(3) comments Back to story

Brenda Staudenmaier

Fluorine is a halogen. When it combines with another element it becomes fluoride. Toxic PFAS are fluoride chemicals. CFCs that put a hole in the ozone layer are also fluorides. Hydrofluosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is used by water utilities and contaminated with trace amounts of lead, arsenic, aluminum, and other toxins. It comes from the smoke stacks of the phosphate fertilizer industry. There is no disease caused by a lack of fluoride in the human body. It is not an essential mineral. Tooth decay is not caused by a lack of fluoride.

The brown stain fluorosis story misses the point that the water those people were drinking probably had high levels of calcium, magnesium, and phosphorus which is what teeth need to be healthy. These people may have been brushing their teeth with tooth powder to brush away the brown stain. Tooth powder was sold since the 1800s to reduce the brown stain. Brushing teeth reduces tooth decay.

The latest science finds, FLUORIDATION MAY NOT PREVENT CAVITIES, SCIENTIFIC REVIEW SHOWS https://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251.

Steven Slott

No, Brenda.

1. The element fluorine does not become fluoride when combined with another element. Fluoride is the anion of fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom.

2. PFAs and CFCs are not fluoride. They are simply two of the countless classes of compounds which contain fluoride ions. Plain water is 2/3 composed of the active element, hydrogen, in the hydrogen bomb. Just as this bomb has no relevance to the drinking water we consume, PFAs, CFCs, and other such fluoride-containing compounds, have no relevance to the free fluoride ions in drinking water which prevent significant amounts of dental decay.

3. Given the ubiquity of lead, arsenic, aluminum, and other such compounds throughout nature, there is very little of which we consume on a daily basis which does not contain trace amounts of these substances. This is precisely why the EPA has set maximum allowable levels of safety at which such substances may exist within drinking water at the tap. The reality is that the levels of any contaminants present in water fluoridated with hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) are so far below these mandated maximum allowable levels that it is not even a certainty that these substances are not those that already exist in the water naturally.

4. HFA does not come from the smokestacks of anything. It is a compound produced for very specific purposes, water fluoridation being but one.

5. Yes, there is, indeed, disease caused by too little fluoride in the body. Risk of bone fracture is higher with too little fluoride in the body. This, however, is not the point of disease prevention measures such as water fluoridation. Polio is not caused by a lack of the Salk vaccine in the body. This fact does not mean that this vaccine should not be utilized to prevent polio from occurring. Likewise, because a lack of fluoride does not cause dental decay, does not mean that water fluoridation should not be utilized to prevent this disease.

6. Extensive study of the increased resistance to decay by those teeth with the “brown stain fluorosis” controlled for other substances which could have been responsible for this resistance, and ruled them out. Countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies since that time, also controlling for these other factors, have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of significant amounts of dental decay in entire populations.

8. The 5 year old “Newsweek” article to which you provide a link was written by freelance writer/antifluoridationist, Douglas Main, notorious for his antifluoridation articles in dubious online publications such as “Natural News”. The article, quoting a number of well-known antifluoridationists, contains a litany of misleading and false claims, was not peer-reviewed, and was little more than shoddy, tabloid journalism. Why the once proud “Newsweek” sunk to such depths is a mystery. However, such an article is a clear example of the “science” which antifluoridationists claim supports their position. Rather than reading such a biased misrepresentation of scientific study, intelligent readers would be far better served by reading the original study itself. There is an obvious reason why antifluoridationists cite a “Newsweek” article interpretation of the 2015 Cochrane Review instead of citing the original review, itself.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Chris Pease

Okay people fluoride is a mineral. It was discovered in the Southwest it was a community a people that never seem to have any teeth problems but their teeth were turning dark. Eventually they figured out it was from fluoride in the water. Researchers discovered the proper amount to help your teeth which it's a mineral that would not cause discoloration or be too much. the fluoride at that time to not hurt these people. It just made their teeth dark. People act like it's some man-made chemicals. It's getting so ridiculous between this and the anti-vacs people. You all have sick kids with rotten teeth 🙄

Welcome to the discussion.

We welcome reader interaction. What are your questions about this article? Do you have an idea to share? Please stick to the topic and maintain a respectful attitude toward other participants. (You can help: Use the 'Report' link to let us know of off-topic or offensive posts.)