Readers of this blog will remember that I am not in favor of adding fluoride to our water supply. The argument for adding fluoride to our water supply rests strongly on the possibility of it reducing cavities. I am not a dentist and not an expert on this issue. Let’s assume for the moment that fluoride indeed does reduce cavities (not a universal opinion by the way). Does that alone justify treating the entire body of every single person in the community in order to reduce cavities?
When we add chlorine to our water supply, we are treating the water in order to reduce water-borne diseases like dysentery. When we add fluoride to the water supply, we are not treating water (because water does not need fluoride to be safe), but the population at large. Thus we are medicating the entire population, whether everyone likes it or not. For those of us who do not like fluoride, removing it is very problematic, in that fluoride is very difficult to remove from water once it has been added. Is it ethical to be treating everyone in order to benefit some?
What are the effects of fluoride on the rest of our body? Has fluoride been proven to benefit us in other ways than preventing cavities? If one looks at properties of fluoride, it is considered not as a micronutrient, something we need in small quantities, but rather as a toxin, much like mercury, lead or cadmium. Toxins are something that are harmful to us in any quantity. Fluoride, like lead, is concentrated in our bones and teeth, resulting in a disease called skeletal fluorosis. It takes a considerable amount of time for skeletal fluorosis to develop. Depending on the amount of fluoride intake, it can take from 10 to 20 years for this condition to become manifest. Most of the effects are upon the vertebral column where bony overgrowth are noted. Spinal stenosis (shrinkage of the vertebral canal containing the spinal cord), foraminal stenosis (shrinkage of the openings for the spinal nerves), calcification of the anterior and posterior longitudinal ligaments (reducing forward and backward flexibility), and bony overgrowth of the vertebral bodies, limiting twisting.
When an effect occurs closely after a cause, it is usually fairly easy to identify. When cause and effect are separated by 1 to 2 decades, the link be comes difficult at best. This is why it is difficult to prove that it is the fluoride in the water that is causing such problems. I will wager that every single one of us knows someone who is suffering from some kind of spinal disease. Pinched nerve, siatica, herniated disc are all terms that we use to discuss these issues. Many of them can be explained on the basis of skeletal fluorosis.
The fluoride we add to our water is not pharmaceutical grade fluoride, but the industrial waste produce of the aluminum and fertilizer industry. Fluorine is the most reactive element in the periodic table. So reactive it etches glass. The fluoride they use in our water can’t be transported in stainless steel tanker trucks, as the fluoride literally corrodes the stainless steel. Thus they have to use a think rubber liner that protects the tanker truck. However, these liners themselves are attacked by the fluoride to the point that they only last a year or so. It doesn’t take much imagination to know where the dissolved rubber ends up. Yes, in the water. Has anyone done any studies on the toxicity of these rubber products? I think not.
At the very least we ought to re-examine this whole issue of adding fluoride to our water systems. This issue ought to have a public discussion and a vote. It seems to be to be the very least we should expect on this very important public health issue.