Question:
Some food for thought about your children's teeth ...
NBC ran a pro-fluoride toothpaste spot this morning, along with
information on professional and do-it-yourself tooth bleaching.
The teeth have microscopic pores in them. These pores accumulate stains
from foods, beverages, and smoking. Removing the stain requires repeated
bleaching treatments over a lifetime - a procedure costing up to
$1500.00 per session in a professional dental office, or as little as
$300 with a do-it-yourself kit used at home.
NBC didn't mention that according to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, fluoride makes dental enamel more porous and bones more
brittle. (Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, 1991)
Neither did they mention the fact that absorption of fluoride from the
use of toothpaste or mouthwash - especially among children - is
inevitable. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for dental
benefits from fluoride in any form. No one can name a controlled study
involving humans which showed a reduction in dental decay or any other
benefit. No one can name a controlled safety study involving a search
for people with the symptoms of the pre-crippling forms of chronic
fluoride poisoning. Case reports make comments about safety ridiculous.
According to the National Academy of Sciences, Dental fluorosis rates
have risen by more than 800% in some areas - a clear example of
overdosage. No one knows how many gastrointestinal, neurological,
musculoskeletal, immunological, rheumatic, or chemical intolerance
symptoms are due to fluoride in our air, water, and food. No one has
looked with the tools necessary to evaluate the situation. The symptoms
of poisoning are there. The poison is there, but no one wants to
acknowledge the connection.
Answer:
You may be able to find a small handful of anomalous results, in minor
journals, on almost any subject, to include the flatness of the Earth. But
it's quite clear from this MEDLINE search that the caries-preventative
effects of fluoridation are widely, consistently, and strongly reproduced.
There does not appear to by *any* significant dissent among the
international research community on this note.
I have read too many abstracts in the past to see that conclusions are
often enough contradictory to the evidence available from the
experimental/epidemiological design. Abstracts donīt count. Read the
original articles, read the "materials and methods" part and then the
results and discussion. So-called "Confounding variables" considered?
Mostly not. Look what the York people had to say about the quality of
such studies. - And they (the York people) are in no way anti-fluoride!
"Fluoride is a persistent bioaccumulator, and is entering into human
food-and-beverage chains in increasing amounts. Careful consideration of
all available data indicates that the amount of fluoride ingested daily
in foods and beverages by adult humans living in fluoridated communities
currently ranges between 3.5 and 5.5 mg. ... Long-term ingestion, with
accumulation of fluoride in animals and man, induces metabolic and
biochemical changes, the significance of which has not yet been fully
assessed. It cannot be assumed that such changes are of no significance
to human health ... There is no doubt that inadequate nutrition
increases the severity of fluoride toxicosis ... fluoride has displayed
mutagenic activity in studies of vegetation, insects, and mammalian
oocytes. There is a high correlation between carcinogenicity and
mutagenicity of pollutants, and fluoride has been one of the major
pollutants in several situations where a high incidence of respiratory
cancer has been observed."
I see you're back on your anti-fluoride campaign. Probably a nice
change from the anti-vaccination tone of the misc.kids.health
newsgroup, but nevertheless disingenuous, at best.
No one doubts that some fluoride-based chemicals are toxic at certain
levels. That's a non-issue. No debate necessary there.
But other side of the issue is that at correct doses, fluoride
formulations prepared for dental use has proven benefits with a very low
risk profile. Also well documented (you've seen Chris' long list of
document sources) and proven.
So what's your point? One shouldn't eat veggies grown in soil with high
concentrations of fluoride compounds? We shouldn't use fluoride
toothpaste as salad dressing? I don't get it.
BTW, I am firmly against municipal water fluoridation, but not for the
reasons you are. I oppose it because I oppose forced mass medication of
a community. I'm concerned that the total cummulative dose of the
combination of that which is obtained through drinking water and that
from food sources, toothpaste, etc, might be excessive. I'm opposed to
fluoride drops being dispensed at elementary schools, not because it's
fluoride, but because of the social implications for kids who opt out of
the program. (And I am a bit concerned about systemic dosing.)
Proper use of fluoride for the prevention of dental carries works.
Professional topical application has very, very little or no risk. Oral
administration is perhaps another story. But a stance completely
damning fluoride is not exactly the whole story and is disingenous at
best.
