Musings: Be cautious of warnings about water fluoridation
One should check facts about water fluoridation. Credit: Jacek Dilag
The letter “Beware of water fluoridation” [Musings, Nov. 4] was filled with misinformation, cited a single poorly done study, and made accusations and conclusions not supported by science. The writer stated that “70% of U.S. children and adolescents are fluoride overdosed, afflicted with fluorosis — discolored teeth . . . ” As a dentist for more than 40 years, I can say this is totally untrue.
Critics claim there is a link between fluoride in water and lower IQs. But water has been fluoridated in the United States for more than 75 years, yet studies have shown that throughout the 20th century, IQs steadily rose every decade. That couldn’t happen if fluoride was negatively affecting IQs.
The National Toxicology Program has acknowledged that its study of fluoride exposure at recommended levels of 0.7 parts per million did not demonstrate harmful effects on cognitive development. Just to make clearer what 0.7 ppm is, it’s comparable to 1 inch in 23 miles or 1 minute in 1,000 days.
Fluoridating water is like fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D, or orange juice with calcium. Fluoridated water benefits everyone, but especially those without access to regular dental care and effective dental products.
Public health policy is built on the weight of scientific evidence, not a single study. Decades of research and practical experience indicate fluoridation is effective in reducing cavities by 25% for adults and children drinking fluoridated water compared with those living in communities that are not fluoridated. If we had an additive that could reduce cancer by 25%, we’d be clamoring to have it added to our water.
An analysis of Medicaid claims in three states found that children living in fluoridated communities had lower treatment costs related to tooth decay than did similar children living in non-fluoridated communities. In addition, the cost of a lifetime of fluoridation for one person is less than the cost of one filling.
There is nothing wrong with healthy skepticism, but the public must be cautious of “pseudo-science” that is not based on research conducted according to impartial and evidence-based scientific methodology. The conclusions drawn from such studies are not always scientifically justifiable or without bias.
— Dr. Eugene G. Porcelli, Garden City
The writer is executive director of the Nassau County Dental Society.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO JOIN OUR DAILY CONVERSATION. Just go to newsday.com/submitaletter and follow the prompts. Or email your opinion to letters@newsday.com. Submissions should be no more than 200 words. Please provide your full name, hometown, phone number and any relevant expertise or affiliation. Include the headline and date of the article you are responding to. Letters become the property of Newsday and are edited for all media. Due to volume, readers are limited to one letter in print every 45 days. Published letters reflect the ratio received on each topic.
