Benefits of Water Flouridation 

Follow Marin Events

• HomeUpBenefits of Water FlouridationEye Glasses MonopolyCalifornia Healthcare BillVaccinationMosquitos & West Nile VirusThe 90+ Study on AGINGFake Olive OilCarcinogenicity of EMFBottled Water Con GameMarijuana  vs AlcoholWhat is a Root CanalEat to Live & Live for something Else •
• The Junk Science of Fluoride-Free Watermore fillings than you need •

There is an overwhelming consensus amongst dental, medical and public health professionals supporting Fluoridation .

The evidence for the effectiveness of water fluoridation is incontrovertible. More than a dozen large-scale literature reviews have found water fluoridation,  confers a considerable Dental Caries preventive benefit in children. Further to this, water fluoridation and its effect on the tooth structure provides a benefit to adults across their lifespan. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/

The ant-fluoridation arguments are little more than fallacious non-science

Here are 4 examples from a few hundred one can find in the National Library of Medicine's database :

  1.  Community water fluoridation prevents about 2/3 of the operations necessary for severe childhood cavities in baby teeth and saves about 50% of the total bill for childhood dental care in Medicaid patients. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999 Sep 3;48(34):753-7. Water fluoridation and costs of Medicaid treatment for dental decay--Louisiana, 1995-1996. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10499787
  2.  The largest study ever done on cavities in school children's permanent teeth found that in the Pacific Region fluoridated communities had 61% fewer cavities.  J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:723-7; (see graph on p 323) Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. Brunelle JA, Carlos JP.
  3.  Kids who drink fluoridated water become adults with more teeth.  Am J Public Health. 2010 Oct;100(10):1980-5. Epub 2010 Aug 19. The association between community water fluoridation and adult tooth loss. Neidell M, Herzog K, Glied S. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724674
  4.  Teeth with mild fluorosis have fewer cavitis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62. The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren. Iida H, Kumar JV. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

Skeptic's view of the European situation likely comes from a graph on the Fluoride Action Network's website. The graph misleads. For example, not all European countries are included. Secondly, the widespread use of fluoridated salt is not mentioned. For a discussion of that and other errors please read the famous debate between Drs. Connett and Pollick which includes this matter. 

“Fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century,” Dr. Howard Pollick of the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry told the subcommittee as he encouraged members to continue fluoridation.

“Fluoridation is safe, it saves money and it works — that is the bottom line, take-home message,” Will Humble, Director for the Arizona Department of Health Services, told the subcommittee.

Great Britain is currently undertaking an expansion of water fluoridation similar in scope to what has and is occurring in California.
 

The European opinion as to water fluoridation's safety joins those of:

bullet Australia's National Health Research Council (2007),
bulletthe US National Academy of Sciences (2006),
bulletthe World Health Organization (2006),
bullet Ireland's Forum on Fluoridation (2002) and others.

The Ireland data nicely demonstrates that additional benefit came to those with fluoridated water.

Ireland WHO: -
http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/EURO/         
 

 Dental Caries

  non fluoridated fluoridated
1984 3.3 2.6
1992 2.1 1.4
2002 1.8 1.1
 

Removing any doubt as to European opinion, in May 2011 the European Union's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks issued a formal report titled "Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water".
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf (Conclusion on page 39)
 

Dispels the alleged fears of:
 

bullet dental fluorosis in children

bulletendemic skeletal fluorosis

bullet osteosarcoma

bulletchildren’s neurodevelopment and IQ levels

bulletthyroid

bulletmale and female reproductive capacity.

bulletenvironmental organisms exposure to fluoride
 
bulletpineal gland 1
While the studies the Harvard team reviewed (Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity)  IQs among schoolchildren, the data is not applicable here because it came from foreign (Chinese) sources where fluoride levels are multiple times higher than they are in American tap water. Studies didn't screen for other toxins.

Data on fluoride,
IQ not applicable in U.S.

 

A very thorough and detailed analysis of fluoride in Switzerland over 45 years is available.  see: http://www.sso.ch/doc/doc_download.cfm?uuid=BFC72B80B1408D4053BBBB937D37EABD
About half of the remarkable decline in cavities is ascribed to fluoride.
Roughly 80% of the children studied consume fluoridated salt. Most agree that salt fluoridation has equivalent efficacy as public water fluoridation.

As with other calcifying tissues, the pineal gland can accumulate fluoride. Fluoride has been shown to be present in the pineal glands of older people aged 72-100 years, with the fluoride concentrations being positively related to the calcium concentrations in the pineal gland, but not to the bone fluoride, suggesting that pineal fluoride is not necessarily a function of cumulative fluoride exposure of the individual

 

US fluoridation does NOT reduce IQ - Snopes

Your dentist may be giving you more fillings than you need

A 2007 report by the Institut National de Sant Publique shows that in Dorval, Québec, the
discontinuation of water fluoridation in 2003 led to the doubling of the percentage of kindergarten children at high risk of developing cavities by 2005

Alternatives to water fluoridation – like programs that promote routine brushing with fluoridated toothpaste – “are more expensive” and it will be especially damaging for already health-disadvantaged and worsen oral health inequities.

Tooth decay, or caries, is caused by bacteria that thrive on sugars in the mouth and produce acids. Left in contact with a tooth, the acids draw out minerals, creating microscopic pores. Decay progresses slowly, and it may take years for a full-blown hole, or cavity, to form; until that point, it can still be reversed. Mineral-containing saliva is constantly working to replenish the teeth, and fluoride aids remineralization.

After a filling, more than 60% of people will return to the dentist with new decay within the next two years. source WSJ

 

TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking to protect adequately against such risk . http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/TSCA_21_%20Petition_Response_HFSA_FRN_PrePub_2013-08-06.pdf (page 8)
B. What is
EPA’s Reason for this Response?
For the purpose of making its decision, EPA evaluated the information presented or referenced in the petition as well
as the Agency’s authority and requirements under TSCA sections 6, 9, and 21.

After careful consideration, EPA denied the TSCA section 21 petition because the evidence presented by the petitioners
does not adequately support a conclusion that
HFSA, when used as a fluoridation agent, presents or will present an
unreasonable risk to health or the environment and that a TSCA section 6 rulemaking is necessary to protect adequately
against such risk . More specifically:

1. Arsenic.
EPA evaluated the cost-benefit analysis submitted by the petitioners and determined that the petitioners miscalculated
net benefits for pharmaceutical grade
NaF compared to HFSA.
Specifically, it appears that the petitioners failed to convert their estimates of lifetime cancer risk to estimates
of annual cancer risk for the purpose of calculating annual net benefits. This error alone results in a 70-fold
overestimation of the number of annual cancer cases due to arsenic.
That is, for the analysis in which the petitioners evaluate arsenic concentrations of 0.078 parts per billion (ppb)
due to HFSA and 0.00084 ppb due to pharmaceutical grade NaF, the estimated numbers of cancer cases, when corrected,
decrease from 320 to 4.6 per year for HFSA and from 3.4 to 0.05 per year for pharmaceutical grade NaF(Refs. 2 and 9).
Similarly, for the analysis in which the petitioners evaluate an arsenic concentration of 0.43 ppb due to HFSA and
0.00084 due to pharmaceutical grade NaF, the estimated numbers of cancer cases, when 8 corrected, decrease from 1,800
to 25 per year for HFSA and from 3.4 to 0.05 per year for pharmaceutical grade NaF (Refs. 2 and 9).
After making the correction (i.e., annualizing the lifetime cancer risk), and retaining all other assumptions of the
petitioners analysis, the analysis actually indicates that the cost-benefit ratio is in favor of using HFSA over
pharmaceutical grade NaF (-$81M/year to-$8M/year, respectively) rather than pharmaceutical grade NaF over HFSA (Ref.
).
As a result, the information submitted by petitioners does not support the petitioners’ claim that there are net
benefits in switching from HFSA to pharmaceutical grade NaF. Given that the petition is based upon the premise that
the benefits of using pharmaceutical grade NaF as a fluoridation agent significantly exceed the costs relative to the
use of HFSA as a fluoridation agent, EPA concludes that petitioners have not set forth sufficient facts to establish
that HFSA presents or will present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment with respect to arsenic
or that it is necessary to initiate a TSCA section 6(a) rulemaking to protect adequately against such risk.

2. Lead.
Petitioners assert that HFSA contains lead but provided no data to support this assertion.
Petitioners also assert that the use of HFSA in lead-containing water piping systems results in leaching of lead from
lead-containing water piping systems into water (Ref. 5), and that when chloramine is used in conjunction with
silicofluorides greatly enhanced leaching of lead into water occurs (Ref. 3). However, multiple other studies
concluded that the fluoridation of drinking water with HFSA has little impact on corrosivity and/or release of metals
from plumbing materials (Refs.10,11,12, and 13).
For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) conducted a study of the relationship between the
additives used for fluoridation (i.e., 9 HFSA, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride) and blood lead
concentrations among a nationally representative sample of >9,000 U.S. children, aged 1-16 years (Ref.10).
The study analysis did not offer support for the hypothesis that silicofluorides in community water systems increase
blood lead concentrations in children.

Based on the available evidence, EPA cannot conclude that the use of HFSA, with or without the presence of chloramine,
results in enhanced leaching of lead.
 

Questions? info@MarinInfo.org