.
Michael Berkley makes a nice attempt to frighten the public into fearing community water fluoridation, but unfortunately his argument is mostly opinion, assertion and speculation rather than based on any actual science.
His greatest argument seems to be that fluoridating a community water supply is mass medication. Fluoride is not a medication in the water supply, it is a naturally occurring mineral found in the earth, soil and water all around the planet.
In fact, the earliest studies in the 1930s to determine the benefits of fluoridation were conducted in areas where natural fluoridation was present in the water supply and the foundations for which scientists were able to determine the proper amounts of fluoride to ingest for maximum benefit.
Water fluoridation involves precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels to ideal levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service.
No, community water fluoridation is not mass medication. Mr. Berkley and his ilk have been beating this drum of inaccuracy for many years under the guise of “too much government.”
He claims the chemicals commonly used to adjust fluoride levels to optimum levels are similar in chemical composition to “waste products of the fertilizer industry.” What he neglects to tell readers is that they are not the source of said chemicals. H20 is water, H202 is hydrogen peroxide. Similar chemical composition, but one is essential for human life, one is not.
In addition he asserts that dentistry is to blame for community water fluoridation. The fact is, dentistry does not fluoridate the water supply as he suggests, local and state governments have elected to adjust their water supplies to optimal levels for the benefit of all citizens as a cost effective means to control the No. 1 childhood disease — tooth decay.
Dentistry simply supports this idea as a cost effective means to prevent tooth decay.
When challenged, once our lawmakers and judges hear the evidence, community water fluoridation always wins in the court of law as a safe, effective, inexpensive means to protect the public health. The truth is, no court of last resort (including the California Supreme Court in 2006) has ruled against community water fluoridation. Ever.
He also argues that we do not have data to know the long term effects of fluoridation. Again, here he is either ignoring the literature, or refuses to acknowledge that over 60 years of scientific data supports the practice of community water fluoridation.
At the end of the day, the entire scientific community charged with monitoring fluoridation’s effects supports it, including the American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Public Health Service, the U.S. Surgeon General and the National Research Council.
Frankly, it is almost cavalier of him to suggest proper oral hygiene at home is the only answer to a healthy mouth and prevention of oral manifestations. He is obviously ignoring a big at-risk segment of the population who are at or below the poverty line and lack proper access to good dental care and frequently have poor oral hygiene habits.
What about the senior citizen who cannot get to a dentist easily due to a physical limitation? Community water fluoridation helps young and old the most, and it is a good thing, since they are the most in need.
Mr. Berkley also questions whether we should use “the public water supply to deliver drugs, chemicals or substances for the prevention of disease.” I suggest the answer is yes — as evidenced by the use of iodized salt (prevents thyroid problems like goiter), Vitamin D to milk (links with calcium to strengthen bones) and Vitamin C to many foods (to prevent many ailments such as scurvy).
Go ahead, Google fluoride on the Internet. But beware while the Internet can be a wonderful tool and great resource for information, it is fraught with hucksters and charlatans purported to be authentic or scientifically based but are in fact distortions of fact and merely opinion to skew the truth and support a belief system rather than present true science in an unbiased fashion.
Please take the time to visit the Web sites of authorities charged with protecting the public such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov), American Dental Association (ada.org), Academy of General Dentistry (agd.org) to learn what science says about fluoridating your water.
And finally, Berkley even goes so far as to claim that fluoride does not prevent cavities. Truth is, the scientific community has conducted dozens of peer reviewed, non-biased, double blind credible studies since 1945 and the overwhelming weight of evidence concludes that fluoridation provides a clear, real, measurable, direct correlation with a decrease in cavity rates for all people, whether they practice proper oral hygiene or not.
Please do not let the likes of Mr. Berkley frighten you. Dentistry is in the profession of preventing disease and promoting public health. Our focus is helping the public, not harming it. Why else would we support an idea which stands to decrease business and by extension our income?
Based on 2002 data, approximately 170 million people (or over two-thirds of the population) in the United States are served by public water systems that are fluoridated. In Minnesota and Iowa, community water fluoridation is state law.
More than 90 percent of Wisconsin is fluoridating its water supply to optimal for the benefit of its citizens. It is time Holmen does the same.
Randall Moseng is a dentist with practices in Holmen and La Crosse and is chairman of Holmen Citizens for Better Dental Health.
.
Advertisement 
