Letter in reply to dentristry magazine

Fluoridation - "It delivers results every time"
Dear Editor,
I wholeheartedly agree with Julian English {Editorial Comment 15.11.2007] that fluoridation of water supplies delivers results every time! Quoting evidence from the York Review {the definitive treatise for Government bodies} fluoridation delivers 48% dental fluorosis, 12.5% of serious aesthetic concern, which would require cosmetic dentistry to remedy, (probably at considerable cost to the sufferers family}. The York Review suggested an overall benefit to the incidence of dental caries of 15% but admitted that the evidence was unreliable and that higher quality studies should be undertaken. There is also emerging evidence in the U.S. that in fluoridated areas there is an increased incidence of osteosarcoma {bone cancer} in teenage boys which has a 50% mortality in the first five years. The “delivery” might also include brittle bones, thyroid damage et alia!! Mr. English makes a comparison with flu’ jabs, mass inoculation and smoking bans but omits to notice that thinking people have a free choice in those matters!! I would also like to refer Mr. English to the Nuffield Council on Bioethics “Public Health- ethical issues”, published 13.11.07 ISBN 978-1-904384-17-5, in which the benefits and harms of fluoridation are considered in a very balanced way. The study publishes a graph which shows the decrease in dental caries in 14 European countries between 1965 and 2003 for 12 year olds. Each country shows a marked decrease. The only countries with fluoride are Spain 3%, Portugal 1%, U.K.9%, Ireland 74%. In the U.K. between 1973 and 2003 there has been a decrease in decayed, missing or filled teeth from 5 to 1 in this age group. The study advises that given the general improvement in children`s teeth the possible harm caused by fluoridation, the low quality of research and the alternative methods available for delivering fluoride to those who want it, at best a “precautionary approach” should be taken on any further fluoridation of our water supplies. I would therefore like to suggest that the “anti- fluoridation “lobby, far from being “silenced” is alive and well and being supported in its aims by the academics of today.

Yours Sincerely,Rob Mehta