Fluoride and Its Suspected Carcinogenic Properties
From tap water to toothpaste, fluoride is found everywhere. It is a mineral that is naturally present in some foods, and can be found in tap water due to its ability to prevent tooth decay through a process called remineralization. Adding fluoride into community water systems is regarded as one of the top ten public health achievements in the 20th century. Nevertheless, fluoride has been a contentious topic for several decades due to research on its carcinogenic and neurotoxic properties, as well as its disruption of the circadian rhythm.
The Rise of Fluoride in the U.S.
There is a popular story that describes two neighboring villages with similar in structures and lifestyles, but with a separate well for drinking water. One village had significantly higher rates of tooth decay compared to the other. Scientists investigating this discrepancy discovered that the village with lower rates of tooth decay had a natural source of fluoride—a rock sitting in the well—in their drinking water, while the other village did not. This observation led scientists to study the potential connection between fluoride and tooth decay.
The story likely originated from he discovery in 1901 that residents of Colorado Springs, Colorado had brown teeth stains—a condition called enamel fluorosis—that were challenging to remove. Scientists found that this was caused by excessively high levels of fluoride in their spring water, far higher than those found in drinking water and toothpaste today.
In 1931, Dr. Treadley H. Dean conducted research that determined that a fluoride level of 1.0 ppm was unlikely to cause enamel fluorosis in most people. However, he remained curious about whether adding fluoride at a “safe” level could prevent tooth decay without any causing any negative effects. In 1945, the city of Grand Rapids in Michigan became the site of a landmark study, in which the city council voted to add fluoride to its water supply for a 15-year research project directed by Dean.
This study, conducted without any prior or parallel studies to examine the impact of fluoridation of drinking water on people’s health, would not have been approved today. It is similar to conducting a massive human challenge study without safety and toxicity data, not even from animal populations. Nevertheless, it was a daring step forward in studying the potential risks and benefits of water fluoridation.
Despite the limited data available for the city-wide study, a group of 30,000 schoolchildren was monitored for their rate of tooth decay. After 11 years, Dean concluded that the rate of caries, or tooth decay, amongst Grand Rapids children had decreased by more than 60%. This finding was a significant advancement in dental health.
However, toothpaste containing fluoride was also commercially available during that time. Therefore, it is unclear whether the reduction in tooth decay was partially or primarily due to children swallowing some toothpaste while brushing their teeth.
After the benefits of adding fluoride to drinking water were recognized, it quickly became a common practice throughout the U.S. Currently, over 185 million people in the country are exposed to fluoridated water, making up the majority of people worldwide who have access to fluoridated water.
However, the massive scale of the U.S. fluoridation program was mainly the result of executive orders. As Dr. James Dunning, former dean of Harvard School of Dental Medicine, observed when fluoridation began decades ago, that: “The big cities in the United States were mostly fluoridated by executive action in such a way as to avoid public referenda.”
People have exercised their democratic rights to take action against fluoridation. In 1988, Chemical & Engineering News reported that fluoridation had been voted down in about 60% of the 2,000 referenda held in the U.S. since 1950. This raises the question: Why are people rejecting fluoride if there is evidence to support its health benefits?
Understanding the Connection Between Fluoride and Cancer
Generally speaking, accumulation of a substance that can’t decomposed rapidly is troublesome. For example, the buildup in of mercury, which is classified as a neurotoxin, in the body can cause significant damage resulting in a lower than average IQ. At the same time, the buildup of certain substances can impede DNA repair mechanisms, which can lead to tumors. Fluoride, for example, has this effect.
While there have been studies that suggest fluoride can interfere with DNA repair mechanisms and cause cancer, there is currently no clear scientific consensus that fluoride is a carcinogenic substance.” Not only is your headline suggesting that this topic is controversial, thus, there is no clear agreement on it, but also there is some research suggesting that fluoride has no harmful effects at the levels found in drinking water.
People who support fluoridation of drinking water label those who oppose it as “anti-fluoride,” similar to how vaccine resistance is labeled as “anti-vaccine.” However, the negative connotations are not based on scientific discussion or discovery.
A study conducted by the National Toxicology Program under the National Institutes of Health found a dose-dependent increase of bone cancer in male rats treated with fluoride, suggesting potential toxicity and carcinogenicity. In addition, the NTP study found increases in rare liver cancers, oral cavity cancers, and thyroid cancers among the fluoride-treated rats, which reached “statistical significance” in some cases. However, the NTP determined that the cancers were not related to fluoride treatment, which raises questions about the possible causes of the observed cancers and this controlled animal study.
The NTP study was released in December 1990, which sparked a 14-year long study by Harvard University on the significant link between osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer, and fluoride in water. The results of the study were consistent with those of the 1990’s study, indicating that higher levels of fluoride in water are associated with an increased of cancer. Nevertheless, the study concludes that more research is needed to confirm or refute the observations.
Given the controversies surrounding the potential harmful effects of fluoride, the questions arises: How much fluoride is too much? The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends fluoride levels of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of drinking water. Higher levels of fluoride increases the risk of dental fluorosis, according to the CDC.
Balancing Health and Safety Concerns
Fluoride is a double-edged sword. We can recognize its benefits in preventing or reducing tooth decay by using fluoride-containing toothpaste products. However, keep in mind that adding fluoride in toothpaste products is a totally different issue from adding fluoride to drinking water, as people can’t opt out of the latter. Additionally, we must also address the growing scientific evidence that fluoride accumulation in the human body, particularly in the pineal gland and bones, may have serious health consequences. As such, public health policies should always be re-examined as new scientific discoveries become available.
If you are concerned about fluoridated drinking water, commercially available fluoride filters to tap water can be effective. Alternatively, consider switching to bottled water without fluoride. There is some evidence that curcumin, which is found in turmeric, may be able to mitigate the effects of fluoridation. Turmeric can be consumed as a powder by mixing it with a latte or adding it to milk for flavor. Curcumin supplements are also available.
It’s worth noting that adding fluoride to tap water without residents’ consent is ethically questionable, especially if fluoride is considered a medication. Some scientists have gone as far as to call the fluoridation of community tap water as “a violation of medical ethics.” This might be why some European countries, such as Germany, add fluoride to salt instead of water, as it allows individuals greater control over their fluoride intake.
In the United States, fluoride levels in community water sources are regulated on a local level, which provides citizens with the opportunity to voice their concerns about the amount of fluoride in their tap water.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through our form here.
