THE CASE AGAINST FLUORIDE

Some issues drive debate into deeply entrenched positions. The cause is rival assumptions that are beyond debate and never declared. When industrial politics is part of the mix then a hot, remorseless shouting-match is the usual result.

Fluoridation of water is the archetypal example. It began in 1930s America, at a time when emergent aluminium, coal, fertiliser and ceramics industries were bringing a lot of fluoride effluents to the surface, and sugar manufacturers were seeking a solution to the problem of tooth decay that did not involve reducing consumption of their products. A chemist retained by both lobbies suggested that they could solve each other's problems. By 1950, on the basis of industrial imperative rather than science, the practice of water fluoridation at 1 part per million (ppm) had been endorsed by the US Public Health Service. Five million English citizens now receive fluoridated water.

Several important critics of fluoridation have put pen to paper since then, but these authors are the first to do so with benefit of credible and disinterested scientific reviews of the evidence arising from 50 years of fluoridation. They present it clearly and convincingly.

They have come on the scene relatively recently, Connett having passively supported fluoridation up to 1996. But his academic credentials, no-nonsense attitude and belligerence quickly earned him a formidable reputation. He has been described as the world's foremost critic of fluoridation, and he probably is.This background gives rise to the only limitation of the book. It is unashamedly partisan and Americo-centric. It will however serve the North American public and academy brilliantly, and the rest of us very well.

The authors make no attempt to address the original and abiding difficulty, how to dispose safely of fluoride waste. It is extremely reactive, etches glass and metals, and leaks readily from containers and all long-term repositories so far devised. It unzips hydrogen bonding so is poisonous at any concentration to all living systems. It accumulates in calcified tissues and the pineal gland. It does teeth little good, and just as much harm. Its potential effects on the thyroid gland have never been properly addressed.

We do not yet acknowledge how much is consumed. Evidence reworked from the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey 2000-3 and published since Connett went to press, indicates that 21% of the British public consume more than the 'safe intake' of fluoride, even in non-fluoridated areas. It comes from tea, dental toiletries, Mediterranean fish and who knows where else. If to that you add water fluoridated at 1 ppm, the proportion who over-consume fluoride rises to 65%.

The problem of personal consumption can be solved overnight by avoiding all the usual suspects - in toothpaste, water and Mediterranean produce. Reverse osmosis will remove 95% of all water contamination, including fluoride, but the contaminants still pass to the drainage system and thence to rivers and oceans.

There may be vitreous materials that will bind fluoride indefinitely and can be stored in mine shafts. I hope Connett et al will one day bring their capable minds to bear on this. I suspect that we will have to accept some degree of fluoride contamination to our waters - but at the polluter's expense - and learn to manage on recycled aluminium, proper diet and careful flossing. These three authors are well-placed to unravel such problems in future writings.

Meanwhile this volume will quickly become the most trusted compendium of evidence and argument critical of water fluoridation world-wide - and quite right too.