Profahoben_212Nope. While it is harmful in high doses, the amount in water is not even close to that amount. It is very benificial and the people saying that it is bad are just misinformed. It is actually considered one of the greatest triumphs of public health.
I guess people who think fluoridation are misinformed. We'll firstly, there has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety, period.
The ones that are pro-fluoridation tend to all cite previous references that almost always link back to the root of the problem, which is the bad science prior to 1980 or inadequate studies after that. It's basically an echo chamber of pro-fluoride opinion based on bad, or industry funded, or incomplete, or non-existent science.
By now it should be markedly certain that with all the controversy surrounding the issue, and the uncertainty surrounding the science on fluoridation of drinking water and it's long term effects, that someone within the scientific health community would jump at the chance to fund a proper double-blind randomized controlled trial. How many years have we been adding fluoride to drinking water, and how many years have people brought up well reasoned concerns about it? How many more years before pro-fluoridation health officials put together a proper double-blind randomized controlled trial?
If fluoridation of drinking water were an entirely new idea, in order to get FDA or any other regulatory approval, (especially environmental approval), it would have to be proven to be safe and free of deleterious effects by a factor of 100. So for a proposed 1 ppm dilution, it would have to be proven to be safe at 100 ppm. But in the ncbi studies I linked, problems start at around 3 to 4 ppm. That, by itself is enough to stop fluoridation.
Then there is the issue that all the studies used one type of fluoride compound and most of the municipalities use an entirely different fluoride compound that has not been vetted properly for human consumption, let alone tested for other chemicals.
Then there is the issue of a municipal entity medically treating the populace for a medical purpose in a blanket manner without any medical evidence of an actual medical problem in the community, with no ongoing review of the actual amounts of fluoride ingested by the populace or actual amounts of dental issues in the community, before, during and after the addition of fluoride to the water! There is however, evidence that these municipalities saw an increase in types of cancer compared to non fluoridated municipalities at the initial stages of fluoridation. It should be said that both municipalities had similar cancer rates before fluoridation.
Nevertheless, when you want or need medical treatment, you present to the doctor, if he determines that you actually have a problem that can be treated with meds, meds are prescribed. And you have the freedom and right to accept or decline the treatment, or pursue alternative and possibly less intrusive treatments. Correct?
In water fluoridation treatments, your city decides for you that you will be medicated because studies were done somewhere on the planet that says that you and your community might, maybe, could possibly, need this treatment. And you have no choice in the matter. A city counselor decides that you have a medical problem, and you and your children and everyone else in the community will get the treatment.
The fluoride is put into the water without any consideration of whether or not the community in question actually needs it. If any portion of the population brushes their teeth with fluoridated tooth paste, get regular fluoride treatments, drinks tea or iced tea or eat potatoes or other foods with higher than normal levels of fluoride, then the city blindly adds more fluoride to the water. How does one justify that kind of a policy? It makes no sense. Not to mention fluoride in toothpaste is especially toxic upon ingestion. Why add to it?
If a city wants to help with dental caries, they can set up programs to provide funding for people to buy vitamin C, Lauric acid, fluoride treatments at the dentist, low cost fluoride toothpastes, etc.
That's how a democracy works. It is fair and justified. People have a choice to refuse treatment. Fluoridation should not be imposed by the government, period.
