Modern industry is really truly amazing. Probably most people are unaware that the aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing industries all create dietary supplements as a profitable sideline. Even more amazing, they don't even have to work at it. Their output of untreated industrial waste can be and is sold to municipalities interested in improving the health of their citizens. That's incredibly fortunate for those industries. It would normally cost a lot to dispose of material containing high concentrations of lead, mercury, beryllium, antimony, radioactive material, arsenic and other pollutants.
Oh, but I promised you an opportunity for mockery, so here you go. By weight, the greatest amount of "other pollutants" is made up of hydrofluosilicic acid, comprised of hexafluoro silicic acid (H2SiF6) and its sodium salt, sodium fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6).
Fluoride, in other words.
If it were necessary to dispose of this waste liquor as industrial waste, it would cost industry quite a bit, thousands of dollars per tanker truck, to neutralize and store it. The exact amount would vary depending on the levels of cadmium, lead, uranium, arsenic, etc. also present. Fortunately, it is not in fact necessary to go to such radical extremes. As the largest component of the liquor is hydrofluosilicic acid, which often gives its name to the entire mix, the waste byproduct is classified as a product, a dietary supplement, which means industry can charge whatever it can convince water agencies and communities it's worth to dissolve it in drinking water.
I've seen figures saying that industry receives a few cents a gallon from municipal agencies for this product, but as those figures often seemed to be quoted from very old sources and as I wanted to give you readers the most up-to-date figures, today I contacted my local water agency, Sacramento County Water Treatment Agency, and spoke to the guy in charge of fluoridation. I'm kinda glad I did. SCWA pays $5.55/gallon for its hydrofluosilicic acid. Of course, that does include transportation costs. I didn't ask how it's transported, but if it's by tanker truck (the norm), they do have to replace the interior plastic linings in the tanks every couple of trips due to corrosion--acid, you know.
Still, no matter the cost, isn't it worth it to improve the health of the citizenry? Well, the dental health, anyway. No one actually makes any claims that fluoride in any form is beneficial as a supplement to any part of the body other than the teeth. And the FDA has never said it's safe for any other part of the body either. The Food and Drug Administration put out a communication in December 2000 saying, in part:
"No fluoride substance intended to be ingested for the purpose of reducing tooth decay has ever been approved for safety and effectiveness."
Interestingly, in 2006 (the Bush years) the FDA did approve labeling for bottled water containing the statement, "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of tooth decay," while still taking no stand on its safety in any other way or conducting any independent studies.
That's actually a rather important detail, given the state of the science on the question.
Oh, interesting trivia fact: fluoride's effects on the teeth are from topical exposure, not ingestion. That is to say, it isn't drinking fluoridated water that is supposed to give you better teeth; it's having fluoridated water in your mouth in contact with your teeth from time to time. That's official doctrine, by the way, not just my opinion. Doubters, if any there be, can see the July 2000 peer-reviewed cover story of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) for the science behind it. We're extra-lucky in that our teeth aren't exposed to fluoride just from water. According to the USDA, most of our storebought food has it as well, because so much of it is grown in, washed with, or prepared with fluoridated water. For some reason, even though that adds significantly to fluoride intake, it isn't a factor in considering water fluoridation levels. Too much is never enough, I guess.
The American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics most recent recommendations for controlled-dose fluoride restrict a doctor from prescribing more fluoride to a child 6 months to 3 years of age than 0.25 milligrams per day, the amount found in a single cup of fluoridated water. Those same recommendations prohibit prescribing any amount whatsoever to an infant younger than 6 months--meaning that, as a public policy, fluoridation mass medicates at a higher expected dosage than a doctor in a non-fluoridated community can prescribe. Fluoride binds to the calcium in breast milk, meaning that there is often no way infants in fluoridated communities can escape it. This is also the reason very young children (under 5) are not recommended to use toothpaste. They might swallow it (fluoride is the only toxin in toothpaste).
I considered doing a far more detailed diary, one with links to many studies showing enhanced health risks due to fluoride exposure. I still may. But I've reviewed the history of other fluoride diaries here and it's very clear most people don't click on links and instead instantly reach for the tinfoil hat references (some few anti-fluoride types probably merit them). Even though only in the U.S. is fluoride safety considered to be settled science (excluding the UK, only 3% of Western Europe is fluoridated, and that percentage is declining), most Kossacks live in the U.S. We Americans know what we've been told we know: Fluoride is safe and effective. Oh, and the U.S. does not torture.
So mock away, while I console myself with the thought that, if nothing else, by giving you a target I've brightened your day.
http://www.nofluoride.com