Adding Sunshine

I heard today, for the first time, that Utah is the first state to ban fluoride additives in municipal water. It was also the day when my youngest children had extensive dental work completed. I decided to look in to what is on either side of the debate.

Largest support for fluoride in water: several studies in the US and other countries report that after areas added fluoride to community water, tooth decay decreased in those areas by about 50%.

None of those studies used randomized controls. The first randomized control study on the topic is currently in progress. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38443989/

Personal case study. After receiving the first letter from my rural water company stating that harmful bacteria had been detected in my water several months prior and that the problem has been taken care of and that seniors and infants should have water boiled before drinking, I stopped drinking tapwater. I began using a water filter for drinking and cooking. I chose the one whose testing showed the highest levels of filtering, which included filtering out 97% of fluoride. I began using it while my 2nd to youngest child was an infant. My youngest two were the ones I took to the dentist today. My older childern have each had one cavity filled and one is due for another. My younger children had much more done today.

Another potential correlation. I had access to dental care through the military as a child. I remember taking little pink chewable fluoride tablets. To this day I have not had a cavity filled. My husband’s provider as an infant and young child worked several jobs and lived in poorer conditions. He may not have had as regular access to dental care and fluoride supplementation and treatments. My husband has had several cavities filled as a child and several as an adult.

If it was felt to be unethical to deny someone their community drinking water with a supplement that would so well benefit their dental health and results of increased tooth health was so widesperead and obvious that no control study was deemed necessary for over 50 years, what could possibly be a reason for someone to not want fluoride supplementation?

There is the argument of helping those with lower incomes to have supplementation at no cost to them other than the minimal percentage of tax that goes towards its cost. On the other hand there is the argument agains giving people an “unapproved new drug” as fluoride is classified by the FDA in their drinking water, without consent.

Lead, arsenic, and fluoride are all naturally present in water in differing amounts based on different sources throughout the world. The American Fluoridation Society (https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/debunking-anti-claims/myths/irrelevance-of-comparative-toxicity-ratings/) defends fluoride by showing commonly consumed items having a similar or just slightly lower toxicity rating as fluoride, making the case that because just like those commonly used items, fluoride does not show adverse effects in low doses, whereas lead does. The toxicity of fluoride is less than arsenic and greater than lead. However, “the EPA sets maximum allowable levels of substances in drinking water based on the observed level at which adverse effects are known to occur, not on misleading industrial toxicity ratings.” The article argues that the industrial toxicity ratings, uncontested, involve high doses whereas drinking water involves low doses which to them solidifies fluoride’s safety. What is the quality of research that concludes this as well as that of the commonly used substances which were coffee and table salt, which had either equal to or greater toxicity rating levels than lead?

From my research so far, I reason that there may be significant benefit to dental health by fluoride. I have conducted an experimnet with my childrent at home where eggshell of a chicken egg (similar to the material of teeth) covered in fluoride toothpaste then wiped off. deteriorated much slower in vinegar than one without the fluoride. However until I gain an understanding of why lower doses of some toxic substances are considered less harmful based on solid research, I am inclined to avoid exposure to fluoride as I would lead. If someone showed me a similar egg experiment using instead of fluoride toothpaste, lead toothpaste (whose toxicity is less than that of fluoride)…even if several studies without a randomized control group concluded that a lead additive to water improved dental health significantly, I would consider sparing the improved health of my teeth to abate the detrimental effects of lead. With that said, my older children have and have had greater struggles in connection with their nervous system and emotional well-being than my younger children. Is there a correlation with fluoride? I don’t know.

“The EPA has set the maximum contaminant level goal for lead in drinking water at zero because lead is a toxic metal that can be harmful to human health even at low exposure levels. Lead is persistent, and it can bioaccumulate in the body over time.” https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/basic-information-about-lead-drinking-water

My next step in finguring out my support of the use of fluoride for dental health is questioning the evaluation toxicity of substances at low exposure levels