Water Fluoridation The Search And The Victory

Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate is a study of today's most heated and long-lived health controversy as well as a study of the role of power in science. It uses the tools of sociology of knowledge and political economy to analyze battles over scientific evidence and the struggle for scientific credibility, the exercise of professional power to suppress opponents, and the role of corporate interests in the debate. The evidence from a variety of countries offers a new perspective on the fluoridation issue and also shows how to link the analysis of rhetoric in scientific disputes with the wider analysis of power in society.

Public health action often involved controversies and recriminations over past failures.

When the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950, there was little evidence of its safety. Now, six decades later and after most countries have rejected the practice, more than 70 percent of Americans, as well as 200 million people worldwide, are drinking fluoridated water. The Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association continue to promote it--and even mandatory statewide water fluoridation--despite increasing evidence that it is not only unnecessary, but potentially hazardous to human health. In this timely and important book, Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. James Beck, and Dr. H. Spedding Micklem take a new look at the science behind water fluoridation and argue that just because the dental and medical establishments endorse a public health measure doesn't mean it's safe. In the case of water fluoridation, the chemicals that go into the drinking water that more than 180 million people drink each day are not even pharmaceutical grade, but rather a hazardous waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It is illegal to dump this waste into the sea or local surface water, and yet it is allowed in our drinking water. To make matters worse, this program receives no oversight from the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency takes no responsibility for the practice. And from an ethical standpoint, say the authors, water fluoridation is a bad medical practice: individuals are being forced to take medication without their informed consent, there is no control over the dose, and no monitoring of possible side effects. At once painstakingly documented and also highly readable, The Case Against Fluoride brings new research to light, including links between fluoride and harm to the brain, bones, and endocrine system, and argues that the evidence that fluoridation reduces tooth decay is surprisingly weak.