The Fluoride Wars Rage On
nature.com
nature.com
One thing the article doesn't mention is where the fluoride is sourced from. Is it true that the fluoride that goes into the water supply is a waste product from fertilizer production? If this "waste" wasn't being put into the water how much would it cost fertilizer manufacturers to dispose of it? Is there some perverse incentive here?
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/engineering-sho...
>The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
(Fun aside: This is also the procedure on the ISS to avoid having to spit in zero gravity.)
Is that not common practice? Just spit and you're done?
I don't know if rinsing with fluoride mouthwash is better. I assume it's better than water, at least, but I don't know how it compares to not rinsing.
(and from experience, my teens/twenty somethings are somewhat hit and miss in this area as well since they moved out)
Putting it in the water supply ensures most people will at least get some fluoride.
One big problem not covered in the article, is this leads to fluorosis - my eldest has permanently stained teeth due to me not making him spit out his tooth paste after brushing when he was a toddler combined with the fluoride he was getting from town supply water.
something like 25% of the population don't brush daily
According to the Oral Health 2018 [0] report released by the health unit, the percentage of children with tooth decay or requiring urgent care has increased by 51 per cent in 2016-17 compared to 2011-12.
But that's not what the article is about.. is fluoride dangerous for humans to ingest? (also yes) So given there are more direct ways to get fluoride to teeth (toothpaste - somewhat, varnishes, lacquers or rinses - good), should we continue to cause damage to all in the name of helping young children's teeth?
https://cumming.ucalgary.ca/news/calgary-childrens-dental-he...
I believe we also used some kind of natural toothpaste that was probably fluoride free.
It's only recently that I connected the dots and realized that never drinking tap water is probably why my teeth are a mess. I'm almost certainly going to have to get implants much earlier in life than I should have.
It might be possible to avoid this with proper fluoride toothpaste or mouth wash, but you simply can't rely on most people knowing enough to care or understand the importance of it. For most people, if an issue hasn't personally affected them, they tend to not consider a risk that needs to be mitigated.
In the 2016/2017 school year, 18,179 children from 119 schools were screened for oral health issues. Between 2011/2012 to 2016/2017, the percentage of children with decay or requiring urgent care has increased by 51%.
This is a terrible statistic. Out of such an exact number of children and schools there is no numerator or denominator for the increase of 51%. I suppose a minimum number would be an increase from 100 to 151 and a max of 12,039 to all 18,179.
But you also have no evidence that diets changed drastically for the whole city of 500k people around the same time... Probably because we don't even know what city this is actually referring to.
Maybe all 500,000 people all stopped brushing their teeth... Maybe all the dentists left town... Maybe aliens are dosing the town from orbit with radiation weapons.
It's not a useful counter-point for you to just assert some alternative causation... Of course there could be other causes, that's literally always true about any causative assertion.
I recently posted a similar comment in a thread about drug addiction but perhaps it’s not an increase in cavities so much as it’s an increase in access to affordable pediatric dental care.
I don’t think we need to supplement tapwater with fluoride now that toothbrushes and toothpaste are so widely available.
You can’t control the dosage since people can drink as much tapwater as they want and still do not know how much they actually are receiving.
That being said I highly recommend everybody get a reverse osmosis water filter. Add in some electrolytes and you’re good to go.
Edit: Never mind, I was wrong. Fluoride isn't an element. It's somewhat reactive, but not nearly as much as Fluorine.
I wondered why we don't use something that can also promote crystallization of hydroxyapatite (primary mineral in surface tooth enamel), and apparently it's because carbonate also promotes plaque crystallization. However, if you go to the dentist regularly, it seems an objectively better personal option.
The argument for water fluoridation is a macro-argument that looks good from 10,000 feet, but when you apply nuance, such a policy does not benefit (and probably subtly harms) the vast majority of readership on HN, and is more likely to affect the most impoverished who do not brush their teeth regularly and cannot afford or do not prioritize going to the dentist (which is a surprisingly high percentage of the general public).
That isn't to say it's a bad policy, but it certainly isn't black and white.
Chlorofluorocarbons were used as propellant in sprays and asthma pump because they didn't react with the active substances.
The presence of fluoride in a disproportionate number of poisons (FOOF excluded) is due to the fact that as far as biological binding site are concerned it's almost like a really heavy hydrogen but metabolically it protect that carbon from being the target of an enzyme¹. This enable a toxic molecule that would be quickly metabolized to stay active long enough to do some damage.
It's important to note that the presence of a C-F bond doesn't make a molecule inherently toxic, it just make it harder to metabolize when that bond is placed at the target of an enzyme.
1- https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/03/190305112830.h...
You'll also find carbon in a disproportionate number of poisons. The horror!
Carbon is the backbone of almost all compounds used by life. Feel free to check the ratio of poisons/non-poisons containing Carbon and those containing Fluorine and report back.
Carbon is fundamentally different than halogens and really all other nonmetals due to its unique, strong affinity for 4 bonds, its small size, its relative non-electronegativity compared to other common elements in organic compounds (besides hydrogen), and the lack of d orbital complexity.
Source: I'm a computational chemist.
The faucet even has a realtime TDS measurement (inlet water is over 400 and the filter brings it down to about 17-18). I put a higher flow filter (doesn't lower the TDS) in front of the RO system so that my regular faucet water is filtered and it extends the life of the RO filter. Takes like 30 minutes to get everything installed. Totally worth it!
It comes with a reverse flush system that makes the RO filter last for years. Takes our water from 250ppm to 12ppm.
Used to be around 850ppm but luckily, the city improved its water filtration practices.
Shouldn't we have mountains of decisive evidence to support this point by now?
Here's one, low-level example.
Fluoride aggressively and preferentially binds to calcium in the human body. That's how it protects teeth, the chemicals that cause tooth decay have a weaker affinity for calcium than fluorine, and therefore can't displace it.
The mechanism of action for its lethality is the same. Calcium ions are used throughout the human body, notably in the heart for critical signaling functions. If you are exposed to sufficient quantities of fluoride, it will circulate until it finds some calcium in your body, including readily depleting your calcium ion channels which causes your heart to stop working.
Human bodies have significant excess calcium floating around. There is simply not enough fluoride in water, no matter how much you drink, to tax those calcium reserves. People have been drinking naturally fluoridated water, some at much higher concentrations than municipal water, for millennia.
For example, as a very basic, low-level example, exposing children to fluoride early on when teeth are forming causes dental fluorosis. This is well-known, well-studied, and not at all controversial. And in fact, tap water is the most common source of dental fluorosis.[1]
Now there are clear benefits to fluoride: It can be used in a variety of circumstances and probably has done humanity a net good, especially in areas where dental hygiene (for whatever reason) isn't well understood or well-practiced.
But there's clearly a level where it's not safe to expose to human beings.
Prominent scientists proclaim “It is time to protect kids’ developing brains from fluoride” https://www.ehn.org/fluoride-and-childrens-health-2648120286...
Fluoridation Fails New York City https://fluoridenews.blogspot.com/search?q=New+York+City
A 2012 book by Kozol regarding poor children in the South Bronix (fluoridated since 1965) reports ""Many of the children who attend these schools also suffer the emotional and physical attrition that results from chronic illnesses like asthma and anxiety, as well as the steady and low-level misery of rotting teeth, infected gums, and festering, untreated sores. " https://thirdworldtraveler.com/Third_World_US/AmazingGrace_K...
Based on NYS Department of health data researchers found " For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of SiF [silicofluoridated] treated community water and elevated blood lead" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11233755/
Politic$, not science, supports fluoridation
Is that really true? I live in a country without drinking water medication (thank god) and it's not such a horror story as this article makes it sound. I know that dental health was worse in the past and has improved since, but it doesn't seem to be due to water fluoridation but rather other advances in dentistry and personal dental care.
Kumar writes " one should be cautious in attributing this geographic variation solely to water fluoridation. Furthermore, the availability of fluoride in beverages and fluoride provided through organized programs, which distribute tablets and rinses in non-fluoridated communities, may underestimate [over over-estimate] the effect of fluoridation. A survey of third-grade children in less fluoridated communities in NYS showed that reportedly 20% to 80% of children had received fluoride tablets on a regular basis.34 About 100,000 school-aged children in non-fluoridated areas are targeted for participation in a weekly fluoride rinse program. In addition, toothpaste and processed beverages are the other sources of fluoride. Programs such as school-based sealant programs are also available in these areas."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925000/
The second link to a Calgary study concludes that tooth decay rates in Calgary, Alberta, have increased because of the city's decision to scrap its fluoridation program. But the study omits data showing that the spike in decay mostly occurred when fluoride was still in the water and used methods that a leading scientist says do "not provide a valid assessment," https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/calgary-fluoride-st...
The Juneay Study is more hype than evidence https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/juneau-fluoridation...
In looking at the content 1) The methodology was essentially one paragraph and in execution it appears they cherry picked the literature and did not clearly indicate concentration of fluoride as they discussed certain postulated effects. 2) Often they reached conclusions based on single studies that do not seem to reflect the current body of evidence. For example, the reference to a Utah study on bone fracture in the elderly population. Many other studies have found opposite results and have been published prior to the publication of this study. 3) Their graphs that show a lack of association of water and salt fluoridation are used as evidence to make the declaration that there is no effect without discussion of causation for that difference.
In essence, this piece seems like a regurgitation of soundbites from US advocates opposed to fluoridation.
Chile continues its fluoridation program (70% of its population) and milk fluoridation for rural areas https://www.borrowfoundation.org/chile. The question over how to address cavities rates at the population level in rural areas where water fluoridation is not practical is a good one. And in looking at the evidence on milk fluoridation programs as I considered this article, there is room for further consideration and study there. However; this particular study is not enough to base such a policy discussion/ decision. The US does not currently offer or consider milk fluoridation in rural areas.
Natural water sources vary widely. Above 2ppm it starts to become a problem. In Africa and China 60% of the population have these levels or higher in their drinking water.
Some of the initial studies in the early 1900s which identified fluoride as a factor in dental health were of children in Colorado with discolored, but very strong, teeth. Their water sources were up to 13ppm fluoride.
For poor people, access is difficult. Dentistry is optional in Medicaid and many states opt out. My state Medicaid funds dental, but in my county (pop 350k), there are 4 dentists that accept Medicaid dental.
So, although I agree 100% that we need put systemic interventions to make those that promote a sugary diet accountable for the externalities they create, like hospitalizations, lower quality and length of life, lower incomes and educational attainment etc., We still need to focus on preventing cavities. Cavities are caused by all carbohydrates, including crackers, bread, etc. that have time on teeth allowing the bacteria that cause cavities to digest them and excrete acid on the tooth.
Eliminate enough risk factors and you will prevent the disease - in fact cavities are 100% preventable - with proper hygiene, enough fluoride, healthy diet and early prevention of the bacteria that spreads the disease from childcare provider to baby.
https://www.epa.gov/dwreginfo/chloramines-drinking-water Chloramines have been used by water utilities since the 1930s. More than one in five Americans uses drinking water treated with chloramines.
I need more than hyperbole before I get concerned.
But to respond to you, well, that's the thing... there are very few studies. It is one of those things where they just say "trust us" and there isn't much data to back it up in either direction. There are some definite hyperbole websites that suggest it causes (or increases) IBS, which you can google, they come up first in the search results.
https://chloramine.org/ccacflier.htm
https://www.google.com/search?q=chloramine+ibs
https://www.wired.com/2016/02/chloramines/
I was living in San Francisco when they switched. I had two fish tanks and all the fish died immediately upon a water change. I ended up having to add neutralizer to the water. I was also commercially growing some plants in my basement and it definitely had an effect on them. Immediately stunted growth. I did a lot more research and found that chloramine is hard to filter out as well. You need higher quality carbon or RO systems. It doesn't just dissipate naturally like chlorine alone does.
If our plants and fish can't live in it... why would we want that anywhere near us?
Both naturally exist in our blood, by the way.
MSG is in our system too, but people who eat food with it added in, often complain of headaches.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4870486/
> From the fact that the results of the human studies are not consistent and it is assumed that most studies using beverages as a vehicle are not properly blinded, we suggest that a causal relationship between MSG and headache has not been proven. In addition, statistically significant differences in the incidence of headache were not observed when MSG was administered with food, except in one case of the female group where the blind integrity was questionable. It would seem premature to conclude that the MSG present in food causes headache.
It can be OK, or it can be not. That's why we pay scientists to study how safe these things are.
> MSG is in our system too, but people who eat food with it added in, often complain of headaches.
You could have chosen a better example: MSG is a prime example of people overreacting to what is essentially a tasty placebo. Gram by gram, it's safer than salt.
At the end of the day though, I see no problem with winning by filtering it out of my water supply. It is a small cost to do so.
If the argument is that we should have it in there to keep the water clean on the way to my house, great! I'll filter it out when it gets here and I am more than happy to not drink and especially not vaporize the stuff into my lungs in the shower.
The science on it is irrelevant at that point.
Yeah, that would be the point -- kill the nasties that otherwise get into the broken-ass pipe system, and kill them with something that our physiology is well prepared to handle but theirs is not.
I am sure there are some nature fetishists who prefer their water "raw." I do not.
Source?
The rights were sold to Japan where a leading toothpaste has for decades used nanohydroxyapatite rather than fluoride. The exclusive rights of the Japanese company have expired, so nanohydroxyapatite toothpaste is not also made in Canada and the US. It's more expensive than fluoride toothpaste but if you'd like to avoid these questions, might be worth it.
How does that work.. ? It's not like IQ tests are considered that reliable or unbiased.
Also looking for studies.. they're observing the IQ drops in children who were exposed to excessive flouride beyond what's supposed to be in water. US levels all fall into the "low exposure" range in these studies.