Comment 27524

By Jim (anonymous) | Posted November 27, 2008 at 17:18:30

1 the claim that there is a weak association of fluoridation for dental fluorosis. !945 Deans chart showed 1ppm would yield no more then 10% of the very mildest damage. A very linear direct effect. Now Augusta Ga 1990 80% dental fluorosis with 14% moderate and severe at 1ppm. Pizzo 51%, Ireland admits about 53-54% and CDC 43.43% 2003-2004, Your review 2000 48% but only 15% in unfluoridated areas which is still 50% above what 1ppm should yield unless the current many other sources is the real problem. Much of this damage is noticable across the room. Cdc Science watch 24 at fluoridealert.org had CDC studies which show double the ugly moderate and severe for blacks. Is this acceptable to deceide who will be damaged without their knowledge of any risk. Safe for all and everyone benefits are the two most common claims of health department.
Dr. Hardy Limeback researcher claims the cost of these very expensive repairs exceeds even the claimed savings. Is anyone claiming no cause and effect with water fluoridation. It seems likely the backround exposure of all sources exceeds the original safe goal before the first drop of water is sipped. Should the risk be mentioned to the public. Is it a conflict of interest for the dentists to strongly promote fluoridation and rarely mention any possible negative effect. Cosmetic repairs have grown to a huge profit center for dentists. The JADA in 1972 said dental incomes were 17% greater in fluoridated cities. In 1976 CBC almanac showed 121 /100000 dentists in the first fluoridated cities, 76/ other fluoridated and 59/100,000 in non fluoridated. Surely dentists did not flock to cities with already perfect teeth. The ADA is a trade association with a goal of increasing income and they have shot dentists in the last 20 years to near double of doctors from about 2/3 income before. Wall Street Journal article. Why do I keep hearing the claim that dentists are putting themselves out of a job with fluoridation. The numbers say the opposite is more likely.
The real problem is poor kids get little care as most (80)% will not accept medicaid kids ever. My county has only 8 of over 200 signed up for the program but many only treat poor one day a week. Thats 4% with almost 50,000 kids and the health department claims 45,000 underserved with many never treated until its in the emergency room for big bucks and bad outcome for all. Fluoridation is a weak attempt to claims poor kids are cared for. The CDC data shows blacks damaged the most severly by fluoride and poor inner cities like Detroit long fluoridated 5 decades with out of control cavity increases and toxic fluoride damaged teeth. See Burt 2007 and understand nutrition, parential concern on brushing and a dentist who will treat. Parents often put babies down to nap or whole day with sugar rich bottles. Same for sippy cups. Ignorance destroys kids teeth with baby bottle tooth and fluoride makes no difference. Nutrition is always the foundation. Weston A price showed this clearly in 1939 with his book on dental health and nutrition which is still a standard. westonaprice.org Lets talk science not beliefs. waterloowatch.com fluoridealert.org sw4sc.org nteu280.org lots of one click videos with researchers many EPA scientists and researchers.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds