go to healthmatters home page

Serious coverage of today's health service and public health issues

Originally published in healthmatters issue 14, Summer 1993, page 24
Letter

Poisoned prevention?

Dear healthmatters — The article by John Beale (Safe, simple and effective, issue 13) gives an uncritical PR view of the issue of water fluoridation. Fluoridation, it is claimed, is a simple and effective public health measure.

There are two main problems with the assumptions of the article. First, the rate of reduction of tooth decay as a result of fluoridation is likely to be an over-estimate. Although it is the case that many past research and government reports claim a 40 to 60 per cent decline in tooth decay as a result of water fluoridation, more recent studies imply a more modest estimate of 20 to 40 per cent.

A recent study also suggests that there may be higher levels of tooth decay in fluoridated areas and that filling levels are more likely to be related to income than fluoride levels (What doctors don’t tell you, 1993; 3:9).

Second, fluoride levels in people can’t be controlled, so that indiscriminate fluoridation adds to the risk of fluoride poisoning. (Too much fluoride has been associated with brittle bones and depression of the immune system, incresing the susceptibility to cancer and other immune-depressed states such as post-viral syndrome and AIDS.) Fluoridating the water supply is based on the assumption that everyone requires the same amount. Yet there is no control over how much water people consume. Thirsty babies, for example, might receive the same amount of fluoride as adults three or four times their size.

Large amounts of fluoride are ingested from other sources - toothpaste (often swallowed by children), mouthwashes, fluoride tablets, and so on. Toothpaste manufacturers continue to increase the level of fluoride in their products.

When the more recent evidence for a lower success rate is taken into consideration, together with the hazards posed by fluoride poisoning, then to describe fluoridation as ‘safe, simple and effective’ on moral, health and dental grounds is simply inaccurate. Some of us are grateful for the ‘hurdles and delays’ which have prevented the introduction of mass water fluoridation in this country.

Anne Rogers
Roehampton Institute
London SW15

More from

More about

More by Anne Rogers

Story search

 

Tip: use fewer, more specific words for a better search.

Feedback

What's your view on the issues raised here? Let us know what you think.

Send us your comments.

Get a free t-shirt!

Get a free t-shirt when you subscribe – or choose from our selection of free gifts

Choose a free gift when you subscribe

This page

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Creative Commons Licence

© healthmatters publications ltd.

Non-profitmaking and independent since 1988

INKhealthmatters is a member of INK, the Independent News Collective, trade association of the UK alternative press.

Last updated: 22 February 2007

XHTML1 | CSS2

RSS feed