It's very odd that the second "Smile Survey" was not accompanied by a news release touting the accomplishments of government-employee implemented interventions that were highly successful. Instead the report downplays their accomplishments. There's no smoking gun. But that is very odd.
Clearly, the recent statistics show that tooth decay rates have gone down since five years ago. That's something to crow about and to show taxpayers that their money is being well-spent. Instead, the survey is being used to further the agenda of public officials who are committed to fluoridation for their own political gain.
And where did all that money come from that flowed INTO the coffers of the pro-fluoridationists bank accounts?
Fluoridation is a solution looking for a problem Who's really benefiting? Portland's tooth decay record improved over the last 5 years without fluoridation. A fact that state officials tried to cover up, according to FOIA’d emails. Portland actually enjoys better oral health than most fluoridated cities and it did 5 years ago, too. There never was an oral health crisis in Portland except to low-income people who need dental care not fluoride as they do in every fluoridated city in this country. I’m shocked the fluoridationists don’t have a plan in place to get treatment to this group of people, whether fluoridation passed or not.
So, who or what is benefiting from fluoridation besides legislators who'll still get their campaign donations for trying to railroad fluoridation on a new generation or Portlanders and foundations made more rich and therefore more powerful from the “grants” they were given by fluoridationists. And who or what funded the fluoridation funders?
tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities and states, http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com . besides bad diets, 80% of dentists refuse to treat medicaid patients. Deamonte Driver lived in a fluoridated area but after about a dozen dentists refused to treat him, two week hospital care and $250,000 bill to the taxpayers couldn't' save his live. He and several others in the news have died from the consequences of untreated tooth decay because they couldn't afford dental care. Fluoride can never save these people or the 5-year-old in the pro-fluoride mailer.
dentists should be mandated to treat more low income people. After all, they didn't make it on their own. governments and tooth decay benefiting corporations subsidize their education and profession. It's time they give back or get out of the way so Dental Therapists can do the work dentists refuse to do.
For those of you Portland journalists and legislators who opt out of researching and hide behind the CDC's famous quote, you should know the CDC is covering themselves legally by revealing that it really doesn't know if fluoridation is safe because they point you to and want you to read the following “safety” Reviews
Below each is a short explanation of dire warnkings
1) United States Public Health Service Review of Fluoride: Benefits and
They report the following research still needs to be done
Conduct analytical epidemiological studies of osteosarcoma to determine the
risk factors associated with its development. Fluoride exposure and bone levels
of fluoride should be included in the study design.
Evaluate the scientific merit of conducting further animal carcinogenicity
studies which use a wide range of chronic fluoride doses. Industries sponsoring
studies of fluoride should be encouraged to make their data publicly available
to aid in this evaluation.
Conduct analytical epidemiological studies to determine the relationship, if
any, among fluoride intake, fluoride bone levels, diet, body levels of nutrients
such as calcium, and bone fractures.
Conduct studies on the reproductive toxicity of fluoride using various dose
levels including the minimally toxic maternal dose.
Conduct further studies to investigate whether or not fluoride is
2) Institute of Medicine Dietary Reference Guidelines, 1997
Since fluoride is not a nutrient, this report set the adequate intake from all sources
to avoid children’s moderate dental fluorosis (yellow teeth) and, also, the
upper limit to avoid crippling bone damage -- which the IOM admits “is too high
for persons with certain illnesses…” They determined that babies up to 6 months
should never be fed more than 0.01 mg/L fluoride.
3) National Academy of Sciences This isn’t a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis. It found EPA’s current fluoride maximum-contaminant-level-goal (MCLG) for drinking water is not protective of health and must be lowered. EPA has yet to act upon this
recommendation probably because, if they were truthful, it would kill the US’s
fluoridation program. Several members of the NRC panel believe fluoride's MCLG
should be as close to zero as possible.(2006) This fluoride panel revealed science which shows fluoride, even at low doses, is harmful to the thyroid, kidney patients, bones, babies and people who drink lots of water.
4) Australian Government
Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) conducted a systematic review published in 2007, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publica…
Results: “214 studies were
included. The quality of studies was low to moderate...At a fluoride level of 1
ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people
would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning.”
5) University of York
What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found
“We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.”
Those for and against fluoridation agree that too much fluoride is a bad thing and can damage teeth and bones. The EPA says water concentrations at 4 parts per million can cause bone damaging skeletal fluorosis. Toothpaste has 1,000 ppm with a poison warning to not swallow.
So both sides of this issue should be signing the petition against pending legislation that would allow fluoride residues on foods e.g. 900 ppm fluoride on dried eggs. That's if they want to protect Americans and not fluoride and their own political viability.
Petition is here: http://org.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2…
I wonder if those young mothers who have been convinced that fluoridation is a good idea have been told about all the fluoride that's already in food - especially those meant for babies.
There's no dispute between those for and against fluoridation, that too much fluoride damages teeth and bones and that parents and caregivers should carefully monitor their children's daily fluoride intake. But how?
According to the Journal of the American Dental Association (October 2009), all infant formula contains fluoride, whether concentrated or not, whether organic or not. In fact, they all already include over the "adequate intake" of fluoride for six month olds.
Researchers measured fluoride content of 49 infant formulas. See:
-- “Some infant foods/drinks, when reconstituted with fluoridated water, may result in a F intake in infants above the suggested optimum and therefore may put infants at risk of developing dental fluorosis,” Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology (4/2012). (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111…)
-- All baby foods contain fluoride, according to research presented at the 2012 annual meeting of the International Association of Dental Research. (http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2012tampa/webp…)
-- Commonly-consumed infant fruit juices contain fluoride, some at levels higher than recommended for pubic water supplies, according to research was presented 3/17/2011 at the International Association for Dental Research annual meeting in San Diego (http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2011sandiego/w…)
Researchers from the University of Indiana School of Dentistry report in the scientific journal “Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology” that McDonald’s French fries deliver more than guilty pleasure. Your teeth bite into 0.13 milligrams fluoride along with that small portion of McDonald’s fries that goes upward to 0.38 mg in the supersize,
Two slices of “Iron Kids Bread” dose your kids teeth with about 0.08 milligrams fluoride. While two slices of “Aunt Millie’s Homestyle Buttermilk White Bread” releases only .03 mg. Five and one half ounces of Lay’s baked potato chips confers 0.20 mg fluoride, while, the same amount of Ruffles delivers .11 fluoride Many other studies reveal hidden fluoride in jarred baby chicken food, chicken sticks and luncheon meat. Forty two percent of juices contain more fluoride than recommended for small children. And 71% of sodas contain more than .6 ppm fluoride (0.6 milligrams per liter or quart)
The USDA lists the fluoride content of some common foods here:
It's sad to see well-meaning people manipulated into believing (or maybe being paid to) that adding more fluoride into low-income children is a good idea. I'd like to see the same people rallying to raise money to cover the inevitable fluorosed teeth that will occur if fluoridation passes.
Dentists are Fluoride-Misinformed
Most dentists are trained to use politics and not science to promote fluoridation, according to Armfield and Melbye in the Journal of the American Dental Association . The researchers write: "Studies of dentists' attitudes about water fluoridation suggest that a lack of knowledge and preparedness are barriers to discussing the topic ... more than one-half of the respondents believed they needed more information and training on the issue.
Armfield and Melbye postulate that: "Dentists' lack of self-efficacy with respect to critically evaluating scientific literature may help to explain their reluctance to promote water fluoridation in their clinical practices." Other studies how dentists don’t keep current on new fluoride science, e.g. this research y by Yoder http://tinyurl.com/Yoder
Research shows that 57% of Texas dentists incorrectly identified primary effect of fluoride. 'Makes enamel stronger while tooth is developing prior to eruption' was the most commonly cited wrong answer (44%). Only 5% identified that posteruptive effect exceeds any preeruptive effect.
All Comments »
All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
Contact Info |
Production Guidelines |