All About Fluoridation

A few fringe activists claim that fluoridation of water carries more danger than benefit.

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Conspiracies, Health, Urban Legends

Skeptoid #58
July 30, 2007
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe
Also available in Chinese | Russian
 

Fluoridation
Artwork: Nathan Bebb

Today we're going to wrap our big juicy lips around the kitchen faucet, turn on the valve, and fill our bodies with a poisonous chemical placed in our water by the government: fluoride.

Most people understand that fluoridation of water means that fluoride is added by the local municipal water supplier, and that's generally correct. What most people don't know is that in some cases, fluoridation means removing excess fluoride that occurs naturally in the water supply. Fluoride is a natural component of groundwater, and it occurs naturally everywhere in the world, in varying amounts. The process of fluoridation is to adjust the fluoride content of the water to the most healthful level.

So how did fluoridation become a normal part of municipal water supply? It all goes back to an early 20th century dentist named Dr. Frederick McKay, who practiced dentistry in Colorado, and noticed that a lot of his patients seemed to have brown teeth. In Texas, brown teeth were so prevalent that they were simply called "Texas Teeth". Dr. McKay spent 30 years investigating the cause. Why? Because it also turned out that people with Texas Teeth also had extremely low levels of dental decay. If you had brown teeth, you were only 1/3 as likely to have cavities.

Finally, in 1931, it was determined that naturally occurring fluoride in the local drinking water was responsible for both the discoloration and the lack of decay. Texas and Colorado had extremely high levels of natural fluoride, causing the discoloration, a condition now known as dental fluorosis, which is harmless if a tad unattractive. Years of research and testing in different cities and states, conducted by the National Health Service, determined that one part per million was the ideal proportion, giving the same protection from decay, and avoiding the dental fluorosis. Ever since then, it has been the standard practice to regulate fluoride levels in municipal water supplies to one part per million. There has been broad scientific and medical consensus for decades that one part per million of fluoride is best for health, and exactly zero rigorously conducted scientific trials that have indicated any sign of danger. For all practical purposes, it is an over-and-done-with issue.

And yet, like so many advances in science or medicine, fluoridation is criticized by a small yet vocal fringe group. There is absolutely an anti-fluoridation lobby in this country. Their process is to flood the mass media with as many claims as they can invent: Claims like fluoridation causes cancer or other illnesses; that insufficient research has been done or that there is "scientific controversy" surrounding fluoridation; that fluoride is a dangerous chemical poison; that fluoridation has been banned in Europe; that it eliminates your freedom of choice; or any of a dozen other baseless and untrue statements intended to alarm and frighten the public. Alarming the public is not hard to do. There are many communities in the United States where voters have been compelled to ban fluoridation by this widespread misinformation campaign.

Let's turn our eye onto one such community, Arcata, an idyllic coastal hamlet in northern California, that recently won this battle after a divisive and painful fight in the newspapers and in city hall. A principal champion of the science behind fluoridation is Kevin Hoover, editor of the Arcata Eye newspaper. In answering the flood of anti-fluoridation scare tactics, Hoover said:

There are no known victims. If there was a problem with municipal fluoridation, wouldn't we have at least a few people who showed some signs of harm after 44 years? All the anti-fluoride people could say was that the victims are "undiagnosed," but not why. They produced no victims, just lots of dubious statistics and horror stories with no provenance.

Measure W to ban fluoridation was carefully crafted by the anti-fluoridation lobby to simply require FDA approval of anything added to Arcata's water supply, which sounds reasonable and sounds like a good idea, and a layperson otherwise uninformed would be likely to vote for it. The catch is that the Food & Drug Administration has nothing whatsoever to do with municipal water supplies, and so of course FDA approval would never happen, by law. Measure W was essentially a devious, deceitful trick intended to further the anti-fluoridation lobby's agenda at the expense of the dental health of Arcata's children. Generally, it's this same tactic that has been responsible for most anti-fluoridation measures that have passed in the United States.

How else does the anti-fluoridation lobby go about spreading their misinformation? Generally they distribute an eight page pamphlet written by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, the grandfather of anti-fluoridation activism. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was a naturopath who rejected modern medicine, and was the principal originator of the claim that fluoridation causes cancer. He raised his family with an emphasis on a fluoride-free diet to avoid cancer. And, as I'm sure you've guessed, Dr. Yiamouyiannis died of cancer in 2000, which he had refused to treat in accordance with his naturopathic philosophy. His type of cancer has a 95% 5-year survival rate, when properly treated.

Most other experts cited by activists are people like Dr. Hugo Theorell, who did indeed oppose fluoridation in the early days. What they don't tell you is that Dr. Theorell changed his mind and became a supporter after the research was published. They'll often cite Swedish Nobel Prize winner Arvid Carlsson, known for his work with dopamine. He's the only known Nobel Prize winner to oppose fluoridation, but the activists multiply him and frequently say that "dozens" or "many" Nobel Prize winners oppose it. When you can only find one guy who opposes something, and his work is in a completely different field anyway, that's a pretty sad commentary on your position. It's also a case of the exception proving the rule. There are always a few contrarian scientists in every field with opinions opposite from the consensus.

It's also stated that fluoridation adds dangerous levels of lead, arsenic, and mercury to the water. Again, this is simply untrue, and making such a claim is really a form of terrorism. In Arcata, no detectable levels of any of those are found in the fluoridated water. Not just below safe levels, mind you; zero.

You'll also hear the claim that fluoridation has been banned in Europe. This is also completely untrue. In Europe it's more common to fluoridate salt instead of water, thus bringing the same benefits via a different delivery method. As long as you don't look at that fact, the anti-fluoridation people can truthfully say that "Europe rejects fluoridation of water."

$2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

Thanks to the efforts of Hoover and all of Arcata's doctors, dentists, educators, social workers and newspapers, Measure W to ban fluoridation was soundly defeated in the election. And it's a good thing, too: according to sources in Arcata, if Measure W had passed, the same people were going to try and ban childhood vaccinations next.

Why do they do it? We can really only speculate. Presumably most of these people are good citizens who love their families and want the best for everyone. I speculate that a lot of them are simply ignorant of the facts, and possibly mistrust of the government or anticorporatism compels them to tend to ignore information from official sources and embrace alternative claims, whatever their source. Hoover gave his own answer to this question in an editorial for the Arcata Eye:

Billion-dollar industries thrive around entirely imaginary “phenomena.” Astrology, numerology, UFOs, alien abductions, Holocaust denial, the face on Mars, “chemtrails,” innumerable media-centered conspiracy theories and fluoride-phobia thrive because they inhabit that magical nexus where paranoia meets superstition – fertile ground for fomenting fear.

The United States Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent fluoridating water saves fifty dollars in dental expenses. If fluoridation is truly just another conspiracy, then at least this is one that saves money.

Brian Dunning

© 2007 Skeptoid Media, Inc. Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Estupiñán-Day, Saskia. Promoting oral health: the use of salt fluoridation to prevent dental caries. Washington DC: Pan American Health Organization, 2005.

Griffin, SO, Jones, K, Tomar, SL. "An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation." Journal of Public Heath Dentistry. 1 Mar. 2001, Volume 61, Number 2: 78-86.

Hem, John D. Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Characteristics of Natural Water. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2005. 120-123.

Langford, Cameron. "GOP Hosts County’s Public Health Officer for Fluoride Talk." Humboldt Advocate. 14 Jul. 2006, Newspaper: Unknown.

McKay, Frederick S. "Mass Control of Dental Caries Through the Use of Domestic Water Supplies Containing Fluorine." American Journal of Public Heath Nations Health. 1 Jun. 1948, Volume 38, Number 6: 828-832.

National Cancer Institute. "Fluoridated Water: Questions and Answers." National Cancer Institute - Comprehensive Cancer Information. National Institutes for Health, 29 Jun. 2005. Web. 12 Nov. 2009. <http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water>

Nixon, Janice M., Carpenter, R. G. "Mortality in areas containing natural fluoride in their water supplies, taking account of socioenvironmental factors and water hardness." The Lancet. 2 Nov. 1974, Volume 304, Issue 78: 1068-1071.

WHO. Inadequate or Excess Fluoride: A Major Public Health Concern. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2010.

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "All About Fluoridation." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, Inc., 30 Jul 2007. Web. 21 Aug 2014. <http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058>

Discuss!

10 most recent comments | Show all 396 comments

Sad to see this in the news today:
"A Kansas House committee is considering a proposal to require cities and other local governments to warn consumers if they put fluoride in their water supplies."

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/24/4845801/kansas-bill-would-require-cities.html#storylink=cpy
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/24/4845801/kansas-bill-would-require-cities.html

Steve, San Francisco
February 24, 2014 8:35am

How much fluoride should I have each day? What if I drink 15 glasses of water a day compared to someone who drinks 3 glasses? plus the many products we eat and drink these days with fluoride in them. Dosage is not a concern, it's all good.
What if all doctors prescribed medicine this way.

You're quite the skeptic

Paul, North Carolina
February 25, 2014 8:18am

don't worry, anti-fluoridationists, the government is steadily decreasing the "optimal" recommended level of fluoride in drinking water since they know it has absolutely no effect on peoples' teeth. they won't ever admit that they always knew that since it would be embarrassing at the very least and most likely lead to massive civil litigation, but... soon the recommended "optimal" level will be zero.

troll, the moon
February 25, 2014 11:44pm

"Also, they always say on the toothpaste tube: don't swallow it. Guess why?"

Because the bulk of toothpaste is made up of abrasives like aluminum hydroxide and silica (sand)? Hint: It's because the bulk of toothpaste is made up of abrasives.

And, Paul from NC, the short answer is that it doesn't really matter how much you drink. The long answer is that the lowest recorded lethal dose of Sodium Fluoride is 4g and the high dosage of Sodium Fluoride used in Water Fluoridation is 1mg/L (0.001g/L). That means that, in order to be poisoned by Fluoride in your drinking water, you would need to drink 4000L of water. For reference, that is a fish tank that is 130" wide by 45" deep by 40" tall. You would die of water poisoning long before you would have any adverse reaction to the Fluoride.

Even if you aren't talking about lethal dosage, gastrointestinal distress begins at 1/20th that amount...still 200L of water and still way more water than required to kill you.

Eric Payne, Maryland, USA
March 9, 2014 7:58am

@ Eric Payne

Eric, you must work for the industry!

The question is NOT if you can get poisoned from the flouride in the drinking water, the question is if it has any beneficial or detrimental effect. As soon as there is a detrimental effect (as is by now established enough through countless studies, even Harvard came to this conclusion), the beneficial effects have to be 100% solid and provable (which they are not, as other countries have abanoned the flourisation of the water without having negative repercussions).

Fact is that even at 1 part per million, flouride has an effect and it is a nerve poison, so forcing everyone to ingest it (and putting it into the official drinking water is the same as forcing it on you, you can hardly avoid it) is WRONG!

If you want to use flouride, I won't keep you from doing it! Buy water with it, brush your teeth with it, swallow it in pill form, I could not care less!

But if I don't want to use it, leave me alone with(out) it! It's my teeth, my cavities (which have nothing to do with that), my health.

Leave the decision to me, I don't need 'well-meaning' politicians to pamper me, I can decide on my own!

Dorothee, Frankfurt Germany
March 11, 2014 2:08am

You can think whatever you like about fluoride in the water. Personally, and I've studied this issue for 20 years, I think it does nothing for dental health and has some serious negative effects. The bottom line is that the public water supply should not be medicated. The public should have a choice if they want to take a medicine. Fluoride does not make drinking water safer so there is no justification for putting the stuff in the water and making us drink it.

Jake the Rake, Oakland, CA
March 26, 2014 4:58pm

I'm curious to learn more about your 20 years of research that uncovered "serious negative effects" that seem to have eluded all other observations.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
March 26, 2014 8:10pm

There needs to be a clarification between Calcium Fluoride found in ground water, Sodium Fluoride in toothpaste, and Hydrofluosilicic acid a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer and aluminum industry used for city water fluoridation. Hydrofluosilicic acid does not occur naturally in ground water or any water other than polluted waste water.

Brenda, Green Bay
April 6, 2014 2:18pm

It should be mandatory to read through all the comments from the last four years before commenting. I keep seeing the same tired "arguments" used ad nauseum. They've already discussed the different forms of floride and where it comes from and settled that freedom of choice is a seperate issue.
Also - if your comment is that we need to "do our research" or that we are shills or sheeple - please do everyone a favor and...just don't. It really serves no purpose.
Lastly - instead of referring to "research" or "research done by(fill in the blank)" please post a link to the research so we can read it ourselves.

Andy, Melbourne
May 30, 2014 5:37am

Brian
"The United States Public Health Service estimates that every dollar spent fluoridating water saves fifty dollars in dental expenses."

I have no particular views on fluoridation, but the above statement coming from the US Public Health Service is completely unprovable, even apart from it being only an "estimate".

It's a nonsensical statement. How can they estimate an expense "every dollar spent fluoridating water" saving fifty dollars worth of dental "expenses" that don't exist, and even if they somehow can, how do they distinguish between fluoridated and non-fluoridated-related dental problems in order to arrive at their $50 estimation ?

For so many reasons, it's a typical statement from a govt (not only US) department which is essentially bunkum, and quickly falls apart under critical analysis.

Macky, Auckland
May 30, 2014 7:34pm

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply

 

What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid
 
Skeptoid host, Brian Dunning
Skeptoid is hosted
and produced by
Brian Dunning


Newest
The Haunted Dybbuk Box
Skeptoid #428, Aug 19 2014
Read | Listen (11:26)
 
The Legend of the Flying Dutchman
Skeptoid #427, Aug 12 2014
Read | Listen (11:49)
 
The Baldoon Mystery
Skeptoid #426, Aug 5 2014
Read | Listen (11:44)
 
Listeners Have Another Say
Aug 1 2014
Listen (4:42)
 
Albino Facts and Fiction
Skeptoid #425, Jul 29 2014
Read | Listen (13:49)
 
Newest
#1 -
The JFK Assassination
Read | Listen
#2 -
Asking the Socratic Questions
Read | Listen
#3 -
5 False Arguments for Raw Milk
Read | Listen
#4 -
Fukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
Read | Listen
#5 -
The Riddle of the L-8 Blimp
Read | Listen
#6 -
Who Discovered the New World?
Read | Listen
#7 -
6 Problems with Wind Turbine Syndrome
Read | Listen
#8 -
An Enthusiast's Primer on Study Types
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal

 
 


Follow @BrianDunning

Tweets about "skeptoid"

Support Skeptoid

Name/Nickname:  
City/Location:
Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
Comment:
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.