Add this to my series of examples of the battle between
public outcry and the scientific evidence.
Here is an anthology of 13 articles on the subject of fluoridated drinking
water published by the Center for Fluoride Research Analysis. They have gathered in a single document “the
official policy statements and consumer information on fluoride from the
nation’s leading scientific and advocacy organizations that support community
water fluoridation.” (Additional support can be found on the new ADA website.)
A nice summary appears in the AARP document: “In spite of its well-documented
effectiveness and safety, 100 million persons in the United States remained
without fluoridated water at the beginning of the twenty-first century.”
Why would this be?
Part can be attributed to water supplies from private wells,
but part is due to negative public reaction to fluoridation. Another group of well-meaning people stare
scientific evidence in the face and stir up opposition based on their personal
interpretation of the studies. As the article
from the American Council on Science and Health puts it: “The combination of a scientifically
unsophisticated public and the profusion of easily accessible crackpot
information on the Internet is indeed a prescription for disaster.” The American Cancer Society article reinforces
this: “A review of more than 50
population-based studies…does not support the hypothesis of an association
between fluoride exposure and increased cancer risk in humans.”
If so many reputable organizations promote the addition of
fluoride to drinking water, where does the opposition come from? There are, of course, the conspiracy theorists who once characterized it as a communist plot, but many have sincere and well
thought out arguments. The questions we
must always ask about such information are: what are the sources, what are
their qualifications, and do they have an outside agenda or possible conflict
of interests?
Above all we must resist the temptation to stampede into
action or opposition without full and reliable information. See other instances of potential damage from public outcry
in such cases as the “pink slime” (April 2, 2012) and mad cow disease (April 30,
2012) controversies.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Click again on the title to add a comment