Dental Health / 50 Years of Fluoridation - Celebration or Shame?

This article is an excerpt of Dr. Richard G. Foulkes, M.D. excellent abstract on flouride in our water supplies and it's use in the dental profession. After reading this article you'll see that:

The year, 1995, marks the 50th anniversary of fluoridation and the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water, for the avowed purpose of preventing tooth decay in children. Differences with orthodoxy are apparent in literature appearing from those in the dental profession and concerns over its viability as a social program are being expressed by its strongest supporters.

In 1987, Dr. Allan Gray, then Director, Division of Dental Health Services for the province of British Columbia, Canada, published an article in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association (vol 10, 763-764) pointing out that it was "time for a new baseline." He pointed to the finding that tooth decay, as measured by DMFT (Decayed, Missing and Filled Teeth) rates were falling "drastically" in non-fluoridated areas as well as fluoridated areas.

Special Issue of Journal of Dental Research

In the same Special Issue, Doctors H. Kalsbeek and G.H.W. Verrips of the Netherlands Institute for Preventive Health Care reported on their studies of dental caries prevalence and the use of fluorides in different European countries. They stated (on page 731) that "no significant association was found between the availability of fluoridated water and fluoride dentifrice and the DMFT in 12 year-old children." They found, also, that "[I]n most European countries, the 12 year-old DMFT index is now (1985-1988) relatively low as compared with figures from 1970-1974."
Their findings agree with those found in the smaller population studied by Dr. Gray in 1987. Does this indicate a shift away from fluoridation on the basis of new scientific findings? Is science the nemesis of fluoridation?

Herschel S. Horowitz, of the National Institute of Dental Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland U.S.A., could appropriately be called a "crusader" for the cause of fluoridation. He summarized (p760-764) his concern regarding the many factors that could influence public acceptance of the procedure. Horowitz classifies the factors as "socio-political."

Dr. Horowitz expresses his exasperation with the democratic process. "In some localities," he writes, "politicians are empowered to make such decisions (i.e., to fluoridate) but, frequently, in order to protect their perceived reelection potential, they decide that a public vote should be held on community water fluoridation, which, in effect, transfers the responsibility to an uninformed or misinformed public."
His opinion of those professionals who do not possess his zeal for fluoridation is not much higher than his perception of the public. "The public and health care practitioners," he writes, "are ill-informed or misinformed about the value and appropriate uses of fluoride, and about the relative benefits produced by fluoride compared with other methods promulgated for the prevention of caries."
Dr. Horowitz's first point appears to be an admission that the fluoridaters have had, in the past, a potent way to bribe financially strapped communities to add fluoride to their water supplies. This "incentive" has worked well in the past to tie fluoridation in with Federal grants for upgrading community water systems. It is noteworthy that he is not mentioning any curtailment of Federal funds that are used to promote fluoridation both in the U.S. and abroad.

Dental fluorosis is a noticeable and undesirable cosmetic change due only to the influence of fluoride on developing teeth. Because it is associated with damage to the teeth and deposition of fluoride in the skeleton and soft tissues, it is an adverse effect with psychological as well as physical implications.

In countries such as China and India, that have large populations living in endemic fluorosis areas, the various degrees of dental fluorosis are seen as a continuum with accompanying bone deposition which leads, in many cases, to crippling skeletal fluorosis, paralysis and soft tissue disease.

THIS IS DENTAL FLUOROSIS, sometimes described as mottled teeth or mottled enamel. It is the visible proof that destroys the myth about fluoridation and dental health. Mottled enamel is more than a cosmetic problem. It is, in fact, a disease caused by fluoride -- a conspicuous sign of systemic poisoning during the tooth-forming years. Mildly mottled teeth generally appear to be whiter than healthy teeth, with lines, flecks, or an overall opaque white surface. In moderate to severe cases, stains and pits are visible, as shown above.

Mild cases of this irreversible condition now afflict up to 80% of U.S. children in fluoridated areas. Even in non-fluoridated areas, fluoride sources other than drinking water have caused the degree of mottling shown here. In fact, according to the U.S. Public Health Service, fluoride makes dental enamel more porous, makes bone more brittle, and can lead to crippling arthritic deformities of the spine and major joints. Most authorities agree that excess fluoride leads to more dental decay.

Take this preliminary to see if your condition could respond to treatment.