The Flouride Debate | Question 42 | Is it practical to fluoridate an entire water system?

DISEASES
Question 18
Question 19
Question 20
Question 21
Question 22
Question 23
Question 24
Question 25
Question 26
Question 27
Question 28
Question 29
Question 30
Question 31
Question 32
Question 33

PUBLIC
POLICY
Question 34
Question 35
Question 36
Question 37
Question 38
Question 39
Question 40

COST
EFFECTIVENESS
Question 41
Question 42
Question 43

CONCLUSION

COST EFFECTIVENESS

Question 42.
Is it practical to fluoridate an entire water system?

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Short Answer
It is more practical to fluoridate an entire water supply than to attempt to treat individual water sources.

ADA's Fluoridation Facts Long Answer
It is technically difficult, perhaps impossible, and certainly more costly to fluoridate only the water used for drinking. Community water that is chlorinated, softened, or in other ways treated is also used for watering lawns, washing cars and for most industrial purposes. The cost of compounds for fluoridating a community's water supply is inexpensive on a per capita basis; therefore, it is practical to fluoridate the entire water supply. Fluoride is but one of more than 40 different chemicals that may be used to treat water in the United States.²⁷ The American Water Works Association, an international nonprofit scientific and educational society dedicated to the improvement of drinking water quality and supply, supports the practice of fluoridation of public water supplies.

Repeat of Question 42.
Is it practical to fluoridate an entire water system?

Opposition's Response

"Our water department calculates that we would be buying more than 33 tons of a substance that can't be given to us for free because it is classified as a toxic hazardous waste; yet, we are supposed to accept that, if we pay $0.35 per gallon and they slap a new label on the container, this same toxic waste can be shipped to us untreated, directly from the scrubber systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry that they use to keep fluorine from becoming airborne and killing everything in sight, and that on the truck-ride here it will magically be converted to a safe and desirable nutrient. The kicker to this scheme is that the amount intended for the targeted children is only 16 pounds of that 33 tons." (Escondido, California, City Council Member, Keith Beier, 1999.)

It is very practical, however, for the industries that have to dispose of their silicofluorides! "Chemicals that would cost $7,000 per tanker in disposal fees are sold to cities at $265 per ton. Every year 143,000 tons of this toxic waste are dispersed into our water and environment ... A 1991 Public Health Service report shows that U.S. children ingest up to 3¸ times the safe dose of fluoride via water, food, toothpaste and fluoride-containing insecticides in juices. ... Dental fluorosis ... can occur at just twice the USPHS recommended dose." (See 42-1: "Why Fluoridation is a Mistake" from San Jose Mercury News, Apr. 2, 1995).

Download
The Fluoride
Debate
as a .pdf

Jump to the Opposition's
Response
for this
question.

NOTICE

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.

This site and accompanying book is published by
Health Way House | 403 Marcos St | San Marcos, CA 92069

First Edition
February 2001

This information provided on this site was compiled by
Anita Shattuck | Tel: 760-752-1621 | bakeranita@cox.net

This site and accompanying book was edited by
Edward Bennett

Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting