Studies show that fluoride in city drinking water helps reduce cavities. But should fluoride be added to everyone’s water source, forcing residents to consume it despite what some feel are risks associated with fluoridation?
Probably not.
It’s not entirely surprising that some are rebelling against the practice of putting fluoride into city drinking water systems. Last week, ABC News and other national media outlets reported on a study that suggests children’s IQ levels could be inhibited by fluoride consumption. Importantly, the study was done outside of the U.S., where fluoride levels are far higher than in U.S. drinking water. However, the study shows that, at certain levels, fluoride does appear to have a link to IQ levels in children.
Nationally, the issue has been brought to the forefront by Robert Kennedy Jr., President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for secretary of the Department of Health. Kennedy wants fluoride removed from drinking water, despite concerns from health officials who believe water fluoridation is at safe levels and that the process — which started in the U.S. in the 1940s — has proven beneficial in preventing tooth decay.
The issue started nationally, but it’s filtering down to the local levels. In Grand Forks, for instance, City Council member Rebecca Osowski last week made a motion to stop putting fluoride in the city’s drinking water. She was joined by council members Mike Fridolfs and Tricia Lunski, but the proposal was defeated, 4-3.
“This stuff is not healthy,” Osowski said. “It is the only treatment that the government mass issues to its citizens and I consider it forced medication.”
It appears Grand Forks’ fluoride levels found in the city’s water, around 0.7 milligrams per liter, meet federal guidelines for community water supplies. Further, it appears that at those levels, studies have not shown adverse health effects on cognition, according to the United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Actually, let’s not debate the health benefits of fluoridation, but rather the process of forcing others to take part in something that makes them uneasy or concerned about their own health.
A child who is thirsty at a grade school can drink from a fountain for free, but a child of a parent who has concerns about fluoridation will be forced to find water elsewhere, at a cost. And among other concerns is the one Osowski cited during last week’s City Council meeting: That fluoride is the only chemical added to water to treat a medical condition, and it is forced upon the consumers, whether or not they agree.
Again, studies show that fluoridation in the water system works. But studies also have shown that an aspirin a day may lower the risk of heart attack and stroke. Those in a certain age range who wish to reduce the likelihood of a heart attack — a much more serious condition than tooth decay — can choose on their own to participate in the aspirin-a-day regimen. Or, if the risks — such as the possibility of damage to the stomach — are a concern, there’s always exercise. Or not.
Similarly, options exist for those who wish to reduce their chance of a cavity.
Certainly, political implications arise in this argument, but for a moment, leave out politics, the studies, the longevity of the nation’s fluoridation program and even the medical opinions. Instead, simply consider that not everyone wants to participate in government-forced fluoridation of their drinking water, and we shouldn’t be offended by their concerns.
In Grand Forks and elsewhere, it seems like a legitimate discussion to have.
After all, access to fresh, clean water is a right that must be provided to all.
Original article online at: https://www.dl-online.com/opinion/editorials/guest-editorial-not-everyone-wants-fluoride-in-their-water-theres-nothing-wrong-with-that