Benefits of Water FluoridationThe majority of American communities benefit from water that is adjusted to the proper level of fluoride.
Is Fluoride Effective?Fluoridating water is a crucial way of protecting children, even with the widespread use of fluoride toothpaste and fluoride treatments from dentists.
What does research show about fluoridation?Research shows that water fluoridation continues to play an important role in reducing tooth decay in children and giving them a healthy start in life
About Fluoridation and the AFS
Fluoride exists in water naturally. The public health initiative of water fluoridation is simply the adjustment of that fluoride to the level at which maximum dental decay benefit will be obtained with no adverse effects.
Here you will find evidence based information on fluoride and all aspects of water fluoridation including: water fluoridation and infant formula, support for water fluoridation, cost and cost effectiveness of water fluoridation, water fluoridation and the environment, the dental benefits of water fluoridation, the effects on general health, dental health, health inequalities, and dental fluorosis.
For Further Information on the aims of the society, and our main activities please visit the About Us section.
The American Fluoridation Society was founded in 2014 by a group of concerned professionals anxious to see all residents of the United States served by community water systems enjoy the benefits of community water fluoridation (CWF). Equally important to this society is to prevent rollback attempts by opponents of CWF, as well as to initiate CWF where it has not been previously available.
Refute of Attorney James Deal’s Anti Fluoridation Letter to Governors Association
By Steven D. Slott, DDS
American Fluoridation Society
Fluoridation opponents seem fond of sending letters, riddled with misinformation, to various organizations, then publicly proclaiming that “Organization X has been put on notice” by such and such fluoridation opponent. It seems not to matter to them that, for obvious reasons, these letters seem never to gain any traction with the organizations to which they are sent
The following is a response to a letter Attorney James Deal has posted on his antifluoridation website. Deal is a fluoridation opponent who has apparent close ties to the New York antifluoridationist group, “FAN”. He pops up in comment sections every now and then putting forth naive and erroneous information on fluoridation, and in the occasional live presentation to decision-makers in which he does the same. True to form, this letter he has posted is riddled with misinformation. My response is lengthy, due to the length of Deal’s letter and the amount of misinformation to be addressed point-by point. Readers desiring to read the entire refutation can do so by clicking on the “Read More” button at the end of this excerpt.
1. Deal: “In April 2015, the national Department of Health (DHHS) recommended a .7 ppm fluoridation level as ‘optimal,’ a reduction from a range of .7 ppm to 1.2 ppm”. My state of Washington has proposed to blindly accepted that recommendation under WAC 246-290-460. Ostensibly, this reduction is to reduce the level of fluoride poisoning which per CDC records afflict 41% of children raised in communities with artificial water fluoridation.”
A. The optimal level was reset from a range of 1.2 ppm to 0.7 ppm to simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. This was done due there no longer being a necessity for a range, and the greater availability of fluoride from many sources now, than when the optimal was originally set.
The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water was originally set by the US Public Health Service in 1962, as a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was set as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between different climates. Recent scientific evidence has demonstrated that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no longer exists any significant difference in water consumption due to climate differences. Thus, there is no longer a need for a range.
B. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of “poisoning” of anyone from optimal level fluoride.
C. The CDC does not “record” poisoning of anyone from optimal level fluoride. The “41%” noted by Deal is in reference to a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar in which 41% of adolescents they examined were found to have signs of dental fluorosis.. This 41% was composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign effects requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth….with the other 3.8% being those with moderate dental fluorosis, attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste and/or exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth forming years of 0-8
—Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H…………………………………