Letter to the Editor

Don't vote fluoride out

Thursday, October 9, 2008

Dear Editor,

The Nebraska Unicameral passed LB245 in 2008 that requires cities with a population of more than 1,000 people to provide fluoride in the drinking water. The optimum level of fluoride to provide strong teeth and good oral health is 1 to 1.3 parts per million (ppm). LB245 requires that cities provide fluoridation between 0.8 and 1.5 ppm for their drinking water. Cities that have a natural occurring level of fluoride of 0.7 ppm do not need to provide any additional fluoride. Fluoride naturally occurs in all water at varying levels.

Providing fluoride in the drinking water is an effective, safe and inexpensive way to prevent tooth decay. Fluoride increases and hardens the enamel on the teeth and makes it more resistant to decay-causing acid. Studies show that people who drink optimally fluoridated water from birth have 40 percent less decay over their lifetime. The American Dental Association has stated that fluoride benefits people of all ages.

Per the American Dental Association: "Water fluoridation contributes much more to overall health than simply reducing dental decay: it prevents needless infection, pain, suffering and loss of teeth; improves the quality of life and saves vast sums of money in dental treatment costs."

The Center for Disease Control has conducted research on the cost savings for communities that provide fluoride in their water systems. CDC found under typical conditions that for communities under 5,000 people they would save $16 per-person annually. This analysis takes into account the costs of installing and maintaining necessary equipment and operating equipment, the expected effectiveness of fluoridation, estimates of expected cavities in non-fluoridated communities, treatment of cavities, and time lost visiting the dentist for treatment.

The cost for a community to provide fluoridation varies depending on the number of sites needed. The typical cost per site is approximately $3,000. An estimate of operating cost is 10 percent of the cost of installation.

Fluoridation of drinking water is considered one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Fluoridation has been successfully used for over 50 years. Currently 67 percent of the population on public water supplies receives fluoridated water, or more than 170 million people.

Everyone is concerned about the high cost of medical treatment or insurance. Providing fluoride as a preventive measure reduces those costs plus improves the quality of life for all citizens. Vote not to opt out of providing fluoride.

More information may be found at the CDC Web site http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/ or by contacting Southwest Nebraska Public Health Department (308) 345-4223 or (888) 345-4223 via e-mail info@swhealth dept.com, or www.swhealth dept.com. Southwest Nebraska Public Health Department serves Chase, Dundy, Frontier, Furnas, Hayes, Hitchcock, Perkins and Red Willow counties.

Mark R Graf,

Environmental Specialist,

Southwest Nebraska

Public Health


View 3 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Physician Group Opposes Fluoridation

    "Fluoridation of drinking water is scientifically untenable, and should not be part of a public health initiative or program," says the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) in a new published statement.

    CAPE is Canada's leading voice on environmental health issues.

    Against a backdrop of intense opposition to the fluoridation of public drinking water in several communities in Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, CAPE asserts:

    A) fluoridation is unlikely to be the cause of the cavity decline in Europe and North America,

    B) the potential for fluoride's adverse effects is real, and

    C) current evidence points in the direction of caution.

    Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network says, "CAPE joins a growing list of environmental health experts who have called for an end to the fluoridation of public drinking water.

    They include:

    * Vyvyan Howard, MD, PhD, President, International Society of Doctors for the Environment

    * Ken Cook and Richard Wiles, Environmental Working Group

    * Lois Gibbs, Center for Health, Environment, and Justice

    * Joseph Mercola, Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

    * Theo Colborn, PhD, co-author, "Our Stolen Future"

    * Sam Epstein, MD, Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition

    * The current and six past Presidents of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology

    * Board of Directors (2007), American Academy of Environmental Medicine

    * FIVE Goldman Prize winners

    These are among over 1800 professionals who have signed a statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide see http://www.FluorideAlert.org/professionals.statement.html

    According to Connett, "Citizens facing well-financed efforts to fluoridate their communities need to know that US governmental agencies (particularly the CDC) are ignoring the voluminous body of scientific evidence on the adverse effects of fluoride. The National Research Council of the National Academies published a landmark report on these effects in 2006. More than 2 years after its release, CDC and fluoridation promoting agencies in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand and the UK act as if this report was never published. We urge communities to reject fluoridation proposals until promoters can provide a rational scientific response to fluoride's dangers, which includes 23 peer-reviewed and published studies indicating that fluoride can lower children's IQ. Fluoridation exposes infants to 250 times the level of fluoride in human breast milk. That is reckless."

    CAPE's statement is online at http://fluoridealert.org/cape.html

    Take Action to Stop Fluoridation here: http://congress.FluorideAction.Net

    SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network

    -- Posted by nyscof on Thu, Oct 9, 2008, at 12:55 PM
  • Hastings is at this time voting on this issue. WE have voted it down twice before. But it seems now that we are going to have it forced down our throats by the so called educated people in our town. The local paper is for supporting this obcenity....so I am making a special effort to educate every one around me on this issue. The thing that bugs me the most is that I am being asked to floridae for the sake of the POOR CHILDREN who by the way suffer the worst of the consiquentes of BAD GOVERMENT MANDATES!!!!!Which this is.

    I have my own reasons for not wanting this in my water. Mostly I do not feel obligated to care for other peoples teeth. I can barely provide for my own and higher taxes to pay for this will reduce my ability to take care of me and mine.

    Enough is enough. Thankyou for lettin me vent... my local paper wont print oppisition of the floridation issues.


    -- Posted by kaygee on Thu, Oct 9, 2008, at 4:15 PM
  • This article is so very imbalanced - with no mention of the many reasons NOT to flouridate the water supply.

    Thank goodness we have a wealth of information available to us if we choose to check all sides of this important debate.

    From just a brief internet search:

    *On April 15, 2008, the United States National Kidney Foundation (NKF) updated their position on fluoridation for the first time since 1981. Formerly a supporter of water fluoridation, the NKF now takes a neutral position on the practice.

    *The International Chiropractors Association opposes mass water fluoridation, considering it "possibly harmful and deprivation of the rights of citizens to be free from unwelcome mass medication."

    * A book, titled "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson (a journalist writing for the BBC, Christian Science Monitor, the Discovery Channel and part of an investigative team at Public Television that won a George Polk Award). .. says that research challenging fluoride's safety was either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. He says fluoridation is a triumph not of medical science but of US government spin.

    *...in the March 2006 issue of the Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, the authors examine the water fluoridation controversy in the context of the precautionary principle. The authors note that:

    There are other ways of delivering fluoride besides the water supply;

    Fluoride does not need to be swallowed to prevent tooth decay;

    Tooth decay has dropped at the same rate in countries with, and without, water fluoridation;

    People are now receiving fluoride from many other sources besides the water supply;

    Studies indicate fluoride's potential to cause a wide range of adverse, systemic effects;

    Since fluoridation affects so many people, "one might accept a lower level of proof before taking preventive actions


    The idea that the government truly cares about our teeth has never seemed very likely.


    Tina Louise

    -- Posted by tinalouise on Mon, Oct 13, 2008, at 1:56 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: