The Ongoing Fluoride Wars- Once Again Portland Votes Against Fluoridation of Their Water Supply

Drinking water fluoridation was first introduced in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945. Calls began coming in to city offices from people complaining of sore gums and peeling tooth enamel. One woman even claimed that all her teeth had fallen out. These calls arrived in early January, when some press reports had stated that fluoridation would begin, but some weeks before the actual advent of fluoridation on January 25. (1)

---

Almost 70 years after fluoridation was first used, there is still appearance or a kind of weird mythology among people who oppose fluoridation of water—that's it's all about introducing an unnatural industrial chemical into our water supplies. (2) R. Allan Freeze and Jay Lehr in their book, The Fluoride Wars, present a social history of the fluoridation debate in the United States. They present both sides of the controversy which they rightly describe as one of the most contentious public health issues of our lifetime. They point out, “Fluoridation has been practiced widely now for [almost 70 years], but the issue just won't go away. The dental community continues to sing its praises, but local grassroots anti-fluoridation groups spring up like topsy every time the question surfaces. Concern over fluoridation is not just a thing of the past. It is on-going, never-ending American obsession.”

---

---

How right they are: This past May the city of Portland, Oregon rejected a measure that would have introduced fluoridated drinking water, as they have done a number of times in the past. Deborah Blum reports, “The organization that ran the successful campaign against fluoridation, Clean Water Portland, was quoted as follows: 'Industrial byproducts don't belong in our drinking water.' In fact the organization cited such industrial distaste as a primary reason for opposing the plan. And this 'anti-chemical' approach worked well for them.”(2) A USA Today story on the failed measure quoted one voter as saying simply, “I don't want chemicals in my water.” (3) Someone who says they don't want chemicals in their water must have failed their high-school chemistry course, if they ever took one. Water is, in fact, nothing but chemicals; it even has its very own chemical formula H2O. This formula tells us that, at a minimum when drink water we are drinking the naturally occurring chemicals hydrogen and oxygen. Seems like a strange result coming from Portland. As Keith Kloor notes, “For years, Portland has ranked as one of America's greenest cities. So how is it possible that the citizens of a city lauded for its ecological values, a place 'where every day feels like Earth Day,' as one magazine has written, can be so irrational about something that the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) calls one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th Century? He adds, “Almost every credible national, state, and local health and science organization—private and public—gives its blessing to optimal levels of water fluoridation: the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association, the EPA, the WHO, American Academy of Family Physicians, and the CDC. They all agree that fluoridated water is perfectly safe and extremely effective at preventing tooth decay. Yet almost everyone interviewed cited the same argument for the ferocity of the opposition, even in the face of near-universal scientific consensus about the safety and benefits of fluoridation.” (4) Most water is naturally fluoridated—the average in the oceans is about 1.3 ppm and in fresh water it's usually about 0.01-0.03 ppm. As the World Health Organization reports, at levels about 10 ppm, a steady dose of such high fluoride can damage the bones, and there are parts of the world, a belt along the East African Rift whose levels rise due to fluoride-rich bedrock which washes into local water supplies. So our awareness that fluorine-compounds carry painful health risks at higher doses is based mostly on natural occurring exposures. The amount of fluoride added to drinking water and to toothpaste isn't in that troubling ballpark or even close. And yet we worry about the lesser municipal water supply exposure when naturally occurring risk is by far the greater one. Say what you will about municipal water supplies but they'll never match the lavish dispensary of the natural world, notes Deborah Blum.(2) Then there is toothpaste. With all the concern about chemicals these days, what gets the most attention in toothpastes? Fluoride. People who are chemophobic could find many other concerns with mouth-hygiene products, but fluoride comes first. Virtually every toothpaste is fluoridated, This reduces the ability of bacteria in plaque to generate tooth-weakening acids, and helps remineralize tooth areas already attacked by acids. (5) Putting all this into perspective, one observer commented, “The American people have shown time and time again that they are incapable of making rational decisions based on sound science. Instead they succumb to religion, political ideology and paranoia. The fluoridation conspiracy is one of the oldest on record. You are going up against a long history of fear.” References

1. R. Allan Freeze and Jay H. Lehr, The Fluoride Wars, (New York, John Wiley & Sons, 2009), 109
2. Deborah Blum, “A natural history of fluoride,” wired.com/wiredscience, May 23, 2013
3. “Portland, Oregon, rejects adding fluoride to drinking water,” usatoday.com, May 22, 2013
4. Keith Kloor, “Is Portland anti-science?”, blogs.discovermagazine.com, May 22, 2013
5. Mike McKoy, “What's that stuff? Fluoride,” Chemical & Engineering News, 79, 42, April 16, 2001

---