Nutritionally Speaking: Fluorine Could Be Trouble

Dear Dr. Meinig: I have always been led to believe that fluoridated water and/or sodium fluoride supplements (prescribed by my dentist) would SIGNIFICANTLY help prevent tooth decay, particularly in children and, now, in my unborn baby (due soon). Now, however, I have heard that the benefits of fluoride in the form of reduced tooth decay may be outweighed by its much more insidious side effects, such as mongolism, allergy type reactions, mutations and even cancer. Enclosed please find an article from Mothering, Spring, 1983, discussing these issues.

I have been taking sodium fluoride supplements for the past 3-4 months of my pregnancy (2.2 mg per day), and certainly hope I haven’t done more harm than good in doing so! What do you recommend? Natural water with little or no fluoride, no supplements, or fluoridated water and/or supplements? Thank you for your very helpful and interesting comments on all these timely issues in the OVN. – Z.S.

 

Dear Z.S.: Your fears about the use of fluoride have reasonable justification even though much of what you have mentioned has not been proven conclusively. Let me tell you why I am against the use of fluorine even in the face of criticism of dental and medical colleagues and a percentage of the public which supports its use.

There is no question but that the chemical, fluorine, has reduced the rate of decay in children but there is some question as to whether its preventive feature isn’t lost as one becomes older. Initially, I was quite enthused about fluorine’s ability to cut tooth decay, as the first test city to be involved was Evanston. Illinois, where I started my practice of dentistry. The initial American Dental Association (ADA) research project was scheduled to take 10 years. However, enthusiasm about the project became so great that after five years, the ADA went all out to promote the procedure nationwide.

To assume the statistics and research were conclusive after such a short trial was unprofessional, but even worse, the A.D.A., with vengeance and zeal, denounced, censored, and condemned any dentist, physician, or other critic who submitted contrary opinions. It is inconceivable for a profession not to listen and publish all sides of a scientific problem. We supposedly are seekers of truth but their anxious desire to reduce the severity of tooth decay led to unscientific conduct.

Opposing this issue was difficult enough without having to buck slandering tactics by colleagues. Even worse, in the eyes of the public, a dentist that didn’t support fluoridation appeared to favor people having cavities in order to increase personal income. Why, then, did a few prevention-minded dentists and physicians face the wrath and indignation of both the public and professionals? There are substantial scientific reasons.

All proponents for putting fluorine into water supplies, including the A.D.A., admit that 10 to 15 percent who use such adulterated water will suffer fluorosis of their teeth. This is a defect in the enamel of a tooth, a flaw in its structural formation. It is somewhat similar to using too much sand in cement. The deformity occurs to the enamel during the critical time it is forming, before the tooth erupts in the mouth. When the child’s teeth suffering fluorosis first appear through the gum, the defective area appears snow white. At that time, it is not too disfiguring but as one becomes older, the deformed areas become gray and eventually a dirty brown in color.

Should such a disfigurement happen personally to your front tooth or teeth, as it does in ten or more of every hundred, you would have every right to be bitter and upset about a program that fostered such a visible, ugly abnormality. Day after day, the unfortunate 10 to 15 percent realize that the use of fluorine actually was a very questionable procedure. The real question that the rest of us must consider is, what possible harm might also be occurring to our glands, organs or other tissues if one part per million of fluorine can so damage the normal formation of hard tooth enamel.

Proponents usually justify their opinion by mentioning cities that have natural occurring and sometimes large amounts of fluorine in their water but they subdue reporting the problems caused by such excess. The more fluorine present in the water, the more tooth disfigurement. Increased death rates, cancer rates and the increase of a number of diseases, have been reported to have taken place in cities that have fluoridated their water. The truth of these charges is still in question, but the facts should have been investigated in the beginning, certainly before the A.D.A. decided to promote this push to mass medication.

Because numbers of communities have one or more parts per million of fluorine occurring naturally in their water, it led to the feeling that it would be logical to put all water supplies on an equal basis. However, the process used is not the same. The fluorine that is found naturally occurring in water is usually calcium fluoride while that added artificially is sodium fluoride. Chemists claim there is no difference; that it is the fluorine ion that is important. However, other scientists feel there is a synergistic activity between compounds that exist in the natural state.

Most proponents also say that fluorine makes the tooth harder. This is not true–it actually makes teeth softer. Any dentist who has taken care of cavities in people from high fluorine areas, as I did in Texas during the war, knows that they are much easier to cut with the dental drill. (Yes, they still get cavities.) The mottling disfigurement of the teeth that occurs in one out of ten is something the victims abhor, and would give anything to correct.

When the teeth of fluorine-treated individuals are examined chemically, they are found to be composed of calcium fluoride instead of their usual calcium carbonate composition. A tooth composed of calcium fluoride, even though softer, doesn’t decay as readily because calcium fluoride is less soluble to acids than is calcium carbonate. Decay takes place in an acid environment created by sweets and refined carbohydrates.

The investigators who first reported lesser decay rates in towns having naturally higher fluorine content in their waters were short-sighted in their research, as they failed to check the water and soil for other mineral values. Lo and behold, when this was done they found calcium, magnesium and a host of other elements were also present in greater amounts. On top of that, they also discovered foods and animals grown in these areas had higher mineral values and were more nutritious and healthier than those growing in other communities. Somehow, the fluorine lovers could not see that these higher mineral food values were dual reasons for immunity to tooth decay.

Fluorine is an enzyme poison. It reduces pancreatic lipase, inhibits cytochrome oxidase, catalase, alkaline phosphatase and others. Enzymes are important to digestion and utilization of food and thousands of other body chemistry activities.

To put fluorine in the water supply to treat a disease is sheer nonsense. The dosage or amount of the chemical anyone person would get would be in direct proportion to the amount of water he drinks. One who drinks twice as much water would get twice the fluorine. What kind of doctor allows such variables in dosages to treat a disease? Tooth decay is a disease. Besides, one should take into consideration the amount of fluorine that is present in foods and beverages they consume. Many foods such as butter, cheese, liver, chicken, wheat and apples contain between one and two parts per million. Dry tea contains from 30 to 60 parts per million. In spite of the heavy use of tea in England, the caries rate is abominable. You would think the dental association would have researched just how much fluorine is actually present in the food and beverages of the average person’s diet. Dr. John Lee and the Marin County Medical Association did just that and found most people in his area were getting more fluorine in their food than the recommended one part per million. Keep in mind that food manufacturers and processors located in cities having fluoridated water use it in manufacturing their products. Therefore, the foods that these companies make would contain one part per million of fluorine from the water used, plus amounts also present in the foods. It should be obvious that some ingest more of this chemical than others. For doctors to recommend a treatment method that overlooks the dosage being consumed, is contrary to all rules of medical and dental practice.

Fluorine in the water supply primarily affects the developing fetus during pregnancy, but what about fluorine in tooth paste, tablets, and mouth rinses? With all of these methodologies, the dental association claims a 40 percent reduction of tooth decay can be expected. That means, if you were destined to have 10 cavities, you would have six instead. That also means, the more sugar you eat, the higher the decay rate. This is a very important point, as invariably children and adults almost always say after treatment with fluoride…”Now I can go out and eat all the candy and sweets I want.” This kind of attitude, in the long run, defeats the purpose of the treatment. Some thought should also be given to all the other degenerative diseases that have sugar and refined grains as their causative agents.

Another problem that has had insufficient research is the effect of swallowing small amounts of fluoridated toothpaste and fluorine rinses have upon the body. Anyone who has watched a small child or elderly person brush their teeth is quite aware that some of the dentifrice is swallowed. Even more dangerous are fluorine rinses. These programs are often conducted in schoolrooms by teachers. Can you imagine watching 4-, 5- and 6-year-olds holding a mouthful of fluorine rinse for one minute without some being swallowed? The best instructor and most watchful person couldn’t possibly oversee 10 to 20 youngsters adequately. Even on a one-to-one basis, some serious toxicities have occurred. All proponents say there isn’t any problem because the quantities are small. On the other side, critics claim fluorine is an accumulative poison. Research has not clarified these issues.

Healthy, decay-free teeth are possible without fluorine. I did NOT use it in any way for my girls when they were growing up. In the beginning, like everyone else, my family also had cavities from eating too many sweets. When we learned to replace sweets with wholesome natural foods the tooth decay stopped and it remained absent for over 25 years without the use of any form of fluorine. Not only did tooth decay stop, but enlarged inflamed tonsils reduced to normal size and became healthy in color. Colds and other ailments were reduced considerably. You can be sure the sugar and cereal industries have reaped billions in profits because the use of fluorine has taken the pressure off their products as a prime cause of tooth decay.

Approximately 100 million Americans live in areas in which the water supply is artificially fluoridated. In past years, several attempts have been made to have our Ojai city water fluoridated. This is not at all feasible inasmuch as our water naturally contains one half part per million; that amount is too close to the one part per million advocated to make adding it practical. If a citizen group pushed for fluoridation in Ojai, I believe our people would defeat such a measure. Introducing a chemical into the public water supply to treat disease is far different from treating water to make it safe to drink. Water supplies should never be subject to political maneuvering. Inasmuch as there have been no statistics to show benefits in decay prevention to adults, such programs would be forcing medication on all levels of society to benefit but a small segment.

There are strong emotional arguments on both sides of this question. Many charges about the dangers of fluorine may not be true. What should be evident, however, is that the research about this potentially dangerous chemical has not been sufficient to satisfy the thinking of a good percentage of people.

In my view, the evidence is very questionable and is growing more so. I didn’t permit my daughters to use fluoridated toothpastes, drink fluoridated water, or participate in fluorine rinses. Neither could I, in good conscience, advise you to use these products personally or for your children.

Should any readers be inclined to disagree with my stand in this matter, I would suggest they read the transcripts of cities that have voted to discontinue the fluoridation of their water.