Fluoride in water is toxic and does not stop tooth decay

So says the science - when you read it

image

The fluoridation of water is regarded as a key strategy in the prevention of tooth decay. Some people are very keen on it, whereas others object strongly.

Why on earth would anyone oppose such a positive policy? After all, it is widely stated by health authorities that levels of around 1 mg of fluoride per litre of drinking water are associated with lower incidence of dental caries.

Opinions aside, nobody could doubt that we have a problem in need of a solution. Dental caries affect 60% to 90% of school children in the industrial world. Fluoridation is carried out because it is a treatment claimed to prevent tooth decay and help strengthen bones.

Fluoride is the thirteenth most abundant element in the Earth’s crust. It is found naturally in rocks, soil, air, and water. All water contains naturally occurring fluoride. Seawater has about 1.0–1.4 mg per litre. Rivers and lakes have less than 0.5mg per litre. Higher concentrations are found in areas with soft, low-calcium water.

Fluoride is poorly absorbed from soil by plants, with just a few exceptions, namely tea (considered a significant exposure route), barley, rice, and yams. Once in the body, approximately 99% of this element is retained in calcium-rich areas such as bones and teeth.

Adding fluoride to water began in 1945 and is currently practised in approximately 25 countries across the globe. In the US, most municipalities fluoridate the water supply. In the UK, it is up to each local health authority to decide whether or not to impose fluoridation, and only certain areas do.

European countries take a very cautious approach. Few EU countries choose to fluoridate the water supply, covering only around 2% of the entire EU population of 445 million people.

With the poor state of so many peoples’ teeth, you’d think that this would be a strategy welcomed by all. But it isn’t. There are three main reasons why so many people object to this seemingly advantageous strategy.

1. The evidence, or lack thereof

According to the British Medical Association, fluoridation of water by up to 1 mg per litre, the amount more or less found naturally in water, would reduce dental “inequalities” in the UK. Poor children have the worst diets, so if we put fluoride in everyone’s drinking water that would make us all equal, as far as our teeth our concerned.

The argument in favour of fluoridation is based on just one review of studies, published twenty-three years ago. The aim of this review was to determine whether fluoridation improved the level of decayed, missing and filled teeth in children. Because this review is so frequently cited by those in favour of the policy, I thought it would be appropriate to have a thorough read of it.

I’m glad I did, because what this paper actually says, as opposed to what many think it says, is that of the 214 studies reviewed, all were of “low to moderate” quality. Not one of them was considered of a high standard. Many were conducted in the 1940s and 1950s and were described as lacking appropriate design and analysis. They simply weren’t very good. Yet it was those early studies that gave us the “1 mg of fluoride per litre” figure, mentioned above, and still widely quoted.

Fifteen years later, in 2015, another review was carried out, this time by the formidable Cochrane, a respected, global scientific network that gathers “the best evidence from research”. This was the study that would settle the matter, once and for all.

Cochrane reviewed a total of 155 studies evaluating the effects of water fluoridation on the prevention of caries.

Instead of finding in favour of fluoridation, the scientists concluded that there was insufficient evidence that water treatment programmes resulted in a change of incidence or distribution in caries across socioeconomic classes, and that “There is very little contemporary evidence… that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.”

“There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.”

2. Not all fluoride is the same

Fluoride may be natural, but what’s added to the water supply is a different kettle of fish.

Natural fluoride takes the form of the minerals fluorspar, fluorapatite and cryolite. But none of these forms is added to drinking water. Instead, chemical forms are used. There are three chemical compounds that are added to water, the most commonly used being fluorosilicic acid. The others are sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate.

Fluorosilicic acid — classified as a hazardous waste product — is a by-product of the phosphate fertiliser industry, and this, according to the Fluoride Action Network (an organisation which “seeks to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures”), is what is added to the water supply.

Fluorosilicic acid is a highly corrosive acid and according to the Fluoride Action Network there are no available studies on the safety of this toxin in water.

The forms of fluoride added to the water supply are considered possible neurotoxins.

Water fluoridation occurs in the form of adding either fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6), sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6), or sodium fluoride (NaF) to the water supply.

“Researchers are concerned that chronic low-level fluoride exposure could lead to lifelong deficits in intelligence as well as future mental health issues”

Several studies since 2012 have revealed a link between increased fluoride exposure and decreased IQ in children, as well as increased ADHD. However, these are associations rather than evidence of cause-and-effect: more studies are required.

3. Dental fluorosis

Another objection is the issue of fluorosis. Even high levels of natural fluoride can be toxic, which is why the World Health Organization has set a drinking water maximum admissible concentration of 1.5 mg per litre.

High levels (that is, concentrations over 1.5 mg/litre) are known to cause dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures, lower birth rates, kidney stones, impaired thyroid function, and reduced intellectual capacity in children. The greater the exposure to fluoride, the worse the fluorosis.

Dental fluorosis causes pitted, stained and eroded teeth. In severe cases, the enamel can become fragile and break.

Skeletal fluorosis is a crippling disorder caused by over-mineralisation of bone (too much calcium is retained), resulting in bone deformities such as fixed spine and knock knees. Skeletal fluorosis is usually reported in populations consuming over 3–5mg of fluoride per litre in drinking water.

Seventy million people around the globe are thought to be affected by fluorosis. It is a serious problem in many parts of the world, including large parts of Africa, China, India, Sri Lanka, the Eastern Mediterranean, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Parts of the Americas and Japan are also affected.

---

In short, as well as being a potential cause of serious toxicity, fluoridation simply doesn’t do the job it’s supposed to do, which is to prevent tooth decay.

The World Health Organization describes dental decay as the most common noncommunicable disease worldwide. The WHO also states that “Free sugars are the essential dietary factor in the development of dental caries.” Dental caries develop when bacteria in the mouth metabolise sugar to produce acid. That acid demineralises enamel and dentine.

The source of those sugars is food and drink: juices, confectionery, cakes, biscuits, cereals, etc etc… you know the drill.

Until the matter of poor diet is tackled, the problem of tooth decay is not going to go away. Feeding children (and adults) cheap, sugary carbohydrates and then medicating them with artificial fluoride is never going to end well.