Real Crime Stories/Paranormal Hauntings/Conspiracy Theories Book II

Water Fluoridation Controversy-Conspiracy

The water fluoridation controversyarises from political, moral, ethical, economic, and healthconsiderations regarding the fluoridation of public water supplies.

For deprived groups in both maturingand matured countries, international and national agencies and dentalassociations across the world support the safety and effectiveness ofwater fluoridation. Proponents of water fluoridation see it as aquestion of public health policy and equate the issue to vaccinationand food fortification, claiming significant benefits to dentalhealth and minimal risks.

In contrast, opponents of waterfluoridation view it as an infringement of individual rights, if notan outright violation of medical ethics, on the basis thatindividuals have no choice in the water that they drink, unless theydrink more expensive bottled water. A small minority of scientistshave challenged the medical consensus, variously claiming that waterfluoridation has no or little cariostatic benefits, may cause serioushealth problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and ispharmacologically obsolete.

Opposition to fluoridation has existedsince its initiation in the 1940s. During the 1950s and 1960s,conspiracy theorists claimed that fluoridation was a communist plotto undermine American public health. In recent years waterfluoridation has become a prevalent health and political issue inmany countries, resulting in some countries and communitiesdiscontinuing its use while others have expanded it. The controversyis propelled by a significant public opposition supported by aminority of professionals, which include researchers, dental andmedical professionals, alternative medical practitioners, health foodenthusiasts, a few religious groups (mostly Christian Scientists inthe U.S.), and occasionally consumer groups and environmentalists. Organized political opposition has come from libertarians, the JohnBirch Society, and from groups like the Green parties in the UK andNew Zealand.

Proponents and opponents have been bothcriticized for overstating the benefits or overstating the risks, andunderstating the other, respectively. Systematic reviews have citedthe lack of high quality research for the benefits and risks of waterfluoridation and questions that are still unsettled. Researchers whooppose the practice state this as well. According to a 2013Congressional Research Service report on fluoride in drinking water,these gaps in the fluoridation scientific literature fuel thecontroversy.

Public water fluoridation was firstpracticed in 1945, in the US. As of 2012, 25 countries havesupplemental water fluoridation to varying degrees, and 11 of themhave more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water. Afurther 28 countries have water that is naturally fluoridated, thoughin many of them there are areas where fluoride is above the optimumlevel. As of 2012 about 435 million people worldwide received waterfluoridated at the recommended level, of whom 57 million (13%)received naturally fluoridated water and 377 million (87%) receivedartificially fluoridated water. In 2014, three-quarters of the USpopulation on the public water supply received fluoridated water,which represented two-thirds of the total US population.

Medical consensus

National and international healthagencies and dental associations throughout the world have endorsedwater fluoridation as safe and effective.

The views on the most effective methodfor community prevention of tooth decay are mixed. The Australiangovernment states that water fluoridation is the most effective meansof achieving fluoride exposure that is community-wide. The WorldHealth Organization states water fluoridation, when feasible andculturally acceptable, has substantial advantages, especially forsubgroups at high risk, while the European Commission finds noadvantage to water fluoridation compared with topical use.