.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Wednesday, November 24, 2021

From Ann Wills

Hi Ann, Please can you post this to all. The attached letter is extremely worrying as it mentions 1.5ppm as meeting WHO's safety regulations. Are we being quietly prepared for fluoridation at possibly twice what is permitted in the US?? Terrifying thought! Jenny

 

From Maria Caulfield MP 

Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Primary Care and Patient Safety 

39 Victoria Street 

London 

SW1H 0EU 

Your Ref: KM21344 

PO-1360008 

The Rt Hon Kit Malthouse MP 

By email to: kit.malthouse.mp@parliament.uk 

22 November 2021 

Dear Kit,  

Thank you for your correspondence of 8 September on behalf of your constituent, Ms Jennifer Johnson, about the fluoridation of water. Please accept my sincere apologies for  the delay in replying. 

I understand Ms Johnson’s concerns and I would like to thank her for raising this important  issue with you.  

The Health and Care Bill will allow the Secretary of State to introduce, vary or terminate water fluoridation schemes. However, I can assure Ms Johnson that any proposed new  water fluoridation scheme will be subject to public consultation.  

Fluoride is found naturally in water supplies and in some foods. There are areas of the  country where levels of fluoride in drinking water are naturally at similar levels to those  seen in artificial fluoridation schemes. We have known since the 1930s that access to  

fluoride in drinking water is associated with a reduced level of tooth decay. It is estimated  that, around 400 million people in some 25 countries are currently served by water  fluoridation schemes. This includes around six million people in England, mainly in the  West Midlands and the north east.  

There have been a large number of individual studies of the effects of water fluoridation,  using a wide variety of research methods. Where possible, it is preferred to look at reviews  of scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. These reviews often  set tight criteria for what will be acceptable research in terms of quality. 

There is no credible scientific evidence that fluoride in drinking water at UK levels causes  adverse health effects. Conversely there are a great many high-quality, peer-reviewed  studies that have found that it does not have such effects. Recent reviews of the extensive  scientific literature, by several authoritative bodies across the world have concluded that  levels of tooth decay are lower in fluoridated areas.  

Previously, there have been suggestions that fluoridated drinking water may cause certain  adverse effects, such as a rare form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma), Down’s syndrome or  effects on the kidney. However, the evidence does not support this, and various  authoritative expert evaluations from different international organisations all agree that  drinking-water fluoridation schemes are unlikely to cause adverse health effects. The more 

recent reviews include evaluation of possible neurological effects and report that there is  no convincing evidence of harms to general health. 

The UK Chief Medical Officers recently published a statement on water fluoridation being  an effective public health intervention for improving the oral health of both adults and  children. The statement can be viewed at www.gov.uk/government/publications/water fluoridation-statement-from-the-uk-chief-medical-officers

Poor oral health affects people of all ages. It can cause pain and suffering and affect an  individual’s ability to function in and enjoy day-to-day life. It can reduce children’s ability to  learn, thrive and develop and, in older and more vulnerable populations, poor oral health  may ultimately impede their ability to nourish themselves and communicate. Water  fluoridation is the only intervention to improve dental health that does not require sustained  behaviour change over many years. It is therefore particularly beneficial for individuals and  communities at increased risk of tooth decay, such as those from more deprived  backgrounds and vulnerable groups, including those with a disability that prevents them  from effectively caring for their teeth. 

I can assure Ms Johnson that the level of fluoride in drinking water is closely monitored.  The World Health Organization has recommended a maximum level of 1.5 milligrams of  fluoride per litre of water (mg/l). This value is intended to maximise the oral health benefits  and be protective of public health over a lifetime of consumption, taking into account the  possibility of dental mottling, which might be unsightly. The maximum level of 1.5 mg/l is  also the regulatory upper limit for fluoride set out in the Water Supply (Water Quality)  regulations for England (monitored by the Drinking Water Inspectorate) and applies both to  fluoridation schemes and fluoride naturally present in water. Public Health England (PHE),  an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, undertook water  fluoridation responsibilities on behalf of the Secretary of State until its dissolution on 30  September 2021. PHE’s last report, published on 22 March 2018, is available at  www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-fluoridation-health-monitoring-report-for england-2018

The next report containing an analysis of the effects of water fluoridation schemes on the  health of the people living in the areas covered by water fluoridation arrangements is due  to be published in 2022.  

I hope this reply is helpful. 

Yours sincerely, 

MARIA CAULFIELD MP


Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Do not put fluoride in all tap water. - Petitions

 Do not put fluoride in all tap water. - Petitions

On the 23rd of September 2021, the UK's four chief medical officers recommended adding fluoride to all tap water 'in order to combat tooth decay'. It is expected that ministers will soon implement this. There is however, scientific literature on the negatives of adding fluoride to mains water.

petition.parliament.uk


We’ve created a QR code for the Petition:

Qr code
          Description automatically generated

The response from the Gov. might go into the Junk/Spam box.  The link in their email has to be activated for your signature to be accepted.  I hope that you can help.  Joy

Joy Warren, BSc. (Hons) Environmental Science; Cert. Nutrition and Health 

Coordinator, UK Freedom from Fluoride Alliance  

www.ukfffa.org.uk 

Email: wmaf@live.co.uk 

Friday, September 10, 2021

Last post

Seeing what is happening world wide, the threat of fluoridation seems a petty problem. Are the elite using the WHO really trying to kill us through vaccines. A lot of people think so. Just seen Biden threatening the unvaccinated Americans. Passports to enter a pub! Bloody world has gone mad .

This is a good time to bale out. I've posted almost every day since April 2005.  Ill health through old age is really getting out of hand. If anybody would like to take over the blog I'll give them full admin control


Bill

billedmunds@gmail.com




Sunday, September 05, 2021

Friday, September 03, 2021

 A Wills awills@willsfamily.org.uk via outbound.mailhop.org 

to Joy

That’s a good idea Joy to raise some funds amongst ourselves to pay for the expenses to help stop fluoridation.

Is there an address to send our small cheques to please?   I’ll send a cheque & others may too.  An online way of paying would also be good for those who prefer that. Thanks.

Ann

... we have to use social media and we need to employ someone skilled at spreading the word.  I'm happy to initially pay for this but we ought to crowdfund amongst ourselves.

Joy

Tuesday, August 31, 2021

Sunday, August 29, 2021


Port Macquarie's MP is urging council to scrap an expensive community poll on water fluoridation. Leslie ...
NBN News · 1 hour ago

Saturday, August 28, 2021

The Breaking News on Fluoridation and Intelligence Shows Even More Harm. Part 2: An Interview with Paul Connett, Ph.D.

 In 1996, Dr. Connett was persuaded by his wife Ellen to investigate the controversial practice of water fluoridation. In 2000, he was one of the founders of the Fluoride Action Network and is the organization’s current director. In 2003, he gave an invited presentation to a panel appointed by the U.S. National Research Council, which published a landmark review of fluoride’s toxicity in 2006.

In 2010, with two other authors, James Beck, M.D., Ph.D., and Spedding Micklem, DPhil (Oxon), he published The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green 2010).

 

Passwater: Dr. Connett, this new study not only provides alarming evidence of fluoridation’s developmental neurotoxicity, it also provides the data needed to counter the claim by fluoridation proponents that there is little evidence to show harm at very low fluoride levels. What is the significance of this new study in this regard?

Connett: This BMD analysis is of critical importance in terms of ending fluoridation worldwide. First, let me explain what a BMD analysis is. It is a methodology approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for performing a risk assessment to determine a safe reference dose (RfD) sufficient to protect everyone from a particular substance once a study (or several studies) have found it causes a harmful effect. BMD stands for Benchmark Dose and that is the lowest dose that causes a “defined” amount of harm (the benchmark). In this case the defined amount of harm is a loss of one IQ point.

This method can only be applied when studies have produced dose-response data. In this case, Grandjean combined the dose response date from both the Mexico City study (Bashash et al, 2017) and the study from Canada (Green et al., 2019). The two combined had 800 paired Mother-infant data pairs for Mother’s exposure to fluoride as measured in their urine, versus the average number of IQ points lost in the offspring. From the linear extrapolation for the whole data base, they were able to predict that a loss of one IQ would occur for a mother’s urinary fluoride level of 0.2 mg/Liter (i.e. 0.2 ppm).

That BMD is very low in the context of the average maternal urinary levels measured in pregnant women in fluoridated communities in the San Francisco Bay area and pregnant women from all parts of Canada, which range from 0.8 to 1 ppm. Since the relationship between urinary fluoride levels and IQ loss is a linear one (i.e. if the fluoride urinary level doubles the IQ loss would be doubled), this means that the projected average IQ loss for children born to pregnant women drinking fluoridated water is 4 to 5 IQ points. That is an extraordinary finding, and according to Grandjean, it means that in the USA today fluoride is causing a greater loss of IQ points than lead, arsenic or mercury, as far as the whole population of children is concerned. This does not mean that fluoride (atom for atom) is more brain damaging than these other substances, but rather that millions more children are being exposed to fluoride. We do not deliberately add lead, arsenic, or mercury to the drinking water!

Thus, this throws out of the window the claims that fluoridation promoters have been making ever since the early Chinese studies were published in the 1990s, that fluoride only lowers IQ at much higher doses than experienced in fluoridated communities. This is simply not true. IQ is being lowered at water concentrations far less than the 0.7 ppm used in water fluoridation.

Passwater: Can this additional information be included in the suit in Federal Court against the Environmental Protection Agency?

Connett: Most certainly. In fact, the judge has been waiting for this paper to be published. Dr. Grandjean was an expert witness in the case (heard in June, 2020) and presented a preliminary BMD analysis then. The judge is also waiting for the final version of the NTP’s review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, and that is expected to be published before the end of this year. When both documents are available, the judge is indicating that he wishes to hear experts from both sides give their opinions on their significance. Then he is expected to give a ruling on our case.

Passwater: What is the importance of Dr. Grandjean using a Benchmark Dose methodology for his risk assessment?

Connett: The defendant in our federal lawsuit under TSCA is the EPA. Therefore, it is highly significant that Grandjean has used the EPA’s own preferred risk assessment methodology to demonstrate that fluoridation is unsafe as far protecting the brain of the fetus is concerned. The EPA lawyers cannot argue that he has used an unusual method.

Passwater: How does the EPA normally go from a Benchmark dose to a Safe Reference dose (RfD)?

Connett: The Benchmark dose is the best estimate of the dose that causes the defined harm (a loss of one IQ point) in a relatively small (800) number of children in the two studies considered. The RfD is determined by dividing the BMD by a safety factor sufficient to protect the most vulnerable child in a large population—in this case all the children being born today in the USA. The default value for this safety factor is usually set no lower than 10, and thus the safe reference dose for fluoride to protect the most vulnerable child from a loss of one IQ point would be 0.02 mg/liter (0.2 mg/liter divided by 10) for the level of fluoride in mother’s urine.

Passwater: Does the study suggest that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe”? 

Connett: The answer is yes. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommend communities fluoridate their water at 0.7 ppm to help reduce tooth decay. 0.7 ppm is 35-times higher than this estimated safe reference dose of 0.02 ppm (as measured in pregnant women’s urine).

However, for this the CDC only considered the harm to the dental enamel called dental fluorosis. It is now clear that dental fluorosis is not the most appropriate, the most sensitive, or most important end point of fluoride’s toxicity. For the developing fetus and infant, the brain is more sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity than the developing tooth. The big difference between these two endpoints is that dental fluorosis is more visible to the naked eye. Finding damage to the brain had to wait a very long time. It took over 60 years before the U.S. government funded these important IQ studies (Bashash, 2017 & 2018; and Green, 2019) and the infant study (Till, 2020).

Passwater: Grassroots actions helped ban lead-based paints and leaded gasoline. What can our readers do to help bring attention to how fluoridation is harming the brains of our children?

Connett: May I make 3 suggestions?

  1. Review our webpage regularly (www.FluorideALERT.org) to get themselves fully informed on this issue.
  2. Hope and pray that there is no political interference in the NTP’s review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.
  3. Write to their Congressional representatives and ask them to hold a hearing in whicH
    1. Scientists who have done this important work on fluoride and the brain can explain their findings;
    2. The CDC be questioned on why they continue to spend millions of taxpayers’ money promoting this practice and why they are not issuing warnings to pregnant women to avoid all sources of fluoride and not advising bottle-feeding parents to avoid using fluoridated water to make up baby formula.

See the recommendation by Lanphear, Till, and Birnbaum at https://fluoridealert.org/news/op-ed-it-is-time-to-protect-kids-developing-brains-from-fluoride/). Please also see the letter FAN and over 100 professionals have sent to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the new head of the CDC: https://fluoridealert.org/news/professionals-expose-cdcs-false-safety-claims-and-call-on-director-to-rescue-americas-children-from-fluoride-program/.

Passwater: Thank you for your relentless efforts to protect our children. Hopefully science will prevail over dogma.

Friday, August 27, 2021

A Case of Fluorosis: Fluoride-Induced Osteopetrosis

 Abstract

There are multiple etiologies of increased bone density, including osteopetrosis and fluorosis. Osteopetrosis can either be a malignant autosomal recessive condition found in children or a benign autosomal dominant adult variant; both of which are characterized by decreased bone resorption. In contrast, fluorosis is characterized by increased bone formation secondary to chronic fluoride intoxication, but with a similar clinical manifestations to osteopetrosis. A 70-year-old lady with generalized joint aches, stiffness as well as fatigue, was found to have high bone mineral density and alarmingly high fluoride levels. The patient was found to be drinking fluoride containing water from an untreated local well for many years. Fluorosis results in increased bone mineral density and disease progression correlates with length of exposure. Fluorosis can result in reversible musculocutaneous symptoms and radiological findings. However, severe chronic cases may develop irreversible neurologic manifestations. Urinary fluoride testing is the screening modality of choice, and the key component of management is avoidance of the source of fluoride intoxication as well as monitoring of urinary fluoride levels.

Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Health and Care Bill

 Good letter from John to local MP in Southampton

From:Spottiswoodej <spottiswoodej@gmail.com>
To:whiteheada@parliament.uk



Dear Alan,

I ask for your help regarding the Health and Care Bill which is currently being considered by the Public Health Committee of the House of Commons. Will you seek, please, to have Clauses 128 and 129 (concerning fluoridation) removed from the Bill by tabling an amendment? 

Hampshire's water is not currently fluoridated and a large majority of us do not want it to become fluoridated.  If you remember we had a massive local battle to stop water fluoridation happening a few years ago. We had massive popular support to keep this major toxin out of our water once people realised how badly fluoride damages the body and the brain.  Thankfully the fluoridation of Southampton's water did not happen so it is still safe to drink water from the tap here.

Below, very briefly, are some of the reasons to consider regarding the new Health and Care Bill.

1. Decisions for or against fluoridation are currently made locally. This is not ideal but better than the Bill's proposal for central control to override local democracy and to deny personal choice over what goes into our bodies.  

2. There is no mention of Water Fluoridation in current nor in past Conservative Party manifestos.  Therefore, the current government does not have a mandate.

3. Fluoridated water is a medicine, as acknowledged by Lord Jauncey in Scotland in 1983, and by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in 2018.  As a medicine it MUST be proven to be safe and effective.  It fails badly on both counts although the MHRA refuses to act to protect people's health.  Plus
 a medicine must not be forced on people for human rights reasons.

4. Health Canada in 2014 and Public Health England in 2018 were unable to produce evidence that fluoride is safe to consume. On the contrary, much recent research has found that fluoride is a neurotoxin that adversely affects the fetal and infant brain.

5. Tooth decay is not infectious, so there is no justification at all for compulsory treatment. It is wholly unethical to force people to ingest fluoride (as is already the case for some 6 million people in fluoridated areas of England). Such treatment is a denial of informed consent for medical treatment and contrary to the principles of NHS Personalised Care and Social Prescribing.

6. Most countries in Europe reject fluoridation, and Israel has also stopped it due to health concerns and because tooth decay is no less in fluoridated countries than in non-fluoridated ones.

7. Powerful interests have long sought to suppress evidence against fluoridation. In a review of The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, Chemical & Engineering News wrote: "We are left with compelling evidence that powerful interests with high financial stakes have colluded to prematurely close honest discussion and investigation into fluoride toxicity."

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

John Spottiswoode

The CDC Is Ignoring Fluoride-Brain Studies: Urge Congress To Halt Funding To Oral Health Division - F.A.N. Newsletter

 On May 3, 2021, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) sent a letter signed by over 100 professionals to the new Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Rochelle Walensky, asking for an objective internal review of the fetal and infant neurotoxicity science. 

On June 152021, Dr. Karen Hacker sent an email reply.

On June 232021, FAN responded by requesting a meeting between Hacker and a collection of world leading fluoride neurotoxicity experts. 

On July 15, 2021, Dr. Hacker responded to our meeting request, expressing interest in a meeting, but asking us to follow up at a later date due to COVID being a higher priority for her office at the moment.

On August 4, 2021, FAN sent a reply agreeing to follow up in several months, but pointing out that the CDC is blatantly ignoring our warnings about the new science on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and is currently utilizing many resources to promote, fund, and expand fluoridation programs in the US.  We have asked her to suspend these promotional programs and direct staff--not involved with COVID--to initiate a review of the neurotoxicity science on fluoride.

How You Can Help!

We’re making progress, but to keep this pressure on the CDC we are utilizing a multi-step strategy with which we need your help.  In June, we asked all of you to use our automated email system to send our original letter to the CDC along to your Congressional members in the hopes of generating pressure on the CDC to respond.  It worked, as thousands of letters were sent to Congress and the CDC replied back just a few days later.

Today we are beginning a new campaign to end the funding of the Division of Oral Health at the CDC because their promotion of fluoridation is harming future generations.  Money is the only language government agencies seem to understand. 

Please join us in asking our Congressional representatives to deny federal funding to the CDC’s Oral Health Division in their next operating budget until the CDC:

  1. Ends all promotion of fluoridation, and 
     
  2. Agrees to send warnings to the most vulnerable populations to fluoride’s toxicity: pregnant women and bottle-fed infants. That these warnings be spread through TV and Radio advertisements, pediatricians and the WIC program.

If the CDC does not come up with assurances that these steps will be taken, we urgently request Congress to follow up with hearings with CDC officials so that they can explain why they are not willing to take these reasonable and important steps to protect our children.

Every email counts, and with your help and some patience I'm confident we can get the attention of Congressional staff and possibly members.  We must.  The stakes are too high for our children and future generations to be ignored any longer.

SEND THE LETTER TO CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS

For an even greater impact you can also send a personal email or (even better) a hardcopy letter to your Congressional representative and your Senators expressing your concerns about the unscientific and biased nature of the Oral Health Division’s promotion of fluoridation, and calling for an end of federal fluoridation funding.

We greatly appreciate your continued support and efforts to end water fluoridation throughout the world.  

Thank you, 

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

Tuesday, August 24, 2021

F.A.N. Newsletter

MARK YOUR CALENDARS!  The next status hearing for our federal TSCA trial against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been rescheduled.  It was originally supposed to be held this week, on Thursday, August 26. However, due to scheduling conflicts it will now take place in three weeks, on Tuesday, September 14th at 2:30PM (U.S. Pacific) / 5:30PM (U.S. Eastern).

The public can watch the proceedings live via Zoom, but we cannot record it per court rules.  FAN will send out a summary of the proceedings to our email list, then post it on our social media pages for those who couldn't watch or would like to share trial updates with their contacts.

To watch live on Zoom:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1619911861?pwd=TjVma1lnMlJlNHR3ZE9QMkFjNkFndz09

Webinar ID: 161 991 1861

Password: 912881

For more information on the TSCA trial, please visit our dedicated webpage, where you will find an overview of the case and a menu bar that will bring you to fact sheets, the key studies, a lawsuit timeline, media coverage, and much more.  You can also search for the hashtag #FluorideLawsuit on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Thank you, 

Stuart Cooper 

Sunday, August 22, 2021

Saturday, August 21, 2021

Fluoridation seems a minor irritation compared to what is happening now.

Wednesday, August 18, 2021

Sunday, August 15, 2021

COPYRIGHT 2021 - IN ONE PLACE LTD


Fourteen of the worlds highest-profile doctors, all specialists in their own fields, come together to discuss the dangers that we all face from the Covid 19 pandemic. They discuss in detail the merits and the dangers posed by the vaccines that are being rolled out and pushed onto society.

Hear their honest opinions and learn about the censorship that they have all faced from speaking out. Discussing together in one place for the first time, learn from the experts and heed their warnings.

Presented by Katherine Macbean of The Awareness Foundation

Featuring the following specialist:

Professor Dolores Cahill
Dr Ryan Cole
Dr Richard Fleming
Dr Dmitry Kats
Dr Tess Lawrie
Dr Li-Meng Yan
Dr Robert Malone
Dr Peter McCullough
Dr Joseph Mercola
Dr Lee Merritt
Dr Sherri Tenpenny
Dr Richard Urso
Dr Sam White
Dr Vladimir Zelenko
www.awareness.foundation

Saturday, August 14, 2021

Fury over Public Health England's claim that vaccines have prevented 23.4million Covid case

Fury over Public Health England's claim that vaccines have prevented 23.4million Covid cases as top experts say estimate is 'away with the fairies' and mathematically impossible

EXCLUSIVE: Professor David Livermore says modelling needs serious 'review'
Government-run agency boasted vaccine rollout has prevented 23million cases 
Sources admit predicting how many cases there'd be without jabs is 'impossible' 
 vaccines have prevented 23.4million infections. The Government-run agency, which will be axed within a matter of weeks, yesterday released 'remarkable' updated estimates about how well the jabs have worked. As well as drastically curbing the spread of the coronavirus, the PHE data suggested vaccines have saved more than 84,000 lives and prevented almost 67,000 hospital admissions. But experts today questioned the maths behind the estimate. Professor David Livermore, a microbiologist at the University of East Anglia, said the jabs have undoubtedly thwarted the spread of Covid and saved tens of thousands of lives. 
    But he told MailOnline it 'cannot possibly be correct' that more than 20million cases were stopped. Vaccines are thought to cut infections by around 60 per cent, so in order for them to have prevented 23.4million, the UK would have had to have seen approximately 17m cases among unvaccinated people since the start of the rollout, he explained. There have only been 3.8million confirmed cases among the entire population since the start of the year — and most have been unvaccinated during that time.            Professor Livermore said: 'The 85,000 deaths prevented is plausible — it’d be a fifth of the care home population, who are the most vulnerable. 'But 23.4million infections prevented cannot possibly be correct. I find myself a little shocked that (the figure) isn’t getting a sanity check anywhere. 'It’s away with the fairies and whatever mathematical model has been used to project these numbers needs a serious review.'


Thursday, August 12, 2021

THE FLUORIDE STORY: PART 2 WHAT'S IN YOUR TOOTHPASTE?

CAUTIONS TO TAKE IF YOU DECIDE TO USE A FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE

Don’t swallow ANY toothpaste and carefully monitor your child’s brushing to ensure they do not swallow it.  Bear in mind also, that gums and oral mucosa are absorbing whatever you are putting in your mouth — so you are ‘ingesting’ some fluoride even if you spit out the toothpaste.

Take heed to the warning on the tube…even a tiny amount can have serious effects.  Because topical fluoride is considered a medication there are guidelines listed for its use at Drugs.com:

·    Do not use in children unless recommended by a dentist or physician

·    Do not allow a child to use without adult supervision to prevent overdose

·    Talk to your doctor or dentist before use if you are pregnant or breastfeeding

·    Tell your doctor if you are on a low salt or a salt-free diet

·    If you have gum disease, some forms of topical fluoride may be irritating to your gums. Talk to your dentist or doctor if you experience bothersome oral symptoms with use

CAN YOU HELP MITIGATE DENTAL CARIES WITHOUT FLUORIDE? 

There are many ways to prevent cavities without fluoride.  Let’s start with looking at how cavities are formed — knowing what causes tooth decay may help us prevent it without using a dangerous chemical.  

“Tooth decay is a disease caused by specific bacteria called Streptococcus mutans. Many bacteria do not process their food into carbon dioxide and water, but, rather, they “ferment” their foods into other kinds of waste products, such as alcohols or acids. Streptococcus mutans lives in microscopic colonies on the surface of the teeth, and it has the distinction of being able to produce concentrated acid waste that can dissolve the tooth enamel on which it resides. In other words, these germs can create holes in teeth, and all they require to do so is a fuel such as sugar, processed foods, and/or other carbohydrates.”4 

Based on this, some solutions may be as simple as: 

•    Consuming less sugar, less sugar-containing foods, less highly processed foods/drinks. Sugary drinks contribute to a more acidic saliva, which weakens enamel and promotes cariogenic effects.5 

•    Improving oral hygiene. In essence, the leading cause of tooth decay is NOT caring for your oral health (tongue scraping to remove harmful bacteria, flossing and brushing to dislodge the plaque and bacteria from teeth) 

•    Second on the list of leading causes of tooth decay (behind carbs and sodas) is smoking and alcohol. Both are considered oral desiccants, or agents that extract moisture from hydrated tissues. A frequently dry mouth means reduced saliva flow and less oxygen–an environment in which oral bacteria are at their most active.

•    Establishing a nutritious diet that strengthens the teeth and bones

Remember, fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. However, evidence has proven that a lack of essential nutrients and sugary food and drinks make teeth more susceptible to decay. So, the best cavity prevention strategy is not the consumption or application of fluoride, it is a healthy diet and a consistent and thorough oral care routine!

THE FLUORIDE TAKEAWAY

Fluorosis, hormonal disruption, and neurotoxic effects are substantial concerns. We need to know about these dangers because, as the saying goes, “Knowledge is power.” Armed with the right information, you can make choices that work best for you and your family. 

A healthy life and healthy teeth are about balance. A holistic approach that implements sensible choices — like choosing to filter drinking water and opting for fluoride-free toothpaste— can make a significant difference to you and your family’s wellbeing. Because you deserve it! 

Wednesday, August 11, 2021

Tuesday, August 10, 2021

Monday, August 09, 2021

The Fluoride Debate: The Pros and Cons of Fluoridation

 

CONCLUSION

Dental treatments are expensive throughout the world. The cost of dentistry has hardly been reduced, even in countries where the decline in caries began 30 years ago. Thus, extension of preventive dentistry is still indispensable for improving oral health (). The absence of dental care and poor hygiene are still considered the main causes of dental decay (). Although multifactorial in origin, caries is a preventable disease, with fluoride as a preventive agent used worldwide. Several modes of fluoride use have evolved, each with its own recommended concentration, frequency of use, and dosage schedule. Concurrently, recent opposition has been growing worldwide against fluoridation, emphasizing the potential and serious risk of toxicity. Since the fluoride benefit is mainly topical, perhaps it is better to deliver fluoride directly to the tooth instead of ingesting it (). Fluoride toothpaste, rinses and varnish applications have proven their effectiveness in some countries, but they are still not universally affordable.

Saturday, August 07, 2021

Friday, August 06, 2021

Fluoridated water impact on tooth decay and fluorosis in 17-20-year-olds exposed to fluoride toothpaste

 

Abstract

Objective: To determine the impact of water fluoridation on the prevalence and severity of dental caries and fluorosis in individuals aged 17-20 years exposed to fluoride toothpaste.

Methods: The study population consisted of 660 students from public schools, residents of areas supplied with fluoridated water (exposed group) or not (not exposed group). Students from both groups had access to fluoride toothpaste throughout life. A questionnaire about socioeconomic demographic aspects, conditions related to access and exposure to fluoridated water, and habits related to oral health was applied. Dental caries was measured by the DMFT index and dental fluorosis by the TF index. The chi-square test, t test, and subsequently logistic regression were applied for data analysis.

Results: Caries experience (DMFT≠0) was significantly higher in students from areas not exposed to fluoridated water, after adjustments to clinical conditions, demographic socioeconomic profile, and hygiene habits. The DMFT mean (±SD) was significantly higher in students from areas not exposed to fluoridated water than exposed (3.83 [±3.28] and 2.48 [±2.71] respectively). The prevalence of very mild/mild and moderate fluorosis was 41.1% and 21% for students either exposed to fluoridated water or not, respectively.

Conclusion: Exposure to fluoridated water was associated with a lower prevalence and severity of tooth decay, in spite of the use of fluoridated toothpaste. The prevalence of dental fluorosis at all levels was higher in fluoridated areas, however, in both groups, there were few cases with esthetic implications.