Durango Water Commission Meeting Calendar

Don't forget to take action, folks!!!  Here is the link to the calendar, so make use of it!  It will update from month to month.

http://www.durangogov.org/calendar.aspx?view=list&year=2013&month=1&day=7

And here's the list of names of those helpful folks at the Water Commission, as well.

http://www.durangogov.org/index.aspx?nid=154

Cancer Agents in Water-Supply Fluoride

Environmental Science & Policy

Available online 16 February 2013

Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as fluoridating agents—A cost–benefit analysis

• J. William Hirzy^{a, , ,} ,
• Robert J. Carton^b,
• Christina D. Bonanni^a,
• Carly M. Montanero^a,
• Michael F. Nagle^a

• ^a American University, Department of Chemistry, 4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC,. USA
• ^b 4 Glenwood Terrace, Averill Park, NY, USA

Abstract

Water fluoridation programs in the United States and other countries which have them use either sodium fluoride (NaF), hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) or the sodium salt of that acid (NaSF), all technical grade chemicals to adjust the fluoride level in drinking water to about 0.7–1 mg/L. In this paper we estimate the comparative overall cost for U.S. society between using cheaper industrial grade HFSA as the principal fluoridating agent versus using more costly pharmaceutical grade (U.S. Pharmacopeia – USP) NaF. USP NaF is used in toothpaste. HFSA, a liquid, contains significant amounts of arsenic (As). HFSA and NaSF have been shown to leach lead (Pb) from water delivery plumbing, while NaF has been shown not to do so. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) health-based drinking water standards for As and Pb are zero. Our focus was on comparing the social costs associated with the difference in numbers of cancer cases arising from As during use of HFSA as fluoridating agent versus substitution of USP grade NaF. We calculated the amount of As delivered to fluoridated water systems using each agent, and used EPA Unit Risk values for As to estimate the number of lung and bladder cancer cases associated with each. We used cost of cancer cases published by EPA to estimate cost of treating lung and bladder cancer cases. Commercial prices of HFSA and USP NaF were used to compare costs of using each to fluoridate. We then compared the total cost to our society for the use of HFSA versus USP NaF as fluoridating agent. The U.S. could save $1 billion to more than $5 billion/year by using USP NaF in place of HFSA while simultaneously mitigating the pain and suffering of citizens that result from use of the technical grade fluoridating agents. Other countries, such as Ireland, New Zealand, Canada and Australia that use technical grade fluoridating agents may realize similar benefits by making this change. Policy makers would have to confront the uneven distribution of costs and benefits across societies if this change were made.

Fluoride *Use* Associated with Cavities

Caries Research 2012;47:229-308

Fluorosis and Dental Caries in Mexican Schoolchildren Residing in Areas with Different Water Fluoride Concentrations and Receiving Fluoridated Salt by García-Pérez A. · Irigoyen-Camacho M.E. · Borges-Yáñez A.

Abstract

Objective: To explore the association between fluoride in drinking water and the prevalence and severity of fluorosis and dental caries in children living in communities receiving fluoridated salt. 

Material and Methods: Participants were schoolchildren (n = 457) living in two rural areas of the State of Morelos, Mexico, where the water fluoride concentration was 0.70 or 1.50 ppm. Dental caries status was assessed using Pitts’ criteria. Lesions that were classified as D₃ (decayed) were identified to determine the decayed, missing, and filled teeth index (D₃MFT). Fluorosis was assessed using the Thylstrup-Fejerskov Index (TFI). Information regarding drinking water source and oral hygiene practices (tooth brushing frequency, dentifrice use, and oral hygiene index) was obtained.

Results: The prevalence of fluorosis (TFI ≥1) in communities with 0.70 and 1.50 ppm water fluoride was 39.4 and 60.5% (p = 0.014), respectively, while the prevalence of more severe forms (TFI ≥4) was 7.9 and 25.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. The mean D₃MFT was 0.49 (±1.01) in the 0.70 ppm community and 0.61 (±1.47) in the 1.50 ppm community (p = 0.349). A logistic regression model for caries (D₃ >1) showed that higher fluorosis categories (TFI 5–6 OR = 6.81, p = 0.001) were associated with higher caries experience, adjusted by age, number of teeth present, tooth brushing frequency, bottled water use, and natural water fluoride concentration. 

Conclusions: The prevalence of fluorosis was associated with the water fluoride concentration. Fluorosis at moderate and severe levels was associated with a higher prevalence of dental caries, compared with lesser degrees of fluorosis. The impact of dental fluorosis should be considered in dental public health programs.