"Texas' groundwater fails to meet safe drinking water standards most often due to excessive amounts of dissolved solids (28% of samples tested), followed by excessive amounts of fluoride (19%) and chloride (19%).”

Texas

Groundwater Contamination in Texas

© 2003 PFPC

   In May 2000 a report was published by the Texas Department of Health on the cost-effectiveness and benefits of water fluoridation in Texas (1).

The Department had to conduct a study of the cost of publicly financed dental care in relation to community water fluoridation. (In Fulfillment of House Concurrent Resolution 145, Texas 75th Legislature).

In this report it was claimed that, of 253 Texas counties, "optimal" public water fluoride levels were found in 86 counties, with the remaining counties (167) identified as having less than or equal to “optimal” water fluoride (< 0.8 ppm).

Allegedly, the median water fluoride level was  calculated for each county, weighted by population, and compared with the claims paid to dentists in fiscal year (FY) 1997 for treatment of children, from low income families, aged 1 through 20 years, under the Texas Health Steps (EPSDT-Medicaid) Program.

Based on these statistics, the Report claimed that, for an initial one part per million rise in water fluoride level (from 0.0 to 1.0 ppm fluoride), the average cost of dental care per child declined $24 per year.

The data, used as basis for these claims, is incorrect.

As it has been known for many decades that there are water supplies in Texas containing very high amounts of fluoride, we immediately grew suspicious of this report and the reported county median-levels of fluoride.

At no time during the entire report was there any mention of fluoride contaminated groundwater in Texas!

As it turns out,the data for the study was supplied by fluoridation engineers who perhaps lacked understanding of the issue and completely disregarded the groundwater pollution statistics.

This omitted data would have obviously impacted significantly in setting “median county levels” and cost analysis!

How bad is the problem?

   In 1999 fluoride levels in Texas groundwater from nearly 7000 wells in 237 counties were analyzed.

   Four regions with high fluoride levels were identified. In one region in Northwest Texas, at least 50% of the wells sampled in each of five counties had fluoride levels exceeding the primary drinking water standard of 4 ppm. Median fluoride concentrations ranged from 0.09 to 5.11 ppm.

   A further 25 counties had median fluoride levels above 2 ppm (secondary MCL) and 84 counties had median concentrations higher than 1 ppm.

   Needless to say that is of great concern to Public Health.

Additional Concern: Irrigation

   In 1999, groundwater supplied 58% of all the water used by Texans for domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural purposes (3). About 78 percent of the groundwater used was for irrigation, thereby ensuring fluoride contamination for much of the food grown in those areas and increasing TOTAL intake for its consumers. This issue was also not adressed in the TDH report (1).

   The people in Texas should demand that a proper investigation takes place assessing fluoride intake from all sources, before these wrong claims by dentists are made further - and used for more public fluoridation initiatives.

WS

============

1) WATER FLUORIDATION COSTS IN TEXAS: TEXAS HEALTH STEPS (EPSDT-MEDICAID)
http://www.tdh.state.tx.us/dental/flstudy.pdf

2) Hudak PF - "Fluoride in Texas Groundwater" Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part A: Toxic-Hazardous Substances & Environmental Engineering 34(8):1659-1676 (1999)

3)Table 14 -2. Ambient Monitoring Groundwater Quality Data/Selected Major and Minor Aquifiers (1994-2002); in: Groundwater Assessment: Overview - Groundwater Resources and the Texas Groundwater Protection Committee (2002)
http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/02_twqmar/02 _305b/02_program_summary/19-grdwat.pdf

See also:

Turner SD, Chan JT, Li E - "Impact of imported beverages on fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities" Gen Dent 46(2):190-3 (1998)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrie ve&db=pubmed&amp;dopt=Abstract&amp;list_uids=966307 6

    “In order to compare the effect of beverages "imported" from nearby communities on the fluoride intake of a fluoridated community with that of a nonfluoridated community, 45 different carbonated and juice drinks were sampled from Houston (fluoridated) and San Antonio (nonfluoridated) and examined for their fluoride concentrations. In spite of the fact that an individual lives in a low fluoride community, the risk of fluorosis exists through fluoride consumption in beverages as well as from the water supply and fluoride therapy. It is therefore important for dental practitioners to carefully evaluate their patients' entire fluoride exposure before prescribing fluoride supplements.”

Dayal HH, Brodwick M, Morris R, Baranowski T, Trieff N, Harrison JA, Lisse JR, Ansari GA - “A community-based epidemiologic study of health sequelae of exposure to hydrofluoric acid” Ann Epidemiol 2(3):213-30 (1992) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrie ve&db=pubmed&amp;dopt=Abstract&amp;list_uids=134227 2

    “An accident at an oil refinery in Texas City, Texas, released around 40,000 lb of hydrogen fluoride, exposing the community to the highly toxic and corrosive substance. A population-based epidemiologic study was conducted to evaluate the impact of the accident on the health of the community. Exposure assessment was done using a multipronged approach through a door-to-door survey of 10,811 individuals. A symptom survey resulting in 1994 completed interviews was conducted with a stratified random sample selected from the exposure study database. The sampling was balanced with respect to age, gender, and predisposition across the three ordinal exposure categories. The results show a strong dose relationship (P < 10(-4)) between the exposure and symptoms reported following the accident and 2 years later, most notably breathing and eye symptoms. However, substantial improvement in health was reported over the 2-year period regardless of the level of exposure. Problems of recall bias and behavioral sensitization are considered and it is recognized that the study may have overestimated the effect. It is also recognized that the study may not have completely unraveled the relative importance of exposure and host response in health outcome, since the two were probably conflated in the exposure measure. Nevertheless, the independence of predisposition and reported level of exposure, the magnitude of effect and its consistency, the unmistakable dose response, the large sample size, and the mutual corroboration of various findings make it difficult to dismiss the interpretation that the hydrofluoric acid exposure indeed caused health problems in the community that continued for at least 2 years after the accident.”

Baez RJ, Baez MX, Marthaler TM - "Urinary fluoride excretion by children 4-6 years old in a south Texas community”Rev Panam Salud Publica 7(4):242-8 (2000)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrie ve&db=pubmed&amp;dopt=Abstract&amp;list_uids=108469 27

    "Fluoride  concentrations in the tested household water supplies, from wells, ranged from 0.1 to 3.2 mg/L fluoride."(Baez et al, 2000)

“Too much flouride can stain teeth” Clovis News
http://www.clovis-news-nm.com/engine.pl?station=clovis &template=storyfull.html&id=202