Content provided in partnership with
It's Something in the Water
Insight on the News, Jan 29, 2001 by John Elvin
New studies suggest that the use of untested silicofluoride in water systems may have links to antisocial behavior in youth. And there's plenty more in the water system, too.
The social engineers who know what's good for us have been shoving fluoridated water down our throats for about 50 years. Old arguments against the use of fluoride in public water supplies may have winged in from the fringe -- the John Birchers of the early 1960s opposed it as mass medication and chemical poison -- but new findings could prove opponents have been right all along, at least to the extent that fluoride is harmful to health. The substance is, after all, poisonous in small doses; a teaspoonful of the pure stuff can kill.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
Nobody ingests fluoride by the spoonful, of course. But studies in recent years have indicated a link between the extraordinarily minuscule amounts of fluoride in fluoridated water and youthful antisocial behavior including crime, drug use, violence and poor academic showing. New research that will bolster those findings and undoubtedly further rock the pro-fluoride boat is about to be published, Insight has learned.
Recent research indicates that some chemicals used in fluoridation may alter the body's natural defenses against toxic heavy metals, particularly lead. Absorption of lead can cause hyperactivity and violent behavior, while manganese has been associated with depression and violence. It's quite possible, researchers suggest, that cravings for nonprescription drugs such as alcohol and cocaine are enhanced in the same way. The researchers say the brain may crave such drugs to thwart harmful effects brought on by ingestion of fluoride.
Most Americans whose water is fluoridated (more than 140 million of us) receive supplies treated with silicofluoride. This superstar of the fluoride chemical family is produced as a byproduct when potash is broken down to make fertilizer or, perhaps more ominously, to process uranium for nuclear power-plant fuel and nuclear weapons. Silicofluoride is not the same as sodium fluoride, the form of the chemical used in fluoridated toothpaste; silicofluoride is an untested substitute for the better-known sodium fluoride.
Most health authorities appear to be on the fluoride bandwagon. Fluoridation has been called the "greatest benefit to public health of the 20th century" by U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher. His assessment is supported by proponents that include the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Cancer Society, to name a few.
Satcher has called for more fluoridation because, according to his recent "Oral Health in America" report, 18,000 communities and 40 million children in the United States go without fluoridated water despite a 50-year effort to saturate America with it. That is, we need more because we don't have enough.
But why do we need any of it? Conventional wisdom, as endorsed by proponents, is that fluoridation is a modern miracle in the fight against tooth decay. They contend that silicofluoride breaks down in water and so does good for teeth without being ingested.
That upbeat assessment is not shared by all experts, but critics are vastly outgunned in an attempt to get a sympathetic ear from the media or legislators. This summer, in what fluoride critics termed the first scientific discussion of fluoride before Congress in 23 years, Sen. Bob Smith, RN.H., and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee he heads heard testimony for and against fluoridation.
A primary complaint expressed by critics is that silicofluoride is untested. In a recent letter to Roger Masters, a key player in the fluoride debate and research professor at Dartmouth College, relevant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) laboratories recently admitted they were unable to find any data about the effects of silicofluoride on health and behavior. Masters, also Nelson Rockefeller Professor of Government Emeritus, has focused his studies in recent years on the effects of toxic chemicals. In this work, funded by the EPA and the Earhart Foundation, he was joined by chemical engineer Myron Coplan in studying the behavioral and health effects of silicofluoride-treated water.
"Our research shows that where silicofluoride is used, children have higher blood-lead levels," Masters says in a lengthy interview with Insight. "Lead damages brain chemistry," he adds. There seems to be no dispute in the scientific and medical communities about links between lead poisoning and crime, learning disabilities, hyperactivity and substance abuse. However, Masters' theory about the part played by silicofluoride in breaking down the body's resistance to heavy metals such as lead is highly controversial and even dismissed out of hand by some experts.
"Toxic metals like lead, manganese, copper and cadmium damage neurons and deregulate neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine, which are essential to normal impulse control and learning," Masters and Coplan found. The toxin can be absorbed from many sources, including lead paint, old plumbing or pollution. Despite efforts to reduce exposure to lead, substantial numbers of children continue to suffer from blood lead above what scientists consider to be the danger level.
