... however if you really want to get into the scientific part of what exactly happens when you add fluoridation chemicals to the water, I suggest this item has some very useful information.
Fluoridation does not prevent cavities but does cause dental fluorosis, but even if that wasn't the case... it is still immoral mass medication that doses municipal water with a contaminated product that causes or worsens disease and disability in many consumers.
Moreover, fluoridation chemicals are harmful to the environment. There is nothing more to say about it.
Randy,
I stand by my statements because you do not provide evidence to the contrary. If you would spend more time checking the endorsements rather than simply regurgitating the mantra, you would be shocked.
Circular referencing is a huge problem.
Chuck provided some of his favorite endorsements. Lets look at the first one, the Hispanic Dental Association policy statement located at: http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/FLResources_Hispanic_Dental_Association_Endor...
HDA references other endorsements as their evidence for their position. For example, they reference the CDC, Surgeon General, and USPH. However, no primary research is provided.
The CDC is slightly better with a longer list of cherry picked endorsements from other like minded organizations. https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/organizations/index.htm
CDC goes further with a list of links,
- Water Fluoridation Basics
- Water Fluoridation Guidelines & Recommendations
- Water Fluoridation Data & Statistics
- Water Fluoridation Promotional Resources
- Community Water Fluoridation FAQs
- Water Operators & Engineers
Randy, maybe you could help me out here. CDC lists basics, guidelines and recommendations, data and statistics, promotional resources, FAQ, and operators and Engineers. What do you see missing??? Science. Well that is hidden under Guidelines and Recommendations, as Scientific Reviews and Reports: Assessing the Evidence. CDC did not assess the evidence, they rely on reviews and report which allegedly assess the evidence. Lets, very briefly in summary look at their references.
The Community Preventive Services Task Force, (Cherry picked members who support fluoridation and avoided much science not supporting their position.)
NRC 2006 (CDC cherry picks the 2006 report. And severe DF is now over 2%, or about 4-7 million people being harmed, known and undisputed harm, and CWF is a contributing factor, not the only factor. NRC has too many reservations and concerns with recommendations for further study than space permits here. Read the report and remember it is 12 years old, so read the last 12 years of research on each topic.)
US PHS. ( USPHS references the CDC, circular logic and again cherry picks research.)
CDC. (CDC references itself, circular logic.)
IOM (IOM's dietary guidelines for 1997. What is the current IOM dietary guideline for fluoride? Look it up.)
Cochrane review of 2015. (See below)
Australian NHMRC (Again, cherry picked evidence)
WHO 2005 (WHO recommendations are not followed. WHO advises to determine how much fluoride people are getting before starting fluoridation. To my knowledge, no community, city, state, or country has determined with empirical measured evidence the current fluoride exposure prior to starting fluoridation. They blindly start to fluoridate based on endorsements, not science.)
In my opinion, the Cochrane and NRC 2006 review need to be taken together, because Cochrane looks at "benefit" and NRC looks at "exposure" and "risk."
Cochrane with my emphasis in bold.
"There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.
Randy, "very little contemporary evidence" does not give me confidence. When we see huge increases in fluoride exposure from other sources, certainly we need contemporary evidence. And the mother of all confounding factors which decreased dental caries by 4 to 5 teeth prior to fluoridation is not considered. What was it? Maybe that confounding factor is what caused caries to decline and not fluoridation. With very little contemporary evidence, my confidence in mass medication evaporates. We need good contemporary evidence to support fluoridation before fluoridation is continued.
Continuing with Cochrane Authors' conclusions;
"The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.
There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.
There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation."
Randy, is that what you call a robust endorsement of fluoridation? I would say you need to read and weep. But the CDC references Cochrane as evidence every single person, infants, adults, elderly, all ages, all health conditions, even those without teeth must ingest more fluoride. . . even without consent.
You seek to pose isolated factoids that are unimportant to the public health decision. I suspect that at the concentration of 0.7 ppm the fluoride and hydrogen atoms are completely dissociated but it really is utterly irrelevant whether undissociated molecules of HF exist there or not.
Here is a convenient place to read what the many restigious scientific and prefessional organizations advocating fluoridation have to say, in their own words. For reader's convenience I've attached a small sample. These quotations well reflect the scientific consensus supporting fluoridation.
http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems…. Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” - United States Public Health Service Report (ATSDR TP-91/17, Sec.2.7, April 1993)
Fluoridationists have been organized and trained by marketing gurus to frame the conversations around teeth or whatever minor or discredited piece of science that can create doubt. However, the fact of the matter is the weight of the scientific evidence supported by testimony of seniors as well as evolving medical opinion is that fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that causes disease, disability and even death in millions of consumers.
Save when booking a flight & hotel package. Join AARP today for just $12 per year with Automatic Renewal.
Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts. Get started with AARP Rewards now!
From soft jazz to hard rock - discover music's mental, social and physical benefits. Learn more.
