What's the good and bad to having fluoridated water?

I've seen some cities start moving away from doing it, and was wondering if it is because it's not beneficial or because one group was just very vocal.

If it's bad, then I might need to invest in another source.

It is very good, with virtually no negatives. It's up there with antibiotics and vaccines with regards to reducing one of the most chronic epidemics in modern society. There is some cost to the water facility. If it's administered poorly, a chronic overexposure can lead to flourosis, which is an irregular "marbled" appearance to the teeth. Many areas have natural fluoride in the water that is far above the suggested guidelines, including the Texas panhandle.

Fluorosis of teeth=teeth that are hard as hell

You been watching Doctor Strangelove? Purity In Essence

Thanks for the responses.

I'm just south of Austin, and there is an anti-fluoride group trying to stop the city of Buda from fluoridating the water. It was fluoridated for quite some time before, but since Buda gets some of their water from San Marcos, and SM stopped fluoridation, Buda's water stopped also. They are now implementing a fluoridation program that will be starting very soon, and this has caused a stir.

Just some of their arguments are:

• They should have the right to choose being medicated
• hydrofluorosilicic acid is a toxin that contains heavy metals
• It's a byproduct of the fertilizer industry
• Why fluoridate when there is naturally occurring fluoride in the water

The pro-fluoride group has just the dental benefits.


I've read what is posted on the CDC, https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm , and other sources, and have read the articles that are anti-fluoride. After awhile, it becomes one big cluster.

To enable my laziness, do you know what the naturally occurring fluoride levels are versus the prescribed levels when adding it in?

For further reference in your research, here is AWU's water report from 2015 which shows fluoride levels.

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Water/AustinWaterQuality_2015.pdf

The sad truth is that trends are showing the more educated a person is, the more likely they are to not vaccinate. Although, to be fair, I think that statistic is skewed towards educated Californians. https://healthimpactnews.com/2013/more-educated-parents-less-likely-to-vaccinate-and-feed-children-sugar-and-gmo-foods/

The sugar thing I get. The vaccine and GMO deal I don't. I don't have a ton of research on GMO foods, but are we talking seeds that have been developed to use less water/fertilizer or something else?

I don't want to get this more off topic than I already have, but yes, GMO is being used as a blanket term these days for lots of things, ranging from plants that have been developed to use less water, produce bigger yields, be more resistant to weather changes, be more resistant to infections, etc. It also includes apples and potatoes that don't brown as quickly and things like that.

So, those all sound like net positives, what are the drawbacks? (Proven drawbacks)

Depends on how your define "proven" and which "scientists" or "doctors" you trust. I'm pretty sure without GMOs( which humans have been selectively breeding plants for hundreds of years), famine would be far more common.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Depends on how your define "proven" and which "scientists" or "doctors" you trust. I'm pretty sure without GMOs( which humans have been selectively breeding plants for hundreds of years), famine would be far more common.

---

I think you and I are on the same page. You would think that same angry mob would appreciate using less water, less fertilizers, etc.

What is the positive of fluoridated tap water?

I drink mostly bottled water now myself, after the recent cases of toxic public water.

Here is what I found:

http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/effects-of-fluoride/

A New York study (2010) revealed that low-income children in less fluoridated counties needed more dental treatments than those living in counties where fluoridated water was common. The annual treatment costs per Medicaid recipient were $23.65 higher for those living in less fluoridated counties.

A Texas study (2000) found that fluoridation saved the state Medicaid program an average of $24 per child, per year.

Fluoridated water saved Colorado nearly $149 million in 2003 by avoiding unnecessary dental treatment costs.

A 1999 study compared Louisiana parishes (counties) that were fluoridated with those that were not. The study found that low-income children in communities without fluoridated water were three times more likely than those in communities with fluoridated water to need dental treatment in a hospital operating room.

bmks270 said:

---

What is the positive of fluoridated tap water?

I drink mostly bottled water now myself, after the recent cases of toxic public water.

---

As a dentist I could tell you about the positives that fluoride presents to our oral health. Some of this is true, but some of it makes me wonder too.

There are studies out there that show topical application of fluoride does just as good of a job as systemic. Then why should we all drink this rat poison?

Most other developed countries in this world DO NOT fouridate their water. About 3% of the population in Western Europe has fluoridated water.

Is it ethical for the government to push a medical treatment onto all its citizens? Probably not.

So is it good for our oral health? Yes. Is it bad for our systemic health? Quite possibly. So is it needed? Maybe not, but I'd still suggest it's a net positive.

MaroonOutAustin said:

---

Just some of their arguments are:

• They should have the right to choose being medicated
• hydrofluorosilicic acid is a toxin that contains heavy metals
• It's a byproduct of the fertilizer industry
• Why fluoridate when there is naturally occurring fluoride in the water

---

1. I'm pretty libertarian and this argument makes great sense. Protecting children is different though. There is no way to have separate water supplies, so I'm pretty ok with it. Nobody is forced to drink tap water.

2. So what?

3. So is lettuce.

4. Areas with natural fluoride don't fluoridate the water higher than recommended amounts. The goal is to have an ideal concentration everywhere. Recommended fluoride levels are actually dropping, as we are getting fluoride from more places now.

Quote:

---

I'm just south of Austin

---

That's where you went wrong.

On a serious note. I think cities are getting rid of it due to mainly money, maybe a little bit from anti-fluoridationists.

All the research showing systemic toxicity is in large doses that are ingested (ie. eating tooth paste) Very little literature showing small effects of chronic use, for example I've seen a study that showed a 7 point IQ difference in fluoridated water community vs non. However, the positives of it such as less tooth decay in children means less major dental work, less sedation dentistry (which is a little riskier anytime you have to pump meds into someone the better), less hospital dentistry ( same as less sedation dentistry PLUS saves on our tax dollars because it is largely medicaid dollars- and the OR isnt cheap!) So, yes IMO, net positives.

As someone mentioned before if fluoride in water has same effectiveness as topical fluoride application why do we need it? Well, that's because a lot of folks and especially lower income folks dont have the financial means and or education to know to use topical fluoride (and that's from a trip to the dentist all the way to simply using tooth paste to brush their teeth!)

As far as GMO goes, we have GMO'd foods since Gregor Mendel crossbred peas in the 1800's.
The DNA that has been modified is digested as any other DNA from "natural plants"

The argument I've heard on GMO is that some of these plants are made to be resistant to pesticide and herbicide so that can basically be sprayed with anything to increase yield and quality. However, these chemicals may or may not get thoroughly cleaned before ingesting through conventional methods. Also that modifying the genes could potentially create some weird allergen or toxin in the plants. Its been reported that GMO's increasing yields are a myth- and that GMO mainly just makes things more efficient in order to increase the profit of corporations or farmers.

Also if you lump steroid and antibiotic use in farm animals into this the argument becomes that over use of antibiotic to help with animal growth or as a blanket prophylaxis due to poor conditions in the coupe, can lead to antibiotic resistance. Also steroids potentially becoming passed on to folks to ingest the animals who are shot up with them.

lazuras_dc said:

---

Quote:

---

Very little literature showing small effects of chronic use, for example I've seen a study that showed a 7 point IQ difference in fluoridated water community vs non.

---

---

I assume you're referring to the Chinese Study. It was within the margin of error in that study, so the findings are potentially just noise.

Yes that's what I'm saying a 7 point diff or a .4 deviation is not significant enough to warrant or tip the scales away from the benefits that we've studied and seen in fluoridated water