Flouridation Essay, Research Paper

Flouridation

In 1931 at the University of Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station M. C.

Smith, E. M. Lantz, and H. V. Smith discovered that when given drinking water

supplied with fluorine, rats would develop tooth defects. Further testing by H.

T. Dean and E. Elove of the United States Public Health Service confirmed this

report, and stated that what is known as mottled tooth. Mottled tooth is a

condition in which white spots develop on the back teeth. Gradually the white

spots get darker and darker until the tooth is eroded completely. This was

believed to be caused by fluorine in drinking water (Behrman pg. 181).

A strong uproar was heard when this was released and people wanted all

fluorine out of their water. But later tests concluded that communities with

high levels of fluorine in their drinking water suffered less dental cavities.

Further testing concluded that at least 1.0 parts per million of fluorine could

help to prevent cavities, but more than 1.5 PPM would cause mottled tooth, so

basically a little fluorine would be okay but a lot of fluorine would be bad

(Behrman 182).

In 1938, with this information, Dr. Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute

began to promote the addition of fluoride to public water systems, claiming that

it would reduce tooth decay, however there were two major obstacles in his path,

The American Medical Association, and The American Dental Association. Both

associations wrote articles in their journals about the dangers of fluoridation

of water supplies. The American Dental Association wrote the following in the

October 1, 1944 issue: ?We do know the use of drinking water containing as

little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental

disturbances in bones as osteoslcerosis, spondylosis and osteoperosis, as well

as goiter, and we cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious

systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure

intended to prevent development of dental disfigurements among children.?

(Yiamouyiannis pg. 138)

Despite these warnings Dr. Cox continued to promote fluoridation of

water supplies and even convinced a Wisconsin dentist, J. J. Frisch to promote

the addition of fluoride to water supplies in his book, The Fight For

Fluoridation. Frisch soon garnered the support of Frank Bull. Frank Bull

organized political campaigns in order to persuade local officials to endorse

fluoridation. This began to apply heavy pressure on the United States Public

Health Service and the American Dental Association. (Yiamouyiannis pg. 139)

In 1945 before any tests had been proven to show that fluoride reduced

cavities, it was added to the drinking water supply of Grand Rapids, Michigan.

This was done as a test. It would be the experiment to see if fluoride would

decrease the number of cavities. The data would be collected periodically over

the next five years, and in 1950 the data showed that the number of cavities was

decreasing, but in the town of Muskegon, which did not have a fluoridated water

supply, cavities decreased by the same margin. However the information about

Muskegon was covered up (Waldbott pg. 262).

A few days after the information about Grand Rapids was released the

United States Public Health Service called a press conference in which they said

that: ?Communities desiring to fluoridate their communal water supplies should

be strongly encouraged to do so.? (Waldbott pg. 263)

In June 1951, dental health representatives from around the U. S. met

with dental health officials to discuss the promotion and implementation of

fluoride. It was at this conference that the United States Public Health

Service formally endorsed fluoridation. It had finally succumb to the pressure.

Two years later in 1953, the American Dental Association also began to support

fluoridation, when they released a pamphlet, sending it to every dentistry

office in the U. S. The pamphlet told the advantages of using fluoride,

encouraged acceptance and use of fluoride, and sought to overcome public

resistance to fluoride (Coffel).

From 1953 till 1977 the only debates going on about fluoridation was how

to fund it. Most organizations supported fluoridation, and those that did not

soon did, including, the National Research Council, the American Water Works

Association, the American Medical Association, and the World Health Organization.

All of these organizations endorsed fluoridation (Waldbott pg. 277).

However in 1977, the fluoridation controversy was brought back up by

John Yiamouyiannis. A committee was commissioned to clear up the fluoride

controversy once and for all. But it did not, it just raised it even more.

Yiamouyiannis led this committee. Yiamouyiannis in his statement to congress

referring to the results the committee gathered, said: ?provide clear evidence

that fluoride is a carcinogen?. In his study Yiamouyiannis learned that people

living in the nation’s ten largest fluoridated cities suffered 15 percent more

cancer than those living in the ten largest non-fluoridated cities. Backing up

this report was senior science advisor for the Environmental Protection Agency,

William L. Marcus. He stated that the committee report not only overlooked

liver cancer evidence, but also would have reported clear evidence of

carcinogenicity, had they not fallen to pressure from pro-fluoride groups to

release a ?sanitized? report (Coffel).

In 1978 Dr. Wallace Armstrong, Dr. Robert Hoover, and Dr. Stephen Barret

published a two part report on fluoridation for ?Consumer Reports?. These two

articles were meant to discredit Yiamouyiannis’ findings that fluoridation is

linked to cancer. The authors deliberately lied and slandered Yiamouyiannis, so

that the general public would feel safe, after all, by now the majority of water

supplies in the country had been fluoridated. This battle waged on for several

years, with people trying to discredit Yiamouyiannis, but he would not go away.

The battle of whether to use fluoride or not is still going on. It has been

proven to be toxic and cause some serious health problems, but it is still

widely used in dentistry, and more importantly, is still contained in our

drinking water supplies (Yiamouyiannis pg. 144).

Although fluoride is still used and fluoridated water is still drank,

there are many disadvantages that many people may not know about that could

cause serious health problems. The first major health threat, is fluoride’s

link to cancer. The most recent study done was conducted with rats. 180 male

rats were given fluoridated water. Out of those 180, 80 were given fluoridated

water with a 78 parts per million fluoride count. Out of those 80 rats three

developed a very rare type of bone cancer called Osteosarooms. Such a rare

cancer should not be found at such a rate of three out of 80, but 78 parts per

million is 78 times what is in people’s water today, but if given enough water a

person could develop cancer.

Of course more that 1 part per million would cause mottled tooth, or as

it is also known as, dental fluorosis. A condition in which white spots appear

on teeth, and gradually become darker and darker until the tooth is completely

eroded away and destroyed (Coffel).

In the town of Kizilcaoern, Turkey, the water has 5.4 parts per million

fluoride. In this town all the people and animals age prematurely. Men that

are 30 look 60, this is due to the high fluoride content in the water. Their

skin wrinkles excessively, they have severe arthritic pain, and their bones

shatter like glass after a fall. The fluoride in the water breaks down the

protein Collagen. Collagen makes up 30 percent of the body’s protein and serves

as a major structural component in skin, ligaments, bones, tendons, muscles,

cartilage, and teeth. When the Collagen is broken down the skin and other parts

of the body weaken. As the skin weakens it wrinkles (Yiamouyiannis pg. 4).

There are many other problems attributed to increased aging due to

fluoride. Like severe arthritis. Also other body organs will not function

properly because they get old too fast, just like a person getting old,

naturally their organs don’t function like they once did.

Fluoride can also damage the immune system. Studies done by Dr. Sheila

Gibson, from the University of Glasgow, show that fluoride slows the migration

rate of white blood cells. White blood cells must travel through the walls of

blood vessels to fight disease, but fluoride slows down white blood cells. They

don’t work as fast as they should, and this weakens the immune system. The

following table shows the migration rates of white blood cells treated with

different concentrations of fluoride.

(Yiamouyiannis pg. 23)

Another one of the most damaging health hazards caused by fluoride is

fluoride poisoning. This does not consist of one symptom or condition, but many.

It begins with dental fluorosis. Then the bones begin to show signs of faster

aging. The bones get what is known as outgrowth. Bony outgrowth is when the

bones get larger unnaturally. This is caused because fluoride redeposits

calcium and other ions on the bones and teeth. Bony outgrowth can cause joints

to lock because the bone will get too large and prevent the tendons and

ligaments from working properly (Yiamouyiannis pg.40).

Other damage that can be caused is chromosome damage. When chromosomes

are damaged by fluoride the children to be born of the person whose chromosomes

were damaged will have serious defects. Other side effects of fluoride that are

not as serious as the ones mentioned above are, black tarry stools, bloody vomit,

faintness, nausea, vommiting, shallow breathing, stomach cramps, tremors,

unusual excitement, unusual increase in saliva, watery eyes, weakness,

constipation, loss of apetite, pain and aching of bones, skin rash, sores in

mouth and on lips, stiffness, weight loss, and white, brown, or black

discoloration of teeth. (Yiamouyiannis pg. 6)

Besides all of these disadvantages of fluoride, it has been proven to

reduce tooth decay by 25%. It does this by redepositing calcium and other ions

onto the teeth, but this comes with many disadvantages, so it is not really

beneficial to one’s health to use it. It will benefit one’s dental health, but

will harm many other aspects of their lives. (Coffel)

Works Cited

1. Behrman, A. S., Water is Everybody’s Business. Doubleday, New York, 1968.

2. Coffel, Steve, ?The Great Fluoride Fight?, Garbage, Vol. 4, Issue 3.

Dovetail Publishers, New York, 1992. 3. Waldbott, George L., Fluoride: The

Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Kansas, 1978. 4. Yiamouyiannis, John, Fluoride:

The Aging Factor. Health Action Press, Delaware, 1986.