# Flouride - dental savior or poison?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [December 7, 2013, 12:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744 "2013-12-07T12:04:02Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/81 "2013-12-09T22:02:46Z")
> [@Raguleader](#):
>
> Pretty sure everyone is in agreement that too much of anything is a poison. So the question becomes whether Flouride _as it is used currently_ is hazardous or not.
The millions of deaths due to flouride are probably masked by the millions of deaths due to aspartame.
đ
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [December 9, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/82 "2013-12-09T22:36:27Z")
> [@Surreal](#):
>
> Itâs worth noting that most of the industrialized world (Finland, Japan, Austria, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Iceland, Greece, Italy, Hungary, Portugal, etc.) do not fluoridate their water.
Water is fluoridated in Denmark in Copenhagen and a number of other cities.
Countries where a proportion or a majority of the municipal water is fluoridated include Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Ireland and Israel, for what thatâs worth (France and Germany add fluoride to table salt). Proclaiming that Continental Europe is largely opposed to water fluoridation doesnât address the scientific issues.
I have yet to see any convincing documentation supporting claims that communities with naturally fluoridated water (even at concentrations higher than we would consider optimal) have better or worse health compared to communities lacking fluoride (with the exception of better teeth), or that artificial fluoridation is fundamentally different from natural fluoridation.
> [@](#):
>
> The issue is far from resolved.
The major reason âthe issue is not resolvedâ is that cranks have been relatively effective at promoting their claims (more so than antivaxers) and even getting public officials to sign onto them.
For instance, Israel will be ending water fluoridation in 2014, largely due to a push by the Minister of Health, who seems to have been heavily influenced by the pronouncements of an Irish scientist ([Declan Waugh](http://skepteco.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/fluoridation-stealing-our-precious-bodily-fluids/)) who blames fluoridation for a massive laundry list of health problems and self-published a lengthy report on the subject (unfortunately not in any recognized journal and thus not peer-reviewed).
A prophet đ goes unappreciated in his own land, as it seems Irish health officials arenât going for this stuff.
Good evidence for changing/refining the means by which we achieve optimal fluoridation for dental health is welcome. Non-evidence based scaremongering is not.
---
### Author:  [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/83 "2013-12-10T00:40:32Z")
> [@DrCube](#):
>
> The dose makes the poison. There are such things as a harmless amount of arsenic, and a fatal amount of orange juice. And water is a very common industrial waste.
>
> So the thing to do is to stop talking about what fluoride _is_, and start talking about what it _does_. Which is harden your teeth at small doses, discolor them at larger doses, and way out in the âhow in the hell did you get that much fluorideâ category, it may be harmful.
>
> And three quarters of a century after we started introducing fluoride in drinking water, youâd think weâd have some data on how common each of those doses is. Hereâs a hint: how many people do you see with gray-brown fluoride discolored teeth? Well fluoride overdoses are much, much rarer than that. Does anybody have evidence of one?
I donât have the cite and remember I am a dentist and in favor of fluoridation. Sometime in the 80âs I think, a dentist in Texas had a patient die of fluoride overdose. IIRC it was a young child 2 or 3years old. They placed a fluoride gel tray in his mouth and left him alone. He swollowed all the gel and died a couple of days later. Kidney failure. I donât know the ammount he ingested but my WAG is that it was on the order of quite a few tubes of toothpaste. I may be recalling an article in the Texas Dental Journal but canât remember for sure and am not going to try to find it. When you consider how many millions of fluoride treatments are done in office yearly and it is the only case I can recall in my 27 years shows how rare someting like that is.
---
### Author:  [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/84 "2013-12-10T04:48:51Z")
> [@Surreal](#):
>
> Did you read the OP? Did you see the word âpoisonâ in it?
>
> Read for comprehension.
Right back at you.
Did you read any of the cites provided (including the ones _you_ cited) demonstrating no link between normal levels of fluoride found in municipal water supplies in the US and negative health consequences?
For the N-th time, the dose makes the poison, and we clearly donât use toxic levels of fluoride .
---
### Author:  [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/85 "2013-12-10T13:11:43Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#):
>
> For the N-th time, the dose makes the poison, and we clearly donât use toxic levels of fluoride .
The problem is (and forever will be) the association with the word âpoison.â Laypeople want to be told âweâre not putting any rat poison in the water supply,â and instead theyâre being told âweâre not putting much rat poison in the water supply.â
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/86 "2013-12-10T13:37:48Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#):
>
> The problem is (and forever will be) the association with the word âpoison.â Laypeople want to be told âweâre not putting any rat poison in the water supply,â and instead theyâre being told âweâre not putting much rat poison in the water supply.â
Hasnât deterred lots of people at risk from blood clots from using coumadin (which also is ârat poisonâ at certain doses).
Chlorine killed lots of people in WWI when used as a gas, so itâs âpoisonâ. But itâs saved a lot of lives and prevented misery by killing pathogens in our water supply.
Mercury is a toxin and poisonous at high enough doses. But its inclusion in multi-dose vaccine vials as thimerosal preservative\* prevented a lot of cases of serious infection and death like the ones that occurred sporadically in the early days of vaccination.
and on and onâŚ
\*thimerosal has long been discontinued of course due to concerns about potential toxicity which was never documented.
---
### Author:  [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/87 "2013-12-10T15:12:35Z")
> [@Great\_Antibob](#):
>
> For the N-th time, the dose makes the poison, and we clearly donât use toxic levels of fluoride .
The fact that the dose makes the poison (I never claimed otherwise BTW) is precisely why adding fluoride to the drinking water is such a bad idea. The amount of tap water people consume varies enormously.
If we had long-term randomized controlled trials demonstrating that fluoride was safe, it would make more sense to fluoridate table salt as salt consumption is much more uniform than tap water consumption.
---
### Author:  [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/88 "2013-12-10T15:35:49Z")
> [@Surreal](#):
>
> The fact that the dose makes the poison (I never claimed otherwise BTW) is precisely why adding fluoride to the drinking water is such a bad idea. The amount of tap water people consume varies enormously.
Even at the highest conceivable levels of daily tapwater consumption (enough to induce fatal [water intoxication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)), you canât ingest a dangerous quantity of fluoride.
> [@](#):
>
> âŚsalt consumption is much more uniform than tap water consumption.
WaitâŚwhat? Have you got a cite for that? I will citelessly claim the contrary: salt consumption rates are all over the place, but just about everyone drinks at least a couple of liters of tap water a day.
> [@Jackmannii](#):
>
> Hasnât deterred lots of people at risk from blood clots from using coumadin (which also is ârat poisonâ at certain doses).
>
> Chlorine killed lots of people in WWI when used as a gas, so itâs âpoisonâ. But itâs saved a lot of lives and prevented misery by killing pathogens in our water supply.
>
> Mercury is a toxin and poisonous at high enough doses. But its inclusion in multi-dose vaccine vials as thimerosal preservative\* prevented a lot of cases of serious infection and death like the ones that occurred sporadically in the early days of vaccination.
The difference with Coumadin is that theyâre not putting it in everyoneâs water.
Thimerosal in vaccines does indeed scare some people.
But you raise an interesting point with the chlorine. How come we donât hear people howling about the introduction of chemical weapons agents into public water supplies?
---
### Author:  [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/89 "2013-12-10T15:44:13Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#):
>
> But you raise an interesting point with the chlorine. How come we donât hear people howling about the introduction of chemical weapons agents into public water supplies?
There are [dingbats](http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/02/07/tap-water-toxins-is-your-water-trying-to-kill-you.aspx) [railing against chlorination](http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/15/chlorine-is-toxic-what-you-need-to-know-about-chlorine-your-health/) too.
It makes you nostalgic for the days when you could get your drinking water from the communal pump, contract cholera and die naturally. âš
---
### Author:  [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/90 "2013-12-10T15:56:20Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#):
>
> Even at the highest conceivable levels of daily tapwater consumption (enough to induce fatal [water intoxication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)), you canât ingest a dangerous quantity of fluoride.
The 2006 NRC report concluded that that EPAâs 4 mg/L maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) should be lowered.
---
### Author:  [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/91 "2013-12-10T15:58:13Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#):
>
> WaitâŚwhat? Have you got a cite for that? I will citelessly claim the contrary: salt consumption rates are all over the place, but just about everyone drinks at least a couple of liters of tap water a day.
[http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/23/ajh.hpt139.full](http://ajh.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/08/23/ajh.hpt139.full)
> [@](#):
>
> **CONCLUSIONS** Human sodium intake, as defined by 24-hour UNaV, is characterized by a narrow range that is remarkably reproducible over at least 5 decades and across 45 countries. As documented here, this range is determined by physiologic needs rather than environmental factors. Future guidelines should be based on this biologically determined range.
---
### Author:  [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/92 "2013-12-10T16:10:17Z")
More from the CDC:
[http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nrc\_report.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nrc_report.htm)
> [@](#):
>
> This report is important for people living in areas with high concentrations of natural fluoride greater than 2 mg/L or 2 ppm. This represents approximately one half of one percent of the U.S. population. **The EPA estimates that approximately 220,000 Americans receive water from public water systems with fluoride levels that are equal to or exceed 4 mg/L. The Committee concluded that people who consume water with this high fluoride content over a lifetime, when compared to people consuming water with 1 mg/L, are likely to be at increased risk for bone fractures.** Another 1.4 million people in the United States drink water from community water supplies that have a natural fluoride level ranging from 2.0 mg/L to 3.9 mg/L. **The Committee found that water at 2 mg/L or greater may put children 8 years old and younger at increased risk for severe dental fluorosis, a condition that causes staining and pitting of the enamel surface of teeth. In communities with fluoride levels greater than 2 mg/L, CDC recommends that parents and caregivers of children 8 years and younger should provide children with drinking water from an alternative water source.** At levels less than 2 mg/L (equivalent to 2 ppm), the committee found that the prevalence of severe dental fluorosis was very low (near zero).
---
### Author:  [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/93 "2013-12-10T17:54:58Z")
> [@Surreal](#):
>
> More from the CDC:
>
> [http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nrc\_report.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/nrc_report.htm)
What point are you trying to make by posting this? That fluoride levels **far in excess of the recommended 0.5-1.0 mg/L** are a bad thing?
The salt thing is interesting, given that we already use salt as a delivery vehicle for supplemental iodine.
---
### Author:  [@Raguleader](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raguleader)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/94 "2013-12-10T19:02:09Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#):
>
> But you raise an interesting point with the chlorine. How come we donât hear people howling about the introduction of chemical weapons agents into public water supplies?
Every so often, youâll see a petition get floated trying to ban water on those grounds (military experience has shown that consuming it enhances physical performance, and thus troops are required to consume it on a regular basis, and it is a vital component in many naval weapons systems, etc. etc.) Half the fun is to see how many people you can get to sign it not realizing itâs a joke.
---
### Author:  [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/95 "2013-12-10T19:23:01Z")
> [@Machine\_Elf](#):
>
> What point are you trying to make by posting this? That fluoride levels **far in excess of the recommended 0.5-1.0 mg/L** are a bad thing?
The same site states that the EPAâs MCLG is currently much higher, 4 mg/L.
---
### Author:  [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/96 "2013-12-10T19:42:33Z")
> [@Surreal](#):
>
> The same site states that the EPAâs MCLG is currently much higher, 4 mg/L.
Again, what is your point? Please tell us all what your message is, and how it relates to fluoridation of public water supplies at levels of 0.5-1.0 mg/L.
---
### Author:  [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/97 "2013-12-10T19:57:06Z")
> [@Surreal](#):
>
> The same site states that the EPAâs MCLG is currently much higher, 4 mg/L.
Still donât get your point. The bit you quoted from the CDC seems to indicate a) that considerably less than 1% of the US population is exposed to fluoride levels in excess of 2 mg/L in their water supplies; b) that the higher levels are from natural fluoridation, not additives. Is this not correct?
I find it hard to believe that any responsible water authority would be artificially adding fluoride to drinking water already containing natural fluoride levels at or near the EPA limit, or above the the CDC recommendation limiting Fluoride content to 2 mg/L. Have you some evidence that this is being done in these cases?
Lastly, with all the stuff you bolded in your quote, seems like this should have been bolded as well:
> [@](#):
>
> At levels less than 2 mg/L (equivalent to 2 ppm), the committee found that the prevalence of severe dental fluorosis was very low (near zero).
And sure enough, if your quote is factual, apparently 99% of the US population has tap water with 2mg/L or less fluoride content.
---
### Author:  [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/98 "2013-12-10T21:39:56Z")
> [@Surreal](#):
>
> . . . If we had long-term randomized controlled trials demonstrating that fluoride was safe, it would make more sense to fluoridate table salt as salt consumption is much more uniform than tap water consumption.
We have immensely large long-term trials in real life: theyâre called âcities with fluoridation.â Studies have been conducted: lots of them. The safety and effectiveness of the process have been well established.
Fluoridating salt? Might work. Pity to deny good dental health to the children of conspiracy theorists, but if thatâs oneâs ideal â freedom of choice outweighs childrenâs health â then it could be an approach. Still, why discard what is known to work in favor of a novel experimental idea with no (as yet) evidence in support?
---
### Author:  [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/99 "2013-12-10T22:07:48Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> Fluoridating salt? Might work.
They use this method in France. But itâs still a disingenuous argument.
Thereâs more of a health risk from food borne diseases like e. coli and salmonella but less conspiracy theory and pseudo-scientific nutjobbery around them.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [December 10, 2013, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744/100 "2013-12-10T22:43:29Z")
> [@Trinopus](#):
>
> We have immensely large long-term trials in real life: theyâre called âcities with fluoridation.â Studies have been conducted: lots of them. The safety and effectiveness of the process have been well established.
Yes but we need more studies. More. More, more, more. More, more, more, more more. We need to keep doing studies until paranoids can find one that suggests they are right. Then we will have done enough studies.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/flouride-dental-savior-or-poison/675744.md?page=6)