Water fluoridation decisions can now be made at local level

water fluoridation

Water fluoridation choices can now be made at a local level after PHE launched its online toolkit

An online toolkit from Public Health England (PHE) will now allow local authorities to choose to implement water fluoridation.

Available on the gov.uk website, the 79-page toolkit, Improving oral health: a community water fluoridation toolkit for local authorities, covers everything you need to know about water fluoridation.

This includes the evidence for the benefits of water fluoridation, as well as the complex processes that need to be followed to achieve fluoridation of the local water supply.

In 2014, the British Society of Paediatric Dentistry (BSPD) called for the fluoridation of water supplied where the burden of tooth decay is severe enough to warrant the public measure.

Professor Kevin Fenton, PHE’s national director of health and wellbeing, says the agency is ‘wholly supportive’ of the BSPD’s position.

Strong evidence

Claire Stevens, spokeswoman for the BSPD, commented: ‘The evidence behind the positive impact of fluoride on teeth is strong.

‘However, there are many areas of the UK where there is no fluoride in the water and children and young people in these areas suffer from more dental decay than in other areas.’

She said that roughly six million people in the UK benefit from fluoridated water, either because it occurs naturally in the water supply or because it’s added in minute quantities as a supplement.

‘While I welcome PHE’s recognition for our position statement and know that our membership is happy to play a role, I do feel frustrated that responsibility for fluoridation has been passed down to local level’, she added.

‘Each locality will have to deal with their local water board and carry out a consultation of the local population.

‘The work involved is complex and costly.

‘My fear is that water fluoridation will happen in some areas but not others and this will reinforce the inequalities that already exist.’

However, Claire said that she believes in staying positive: ‘I hope that the toolkit and a commitment to wipe out the health inequalities created by the absence of fluoride in some areas will win over the hearts and minds of community decision-makers.

‘BSPD is at the ready to support them.’

6 Comments

  1. 1

    After over 70 years of fluoridation in the US, over 90% of children have dental decay. What a sorry record.
    But even worse, Fluoride causes lowered IQ and ADHD.
    The EPA has now classified fluoride as a neurotoxin (nerve and brain poison). A top medical journal “LANCET” in 2014 also reported that fluoride is a neurotoxin in the same category as mercury, lead and arsenic.

    Fluoridation causes enamel damage (dental fluorosis) in 41% of all children (CDC data) and has also been shown to lower IQ in children with 50 research studies. Now it has been proven to cause ADHD. (Environmental Health; by Malin & Till, 2015).

    • 2

      jwillie6 – you quote numbers uncited and out of context. Provide evidence to support your claims. Demonstrate specific decay rate of individuals in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas. You just throw out a number and expect people to believe it means something.

      Similarly, there is no legitimate evidence to support any claims that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any of the health problems you list – they are figments of your imagination. Any substance it toxic at high enough exposure levels, and fluoride ions are on the same neurotoxin chart as caffeine.

      Ask any dentist if drinking optimally fluoridated water causes noticeable dental fluorosis in their patients. If you live in a city with fluoridated water look around – do you see 41% of your neighbors with ugly brown stains on their teeth?

  2. 3

    This is what NATURAL FLUORIDE (calcium fluoride) does to people living in a country where it has to be removed in order to stop the spread of fluorosis (dental and skeletal).
    http://althealthworks.com/2366/what-is-the-difference-between-natural-fluoride-and-the-artificial-kind-in-our-water-supply/
    The artificial fluorides added to reticulated water supplies by Councils is industrial waste and 85 times more toxic than NATURAL FLUORIDE.
    Specifically, most people still do not know the difference between the naturally occurring calcium fluoride and other industrialized forms that are added to water supplies in North America (but not throughout most of Europe, and many other high-tech countries).
    That’s because the term “fluoride” is often thrown around without making a distinction between these substances.
    There are three types of fluoride used to “fluoridate” water supplies: Fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride.
    Fluorosilicic acid is the type most often used for cost reasons, and it is derived from phosphate fertilizers according to the CDC’s website.
    The other two are created by adding either table salt or caustic soda to the mix.
    Fluoride Corrodes Town’s Pipes
    These types of fluoride can be quite corrosive, as one town found out the hard way when the fluoride they used to add to their water supply began corroding pipes and damaging city vehicles. Officials from the town, Buffalo, Missouri, voted to stop fluoridating the water supply recently due to these issues.
    In contrast with these types of fluoride is calcium fluoride, which is a much safer version of fluoride.
    Calcium fluoride is considered the “least toxic” and in some cases “relatively harmless”according to the site fluoridedetective.com, and that’s because of its high insolubility.
    Magnesium and especially calcium are known as minerals that counteract the effects of fluoride, an example of how nature often pairs antidotes with poisons or designs complete foods that mitigate harmful substances for the most part.
    This type of fluoride is often found in natural waters, while the above industrial byproducts are added to water supplies, a highly controversial practice that more and more people are asking to be changed.
    Fluoride, as such, is never added to the water. Only silicofluorides (a hazardous waster containing many toxic pollutants) are used to artificially fluoridate water, and studies have proven that they do not effectively prevent tooth decay, they only delay it. Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature and they are 85 times time more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body will be different. This was proven in a study called “Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds”. After this study was completed, this statement was made “… this meant a daily intake of 40mg/kg of fluoride from Sodium Fluoride as compared to 3400mg/kg from calcium fluoride.
    Calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies a poison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Soft waters to which fluoride as artificially added lacks this calcium which is present in most waters that contain natural fluoride.
    http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question03.html
    ________________________________________

    • 4

      John Teagle – you have no idea what you are talking about. Where is your evidence that “Silicofluorides … are 85 times time more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride.

      Provide evidence that dissolved CaF and any of the Silicofluorides with the exactly same concentration of fluoride ions have any different behaviors or any different risks. If it is that 1934 study you might want to check out how it was conducted before you draw any conclusions. Fluoridation opponents are renowned for their ability to cherry-pick whatever “evidence” they can come up with to support their self-inflicted fears of fluoride ions.

      Fluoride ions from any source are identical when dissolved and interact with dental enamel in exactly the same manner.

      Hydrofluorosilicic acid is no more toxic after dilution than any of the other toxic chemicals that can be used to treat drinking water and protect the health of those who drink it. Other toxic drinking water treatment chemicals include, ammonium sulfate, calcium hydroxide, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide sodium hypochlorite and sulfuric acid.

      It makes absolutely no difference whether hydrofluorosilic acid, sodium fluoride, or any other approved chemical is used to fluoridate drinking water. Hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rock. It is a co-product of the process which derives the other co-product, phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid co-product is utilized in the soft drinks we consume, and in fertilizers which become incorporated into the foods we eat. The HFA co-product is carefully diluted to a 23% solution and utilized to raise the level of already existing fluoride ions in water by a few parts per million, up to the optimal level of 0.7 parts per million, in those water systems which are not already at that level naturally.

      It is immoral and should be illegal for FOs to block fluoridation and force everyone in a community to go along with the FOs’ deluded, self-righteous belief that blocking fluoridation is somehow beneficial.

      “We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.” – Dr. John Harris of the Department of Ethics and Social Policy at the University of Manchester, UK

  3. 5

    “Improving oral health: a community water fluoridation toolkit for local authorities, covers everything you need to know about water fluoridation.”

    Everything you need to know? I sometimes wonder if the lies will ever end.

  4. 6

    I think we’re all being kept in the dark with regards to fluoride, natural and/or artificial. To the best of my knowledge, it has been proven that it affects behaviour and is at least harmful if ingested.

    with so many unanswered questions, how can it be right to have it forced on us, especially with so much mixed information? The fact that the powers feel the need to force medicate us is more than enough reason to suspect there is another, darker (non-dental) interest in medicating the masses like this.

    I think there is a little more to this and it has nothing to do with dental health but like sheep, we’ll just suck it up until it’s too late.

    Ever felt like you’re living in the ‘age of stupid’? Supposedly, I don’t drink enough so maybe that’s why I see a slightly different world or maybe it’s the aspie in me?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You Might Also Like