Its the 60's all over again, as the Fluoride War is reignited in Michigan!
The Hartland Township Board of Trustees voted 5-2 Tuesday to immediately stop adding fluoride to its drinking water, joining an international movement that questions the additive's dental benefits and warns of possible health dangers that range from making bones brittle to an increased cancer risk.
Fluoridation supporters countered the evidence was junk science or taken out of context while noting mainstream medical groups, ranging from the Michigan Department of Community Health and the American Cancer Society, support the practice. Some also say the move will give the township a reputation as a place swayed by conspiracy theories.
I remember fluoridation of drinking water being described as a "communist plot" when I was younger. But the question is, does fluoridation of drinking water improve dental health? Here's what the ADA has to say about it:
Studies conducted throughout the past 65 years have consistently shown that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective in preventing dental decay in both children and adults. Simply by drinking water, children and adults can benefit from fluoridation's cavity protection whether they are at home, work or school.
Today, studies prove water fluoridation continues to be effective in reducing tooth decay by 20-40%, even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste.
Fluoridation is one public health program that actually saves money. An individual can have a lifetime of fluoridated water for less than the cost of one dental filling.
If you want to get into the research nitty-gritty, the Centers for Disease Control has plenty of material here.
But let us now turn our attention back to Hartland Township, what reasons do they give for removing fluoridation?
"We're making the decision for other people," said Trustee Glenn Harper while arguing to end fluoridation before the vote. "Our biggest complaint about Obamacare is that bureaucrats and politicians are going to be making medical decisions for us. Here's a perfect example of where we're doing that. We don't need to do that."
Ummm..what??? We've been fluoridating water since the 1940's. How is helping to prevent tooth decay in any way relevent to the HCRA? Glenn Harper sounds a bit like an unhinged loon.
What else does Mr. Harper have to say?
At that moment, Harper, who has spearheaded the effort to remove the substance, said anyone, including the poor, can afford to get fluoride on their own, first holding up a bottle of $2.29 two-month supply of mouthwash from Meijer he bought last week, then a $1 bottle purchased from the Dollar Tree before the meeting. He said it doesn't make sense for the township to pay thousands of dollars a year to add it to the water.
The article is short on numbers, but it appears that the fluoridation costs for the system in question runs about $5,000 a year for a system that serves 500 customers, three of which are schools. Obviously, the term "customer" in this sense means "accounts," the water system is used by far more than 500 people, but to make the math easier, we'll divide $5,000 by 365 by 500 to come up with a cost per day per customer of .027 cents. A one dollar bottle fluoridated mouthwash, assuming that one bottle lasts one customer one month gives a daily cost of .033 cents. OMG!! Its cheaper for the municipality to do it! See, that's why we live in "communities," so the costs of "communal assets" like water systems, sewage systems and other infrastructure are shared by the "community." Of course, to a teabagger, those terms sound waaaaayyy to much like "communism." Water users there do face a $25 dollar a year rate increase due to the need for $15,000 in upgrades to the current system, but that has little to do with the cost of adding fluoride. We continue, what other demons does Mr. Harper see in the water?
"(Board members) struggled for a long time," said Harper, who first learned about the issue from a chiropractor who also has a Ph.D. in nutrition during a conference. "Everybody did their own research. They didn't rely what I provided them. We relied upon reliable sources, like the CDC, like Harvard … all credible people."
First mistake, listening to a chiropracter. Why would anyone take advice on TEETH from a guy who does spinal manipulation? Is there a subluxation that impacts dental health? Never mind the inherent, unscientific principles that chiro is based on. Second mistake, the CDC doesn't support Harper's position (see links above). No idea about Harvard, I haven't found anything from them. The article also quotes a "naturopath" as a fluoridation critic. YAY! MORE pseudoscience!
So we have a guy who first "learned" of "problems" with fluoridation from a "doctor" who practices a highly controversial form of treatment and who further somehow connects a public health measure thats been practiced for decades with the HCRA managing to get fluoride, something with a proven health benefit, removed from the drinking water.
There is some possible public benefit here. It would be interesting to see if the rates of tooth decay go up in Hartland Township now that they are no longer fluoridating the water. Unfortunatly, we need some sort of control, we cannot allow the residents to go to other towns where the water is flouridated as if they wind up drinking the water outside Hartland they'll receive some preventive benefit. In the sake of science, lets fence the place in, so we can get reliable test results and also prevent the crazy from getting out.
(via Ed Brayton at Freethought Blogs)
