How Beneficial Is Fluoridation to Our Drinking Water?
/Dr John R. Lee, a medical doctor from Sebastopol, CA has researched the subject of fluoridation for the past twenty-five years and has found that there has been no study in the past three decades that has demonstrated significant dental benefits from fluoridation.
In his opinion, studies that claim dental benefits are too old and seriously flawed, and there have been more recent studies that correlate fluoridation with higher cavity rates. He sees the decline in children’s cavities as unrelated to fluoridation; since the same decline is also found in communities where fluoridation is not used. The Rand Corporation conducted a study and found cost-saving by fluoridation is simply not warranted by available evidence. Additional studies have linked fluoridation with hip fractures and bone degeneration. He also cites the fact that all Western European countries and Japan have already abandoned fluoridation. To the uninformed citizen, it is alarming to learn that fluoride “is an extremely potent enzyme inhibitor with a toxicity rating greater than lead and just a bit less toxic than arsenic.”
The ADA website is very impressive and authoritative as befits the official representation of this prestigious professional association. Since 1950, the American Dental Association (ADA) has continuously and unreservedly endorsed community water fluoridation to reduce the risk of tooth decay. According to the ADA, that policy is based on 60 years of scientific research on safety and effectiveness. Today, more than two-thirds of the US population consumes fluoride in their drinking water.
In reviewing the materials presented on fluoridation, it is interesting to learn how strong and pervasive the advocacy role the ADA takes in ensuring that fluoridation continues to be public policy in every community. It seems to be a primary objective for each chapter of the ADA to monitor and to testify in favor of fluoridation and to suppress any legislation that is anti-fluoridation.
The ADA has developed an entire toolkit for the fluoridation campaign, including sample language for legislation, tons of research data that proclaim the benefits of fluoridation, professional public relations support and long-term relationships with other vested interest groups.
On their website, the ADA warns about misinterpretation of independent research on fluoridation and gives guidelines on how to evaluate such research. Fluoridation has never been deemed unlawful in a court of law.
Opposition to water fluoridation has been arising from concerns over the lack of quality and unbiased independent research demonstrating its efficacy and safety, evidence that it may cause serious health problems, and a general resistance to the idea of mandatory fluoridation which takes away an individual's right to choose. There are scientific communities that doubt the effectiveness of fluoridation, especially taking into account recent scientific research which shows fluoride may cause some types of chronic physical abnormalities in humans.
In researching who John R. Lee, M.D. was, I found his official website and learned that he was internationally acknowledged as a pioneer and expert in the study and use of the hormone progesterone, and on the subject of hormone replacement therapy for women. This led him to study for 25 years the relationship between fluoridation and bone density in women. His research and professional training as a physician have been accepted in the scientific community and thus his learned opinion regarding fluoridation can be also accepted for its validity. Dr. Lee passed away in 2003.
While the Lee website showcases an article written in 1995 and is therefore frozen in time, the events that have transpired since have only proven his point.
A lot of the actual studies that are referred to in the booklet “Fluoridation Facts” are from the period 1930-1950 and seem to be outdated. The ADA has a vested interest in painting a positive picture about fluoridation as they would expose themselves to countless lawsuits if they publicly admitted possible health risks involved in something they have endorsed and promoted for over 50 years. A lot of credibility would be lost in the public eye.
In my opinion the safety of fluoridation is not proven and is called into question. There is a lot of recent independent and scientific research that raises valid concern in fluoridation and the health risks involved. Furthermore, there has been governmental action taken by other countries to remove fluoridation from their drinking water supplies. These actions by independent nations bear great validity as there isn’t a vested interest in sustaining the use of fluoridation as here in the United States.
In 1997, the EPA professional’s union states, "It is our hope that our co-sponsorship of the Safe Drinking Water Initiative to prohibit fluoridation will have a beneficial effect on the health and welfare of all Californians by helping to keep their water free of a chemical substance for which there is substantial evidence of adverse health effects and, contrary to public perception, virtually no evidence of significant benefits."1
The www.whale.to/d/fluoride.html website is overly prejudiced against fluoridation and their attitude discourages the reader from hearing their point of view. While there are good scientific articles posted, the general tone of the website creates such flak that makes it difficult to maintain a fair perspective. More effective is the balanced offerings of www.slweb.org/fluoridation .html which provides factual information, research and articles from both proponent and opponents.