Letter to the editor: There are better options than fluoride

The National Research Council of the National Academies produced a report in 2006 on fluoride in drinking water, at the request of the EPA. It reported a need for additional studies because earlier studies identified potential harm to public health at certain exposure levels.

“Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico” was just published by a team of researchers from the University of Toronto, University of Michigan, McGill University, Indiana University, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, Harvard School of Public Health, and the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.

The study included 287 mother and child pairs, analyzing fluoride in the mothers’ systems during pregnancy, and their offspring’s later cognitive abilities. The pregnant women with higher levels of fluoride in their systems during pregnancy (in the range in women in the U.S.) corresponded to lower IQs in their children. But this is not earth-shattering news. More than 25 studies from researchers in China and Poland have been translated into English showing lowered IQ from fluoride exposure.

It’s frightening to think of the accumulating loss of intelligence over multiple generations in a community with continuous water fluoridation. Tulsa has been fluoridating the tap water for 64 years. Tooth decay is typically repairable. But how do we recover the brain power lost?

Reducing consumption of sugary soft drinks, improving diet, and brushing our teeth would seem to be a better option than relying on fluoridation of our tap water.