Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PositiveandNegativeImpactofWaterFluoridationPolicy
March18th,2013
MichaelMannina,MargaretMorgan,NeilMurphy,BrianTrinh
Abstract
This report examines the positive and negative impacts of the United States policy to add fluoride
to public water supplies. We examined the history of fluoridation beginning with its initial use in
Colorado Springs, Colorado in 1944. We included a brief overview defining fluoride and the
specific water additives used in US public water systems. We researched public health sources
such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to
understand regulations, safe levels and toxic levels of exposure. We examined Asia and Europes
policy towards fluoride additives. We consulted existing peer-reviewed studies from scholarly
databases on medicine and public health to investigate correlations between water fluoridation and
adverse health effects such as fluorosis, cancer, birth defects, and osteoporosis. We examined
correlations between water fluoridation and adverse environmental effects. We conclude that there
is a sufficient correlation of water fluoridation with adverse health and environmental effects to
warrant cessation of the policy and further research into the safety of water fluoridation policy in
the United States.
Introduction
Approximately 67% of the United States water supply is artificially fluoridated.1 Fluoride has been
added to the water supply since 1944 and has been hailed as a modern miracle reducing dental
cavities by an estimated 60%.2 With an annual cost of about $1 per person, fluoridation is
estimated to save $38 in dental work for every dollar spent on prevention.
There are the three types of fluoride additives used in US water fluoridation. Fluorosilicate Acid is
the most commonly used additive due to its low cost and ability to be easily stored and shipped.
The acid is a byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry and new studies are pointing evidence
at its toxicity at levels previously determined safe by the US EPA.
Current research is establishing links between fluoride and cancer, osteoporosis, and birth defects.
Freshwater levels previously deemed safe by the EPA are being studied as they appear to have a
toxic effect on organisms especially migrating salmon species.
As new findings on fluoride toxicity are released, national and international policies are beginning
to change. Sweden considers it a toxic additive to the body and declined policy to add it to their
public water systems.
We have reviewed existing literature and believe that there is enough evidence to warrant further
research on the issue and raise a red flag on permissible levels released into the environment. We
would like to examine why we add this chemical to public water supplies when we are unsure of
its safety as new evidence points to negative impacts on health and environment.
Research Methods
To evaluate the impact of water fluoridation policy on health, we researched existing literature on
the subject and analyzed existing data from sources such as the CDC website, the US National
Library of Medicine, and the National Institutes of Health. We reviewed the historical reasons
motivating the decision to fluoridate drinking water, the current status of the policy in the United
States, in addition to the claims made by opponents and proponents of the policy.
What is Fluoride?
Fluoride is a chemical ion of the element fluorine. Fluorides are released naturally, into the
environment through the weathering of rocks and through atmospheric emissions from volcanoes
and seawater. Fluoride is found in several minerals, such as fluorapatite and fluorite. Fluoride is a
component of most types of soil, with total fluoride concentrations ranging from 20 to 1000 g/g
in areas without natural phosphate or fluoride deposits and up to several thousand micrograms per
gram in mineral soils with deposits of fluoride. Fluoride is also in many foods such as beer, soy
and green tea. 3
Implementation
Fluoridation of water supplies are accomplished by adding one of three compounds to drinking
water: Hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6; also known as hexafluorosilicic, hexafluosilicic, silicofluoric,
or fluosilicic acid), Sodium silicofluoride (Na2SiF6), and Sodium fluoride (NaF). These compounds
were chosen for their solubility, safety, availability, and low cost. Currently, the optimal level for
water fluoridation is between 0.7 - 1.2 parts per million, depending on mean daily air temperature
for a geographic area.15 The PHS advises to stay within the recommended range to avoid
overexposure. They encourage educating the public about using small amounts of toothpaste or
mouthwash and teach children not to swallow. 16
Cost Savings
In 1999, the US annual cost of water fluoridation was on average of $0.72, ranging $0.17 - $7.62,
per person per year. 10 Factors that would influence the cost of fluoridating the water supply
include size of the community, amount and frequency of injections, type of equipment used, and
expertise of the personnel. According to the CDC, researchers from CDC and Terry College of
Business, University of Georgia, found that under typical conditions, the annual per-person cost
savings in fluoridated communities ranged from $16 in very small communities (<5,000) to nearly
$19 for larger communities (>20,000). 17
The analysis takes into account the costs of installing and maintaining necessary equipment and
operating water plants, the expected effectiveness of fluoridation, estimates of expected cavities in
non-fluoridated communities, treatment of cavities, and time lost visiting the dentist for
treatment. Even though the study used national survey statistics as part of the calculations, there
are generalizations about specific regions that may or may not be affected by water fluoridation.
Furthermore, the speculations about cavities in irregular communities do not give an entirely
accurate analysis of the costs. This is the only study that the CDC accredits to the cost savings of
water fluoridation. 18
While some countries such as Japan rejected water fluoridation outright, other countries
considered trials and undertook evaluations. In 1962, Sweden passed the Drinking Water
Fluoridation Act, only to have the act repealed in 1971. The Netherlands, East Germany, and
Finland also implemented water fluoridation and later removed it through legislature. Germany,
France, and Austria offer fluoridated salt alternatives for those who choose to buy them; this
avoids the need to add chemicals to the public water system. Spain and the United Kingdom
fluoridate only 10% of their water, while the Republic of Ireland is only country in Europe that
fluoridates over 70% of their water. Other than Singapore, Hong Kong and Ireland, only Canada,
Chile, and Australia fluoridate over 70% of their public water systems. 16,17,22,23
Dental fluorosis is a white, and in more severe cases brown, developmental defect of dental
enamel. Fluorosis is caused by overexposure to fluoride during first 8-9 years of life, and affects 1
out of 4 Americans ages 6 to 49.
Since mid-1980s, fluorosis has increased in children aged 12-15. 28
N
o
t
e
.
O
s
t
e
o
s
a
r
c
oma incidence rates by age. Adapted from Cancer Causes Control 17 (p. 424), by E. Bassin et al.,
2006. Adapted without permission.
These charts illustrate the odds ratios of developing osteosarcoma for the 30-99% and 100%+
exposure groups in comparison to the < 30% exposure group. Chart (a) on the left represents male
patients and chart (b) on the right represents female patients. For both charts, the dotted line
represents the 30-99% exposure group and the solid line represents the 100%+ exposure group.
In chart (a), we can see a spike in the odds ratio for developing osteosarcoma for males between
the ages of 4 and 12 who are exposed to 100+% of local limits. The association between
Note. Osteosarcoma incidence rates by age. Adapted from Cancer Epidemiology 36 (p. e86), by M.
Levy et al., 2012. Adapted without permission.
The data clearly show an increased rate of osteosarcoma nationwide for males in the 15-19 age
group. We found it puzzling that the authors conclude that there is no overall increased risk of
osteosarcoma overall for males in any age group studied, but they include nationwide data that
demonstrate an increased incidence rate in males ages 15-19. The chart above appears in their
paper and illustrates the overall osteosarcoma rates in the United States among males and females,
but this contradiction is not explained in the study.
Implications
Levy and Leclercs findings are significant because they do not confirm the association between
water fluoride and osteosarcoma in children and adolescents that was found by Bassin et al. in
cases under the age of 15, with the greatest association for males between the ages of 6 and 8.
We would expect to find osteosarcoma with greater frequency in states where a greater percentage
of the population receives fluoridated drinking water. The fact that osteosarcoma rates were not
any higher in high CWF states than low CWF also seems to count against the argument that water
fluoridation increases cancer risk.
Considerations
The differing findings of Levy and Leclerc could be due to the different methodology they used.
Instead of categorizing individual osteosarcoma cases by exposure to fluoride, Levy and Leclerc
categorize cases by whether the state was high CWF or low CWF. This methodology assumes that
an individuals fluoride exposure within each state is consistent throughout that state, and does not
take into consideration factors such as use of other sources of fluoride like supplements or dental
products.
The authors admit the problem of the ecological fallacy, which is the assumption that what is
true of a population is also true of the individual members of the population. They also consider
the possibility of unequal fluoride intake by males and females and cite two nationwide studies
that show that males generally had higher mean water intakes than females during childhood and
adolescence, (Levy & Leclerc 2012). The authors indicate that these findings skew their own
findings against the hypothesis that fluoride correlates with increased osteosarcoma risk, since
males under 15 consuming more fluoridated water than females of the same age group.
Note. Relative risk of bone fracture by exposure to water fluoride. Adapted from Annals of
Epidemiology 6 (p. 211), by M. Karagass et al., 1996. Adapted without permission.
As the table illustrates, men exposed to fluoride were 23% more likely to experience a fracture of
the proximal humerus and 16% more likely to experience a fracture of the distal forearm than men
who were not exposed to fluoride. Women were equally likely to experience bone fractures
independent of their fluoride exposure.
Implications
Overall, this study found no strong correlation between bone fractures and water fluoridation.
However, a 23% increased likelihood of bone fracture associated with exposure to fluoridated
water is statistically significant. We found it interesting to note that this study also found a sex-
specific association with water fluoridation and adverse health effects.
Year Daily Fluoride Contamination Dam Fluoride Levels Hours for Migration
1985 49 kg .2 mg/L 28
Implications
The study discusses a correlation between water fluoride contamination and a negative impact on
the migration and offspring yield for Chinook and CCCC salmon. Levels as low as 0.17 mg/L
appear to have migratory inhibition effects on the population, which means that the salmon dont
migrate as far when they are exposed to higher fluoride levels. These results demonstrate a need to
reexamine safe levels for fluoride levels in freshwater.
Considerations
Damkaer and Dey confirmed the cause-and-effect relationship by means of a two choice-flume for
fluoride gradient salmon behavior tests. They determined that the critical level of fluoride
contamination was 0.2 mg/L.
Camargo (2002)
The study examines fluorides toxicity on aquatic animals and invertebrates. Fluoride toxicity
appears to be more harmful to organisms living in soft water because the bioavailability of
fluoride ions is reduced with increasing water hardness.
Justification
We included this study because it demonstrated how fluorides toxicity to aquatic invertebrates and
fishes increases with increasing fluoride concentration, exposure time and water temperature.
Methods
The study compared several species of freshwater and marine invertebrates. They were exposed to
increasing levels of fluoride, temperature and water hardness levels. Fluoride levels from the
organisms were then measured for toxicity.
Findings
The toxic action of fluoride on the health of aquatic animals resides in the fact that fluoride ions
act as enzymatic poisons, inhibiting enzyme activity and ultimately interrupting metabolic
processes such as glycolysis and synthesis of proteins. Fluoride toxicity increases with
concentration, exposure time and water temperature. Two species appear to be especially sensitive
to the toxic effects of fluoride. Net spinning caddisfly larvae and upstream migrating salmon
appear to be the most sensitive species and are adversely affected by fluoride concentrations as
low as 0.5 mg/L.
Implications
The study demonstrates fluorides toxicity on organisms at levels previously deemed
safe/acceptable by the US EPA. Safe levels should be reexamined and changed in order to prevent
losses of endangered salmon species and other unknown damage to the ecosystem.
Background
Water fluoridation has been used to reduce US cavity rates since 1944. It protects teeth from
demineralization, strengthens developing bone and even helps to remineralize damaged to bone.
Fluorosilic Acid is the most commonly used additive used in fluoridation and most of the research
compiled is on this specific additive. Americans spend on average about $1 per person annually to
fund this public work. It is believed to save $38 for every $1 invested.
Health Effects
Water fluoridation is credited with reducing dental cavities by 60%. Fluorosis, the artificial
discoloring of teeth was believed to be the only negative effect water fluoridation. Bassin, et al.
linked a correlation to water fluoridation and cancer rates in young males. Levy, et al. expanded
this study but were unable to find any statistical increase in cancer rates among young boys or
girls. Takahashi, et al. study found a positive correlation between water fluoridation and cancer
incidences in 23 out of 36 sites in the body. Harvard researchers have established a link between
fluoride exposure and lower IQ rates.
Environmental Effects
The US EPA maintains fluoride is safe for natural water sources as it is believed to be filtered
through ground soil and diluted to undetectable levels. Dameker and Dey demonstrated in their
study that fluoride contamination from an aluminum smelting plant had a devastating impact of
migrating salmon species. Camargo studied the differing effects of fluoride levels in fresh vs. salt
water. They were able to establish that fluoride is more detrimental to fresh water species because
bioavailability of fluoride ions is reduced with increasing water hardness.
Suggestions
We conclude that there is a sufficient correlation of water fluoridation with adverse health and
environmental effects to warrant cessation of the policy and further research into the safety of
water fluoridation policy in the United States.