I appreciate Mr. Kochhar’s response to my previous letter regarding the hazards and ineffectiveness of fluoride in the water supply.

Unfortunately, he failed to address the most salient point of my letter, which is that the rate of tooth decay in countries that do not fluoridate their drinking water is the same as in those that do.

Similarly, U.S. counties that do not fluoridate (and do not have naturally occurring fluoride in the water) show the same rate of tooth decay as those that do fluoridate. When fluoridation was halted in some communities (in Canada, Finland, and the former East Germany), tooth decay rates did not go up but remained stable or continued to decrease. None of these are the results you would expect if fluoridated water had anything to do with reducing decay.

A much more reliable indicator of tooth decay is socioeconomic status. Children living in poverty typically have higher rates of decay, even if their water is fluoridated. These results are consistent with the contention that tooth decay is best reduced or prevented through regular dental care and a healthy diet low in processed sugar.

Mr. Kochhar made reference to the CDC and to the American Dental Association but failed to mention that the National Institute of Dental Research (NDIR) conducted a study in 1986-1987 and found no statistical difference in tooth decay between children who drank fluoridated water all their lives and those who did not. He also failed to mention that the CDC itself has admitted that the major effects of fluoride are topical (i.e. in toothpaste) and not systemic (in drinking water).

Mr. Kochhar’s statement that “The fluoridation of public water… is simply the precise adjustment of the existing, naturally occurring fluoride levels in drinking water…” is simply not true. First, not all water supplies in the U.S. have naturally occurring fluoride.

Second, just because something occurs naturally in water does not make it safe to drink. Arsenic occurs naturally in some water, and no one wants to drink that. Fluoride is a toxin. If you have any question about that, just check the back of your toothpaste tube, which states that “If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” The amount used for brushing is a pea-sized dollop containing about .25 milligram of fluoride, about the same amount as in one glass of fluoridated water. By that standard, if you drink two glasses of fluoridated water, you should contact a Poison Control Center!

Further, the fluoride compound added to our drinking water is hexafluorosilicic acid, which does not occur in nature. It is a toxic waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, one that is laced with contaminants such as arsenic (a known cancer-causing agent), mercury, and lead (both of which are neurotoxic and especially harmful to children). Studies have shown that the uptake of lead into children’s tissues is magnified in the presence of fluoride.

The bottom line is, everyone in the Garrison City is forced to drink an industrial waste product laced with carcinogens and neurotoxins, based on the unproven assertion that fluoride in water reduces cavities in children, even though the best epidemiological data show quite clearly that it does not. We are drinking this toxic brew without our informed consent, which violates the most basic tenet of medical ethics. If more people understood this, the hexafluorosilicic acid would be removed immediately from our otherwise excellent water.

I encourage everyone to visit the New Hampshire Dental Society website, as Mr. Kochhar suggests. Then visit the Fluoride Action Network (http://www.fluoridealert.org/). Determine for yourself which site offers platitudes and unsupported statements and which site provides credible evidence. I’d also suggest reading two meticulously researched books on the subject, The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, and The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, James Beck, and H.S. Micklem.

Jim Mastro

Dover

Print PDF