Is Fluoridation Good for Your Family?
To Fluoridate or not to Fluoridate: Trying to be fair in this debate, we will represent both sides of the argument and call attention to the differences in applications of fluoride.
The largest conflict surrounds whether our public drinking water should contain fluoride.
As an introduction it might be of interest to know that the first interest in fluoride actually came in the negative form about what damage it might be doing to teeth.
A dentist practicing in Colorado Springs, Colorado in 1901 was concerned that his patients were presenting with a condition referred to as "Colorado brown stain" which at that time was his concern.
So much so that he wrote an essay in 1909 titled "Mottled teeth: an endemic developmental imperfection of the enamel of the teeth heretofore unknown in the literature of dentistry.
" This condition is known today as extreme dental fluorisis.
According to some accounts he also noted that there was a resistance to decay in the mottled and/or stained teeth.
It wasn't until 1931 that a chemist for the Aluminum Company of America named H.
V.
Churchill was able to supply some perspective by testing an abandoned well near an ALCOA bauxite mine in Arkansas.
The well had been abandoned due to this same brown tooth condition because the connection had been made by then to the water sources, but it was not known what the substance in the water was that caused it.
By using a new method called spectrographic analysis he determined that the water had very high concentrations of fluoride, testing at 13.
7 ppm and determined the cause was the element fluoride.
At this point it needs to be pointed out that the fluoride in public drinking water systems now is at a rate of only 1ppm.
To clarify this: 1ppm is one part fluoride to a million parts water.
In 1945 the 1ppm standard was established for the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan to be the first in the U.
S.
to implement fluoridation of their public water system.
A standard still used to this day.
Fluoride proponents argue that the benefits of fluoride in the water are that it provides protection against tooth decay for those who drinks water from the tap.
When taking into consideration the cost it is very inexpensive and provides disease prevention to the disadvantaged groups in the population therefore is a good use of tax dollars.
Some studies have estimated that for every dollar spent on water system fluoridation fifty dollars in disease control (dental bills) is saved.
Proponents also claim that fluoridation is a good long term approach to community health.
Fluoride opponents argue that too many of the possible risks involved with water fluoridation have been ignored.
They site the adverse effects of large doses of fluoride use on lab rats.
Possible interactions with other metals in our systems such as aluminum are also sited.
Claiming that fluoridation is not necessary they use the example of the many European counties that do not fluoridate and have seen the same decline in dental decay as the U.
S.
One of the most intelligent arguments is that we might all benefit from daily vitamin supplements also but we don't see vitamins added to the water.
This complicated argument is interesting, as then the consideration boils down to the fact that public water systems are controlled by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and not the CDC (Center for Disease Control) so why are we trying to target disease through our water? There are two different applications of fluoride used against dental caries, more commonly referred to as dental decay.
Systemic fluorides found in water, supplements, food and beverages become part of the tooth structure during formation and are said to provide long lasting protection.
Systemic fluorides also protect teeth as a topical application in that after they are ingested become incorporated in saliva and in dental plaque to be released in a process of re-mineralization.
Topically introduced fluoride provides protection directly through the tooth surfaces and can be found in toothpaste, some mouthwashes and applied in a professional application.
In summary: The one thing we do know is that these arguments could go on for years so it is our responsibly in the interim to decide what we think is best for us and our families.
There are water filters on the market that remove fluoride from drinking water, unfortunately they are not inexpensive.
The filters normally used in homes to remove the bad taste such as Brita or Pur do not remove it.
Conservatively, if you are worried about the fluoride in your water you may just want to be sure your fluoride from other sources is limited.
If you are not opposed to fluoride in your tap water and believe it is more benefit than danger you are in the majority, so it will be a while before you have to worry about having to take fluoride supplements.
The largest conflict surrounds whether our public drinking water should contain fluoride.
As an introduction it might be of interest to know that the first interest in fluoride actually came in the negative form about what damage it might be doing to teeth.
A dentist practicing in Colorado Springs, Colorado in 1901 was concerned that his patients were presenting with a condition referred to as "Colorado brown stain" which at that time was his concern.
So much so that he wrote an essay in 1909 titled "Mottled teeth: an endemic developmental imperfection of the enamel of the teeth heretofore unknown in the literature of dentistry.
" This condition is known today as extreme dental fluorisis.
According to some accounts he also noted that there was a resistance to decay in the mottled and/or stained teeth.
It wasn't until 1931 that a chemist for the Aluminum Company of America named H.
V.
Churchill was able to supply some perspective by testing an abandoned well near an ALCOA bauxite mine in Arkansas.
The well had been abandoned due to this same brown tooth condition because the connection had been made by then to the water sources, but it was not known what the substance in the water was that caused it.
By using a new method called spectrographic analysis he determined that the water had very high concentrations of fluoride, testing at 13.
7 ppm and determined the cause was the element fluoride.
At this point it needs to be pointed out that the fluoride in public drinking water systems now is at a rate of only 1ppm.
To clarify this: 1ppm is one part fluoride to a million parts water.
In 1945 the 1ppm standard was established for the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan to be the first in the U.
S.
to implement fluoridation of their public water system.
A standard still used to this day.
Fluoride proponents argue that the benefits of fluoride in the water are that it provides protection against tooth decay for those who drinks water from the tap.
When taking into consideration the cost it is very inexpensive and provides disease prevention to the disadvantaged groups in the population therefore is a good use of tax dollars.
Some studies have estimated that for every dollar spent on water system fluoridation fifty dollars in disease control (dental bills) is saved.
Proponents also claim that fluoridation is a good long term approach to community health.
Fluoride opponents argue that too many of the possible risks involved with water fluoridation have been ignored.
They site the adverse effects of large doses of fluoride use on lab rats.
Possible interactions with other metals in our systems such as aluminum are also sited.
Claiming that fluoridation is not necessary they use the example of the many European counties that do not fluoridate and have seen the same decline in dental decay as the U.
S.
One of the most intelligent arguments is that we might all benefit from daily vitamin supplements also but we don't see vitamins added to the water.
This complicated argument is interesting, as then the consideration boils down to the fact that public water systems are controlled by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and not the CDC (Center for Disease Control) so why are we trying to target disease through our water? There are two different applications of fluoride used against dental caries, more commonly referred to as dental decay.
Systemic fluorides found in water, supplements, food and beverages become part of the tooth structure during formation and are said to provide long lasting protection.
Systemic fluorides also protect teeth as a topical application in that after they are ingested become incorporated in saliva and in dental plaque to be released in a process of re-mineralization.
Topically introduced fluoride provides protection directly through the tooth surfaces and can be found in toothpaste, some mouthwashes and applied in a professional application.
In summary: The one thing we do know is that these arguments could go on for years so it is our responsibly in the interim to decide what we think is best for us and our families.
There are water filters on the market that remove fluoride from drinking water, unfortunately they are not inexpensive.
The filters normally used in homes to remove the bad taste such as Brita or Pur do not remove it.
Conservatively, if you are worried about the fluoride in your water you may just want to be sure your fluoride from other sources is limited.
If you are not opposed to fluoride in your tap water and believe it is more benefit than danger you are in the majority, so it will be a while before you have to worry about having to take fluoride supplements.