In the podcast, released early September on his exclusive platform Spotify, Rogan questioned the need, and even the motive behind the use of fluoride in the general public’s main source of hydration. “There’s some real disputes about fluoride in the water” the ex-Fear Factor host remarked “Exposure to fluoride lowers your IQ… it literally makes you dumber. How much better is it than brushing your teeth? We’re forcing people to take care of their teeth and everybody else is going to lose IQ points?”  

While he couches these statements with his customary “I’m not entirely informed on the matter” disclaimer, he brings up an issue that’s controversy spans decades.  

For years fluoride in water has been igniting debates and inquiries into its efficacy, safety, and ethical implications. Dating back to the mid-20th century, the practice of adding fluoride to public water supplies aimed to enhance dental health, but its controversial nature raises serious questions concerning health risks, ethical considerations, and the overall effectiveness of this intervention. 

Several studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride exposure, primarily from drinking water, and cognitive function or intelligence quotient (IQ). Worldwide research, and particularly studies conducted in regions with higher naturally occurring fluoride levels in water, has suggested a potential association between elevated fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children. 

Within the realm of water treatment, proponents of fluoridation emphasize its potential to significantly reduce dental cavities and tooth decay, particularly in children. Esteemed organizations like the American Dental Association (ADA) and the World Health Organization support it. But critics voice concerns regarding potential health risks associated with prolonged exposure to elevated fluoride levels. Skepticism persists concerning the link between excess fluoride intake and health problems such as skeletal fluorosis, prompting a reevaluation of recommended fluoride levels for water treatment processes. 

The debate surrounding water fluoridation hinges on a complex weighing of benefits and potential drawbacks. Critics argue that the practice of fluoridating water, despite its intended dental benefits, raises valid concerns regarding individual autonomy and consent. Adding fluoride to a communal water supply essentially amounts to a forced medical intervention affecting everyone, regardless of age, health condition, or informed choice. The lack of personalized dosage and potential overexposure, especially for vulnerable groups like infants and the elderly, is a worrisome aspect. Moreover, considering the availability of alternative fluoride sources such as toothpaste and mouth rinses, some question the necessity of a mass fluoridation approach. As research suggests potential links between fluoride exposure and cognitive health issues, skeptics emphasize the need for a cautious approach. In weighing these factors, they argue for a reconsideration of water fluoridation, advocating for individual agency, informed consent, and a tailored approach to dental health that respects individual rights and minimizes potential health risks.  

As Rogan asks: Can’t you just clean your teeth? 

Sources: The Joe Rogan Experience (contains explicit language),
Harvard.edu, PubMed, NIDCR.gov

The post Joe Rogan Wades Into Fluoridated Water appeared first on Water Treatment 411.

Unfortunately, this topic hits close to home for me. As a resident of Tyler and customer of TWU, I was quick to learn about a boil notice issued by the City of Tyler for E.coli contamination, and of course, was mildly horrified. The boil notice didn’t last long, though; the city lifted it the following day at 11 am. After talking with other residents and customers of TWU, to my surprise, this was not the first time the city has had water quality issues. Feeling concerned, I reached out to the City and asked if it was normal after E.coli detection in a water sample to only have a 24-hour boil notice for customers?

The City of Tyler released this statement:

“It is not normal for us to have a water sample test positive for E.coli.  We take dozens of samples everyday at various points around the City. Those samples got to the North East Texas Public Heath Regional Laboratory in Tyler to be tested according to TCEQ requirements.  

The boil water notice had to be issued  as the result of a single routine sample site tested showing the presence of e. coli, followed by a repeat sample at the same site in Central Tyler showing the presence of total coliform. E. coli was only found in one sample site out of many tested.   

Tyler water meets and exceeds all State and Federal standards. Our water system is safe.”

Famed environmental activist, Erin Brockovich, has long expressed concerns over the safety of the city’s water. In 2015, responding to another TWU water contamination incident, she posted on Facebook that the City was downplaying the incident. City officials were quick to respond to her post, “Our drinking water is the No. 1 priority of this department,” Assistant City Manager Susan Guthrie said. “We followed exactly what TCEQ requires us to do.”

No matter your opinion on the safety of Tyler’s water, the fact remains that the city was quick to respond in both situations. When disaster strikes, water facilities need to be prepared to react assuredly and quickly to ease customers’ minds. To avoid being caught unprepared, the EPA offers this guidance on how to react in situations like these. The City of Tyler followed the guidance of The Distribution System Contamination Response Procedure (DSCRP) outlined by the EPA, does your facility have a plan in place to do the same?

Sources: EPA.gov, City of Tyler, Tyler Morning Telegraph

The post Drinking Water Contamination Incidents: Is Your PR Team Ready? appeared first on Water Treatment 411.