Study nears completion on fluoridation of water supply
The results of a £50,000 study into fluoridating water supplies should be finished later this year.
Health officials have been working with water companies since early 2008 on the costs and practicalities of adding fluoride to public water supplies.
-
They are now deciding whether the benefits of fluoridation would outweigh the cost – which would be borne by health trusts.
Supporters of fluoridation said it was necessary to reduce tooth decay.
Critics said it might harm people's health and was not effective enough to justify the cost.
The study is being led by officials at NHS Nottingham City on behalf of all nine primary care trusts in the East Midlands.
Alison Challenger, a consultant in public health who is involved in the study, said: "The technical assessment work is done. This looks at how and where fluoride might be added to water.
"We have had to look at the cost of setting up plants, where they would be and the cost of ongoing maintenance.
"Each primary care trust area is different and some may decide they do not want to fluoridate supplies.
"It may be that it is decided health promotion is more cost-effective. Those decisions will be down to individual trusts.
"The feasibility study will produce a report for each area so that it can discussed and debated locally."
Philip Martin, a dentist in Braunstone and chairman of Leicestershire local dental committee, said: "The dental profession is very keen on the idea of fluoridation of water supplies as a method which would benefit patients and prevent the early loss of teeth and other problems.
"I'm disappointed that it didn't happen years ago."
The National Pure Water Association campaigns against fluoridation.
A spokesman said: "There is no high-quality scientific evidence that fluoridation makes a difference. American research shows that for disease control fluoride has to be applied to the tooth surface and that doesn't happen with drinking water.
"It should also be remembered that fluoride is a toxin."
The British Dental Health Foundation website said studies carried out for the Government by York University and the Medical Research Council failed to find any evidence that fluoride added to water caused harmful side effects.
It said: "Opponents of fluoridation claim they have firm evidence that fluoride added to water is harmful.
"Scientific analysis has not supported their claims."
Worldwide, more than 300 million people drink fluoridated water supplies which has "led to improved levels of dental health", it said.
A spokesman for Severn Trent Water said: "All decisions on whether to fluoridate are made by strategic health authorities and fluoridation can only happen under their direction. Water companies are obliged to fluoridate if directed to do so."
He added that it was possible to fluoridate only parts of a county's water supply.
To read the Medical Research Council's report, go to:
www.mrc.ac.uk
9 Comments
by Adrian, Leicester
Friday, August 13 2010, 2:42PM
“Fluoide puts acoating on bones also that is not a benefit to man and it is also an industry waste. So its just a way of disposing of another watse product and another way of disposing of the population”
by Elizabeth McDonagh, Doncaster
Thursday, August 12 2010, 5:27PM
“Fluorides, in general, have an acute toxicity between that of arsenic and lead (1). Whereas the concentrations of arsenic and lead are limited, by the 1998 Drinking Water Directive, to 10 and 25 parts per billion (ppb) respectively, fluoridation would see the level of fluoride increased to 1,000 ppb or one part per million (ppm). On the basis of toxicity fluoridation doesn¿t make sense.
According to Featherstone, J.D.(2) ¿ The level of fluoride incorporated into dental mineral by systemic ingestion is insufficient to play a significant role in caries prevention. The effect of systemically ingested fluoride on caries is minimal.¿ which means there is no point in swallowing fluoride. The 2003 Cochrane Collaboration review of fluoride toothpastes (3) revealed that, for effective cariostic properties, toothpaste requires a fluoride concentration of over 1,000 ppm!
Scientists who carried out the York Review (4) published in 2000, found that dental fluorosis occurred in non-fluoridated areas (probably because children swallow toothpaste) and that it was higher in fluoridated areas where 48% of children had some degree of mottling and dental fluorosis ¿of aesthetic concern¿ was present in 12.5%. More recently, the American Dental Association and the British Fluoridation Society have conceded that bottle-fed babies may be at risk of dental fluorosis if their formula feed is mixed with fluoridated water.
¿York¿ failed, after 55 years of fluoridation, to identify one high-quality scientific study to support claims of efficacy or safety and called for further research. The MRC Report (5), on the basis of no further evidence, advised the Government that only two studies (on the public perception of dental fluorosis and on the bioavailability of fluoride) were necessary.
In 2006, the (US) National Research Council published ¿Fluoride in Drinking Water¿(6), a 500 page review of research into the toxicity of fluoride and a critique of the Environmental Protection Agency¿s (4ppm) maximum standard for fluoride in drinking water. This work confirms the cumulative nature of fluoride and points up a number of concerns including fluoride¿s effects on the thyroid and pineal glands. It also describes a number of conditions which would make individuals atypically more susceptible to fluoride¿s adverse effects. We obtain fluoride from many sources besides drinking water and fluoridation gives no control of any individual¿s intake.
Only about 1% of the public water supply is drunk. This means that 99% of the industrial grade fluorosilicic acid added to the water in fluoridation schemes goes directly into the environment and cannot possibly have any benefit to teeth. What a waste of NHS funds!
Nick Clegg, on 19 May, said the coalition ¿will ask you which laws you think should go¿. The National Pure Water Association is calling for repeal of section 58 of the Water Act 2003 and the two Statutory Instruments associated with that Act. Fluoridation is an outdated concept which is ineffective, unscientific, undemocratic, unsafe and wasteful.
Elizabeth McDonagh BSc(Hons), Cert. Ed.
Chairman, National Pure Water Association www.npwa.org.uk
References
1. Gosselin, R.E., H.C. Hodge, and R.P. Smith. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. 5th Ed. Williams and Wilkins, Co. Baltimore. 1984.
2. Featherstone JD. Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1999;27:31-40.
3. Marinho VCC, Higgins JPT, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2003, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD002278. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002278.
4. York 2000. The NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York - A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation (2000).
5. MRC Working Group Report Water Fluoridation a”
by A. Saxon, Laegrecastrescir
Monday, August 09 2010, 5:13PM
“It's not just fluoridation - how many people realise that the water companies are already treating our drinking water with chemicals, interfering with every Anglo-Saxon Englishman's God-given right to catch cholera?”
by Avtar, Oadby
Monday, August 09 2010, 4:37PM
“How dare you assume you are worthy to question their decisions, don't you know these people are your betters? What do you think this is, a democracy?!?”
by CGLee, near Melton
Monday, August 09 2010, 2:49PM
“This has been going on sine the sixties. Mass medication is unacceptable. There are enough toothpastes containing fluoride that people can choose to use or not as they wish.”
by Jon, leics
Monday, August 09 2010, 2:14PM
“Why have they spent all that money doing a study when all they had to do is ask one of the authorities that have already been doing it for many decades - Birmingham for instance.”
by Kulgan, Crydee
Monday, August 09 2010, 11:56AM
“I am sure your question was rhetorical Anon.”
by anon, anon
Monday, August 09 2010, 11:38AM
“forced medication is wrong, simple. if they flouridate the water will i be able to refuse to pay my water rates?”
by davieG, Leicester
Monday, August 09 2010, 9:57AM
“What a waste of £50k of public money, we don't want mass medication, if people aren't prepared to look after their own teeth - tough.
If there was a chemical to stop people getting fat would you want to put that in the water?
Find another job and stop wasting tax payers money.”