By: chuckanoo
23/03/2009
11:09 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Comment on the "Working Mandate" by April 8, (see the mechanics below) and make it clear that the statement "no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride" is absolutely incorrect. Please tell them that you for one certainly do doubt that swallowing fluoride does any good. If it works at all, it works topically, and with fluoridated toothpaste universally available it makes nonsense of the notion of putting fluoride into everyone's drinking water - even if one can swallow the poor ethics of depriving individuals of their right to informed consent on the matter. The evidence that fluoridation reduces tooth decay is very very weak indeed (We will be summarizing the evidence in tomorrow's bulletin).
Please inform them that WHO data for 12 year olds show no difference in declines in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries (see graph). You might add that the fact that they can make the erroneous claim that "no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride" suggests that dentists and the dental lobby have already exercised undue influence on their deliberations to date. |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/03/2009
11:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
If you are pushed for time please state your involvement with the issue and your qualifications and add this message:
"I ask that those individuals who have been involved in writing past EU decisions involving fluoride, and are known to be pro-fluoridationists, be removed from all considerations on the "Working Mandate." Clearly, the erroneous claim that "no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride" suggests that dentists and the dental lobby retain their inside track on this issue. We ask that dentists be removed from this process, a) because they are extremely biased in favor of fluoridation and b) they do not have the qualifications to make judgments on fluoride's ability to impact other parts of the body. Instead, on behalf of the public, we request that a balanced panel of toxicologists, neurologists, physiologists, and biologists review the new information and the Working Mandate."
2. As far as the request for relevant fluoride studies which have been published after 2004, FAN will be doing everything we can to get all the necessary studies but we need individuals - especially the professionals who have signed the Professionals' Statement to send in their well crafted explanations as to why key studies should not be ignored. This has to be done by April 26 (mechanics below) but for now we need to clean up this committee of the pro-fluoridation "experts" and dentists who seem to be running things, otherwise this whole exercise is a foregone conclusion: it will be another "official rubber stamp" to push for more fluoridation |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/03/2009
11:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
COMMENTS ON THE 'WORKING MANDATE" ON FLUORIDATION OF DRINKING WATER - Due APRIL 8.
Available at http://fluoridealert.org/eu.f.working.mandate.09.p df
This is what they've said:
While no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride, a body of scientific literature seems to suggest that excessive intake of fluoride may be associated with a number of negative health effects. Consequently, the practice of intentional water fluoridation has been put in question in some parts of the European Union and USA.
The Health and Consumer Protection Directorate General will welcome comments on the working mandate submitted with a view to ensure a high added value for the completeness and clarity of the questions. The working mandate for this request can be found here (pdf).
Comments should be in line with the conditions set out in the Stakeholder Dialogue Procedure document at http://fluoridealert.org/stakeholder_procedure_en- 1.pdf |
|
By: chuckanoo
23/03/2009
11:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
SOLICITATION FOR INFORMATION. DUE APRIL 26, 2009:
Interested parties are invited to submit:
1) Scientific peer reviewed research papers, reviews and reports (later than 2004) on hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid used in drinking water fluoridation.
2) Scientific peer reviewed research papers, reviews and reports on hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to silicofluorides e.g. ((hydro)fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, disodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid) used in drinking water fluoridation.
3) Other credible scientific information that may not be easily available and which is directly relevant to this issue.
All information is considered public unless otherwise stated by the provider. Guidelines for the submission of contributions, containing criteria for the call for information and guidance for submission can be found here and in the Stakeholder Dialogue Procedure document (pdf).
HOW TO SUBMIT:
EMAIL SUBMISSION TO : Sanco-Sc8-Secretariat@ec. europa.eu
SUBJECT LINE: SCHER: Fluoridation - Call for Information
Please put the full body of your contribution as an attachment to the electronic message.
Please include your details, organization and e-mail address in the text of the message.
FAN'S COMPILATION OF PAST FLUORIDE REPORTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
See http://fluoridealert.org/eu.docs.html
Paul Connett |
|
By: leemrmg
24/03/2009
9:07 am Yahoo! Profile:
leemrmg Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| O P E |
|
By: nessa_sarily_so
24/03/2009
12:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nessa_sarily_so Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| 21 pages of flouride fright. You could have all bought a water tank by now. |
|
By: bahamian3002
24/03/2009
12:45 pm Yahoo! Profile:
bahamian3002 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
I lived most of my life in London England and was exposed to Fluoridation all that time.
I am 62, I have almost perfect teeth, white and strong and at 6'-2" tall have no reduction in bone density or muscle mass. |
|
By: nessa_sarily_so
24/03/2009
12:54 pm Yahoo! Profile:
nessa_sarily_so Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| You wouldn't be boasting now would you? |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/03/2009
5:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1057: Why we doubt the benefits of swallowing fluoride. Part 1
Dear Chuckanoo,
As a follow up to yesterday's bulletin warning of a new push to fluoridate Europe, below we examine the very weak evidence that fluoridation actually works. We have divided our arguments into several parts because of the length. Below is Part 1. We are doing this in response to the claim in a European Commission document which states: "no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride." Well as far as the benefits of ingesting fluoride are concerned - we certainly do. The piece below explains why.
But first, while we must hope that the European Commission will do an honest job examining the toxicity of fluoride - and some people in Europe feel they might - it remains imperative that the body doing this is stripped of any influence from the dental lobby. Thus, again we urge you to send in the following message, preceded with a short note about who you are (experience with this issue and/or your professional qualifications). Here are the details:
Email comments to: Sanco-Sc8-Secretariat@ec. europa.eu |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/03/2009
5:38 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Dear Sirs,
You have asked for comments on your "Working Mandate on fluoridation"
(your personal preamble here - your experience with this issue and/or your professional qualifications)
I ask that those individuals who have been involved in writing past EU decisions involving fluoride, and are known to be pro-fluoridationists, be removed from all considerations on the "Working Mandate." Clearly, the erroneous claim that "no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride" suggests that dentists and the dental lobby retain their inside track on this issue. We ask that dentists be removed from this process, a) because they are extremely biased in favor of fluoridation and b) they do not have the qualifications to make judgments on fluoride's ability to impact other parts of the body. Instead, on behalf of the public, we request that a balanced panel of toxicologists, neurologists, physiologists, and biologists review the new information and the Working Mandate.
Your name etc.
Paul Connett |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/03/2009
5:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Why we doubt the benefits of swallowing fluoride. Part 1
Introduction
One of the surprises waiting for someone who decides to review the literature on the issue of water fluoridation is the discovery that, despite the impression conveyed by the promoters, the evidence that swallowing fluoride actually reduces tooth decay is very weak. In this bulletin we will begin to review the evidence that the benefits of swallowing have been wildly exaggerated and no grade A study has ever been published to support the claims of "massive" benefit.
1. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride. This is not surprising when one notes the level of fluoride in mothers' milk. This is only 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p. 36 and Table 2-6, p. 40). If the infant needed fluoride to develop strong health teeth then clearly evolution messed up on this requirement.
2. No "Randomized Controlled Trials" demonstrating effectiveness
In the 60 years (plus) of this practice there has never been a study of the quality required by the FDA and other national regulatory bodies when approving new drugs for efficacy. Such trials require random selection of the individuals tested (exposed and unexposed) and examinations should be "double blind." Double blind means that neither the person examining the subject nor the person being tested should know whether the substance given is the drug or a placebo. The modern terminology for this testing is "Randomized Controlled Trial."
The York Review (McDonagh et al. 2000) after an exhaustive review of the literature could identify NO "Randomized Controlled Trials" of either fluoridation's effectiveness, or safety. |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/03/2009
5:39 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
3. No controls for delayed eruption of teeth
Not one single study purporting to demonstrate fluoridation's effectiveness has ever controlled for a possible delayed eruption of teeth caused by fluoride, for which there is some evidence (Feltman and Kosel 1961; Komarek et al. 2005).
4. Primary versus secondary dentition
Those promoting fluoridation usually do so using the data on primary dentition (deciduous teeth) rather than secondary dentition (permanent teeth). However, it is the latter which are more important since these are the teeth we hope to have for the rest of our lives.
5. Cross-sectional versus Longitudinal studies
The York Review (McDonagh et al. 2000) only looked at longitudinal studies (these compare the same community over a period of time). Cross-sectional studies (these compare 2 or more communities at the same point in time) are much larger and more convincing in indicating no or little benefit from ingesting fluoride. Some of these studies are discussed below.
6. Baby bottle tooth decay
Even promoters of fluoridation have conceded that fluoridation cannot prevent baby bottle tooth decay (BBTD) and this is the cause of the most distressing examples of tooth decay in infants often leading to extractions under anesthesia. BBTD is caused by babies sucking on sugared water, fruit juice (and even coca cola) for hours on end (Kelly et al. 1987; Barnes et al. 1992; Weinstein et al. 1992; Von Burg et al. 1995; Febres et al. 1997; Tang et al. 1997; Blen et al. 1999 and Kong 1999).
Promoters are being intellectually dishonest when they use pictures of BBTD to promote fluoridation. But this has become a standard ploy of many promoting fluoridation. |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/03/2009
5:40 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
7. Pit and fissure decay
Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999).
This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987). Pit and fissure decay is best prevented with sealants.
8. Decay rates have been coming down before fluoridation began and after the" benefits" would have been maximized
Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized (see discussion on Diesendorf's 1986 paper below).
Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002; and Ekanayake 2002).
9. Little difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities
There is very little evidence which demonstrates a significant difference in the permanent teeth when comparing children living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Leverett 1982; Diesendorf 1986; Gray 1987; Yiamouyiannis 1990; Brunelle and Carlos 1990; Spencer et al. 1996; deLiefde 1997; Locker 1999; Armfield & Spencer 2004; and Pizzo et al. 2007). |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/03/2009
5:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
10. Benefits topical not systemic.
Even ardent supporters and promoters of fluoridation like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), now admit that the benefits of fluoride are largely topical not systemic (CDC 1999, 2001). In other words fluoride works on the outside of the tooth not from inside the body. The fact that fluoridated toothpaste is universally available today, coupled with an increasing standard of living, are more likely explanations for declines in tooth decay in industrialized societies than the availability of fluoridated drinking water.
11. World Health organization (WHO) data
According to WHO data there is no significant difference in the rates of decline in decay in the teeth of 12-year olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, over the period from the 1960s to the present. The same set of data shows no significant difference today. See the figure which presents this data graphically. See also a similar graph presented in the article by Cheng et al. 2007, in the British Medical Journal. |
|
By: chuckanoo
25/03/2009
5:41 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
12. Comparing WHO data with CDC claims.
It is interesting to compare the figure based on the WHO data and the figure used by the CDC in 1999, which can also be observed at http://www.FluorideAlert.org/who-dmft.htm . This figure was used by the CDC in 1999 to "demonstrate" the effectiveness of fluoridation. They inferred that tooth decay was coming down over the period 1960 to the 1990's in the US because the percentage of the American population drinking fluoridated water had gone up over this same period (CDC, 1999).
It is disturbing that the CDC authors appear to have been unaware of the WHO data which clearly refutes the claim for such a simplistic causal relationship.
This CDC graph was used in the report which was supposed to substantiate their claim that fluoridation is "One of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century" (CDC, 1999).
This famous statement is quoted nearly every day somewhere in the world by some unsuspecting editor, journalist or public health official as the final word on fluoridation's safety and effectiveness. As far as an attempt to demonstrate effectiveness is concerned this graph remains a total embarrassment to any genuine scientist at the CDC - or it should be.
End of Part 1.
All references can be found at http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/biblio.html |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1058: Why we doubt the benefits of swallowing fluoride. Part 2
March 24, 2009
Dear Chuckanoo,
Below is Part 2 of our 4-part series on "Why we doubt the benefits of swallowing fluoride."
I have sent all four parts of this series to the European Commission committee that is reviewing the fluoridation of drinking water and health studies on fluoride and the fluoridating chemicals used in water fluoridation, in response to their erroneous claim in their Working Mandate on fluoridation that "no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride."
Well as far as the benefits of ingesting fluoride are concerned - we certainly have HUGE doubts. This 4-part piece gives chapter and verse on how poor the evidence is that supports the notion that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay. If what we offer is convincing - as we certainly believe it is - then there is no rationale for accepting any risk at all from swallowing fluoride. This would be true whether there were no evidence of any health risks at all, but now that the evidence is emerging that there are health risks (in addition to the undeniable high rise in dental fluorosis) it makes the practice even more preposterous. |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Hopefully, the European Commission committee reviewing the health data published since 2004 (which will include the NRC (2006) report; the Bassin study and many of the IQ studies) will reach an honest and scientific judgment on the heath risks involved. This will only happen if the pro-fluoridation dental "experts" are kept off the panel. That is why that phrase "no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride" is so alarming. If it wasn't for that phrase we would be more hopeful about this being a genuine effort to take a second look at this practice.
Today, we received a press release from a Kathy Sennott, a Member of the European parliament, whose enquiries appeared to have triggered this review. Kathy Sinnott's press release can be viewed online. So at least we know that the trigger was genuine . Now we must make sure that the process is not hi-jacked by the powerful Anglo-American dental lobby and their friends at the WHO.
Remember the fact that most European countries do not fluoridate their water and yet their tooth decay is just as good - if not better- than the handful of countries that do, is a huge stumbling block for the pro-fluoridation zealots who, if they had their way, would fluoridate the whole world. Europe must not be subverted on this issue. |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
So may we urge you again to send in the following message, with your personal changes/additions, to this email address: Sanco-Sc8-Secretariat@ec. europa.eu
Dear Committee members,
You have asked for comments on your "Working Mandate on fluoridation"
( your personal preamble here)
I am alarmed by the way the erroneous claim that "no one doubts the beneficial effects of fluoride" was slipped into your "Working Mandate on fluoridation." This phrase suggests to me that the dental lobby is already influencing this process. In order to regain the public's trust in this process, please remove this phrase because it is simply untrue. Please also exclude any dentists or dental researchers from your deliberations because a) they are extremely biased on this matter and b) they do not have the qualifications to make judgments on fluoride's ability to impact other parts of the body. Instead, on behalf of the public, I request that a balanced panel of toxicologists, neurologists, physiologists, and biologists review the new information and the Working Mandate.
Your name etc.
Please check out more important developments on the battles against fluoridation currently raging in Australia, Canada, NZ, the UK and the US in our latest news section. |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:11 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
The promoters have so much power and money and influence it is incredible that we have made the progress we have done over the last few years. But we have something that they don't have: we have integrity and the ability via the internet to get the truth out. We have also have dedicated people like you who use this information and fight this foolish practice nearly every day. Thank you for everything you do. We will prevail.
With your help maybe we can get the European Commission to exercise integrity on this issue and thereby protect our human rights, and the notion that public policy has to be supported by honest science, and not simply serve vested interests.
Paul Connett |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:12 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Why we doubt the benefits of swallowing fluoride. Part 2.
13. US Department of Human Health Services (DHHS) survey
Dr. Bill Osmunson has showed that according to the results of a questionnaire administered to parents in all 50 states in the US by the DHHS, there is absolutely no relationship in the percentage of parents who responded "my child has very good or excellent teeth" and the percentage of the population in the state drinking fluoridated water (Osmunson, 2007). However, there is a very strong relation in all 50 states between the percentage of parents giving that answer and their income levels. Across the board 80% of high income parents gave that answer, but only about 60% of low income parents did so (Osmunson, 2007).
Linear regression lines plotted for these answers versus the percentage of the population in each state fluoridated were quite flat for both high income and low income families. This indicates no correlation between the answers and the fluoridation status of each state.
14. Tooth decay and income levels.
What the findings in the DHHS and NY surveys show is that there is a much stronger relationship between tooth decay and parent's income level than community fluoridation status. |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
15. The weakness of comparing two towns (or regions).
Frequently promoters will produce surveys comparing the tooth decay between two towns: one fluoridated the other not. However, you can get any result you want comparing two towns (or regions) unless confounding variables are controlled very carefully (i.e. income levels, delayed eruption, diet, genetic, ethnic, cultural and educational differences, parental oversight, as well as the dental services available).
Often, these comparisons look more like a self-serving and self-fulfilling prophesy on behalf of fluoridation promoters, than a genuine comparison of the effects of ingesting fluoride between two towns. That is why the surveys should be part of a bona fide externally peer-reviewed published study. This way it can be ascertained if controls were attempted for these confounding variables. Most importantly it is necessary to compare how much money was spent on dental services in each community as well as the number of interventions administered. There is some evidence in the US and the UK that commensurate with the introduction of fluoridation in some cities (e.g. San Antonio, Texas; Wolverhampton, UK) the measure has been accompanied with other measures to fight tooth decay. This can create or inflate whatever benefit of fluoridation is being claimed. |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
16. When fluoridation is discontinued
Contrary to claims from proponents that when fluoridation is discontinued tooth decay goes up, several modern studies indicate the very opposite. Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but in some cases actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).
It is possible that other preventive measures were stepped up when fluoridation was ceased in these communities, but that gives weight to the notion that there are ways of fighting tooth decay other than forcing fluoride on people in their water supply.
17. A dental crisis has been reported in many fluoridated cities in the US
There have been numerous press reports over the last few years of dental crises in US cities and states (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, Concord, NH, New York City, Pittsburg, Connecticut, South Bronx, Detroit) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. The fact that these crises are occurring in the low income areas of the cities again reflects the fact that there is a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and family income levels than with water fluoride levels. It also demonstrates that the disparities in tooth decay caused by income levels is not being corrected by fluoridation programs. Here is a sampling of these newspaper reports: |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:13 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Cincinnati - Fluoridated since 1979
"City and regional medical officials say tooth decay is the city's No. 1 unmet health-care need. 'We cannot meet the demand,' says Dr. Larry Hill, Cincinnati Health Department dental director. 'It's absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty. We have kids in this community with severe untreated dental infections. We have kids with self-esteem problems, and we have kids in severe pain and we have no place to send them in Cincinnati. People would be shocked to learn how bad the problem has become.'"
Solvig E. 2002. Special Report: Cincinnati's dental crisis, Cincinnati Enquirer (Ohio). October 6. Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/media/2002d.html
Concord, NH - Fluoridated since 1978
"It's overwhelming," said Deb Bergschneider, dental clinic coordinator at the Concord center. "Because we serve the uninsured, we see the lower level of the community and the need is just astronomical. ... By the time they get to us, their mouths are bombed out. They are all emergency situations. It's a severe, severe, problem. It's sad."
Gerth U. 2005. Nothing to smile about. Fosters Daily Democrat (Connecticut). May 22. Available at http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/ New-Hampshire/Nothing-to-smile-about |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
Boston - Fluoridated since 1978
"With a study estimating that the number of untreated cavities among Boston students greatly exceeds the national average, public health officials are about to launch an offensive against what they say is a growing dental crisis in the city... According to statistics cited in the city's latest annual health report, ''The Health of Boston 1999'': Eighteen percent of children 4 years old and younger who were seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby-bottle tooth decay, a painful condition that arises when a baby is given a bottle of juice or milk at bedtime. Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. About 90 percent of 107 Boston high school students were found to need dental treatment, according to a 1996 unpublished study. That report also estimated that the city's students had four times more untreated cavities than the national average..."
Kong D. 1999. City to launch battle against dental 'crisis'. Boston Globe (Massachusetts). November 27. Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/f-boston.htm
Connecticut - Statewide mandatory fluoridation since 1960s
"Dental decay remains the most common chronic disease among Connecticut's children. Poor oral health causes Connecticut children to lose hundreds of thousands of school days each year. One in four Connecticut children is on Medicaid, but two of three Connecticut children receive no dental care. And DSS continues to exploit the seriously stretched public health providers and the few remaining private providers. There is an oral health crisis in Connecticut."
Slate R. 2005. State must fund plan to provide oral health care for the poor. New Haven Register (Connecticut). May 5. Available at http://www2.fluoridealert.org/Alert/United-States/ Connecticut/Fluoridated-Connecticut-experiencing-O ral-Health-Crisis |
|
By: chuckanoo
26/03/2009
5:14 pm Yahoo! Profile:
chuckanoo Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Cont..
South Bronx, New York - Fluoridated since 1965
"Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for the children I have interviewed in the South Bronx. Children get used to feeling constant pain. They go to sleep with it. They go to school with it. Sometimes their teachers are alarmed and try to get them to a clinic. But it's all so slow and heavily encumbered with red tape and waiting lists and missing, lost or canceled welfare cards, that dental care is often long delayed. Children live for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. The gradual attrition of accepted pain erodes their energy and aspiration. I have seen children in New York with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have also seen teen-agers who were missing half their teeth. But, to me, most shocking is to see a child with an abscess that has been inflamed for weeks and that he has simply lived with and accepts as part of the routine of life. Many teachers in the urban schools have seen this. It is almost commonplace."
Kozol J. 1991. Savage Inequalities. Children in America's Schools. Crown Publishers, Inc.( New York). Harper Perennial / Harper Collins (New York).
Pittsburgh, PA - Fluoridated since 1953
"Nearly half of children in Pittsburgh between 6 and 8 have had cavities, according to a 2002 state Department of Health report. More than 70 percent of 15-year-olds in the city have had cavities, the highest percentage in the state. Close to 30 percent of the city's children have untreated cavities. That's more than double the state average of 14 percent."
Law V. 2005. Sink your teeth into health care. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (Pennsylvania). February 13. Available at http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_3 03168.html |
|
