when, in fact, all water sources contain some fluoride. Community water fluoridation is anatural way to improve oral health.
(Additional discussion on this topic may be found inQuestion 32.) Prior to the initiation of "adjusted" water fluoridation, several classic epidemiological studies were conducted that compared naturally occurring fluoridated water tofluoride-deficient water. Strikingly low decay rates were found to be associated with thecontinuous use of water with fluoride content of 1 part per million.
5 A fluoridation study conducted in the Ontario, Canada, communities of Brantford (optimally fluoridated by adjustment), Stratford (optimally fluoridated naturally) and Sarnia (fluoride-deficient) revealed much lower decay rates in both Brantford and Stratford as compared to nonfluoridated Sarnia. There was no observable difference indecay-reducing effect between the naturally occurring fluoride and adjusted fluoride concentration water supplies,proving that dental benefits were similar regardless of the source of fluoride.29
Repeat of Question 3.Is there a difference in the effectiveness between naturally occurring fluoridatedwater at optimal fluoride levels and water that has fluoride added to reach theoptimal level?Opposition's Response
Fluoride, as such, is never added to the water. Only silicofluorides (a hazardous wastecontaining many toxic pollutants) are used to artificially fluoridate water, and studies haveproven that they do not effectively prevent tooth decay, they only delay it. (See opposition'sresponse toQuestion 4). Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 timesmore toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Therefore, the effect on the entire body willbe different.This was proven in a study called, "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds." After thisstudy was completed, this statement was made: " ... this meant a daily intake of approximately 40 mg/kg of fluorine from sodium fluoride as compared with 3400 mg/kg fromcalcium fluoride. Therefore, from the standpoint of lethal concentrations and amount of fluorine necessary to cause growth inhibition, wide differences in toxicity of some of thecompounds of fluoride were noted." (See 3-1:
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry
. July1934, page 797). In other words, industrial waste (sodium fluoride) is 85 times more toxicthan natural calcium fluoride. Both of them contain fluoride, but they are totally differentcompounds. (Also see 3-2).Calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. When an antidote accompanies apoison, it makes the poison far less toxic to the body. Soft waters to which fluoride isartificially added lack this calcium which is present in most waters that contain naturalfluoride."The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts putinto the water supply, sodium fluoride or silicofluorides, are industrial products never found innatural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to beused as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the formcommonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses."
Dr. C. G. Dobbs,(Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England
.Jump to the