Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
455
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

455 Views
Message 1311 of 1,444

“CaryAnne”

 

Yes, all seniors need to do is observe how much “stain” they have noted on their grandkids’ teeth.  In doing so, they will note very little discernible discoloration which can in any manner, be attributable to fluoride exposure.  Why?  Because dental fluorosis is not a problem in regard to optimally fluoridated water, and is certainly not a problem that antifluoridationists have attempted to pump it into being.  The only dental fluorisis considered to be an adverse effect is severe.  This level of dental fluorosis is rare in the US, and does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content less than 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that level.  

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
455
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
478
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

478 Views
Message 1312 of 1,444

"The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence.” - Wiener et al. (2018)

 

Apologies to the senior citizens who must be disgusted by now with all the scientific vitriol since Thursday. However, since JJ brought up dental fluorosis and used a picture, I thought I'd share a picture - with excerpts from studies and citations for those of you who have noticed stains on your grand-kid's teeth, albeit more prevalent and with worse severity in Black & Hispanic populations because of a genetically determined lower tolerance to fluoride.

 

What has changed over the years is more and more communities are fluoridated. Dental fluorosis is a lagging indicator of overexposure from 10-12 years earlier, a predictor of increased learning disabilities during childhood, and a leading indicator of increased dental bills - for a lifetime.

 

DFwQuotes.jpgTo confirm the numbers, here are links to the source documents: 

2010 CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf  
2018 31% increase in a decade: http://jdh.adha.org/content/92/1/23

 

BTW: My little daughter (white) who consumed fluoridated tap water from age one to age 3 had mild dental fluorosis on several of her teeth, diagnosed by her dentist who was positively gleeful when he saw it. I was not happy with those white stains. Since I figured out that it was the water causing rashes and stomach problems in both my children and myself, I switched to bottled water for a decade and my children's adult teeth were fine.

 

However, when I started using a filter about 10 years later, all sorts of other health effects emerged in my family. Sadly, I did not connect them to the water until after decades of misery. 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
478
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
470
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

470 Views
Message 1313 of 1,444

Bill, given that the graph you posted claiming to be something from the CDC, has no citation to its original location, and no context, whatoever, how you expect any valid conclusion to be drawn from such “information” based solely on your unsubstantiated personal assertion of what you deem to be shown in this graph....is anybody’s guess.

 

You need to learn what constitutes properly cited, valid scientific evidence.  Your reliance upon such nonsense as you post is probably one good reason why you have so little understanding of this issue, and can provide no valid evidence to supprt your claims.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
470
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
481
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

481 Views
Message 1314 of 1,444

Bill, I notice that as antifluoridationists become more and more frustrated with the facts and evidence presented debunking their claims, they begin making inane personal comments and project their own personality traits unto the commenters who are  frustrating them.  If you need anger management courses, that’s your business, but try not to project your problems unto me.....okay?

 

Your unsubstantiated personal opinions on the peer-reviewed scientific evidence you have requested, and which I have provided, is unqualified and obviously of no relevance.  What value you seem to believe there to be to some uncited graphs of something or other will remain a mystery known only to you, I suppose.

 

The bottom line is that I can and do provide valid scientific evidence to support my claims.  You cannot, and do not, for your own.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
481
Views
Highlighted
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
468
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

468 Views
Message 1315 of 1,444

Bill, I can’t even hazard a guess as to what you deem to be  the relevance of European dental amalgam to the public health initiative of water fluoridation.  Perhaps you can find a forum on dental amalgam somewhere else, let’s  but stay on topic here, okay?

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
468
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
472
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

472 Views
Message 1316 of 1,444

“CaryAnne”

 

Karen, do you seriously believe that a handful of unsubstantiated personal opinions constitutes valid evidence of anything, whatsoever?  

 

Sigh..... I will be glad to provide you with a page full of opinions to the contrary from some of the most highly respected healthcare professionals and organizations in the world if that’s your argument.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
472
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
581
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

581 Views
Message 1317 of 1,444

1.  No, Bill, I did not ask “for any peer-reviewed evidence fluoride at 0.7-1.4 ppm” whatever in the world you deem that to mean.

 

2.  The US DHHS did not lower anything, nor find anything unsafe, in regard to water  fluoridation.  These are yet more false claims to add to your ever growing list of such.

 

3.  A FAN claim as to what NHANES data has shown does  not constitute  proper evaluation of this data by any qualified, reliable entity.

 

4.  Yes, the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered severe dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect.  This is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.  As this same committe clearly stated in its final report, severe dental fluorosis does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content below 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that level.

 

5.  Neither you, nor anyone else, has provided any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that anyone, anywhere, is being “harmed by the addition of fluoride in public water”.  Your inexplicable unsubstantiated personal opinion to the contrary obviously does not qualify as such evidence.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
581
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
582
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

582 Views
Message 1318 of 1,444

Steve,

 

Have you considered taking some anger managment courses.  Wow.  Calm down.  

 

You have provided some studies reporting a benefit of fluoridation.  Thank you.  Yes, I have read them.  Yes they have value, but limited.

 

None of them are prospective RCT studies.  And yes, quality of study is important.    

 

None of them controled for nor mentioned the unknown which crushed dental caries prior to fluoridation.  

 

Studies of small subsets of the population are valid if the treatment is targeted to those subsets of the population.  

 

Fluoridation is treatment of the entire population, not a subset.

 

And evaluation of hospitalizations is important, but I think we agree there are multiple causes for caries.  And hospitalization is a major factor for socioeconomics.  

 

A friend took the 1986 NIDR survey of dental caries which included fluoride concentration, magnesium concentration and calcium concentration in the public water of each child.  The graph below is most interesting.  It is three snap shots of data with variations in those three elements, fluoride, magnesium and calcium.

 

The graphs clearly show caries rates vary with all three chemical concentrations and they are interdependent.  The software is cool because a person can adjust any one of the three chemicals higher or lower and see what it does to the dental caries rates.

 

Take the first graph where I chose 0.1 ppm fluoride in the water.  I then chose a low magnesium concentration and a low calcium concentration where caries were optimally low.   This is similar to soft water in Seattle.  If all three are at their "optimal" concentration for caries, the caries rate is 1.7 cavities per child.

 

The second graph I chose 0.7 ppm fluoride and and the third graph I chose 1.0 ppm F.    Those concentrations of fluoride also resulted in 1.7 cavities per child.

 

In other words, when the magnesium and calcium concentrations in the water were controlled, caries rates were the same regardless of fluoride concentrations at 0.1, 0.7 or 1.0 ppm.  

 

However, we can see a change in concentration of magnesium or calcium does make a huge difference and increased fluoride exposure over 1 ppm increased caries.   Any study which does not report magnesium or calcium exposure has limitations.

 

When total fluoride exposure increases, caries increases.  Excess total fluoride exposure as reported with increased dental fluorosis is a serious concern.   

 

NIDR large-001.jpgNIDR 1986Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
582
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
588
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

588 Views
Message 1319 of 1,444

Bill,

 

How about we stick with clinical dentistry for the present moment Bill.  And perhaps a bit of evidence-based science thrown in.

 

1.  You stated in your testimony in Cortland, NY, that you place veneers over teeth that are showing fluorosis from CWF.  You did not show any before or after pictures.  You know that the only fluorosis attributed to CWF is very mild to mild.  Why don't you show pictures of before and afters of patients you've treated from CWF that needed veneers?  I'd like to see them.  Please refer to the CDC figure below:

Normal
Image of normal tooth with semi-translucent structure and smooth, glossy, pale cream color.
Questionable
Image of questionable fluorosis. Teeth show some slight differences from normal translucent appearance. Some white spots are apparent but not enough to warrant a diagnosis of very mild fluorosis.
Very mild
Image of very mild fluorosis. Teeth with small, paper-white opaque spots over a small area.
Mild
Image of mild fluorosis. Teeth show white opaque areas covering an extensive portion, but not as much as 50%, of the total surface.
Moderate
Image of moderate fluorosis. All surfaces of teeth affected with opaque areas and teeth show marked wear and brown staining.
Severe
Image of severe fluorosis. All enamel surfaces of teeth are affected and the teeth do not exhibit normal development. The teeth are pitted and brown staining is also apparent.

https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/dental_fluorosis/index.htm

 

2.  The US Community Preventive Services Task Force stated that severe fluorosis does not occur from CWF.  The literature review that they undertook was reviewed by the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG), the same COHG that published their report in 2015 on CWF.  They gave their stamp of approval to the studies used.

 

The USCPSTF findings:

Task Force Finding (April 2013) The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends

1. community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations.

2. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF.

3. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis. Evidence indicates the economic benefit of CWF is greater than the cost.

4.In addition, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the size of the community population.

https://www.thecommunityguide.org/sites/default/files/assets/Oral-Health-Caries-Community-Water-Fluo...

 

Lastly, your mixing of facts and snippets of information based on the typical anti-fluoridation 101 handbook should be somthing left to a person that is outside of our profession, especially someone with an MPH after their name.  Stick with the facts.

 

Show me before/afters of the last 10 patients that you treated with veneers that were required by fluorosis that you relate to CWF.  It's time to become a dentist here, Bill.  Let the other non-dental commentors use the double talk that you are putting out.  Let's make this about clinical experiences.

 

Respectfully,

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
588
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
581
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

581 Views
Message 1320 of 1,444

Invoking “religion” again, I see, Bill.  I fail to understand the constant attempt of antifluoridationists to mingle religion into water fluoridation, however, to each his own, I guess.

 

1.  Your personal opinion of what constitutes “unprofessional and unscientific” is obviously irrelevant and meaningless.

 

2.  Again, as I have clearly demonstrated, the cost savings and safety of water fluoridation are without question.  Constant  attempts by antifluoridationists to create “controversy” and “question” with unsubstantiated claims, false assertions, misrepresented science, and misinformation, does not constitute “good scientists”.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
581
Views