|
Opinion
Debate on
fluoride not cut and dried
Sunday, April 9, 2006 1:12 PM CDT
Column by Les Minor, Managing Editor Texarkana Gazette |
| The fluoridation of public water
has been a contentious topic in Texarkana |
| Attempts to add the chemical to
the water system have twice been rejected by Texarkana, Ark., voters,
and since the water utility is a shared operation of both the Texas and
Arkansas sides of town, this has effectively quashed the efforts. |
| People pushing this
agenda—primarily those championing the dental health benefits of
fluoride—generally have looked at the opposition as if they were a bunch
of kooks, or, even worse, ignorant, backwoods ingrates. |
| Those against fluoridation have
said there are no dental health benefits from the ingestion of fluoride;
but instead, because it is swallowed, it increases the risk of other
health problems. |
| Fluoridation proponents are
generally from the established medical and dental community, while
opponents tend to get their voice from the academic and scientific
community, although these lines are far from absolute. |
| Because of the way the argument
has unfolded over the years, those favoring fluoridation tend to see
themselves as beyond reproach, secure in the absolute backing of most
major medical associations. Opponents, on the other hand, are often
portrayed as radicals crying “wolf,” or yipping at the heels of
establishment critics. |
| That may be changing by degrees. |
| For one thing, more and more
communities are saying no to fluoridation. In the early years of this
60-year-old debate, there was little organized resistance and the odds
strongly favored fluoride. Nowadays, votes on fluoridation are about as
predictable as a coin flip. Some go one way; some go the other. |
| For another, there is new
information that suggests the kooks weren’t without a cause. |
| Last month, the National Academy
of Sciences released the results of its fluoride study—one of the most
thorough in a long time. One telling recommendations of the study, which
was paid for by the Environmental Protection Agency, is that there were
enough health risks associated with fluoride that it recommended the
current level of fluoride allowed in drinking water should be lowered. |
| Last month, the National Academy
of Sciences released the results of its fluoride study—one of the most
thorough in a long time. One telling recommendations of the study, which
was paid for by the Environmental Protection Agency, is that there were
enough health risks associated with fluoride that it recommended the
current level of fluoride allowed in drinking water should be lowered. |
| The study also asked the EPA to
do a risk assessment and determine a new maximum fluoride level.
Currently the max is 4 milligrams per liter. Most water systems,
including Texarkana’s is about 25 percent of that. Most areas that
exceed that level, including some in Texas, do so because additional
fluoride seeps into the water from other environment sources. But all of
us are exposed to fluoride in multiple ways, not just the water system,
and it is the total amount of fluoride that can increase the risk of
harmful dental fluorosis. |
| But the report looks much deeper
than the affect of fluoride on our teeth. |
| It found evidence that fluoride
increases bone breaks, and, in the elderly, contributed to joint
stiffness. The report showed a relationship between fluoride and
Alzheimer’s disease, and questioned if it might marginally affect a
child’s ability to learn (impair IQ). |
| The NAS report says that
“fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers,
particularly of the bone.” |
| It should be noted that there is
a fairly wide difference between what the EPA considers the maximum
level of fluoride in the water system (4 mg. per liter) and the best
level for preventing cavities (about 1 mg. per liter) |
| Still, the report gives pause,
not only because we all collect fluoride from a variety of sources, but
because the potential side effects seem to infiltrate so many areas of
our medical health. |
| When looking at the whole
picture, opponents say simply that you can best protect your teeth by
getting your fluoride from toothpaste and mouthwashes and you can best
safeguard your bones by removing fluoride from your drinking water. |
| While dentists still largely
believe the benefits outweigh the risks, fluoridation is no longer
beyond dispute. At the very least, the report indicates a need for
caution. |
| Virtues and vices sometimes come
in the same package. What’s good for the teeth looks more and more like
it’s bad for other body parts. That’s not a slam dunk, that’s a trade
off. |
| If nothing else, as this debate
goes forward, all of us who have an interest in this issue should to be
more willing to question what we think we know about fluoride and its
effect on all parts of the human body. |
| Does this mean that the pendulum
has swung in the other direction? |
| It’s too early to tell. But it
does seem as if the perceived gap between the two sides has closed, not
only on the rhetorical front, but also on the substance of the argument. |
