and I want to clarify my position on this matter... not for the psuedo-skeptic camp, but for all the people reading this thread.
my stance on this issue is we should discontinue the use of public water fluoridation indefinitely, or at least until we can implement it in a manner that WE ARE SURE IS 100% safe over the long term.
as of right now there are too many cons, and not enough pros to public water fluoridation. in fact the biggest pro of water fluoridation is reducing cavities, but with the proliferation of fluoride coming from other sources we can reduce cavities in ways that we KNOW are 100% safe, like brushing your teeth for example.
most of the counter arguments to my stance deal with the so-called "proper" levels of water fluoridation being completely safe. but when we see the government lowering the water fluoridation levels in 2011 to curb excessive fluoride intake, it calls into question what EXACTLY is the "proper" level? if the optimum level changed in 2011, how long prior to that was water being fluoridated at levels that were NOT optimum? so that throws the whole "optimum levels" argument in the bushes.
we already know at the minimum 40 million americans suffer from excessive fluoride intake because 40 million americans have fluorosis. and unlike funkdoc, brown and yellow stains on teeth is not an acceptable side effect imo.
now, i am not postulating that all 40 million cases of fluorosis were solely caused by public water fluoridation, because as we saw earlier, one can ingest excessive fluoride with NO water fluoridation. but if anything this stat should tell us that public water fluoridation levels should be around zero because, 1) the proliferation of fluoride from other sources, and 2) as we saw, one of the major sources of fluoride intake for people in areas with public water fluoridation IS tap water.
then there are very basic concerns like: how much sodium fluoride does the average person ingests in areas with fluoridated water? what happens to the fluoride once it passes the mouth and enters the body? does it accumulate? if so, at what rate, and in what specific areas does it accumulate? and what are the physiological effects of accumulation in these areas? at what rate does the kidney get rid of excess fluoride? does the rate fluctuate with body type? and so on. i have yet to see any data on these points.
then there's the concern that to receive the full benefit of sodium fluoride in its main role of deterring cavities, that it must be applied topically to the teeth and/or kept in the mouth to interact with the saliva. the fluoride that is ingested into the body does not contribute to reducing cavities.
then there's the cost to the taxpayer, 300+million a year. in these desperate economic times i can think of a lot of good we can do with an extra 30 million.
all of these cons, combined with one single outdated pro, leads me to the conclusion that water fluoridation should be discontinued until we can figure out how to maximize its benefits in a modern context. and i think any logical person will come to a similar conclusion after looking logically at the body of evidence.
my stance on this issue is we should discontinue the use of public water fluoridation indefinitely, or at least until we can implement it in a manner that WE ARE SURE IS 100% safe over the long term.
as of right now there are too many cons, and not enough pros to public water fluoridation. in fact the biggest pro of water fluoridation is reducing cavities, but with the proliferation of fluoride coming from other sources we can reduce cavities in ways that we KNOW are 100% safe, like brushing your teeth for example.
most of the counter arguments to my stance deal with the so-called "proper" levels of water fluoridation being completely safe. but when we see the government lowering the water fluoridation levels in 2011 to curb excessive fluoride intake, it calls into question what EXACTLY is the "proper" level? if the optimum level changed in 2011, how long prior to that was water being fluoridated at levels that were NOT optimum? so that throws the whole "optimum levels" argument in the bushes.
we already know at the minimum 40 million americans suffer from excessive fluoride intake because 40 million americans have fluorosis. and unlike funkdoc, brown and yellow stains on teeth is not an acceptable side effect imo.
now, i am not postulating that all 40 million cases of fluorosis were solely caused by public water fluoridation, because as we saw earlier, one can ingest excessive fluoride with NO water fluoridation. but if anything this stat should tell us that public water fluoridation levels should be around zero because, 1) the proliferation of fluoride from other sources, and 2) as we saw, one of the major sources of fluoride intake for people in areas with public water fluoridation IS tap water.
then there are very basic concerns like: how much sodium fluoride does the average person ingests in areas with fluoridated water? what happens to the fluoride once it passes the mouth and enters the body? does it accumulate? if so, at what rate, and in what specific areas does it accumulate? and what are the physiological effects of accumulation in these areas? at what rate does the kidney get rid of excess fluoride? does the rate fluctuate with body type? and so on. i have yet to see any data on these points.
then there's the concern that to receive the full benefit of sodium fluoride in its main role of deterring cavities, that it must be applied topically to the teeth and/or kept in the mouth to interact with the saliva. the fluoride that is ingested into the body does not contribute to reducing cavities.
then there's the cost to the taxpayer, 300+million a year. in these desperate economic times i can think of a lot of good we can do with an extra 30 million.
all of these cons, combined with one single outdated pro, leads me to the conclusion that water fluoridation should be discontinued until we can figure out how to maximize its benefits in a modern context. and i think any logical person will come to a similar conclusion after looking logically at the body of evidence.
at the gif...
