I was busy all weekend, so I didn't have time to properly respond to your post.
Basically, fluoride was added to water supplies because it was believed to incorporate into developing teeth to make them resist decay. Science has proven this theory wrong. Fluoride's beneficial effects, are topical only. So there's no good reason to add fluoride to water except if you want an expensive mouthwash. The CDC says the amounts that emerge from saliva are too low to be therapeutic
You are either very confused or deliberately misleading here, bad start. While early theory may have held that fluoride could affect developing teeth prior to eruption, there is no current thought that that is the case. Fluoride is effective as a topical agent, whether in water, toothpaste, or as a treatment at the dentist's office. Nobody claims otherwise.
They neglected the calcium, magnesium and other bone and teeth building components of the water supply.
Of course they didn't. "Colorado Brown Stain" was noted in the 19th century in the southwest and mountain states, and concurrent with that was high levels of fluoride (many times higher than what is added to water supplies). There was a direct relationship between fluoride levels in the water and caries suseptability. Because they didn't know which substance present in the water was causing the stain, they had to eliminate everything that wasn't, including the minerals mentioned above.
Now that over 62% of the USA is fluoridated, tooth decay rates have not been leveled out. The same disparities according to region exist today as it did back in the early 1900's.
Obviously, because the diets of present day children differ so radically from those of the early 1900's, you are comparing apples to oranges. Although I'd appreciate a link to your information on decay rates, since they seem out of step with mine.
Tooth decay, like most other diseases, is caused by poor nutrition in the womb.....
What?! Care to rephrase that?
Without going off on a tangent, fluoridation has failed to eliminate tooth decay like it promised.
Could you show where present day researchers have "promised" that fluoride would eliminate tooth decay? While I can't say that someone has never made that claim, I've never heard it. And it would be silly to do so. There are too many other factors involved.
However, dental fluorosis rates are skyrocketing in the US while the Surgeon General reports an epidemic of tooth decay in certain segments of the US population.
Links to those studies, please.
And anecdotal evidence from dentists tell us that their "fluoride protected" patients are also suffering more tooth decay - usually because they drink too much soda.
Who is "us"? And why would you think that fluoride can protect you from abusing your teeth? Could you point me to dental literature which says "Put fluoride in the water, and you can eat and drink anything you want, and never get decay!"
That's a mighty big strawman you're beating up.
Dental researchers now tell us that fluoride in doses above "optimal" can actually cause tooth decay (like any drug causes what it can cure)
Once again, please post a link to support this. In cases of extereme fluoride exposure the teeth can be deformed, and maybe then decay easier, I'm not aware of very many cases. In over 10 years of practice, I have never seen one severe case of fluorosis, and very few cases of anything but mild white spotting. As a matter of fact, I've only had to cosmetically repair 4 or 5 cases in over a decade of looking.
And how wise is it these days to have this unnecessary, odorless, tasteless chemical sitting next to most water plants in the US.
I guess it was only a matter of time before the anti-fluoridationists would exploit 9-11 for their own purposes. That's really low. If a terrorist is going to poison the water supply, they're going to use something more potent that fluoride.
To: nyscof
Basically, fluoride was added to water supplies because it was believed to incorporate into developing teeth to make them resist decay. Science has proven this theory wrong. Fluoride's beneficial effects, are topical only. So there's no good reason to add fluoride to water except if you want an expensive mouthwash. The CDC says the amounts that emerge from saliva are too low to be therapeutic
Tom said: You are either very confused or deliberately misleading here, bad start. While early theory may have held that fluoride could affect developing teeth prior to eruption, there is no current thought that that is the case. Fluoride is effective as a topical agent, whether in water, toothpaste, or as a treatment at the dentist's office. Nobody claims otherwise.
NYSCOF says: Well, I’m glad you know this but it seems a majority of your colleagues do not. It would be nice if you spent as much time educating them as you do trying to discredit us.
From the Journal of the Public Health Association,
"We surveyed all dentists and hygienists in the state and through 2,391
responses (40 percent) learned that dental professionals' knowledge about
fluoride was far behind the science. . . .Dental professionals in our states
need to learn the implications of the new understanding of fluoride's mode
of action and need to understand the possible implications of the
significant increase in dental fluorosis . . . If we don't educate health
professionals and the public, who will? The antifluoridationists?"
http://www.apha.org/sections/newsletters/oralhealthwinter2001.htm
Here’s another sad example of misinformation distributed by dentists via a newspaper:
http://www.examiner.net/stories/070602/new_070602020.shtml
This is what the newspaper quotes the dentist as saying:
"Systemic (flouride) is better because it goes into the system and prevents
dental disease," he said. "The systemic benefit is to children ages zero to
5. That's really a biggie because their teeth are forming then. All children
who are born after we start this will see a 70 percent reduction in tooth
decay over time."
In fact, in a letter wen sent to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, our organization compiled a list of newspapers and websites that continue to disseminate misinformation. Scroll down to “Examples of Misinformation by Proponents of Fluoridation”
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3 This letter went out in 2001.
They neglected the calcium, magnesium and other bone and teeth building components of the water supply.
Tom said: Of course they didn't. "Colorado Brown Stain" was noted in the 19th century in the southwest and mountain states, and concurrent with that was high levels of fluoride (many times higher than what is added to water supplies). There was a direct relationship between fluoride levels in the water and caries suseptability. Because they didn't know which substance present in the water was causing the stain, they had to eliminate everything that wasn't, including the minerals mentioned above.
NYSCOF says: From “The Fight for Fluoridation” by Donald H. McNeil 1957
“In April 1947, a research team head by Dean Conrad Elvehjem put out a release claiming that in a series of experiments at the University, 1 ppm fluorine had ‘absolutely no effect on rats’ and that additions of raw, whole milk produced more positive reslts than fluorine in preventing decay.
“Frisch (a spokesman for dentists who zealously pushed fluoridation - it was like a religion with him ) exploded with wrath when he read the statement. Calling the conclusions ‘hogwash from the biochemistry department,’ ...Thoroughly angered, Frisch asked the University for the amounts received by the biochemistry department earmarked for dairy research. University officials revealed that of $53,000 received by the University for dairy promotion during the 1946-47 school year, more than $12,000 had been allocated to the biochemistry department. Frisch used the figures widely in refuting the argument that milk, not fluorine, prevent decay...”
Now that over 62% of the USA is fluoridated, tooth decay rates have not been leveled out. The same disparities according to region exist today as it did back in the early 1900's.
Tom said: Obviously, because the diets of present day children differ so radically from those of the early 1900's, you are comparing apples to oranges. Although I'd appreciate a link to your information on decay rates, since they seem out of step with mine.
NYSCOF says: Tooth Decay Trends fluoridated vs. nonfluoridated
http://www.fluoridealert.org/WHO-DMFT.htm
Dental decay is rising rapidly in the 1990's in children in the United States. Recent study's results were published in the American Academy of Dentistry for children in its November-December 1998 issue. This journal is only received by dentists, and it showed that dental decay in children under the age of five years has doubled in the past ten years. The average child in the study had seven cavities prior to their sixth birthday, and the same population of children in 1987 had three and one half cavities.
http://www.drbranam.com/pgeArticle_Early.htm
Here’s more evidence of fluoridation’s failure:
http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?id=6812
Tooth decay, like most other diseases, is caused by poor nutrition in the womb.....
Tom said: What?! Care to rephrase that?
NYSCOF says: “Good Oral Health Starts In the Womb” American Dental Association news release
http://www.ada.org/public/media/newsrel/0202/nr-01.html
CHICAGO - Pregnant women can help ensure their children get a good start on their oral health by focusing on staying healthy, including a proper diet, because teeth begin developing between the third and sixth month of pregnancy, says the American Dental Association (ADA).
Without going off on a tangent, fluoridation has failed to eliminate tooth decay like it promised.
Tom said: Could you show where present day researchers have "promised" that fluoride would eliminate tooth decay? While I can't say that someone has never made that claim, I've never heard it. And it would be silly to do so. There are too many other factors involved.
NYSCOF says: I didn’t say *present* day researchers promised anything. Early researchers thought fluoride deficiency caused tooth decay just like vitamin deficiency caused disease. Just like Vitamin C cured scurvy dentists believed fluoride would cure tooth decay.
"The Newburgh Kingston Caries Fluorine Study IV Dental Findings After Six Years of Water Fluoridation," published January 1953) Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and Oral Pathology, Vol. 6, No. 1, Pages 114-123, “six years into the New York State experiment that launched fluoridation - the additon of fluoride into water supplies to irradicate tooth decay.”
The Surgeon General still reports that fluoridation will help eliminate early childhood caries, ignoring that most children with this disease already live in fluoridated communities and in a fluoride-saturated society.
However, dental fluorosis rates are skyrocketing in the US while the Surgeon General reports an epidemic of tooth decay in certain segments of the US population.
Links to those studies, please.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=PubMed
Dental researchers now tell us that fluoride in doses above "optimal" can actually cause tooth decay (like any drug causes what it can cure)
Tom said: Once again, please post a link to support this. In cases of extereme fluoride exposure the teeth can be deformed, and maybe then decay easier, I'm not aware of very many cases. In over 10 years of practice, I have never seen one severe case of fluorosis, and very few cases of anything but mild white spotting. As a matter of fact, I've only had to cosmetically repair 4 or 5 cases in over a decade of looking.
NYSCOF says: Cavities increase in people with severe fluorosis according to the dental textbook, “Dentistry, Dental Practice and the Community,” by Burt and Eklund. But few practicing dentists seem to know this. Burt and Eklund explain that fluoride concentrations in drinking water, form a J-shaped curve. With increasing fluoride levels, cavity experience diminishes to a certain point and then starts to rise again. The true relationship between water fluoride levels and dental decay is the J-shaped curve, with the turning point in the J being something between 3 and 4 times the optimal level, they write. Studies show this level is already exceeded by many American children Burt (also editor of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology) & Eklund use published scientific studies as the basis for this book.
And how wise is it these days to have this unnecessary, odorless, tasteless chemical sitting next to most water plants in the US.
Tom said: I guess it was only a matter of time before the anti-fluoridationists would exploit 9-11 for their own purposes. That's really low. If a terrorist is going to poison the water supply, they're going to use something more potent that fluoride.
NYSCOF says: Water Fluoride Poisons 23 Californians
http://www.enn.com/direct/display-release.asp?id=7099
Here's more fluoride accidents and poisonings:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/accidents.htm
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof