Demand AARP Take Action
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
When scientific sunshine hits fluoridaiton, proponents go silent.
Another day without response from proponents of fluoridation.
Two questions were asked and proponents fell silent without fully answering.
What do you consider to be the upper limits of fluoride ingestion for infants and children? (SAFE) Although Steven responded 10 mg/kg/bw, each new scientific study usually finds harm at ever lower dosages. 10 mg/kg/bw is historical and we now know that dosage is not safe, especially for the unborn and infants. In the not too distant future, fluoride will be in the same category of lead and arsenic with zero ingested is best.
What dosage of fluoride is required or recommended to prevent dental caries? (EFFECTIVE) As a dentist with public health training, I am disappointed my professions have promoted fluoride ingestion without knowing how much fluoride is beneficial. The focus has been on water fluoride instead of tooth fluoride concentrations.
If the only source of fluoride were water fluoridation, proponents would have a much stronger case.
If proponents encouraged open discussion, academic freedom and sincere scientific discovery, we could all learn and improve the health of the public. Instead, proponents work using one side of the evidence, cherry picking the evidence, using endorsements and in the dark, behind the scenes, convincing city councils and water districts to add fluoride. Once the elected leaders are on board, the proponents railroad policy.
Portland, Oregon, has been used as an example with one paper's Editor in support of fluoride. Working behind the scenes and without public input, proponents convinced the city to fuoridate the water. The short hearings did not permit science to be discussed in depth. It became an emotions and power struggle rather than a candid evaluation of science and laws. Fluoridation passed in spite of the tremendous push back. However, a great deal of money was spent on both sides to go to the public and 2 out of 3 of the public voted no fluoridation.
Give people the time to contemplate medicating their neighbors and most chose freedom. It would be wonderful to be able to trust my dental and public health professions on their position of fluoridation, but the evidence has been growing that the fluoridation policy is flawed and rather change, proponents dig in deeper. HHS recommended lower fluoride concentration, but lowering is not enough. A complete cessation of fluoridation is required. Even that will not reduce fluoride intake to safe levels. But it will give people more freedom to choose.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
When scientific sunshine hits fluoridaiton, proponents go silent.
Another day without response from proponents of fluoridation.
Two questions were asked and proponents fell silent without fully answering.
What do you consider to be the upper limits of fluoride ingestion for infants and children? (SAFE) Although Steven responded 10 mg/kg/bw, each new scientific study usually finds harm at ever lower dosages. 10 mg/kg/bw is historical and we now know that dosage is not safe, especially for the unborn and infants. In the not too distant future, fluoride will be in the same category of lead and arsenic with zero ingested is best.
What dosage of fluoride is required or recommended to prevent dental caries? (EFFECTIVE) As a dentist with public health training, I am disappointed my professions have promoted fluoride ingestion without knowing how much fluoride is beneficial. The focus has been on water fluoride instead of tooth fluoride concentrations.
If the only source of fluoride were water fluoridation, proponents would have a much stronger case.
If proponents encouraged open discussion, academic freedom and sincere scientific discovery, we could all learn and improve the health of the public. Instead, proponents work using one side of the evidence, cherry picking the evidence, using endorsements and in the dark, behind the scenes, convincing city councils and water districts to add fluoride. Once the elected leaders are on board, the proponents railroad policy.
Portland, Oregon, has been used as an example with one paper's Editor in support of fluoride. Working behind the scenes and without public input, proponents convinced the city to fuoridate the water. The short hearings did not permit science to be discussed in depth. It became an emotions and power struggle rather than a candid evaluation of science and laws. Fluoridation passed in spite of the tremendous push back. However, a great deal of money was spent on both sides to go to the public and 2 out of 3 of the public voted no fluoridation.
Give people the time to contemplate medicating their neighbors and most chose freedom. It would be wonderful to be able to trust my dental and public health professions on their position of fluoridation, but the evidence has been growing that the fluoridation policy is flawed and rather change, proponents dig in deeper. HHS recommended lower fluoride concentration, but lowering is not enough. A complete cessation of fluoridation is required. Even that will not reduce fluoride intake to safe levels. But it will give people more freedom to choose.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
posted by Bill at
9:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home