Public Water Fluoridation

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
What is your opinion on the movement to discontinue public water flouridation. Please. No politics.

Systemic health effects v. effects on caries. I don't support fluoride unless for topical purposes only. I don't think it will increase the rate of caries significantly. Patient's oral hygiene and dietary habits still play a bigger role.
 
Systemic health effects v. effects on caries. I don't support fluoride unless for topical purposes only. I don't think it will increase the rate of caries significantly. Patient's oral hygiene and dietary habits still play a bigger role.
What proven systemic health effects is ~.7 mg/L causing in the population?
 
What proven systemic health effects is ~.7 mg/L causing in the population?
Who knows what the effects are over a long period of time, but if it's something that I wouldn't want forced onto me, I wouldn't want it forced onto others. It's pretty electronegative and partially cumulative over time.
 
What proven systemic health effects is ~.7 mg/L causing in the population?
There have been some studies linking Fluoride with lower IQ in developing children. Again. I don't have enough information to make a case, but there has been interest in whether or not the public should be forced to have Fl in their drinking water.
 
There have been some studies linking Fluoride with lower IQ in developing children. Again. I don't have enough information to make a case, but there has been interest in whether or not the public should be forced to have Fl in their drinking water.
I thought those studies showed that this was the case for higher concentrations and not at 0.7 ppm. Anything can be harmful at a high enough concentration.
 
There have been some studies linking Fluoride with lower IQ in developing children. Again. I don't have enough information to make a case, but there has been interest in whether or not the public should be forced to have Fl in their drinking water.
Finally I have an excuse as to why I am dumb: I drank fluoridated water growing up!
 
Last edited:
There have been some studies linking Fluoride with lower IQ in developing children. Again. I don't have enough information to make a case, but there has been interest in whether or not the public should be forced to have Fl in their drinking water.
About 65% of Americans grow up on and drink fluoridated water. And about 75% of communities have fluoridated water. It is NOT effecting the IQ at the .7 mg/ L. If it was, we would know. That’s ~ 200 million people drinking it and growing up on it.
 
While this is something that may be debatable, just because a concentration of x mg/mL may be regarded as generally safe, is it something that we should force onto people since it could be considered a "public good" or should people be allowed to choose if they want any kind of fluoridation. Before anyone says that most people don't drink tap water, I would assume that most people use it for cooking. This would be an extreme example: I could say that x ppm of lead would be acceptable in drinking water, would I want that in my drinking water? Probably not. Not that anyone would intentionally add lead. I understand that other additives could make water safer, such as chlorine/chlorine by-products from a bacteriological standpoint, but does systemic fluoride really provide the benefits once the teeth have calcified?
 
Should they force folic acid on the general public too? I’m all for people having a choice but when it doesn’t do any harm and has at least a few benefits then I don’t think there should be a debate about it. If people are that worked up about fluoride in the water then they should go buy a filter.
 
Should they force folic acid on the general public too? I’m all for people having a choice but when it doesn’t do any harm and has at least a few benefits then I don’t think there should be a debate about it. If people are that worked up about fluoride in the water then they should go buy a filter.
Iodine in salt too.
 
Against the movement. Simply put, the benefits outweigh the risks on a community level.

The U.S. Surgeon General has stated that water fluoridation "is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime, for both children and adults."

The CDC named fluoridation of drinking water one of 10 great public health interventions of the 20th century because of the dramatic decline in cavities since community water fluoridation started in 1945.
 
Flouridated water in the public tap water (right or wrong) will affect, benefit, harm ?????? the lower socioeconomic group since they as a group tend to drink more tap water, cook with tap water. The more affluent population probably drink bottled water and/or filtered (Reverse Osmosis) treated water.
 
Against the movement. Simply put, the benefits outweigh the risks on a community level.

The U.S. Surgeon General has stated that water fluoridation "is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime, for both children and adults."

The CDC named fluoridation of drinking water one of 10 great public health interventions of the 20th century because of the dramatic decline in cavities since community water fluoridation started in 1945.

I'm too lazy to look it up (as I'm sure most of the public is), but do you have any studies that would strongly correlate that oral health has improved since systemic fluoridation? Statements can be made by "experts" or "institutions", but I do wonder what data they base their statements from.
 
What proven systemic health effects is ~.7 mg/L causing in the population?
Not taking a side here but just adding to the conversation.

A new study, led by researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of USC and funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, analyzed more than 220 mother-child pairs, collecting data on fluoride levels during pregnancy and child behavior at age three. The researchers found that a 0.68 milligram per liter increase in fluoride exposure was associated with nearly double the chance of a child showing neurobehavioral problems in a range considered close to or at a level to meet the criteria for clinical diagnosis.

 
Not taking a side here but just adding to the conversation.

A new study, led by researchers at the Keck School of Medicine of USC and funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, analyzed more than 220 mother-child pairs, collecting data on fluoride levels during pregnancy and child behavior at age three. The researchers found that a 0.68 milligram per liter increase in fluoride exposure was associated with nearly double the chance of a child showing neurobehavioral problems in a range considered close to or at a level to meet the criteria for clinical diagnosis.

Read the study. Very very poorly conducted. So many assumptions made with so many potentially confounding variables. You have to look past the headlines.
 
Top