Editor's note: A student of mine composed this argument in the spring of 2016.
As the typical person reaches for a glass of water,
little thought goes into what they are actually consuming. As a developed
society, we have placed a great deal of trust in our local government to
provide us with healthy, refreshing, and clean water. In reality, you are ingesting
a toxic soup of chemicals and additives. Some of these chemicals are harmless
and placed in our water to ensure that the water remains potable. Others were added
with or without your consent on the grounds of good dental hygiene and backed
by hasty inconclusive research. The matter of water fluoridation has been at
the forefront of the scientific and medical research battlefield for years with
little hope of a cease fire. At an early age we are briefed by our family
dentist on the importance of fluoride in regards to the health of our teeth. What
the dentist neglected to explain was the part about how fluoride is a chemical,
if ingested can cause adverse developmental and physical health effects
throughout the body. This possibly harmful chemical has been placed into many
water supplies throughout the nation. The fluoridation of the municipal water
supply does not provide any measureable health benefits through its consumption
but may do more harm than good.
The craze of water fluoridation started to take root within
our nation about 50 years ago. According to an article entitled Doctored Water (2003) “more than 70
percent of our nation’s drinking water is medicated to treat the teeth,
according to figures released by the U.S Census Bureau” (p.6). The process of
water fluoridation is a very profitable endeavor for the big businesses
involved. The industry with the most to gain through the fluoridation of the
local water is the phosphate-fertilizer industry. Authors Coffel and Samuel
(1992) warn in their article entitled The
Great Fluoride Fight that “Fluosilicic acid, the most common fluoridation
agent , is highly corrosive and a byproduct of phosphate-fertilizer
manufacture…Stannous fluoride, used in toothpaste, is a by-product of steel-can
recycling operation”(p.32). A person can come to see that through this new
“miracle cure” a lot of money can be made by large business. This is one of the
main reasons why the idea has been pressed on the American people in such a
strong manner. The only people who are caught in the cross fire are people like
you and me.
The effects of this mass dental treatment has had wide
spread effects that have been seen throughout the country. Most notably was the
flurry of law suits targeted at the phosphate industry due to multiple cases of
mass poisoning and local environmental damages. According to an article in the
November 1979 issue of The Annapolis Evening Capitol, “Too much fluoride was
dumped into the public water system and resulted in the acute poisoning of
approximately 10,000 people” (as cited in Askeroth, 2003). In
another case, Coffel & Samuel (1992) reported, “In 1990 the ADA (American
Dental Association) was sued by 40 of its members who claim the Association is
misleading the public about the safety of both fluoridation and mercury-amalgam
fillings” (p.32).
The leading argument for the use of fluoride in water is
the idea that it prevents tooth decay and the common cavity. Studies have shown
that when fluoride is applied topically to the surface of the teeth (not
ingested), in small amounts, certain forms of tooth decay can be managed. When
fluoride is ingested throughout a life time and at early stages of development,
the effects can be wide spread and devastating. In 2007, a study was conducted
in China to determine the correlation between the loss of IQ in children and
the consumption of fluoride and arsenic within the local water supply. The
study, conducted by San-Xiang et al. (2007) revealed fluoride
to be “associated with neurotoxic effects in children” (p.115). Parents
should think again before reaching for that fluoride enhanced water for their
children. The developing mind of a child is not the only thing that is
affected. In the early days of the fluoride craze, the American Dental
Association warned that “even minuscule amounts of fluoride will cause
osteosclerosis, spondylosis, osteoporosis, and goiter and we cannot afford to
run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what
is a doubtful procedure to prevent dental disfigurement among children” (as
cited in Askeroth, 2003). Most of these degenerating cases are not realized
until later years when it is already too late. Why would a strong, developed
country like the United States allow this sort of thing to continue?
Most of the developed countries in the world have opened
their eyes to the negative side effects of water fluoridation. An article in
the Nutrition Health Review explains “countries
in Europe…have strict laws against adding fluorides to drinking water supplies.
Less than 2% of the drinking water in Europe is fluoridated” (Askeroth, 2003).
Doctors within the United States have long debated if fluoride is really
necessary in our water. In other countries the debate has caused certain
doctors to change their stance on the issue, even admitting to having used
“bullying tactics” to further water fluoridation (Askeroth, 2003). Do they know
something we do not? The answer is a resounding no. Until recently, the U.S has
turned a blind eye to evidence that has been brought forth in the last 50 years
showing fluoride to be dangerous. In a recent article published on Time.com, author Alexandra Sifferlin
(2015) reported that “…the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its recommendation for
an optimal concentration of fluoride at 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. The
previous recommendations, released in 1962, allowed for between 0.7 to 1.2
milligrams per liter” (p.1). The good news is that the U.S is starting to move
in the right direction of understanding the effects of fluoride and working to
minimize the overall daily exposure. Although the thought is not completely
abandoned, the country is slowly realizing that citizens are still utilizing
the topical benefits of fluoride through other means.
In summary, we have shown the idea of water fluoridation
to be a complex and lengthy argument debated on by the scientific community for
years. The whole of the fluoride argument rests on the hopeful idea of better
dental hygiene for America and possibly the world. The facts and research show
us the real health risks to this extra additive to our water. It is important for
citizens to research and understand for themselves what goes into their
drinking water. Water is one of the most precious commodities on earth and should
be used as a tool for the betterment of our health.
References
Askeroth,
J. (2003). Doctored water. Nutrition
Health Review: The Consumer's Medical Journal, (86), 6-8.
Coffel,
S., & Samuel, D. (1992). The great fluoride fight. Garbage, 4 (3), 32.
San-Xiang,
W., Zheng-Hui, W., Xiao-Tian, C., Jun, L., Zhi-Ping, S., Xiang-Dong, Z., &
... Zhi-Quan, W. (2007). Arsenic and fluoride exposure in drinking water:
Children's IQ and growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi Province, China. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 (4), 643-647.
Sifferlin,
A. (2015). U.S. says there should be less fluoride in drinking water. Time.Com, N.PAG
No comments:
Post a Comment