Dentistry Watch: Tooth Decay Worse in Children?
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmaKKt0N8rQ[/youtube]
Paul Casamassimo, DDS, Chief of Dentistry at Nationwide Children’s Hospital
Sadly the answer is YES.
Although Americans of all ages continue to experience improvements in their dental health, tooth decay in primary (baby) teeth increased among children aged 2 to 5 years according to a study released by the Centers for Disease Control.
Indeed.
One of Flap’s frustrations in his almost 30 years of dental practice is the sometimes slow progress being made in American’s dental health. Other findings of the CDC report acknowledge this:
- The prevalence of tooth decay in the permanent teeth of youths aged 6 to 11 years decreased from approximately 25 percent to 21 percent, and among adolescents aged 12 to 19 years decreased from 68 percent to 59 percent.
- The use of dental sealants increased from 22 percent to 30 percent among youths aged 6 to 11 years and from 18 percent to 38 percent among adolescents aged 12 to 19 years.
- Moderate and severe periodontitis (gum disease) decreased from 10 percent to 5 percent among adults aged 20 to 64 years and from 27 percent to 17 percent for seniors aged 65 years and older.
- Among seniors aged 65 years and older, the percentage with complete tooth loss (edentulism) decreased from 34 percent to 27 percent.
- Among adults aged 20 to 64 years, 60 percent reported having a dental visit in the past year during 1999–2004, compared with 66 percent reporting a visit in the past year during the previous survey (1988–1994).
In California, the incidence of tooth decay in young children is scandalous, particularly among Hispanic immigrant children.
There has to be better dental and diet education especially in the Hispanic communities. But, the lack of dental knowledge among the general public is striking. Just ask anyone: What causes tooth decay?
Fluoridation of the water supply will also help and believe it or not fluoridation has ONLY been recently implemented in most of Southern California (Metropolitan Water District).
Access to dental and dental preventive care will continue to be issues.
Stay tuned……
Technorati Tags: Dentistry, Tooth Decay
Your comments are welcome below and at My Dental Forum
37 Comments
nyscof
The dental health crisis facing most Americans today is lack of access to dental care.
Little exposed but also reported in the same government report is that
Recently released figures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention based on the most recent information available (2003-04) indicate that the percentage of Americans with untreated tooth decay began rising this decade, reversing nearly 50 years of improvement in dental health.The reversal seems to be directly related to access to dental care issues.
http://www.hispanicmpr.com/2007/12/06/colgate-palmolive-dental-health-care-campaign-reaches-high-percentage-of-hispanic-children/
Flap
And, the question then becomes: Who will pay for it?
Education and prevention like fluoridation are far cheaper than hiring dentists to drill and fill.
By the way, your site listed above is full of junk science about fluoridation.
nyscof
First of all no American child is fluoride deficient. The CDC says up to 51% of US school children have dental fluorosis.
Solving the dental access problem with more fluoride just doesn’t make sense and actually puts children at higher risk of fluorosis and more tooth decay since severe fluoride overdose actually makes teeth crumble, as you know.
Even if poor children with the most cavities were counter-intuitively drinking fluoride-free bottled water, rice, pasta, and other foods suck up the fluoride in tap water. Fluoride is also inhaled via cold mist humidifiers and shower and bath steam.
Fluoride is in virtually all foods.
In fact, it’s probably impossible to consume a fluoride free diet.
Most Americans brush with fluoridated toothpaste – some of which invariably gets into their blood system through involuntary swallowing and absorption via cheek membranes.
108 million Americans don’t have dental insurance. 80% of dentists refuse to treat Medicaid patients.
Dentists didn’t get wealthy on their own. Government subsidizes dental schools and dental education and probably more than that.
Dentists have a moral responsibility to give back since their dental unions assure them of having a monopoly on filling cavities.
The long term solution would be to allow two-year trained Dental Health Aide Therapists to work in the U.S. as they are allowed to work in other developed countries.
Their work is as good as dentists and they will accept Medicaid and will work in dentist deficient areas. Unfortunately, organized dentistry lobbies against this solution.
So that leaves the number one solution. Dentists should be required to take a reasonable amount of low-income patients – either for free, on a sliding scale or for what Medicaid offers.
And if you didn’t push fluoridation on everyone, I wouldn’t be here to bother you.
Flap
Do you have citations for your wild and misleading claims?
Citations besides anti-fluoridation web sites?
Are you repeating yourself or are you simply cutting and pasting across many web sites?
And, I ask you again how will you pay for a universal dental health program?
Flap
You lost the fluoridation argument long ago. Your site is full of pseudo-science and misinformation.
If you want a government mandated universal dental health plan then tell me how you will pay for it and you may be elected President.
And I direct you to my comments and terms of use policy. If you bother me, it is simple to ban you.
nyscof
Listen, I’m used to dentists banning or shutting down anyone opposed to fluoridation in person or elsewhere. That’s how you’ve had so many successful fluoridation campaigns. You may be able to ban me from your website. But you can’t ban me from the internet no matter how much you wish you could. And that’s why more and more people are aware that fluoridationists are mis-representing the literature. Science does not support fluoridation – it never did.
The British Medical Journal reported on October 6, 2007 that a group of objective British Scientists (the York Review) scoured the literature, found 3200 fluoride/fluoridation studies but none proved fluoridation is safe or effective.
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports that fluoridationists continue to mispresent the York Review and the fluoride literature.
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/fileLibrary/pdf/Public_health_-_ethical_issues.pdf
Flap
Please you anti-fluoride trolls are notorious on the internet.
Mostly junk science manipulated to your point of view.
Here is a link that readers can access (a Pdf file) about fluoride, its effectiveness and answers many questions.
LaneW
So is the 2006 NRC report Junk science and out dated?
and I really Like how the Educated or not so Educated professionals in white always have to revert to name calling (Children)
“Poly wants a crackerâ€
Why don’t you start educating yourselves rather than merely repeating what your trade organization tell you to preach, ADA.
Flap
Well, I can read the scientific literature and the stuff you anti-fluoridationist trolls spew out is crap.
Have any scientific studies to share? I mean REAL science.
LaneW
Who will pay?
The answer, Delta Dental in my area.
I my community they (Delta Dental/WDS and WDF) paid over 250,000.00 dollars to lose
and not a cent went to help those who they said really needed it.
(This is happening all over the United States)
It only helps the pockets of radio stations, TV stations, advertising firms, lawyers, news papers, mailers, printers and for postage.
They also promised another 600,000.00 for fluoridation startup costs.
If that money would have been used for better reimbursement to dentists so they would see the low income and sponsor more free clinics for the uninsured,
That would have helped those who directly needed it.
Also I don’t believe it, even if you say it over and over.
“You lost the fluoridation argument long agoâ€
It only has begun,
as stated by the CDC last Century
“Community water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th centuryâ€
Science in the 21st Century is proving that scheme archaic.
Come on Doctors, one dose fits all?
I cry Malpractice for any of you that stand behind that.
Best
Flap
Delta Dental is private insurance paid for by either government, individuals or employers. Yeah, they will pay for everyone – NOT.
Better reimbursement for dentists will only solve the problem after the damage has been done. Education and prevention are by far and away cheaper public health measures.
Malpractice, you are not making any sense now.
LaneW
So have you read it?
Is your REAL science by the ADA?
The NRC report was Done by
COMMITTEE ON FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER
Members
JOHN DOULL (Chair), University Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City
KIM BOEKELHEIDE, Brown University, Providence, RI
BARBARA G. FARISHIAN, Washington, DC
ROBERT L. ISAACSON, Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY
JUDITH B. KLOTZ, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Piscataway, NJ
JAYANTH V. KUMAR, New York State Department of Health, Albany
HARDY LIMEBACK, University of Toronto, Ontario, CANADA
CHARLES POOLE, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill
J. EDWARD PUZAS, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY
NU-MAY RUBY REED, California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, CA
KATHLEEN M. THIESSEN, SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., Oak Ridge, TN
THOMAS F. WEBSTER, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA
Staff
SUSAN N. J. MARTEL, Project Director
CAY BUTLER, Editor
TAMARA DAWSON, Senior Program Assistant
Sponsor
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Flap
Have a citation?
The science cited in the American Dental Association document is from many sources and is documented at the link I previously posted.
LaneW
Read the report and Learn what Fluoride does to you as a whole and
the lack of safety margins.
Also I would like to see your science / health studies on fluorosilicates to prove they are safe for human consumption.
That’s right there are none.
According to the EPA, no chronic health studies exist on this substance
But it is ok to dump it into our water to drink
and say it is “Safe and Effective”
Flap
Old arguments and junk science from non-experts.
But, it sounds good. Mostly it is BS.
The study you cite did not reach the conclusions you state. Their charge was to look at higher fluoride concentrations from all sources.
You might wish to read the study here.
LaneW
Is that all you can say? WOW
Great come back on me, nice Facts.
You shine so bright as an expert,
I have to bow to your great Knowledge, I’m humbled.
You have not stated one fact for fluoride.
I do agree about the education and hygiene.
My wife has done many free handouts of tooth brushes, floss, timers
You missed the point, better reimbursement to dentists can be for prevention/cleaning and topical fluoride applied by a professional as well.
Who said it is for only fixing after the damage is done?
Stop being so narrow minded,
My wife has done many free handouts, tooth brushes, floss, timers and education on sweets and cleaning/rinsing with water after you eat/drink out of your own pocket in many local schools during after school PTA functions.
Have a good evening
P.S. to clear it up
Follow me on this one
Fluoride is being added for the purpose to prevent dental Disease = Medication
Water fluoridation = mass medication, one dose fits all = Malpractice
Flap
Your logical fallacies abound.
I don’t have to prove anything. I have already linked to a handout that nicely lays out the facts and has numerous links.
Here is a link to a PDF booklet that also does the same: Flouridation Facts
nyscof
There is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland, according to the National Research Council’s (NRC) first-ever published review of the fluoride/thyroid literature.(A)
Fluoride, in the form of silicofluorides, injected into 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies was never safety-tested.(B)
“Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency,†says Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, co-author of the government-sponsored NRC report. “The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals,†says Thiessen.
“A low level of thyroid hormone can increase the risk of cardiac disease, high cholesterol, depression and, in pregnant woman, decreased intelligence of offspring,†said Thiessen.(C)
Robert Carton, PhD, an environmental scientist who worked for over 30 years for the U.S. government including managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, says according to the NRC report “fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male.â€(E) (1.0 mg/L fluoride is in most water supplies)
Among many others, the NRC Report cites human studies which show
– fluoride concentrations in thyroids exceeding that found in other soft tissues except kidney
– an association between endemic goiter and fluoride exposure or enamel fluorosis in human populations
– fluoride adversely affects thyroid and parathyroid hormones, which affect bone health
“If you have a thyroid problem, avoiding fluoride may be a good preventive health measure for you,†writes Drs’ Richard and Karilee Shames in “Thyroid Power.â€(F).
Over 1200 Physicians, Dentists, Scientists, Academics and Environmentalists urge Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation is ineffective and has serious health risks. (http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html)
References:
http://groups.google.com/group/Fluoridation-News-Releases/browse_thread/thread/14b517a5be6aa97e
Flap
This is old news:
ADA Statement on Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
Chicago, March 22, 2006—The American Dental Association (ADA) emphasizes that the just-released report on fluoride by the National Academies’ National Research Council only addresses the levels of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water that exceed the EPA’s current recommendations. The report in no way examines or calls into question the safety of community water fluoridation, which is the process of adding fluoride to public water supplies to reach an optimal level of 0.7 – 1.2 ppm in order to protect people against tooth decay. One part per million is the equivalent to about one cent in $10,000. The ADA continues to endorse community water fluoridation as a vital public health measure.
The report, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standard, concludes that the Environmental Protection Agency’s maximum fluoride goal of 4 ppm should be lowered to protect the public’s health . Just over 200,000 Americans live in communities where fluoride levels in drinking water are 4 ppm or higher. It is crucial to note that the 4 ppm concentration of fluoride is nearly four times the optimum amount recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and ADA to prevent tooth decay.
The ADA is a strong supporter of community water fluoridation, cited by the CDC as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century, as a safe, beneficial and cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay in children and adults.
The science-based ADA welcomes new information on the topic of fluoride and its effect on the public’s health. For more about community water fluoridation, visit http://www.ada.org/goto/fluoride and for additional information on the fluoride report, visit http://www.nationalacademies.org Link opens in separate window. Pop-up Blocker may need to be disabled..
About the American Dental Association
The not-for-profit ADA is the nation’s largest dental association, representing more than 155,000 dentist members. The premier source of oral health information, the ADA has advocated for the public’s health and promoted the art and science of dentistry since 1859. The ADA’s state-of-the-art research facilities develop and test dental products and materials that have advanced the practice of dentistry and made the patient experience more positive. The ADA Seal of Acceptance long has been a valuable and respected guide to consumer and professional products. For more information about the ADA, visit the Association’s Web site at http://www.ada.org.
Flap
How about citations from the original publications and point by point.
Links back to anti-fluoride web sites and your own organization reports which simply link back to your other sites do not count.
Too many circular arguments and logical fallacies for me.
nyscof
I tried to post the references, but your website filtered me out. So I posted the link to the references. I’ll try again. But you are in control here:
A) “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. March 2006 Chapter 8
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
“Thyroid Function: Fluoride exposure in humans is associated with elevated TSH concentrations, increased goiter prevalence, and altered T4 and T3 concentrations.” (Page 262)
“(The thyroid effects are associated with average fluoride intakes that) will be reached by persons with average exposures at fluoride concentrations of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water, especially the children.” (Page 260)
(B) Sodium Hexafluorosilicate and Fluorosilicic Acid
Review of Toxicological Literature, October 2001
http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/htdocs/Chem_Background/ExSumPDF/Fluorosilicates.pdf
(C) Chemical & Engineering News, “Fluoride Risks Are Still A Challenge,†by Bette Hileman, September 4, 2006,
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/84/8436gov1.html
(E) Fluoride, “Review of the 2006 National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water,†July-September 2006, by Robert J. Carton
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf
Flap
Yes, the spam filter only allows a few links per post because most spammers use a multiple link scheme.
You would not believe how many spam comments and trackbacks I receive a day – thousands.
Here your citations look dated or from your own anti-fluoridation web sites?
Anything new since the March 2006 ADA Statement on Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards?
nyscof
Blue-Ribbon Scientific Panel Exposes Fluoridation’s Serious Health Risks
New York – September 2006 — Fluoride jeopardizes health – even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in a recent National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children’s teeth. (1) At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.
Panel members took several years to read, understand and discuss hundreds of studies about fluoride’s adverse health effects. “Unfortunately, many fluoridationists are dismissing this voluminous report as “only one study.” It isn’t. Many fluoridation promoters also mistakenly believe this report has nothing to do with water fluoridation at 1 ppm. However, it does according to several panel members,” says Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).
An Oregon newspaper reports, “NAS panel member Kathy Thiessen, PhD a former scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who has studied fluoride for the EPA, said the report showed ‘the potential is there’ that water fluoridation is unhealthy. As for the studies finding that higher levels damage children’s IQ, she said it’s possible water fluoridation levels may have a similar, albeit reduced effect… the research suggests ‘most people should minimize their fluoride intake’ — which includes avoiding fluoridated water.”
“NAS panel member Robert Isaacson, PhD a distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York in Binghamton, agreed, saying that the possible effects on endocrines and hormones from water-fluoridation are ‘something that I wouldn’t want to happen to me…,'” reports the Portland Tribune.
NAS panel member Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto writes, “In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation.”
Drs. Isaacson & Limeback advocate a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero. Dr. Theissen says the MCLG should be well below 1 ppm. (7)
The 12-member NRC fluoride committee unanimously decided that fluoride’s 4 milligrams per liter (4 mg/L) maximum-contaminant-level (MCL) must be lowered. They concluded that healthy average adults consuming 8 milligrams fluoride daily, via two liters of 4mg/L fluoridated water, risk weakened bones, fractures, and stage II skeletal fluorosis (pain, joint stiffness, pelvis and spine osteosclerosis).
However, some high-water drinkers consume 8 milligrams fluoride daily when only 1 mg/L is added to their water supplies, according to the report.
“The adult daily dosage is equivalent to a 2.28 mg a day dose for a child,” says Chemistry Professor Emeritus, Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.
Fluoride is also in food, beverages, pharmaceuticals, dental products, pesticide residues, cigarette smoke and air emissions. The EPA is allowing additional fluoride in foods via sulfuryl fluoride pesticide residues. New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer wrote the EPA that, “”…the tolerances established by EPA are not sufficiently protective against adverse health effects,” (5)
About 2/3 of U.S. water suppliers deliberately add fluoride chemicals (mostly industrial waste silicofluorides) to reach 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, so-called optimal, in a failed effort to prevent tooth decay (6). But, “fluoride is a water contaminant over 1.3 mg/L,” the NRC reports.
“This report is misleading by suggesting that the problem has to be studied to death before decisions can be made,” says retired EPA scientist, Robert Carton, PhD. “The safe drinking water act requires the federal government to act if there is any indication of possible or anticipated adverse health effects in order to protect the most vulnerable subsets of the population,” says Carton
“Fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day.With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male, according to the report,” says Carton.
Furthermore, studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible, reports the NRC.
Eleven unions representing over 7,000 EPA scientists, engineers, lawyers and others ask for a moratorium on fluoridation.(8)
The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of any substance in the water
supply is the unenforceable level by which no one is harmed. The MCLG is purely based on science; while the MCL is a political number based on ability to reduce fluoride levels.
“Based on the science reported by the NRC, the MCLG for fluoride should be closed to zero,” says Carton.
This is why the MCLG for fluoride should be set near zero and/or fluoridation stopped. According to the NRC report:
A) Babies under one year consume over their adequate intake (to avoid
moderate fluorosis) from the water supply alone at the so-called
optimal concentrations (0.7 – 1.2 mg/L).
B) Some athletes, workers and/or military personnel already consume up
to 10 milligrams fluoride from optimally fluoridated water, alone.
C) “…severe renal insufficiency appears to increase bone fluoride
concentrations, perhaps as much as twofold.”
D) “The elderly are at increased risk of high bone fluoride
concentrations due to accumulation over time…”
E) “There are medical conditions that can make people more susceptible
to the effects of fluoride.”
F) “…several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride
exposure on thyroid function…it is difficult to predict exactly what
effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of
fluoride exposure and under what circumstances.”
G) “…all children through 12 who take fluoride supplements (assuming
low water fluoride) will reach or exceed [optimal].”
A Texarkana Gazette editorial reports, “While dentists still largely believe the benefits outweigh the risks, fluoridation is no longer beyond dispute. At the very least, the report indicates a need for caution….Virtues and vices sometimes come in the same package. What’s good for the teeth looks more and more like it’s bad for other body parts. That’s not a slam dunk, that’s a trade off.” (3)
References:
1) “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards,” Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. March 2006
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html?onpi_newsdoc03222006
2) “Fluoride foes get validation – Scientists: Substance less safe than presumed: more research needed,” by Nick Budnick, March 24, 2005, Portland Tribune
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=34527
3) http://www.texarkanagazette.com/articles/2006/04/09/local_news/opinion/opinions02.txt
4) “GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming,” http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-06/05-14-06/02opinion.htm
5) http://www.fluoridealert.org/nyag-sf.pdf
6) http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com
7) The 2nd Citizens’ Conference on Fluoride: A Summary, Fluoride Action Network
http://www.fluoridealert.org/conference/about.htm
8) “EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up ,” August 2005
http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm
(E) Fluoride, “Review of the 2006 National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water,†July-September 2006, by Robert J. Carton
http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf
Flap
Circular arguments from anti-fluoride websites and blogs. More opinion, conjecture, speculation than anything else.
Note: Statements are not supported from peer-reviewed scientific literature like the American Dental Association ones are.
LaneW
Flap,
Stop Flapping your Gums and Pony Up your Science.
The burden of proof is on You.
Show me your citation of the chronic health studies on this substance showing it safe.
How do you have a safety margin when there is no control of Dose?
Why do you think that the ADA came out with there advisory for infants and formula?
Do you really believe they did that because they wanted to?
No, because of the Science in the NRC report
They see the writing on the wall.
They are slowing backing away and trying to save face so somebody doesn’t hang them for the last 50 years of lies, like the tobacco industry.
Doctors took money for that industry as well .
I hope you can get this one,
When you add fluorosilicates to municipal water everything it touches becomes contaminated with it
Go to
Flap
Please read the links above. The answers are contained therein.
And, no the burden of proof is not on me. Water fluoridation has been safe and beneficial when used appropriately for many many years.
Flap
From the California Department of Health Sciences:
Fluoridation is Safe, Effective, and Economical
The Community Water Fluoridation Program of the Department of Health Services (DHS) provides scientific and technical expertise to communities interested in fluoridating their drinking water. California’s fluoridated drinking water act, Assembly Bill 733, became law in 1995, authorizing water systems with 10,000 or more service connections to fluoridate once money from an outside source is provided. California DHS is also responsible for securing funds to purchase and install fluoridation equipment for public water systems.
Fluoridation Information
* All drinking water naturally contains some fluoride. Community water fluoridation is the process of adjusting the naturally occurring fluoride level to the optimum level for preventing tooth decay.
* Adults, as well as children, benefit from drinking fluoridated water throughout their lives.
* More than half (62%) of the U.S. population live in communities served by fluoridated water supplies.
* Community water fluoridation has the endorsement of every major health organization in the United States and many other countries, as well as every Surgeon General for the past 50 years.
* The concentration of fluoride in community drinking water is controlled within plus or minus 0.1 parts per million and represents no health hazards.
* Every $1 spent on fluoridation saves $120 in dental treatment costs.
* See Fluoride Facts and Fiction.
Fluoride and Infant Formula
Fluoridation of community drinking water has been practiced in the U.S. for more than 60 years. It is accepted as a safe and effective public health practice for people of all ages. The past five Surgeon General’s have recommended communities fluoridate their water to prevent tooth decay. Recently a report was released by the National Academy of Science reporting a high level of naturally occurring fluoride in several states. These findings resulted in the release of interim guidance statements by the American Dental Association (ADA), concerning the reconstitution of powdered or liquid infant formula with tap water if the infant is below the age of one year. Some infants whose primary source of feeding is powdered or liquid formula reconstituted with tap water may be consuming fluoride at a level that might increase the potential for very mild or mild enamel fluorosis. Enamel fluorosis is a cosmetic condition and is not considered an adverse health effect. This occurs on baby and permanent teeth while they are forming under the gums. Once the teeth come into the mouth, they are no longer able to develop this condition. Typically, very mild or mild fluorosis is barely noticeable, if noticed at all, usually noticed only by a trained dental professional. The ADA interim guidance recommends that parents of infants whose main source of nutrition is formula mixed from powder or liquid concentrate use water that is low in fluoride for mixing formula. The full ADA statement is available at http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has information on enamel fluorosis and the issue concerning infant formula on their webpage at: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm. The ADA, California Department of Health Services (CDHS) and the CDC encourage mothers to breastfeed their babies. Breast milk is widely acknowledged as the most complete form of nutrition for infants.
Parents and caregivers are encouraged to consult with their pediatrician, family physician or dentist on the most appropriate water to use in their area to reconstitute the infant formula. Parents and health care providers should weigh the balance between a child’s risk for very mild or mild enamel fluorosis and the benefit of fluoride for preventing tooth decay. Historically, some occurrence of the milder forms of fluorosis has been accepted as a reasonable and minor consequence balanced against the substantial protection from tooth decay afforded by drinking water containing an optimal concentration of fluoride. However, steps can be taken to reduce the potential for enamel fluorosis associated with drinking water and other fluoride products. CDC has issued recommendations and will continue to assess the science regarding the use of fluoride in preventing tooth decay while limiting enamel fluorosis and will modify its recommendations if new information shows that a change is appropriate. CDC continues to believe that water fluoridation is safe and effective and promotes its use for people of all ages.
The CDHS advises parents to follow the recommendations that CDC has developed to reduce the risk for enamel fluorosis. This information is public information and should be utilized by parents or caregivers concerned about the occurrence of fluorosis following the reconstitution of liquid or powdered infant formula with tap water. We suggest that you avail yourselves of that information by utilizing the web address listed above for the CDC.
LaneW
Sorry missed the link
http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf
Flap
And, you would prefer that when the science changes that the American Dental Association NOT make changes in their recommendations?
Most of the other stuff is silly. Saving face? Please…..
So, fluoridation is a conspiracy by the dental profession? To make money?
In your last link what are you trying to say or what point are you trying to make?
LaneW
No, just pointing out that came out of the pseudo-science and misinformation you claim we use.
God your slow
Flap
Non-responsive answer to previous questions.
Watch calling me names. I direct you to my comments policy.
LaneW
Soory I will use “trolls”
as you do then.
That must be less of a name than “slow”
Flap
Read the comments policy and consider this a warning.
Mac Guy
Your use of junk science from a proponent of water fluoridation shows your disinterest in researching the issue yourself. You answer our questions by giving us biased opinions from organizations that push fluoridation – especially the callifornia people who pushed through fluoridation in 1995 using clandestine methods – and then felt very comfortable reporting about it in the Journal of the California Dental Association.
One dentist wanted to “prove” how NON-toxic fluoride is by swallowing a whole vial of fluoride pills in front of the legislative body and said “Look I’m still alive.”
I really hope you understand how deadly that is as children have died from ingesting too many fluoride tablets.
Dentists are very poorly educated about fluoride and fluoridation as you exhibit by not being able to personally vouch for fluoridation and showing us the specific studies proving fluoridation is safe. You are relying on someone else to do your homework and it’s adversely affecting the entire country.
I’m afraid your choice of presidential candidate also shows you lack of research aksi, You saw Giuliani walking around aimlessly after 9-ll because he had no where to go. Against advice by experts, he put his command center in a world trade center building to protect the world trade center from attack after the 1992 WTC attack. He gave a no bid contract to Motorola for the walkie talkies that didn’t work on 911 that caused NY fireman and policeman to die. He shipped the remains of victims to the staten island dump after the gold bars he really was looking for were found.
I don’t want you messing up my country like you’ve messed up the water supply
Flap
Let’s go over your statements one by one:
No junk science from me. I have linked citations which include links from peer reviewed dental and medical journals.
Organizations that push fluoridation like the CDC, ADA and California Department of Health Services. You bet. Mainstream organizations that care about the health of the people they serve.
California Assembly Bill 733, which became California law in 1995 was passed by the legistature and signed by Governor Wilson. Clandestine? Hardly. And, it has been the law since 1995.
I’ll have more later.
LaneW
“citations which include links from peer reviewed dental and medical journals.”
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 2 Summer 2005
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph. D.
Conclusions
Artificial fluoridation of drinking water by municipalities at 1
ppm of fluoride ion probably does not reduce tooth decay, except
for a minor effect on deciduous teeth. Hexafluorosilicic acid and its
sodium salt, which contain other toxic substances because they are
not purified, certainly have no significant benefit.
Proponents of fluoridation have censored most media, ignored
intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of
fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in
a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published
studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found
unsupported by their raw data.
There is evidence that fluoridation increases the incidence of
cancer, hip fractures, joint problems, and that by causing fluorosis it
damages both teeth and bones. Other medical problems may also
occur, including neurologic damage.
Antifluoridationists compromise their credibility by
unwarranted assertions that many stable fluorine-containing
materials are harmful.
The EPA should set the enforceable Maximum Contaminant
Level at 0.4 ppm fluoride in drinking water.
The FDA should reverse its position on permitting sale of
products containing fluoride that claim dental benefit without proof
of safety or effectiveness.
Fluoridation of municipal water should cease. Defluoridation
of naturally fluoridated water down to 0.4 ppm of fluoride should
be mandated. Individuals should remove fluoride from their tap
water if fluoridation cannot be stopped.
I’ll have more later.
Flap
Hardly a scientific peer reviewed journal but a whacko right wing fringe site.
Junk Science from a Junk Journal…….
Next……
And, Ron Paul is a member. Fancy that…..