Jenaroph, I didn’t see that when I looked. Guess I shoulda looked closer.
I read Cecil’s column Is fluoride in water a good thing or a danger? and wondered if in the past decade-plus since it was published that any new research has been unearthed.
Science is a process, so maybe the things I read online about how fluoride causes cancer and other similar complaints that use more recent “research” have some merit?
Mind you, I don’t think that’s the case. My layman’s view is that those against fluoridated water are paranoid and that the stuff has helped out teeth without hurting much else. It’s not a shock to me that most of those against it tend to be distrustful of the government Libertarian types.
But I come here seeking the Straight Dope for refuting the arguments as just calling them nutcases seems lacking intellectual vigor. I may be a layman, but I have standards.
Nope.
There has been additional research and comprehensive reviews published since Cecil’s column appeared in 2007 (and since the drive-by OP appeared in 2010).
Dental and public health organizations continue to overwhelmingly recommend public water fluoridation as a key tool for preventing/reducing tooth decay in children. The only significant change I’m aware of is a government recommendation to lower the level of fluoride in water to 0.7 mg/liter instead of the former recommended range of 0.7-1.2 mg/L. This change reflected awareness that kids were getting other sources of fluoride supplementation besides water, and to lower the risk of dental fluorosis (staining of teeth, mostly hard-to-detect whitish deposits seen at high fluoride intake levels).
Other postulated risks (i.e bone fractures, cancer, endocrine disruption and lower I.Q.s) have not panned out, leaving us with only a potential for mostly undetectable tooth staining in a small fraction of the population. Still seems like a worthwhile tradeoff.
Relevant sources:
The original responses to an OP citing “the very dirty truth about the history behind public water fluoridation & it’s implication in the production of the atomic bomb” seemed relatively muted to me, and included straightforward presentation of evidence in refutation of the OP’s fears.