The Fluoride Debate

HOME

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY/
ENVIRONMENT

CENSORSHIP

THE FLUORIDE
DEBATE

BENEFITS
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8

ALTERNATIVES
Question 9
Question 10
Question 11
Question 12


SAFETY
Question 13
Question 14

OVERDOSE
Question 15
Question 16
Question 17

DISEASES
Question 18
Question 19
Question 20
Question 21
Question 22
Question 23
Question 24
Question 25
Question 26
Question 27
Question 28
Question 29
Question 30
Question 31
Question 32
Question 33

PUBLIC
POLICY

Question 34
Question 35
Question 36
Question 37
Question 38
Question 39
Question 40

COST
EFFECTIVENESS
Question 41
Question 42
Question 43

CONCLUSION

DISEASES

Question 32.
Will the addition of fluoride affect the quality of drinking water?

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Short Answer
There is no scientific evidence that optimal levels of fluoride affect the quality of water. All ground and surface water in the United States contains some naturally occurring fluoride.

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Long Answer
Nearly all water supplies must undergo various water treatment processes to be safe and suitable for human consumption. The substances used for this purpose include aluminum sulfate, ferric chloride, ferric sulfate, activated carbon, lime, soda ash and, of course, chlorine. Fluoride is added only to water that has naturally occurring lower than optimal levels of this mineral.27

Fluoridation is the adjustment of the fluoride concentration of fluoride-deficient water supplies to the recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 parts per million of fluoride for optimal dental health. The EPA has stated that fluoride in children's drinking water at levels of approximately 1.0 ppm reduces the number of dental cavities.202 The optimal level is dependent on the annual average of the maximum daily air temperature in the geographic area.27

Additional discussion on this topic may be found in Question 1, Question 3 and Question 33.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has established drinking water standards for a number of substances, including fluoride, in order to protect the public's health. There are several areas in the United States where the ground water contains higher than optimal levels of naturally occurring fluoride. Therefore, federal regulations were established to require that naturally occurring fluoride levels in a community water supply not exceed a concentration of 4.0 mg/L.202 Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, this upper limit is the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride. Under the MCL standard, if the naturally occurring level of fluoride in a public water supply exceeds the MCL (4.0 mg/L for fluoride), the water supplier is required to lower the level of fluoride below the MCL. This process is called defluoridation.

The EPA has also set a Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 2.0 mg/L, and requires consumer notification by the water supplier if the fluoride level exceeds 2.0 mg/L. The SMCL is intended to alert families that regular consumption of water with natural levels of fluoride greater than 2.0 mg/L by young children may cause dental fluorosis in the developing permanent teeth, a cosmetic condition with no known health effect.202 The notice to be used by water systems that exceed the SMCL must contain the following points:

  1. The notice is intended to alert families that children under nine years of age who are exposed to levels of fluoride greater than 2.0 mg/liter may develop dental fluorosis.
  2. Adults are not affected because dental fluorosis occurs only when developing teeth are exposed to elevated fluoride levels.
  3. The water supplier can be contacted for information on alternative water source or treatments that will insure the drinking water would meet all standards (including the SMCL).

The 1993 National Research Council report, Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, reviewed fluoride toxicity and exposure data for the EPA and concluded that the current standard for fluoride at 4.0 mg/L (set in 1986) was appropriate as an interim standard to protect the public health.96 In the EPA's judgment, the combined weight of human and animal data support the current fluoride drinking water standard and, in December 1993, the EPA published a notice in the Federal Register stating the ceiling of 4 mg/L would protect against adverse health effects with an adequate margin of safety and published a notice of intent not to revise the fluoride drinking water standards in the Federal Register.97

The EPA further commented on the safety of fluoride in the December 5, 1997, Federal Register.156 In a notice of a final rule relating to fluoride compounds the EPA stated, "There exists no directly applicable scientific documentation of adverse medical effects at levels of fluoride below 8 mg/L (0.23mg/kg/day)." The EPA's Maximum Concentration Limit (MCL) of 4.0 mg/L (0.114 mg/kg/day) is one half that amount, providing an adequate margin of safety.

The EPA indirectly regulates the intentional fluoridation of drinking water by having an enforceable Federal standard for fluoride at 4.0 mg/L. As long as the 4.0 mg/L standard is not exceeded, State or local authorities determine whether or not to fluoridate.237

Additional discussion on this topic may be found in Question 2.

Repeat of Question 32.
Will the addition of fluoride affect the quality of drinking water?

Opposition's Response

Actually, "fluoride," as such, has never been added to any water supply. What is added is one of the silicofluorides. The most commonly used one is Hydrofluosilicic acid. "Hydrofluosilicic acid is the most corrosive chemical agent known to man: it is derived from toxic gases produced in the manufacture of phosphoric acid and phosphate fertilizers. It contains lead, mercury, arsenic, and high concentrations of radio nuclides; it is also the chemical agent most used for water fluoridation in the U.S. Because the industrial grade fluorosilicic acid is a toxic waste by-product recovered from chimney pollution scrubbers ("scrubber liquor"), the volume of contaminants is profoundly influenced by the method of manufacture and the quality of raw materials used." (See 32-1: "Water: A Toxic Dump?" by Journalist, George Glasser; reprinted from the Sarasota ECO Report, Vol. 4:12, Dec. 1994, from Health Freedom News, July 1995).

"For every 6,800 gallons of fluorosilicic acid (FSA), 5,800 gallons is toxic pollution." (See 32-2: Gary Pittman letter, 11/18/98, page 4. Mr. Pittman was a supervisor at Occidental Chemical Corp.)

As soon as you add any type of fluoride (a prescription drug) to the water supply, you no longer have pure water, you have medicated water, making it unsafe for many people. All other additives are there to improve the water-fluoride is added to treat the people who drink it.

As stated earlier, there is no such thing as "fluoride-deficient" water. In 1979, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered that all government documents remove all references to fluoride as an "essential nutrient" or even a "probable essential nutrient." The FDA has never received or ever reviewed, much less approved, even the fluoride drops or tablets (which are pure pharmaceutical-grade fluoride) for safety or effectiveness. (See 13-2 document).

The Safe Drinking Water Initiative says: "Whereas water is essential to all and the public water supply should be safe for all to drink; and whereas individuals vary in their susceptibility and responses to various substances as well as in the amounts of water they consume; and whereas alternative methods of delivery for all substances exist; and, etc. ... the public water supply should not be used to deliver any product, substance, device, element, medicine of preventative agent with the intent or for the purpose of affecting the physical or mental functions of the body of any person consuming such water." (See 32-3 and 32-4: Safe Drinking Water Initiative).

When the Environmental Protection Agency was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluorine in 1985, the EPA's Headquarters Union of Scientists (consisting of 1,500 professional people) made a thorough investigation into the pros and cons of fluoridation. Their conclusions were: The public water supply should not be used "as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless (via ingestion, at any rate) substance." (See 1-6: EPA statement dated May 1, 1999).

The ADA leads the reader to believe that they are "adjusting the natural fluoride content of the water." Only calcium fluoride is found in nature, never the silicofluorides (crude toxic industrial waste products) that are used to fluoridate water. (See answer to Question 1).

We must also consider the environmental impact of fluorides in sewer effluent. This has been consistently ignored. A study of salmonids in the lower Columbia River for the period 1982-86 is one of several which document devastating effects of fluoride emissions at and below the levels to be expected in sewage effluent from fluoridated water systems. ("Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River", 1982-1986 by David M. Damkaer and Douglas B. Dey in North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 9:154-162, 1989.)

Download
The Fluoride
Debate

as a .pdf

Jump to the Opposition's
Response

for this
question.

 

NOTICE

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.


This site and accompanying book is published by
Health Way House | 403 Marcos St | San Marcos, CA 92069

First Edition
February 2001

This information provided on this site was compiled by
Anita Shattuck | Tel: 760-752-1621 | bakeranita@cox.net

This site and accompanying book was edited by
Edward Bennett

Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting