Dentists and Doctors Say No On Fluoridation In Portland

Print Friendly

International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine

Dentists and Physicians Urge You to Vote NO on Water Fluoridation

March 25, 2013

The International Academy of Biological Dentistry and Medicine (IABDM) recommends a NO vote on mandated water fluoridation in Portland.

Fluoride in the public water supply poses risks for infants and small children. Fluoride has the potential to cause damage because of its toxicity to multiple organ systems, including the kidneys, the endocrine and skeletal systems and even the brain. The American Dental Association cautions against making babies’ formulas from tap water. Yet with fluoridation, that certainly will happen.

Fluoride in the public water supply is not dosed for individual patients. Some individuals may ingest more water due to warmer climates, work conditions or athletic events. But if that water is fluoridated, their dosage of fluoride cannot be effectively monitored. As a result, they will be ingesting larger undosed amounts of fluoride, increasing their potential for damaging side effects. We know that children frequently should not be given the same size dosage as adults. Yet when the public water supply is fluoridated, any small child could receive the same dose of fluoride as a full-grown adult.

The commendable goal of prevention should be advanced by effective routes, not by fluoride. When the public water supply is fluoridated, fluoride is taken into the body systemically when people drink water. Fluoride taken systemically has little to no effect in decreasing tooth decay.

As health professionals, we favor effective national and community efforts for cavity prevention; for example, a campaign for children to reduce sugar intake would have demonstrable effects on cavity reduction.

A “no” vote is a vote for the health of infants and small children…for the right to make our own health decisions…and for effective cavity prevention programs.

This statement may be freely republished or quoted.

One thought on “Dentists and Doctors Say No On Fluoridation In Portland

  1. Robert Reed

    You can’t beat the pro-water fluoridation crowd by arguing that it’s a poison. Arguments for water fluoridation dominate.
    The following is my argument that I sent to the entire NJ legislature and Governor Christie over a year ago. The issue seems to have all but disappeared and Governor Christie’s office sent me a reply of support. Here’s my letter:
    Bill A-1811, Mandatory water fluoridation for all of New Jersey, is up for vote by the New Jersey Legislature and seems to be on a fast track to pass.
    Water fluoridation is an extremely inefficient method of delivering fluoride to citizens.
    The fact is, less than 1% of all fluoridated water is actually used as drinking water. 99% of the water is used for everything else, (washing, flushing, watering lawns and crops, swimming pools, manufacturing processes, etc.). Therefore for every 100 drums of fluorosilicic acid (fluoride) purchased by the State, 99 drums will actually go down the drain, having no effect on preventing tooth decay, except for maybe the fishes. This is disturbingly wasteful and an extremely expensive method of fluoride delivery. The cost for this system in New Jersey is estimated at about 5.5 billion dollars for setup and 1 billion dollars every year thereafter. So for, say, a ten year period, the cost to New Jersey taxpayers would be about 15.5 billion dollars. These are the figures our Legislature is working with.
    An alternate more sane system would be for citizens, who want fluoride, to simply take daily fluoride tablets. These tablets could be provided by the State and obtained free from the local pharmacies or could even be shipped free to homes, if desired. The amount of daily fluoride would be about, 1 mg./day for adults and 0.5 mg./day for children, the same as obtained from fluoridated water. If, say, 2/3 of New Jersey’s population (approximately the overall U.S. water fluoridation rate), opted into this program at 2 cents a tablet, the cost of the tablets would be about 40 million dollars a year. If tablet distribution were, say, another 20 million dollars, the cost to New Jersey would be 60 million a year or 600 million dollars over a ten year period. That would amount to approximately a 15 billion dollar savings over the 10 year period versus the cost of water fluoridation. Even if the tablet distribution system cost triple the above estimate, the ten year savings would still be approximately 14 billion dollars.
    Another advantage of this method of fluoridation is that the recommended daily dosage is precisely delivered to all participants, which would remedy one of the anti-fluoridation crowd’s main arguments since individuals drink varying amounts of water. This would also allow the anti-fluoride people to opt out of fluoridation for themselves.
    Such a program should make both sides of this debate happy. I know that I, as a conservative taxpayer, would be thrilled if this method was implemented and the mandatory water fluoridation Bill scrapped.
    This would be unique legislation that would put New Jersey on the cutting edge of fluoridation and make it a model for the rest of the world.

Leave a Reply

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

7 + three =