There is an
overwhelming consensus amongst dental, medical and public health
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.
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 :
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
is currently undertaking an expansion of water fluoridation similar in scope
to what has and is occurring in California.
European opinion as to water fluoridation's safety joins those of:
Australia's National Health Research Council (2007), |
US National Academy of Sciences (2006), |
World Health Organization (2006), |
Ireland's Forum on Fluoridation (2002) and others.|
The Ireland data nicely demonstrates that additional benefit
came to those with fluoridated water.
Ireland WHO: -
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".
(Conclusion on page 39)
the alleged fears of:
the Harvard team reviewed (Developmental
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.
thorough and detailed analysis of fluoride in Switzerland over 45 years
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
fluoride is not necessarily a function of cumulative fluoride exposure of
does NOT reduce IQ - Snopes
Your dentist may be giving you more fillings than you need
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
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 .
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:
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.
Petitioners assert that HFSA contains lead but provided no data to support
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.