# Portland's "no on fluoride" morons **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 23, 2013, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portlands-no-on-fluoride-morons/656532 "2013-04-23T20:17:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 27
**Author:** ![DHMO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecc23a/32.png) [@DHMO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DHMO)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2013, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portlands-no-on-fluoride-morons/656532/27 "2013-04-24T10:45:49Z")
The discussion is a little more nuanced than this thread would indicate. We discussed this [same topic](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=671570) not too long ago, and what I said in that context is, I believe, still relevant: > [@Wichita, Kansas, the Kansas State Republican Party and FLAMING IDIOCY\`](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wichita-kansas-the-kansas-state-republican-party-and-flaming-idiocy/640323/32): > > I would like to take this opportunity to weigh in on this discussion. I have been a Water Treatment Professional for almost 19 years, in Florida and Colorado. I have worked with domestic water supply fluoridation in both states. It is an unquestionable fact that fluoridated domestic water has a salutary effect on the incidence of dental caries in children. > > The discussion is _not_ whether fluoridation is effective in the doses currently used in municipal water supplies (it is)—it is whether the money spent is being used as efficaciously as possible. > > In a [typical water utility](http://www.denverwater.org/SupplyPlanning/WaterUse/), the percent of treated water used by residential consumers is about 65% of the total (48% single-family homes, 17% multi-family homes,) the remainder being used by business, industry, and agriculture. Of this figure, about 6% is used from the faucet (as opposed to lawn watering/shower/toilet/laundry/etc.) This includes all cooking, dishwashing and other non-consumption uses. Water used in cooking will lose almost all the fluoride content due to the heat involved, and contributes a negligible benefit. > > Even including mixed drinks (as stated above—lemonade, kool-aid, tea, coffee and all other drinks made from tap water), the total percentage of tap water consumed by the target demographic (young children most prone to dental caries) is a small percentage of the water consumed from the faucet. A significant fraction of the drinks most popular with the target demographic are sport drinks (Gatorade and such), power drinks (Red Bull, etc.), soft drinks (Coke and Pepsi products, for example) and bottled water, fruit juices and iced tea. None of these has significant fluoride content, and yet make up a sizeable fraction of the liquids consumed by our target demographic. > > If the families of these young children supervise a conscientious program of oral hygiene, using fluoridated toothpaste, and regular dentist visits with [COLOR=black][FONT=Trebuchet MS]professional [/FONT][/COLOR]teeth cleaning and fluoride treatments, the benefit of municipal water fluoridation is trivial (_not_ non-existent, but of negligible utility.) > > The premise of introducing medication into the municipal water supply to provide a net benefit to about 1% of the utilities’ consumers is, to say the least, a questionable use of taxpayer resources. Many studies have concluded that the same resources could more profitably be used in other ways, with no loss of benefit to the community. > > Add in the expense of transporting, storing, metering and disposing of the fluoride compounds at the Water Treatment Facility, considering that fluoride compounds are considered hazardous materials, and there are significant city, state and federal regulations dictating all facets of fluoride handling and disposal, and the net cost/benefit equation tilts dramatically to the negative. > > That there are many reasons for public water supplies to have fluoridation is undeniable. Many families do not encourage regular brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or provide regular professional care, and children in these families will derive a significant advantage from municipal fluoridation. The thesis underlying municipalities such as Wichita’s decision to not fluoridate is that the resources could be allocated in a much more useful way to accomplish the same ends. There are families for whom regular dentist visits, fluoride toothpaste and other simple measures are not practicable. If the same resources used to fluoridate the municipal water supply were used, instead, to provide access to these materials at no cost to the consumer, some studies have shown that the net benefit to the community would be similar. There are communities which provide fluoride compounds in such comestibles as milk and salt, as well as fluoride supplements. The advantage is that dose may be more tightly controlled, the compounds would be consumed by individuals who have made a conscious decision to ingest them, and the community could freely provide these items to those who desire them at a cost much less than fluoridating the entire community’s water supply, whether they desire it or not. There is also compelling evidence that fluoride is most effective as a topical application (toothpaste, mouthwash, rinse, gel, etc.) rather than systemic dosages. Fluoride in the public water supply has been one of the greatest health achievements in history, a fact which is undeniable. The question before many members of the voting public is, “Is this the _ **best** _ way to provide this benefit?” --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/portlands-no-on-fluoride-morons/656532)._