Fluoridation prevents tooth decay in young children. Not in adults, but in children, when their teeth are forming. This is 1940s technology, not in dispute.
There is some recent controversy about fluoride being a carcinogen. But if you read the actual literature (versus the scare-sheets put out by the Area 51 types), you’ll see that the minimal and unproven risk of increased cancer versus the certainty of preventing tooth decay makes fluoridated water a good choice for young children today.
“Fluoridation prevents tooth decay in young children. Not in adults, but in children, when their teeth are forming. This is 1940s technology, not in dispute.”
According to the current consensus view of the dental research community, fluoride’s primary - if not sole - benefit to teeth comes from topical application to the surfaces of teeth (while in the mouth), and not from ingestion.
It is also acknowledged by dental researchers that fluoride has little effect on preventing cavities in the pits and fissures (chewing surfaces) of teeth - where the majority of tooth decay occurs.
Perhaps not surprisingly, therefore, tooth decay rates have declined at similar rates in all western countries in the latter half of the 20th century - irrespective of whether the country fluoridates its water or not. Today, tooth decay rates thoughout continental western Europe are as low as the tooth decay rates in the United States - despite a profound disparity in water fluoridation prevalence in the two regions.
Within countries that do fluoridate their water (such as the United States and Australia), recent large-scale surveys of dental health - utilizing modern scientific methods not employed in the early surveys from the 1930s-1950s - have found little difference in tooth decay, including in “baby bottle tooth decay”, between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. http://www.fluorideaction.net/health/teeth/caries/
Evidence Based Research on the Use of Fluoridated Water and Systemic Fluorides in the Prevention of Dental Decay...
Presented by Dr. Paul J. Ganshert BS, DDS *
There seems to be a vast amount of controversy and debate in the minds of the general population and health care providers of all types in the United States of America today regarding the use of fluoride to prevent modern dental decay. Looking at some of the compelling research results available is important in understanding the current status of what we know about artificial fluoridation, its scientific risks, and any benefit from systemic fluoridation in America.
Many important papers on fluoride and fluoridation were published in peer-reviewed scientific literature over the past 15 years. Some notable quotes from research scientists and medical organizations based on this literature:
“The American Medical association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by ingesting fluoridated municipal water” Dr. Flanagan, Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association, April 2006.
“Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population”
Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist, September 2003.
“The plain fact that fluoride is a poison that is harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts in the water supply.” Dr. Ludwig Grossse, Chief of Cancer Research, US Veterans Administration.
“Fluoride in municipal water or in pill form is a corrosive poison that will produce serious side effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use fluoride this way is deplorable.” Dr. Charles Heyd, past president of the American Medical Association.
“The evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at just 1 ppm is extremely deleterious to the human body.” Chief Justice John Flaherty, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, May 2001.
“The Environmental Protection Agency should act immediately to protect the public with regards to fluoridation, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects.” Dr William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at the EPA.
“Fluoride damages bone even at the small levels added to public drinking water.” American Journal of Epidemiology, October 1999.
“Evidence shows a significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation.” Journal of the American Medical Association, August 1992.
Even though these quotes are thought provoking, nothing was more instrumental in questioning the benefit of systemic fluoride than two separate independent research studies done by Harvard University and the National Research Council that were made public in 2006.
In the wake of media scrutiny and an NIH ethics investigation, the first paper from Harvard University’s ongoing study of fluoride and bone cancer was finally published.(Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA.[2006] Age specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma in the united states. Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-428). The paper, published 14 years after the study began, reported that boys exposed to fluoridated water had a significantly higher rate of an often fatal form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. According to the study, these findings are consistent with a 1990 government study that reported the same kind of bone cancer in fluoride treated rats.
The National Research Council’s long awaited review of fluoride, released in March of 2006, was a watershed moment in the current fluoride debate. The 500 page review, which took 12 scientists over three years to produce, describes in great detail why supposedly safe fluoridated drinking water levels need to be drastically reduced in order to protect human health. (National Research Council [2006] Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of the EPA’s Standards. National Academies press, Washington DC) The report documents myriads of data showing potential hazards from fluoride exposure in drinking water at the current levels. These hazards include damage to bones, the brain, and various glands of the endocrine system. According to EPA scientist Dr Bob Carton, this report “should be the centerpiece of every single discussion on fluoridation. It changes everything.”
After reading and interpreting the current scientific evidence based research it can be safely stated that the systemic use of fluoride in drinking water or pills may carry more risk than benefit. A paradigm shift is occurring in physicians and dentists alike that changes the way that fluoride is utilized to hypothetically prevent dental decay.
The new paradigm involves the use of topical fluorides like rinses, pastes, and gels as the vehicle for delivering fluoride to the human teeth and less or no reliance on the systemic mechanisms like pills or municipal water supplies. Organic chemistry and Biophysiology studies show that the mechanism for maximum fluoride integration into tooth structure is topical in its mechanism , and that the systemic route (which would include fluoride pills, drops, and fluoridated water) is ineffective in humans and carries little to no benefit whatsoever.
Whether or not the consensus that topical fluoride is beneficial in humans is substantiated in years to come, we have access to thousands of documents and scientific publications that the use of systemic fluorides are not advised at this time in modern medicine and dentistry.
All physicians and dentists are scientists by nature and ignoring this evidence based scientific research with regards to systemic fluoridation is irresponsible. Talk to your dentist or physician today and inquire about the real facts about the current fluoride debate and how it affects you and your family.
*Dr. Paul J. Ganshert holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Microbiology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and a Doctor of Dental Surgery degree from Marquette University. http://www.villagefamilydental.com/p.e.i..html
Fluoride does offer protection for adults. In my practice we apply and Rx lots of fluoride products for adults, especially at risk older people.