Moorhead mom concerned about health effects of fluoride in drinking water

MOORHEAD - Jill Dobis doesn’t drink her water out of the tap anymore. Instead, she buys filtered water along with her groceries for her family’s drinking and cooking needs.

The Moorhead mother of two teenagers is concerned about possible harmful health effects from fluoride, which Minnesota law requires to be added to community drinking water to protect teeth from decay.

“I want to see that law changed,” Dobis says. “It’s ridiculous. We should have the choice of whether to take a drug or not.”

Starting in the 1950s, fluoride was added to drinking water in the United States to protect teeth. Since 1962 the U.S. Public Health Service has recommended community drinking water within a prescribed range.

In North Dakota, the state leaves to municipalities the decision of whether to fluoridate drinking water, but a state health official estimates that more than 90 percent of the population drinks fluoridated water.

The Centers for Disease Control regards fluoridated drinking water, and the sharp reduction in tooth decay it is largely credited with achieving, as one of the nation’s top 10 public health achievements.

An impressive list of health agencies and organizations – including the American Medical Association, U.S. Surgeon General, American Dental Association among many others – recommend fluoridating drinking water as an effective way to improve dental health.

Yet the practice has long faced opposition, and in recent years a growing list of cities in the United States and especially Canada has opted to stop adding fluoride to drinking water.

A year ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Environmental Protection Agency jointly proposed reducing the recommended fluoride levels in drinking water.

The proposed lower standard recognizes that the population is exposed to fluoride from sources other than drinking water, including food and beverages as well as the environment.

For decades, the government has recommended maintaining fluoride in drinking water between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million. But, following research published by the National Academies of Science, the recommended standard would be capped at 0.7 parts per million.

For health reasons, the EPA does not allow fluoride levels in drinking water to exceed 4 parts per million.

Both Fargo and Moorhead maintain a fluoride concentration at 1.2 parts per million, the level mandated in Minnesota, and the top of the current recommended range.

Ironically, too much fluoride, especially for children, can cause mottled or discolored teeth. More seriously, studies have linked fluoride to neurological problems, brittle bones and other ailments.

“The damage it causes is irreversible,” Dobis says, citing research she has read, including a recent book, “The Case Against Fluoride.”

One of the book’s authors, and a leading opponent of fluoridating drinking water, is Paul Connett, a chemist and toxicologist who is retired from teaching at St. Lawrence University in Canton, N.Y.

Connett’s opposition to fluoridating drinking water began more than 16 years ago when his wife asked him to look into the subject when it arose in their town.

He did so reluctantly, because of other research commitments and his teaching duties, and expected to agree with the consensus view that the benefits of fluoridated water outweigh the detriments.

But the more he delved into the subject, the more he became convinced that the practice was wrong-headed, and harmful to public health. He found himself up against the medical, dental and public health establishment.

“On paper, it looks very impressive,” Connett says, acknowledging the long list of studies that have concluded that fluoridated water at recommended levels is safe and effective.

Fluoride accumulates in the body, including the brain and bones. Its benefits are topical – such as from brushing with fluoridated toothpaste – not systemic, he says.

Connett and other critics cite studies that fluoride weakens bone, may damage the brain, and may cause bone cancer and reproductive problems.

His advice: “If you want fluoride on your teeth, put it on your teeth and spit it out.”

As noted, however, the medical, dental and public health establishments are adamant in promoting fluoridation at recommended levels as safe and beneficial for dental health.

“When used appropriately, fluoride is a safe and effective nutrient that can be used to prevent and control tooth decay,” says Stew Thornley of the Minnesota Department of Health.

“The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence confirms that community water fluoridation is safe at the levels recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” and prescribed by the state, he says.

But, he adds, many critics are not persuaded, and acknowledges that the United States is actually one of only about seven countries that fluoridate drinking water.

Japan and most of Europe, for instance, do not add fluoride.

“The issue of putting fluoride into the water is not a universal opinion,” Thornley says. “We don’t have an ax to grind either way,” he adds of the Minnesota Department of Health’s position. “We see this as a benefit.”

The view is much the same at the North Dakota Department of Health. Although North Dakota law does not mandate fluoridation, most communities add fluoride.

“Let’s say more than 90 percent of the people in North Dakota receiving public water are getting fluoride,” says Katie Luther, and environmental scientist and fluoride program director.

Dental health better

Dental health in the United States has improved markedly because of fluoridation, especially for certain ethnic groups and those who are poor, she says.

“They may or may not be getting those fluoride treatments,” she says.

Fluoride concerns have increased in recent years, partly because of a profusion of information on the Internet, not all of it accurate or reliable, Luther says.

“If you read all of that stuff it can scare you,” she adds, noting documented health problems don’t show up in the general population.

Often, Luther adds, studies showing harmful effects from fluoride involve unusual cases, such as a woman who megadosed on tea. Fluoride concentrates in tea leaves.

Connett bristles at that sort of comment. He says people should be alarmed about fluoride’s harmful effects.

As for the claimed lack of ill effects in the general population, he says large, double-blind, randomized studies – the gold standard in scientific research – are sorely lacking when it comes to fluoride toxicity and human health:

“If you don’t look, you don’t find,” Connett says. The absence of studies doesn’t mean the absence of harm.”

One part of fluoride per million parts of water may not sound like much, but it’s 250 times the amount of milk contained in mother’s milk, he adds.

Dobis resents the fact that she has to buy water to avoid ingesting fluoride with her drinking and cooking water. She buys filtered water – only water filtered by reverse osmosis removes the fluoride – by the gallon at local supermarkets. The going rate: 38 cents a gallon.

For a family of four people and one dog, it costs her $12 to $15 a month, she says. Ironically, she notes, water is fluoridated in large part to ensure that people who might not be able to afford regular dental care.

“If you want to avoid it, you can’t,” Dobis says. “It’s actually disproportionately unfair to lower-wage people.”

But Luther isn’t concerned about possible health effects of fluoride.

“At this point,” she says, “I haven’t read anything that makes me concerned about it, but you do have to think about it because there are smart people who are concerned. I definitely support the new, lower levels.”

Tags: health, shesays