Water Fluoridation: 6 Facts You Need to Know

 

In the United States, fluoride is added to about 70% of public drinking water supplies with the intent of preventing cavities. Yet, the practice of water fluoridation remains highly controversial, and some communities, like Portland, Oregon, have taken bold steps to keep fluoride out of their water. This post will cover the key facts surrounding the water fluoridation debate, recent activism, and the mounting scientific concerns over fluoride in drinking water.

---

1. The Power of Public Voice: Portland's Fight Against Fluoridation

Portland, Oregon, is the largest U.S. city that has resisted water fluoridation. In 2012, the Portland City Council voted to add fluoride to the water supply, but citizens rallied to challenge this decision. Through a campaign led by Clean Water Portland, residents gathered over 43,000 signatures in just 30 days, far surpassing the required number. This effort halted the plan and led to a public vote, scheduled for May 2014, emphasizing the importance of public consent in community health decisions.

---

2. Health Concerns: The Debate Over Fluoride’s Safety

The American Dental Association and other health organizations promote fluoride as beneficial for teeth; however, many scientists and advocates point to evidence that challenges this claim. Studies suggest that fluoride’s main action is topical rather than systemic, meaning it works on the surface of teeth rather than from within the body. Research has linked fluoride exposure to potential health risks, including:

• Lower IQ: Studies, such as those reviewed by Harvard, indicate a potential association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children.
• Thyroid Dysfunction: Fluoride may interfere with thyroid function, potentially contributing to hypothyroidism.
• Bone Fragility: Long-term fluoride exposure is linked to an increased risk of bone fractures and bone cancer.
• Neurological Effects: Emerging studies raise concerns about possible links between fluoride and cognitive decline, hyperactivity, and ADHD.

These concerns have led organizations like the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) to call for an end to fluoridation practices, arguing that health risks outweigh potential dental benefits.

---

3. Environmental Impact: Fluoride as a Hazardous Waste

Although fluoride is added to drinking water as a health measure, the EPA classifies fluoride waste from industrial processes as hazardous. Major sources of fluoride pollution include aluminum plants and fertilizer factories, which produce fluoride as an industrial byproduct. Critics argue that water fluoridation effectively recycles this toxic waste into drinking water, creating ethical and environmental concerns. Documents from the Manhattan Project reveal that during the Cold War, fluoride was presented as safe to avoid litigation related to industrial pollution—a history that adds to skepticism about fluoride’s public health benefits.

---

4. Global Resistance to Fluoridation

Around the world, communities are increasingly rejecting water fluoridation. For example:

• New Zealand: Cities like New Plymouth and Upper Hutt have recently voted to end fluoridation, citing health concerns and a lack of public consent.
• Canada: Municipalities in Ontario, such as Cornwall, are questioning fluoride’s safety and efficacy.
• U.S. Communities: In recent years, more than 70 U.S. communities, including O’Fallon, Missouri, and Rosetown, Saskatchewan, have ended fluoridation due to health and environmental concerns, as well as public demand.

As more regions reconsider water fluoridation, there is growing support for individual choice over blanket community decisions on fluoride exposure.

---

5. Public Health Fraud or Beneficial Practice? The Fluoridation Controversy

Many fluoride opponents argue that fluoridation is one of the largest public health frauds in U.S. history. They point out that the types of fluoride added to water, such as fluorosilicic acid, differ from the pharmaceutical-grade fluoride studied in safety research. Additionally, the notion of fluoridation emerged during an era when toxicology studies were minimal. Critics, including Dr. Paul Connett, a prominent anti-fluoride advocate, suggest that promoting fluoride as a “safe and effective” solution may have protected industrial interests rather than public health.

---

6. Growing Momentum Against Mandatory Fluoridation

Efforts to limit or end water fluoridation continue to gain traction. Groups like the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) support local efforts to promote fluoride-free water and provide resources for communities. FAN encourages citizens to contact their representatives and engage in local decision-making. In major U.S. cities, including Wichita, Kansas, and Phoenix, Arizona, activists are pressing for public votes on fluoridation, highlighting a desire for transparency and individual choice in public health.

---

Final Thoughts: Should Fluoride Be a Choice?

While fluoride may provide some dental benefits, mounting evidence suggests that it also poses significant risks to health and the environment. As fluoride debates intensify globally, it becomes increasingly clear that water fluoridation raises essential questions about freedom of choice and informed consent. Many believe that communities should have the right to decide whether fluoride belongs in their water, considering the complexity of its impact on health.

---

References and Further Reading

• Mercola, Dr. “Anti-Fluoride Group Submits More than 35,000 Signatures to Portland in ‘Confident’ Bid to Force Vote.” Mercola, Nov 29, 2012. Link.
• The New York Times article on Portland’s public hearing on fluoride.
• Fluoride Action Network (FAN) reports and resources.