Should We Keep Fluoride in our Drinking Water in Franklin County?

Should We Keep Fluoride in our Drinking Water in Franklin County? by: Adriana Salazar

For the past months, here in Franklin County there has been a debate on whether fluoride is to be kept in drinking water for the residents. Franklin County has been adding fluoride to drinking water for almost three decades. Although their drinking water already contains natural fluoride, it is the concern of the extra fluoride being added to the water and for that reason this debate has been brought up and has called the attention of the City Councils.

Many of the Franklin City members argue that fluoride should be eliminated completely from the water one because “it is not required through the Washington State Health Department” (Babiak 1). Also, the city councils look at their surrounding cities, particularly Richland, in which Richland has more fluoride that is more than they should and realize how this can potentially affect oral health for many. For those that are on the opposing side states that through research they have learned that having fluoride in the drinking water has supported dental health (Babiak 1).In June of 2025 Leo Perales, a Pasco Councilman, brings up a topic that will bring the residents up for a debate like questioning, should fluoride be kept in drinking water?, how is it affecting oral health?, and if there is potential health risks in children/adults?, etc. Despite the debate, residents and city members should consider all aspects in this situation that would benefit everyone. As we continue this developing story, we will learn the advantages and disadvantages of having fluoride in drinking water.

Perspective #1: The Pro’s to have fluoride in the drinking water.

            There are two sides in this debate, to continue to add fluoride into drinking water or to eliminate it. In this article we learn pros and cons on fluoride to the human body. In the article “The Fluoride Debate: The Pros and Cons of Fluoridation” by Aoun et al. starts off the article by stating “Fluoride is one of the most abundant elements found in nature” insinuating having fluoride is beneficial. We read that fluoride has many advantages, it is naturally in water, milk, and even in salt. According to the article, the benefits it has on oral health have had a positive effect on many people like for example the reduction of tooth decay overall healthy dental health. Here are some other examples that are mentioned, de-mineralization of sound enamel, metabolism, enhancement of the remineralization, and many more (Aoun et al.).

            Fluoride has been part of the public water for decades. “In 1945, public water fluoridation was implemented for the first time in the US and was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the main delivery method of fluoride to improve oral health” and “About 435 million people worldwide had access to either naturally fluoridated water” (Aoun et al.). The data provided here in this article has shown an increase in positive oral health and continues to be changing here in the US and other countries. Another product that contains fluoride is in milk; studies show that fluoride has been a contributing element in milk for preventing dental issues for kids for several decades. Aoun et al. mentions that “The first three reviews found that all studies reported a reduction in dental decay among those consuming/receiving fluoridated milk”, however one review was on the opposing side. I currently work for a school district, and I have noticed that milk happens to be one of their important drinking sources for students.

An addition Aoun el al. states that salt is also beneficial, “The number of teeth affected by caries was reduced by approximately 50 percent” (Aoun et al.). With all the studies that have been done with varies of groups Aoun el al., states that it is “confirmed that both water and salt fluoridation reduced the gap in dental caries experience between middle and lower social classes”. A former councilwoman Rebecca Francik mentions in the article “Should Pasco keep fluoride in its drinking water? Resident asked to weigh in” mentions on fluoride that “It made a tremendous difference in what we saw in the school systems. Fluoridation salt is being used by millions of people around the world, with Latin American being the largest group, 200 million out 300 million people that have access to fluoridation salt.

Perspective #2: The Con’s to have fluoride in the drinking water.

            Although the article “The Fluoride Debate: The Pros and Cons of Fluoridation” argues it’s advantageous to have fluoride in drinking water it also provides its disadvantages, arguing that there is an excess amount of fluoride being added into water that happens to have an adverse effect on oral health. “Large sections of the population in developed countries are suffering from fluorosis as a result of the fluoridation of drinking water and dental products” (Aoun et al). The article states that limitation of fluoride in water should be kept to a minimize for it not to harm the people.

As mentioned before there were four reviews done in regard to milk however the fourth review happened to have its disadvantage stating, “the fourth wider-ranging review, including 18 studies conducted in 12 countries, found that only nine studies demonstrated caries prevention in primary teeth and 12 in the permanent dentition” (Aoun et al.) meaning that not all studies and reviews is creditable to believe that fluoride is a benefit to oral health.

Although fluoride in salt has provided studies to have its benefits. Armfield states, “that the effectiveness of fluoridated salt is doubtful since no randomized clinical trials were conducted to prove its efficacy”. Furthermore, it states that fluoride in salt has been at 250-300 mg but the amount of salt that should be the acceptable amount is 200 mg/kg to have a benefit on dental health. In the article “The Fluoride Debate: The Pros and Cons of Fluoridation” states that fluoridation salt is being advertise to the public health, not aware if much salt is connected to hypertension. To avoid hypertension fluoridation salt has to be taken carefully, and the amount varies depending on children and adults.

Similarities and Differences:

            One of the clear strengths of pro fluoride arguments is the consistency of large scale data showing reductions in tooth decay over decades. Support from major organizations like WHO adds credibility. Another strength is accessibility. Fluoridation reaches entire populations regardless of income, making it a cost effective public health measure.

However, a weakness of this perspective is the risk of overexposure, especially for communities already consuming natural fluoride through other sources such as food, beverages, or dental products. Overexposure is not without consequence. Fluorosis rates among U.S. teenagers have reached 41 percent, according to Aoun et al., suggesting a need for tighter regulation.

For the anti-fluoride stance, a strength lies in its emphasis on individual choice and limiting unnecessary chemical exposure. This perspective also brings attention to gaps in research, particularly the lack of randomized trials for some fluoridation methods. The weakness, however, is that removing fluoride from public systems could disproportionately affect low-income residents who may not have access to regular dental care or fluoride-based products.

Similarities and Differences

Both sides acknowledge that fluoride is naturally present in drinking water, but they differ on whether additional fluoridation is necessary or safe. Each side also recognizes that fluoride can support dental health in moderation but becomes problematic when intake exceeds safe levels. Supporters emphasize the collective benefits, while opponents highlight individual health risks and the importance of dosage control.

Conclusion:   

While I believe fluoride plays an important role in promoting dental health, I also recognize that excessive amounts can be harmful. A balanced approach that maintains fluoride in drinking water but at strictly monitored levels could satisfy both concerns. Local governments could also invest in public education campaigns to raise awareness about the various sources of fluoride people consume daily.

This compromise acknowledges the strengths and weaknesses of both perspectives. It preserves the proven public health benefits for the broader community while minimizing the risk of overexposure. In the end, the goal should be to create a policy that protects and benefits all residents, regardless of income or access to dental care.