To fluoridate or not to fluoridate

Re “For some, fluoridated water still hard to swallow,” Dec. 22

Former Los Angeles City Councilman Ed Edelman calls fluoridation opponents “crazies,” but what’s really crazy is the arrogance of the Florida health official who would disperse this controversial toxic chemical and expect those who don’t like it to dig their own wells or leave the country. Crazy is the fanatical advocacy of a public health policy whose targets (children) may not even get the supposed cure. When fluoride toothpaste was introduced 50 years ago, TV commercials showed children drinking from fountains and faucets in cities where naturally occurring fluoride prevented cavities. But kids today routinely consume sugary canned and bottled drinks (which cause tooth decay) instead of tap water.

Tooth decay is a personal health problem, not a communicable disease, and therefore no business of government or water districts to treat with a mass remedy, especially when it doesn’t eliminate the cause. Without practical justification for fluoridation, opponents’ charges of political/industrial collusion to foist chemical byproducts onto the public become credible. Hasn’t any public interest group filed a class-action lawsuit to enjoin this assault on personal sovereignty?

Rollin Olson

Santa Clarita

--

You know, some people just don’t get it. I’m referring to the nuts in California who are preventing “fluoridation” of our public water supplies.

In the first place, fluorides exist naturally in water. The issue here is simply adjusting those fluoride levels to reduce cavities and improve overall dental health. Proven stuff for many years: 66% of the U.S. population receives such drinking water. It started in Michigan in 1945. Ohio started in 1969. It’s already common in toothpaste. Heard any reports of the sky falling?

On the contrary, cavities (particularly in children without access to appropriate dental care) have been reduced dramatically. Further, the American Dental Assn., the U.S. Surgeon General and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention all endorse fluoridation. Come on, folks !

David Conlon

Rancho Palos Verdes

--

Jon Roth, executive director of the California Dental Assn. Foundation, said: “The science is crystal clear. The unfortunate thing is there are still folks out there who do a good job of cherry-picking the scientific information. ... I don’t know where the motivation comes from. I just don’t get it.”

Roth needs to examine a 2006 report by the U.S. National Research Council, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” It concluded that the maximum level of fluoride in drinking water of 4 milligrams per liter should be lowered. The report examines dental effects, musculoskeletal effects, bone fractures, reproductive and developmental effects, neurotoxicity, endocrine effects, carcinogenicity, as well as drinking water standards and other public health issues, and offers a detailed list of research needed to fill in the gaps in information about fluoride. Although the report does not take a stand against fluoridation of drinking water, it notes that it is dangerous for people with kidney problems.

China, Japan and many European countries have rejected, banned or discontinued water fluoridation. This issue should be taken seriously.

Nancy Barth

Beverly Hills

--

I grew up in Baltimore, where the water is fluoridated, and it is beyond me why anyone would resist this obvious public health benefit. My three siblings and I are college graduates, and I’m the only one without an advanced degree. Fluoride doesn’t seem to have stunted us intellectually. My dental history is less stellar, but I take full responsibility for the penny candy I ate as a kid.

Jane M. Jordan

Oak Park