throughout the United States expanded rapidly and, today, 211 million Americans have access to fluoridated water, European health officials, recognizing the importance of fluoride went a different route: fluoridated salt (250 ppm), fluoridated milk, fluoridated chewing gum and mints, and fluoride varnish (22,600 ppm). Ireland is 80% fluoridated, the UK is 10% fluoridated, but most of Europe on the continent does not fluoridate their public water systems. Interestingly, Sweden, population 9 million, has naturally occurring fluoridated water for 1.2 million of its citizens. Italy is another country that has a high percentage of naturally fluoridated water.
    It helps that Europeans have socialized medicine and full access to medical and dental care. The varnish is routinely applied at well baby checks. Also, statistics for oral health in Europe conveniently leave out the entire eastern European countries. Eastern Europeans have less-healthy teeth compared to western European countries.

    Despite that many areas of Europe have potable water today, Europeans love their bottled water, and the labels will tell you the fluoride content (the FDA doesn’t have this requirement unless fluoride is added to the water). If you’re ever in Paris, order a bottle of Badroit water, the most popular brand in Paris. Guess what? 1.2 ppm !! I just returned from a European trip, and discovered several more bottled waters that have naturally-occurring fluoride: San Pellegrino (the same one that we buy in a 12-pack at Costco): 0.5 ppm; Jamnica ; 0.86 ppm: and Princess : 0.78 ppm.

    Europeans are getting their fluoride.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.