by Miwa Hiroe

“The more you know, the more you know you don’t know,” a thoughtful bearded man in a toga once said. With a little nod to Aristotle, I swept the dusty biases and misplaced opinions off the floor of my mental processor, poured myself a giant glass of H2O, and sat down to consider the controversial subject of water fluoridation.

Water fluoridation was introduced over 60 years ago and currently flows through the taps in 45.1% of Canadian dwellings. It is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. Some consider it to be “one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century,” yet it is a victory that continues to have a polemic response.

“Bohemian Emeralds”

Fluorine is the 13th most abundant element in the earth’s crust. It is widely dispersed in nature and poses little to no health concerns in minute amounts. While it is considered to be a non-essential nutrient, fluoride is shown to reduce the prevalence of tooth decay by 14-40%, and at a considerably low cost. At between $0.35 – $0.80 per person per year, a lifetime’s worth of fluoridated water is less expensive than one single cavity filling.

Who’s going to argue with that? Apparently, plenty of people.

Opposition to fluoridation disputes that it’s an infringement on personal choice, citing that informed consent is standard practice for all medication. Understandable, but for the sake of staying focused on the practical pros and cons of fluoridated substances, I sidestepped the human rights debate and continued traipsing the web, clicking on this and that, eventually becoming stranded in rhetorical quicksand. I dragged myself out, only to find that I was surrounded by an exhausting quagmire of information.

After wading through, and trying to navigate material that was certain from what was probable, from what was possible, from what was negligible, I shook off the argumentative debris and this is what stuck:

1. Excessive amounts of fluoride poses both known health risks, and many more potential repercussions that have yet to be adequately studied. One example of a“potential repercussion” is that  while it is known that fluoride particularly accumulates in the pineal gland, it is yet uncertain how many biological functions are affected by a pineal gland saturated with fluoride.
2. 

   Tea is a natural source of fluoride. The plants readily absorb it from the soil.

   Fluoride exposure is not limited to drinking water. It is absorbed by foods irrigated with treated water and is also an ingredient in some crop pesticides and food fumigants, which substantially increases its intake. (Tea and Teflon also contain significant amounts of fluoride)

3. Infants are more vulnerable because their kidneys are unable to excrete adequate amounts of the ingested fluoride. A baby that is drinking milk formula with tap water can be getting 100-300 times more fluoride than a breastfed baby, retaining up to 80% of it within the body.
4. Fluoride antagonizes iodine, a mineral that people are already frequently deficient in.

Toothpaste options are available for whatever side of the fluoride fence you sit on.

It’s difficult not to jump to conclusions – to repress opinions and their resulting perspective plateaus. As Aristotle said, “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” But trifling with water is a rather acute subject.

On a local note, the 0.024 mg/L of fluoride in Valemount’s raw mountain juice occurs naturally; none has been added to the town’s drinking water. While the debate about water fluoridation continues, mottled with scientific overtones, ethical undertones and colourful tangents to boot, I can at least conclude that your personal fluoride consumption is still up to you. Hydrate happily, and don’t forget to brush your teeth.