USA - LETTER: Fluoride is not the answer
Fluoride is not the answer
The dominant slant of pro-fluoridation found in Sunday's Oct. 26 Standard-Times almost struck me as funny, since on the Perspective page Ken Hartnett characterizes the person at a local health food store as being way over the top in advocating against fluoridation, and then I turn to page B4 where a huge ad in favor of fluoridation questions the mental stability of anyone who would question this action. Is heavy-handedness only allowed on one side? I'm going to offer everyone reading this a totally unscientific view of water fluoridation.
I grew up in a fluoridated community in another state, living with fluoridation for the first 24 years of my life. I have lived in this area for the past 25 years, without benefit of fluoride (I don't even use fluoride toothpaste). I had reasonably good oral health as a kid, a few cavities. I only lost teeth to braces and wisdom tooth extraction. The girl that lived across the street from me all those years ago, however, had pretty dreadful teeth way back then, and when my mother saw her about 10 or 12 years ago, that childhood friend had very few of her teeth left. My point is that water fluoridation doesn't have nearly the impact some would claim, since in my own opinion, that it was the other girl's aversion to brushing her teeth (I recall her faking the action of tooth brushing behind the bathroom door) and her insatiable appetite for soda, candy and highly sugared treats that probably rotted her teeth away (smoking no doubt failed to help).
I think it is very misleading for anyone to say this will make such a dramatic difference. I give Mayor Lang huge credit for saying to the city's population that they rightfully have the choice to decide how they're to be treated. The alternative approaches he has proposed put parents and children in charge of their destiny, with a dose of help from others, which is how it should be.
But I cannot close without also commenting on the woeful lack of direct support of dental professionals in caring for poor children's teeth. Only approximately 12 percent of all dentists in the state will accept Medicaid patients (MassHealth) because it is an economic and administrative burden on them (read "their business"). Somehow their passion to care for the less fortunate stops short of assuming such a burden. It would be so much cheaper to dump a chemical in the drinking supply. Of course, I have to ask who might be behind the huge advertisement this Sunday. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were dentists who don't wish to bear the cost of seeing poorer patients but can spend a decent chunk of change on such propaganda? When will we stop choosing money over quality of life and health?
CAROL MURCHIE
Fairhaven
The dominant slant of pro-fluoridation found in Sunday's Oct. 26 Standard-Times almost struck me as funny, since on the Perspective page Ken Hartnett characterizes the person at a local health food store as being way over the top in advocating against fluoridation, and then I turn to page B4 where a huge ad in favor of fluoridation questions the mental stability of anyone who would question this action. Is heavy-handedness only allowed on one side? I'm going to offer everyone reading this a totally unscientific view of water fluoridation.
I grew up in a fluoridated community in another state, living with fluoridation for the first 24 years of my life. I have lived in this area for the past 25 years, without benefit of fluoride (I don't even use fluoride toothpaste). I had reasonably good oral health as a kid, a few cavities. I only lost teeth to braces and wisdom tooth extraction. The girl that lived across the street from me all those years ago, however, had pretty dreadful teeth way back then, and when my mother saw her about 10 or 12 years ago, that childhood friend had very few of her teeth left. My point is that water fluoridation doesn't have nearly the impact some would claim, since in my own opinion, that it was the other girl's aversion to brushing her teeth (I recall her faking the action of tooth brushing behind the bathroom door) and her insatiable appetite for soda, candy and highly sugared treats that probably rotted her teeth away (smoking no doubt failed to help).
I think it is very misleading for anyone to say this will make such a dramatic difference. I give Mayor Lang huge credit for saying to the city's population that they rightfully have the choice to decide how they're to be treated. The alternative approaches he has proposed put parents and children in charge of their destiny, with a dose of help from others, which is how it should be.
But I cannot close without also commenting on the woeful lack of direct support of dental professionals in caring for poor children's teeth. Only approximately 12 percent of all dentists in the state will accept Medicaid patients (MassHealth) because it is an economic and administrative burden on them (read "their business"). Somehow their passion to care for the less fortunate stops short of assuming such a burden. It would be so much cheaper to dump a chemical in the drinking supply. Of course, I have to ask who might be behind the huge advertisement this Sunday. Wouldn't it be ironic if it were dentists who don't wish to bear the cost of seeing poorer patients but can spend a decent chunk of change on such propaganda? When will we stop choosing money over quality of life and health?
CAROL MURCHIE
Fairhaven
posted by Bill at
10:07 AM
1 Comments:
I seem to have touched a nerve as evidenced in the responding editorial in the 11/4/2006 Standard-Times linked here:
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/11-06/11-04-06/03opinion.htm
It would be nice to see these dentists spending their profits on all the cosmetic, glamorous dentistry they advertise in the phonebook on some of the poor. Still, they miss the point about what REALLY works, not just what is cost effective.
By
Anonymous, at 04 November, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home