It took the town of Oak Bluffs forty years to accept what the Centers for Disease Control calls one of the ten great health achievements of the twentieth century — community fluoridation of water.
It took the town of Oak Bluffs forty years to accept what the Centers for Disease Control calls one of the ten great health achievements of the twentieth century — community fluoridation of water. Now the town board of health is considering rolling that back.
What is it that makes some people so willing to dismiss the weight of scientific evidence? Fluoridation, at the very modest levels used in Oak Bluffs and elsewhere to prevent tooth decay, has been repeatedly deemed safe by a succession of surgeons general as well as a long list of medical organizations. More to the point, it is an economical way to lower health care costs, especially for the many people who can’t afford a dentist.
More troubling, if perhaps less surprising, was reaction this week to the third National Climate Assessment, a comprehensive federal report that concluded we are likely to see more extreme weather events, especially in the Northeast, as average temperatures continue to climb. Climate change deniers were quick to point out that, gee, this winter didn’t seem so warm.
It is possible to find evidence to support any position one wants to take. There are studies that show, for example, that for some children, some amount of fluoride may actually harm their teeth.
But the vast majority of the science weighs in favor of fluoride. You can look it up. We urge Oak Bluffs residents not to reverse a hard-won and valuable public health policy on a whim.
Comments
Fluoridation began in 1945
nyscof NYFluoridation began in 1945 with the mistaken belief that ingesting fluoride reduced tooth decay. Modern science disproved that theory. Fluoride gets absorbed into tooth enamel topical. However, swallowing can lead to a whole host of adverse effects including stomach pains, rashes, tooth discoloration, thyroid dysfunction and bone damage.
Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. Administering this drug, based on outdated science, is wasteful at least and health-damaging at worst. The water supply should never be used to deliver medicine doses based on thirst and not more appropriately by age, health, weight or need
Please note the
Esther A. H. Hopkins Oak BluffsPlease note the recommendation of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)for continuing fluoridation of municipal water supplies, in input from the National Research Council (NRC). We shouldn't forget the public health wins from the past. We should also look at the iodizing of salt which we seem to be trying to forget.
Doing a little research into
Edward MarylandDoing a little research into this topic produced a lot of information both pro and con regarding fluoridation. One of the better arguments that argued both sides of the story was at the following link: http://www.skepdic.com/fluoridation.
I believed that fluoridation was from the aluminum industry whose by-product is sodium fluoride and that the industry paid to have several dentists publish articles and after that it became generally recognized that fluoride helped prevent dental problems. So the aluminum industry took its toxic by-products that it could not dispose of legally and sold them to cities and towns to use to prevent dental caries. Again that is one of the many anti-fluoridation beliefs held.
As noted in the link above chlorine is needed to prevent cholera and other waterborne diseases from spreading in drinking water but tooth decay is not contagious. My teeth don't rot because I came in contact with someone with rotting teeth nor did that person sneeze on me and that's why I need a filling at the dentist. So do we need to add chemicals to the water to prevent my teeth from falling out? Yet we allow NStar to spray herbicides over our aquifer recharge area and people to spread fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides over our aquifer recharge area. No one that I know of will make the argument that herbicides are necessary for public health and should be added to our water supply, yet we have less control over them than the sodium fluoride added.
However, the other issue is the difference between 1.0 parts per million and 4.0 parts per million which is the difference between fluoride having beneficial effects and fluoride beginning to demonstrate ill effects. That is a very small difference for a chemical feed pump to inject into millions of gallons of water reliably and it also requires constant surveillance and calibration to ensure we are getting 1.0 ppm versus 4.0 or 10.0 ppm.
We all have our beliefs that we have developed over the years and maybe it's time for each of us to do a little research on other websites, especially those of the "enemy" and maybe, just maybe try to reconsider our current opinion based on some newer information.
Add new comment