People often joke about how “there must be something in the water.” The saying might have more truth to it than it seems.
It is not widespread knowledge, but the government adds fluoride to our water supply, because according to the Center for Disease Control “it has been demonstrated to be a safe and cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay.”
Still, many health concerns have been raised regarding the actual health effects fluoride can have on people. Until these issues have been extensively researched and conclusively been proven to not have roots in fluoridated water, the government should offer citizens an alternative source.
The United States has been fluoridating water since 1945, starting in Grand Rapids, Mich.. Since then, counties have been adopting the practice throughout the country. Although fluoridated water can be found naturally, nearly all of the tap water in the United States has fluoride added to it artificially.
Flouride is seemingly common, as salt typically has fluoride added to it, as do many foods that Americans enjoy.
Fluoridated water is one of the cheapest ways to ensure fewer cavities, especially in the lower class where access to medical services may be lacking. People who do not brush their teeth can benefit from the dental care that the water provides, but for those who use toothpaste on a daily basis it is a repetitive and unnecessary practice with questionable health effects.
Although the class aspect of fluoride’s benefits is notable, it is antiquated to see lower classes as “the great unwashed” and needing the government’s help to take care of themselves.
Anyone exposed to over (4.0 mg/L) ^2 for an extensive period of time is at higher risk of bone disease. That is one of the few health concerns that have been conclusively proven to be true.
There is a reason that we are not supposed to swallow toothpaste: swallowing toothpaste on a daily basis, as well as drinking fluoridated water, would put daily fluoride intake above the approximated “healthy intake.”
The National Academy’s Division on Earth and Life Studies published a report suggesting that the 4(mg/L)^2 “danger zone” should be lowered to 2(mg/L)^2. The typical water supply in the United States uses a fluoride concentration of 1(mg/L)^2. It was hypothesized by the study that fluoride is responsible for a change in reproductive hormones, fertility issues and Osteosarcoma (malignant bone tumors).
All of these potentially adverse side effects are nearly impossible to study and prove definitively. So why has our government seen fit to use us all as guinea pigs? Studies have shown that communities with fluoridated water have better teeth, but is it worth it if we do not know what adverse side effects it may have?
It’s true that offering an alternative option to fluoridated water would be costly, especially with so many dry states in desperate need of whatever water they can get.
The solution lies in educating consumers. The more Americans understand what they putting in their bodies, the more agency they gain. The same logic should be applied to everything Americans consume: the federal government should vigourously regulate and list contents, especially where matters of health are in question.
[ASUPS PHOTO SERVICES/ALLEN WARD]
