USA - Fluoride equals poison
Dear Editor:
It is interesting to note that Palisade removed fluoride from its water in May, citing concerns that it has serious health hazards and does not make the water better. Is it time for Aspen to follow actions that Palisade and Grand Junction have taken. What do these towns know that Aspen still has not come to terms with?
Swallowing fluoride provides no
(or very little) benefit.
Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has now acknowledged that the mechanisms of fluoride's benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.
Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western, industrialized countries have rejected water fluoridation, but have nevertheless experienced the same decline in childhood dental decay as fluoridated countries.
Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the U.S. (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989).
According to National Institute of Dental Research, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (decayed, missing and filled surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged five to 17 residing their entire lives in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface, and less than 1 percent of the 100-plus tooth surfaces available in a child's mouth. Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004). None of these studies have allowed for the possible delayed eruption of the teeth that may be caused by exposure to fluoride, for which there is some evidence (Komarek 2005). A one-year delay in eruption of the permanent teeth would eliminate the very small benefit recorded in these modern studies.
This summer we are being made even more aware of how precious our water is. It is time to stop putting a poison in our water.
Dr. Tom Lankering
It is interesting to note that Palisade removed fluoride from its water in May, citing concerns that it has serious health hazards and does not make the water better. Is it time for Aspen to follow actions that Palisade and Grand Junction have taken. What do these towns know that Aspen still has not come to terms with?
Swallowing fluoride provides no
(or very little) benefit.
Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has now acknowledged that the mechanisms of fluoride's benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.
Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western, industrialized countries have rejected water fluoridation, but have nevertheless experienced the same decline in childhood dental decay as fluoridated countries.
Fluoridation's role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the U.S. (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989).
According to National Institute of Dental Research, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (decayed, missing and filled surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged five to 17 residing their entire lives in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface, and less than 1 percent of the 100-plus tooth surfaces available in a child's mouth. Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004). None of these studies have allowed for the possible delayed eruption of the teeth that may be caused by exposure to fluoride, for which there is some evidence (Komarek 2005). A one-year delay in eruption of the permanent teeth would eliminate the very small benefit recorded in these modern studies.
This summer we are being made even more aware of how precious our water is. It is time to stop putting a poison in our water.
Dr. Tom Lankering
posted by Bill at
9:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home