Early in 1997 Regina resident Andrew
Seibel began calling for the City to revisit its decision not to fluoridate
drinking water. City Council responded
that the
issue had been put to a referendum four times since 1954, and each time the
public rejected this option. Undeterred, Seibel began circulating a petition,
hoping
to collect enough names to force a plebiscite. Seibel began getting media
attention. His message was clear: Fluoride is good for children’s teeth; only the
uninformed would oppose fluoridation. The Leader Post’s Mike O’Brien
typified media response. He wrote that he was convinced of fluoride’s benefits.
However, he did wonder why if people wanted this so badly they didn’t simply
fluoridate their own water with fluoride pills? Why medicate the entire water
supply? The answer he suggested was that “...many low-income people are
unable or unlikely to spend money on the pills. That means the children who would
gain the most from fluoridation will go without it.” We therefore had to
do it for the sake of poor children’s teeth. This argument caught my attention.
The Leader Post was concerned about the fate of poor children’s teeth?
What a strange cause to champion. Why not go further and advocate publicly
funded food/shelter programs, thus taking care of the whole child? Or press
for the
redistribution of wealth in society and eradicate poverty? I decided that
both this unusual tooth fetish and the seemingly persistent, recurring demand
that
fluoride be added to the water supply should be further investigated.
Flouride: The Mystery Compound
The media presented the fluoride
debate as a contest between those who thought it safe, and others who
thought it unsafe. As a citizen newly
interested in
the issue, I rejected this framework Instead, I proposed my own line of
inquiry. I decided that I would start with a very simple question: What
is fluoride?
I figured that once I knew this I could better decide if I wanted it in
my water. I began my inquiries at Regina’s Community Health office. I felt
that I was in the right place when I arrived, as there was a poster on the
wall stating “Community Water Fluoridation, the #1 Way to Prevent Dental
Decay.” I met with the staff dental hygienist and asked her my question.
Her response was “What do you mean ‘What is fluoride’?” I
said well is it a mineral that is mined, or a gas, or does it come from the
ocean, or what? She told me she did not know and suggested that I speak with
the pharmacist across the street. The pharmacist did not know either and suggested
that I talk to a dentist. The staff at the dental office I visited were equally
stumped. I finally called Andrew Seibel. While Seibel was absolutely convinced
of the benefits of fluoridating drinking water, he had no idea what fluoride
was. “I’m not a chemist”, he told me. Instead he referred
me to Doctor Tania Diener, a fluoridation proponent with the Regina District
Health Board. He thought she might better answer my “chemistry” questions.
Seibel was wrong. Though Doctor Diener was very pleasant and helpful, her answer
to my question was “I never thought of that before.” I was intrigued.
This sampling of health care professionals and proponents appeared to know
little about the compound they wanted in the water supply. I finally ended
up at the public library checking out fluorine and fluoride in the science
reference texts. The texts revealed that fluorine is a very toxic and reactive
gas. It reacts with just about anything to form a variety of fluoride compounds
or fluorides, many of which are also toxic and can cause deep and severe burns.
More important however is fluoride’s long and intimate connection with
heavy industry. For instance, early metal, ceramic and glassworks were limited
to materials that would melt at the relatively low temperatures available in
old furnace designs. The discovery that a fluoride called fluorspar would cause
a variety of other metals, ceramics and glass to melt and flow at these low
temperatures was a major technological advance. This advance was so significant
that the word fluorine comes from the Latin word fluor, meaning to flow. Today
fluorides are widespread and indispensable in a myriad of commercial and industrial
applications. It is used in aluminum production; gaseous uranium conversion
(Uranium Hexafluoride); household goods (Teflon - polytetrafluoroethylene);
pharmaceuticals (Prozac - fluoxetine HCl); and the well-known CFC’s
or chlorofluorocarbons, along with many others. In short, modern industry
is inconceivable without fluorides. However widespread industrial use has
also
led to widespread fluoride pollution, a problem existing since the industrial
revolution.
Fluoride’s Hidden History
As early as 1850 fluoride
emissions from European iron and copper industries poisoned crops,
livestock and people. By the turn of the century, consequent
lawsuits and burdensome regulations threatened the existence of these industries
in Germany and England. They saved themselves by introducing tall smokestacks
which reduced damage by dispersing the fluorides and other toxins into
the upper air. However, 20th century industrialization rapidly increased
fluoride
emissions. Even tall stacks could not prevent gross damage for miles around.
In 1933 thousands of people became violently ill and 60 people died in
Belgium’s
Meuse Valley as part of the world’s first major air pollution disaster.
Many prominent scientists placed the blame on fluoride. Consequently, many
health scientists began to regard fluoride as a poison pure and simple. This,
however, was a disaster form industry’s point of view. Any calls for
removing fluoride from the environment would significantly cut into their ability
to operate and expand. And by the end of the 1930’s industry in North
America was planning a spectacular expansion. The advent of World War Two promised
economic and military power along with enormous profits. This would necessitate
the release of millions of tons of waste fluorides into the environment. The
war would also see the expansion of two new industries: Aluminum and chlorofluorocarbons,
both significant fluoride polluters. The problem for industry was how to contain
public resistance to increased poisoning, deflecting inevitable lawsuits and
calls for regulation. Industry’s Disinformation Campaign against the
Public Industry’s answer was a well-planned disinformation campaign to
overwhelm public resistance. The first step in the campaign was to develop
scientific authorities to counter the prevailing view that fluoride pollution
was unacceptable. Industry began sponsoring research into the safety of industrial
chemicals, notably fluorides. For instance, the University of Cincinnati’s
Kettering laboratory was funded largely by top fluoride emitters such as the
Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA). The lab soon became the leader in fluoride
safety research. The conclusions drawn from this industry-sponsored research
were predictable. By 1939 ALCOA-funded biochemist Gerald J. Cox announced that “the
present trend toward complete removal of fluoride from water and food may need
some reversal”. Cox went on to state that this apparently worthless by-product
had not only been proven safe in low doses, but was actually beneficial. It
might also reduce cavities in children’s teeth. His conclusion was based
on the work of a U.S. Public Health Service dentist, H. Trendley Dean. Dean’s
boss was Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder
of ALCOA In 1931 Dean was dispatched to certain remote towns in the West where
drinking wells contained high concentrations of natural fluoride from deep
in the earth’s crust. Dean’s mission was to determine how much
fluoride people could tolerate without obvious damage to their teeth - a
matter of considerable concern to ALCOA. Dean found that teeth in these high-fluoride
towns were often discolored and eroded, but he also reported that they appeared
to have fewer cavities than average. He cautiously recommended further studies
to determine whether lower levels of fluoride in drinking water might reduce
cavities without simultaneously damaging bones and teeth, where fluoride settles
in humans and other animals. Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s Pittsburgh
industrial research lab, Dean’s news was galvanic. Cox immediately fluoridated
some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that “The
case should be regarded as proved”. As a result, Cox’s 1939 announcement
contained a proposal to add fluoride to the entire nation’s drinking
water. While the dose to each individual would be low, “fluoridation” on
a national scale would require the annual addition of 100’s of thousands
of tons of fluoride to the nation’s drinking water. In effect, the first
public proposal to fluoridate water was not made by a doctor or dentist, but
an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.
And needless to say this proposal was completely aligned with industry and
government objectives. After the war, Oscar R. Ewing, a long-time ALCOA lawyer
was appointed head of the Federal Security Agency, placing him charge of the
Public Health Service. Under him a national water fluoridation campaign materialized
spearheaded by the Health Service. Between 1947 and 1950, 87 cities were fluoridated.
Edward L. Bernays, the notorious “father of public relations” ran
much of the campaign. Fluoridation was to be one of his most stunning and
enduring successes. Overnight, fluoride which was being widely sold as
rat and bug poison
became the beneficial provider of gleaming smiles, absolutely safe and
good for children. Today approximately 60% of North American cities have
fluoridation
programs. So not only does industry pollute with impunity, but municipalities
actually pay to have waste placed in their water supplies.
But Is Fluoride Safe and Beneficial For Teeth?
Fluorides at macro levels
are clearly toxic. For instance, Moose Jaw adds 9000 Kg of sodium silica
fluoride to its drinking water each year
(courtesy
Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Canada Ltd.). This chemical causes severe
burns and must be handled with protective equipment. Lower doses settle
in teeth
and bones causing mottling, discoloration and disintegration. Fluoridation
proponents claim, however, that at low enough doses, 1.0 to 1.2 parts per
million, harmful effects disappear and only cavity fighting benefits
remain. But even
the safety and benefits at these low “optimal” levels are challenged.
David R. Hill, professor emeritus at the University of Calgary states,”For
every study by promoters over recent years repeating old messages that claim
undisputed water fluoridation benefits-particularly reduction of cavities,
there are equally reputable studies showing little or not effect on cavity
rates. Studies in mainstream peer-reviewed medical journals and government
reports now document the fact that serious harms are associated with exposure
to small amounts of fluoride-including hip fracture, cancer, and intellectual
impairment. There is evidence that both individual and institutional fluoride
promoters have stacked the deck, manipulated experimental results, suppressed
evidence that spoke against their view, and victimized or smeared those who
spoke out against them.” In short, as long as industry relies heavily
on fluoride and fluoride pollution, any serious inquiry into its effects on
human beings will be attacked, diverted or suppressed. Anything to keep us
from seeing and understanding how we’re being poisoned.
Dan Parrott
The author wants to acknowledge
Joel Griffiths’ article “Fluoride:
Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy”, CAQ, Fall 1992, No. 42, and David R.
Hill’s article “Fluoride: Risks and Benefits?”, HYPERLINK
mailto:hill@cpsc.ucalgary.ca hill@cpsc.ucalgary.ca.