For centuries, humans have ingested fluoride. Commonly found in natural water sources, fluoride is a deposit from the minerals of earth; however today humans around the world are exposed to levels of fluoride higher than our natural tolerance. Fluoride has been added artificially to many water supplies as silico-fluoride across the US and around the world as a convenient form of mass dental care; preventing cavities, restoring enamel, and being absorbed into our blood. Regulations are in place to insure most Americans get a recommended maximum dosage of Fluoride at “2-4mg/L” in public water sources across the States. (CDC).  For example, a town 15 miles from Columbia, SC reported having public water with 1.1 mg/l of Silico-Fluoride added. If the intake of fluoride is not within these levels then overexposure to fluoride will cause weaker teeth, crippling bone disease, and cognitive impairment. Fluoride’s effect on children is much greater as well, and they run the risk of being over exposed to fluoride at relatively low doses 1-2mg/L. Is Fluoride worth this risk? Silico-Fluoride is proven to be effective at preventing cavities, like it’s counterpart, but it also has negative side effects; like it’s counterpart, and most disturbing is the length public sources of knowledge including, and media, will go to mislead American citizens and “debunk” the concern of added fluoride to the human diet. Therefore, because of the basic right of free will, and a heaping amount of evidence of fluoride’s potential harm, all artificial additions of fluoride should be ceased, or a choice should be given to the citizens of America and across the world on whether or not to ingest silico-fluoride.

Fluoride is a mineral and as water flows over rocks it will become infused with fluoride, so all available sources of water already contain small amounts of fluoride, with the amount depending on the region. In the 40’s the U.S. government become interested in the usage of fluoride additives to water; like silicofluoride, sodium fluoride, and currently Fluorosilicic acid; with the Center for Disease Control stating that “fluoridated water is effective, because it keeps a low level of fluoride in our saliva throughout the day” (CDC). Evidence for the CDC’s conclusion was found in 1950 when people in Grand Rapids, Michigan, which was the first city to fluoridate its water, saw a decline in cavities compared to cities that did not (CDC). Fluoride has proven it’s effectiveness and fluoride’s purpose has been clear from the beginning, fluoride helps to rebuild and strengthen the tooth’s surface, or enamel”, and “By keeping the tooth strong and solid, fluoride stops cavities from forming and can even rebuild the tooth’s surface” (CDC). Fluoridation varies across the nation, and across the world, but the CDC says “211 million people, or 3 in 4 Americans drink water with enough fluoride to prevent tooth decay” (CDC). This is because of artificial fluoride being added to water, not naturally, even stated by the CDC: “usually, the fluoride level in water is not enough to prevent tooth decay; however, some groundwater and natural springs can have naturally high levels of fluoride” (CDC). American’s are safe currently within their doses of Fluoride and Artificial fluoride, however the same can not be said across the world. In China, due to additions from the government, and already high levels of natural fluoride, Chinese citizens are exposed to levels of fluoride 4x times larger than Americans. And no this does not make their teeth 4x as shiny. (Zhao, et al. 190)

Fluorosis is any event of over exposure to fluoride, resulting in the accumulation of fluoride on the teeth or bones and then making them brittle. The CDC does a good job to mention the risk of dental fluorosis on the teeth, which is an acute overexposure to fluoride and appears as white spots on the teeth. In extreme cases dental fluorosis can eat away at the tooth and cause cavities and divots. The CDC does not mention Skeletal fluorosis, likely due to its rarity. Skeletal fluorosis is the accumulation of fluoride on bones, with developing bones being more susceptible. Skeletal fluorosis, the most extreme example of harm that cause be caused by fluoride, needs at least 10mg/L fluoride a day to occur, and that’s about 7x more than a US citizen’s daily intake.  “In Kenya, a detailed survey of fluoride in groundwater was undertaken by Nair et al. (1984). Of over 1,000 groundwater samples taken nationally, 61 per cent exceeded 1 mg l–1, almost 20 per cent exceeded 5 mg l–1 and 12 per cent exceeded 8 mg l–1” (Chilton, et al. 6). More research was put into these areas and the National Research Council (NRC), has “results [that] support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment” high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage” (NRC). Evidence of mental impairment was then found by Zhao, et al. “In Sima, where the children were exposed to higher water-borne fluoride in embryo, the average IQ was 97.69, and in the lower fluoride village of Xinghua it was 105.21. This difference is statistically significant (p<O.Ol)” (190). Finally, it was found in the U.S. that,

“each 1% increase in artificial fluoridation prevalence in 1992 was associated with approximately 67,000 to 131,000 additional ADHD diagnoses from 2003 to 2011. Overall state water fluoridation prevalence (not distinguishing between fluoridation types) was also significantly positively correlated with state prevalence of ADHD for all but one year examined.” (Malin 1).

Fluoride can be avoided by buying water from water bottles, researching how much fluoride is in your water, what toothpaste you use, and what foods you eat, as certain foods- especially junk food, have very large amounts of fluoride in them. Even if the consumer is not affected by fluoride, and has positive experiences with it, research cannot be abandoned. The long-term effects of fluoride exposure are not well documented, with only severe cases recently coming to attention; but, a low exposure long term can cause harm that is still unknown, and what has been seen is that developing brains and bodies exposed to higher than normal amounts of fluoride, say 5mg/L per day for a 6 year old boy, has detrimental long term effects. Even if this still isn’t a valid reason to pursue change, shouldn’t humans have a choice what chemicals are put inside our bodies? We as consumers have the ability to avoid fluoride, but for those uniformed, or unable to refuse free water, a question on ethics is raised. Do we have a choice? Thankfully the US government regulates fluoride levels in water to be a max of 4mg/L, which is barely safe, but much safer than regions like China with up to 11mg/L in some areas.

Another issue we begin to see is the deliberate suppression of information regarding fluoride from various outlets, this is seen clearly on websites like Colgate.com, as they want the reader/consumer to continue to buy fluoridated toothpaste. Nowhere on colgate.com is any information on dental fluorosis, or fluoride’s precarious nature when it comes to young children. Troublesome, but passable, they are not selling fluoridated water, just toothpaste. Sandra Young, a writer for Colgate, tells her audience that “There has never been any scientific evidence linking fluoride to adverse health effects”(Young). Is this a lie or is Sandra misinformed like the rest of the American population? Next up is FOX news, in 2012 Dr. Keith Ablow wrote for FOX to inform that there is a growing concern that fluoride has a negative effect on brain development. He said that “A recently published Harvard study showed that children living in areas with highly fluoridated water have "significantly lower" IQ scores than those living in areas where the water has low fluoride levels” (FOX). Sandra Young of CNN news appears to agree with him, quoting the same Harvard study she expands that the purpose was to expand the list of already known to be harmful chemicals for the brain, or neurotoxins, this already included “Lead, methylmercury, and arsenic”, and because of the study, “manganese, fluoride, and chlorpyriphos, which is widely used in agriculture” were added to said list (CNN). Thankfully America’s journalists are on point, well they were in 2012; however, America’s esteemed organization for health, the CDC, is not as up to date. On the CDC’s webpage on fluoride, which is actually a series of webpages, mentions that “For children younger than age 8, fluoride helps strengthen the adult (permanent) teeth that are developing under the gums”, which while true, is a tad concerning knowing what is known now about fluoride’s effect on younger children. Deeper into the CDC’s informative webpage an FAQ can be found, containing the only information of Fluorosis on their entire website:

Dental fluorosis is a condition that causes changes in the appearance of tooth enamel. It may result when children regularly consume fluoride during the teeth-forming years, age 8 and younger. Most dental fluorosis in the U.S. is very mild to mild, appearing as white spots on the tooth surface that may be barely noticeable and do not affect dental function. Moderate and severe forms of dental fluorosis, which are far less common, cause more extensive enamel changes. In the rare, severe form, pits may form in the teeth. The severe form hardly ever occurs in communities where the level of fluoride in water is less than 2 milligrams per liter.

Fair enough, however the EPA’s recommendation for fluoride levels in water is currently at a hard cap of 4mg/L and a soft cap of 2mg/L, given that information, it can be said American’s are cutting it close for sure. Secondly, fluoride is found in food as well, therefore the average intake of fluoride for American’s will be within the realms of mild dental fluorosis. The CDC article at question was last updated June 17, 2017, and yet no mention of fluoride potentially lowering IQ in children, and no mention of the National Research Council’s recommendation to the EPA to lower the levels of fluoride in water to avoid harm. And Michael Vagg from The Guardian, claiming, “In a nutshell, anti-fluoride campaigners believe different versions of a few basic memes. The first is that fluoride in drinking water is harmful because it alters your brain in some way.” (Vagg). What is clearly visible is the hiding of information, that any college student could find through their library, and the slandering and rude demeanor some writers will adapt in order to demean their intended audience. Here’s some more from Vagg, 

“The tinfoil hat crowd makes the leap to believing that IG Farben had developed plans during the war to fluoridate occupied countries because they had found that fluoridation caused "slight damage to a specific part of the brain" (usually cited as the pineal gland), which would make the population either more docile or dumber, depending on your pet theory.”

Thank you Vagg for giving your audience another avenue of research. You may be right, you may not, but bullying is not the way to convince your audience that you are right. For every rotten journalist there is another one shining above; Youtuber Trace Dominguez, an associate of Discovery News Youtube, uses the first, and most important 10 seconds of his video he says, (while claiming his teeth look pretty good) “Fluoride in water might be helping that, but it also may be doing other things.” (Dominguez). He approaches the subject with a clear avoidance of bias, but a clever hook for his audience, the way it should be done. Trace also mentions Skeletal Fluorosis, and the Zhao et al. study on IQ, but clarifying that the amounts for these effects are nowhere near harmful levels in USA (Dominguez). The clear difference between Dominguez and his counterparts, is the introduction of evidence to dispute it. He mentions the extreme risks of fluoride but let’s his audience know that these are near impossible. Other articles will completely refuse to address the subject, and only mention the benefits, and in some rare cases a mention of mild fluorosis is leaked to the audience.

Currently at the levels American’s are ingested fluoride, they are not at risk of crippling bone disease. American’s are at risk of dental fluorosis, which are white spots on the teeth and very noticeable. There is also proof that American children, are at risk of developmental issues because of fluoride, including a decline in IQ, brittle teeth, and disorders like autism and ADHD. Finally, it is clear that this information is to be hidden from the public. Fluoride may not be a true issue currently for most American’s, but as the nation just witnessed a shift of power through Trump, the people need to be concerned of the control and influence that the government could have over their own body without their permission. Fluoride levels could be raised without question, or a common household cleaner: bleach, could be added to our water because of it’s impressive cleaning ability, an obvious reach but an example of how American’s have no choice, water is essential. Fluoride will continue to be used to clean teeth, as it should. Fluoride will remain in toothpaste, mouthwash, maybe it will even stay in our shampoo; but if American’s care about themselves and future generations they will refuse to continue ingesting fluoride. Fluoride needs to be removed from public water sources immediately, the known and unknown short term, and long term effects heavily outweigh the positive effects; and the ingestion/use of fluoride should be optional for American’s through the use of pills, fluoride infused water, and toothpastes.
