Druh Farrell Hits The Flouride Panic Button

This story popped up last week, and I had the rather annoying experience of listening to Alderman Farrell breathlessly describe the "horrible" consequences of over consumption of fluoride, and how we can't "control" the dosage our children receive if they drink water that has been fluoridated.

There's a couple of issues that I have with Alderman Farrell's hitting the panic button as she has done.

First, neither her website, nor any of the articles on the subject actually cite the studies that she is referring to. Second, while talking about "over dosage", she clearly doesn't know what that means, nor does she state what the dosage that the Calgary is using in the water supply. (Unless I miss my guess, it's a close relative of what the CDC recommends).

Additionally, she was claiming that the studies identified correlations between fluoridation and a number of conditions such as osteoporosis, and numerous other issues. The problem with such correlations is that they quietly ignore the fact that correlation is not equivalent to causation. While I have no real problem with the criticism that too much Fluoride can cause serious problems. But when we look at the levels the CDC and EPA talk about - 0.7-1.2 ppm (0.7 - 1.2 mg/L) - Calgary's standards for water govern Fluoride at the range 0.59-0.77 mg/L, with an upper limit of 1.5 mg/L, which is quite conservative.

Toxicity ranges talk in terms of 20-40mg/day, presumably over a prolonged period of time. Turning back to the numbers above, an individual would have to consume some 20-40 Litres of water PER DAY. I dare say that few people drink that much water at all! Even if one looks at the much higher concentrations in toothpaste, most people use a few millilitres of toothpaste a day, nowhere near a full Litre. (which would probably be somewhat toxic for reasons other than the Fluoride dose, I suspect).

When I started writing this article, I expected to find a sizable body of persuasive evidence indicating severe consequences from fluoridation, instead, what I find is that the bulk of credible research is reflected in the CDC, including evaluations of risks and toxicity.

Intriguingly, even the National Acadamies of Sciences report (which may be what Alderman Farrell is blathering on about makes several interesting comments in their conclusions:

The committee did not evaluate the risks or benefits of the lower fluoride concentrations (0.7 to 1.2 mg/L) used in water fluoridation. Therefore, the committee’s conclusions regarding the potential for adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drinking water do not apply at the lower water fluoride levels commonly experienced by most U.S. citizens.

In other words, unless you are consuming water with excessively high levels of flouride (some well water perhaps) for an extended period of time, the "risks" that Alderman Farrell is freaking out about are minimal, meanwhile there are benefits in other areas. (The CDC's statistics suggest that for every dollar spent annually on Fluoridation, we save over $50 in reduced dental problems) {Oh yes, before anyone starts making the claim that the hazards of fluoridation have not been adequately studied, the CDC has over fifty years worth of raw data - think about it}

The evidence against fluoridation is talking about much greater volumes of Fluoride in the water than is typically being dealt with in the municipal water supply - even with fluoridation in place.