Tuesday, July 30, 2013

In Defense of Fluoride

Recently, the #yegvote twitter feed has been occupied with a lot of discussion about water fluoridation, particularly from and against mayoral candidate Curtis Penner (including him tweeting a bibliography of 70 consecutive journal articles early Thursday morning). As has been pointed out, a lot of the twitter debate has devolved into personal attacks on both sides, but the question of water fluoridation is important and worth discussing on its merits alone.

First of all, some fun fluoridation facts!
  • low concentrations of fluoride in your mouth reduces the rate at which your enamel breaks down,
  • fluoride is often naturally present in water all over the world in different concentrations,
  • about 5% of the world's population has fluoride added to the water supply at low concentrations (including Edmonton), and
  • different studies have shown that the presence of fluoride in water can reduce cavities by between 27 and 40% relative to regular brushing

The ideal concentration for fluoride in water appears to be somewhere between 0.5-1.0 milligrams per liter. This is lower than the natural levels found in lots of communities, and in many parts of the world fluoride concentrations are reduced or even eliminated before being pumped into municipal water supplies.
 
Mr. Penner's platform for mayor includes a lengthy paragraph against water fluoridation, with the first argument referencing the Material Safety Data Sheet for the chemical that's being used in Edmonton, hydrofluosilicic acid. His claim appears to be that since this chemical is listed as corrosive and dangerously reactive, we shouldn't have anything to do with it. This is at best a red herring, and not an argument at all - at the high concentrations that the chemical is stored, very nearly anything is poisonous. We add chlorine to our water supply explicitly to kill living organisms, and its MSDS warnings are even more severe than fluoride. This isn't to say that the concentrated version of the chemical is ok to drink, but the final product in our taps is millions of times less concentrated than the solution the data sheet refers to.
 
 Dropping evil-sounding chemical names and referring to alarming MSDS data sheets can't form an argument in and ofitself. People regularly consume citric acid and acetic acid, whose MSDS data sheets name them as flammable and corrosive and include pages of toxicity warnings, but we enjoy them as orange juice and vinegar. The fact of the matter is that data sheets have to cover all possibilities and naturally make anything sound evil - even the data sheet for plain old boring water has lethal dosage information.
 
Mr. Penner then goes on to reference this Harvard meta-analysis on the effects of fluoride on children. His claim is that the study indicates that "children who do not drink fluoride have a 20% better chance of having high intelligence, whereas those who do drink fluoride have a 9% better chance of developing mental retardation." Oddly enough, the words "mental retardation" and the term "20%" don't show up in the journal article at all. In fact, they write instead that their "results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." Their major finding, actually, is that children who had "high exposure" to fluoride had an IQ that was0.45 points lower than reference children.
 
What constituted "high exposure"? Turns out it ranged from about 3-12 mg/L for most studies. Their reference points - the points the study considered not exposed to fluoride - were between 0.34-2.35 mg/L. In fact, some of the reference healthy populations were drinking water that was two to three timesmore fluoridated than what would ever be allowed in Edmonton's water. An overwhelming majority of the over 70 studies tweeted by Mr. Penner that supposedly support his position deal with high concentrations of naturally-occurring fluoride in India or China, not low concentrations carefully monitored in Canada. So while it most likely is true that high concentrations of fluoride can cause adverse effects, it is far more likely that increasing your intake of any substance by a factor of 5 to 10 over what scientists recommend would be similarly poisonous.
 
It has also been pointed out that Calgary stopped water fluoridation in 2011. This is true - and already has dentists raising alarms about increases in cavities (and don't forget, dentists get less work if people have fewer cavities. They must be really concerned...).
 
With studies showing the positive effects of low concentrations of fluoride, and other studies showing adverse effects only at levels significantly higher than Edmonton's, the scientific argument for those opposing the current fluoride program doesn't seem that strong. The remaining argument is one of policy - is it morally acceptable to add a substance to the water with the goal of treating an entire population?
 
While this is mostly a matter of personal opinion, it is interesting to consider the city’s role and responsibilities in providing water to the public. There is a very defined cost vs. benefit analysis to be made when treating water. No treatment and you'll kill people, add some filters and you'll kill a bunch less - but after a certain point there are massively diminishing returns with regards to how expensive it will be to make water just a little bit safer to drink, with the extreme end being an economically devastating plan to provide everyone with pure distilled water (which, actually, maybe isn't all that ideal after all).
 
If the factors behind water treatment were only economical in nature, then the benefits of saving families hundreds of dollars a year for dental work far outweigh the cost of fluoride at less thana dollar per personFluoridation provides a blanket benefit to everyone who drinks tap water, providing unique aid to those who cannot afford regular dental work or perhaps even other sources of fluoride like toothpaste.
 
Water fluoridation has been included with vaccinations and family planning as among the ten greatest public health achievements by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and is supported by major health and dental organizationsAs mentioned before, the up to 40% decrease in cavities from fluoridated water is in addition to any benefit already achieved from brushing your teeth. Any policy that so easily and effectively provides this much assistance against such a preventable condition as cavities is surely worth keeping around.
 
As long as the fluoride program that Edmonton currently uses continues to be beneficial, and the low concentrations that are used continue to not be dangerous, the program should not be stopped.

7 comments:

Emily said...

Great post. Hope Mr. Penner actually reads this!

Anonymous said...

Such a deception! But well written!
To author: next summer add sunscreen to your water to avoid a sunburn! Crazy, right?
How and who will monitor our exposure and total dose of F in order to make sure we don't get more than sugested?
Mass medication is unethical but I assume you don't know what it means. Or maybe just ignorant.
Saad sooo saaad.

Adam Lohonyai said...

Apparently Anonymous didn't catch that you'd have to drink more than 200 ounces of water a day just to start approaching the level of "high exposure" suggested in the fluoride study. Perhaps he thinks iodine in the table salt is also mass medication and would prefer if we halted the single most cost-effective effort to prevent mental disabilities at birth.

kristina Andrew said...

Hi there - I should say, I am amazed with your website. I had no issues navigating through all the tabs and the info was really easy to access. I discovered what I needed in no time at all. Truly awesome.
best dentist in Markham

Anonymous said...

One cigarette doesn't kill you either. It's about accumulating concentrations, and low term exposure. It is also fallacious to claim it's only in our water. It's in cosmetics, it's used in pesticides, it's rodentacides, it's in almost every pharmaceutical ie Anesthetic, Anti-fungal antibiotics, Appetite suppressants,Antacids, Antihistamines, Arthritis drugs, Anti-anxiety, cholesterol lowering drug, Psychotropic (anti-psychotics), Antibiotics (Fluoroquinolones), Anti-malarial, Steroids/anti-inflammatory agents, Antidepressants, Antimetabolites (chemotherapy). It is 94% of the active ingredient in Prozac for instance.
You're exposed in higher concentration when you take a hot shower it vaporizes the fluoride and allows inhalation in the lungs. It causes Dental Fluorosis which is worse than cavities, but it also causes body wide damage to bone density-aka osteoporosis. It's scientifically proven to pass into the blood/brain barrier with most at risk to damage occurring in fetal brain tissue in utero through the mother's placenta. It's causes neurological damage, and damage to gut flora which comprises 80% of the human immune system. Harm to thyroid, kidneys, and reproductive systems are all scientifically acknowledged worldwide. Considering it's only British Colonies that use it and dispute it damage I question it's scientific validity and its use being solely for dental health.

Fluorine and calcium fluoride which is from bone meal (we used to add it to all bread) and natural earth deposits in drinking water are a far molecular cry from Hydrofluorosilicic Acid and Sodium Fluoride are a highly toxic (and expensive to depose of) by-product of mining Phosphate, silica, and of aluminum production. But it's good for you?

sierraspringsdental said...

Sierra Springs Dental offers Affordable Dental Care Tailored to Your Needs - Only from Reliable Dentists in Airdrie. Contact us Today! (403) 945-4555
pediatric dentist in Alberta

Alfaj Ripon said...

Maintaining good oral health necessitates selecting a dentist who can deal with your specific need; such as, there are dentists who specialize in a particular area of dentistry. A pediatric or kids' dentist examines infants and children up to 17 years.
see more details:Orthodontics Chelsea MA