If you happen to be reading this article while drinking at one of Santa Monica College’s fine public water fountains, or any other in the city, you might want to finish reading before you take another sip.
Santa Monica’s main water wells have been shut down since 1996. This was due to the discovery of alarming levels of the chemical methyl turt-butyl ether in several of its Charnock sub-basin drinking water wells. MTBE, as its known, is a toxic gasoline additive that had leaked through the walls of underground storage tanks. Since this discovery, the companies responsible have been forced by the Environmental Protection Agency to pay over 3 million dollars a year to fund replacement water to Culver City and Santa Monica residents. The responsible parties must also investigate and restore the existing contaminated wells. The water that local residents are now using comes from several treatment plants regulated by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). But since this change and its preceding incident, one wonders if the water we are now getting is any less toxic than the subterranean water in the local wells.
It seems that in this day and age, you may not even get to pick your poison. As of November 2007, the MWD has been systematically adding hydrofluorosilic acid into the county’s water supply. This process is commonly known as fluoridation. The decision was voted on in 2003 by the MWD after hearing from both sides of the subject. Although water fluoridation has been implemented in at least 42 out of 50 states as of 2002, its health benefits are still widely disputed.
The concept of water fluoridation got its start in 1909 after Dr. Frederick McKay began pushing the dental community to investigate a local condition affecting children in the Pikes Peak region known as “Colorado Brown Stain,” which is now known as dental fluorosis. Out of almost three thousand children, 87.5% had standard symptoms of fluoride overdose in their teeth that causes mottling, stains and even cracking of the teeth in its worst cases. Despite the stains and mottling, the children with fluorosis had fewer cavities than the others. The cause of the stain was originally thought to be from poor diet, radium exposure or childhood diseases, but after a study done by the Aluminum Company of America, the condition was found to be caused by a large concentration of fluoride in their water. The United States Department of Health approved fluoridation before any clinical studies had been completed or observed.
Some water has naturally occurring fluoride in very small levels, about 0.2 to 0.4 milligrams per liter. The levels in Santa Monica have been raised to a level deemed optimal for oral health, 0.7 to 0.8 mg/L, yet the consistency of the dosage of fluoride at this level cannot be maintained or monitored once it is in the water supply. This is dangerous for several reasons. What most people don’t know is that fluoride a toxic substance, and the fluoride used in fluoridation is not pharmaceutical grade but a byproduct of the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid, both of which are classified as hazardous wastes, and are contaminated with impurities like arsenic. These industrial grade chemicals are put into the water supply with the intent of positive effects on dental health.
The National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay in children in non-fluoridated and fluoridated communities. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has acknowledged the findings of leading dental researchers that states that the benefits of fluoride are primarily topical, not systemic. If the dental effects of fluoride are most effective topically, the question remains, why are the members of the population being mass medicated by means of ingesting drinking water? Since ingesting fluoride is not necessary for tooth care, is it necessary to force medicate people without their permission? Without their individual consent, this is considered unethical in the medical field. Why would dentists advocate a treatment that would take business from them? Over 90 percent of Western Europe has rejected fluoridation for this reason and lack of scientific evidence supporting its benefits. In the countries that had used fluoridation and later rejected it, dental decay has not diminished.
The Food and Drug Administration has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe. In an interview with the Santa Monica Daily Press, Edgar G. Dymally, senior environmental specialist with water quality for MWD stated, “There has been no credible evidence presented to us or the water community indicating that drinking water fortified with fluoride is deleterious to public health.”
On the other side of the issue, there are many studies that have been performed disputing the safety of fluoridation. The level of fluoride put into water is 200 times greater the amount naturally present in mother’s milk (.005-.01 ppm naturally as compared to 1 ppm). Most people believe that our bodies process the fluoride after passing through the teeth. As it turns out, the kidneys only excrete half of the daily intake of fluoride. This is startling news considering fluoride is a cumulative poison. Just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a small child while a teaspoon full, about three to five grams, will kill an adult. The sole ingredient in rat poison is sodium fluoride. Fluoride has also been found to give aluminum fluoride complexes that distort and block neurochemical signals, some of which have been linked to Alzheimer’s. Even minor levels of fluoride affect biological function, interfering with the bonding of hydrogen and inhibiting certain enzymes. Fluoridation has also been linked to many cases of skeletal fluorosis, which is a bone and joint disease that is often misdiagnosed as arthritis. One in three Americans has some form or “arthritis,” according to the CDC. The fluoridation process is very poorly monitored and malfunctions in the system have caused severe illness and even death in certain cases. The union representing the scientists at EPA headquarters in Washington D.C. has gone on record opposing water fluoridation.
With so much evidence opposing fluoridation, one might think that there would be more public outcry over the issue. Unfortunately, many health professionals who have spoken out against it have been censored or intimidated into keeping quiet. In an interview with Santa Monica Daily Press, Gene Burke of Santa Monicans for Safe Drinking Water Coalition said, “We feel there are all sorts of misrepresentations and omissions of fact amid a lack of transparency in this fluoridation process. The MWD has not done their due diligence in investigating this and it’s urgent that they do that.”
It might seem at this point that there is no escaping fluoride. The water is same water most residents bathe and wash their food in. There also the danger of ingesting uncertain amounts of fluoride from foods processed with fluoridated water. Some bottled water companies have begun fluoridating their water, in an industry that is unregulated. But there are things that people can do if they choose to avoid this chemical, like becoming informed and speaking out. Even buying a reverse osmosis water filter will reduce fluoride levels. But if change is what you want, why not go to the source. After all, isn’t that where it’s bottled? For more information on fluoride, please visit www.epa.gov or www.fluoridealert.com
|
