Why no fluoride?

Why are we spending tax dollars on mandating fluoride in drinking water? Most people I know don't even drink the water, they buy bottled. Just another example of our government spending $ where it doesn't belong. Why can't they take that $ and put it towards our roads, healthcare, schools, etc.

I sware I don't understand this issue. Why would anyone stop using a substance which has long sence has proven to prevent tooth decay. What do we want - or are we creating a way to make dentists richer?

Dear Kenosb: Fluoride wastes were created in abundance when we starting building nuclear bombs. Then, for the first time in human history, we were told that we need to be ingesting fluorides for "healthy teeth." We never needed it before. It never worked and still does not work today. It has never "been proven" to do anything other than kill rats. Kentucky has almost 100% fluoridation, and also has the worst cases of tooth decay and complete toothlessness in the entire US.

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. No American is, or ever was, fluoride deficient. In fact, since fluoridation began to dose Americans with an uncontrollable amount of fluoride, American children are fluoride-overdosed and bearing its scars - dental fluorosis, white speckled, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth - now afflicing 48% of US school children, according to the US Centers for Disease Control.

Instead of putting themselves out of business by endorsing fluoridation, dentists are making more money than physicians while working fewer days and fewer hours. And it costs people up to tens of thousands of dollars to cover up those fluorosed teeth. Yes, dentists love fluoridation.

Thank goodness your Governor is smart enough to veto this bill as an unfunded mandate.

Let's stop fluoridation nation-wide

http://congress.fluorideaction.net

fluoridation 101

http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

I've been involved in dentistry and research science most of my adult life. At sixty five, I look at almost everything with a jaundiced eye. Safe and necessary? Safe, without a doubt. Fluoride occurs naturally in the water supply in many places. Too much fluoride causes enamel fluorosis. Mottled enamel. It was pretty much chance observation that the folks with the mottled enamel seemed to dodge the ravages of decay experienced by many people who live where there is no fluoride in the water. When my kids were young we lived where there was no fluoride so we got the fluoride tablets at the drug store. Then, moved to Chadron where the water was fluoridated. Kids have good teeth with few fillings. To heck with kids whose parents won't buy them fluoride tablets or aren't even aware of the advantages. Right? The fluoride put into drinking water is dirt cheap. You won't pave many miles of road with what you save. You just might help some kid grow up to keep his teeth and keep them looking decent by spending a couple of penneys on fluoride. I don't know what CDC figures are being quoted but I look at teeth all day every day and flourosis, or mottled enamel is fairly uncommon. Mottled enamel is much less unattractive than a rotted tooth. So, is the stuff necessary? Is it a good thing you can do for somebody without putting yourself out? Rat poison? Chlorine has been used as poison in warfare. Better get that out of the water supply, too.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Galloway

Plymouth, Minnesota

Formerly, Chadron

Dr. Galloway did I understand you as a dentist are claiming that water fluoridation is safe for all with no reservations? Did you know what the total dose was for all from all sources? Did you know what the state of health for all was such as diabetes Kidney problem,thyroid or maybe a low iodine or calcium magnesium vitamin c level all of which put persons at a higher risk level to fluoride toxicity to all body systems. As a dentist it would seem unwise to make a dianosis for anything outside of the oral cavity.Are you qualified and how would your state registry answer that question. You might be putting others at risk if they believe your statement.

An interesting study just was published by Yoder k 2007 in Indiana with over 6000 dental professionals questioned in 2000 only 17% correctly identified reminerization as the method of benefit of fluoride with most still believing it preeruptive. It sounds like you may be in that misinformed majority still giving guidance that harms with little benefit.

Please state the current studies that show ingested fluoride delivers the primary benefit of fluoride. Is not topical delivered best by toothpaste? The FDA regulates medication. Please show me where the FDA has ever approved or reviewed a single ingested fluoride product. You cite the many studys so would you please mention one chronic health study on the actual product used in 91% of the fluoridation schemes(H2SiF6) which is a different chemical then sodium fluoride. Please cite the FDA policy that shows fluoride to be a nutrient or probable nutrient? It was removed in 1979 after 3 lawsuits asking for proof of claim. World health data shows that industrialized non fluoridated which are the majority have as good or better teeth(cavities) With the CDC showing 48.42% and the Pizzo review 51% would you consider this higher then the limit set of 10-12% when fluoridation began. Would you agree that most of the large urban areas with cavity explosions are already fluoridated for decades? Are much of this problem baby bottle tooth. Is the BURT study correct in also thinking nutrition and parental delivered care is the big issue. Children lack dentists not fluoride and by far the great majority of dentists do not accept any medicaid dental children ever. I think fluoride is the cover story dentists care when it is they refuse too work cheap. The ADA blocks out competition for skilled but lesser trained professions that could be an answer. Do not poison us all with a cumulative toxin to cover up Dentistrys failures. The sad thing is current studies show small or no benefit from ingested fluoride but half the kids with forever damaged enamel. About 4% of blacks have moderate and severe which can cost many ,many thousands to cover up. Thank you Jim Schultz 386 2355069

Fluoridation is very cheap as 91% of programs use toxic waste directly from EPA ordered pollution scrubbers at phosphate/uraninum mines

right here in Florida. NSF must test the product once a year to make sure the many contaminates will not excede a MAL. Arsenic can come close to rejecting the batch with the new standards of 10ppb and a goal of zero just like lead. There are about 20 different contaminates like arsenic, lead ,cadinum, berylium and lots of radioactive decay products . You sure are out of date Doc if you think benefits exceed damage with supplements- It has been shown to be a lose lose for many years with little benefit. Just like fluoridation but you can be sued if you overdose here . Remember in 1995 zero fluoride for 6 months and under and .25mg up to 3 years if the water is fluoride free. So one tooth brushing or 8 oz of water would be the days limit by that standard. Water use is uncontrolled as is toothpaste all to often so please reassure me as to total safety at any dose. Even the ADA on nov 9 2006 advised against formula being mixed for infants with fluoridated water . So did the CDC and the FDA for bottled water under 12 months. Are these part of the safe for all theory. You seem to hold contempt for current science or is it just our different view? Talk is cheap show the science. Jim Schultz

Kenosb--Claims of cavity reduction are true but it was never from ingested fluoride. Some faked studies are easy to do but the overall data has always been about the same in the big picture for whole countries and unfluoridated countries do as well or better in cavity reduction. Look at WHO data.Any benefit is topical as in toothpaste. Dentists make more money in fluoridated cities as admitted in 1972 ADA journal. Now with the huge increase in ugly dental fluorosis dentists hit the jackpot in huge windfalls of cash from those that can afford to do the restoration. Very few dentists are willing to work with poor kids where the only real problem is. Cavities are a complex issue but best predictor is always income and social class. The have nots have cavities. Truth rarely is told by dentists with anything about fluoride. Most know little about current science and refuse to accept the new facts. We all suffer at their control and lobby of the political process. The Health department people I have talked to know even less and must follow policy to keep job. They know the comic book version of the 60 year old theory. Are those your experts? Research yourself and watch videos from the EPA scientists at fluoridealert.org Jim Schultz