Fluoridation's Hazards Outweigh Benefits
Author: Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, Ph.D., DDS,
Published on: November 1, 2004
I'm the head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto as well
as a
practicing dentist. My career as a university professor has been devoted
to
dental research, specializing in tooth development and, more recently,
dental/bone fluorosis, which is the systemic poisoning caused by
fluorides.
For many years, I was a vocal supporter of water fluoridation. That was
before
I had reason to carefully examine other published studies. What I learned,
after thoroughly researching the fluoride-toxicology literature, which,
like so
many other proponents of fluoridation, I had previously ignored, horrified
me.
After much soul-searching, I publicly apologized for having misled so many
for
so long. So now, it is my carefully considered opinion that water
fluoridation
should be banned.
Here are my reasons:
Fluoride is not essential for normal tooth development. Dental decay is
not a
disease caused by a lack of fluoride. It is caused by poor oral hygiene
and
frequent exposure to dietary sugars and starch. It is now recognized that
swallowing fluoride does little to prevent dental decay.
It does not make your teeth "stronger" or more resistant to decay by
incorporation into the tooth structure during development. However, if you
swallow fluoride, it increases the risk of childhood dental fluorosis,
especially when tap water is used to make infant formula.
Dental fluorosis not only manifests in mottling of the teeth but it also
makes
teeth more brittle. How much does it cost to treat dental fluorosis that
develops in all children with growing teeth exposed to too much fluoride?
The treatment of dental fluorosis ranges from polishing, to full porcelain
veneers, which are very expensive. The repair of dental fluorosis defects
is
considered "cosmetic" dentistry and it is elective. Few, if any, dental
insurance companies will cover the cost. On a dental cost-benefit basis
alone,
water fluoridation is too expensive.
As if that isn't bad enough, dental fluorosis is a bio-indicator of the
general
integrity of the bones. Some studies indicate that there is an increased
risk
of bone fractures in both children and adults where there is increased
dental
fluorosis. Fluoride accumulates in the skeleton -- the longer the
exposure, the
more brittle your teeth and bones. What about the people who retain too
much
fluoride (e.g., diabetes, renal failure) or the people who exhibit
allergic
reactions to the fluoridation chemicals?
Fluoridation of all the water in Davis County will cost a minimum of a $1
million per year for the next seven years. Over 20 years it will cost
about $16
million. Only 1 percent of the water is used for human consumption.
Ninety-nine percent of the fluoridation investment goes, quite literally,
down
the drain and pollutes the environment. After 20 years, all you can really
expect to save from dental decay is about 0.3 tooth surfaces out of 128
tooth
surfaces per person. About 80 percent of this decay is in the target
population
of disadvantaged children in Davis County numbering approximately 3,742
under
12 years of age living at the poverty level. Let's see, that's $4,275 for
each
disadvantaged child. Wow.
Don't forget the hidden costs of fluoridation. What will it cost to clean
up
fluoride spills or treat water workers exposed to toxic fluorides? What
will it
cost to continually replace pumps, equipment and pipes eroded by fluoride
chemicals? And how about all the costs associated with the promotion of
fluoridation through state-sponsored ad campaigns?
Utah received an F grade in the 2003 Oral Health America for having less
than
50 percent of the population on fluoridated water. Is this why there is a
push
fluoridate more of Utah's precious water?
Ironically, in the same report, the oral health of the adults statewide is
actually better than the national average.
Furthermore, the 2000 Utah Oral Health Survey reported nearly half the
children
in Utah had no dental decay experience. This is due, in part, to the
effective
public health dental-sealant program that has, so far, only managed to
reach
half the children.
Why not spend all this fluoridation money on funding Children's Health
Insurance Program, putting more money into the dental sealant program or
simply
providing free dental service for people on Medicaid?
Finally, medical and dental professionals as well as numerous reputable
organizations question the ethics of fluoridation. Fluoridation violates
the
individual's right to informed consent to medication. The dose cannot be
controlled or even tracked.
Total fluoride consumption is not calculated. People vulnerable to
fluoride's
toxic effects are harmed while not being advised of the risk.
Utah's water supply is very precious and limited. Don't spoil it by adding
more
crude chemicals to it.
Do the benefits outweigh the risks? After everything I have read, no.
The risks are substantial.
Is it worth the money? Obviously not. Besides, what's your freedom to
choose
worth? If you continue to fluoridate your water supplies, you've given
away
yours and your neighbor's freedom to drink un-medicated water and it's
even
going to cost you an extra $5 annually per person. I understand that's
already
up from the original cost of $1.38 that they promised.
This article first appeared in The Standard Examiner October 24, 2004.
Sally Stride,
Fluoridation Editor, Suite101.com
http://www.suite101.com/welcome.cfm/fluoridation
|
