Canada - Why a crusade against fluoride now?
Why a crusade against fluoride now?
Misinformation: Dentists wonder what a U.S. anti-fluoride group has to gain from bringing its campaign to London
By Ian Gillespie The London Free Press
Last Updated: March 3, 2011 6:47pm
It’s easy for cranks and kooks to make outrageous and exaggerated claims. It’s much harder for rational, sober-thinking experts to counter those distorted allegations.
Why? Because it takes time and knowledge to examine the studies in question, and then painstakingly determine whether they’re legitimate.
“There are studies, and then there are studies,” says Dr. Lynn Tomkins, the Toronto-based president of the Ontario Dental Association. “And unless they’re credible, peer-reviewed, rigorously constructed studies, you can prove almost anything.”
That, in a nutshell, is the dangerous problem on display here in London after the dangerously misleading claims made by Dr. Paul Connett and his U.S.-based anti-fluoride group at a public meeting Wednesday night.
Because every hysterical claim — such as Connett’s contention that fluoridated drinking water causes brain damage — requires pages and pages (and pages) of dense research to properly disprove.
I don’t have those pages here. I have only about 500 words. But still, let’s look at a few of Connett’s claims.
At the meeting, Connett argued that fluoridated drinking water causes dental fluorosis. He cited a U.S. study that found 41% of children ages 12 to 15 have dental fluorosis, which he dubbed “a crisis.”
I put that claim to Dr. Bryna Warshawsky, associate medical officer of health at the Middlesex-London Health Unit. She pointed out that fluorosis is a benign and purely cosmetic condition usually characterized by small white spots on your teeth. It’s not serious and it doesn’t lead to other problems.
She also pointed out that (a) U.S. fluoridation rates are higher than in Canada, and (b) a recent Canadian Health Measures Survey found that 16.4% of children ages six to12 were found to have mild (4.4%) and very mild (12%) fluorosis. No one — I repeat, no one — was found to have either moderate or severe fluorosis.
Mild and very mild conditions, by the way, would be noticed only by a dentist.
What about Connett’s fear-mongering claim that fluoridated drinking water lowers IQ levels in children?
Warshawsky says she’s aware of such studies, but “the problem is they’re very weak from a methodological point of view and they often compare several villages, where there are many other factors that might alter IQ.”
What about Connett’s suggestion fluoride causes brain damage, thyroid problems, bone damage and a fatal bone cancer called osteosarcoma?
Tomkins suggests that we look at Stratford, which has had naturally occurring fluoride in its drinking water “since God made Stratford.”
“Anybody who’s ever grown up in Stratford has been drinking this water,” says Tomkins. “But if you look at the disease rates (there), they’re no different. The people of that community do not have any higher rates of disease than anybody else in the province.”
Again, let’s remind ourselves that more than 90 national and international health organizations endorse the fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay. Let’s remember that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest public-health achievements of the 20th century.
Tomkins has been practising dentistry for 30 years, and says she constantly sees the benefits of fluoridation — and the harmful effects of its absence.
“I believe this (anti-fluoride campaign) is misinformation, and it’s potentially putting oral health at risk,” she says. “It takes a very narrow focus and then magnifies it. It’s really alarmist. . . . And we (professional dentists) are all worried and mystified as to why this issue is coming up.”
So Paul and us are cranks and kooks
Misinformation: Dentists wonder what a U.S. anti-fluoride group has to gain from bringing its campaign to London
By Ian Gillespie The London Free Press
Last Updated: March 3, 2011 6:47pm
It’s easy for cranks and kooks to make outrageous and exaggerated claims. It’s much harder for rational, sober-thinking experts to counter those distorted allegations.
Why? Because it takes time and knowledge to examine the studies in question, and then painstakingly determine whether they’re legitimate.
“There are studies, and then there are studies,” says Dr. Lynn Tomkins, the Toronto-based president of the Ontario Dental Association. “And unless they’re credible, peer-reviewed, rigorously constructed studies, you can prove almost anything.”
That, in a nutshell, is the dangerous problem on display here in London after the dangerously misleading claims made by Dr. Paul Connett and his U.S.-based anti-fluoride group at a public meeting Wednesday night.
Because every hysterical claim — such as Connett’s contention that fluoridated drinking water causes brain damage — requires pages and pages (and pages) of dense research to properly disprove.
I don’t have those pages here. I have only about 500 words. But still, let’s look at a few of Connett’s claims.
At the meeting, Connett argued that fluoridated drinking water causes dental fluorosis. He cited a U.S. study that found 41% of children ages 12 to 15 have dental fluorosis, which he dubbed “a crisis.”
I put that claim to Dr. Bryna Warshawsky, associate medical officer of health at the Middlesex-London Health Unit. She pointed out that fluorosis is a benign and purely cosmetic condition usually characterized by small white spots on your teeth. It’s not serious and it doesn’t lead to other problems.
She also pointed out that (a) U.S. fluoridation rates are higher than in Canada, and (b) a recent Canadian Health Measures Survey found that 16.4% of children ages six to12 were found to have mild (4.4%) and very mild (12%) fluorosis. No one — I repeat, no one — was found to have either moderate or severe fluorosis.
Mild and very mild conditions, by the way, would be noticed only by a dentist.
What about Connett’s fear-mongering claim that fluoridated drinking water lowers IQ levels in children?
Warshawsky says she’s aware of such studies, but “the problem is they’re very weak from a methodological point of view and they often compare several villages, where there are many other factors that might alter IQ.”
What about Connett’s suggestion fluoride causes brain damage, thyroid problems, bone damage and a fatal bone cancer called osteosarcoma?
Tomkins suggests that we look at Stratford, which has had naturally occurring fluoride in its drinking water “since God made Stratford.”
“Anybody who’s ever grown up in Stratford has been drinking this water,” says Tomkins. “But if you look at the disease rates (there), they’re no different. The people of that community do not have any higher rates of disease than anybody else in the province.”
Again, let’s remind ourselves that more than 90 national and international health organizations endorse the fluoridation of drinking water to prevent tooth decay. Let’s remember that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest public-health achievements of the 20th century.
Tomkins has been practising dentistry for 30 years, and says she constantly sees the benefits of fluoridation — and the harmful effects of its absence.
“I believe this (anti-fluoride campaign) is misinformation, and it’s potentially putting oral health at risk,” she says. “It takes a very narrow focus and then magnifies it. It’s really alarmist. . . . And we (professional dentists) are all worried and mystified as to why this issue is coming up.”
So Paul and us are cranks and kooks
posted by Bill at
9:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home