FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
Send PayPal direct to JimRob@psnw.com
Posted on 06/10/2002 12:33:55 PM PDT by chance33_98
Judge To City: Stop Fluoridating Water Law Requires Public Hearing And Referendum
POSTED: 2:06 p.m. EDT June 7, 2002
MANCHESTER, N.H. -- A judge has ordered Manchester to stop adding fluoride to the regional water supply.
Superior Court Judge Robert Lynn ruled city officials violated state law when they introduced fluoride into the regional water supply 18 months ago.
He ordered it shut off by April of 2004, but said in the meantime, the city could either get state law changed or put the fluoride question on ballots in six neighboring towns.
He said the law requires a public hearing and referendum in any town or city where fluoride is added to a public water supply. In this case, only Manchester residents voted on the issue, even though about 40,000 people who live outside the city rely on Manchester Water Works for their water.
Supporters say fluoride reduces tooth cavities. Opponents say it contains substances that cause illnesses including cancer.
Fluoride, Mandrake!
| FLUORIDE 31 (4) 1998 , pp 219-220 |
International Society for Fluoride Research | Table of Contents |
 |
L H R Brett, Whangarei, New Zealand
Dental Surgery, 2 Grant Street, Kamo, Whangarei, New Zealand
SUMMARY: The most recent available statistics indicate that child dental health in New Zealand is still not significantly better in fluoridated areas.
Key words: Child dental health; Dental caries; DMFT; Fluoridation; New Zealand.
New Zealand is unique in that dental health statistics are available for almost the entire child population. These statistics are collected annually for all 12- or 13-year-olds as they leave the care of school dental clinics. The two key pieces of information from each health authority’s area are: the average percentage of the children who are free of dental caries; and the average number of decayed, filled and missing teeth, or "DMFT".
More than a decade has passed since studies using these annual surveys compared the state of children’s teeth in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.1,2 These studies revealed that, when similar kinds of communities were compared, child dental health (in terms of dental caries prevalence) was slightly better in the nonfluoridated areas. If one considered also the prevalences of dental fluorosis,3,4 child dental health was substantially better in the non-fluoridated areas.
Being curious to know the present situation, I obtained the Ministry of Health’s most recent available (1995) child dental health statistics for my own region (Northland) where I practise dentistry. The results suggest that the situation has not changed:
|
|
||||
| No. of children | % caries-free | DMFT | ||
|
|
||||
| Fluoridated | 113 | 46.02 | 1.04 | |
| Non-fluoridated | 2106 | 46.58 | 1.60 | |
|
|
||||
Only one town (Kaitaia) in Northland is fluoridated. The non-fluoridated area comprises other towns and large rural areas which, according to our Official Census, are of low average income. Northland is, in fact, the most poverty-stricken area in New Zealand. Lower-income areas have always had higher tooth decay prevalences. So the small (half-tooth) difference in DMFT between the fluoridated and nonfluoridated parts of the province, and higher decay-free rate in the nonfluoridated part, do not support the claimed benefits of fluoridation
The same information supplied from the central region of New Zealand, which includes the capital city, Wellington (a much more affluent region than Northland) is equally revealing:
|
|
|||
| No. of children | % caries-free | DMFT | |
| Fluoridated | 6469 | 49.73 | 1.24 |
| Non-fluoridated | 5601 | 49.83 | 1.39 |
|
|
|||
The nonfluoridated area in this region contains small-town and rural areas of lower income level than the fluoridated larger towns and cities. Yet there is a slightly higher decay-free percentage in the nonfluoridated area (as in Northland) and only 0.15 of a tooth difference in DMFT.
DISCUSSION AND COMMENT
It is clear from this information that water fluoridation not only does not provide the traditionally claimed "40-60%" reduction in tooth decay, but is of doubtful if any benefit at all. Despite the availability of the above statistics, they receive no publicity in our media. Instead, the public is continually presented with assertions from our health "authorities" that fluoridation is effective and safe. The New Zealand Public Health Commission report in 1994 claimed that immense savings in expenditure on dental treatment resulted from fluoridation.5 Close examination of its references for that assertion reveal that the claim was based, not on New Zealand statistics, but on a review in 1989 of various pro-fluoridation studies around the world, by a prominent US fluoridation proponent.6 That review was written before many of the comprehensive studies discrediting fluoridation,7-11 which were available to the Public Health Commission by 1994, had been published. Also, the author of the 1989 review had omitted the comprehensive studies from New Zealand1,2 which had by then been published.
The reason why our public health officials and academics cling to their orthodoxy is difficult to find. Could it be because they cannot face the reality that they have for decades been promoting a procedure which is ineffective as well as, from recent evidence,12 probably unsafe?
REFERENCES
| FLUORIDE 31 (4) 1998 , pp 219-220 |
International Society for Fluoride Research |  |
| Home | Table of Contents | ISFR Board | Subscription Submissions | Announcements | Authors | Subject Index |
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: No.
General Jack D. Ripper: But I... I do deny them my essence.
Group Capt. Lionel Mandrake: I-- no, no. I don't, Jack.
General Jack D. Ripper: Nineteen hundred and forty-six. Nineteen forty-six, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
Flouride and prevention of tooth decay was discovered via geological maps of soil mineral distribution and some good detective work by dental researchers. In areas that have a naturally high level of flouride in the soil and water, dental caries were dramatically reduced. If I recall correctly, certain areas in Texas or Oklahoma.
My dad grew up without flouridation and while otherwise pretty healthy his teeth are awful, I doubt if he has half of them left, lots of bridges and crown work and metal. I, on the other hand, have never had a single cavity. In fact, I fairly regularly use my teeth to open beer bottles, if convenient. That's because of Flouride. It may prevent them from being movie-star white, tis true.
What's ironic, is that Dentists suggested a product that has decreased their profits and revenue by untold billions. That's pretty noble, in my book.
P O E
The fluoride rationale can be applied easily to tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, even high-sugar foods, or even SUVs! "This is proven to be good, so we will lobby and repeatedly, quietly place this on the ballot again and again until we catch a low-turnout election and can swing the vote." Which is exactly how fluoridation got passed in one town I know of, after the town had repeatedly, overwhelmingly rejected it.
I appreciate the Dr. Strangelove humor, but it won't seem so funny when other things are voted out of our hands. "For the children." And this judge did the right thing. Except it should have been shut off right away.
Probably not true.
The studies you were referring to looked at naturally occurring fluoride - Calcium flouride.
When water is fluoridated, its makeup is not the same as natural (calcium) floride.
The following link explains this pretty well and sites some studies.
Some good info on flouride
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.