Dental Fluorosis: Just a Cosmetic Effect?
by Anonymous

CANTON, NEW YORK — The one risk that proponents of fluoridation concede is dental fluorosis: damage to enamel of the growing teeth. They cannot deny that this is caused by fluoride, because it was the study of "tooth mottling" (later called dental fluorosis) in the early part of the twentieth century which started the whole sorry fluoridation mess.

In 1931 three independent researchers demonstrated that the cause of this "mottling" was naturally occurring fluoride in the drinking water. However, some of these researchers assumed that while the teeth were fluorosed, they had less dental decay. Dr. Trendley Dean of the US Public Health Service came up with data which he claimed showed that at 1 ppm of natural fluoride in the water, there was a reduction in dental decay and that dental fluorosis would only impact 10% of the population in its mildest form. Much later, some researchers such as Ziegelbecker and Colquhoun questioned the validity of this data.

But that's history. In 1945, lost amid the end of World War II, the "trade-off" was born. Today the "trade-off" doesn't look too good, at least to those who are paying any attention to the scientific research.
The largest survey conducted in the US (Heller et al, 1997) showed the level of dental fluorosis in "optimally" fluoridated communities in the US had reached 29.9% of the population on at least two teeth, and up to 65% if one includes a questionable category on one tooth. The York Review (McDonagh et al, 2000) estimates that, from their review of data worldwide, dental fluorosis impacts 48% of the people living in fluoridated communities, and about 12% of it in serious forms. This trade off makes neutral observers gasp. As Dr. Douglas Carnall, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal wrote after reading the York Review:

"The systematic review published this week (p 855) shows that much of the evidence for fluoridation was derived from low quality studies, that its benefits may have been overstated, and that the risk to benefit ratio for the development of the commonest side effect (dental fluorosis, or mottling of the teeth) is rather high...Professionals who propose compulsory preventive measures for a whole population have a different weight of responsibility on their shoulders than those who respond to the requests of individuals for help. Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply" (full statement available at http://fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm).

For the rest of the story and more information go to http://fluoridealert.org/fluorosis2.htm


For more information, contact:
Paul Connett, PhD
Fluoride Action Network
315-379-9200
media@fluoridealert.org
Web site: http://www.fluoridealert.org



This article courtesy of http://www.teeth-whitening-secrets.com. You may freely reprint this article on your website or in your newsletter provided this courtesy notice and the author name and URL remain intact.

Submit Your Article