Despite warnings from the city’s water department about an inefficient delivery system and harmful environmental effects, as well as references to studies that fluorinated water can cause bone cancer, the Aspen City Council decided at a work session Monday that fluoride will continue to be added to the city’s water supply.
The council was considering a proposal from the water department to stop adding about 30 pounds of powdered fluoride each day to the water supply, which brings the amount of fluoride in Aspen tap water to about 0.9 or 1.0 parts per million. Aspen water has a natural fluoride concentration of about 0.3 or 0.4.
The council decided that there was not enough “compelling evidence” to reverse 40 years of public policy in Aspen, as the city started adding fluoride to the local water supply in 1967. In 1989, an “advisory vote” of Aspen citizens supported the continued fluoridation of the water supply by a 3-1 margin.
Local dentist David Swersky called water fluoridation the most effective public health policy of our time, short of the invention of the small pox vaccination. He explained how fluoride helps strengthen the chemical bonds that make up tooth enamel and prevent tooth decay. Swersky credited the concentration of fluoride in Aspen’s water with what he said was a particularly low occurrence of tooth decay in Aspen.
Staff from Aspen’s water and environmental health departments brought forward the question of axing fluoride in Aspen’s water. Charles Bailey, of the water department, said that only 1 percent of the fluoride dumped into Aspen’s water makes it to its “target audience,” which is the mouths of people drinking the tap water. Bailey also said the fluoride, which the water department purchases from China, creates a nuisance as it builds up in water department equipment. Also, because of the colder temperatures of Aspen’s water, the fluoride is less soluble, and the equivalent of 1.7 parts per million of fluoride must be added to the water at the water plant to achieve 1.0 parts per million at the tap, Bailey said.
Bailey also raised the issue of potential negative environmental effects of fluoride, which is toxic in high concentrations, on soils and rivers. While council members called the environmental affects an “interesting twist” to the fluoride story, the fact that no data was presented about potential environmental damage made the council reluctant to consider the argument.
The practice of cities putting fluoride into their water supplies, which began 60 years ago in Grand Rapids, Mich., has become more controversial as studies have connected water fluoridation to a higher occurrence of osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer, particularly in males under 20 years old.
Excess fluoridation has also been tied to fluorosis, which causes a breakdown in tooth development.
Tom Lankering, a local chiropractor, presented even more troubling information on fluoride. Specifically, he said the mass fluoridation of the American water supply is tied to undo influence from the aluminum and fertilizer industries, whose processes create fluoride as a byproduct. Lankering used the term “industrial waste.”
“Fluoride is somewhat less toxic than arsenic and more toxic than lead,” Lankering said. “It would be considered poisonous if not for hype.”
Council members identified three separate issues in the fluoride debate. First is the operational issue at the water plant, and the costs associated with an inefficient delivery system. The council directed staff to move forward on making any improvements in this realm, if possible.
The second issue is potential environmental damage that might be taking place because of the 99 percent of Aspen’s fluoride that does not make it down the gullets of citizens. Councilmen, particularly Jack Johnson, identified this as a concern, but no specific direction was given to investigate this further.
On the issue of the pros or cons for public health of fluoride consumption, the council said there is not sufficient consensus in the scientific community to justify a reversal of policy. Council members also said they did not have all the information they needed on the proper amount of fluoride, or how much fluoride people receive through sources other than drinking water, to make an informed decision.
While some studies cry foul on the benefits of consuming fluoride, and in fact identify significant risks, other studies — including from physician trade groups the American Dental Association and the American Medical Association — continue to identify fluoride consumption as a major public health boon because of its effects to stem tooth decay. Diane Brunson, of the Colorado Department of Public Health, said that for every dollar spent on water fluoridation, $38 is saved in dental care costs.
While he gave lip service to public weariness over involuntary mass medication, Mayor Mick Ireland was not won over by the anti-fluoride arguments. He also argued against any notion that Aspen’s affluence, and the fact that most children here receive fluoride treatments through dental care, might lead one to conclude that fluoride need not be put in the water.
“I always have to remind people that everyone in Aspen is not affluent,” Ireland said. “I don’t know that everyone in Aspen gets the dental care they need. Some people will be treated systematically or they will not be treated at all.”
curtis@aspendailynews.com
Comments
Topical maybe,ingested never
Not a single current researcher can show a measurable benefit for systemic or ingested fluoride but maybe topical might exceed th e damage it does to disrupting tender gum tissue by being an enzyme disruptor. It damages cells by attacking the hydrogen bonds and confusing very fragile processes. It is rat poison at uncontrolled dose. The 1ppm is about rate not dose as any medication must be adjusted to the person because we all have differences. We have no control how water will be used and diabetics and kidney patients often have huge intakes and retain much more because of low reneal clearance. Kidneys have the second highest fluoride exposure behind pineal glan. The Varner Rat studies showed the 1ppm destroyed kidneys and caused beta amalyoid plack for brain function problems. 100% of the animals had damage and the study had the same results three times. Have staff make up some questions for the health department. They will fail the test. All talk and Bluff and only talking points. They are skilled con men from my experience. Nice maybe but useless or worse. The lawsuits are starting for kidney damage and the national Kidney foundation and the American Water Works have been served constructive notice to not destroy evidence for kidney damage lawsuits. Kraus and Waters is signing up th osteosarcoma kids and nursery water has a class action by Zimmerman Reed and several others are looking for damaged people. Watch out when the dam bursts. Jim Schultz
Studies fluoridation
Pizzo 2007 is the most current review and found 51% damaged with dental fluorosis. No increase in cavities when fluoridation ended and it does not narrow the gap between rich and poor in dental health. The WHO data shows no relationship to fluoride and reduced cavities as the unfluoridated countries have decreased cavities as much or more then the few fluoridated ones. The CDC data shows the same thing for every state in the US with many states fluoridated most and longest as mandatory having the worst teeth. It is income which determines nutrition and dental care as the biggest factor .Period
Burt 2007 studied long fluoridated Detroit which is increasing in cavities and found almost 100% of 5 year olds had cavities and often many. Nutrition was the real issue with fluoridated water,soda, chips being the foods of choice and no fruits or vegetables or foods rich in calcium,magnesium unlike fluoride which damages teeth these protect from fluoride damage and build strong teeth and bones. Also most had no dental care and poor dental habits. Baby bottle tooth is the cause of many of those horrible problems and are from sugar drinks in bottles for kids past 10 months while napping or sippy cups. Coke and pepsi eat enamel and water protects without fluoride just the healthy minerals. Precautionary principle not the maybe it works guess.
First do no harm
So after the admission they do not know for sure about benefit, harm or if it works or how much people get we have to do it because we could have poor people who need ingested treatment and that might be the only care they get. Knock knock is anybody home? Poor people are the ones damaged worse by fluoride toxicity especially when black or brown. Look at the CDC dental fluorosis damage going back to the first test city Grand Rapids where blacks had twice the dental fluorosis as whites from study one. Russel 1962. Yoder K.M. showed the dental association even knows dental professionals are ignorant beyond belief on current science of fluoride being a topical reminerization effect on posteruptive teeth only(17% got it right) 14% in Illinois.. Fluoridation makes no sense because it has no ingested value but only damages half the kids. Dentists have adapted to this huge increase in ugly cosmetic damage by huge increases in income going from less income then doctors to double in just 20 years and while working far fewer hours. Read the dentral journals they all love cosmetic work it is so rewarding(code word for filthy rich)
Poughkeepsie NY had staff ask some tough questions on health and safety about the product and proof of benefit. Not a single supplier in the country of the 33 would respond to state the fluoridation product was safe for humans or had any benfit. Seeing as not a single study has ever been done for chronic use and safety effects for the FSA products that is wise. They never had one response from top to the bottom of the health departments except after a year when they voted to halt fluoridation one did comment maybe they should have tried to answer some questions. I know as they stick to policy statements and talking points and few ever even read the science. They are off in LaLa land just pushing contaminated toxic waste to solve out dental problems. The system is in total meltdown failure with them as the captains they just ram the iceberg for our own good. Frank Mora is the attorney who heads the water board in Poughkeepsie NY ask for proof like Poughkeepsie and discover the promoters hide like cockroaches to avoid being proven frauds. In the 70's three state judges found fluroidation to have no benefit and much risk of harm and those facts still stand but they did not have jurisdiction as this is a police power thing and only intent to benefit is needed not proof of benefit. See waterloowatch.com or fluoridealert.org for links to science and videos by leading researchers. 11 epa professional unions asked for moratorium in 2005 and a goal of ZERO for fluoride just like arsenic and lead which are also cumulative toxins with no safe level. Jim Schultz