<p>The Oak Bluffs water district has been fluoridating the public water supply since April of 1992, and is the only town on the Island to do so. But the board of health is considering ending the practice as soon as this summer. A public hearing will be held next month to discuss the issue.</p>
The Oak Bluffs water district has been fluoridating the public water supply since April of 1992, and is the only town on the Island to fluoridate its water supply. But the board of health is considering ending the practice as soon as this summer.
Last month the board voted to set a public hearing to discuss the matter. The hearing will be held on June 10 at 10 a.m. at the town library.
“The general consensus is if you want fluoride, you should be able to get it but you shouldn’t have to have it,” said Patricia Bergeron, chairman of the board.
The discussion about eliminating fluoride was initiated last month by Dr. John Campbell, a chiropractor who is a member of the board. Dr. Campbell said he has received numerous calls from people concerned about the fluoridation of the water supply. Reached this week, he said the board is still gathering information and weighing the pros and cons of fluoridation.
But from what he’s read so far, he believes fluoride is best used topically, he said.
“I will just say that fluoride is most effective by coating and not by ingesting,” Dr. Campbell said.
Island dentists take a different view, calling fluoridation of water a public health success story, proven to prevent tooth decay.
The town voted to fluoridate the water in 1987, although the actual practice began in 1991 with a $32,000 state public health prevention block grant.
Oak Bluffs has 4,225 service connections, making it the largest public water supplier on the Island.
If the board votes to remove the additive, it will join Tisbury and Edgartown, towns that have never fluoridated their public water. Up-Island, water is delivered in private wells and is generally not fluoridated.
Of the 351 municipalities in the commonwealth, 140 fluoridate at least part of their public water supply, roughly 40 per cent.
In Oak Bluffs, sodium fluoride is fed into the water system at each of the four major pumping stations. Fluoride is present at about .8 parts per million, an amount determined by the state Department of Public Health. The water district says fluoridating requires regular sampling and testing of the water supply. The actual powder costs the district about $2,500 per year but there are other significant costs associated with labor, said Kevin Johnson, water district superintendent. He could not estimate the actual cost. But he said he personally feels fluoride should be eliminated.
“If we were to eliminate fluoride, we could take the money that is appointed to fluoride and use it for other things, use it for a better purpose than fluoridation,” Mr. Johnson said. “My feeling has been that not only were we concerned with costs associated with putting fluoride in the water, but we were also concerned with the fact that fluoride can be harmful."
Ms. Bergeron emphasized the board has not made a final decision. “If the public persuades us not to do it, we will definitely consider that,” she said.
“I am going to do some investigation to see what is best for the town,” said board member William White.
Island dentists contacted by the Gazette strongly condoned fluoridation through the water supply, saying it makes it available to those who cannot afford dental care.
“It’s very helpful,” said Dr. Nina Giambro, an Island orthodontist who has authored several articles on fluoride. “It reduces the amount of caries [cavities] in children tremendously.”
She said children do not often brush thoroughly, and fluoride passes through the teeth more easily when it's in liquid form. “Water goes between the teeth easier than just paste, and kids don’t brush that long, so having water flow helps more,” she said. She said the risks associated with fluoride are present only with high dosage, far above the level present in the public water supply.
Dr. Bruce E. Golden, a pediatric dentist in Vineyard Haven, said he regrets not doing more to get the other towns to fluoridate the water.
He said community fluoridation lowers the incidence of cavities in the community by 20 per cent, without even having to go to the dentist.
“It is a very safe and wonderful thing to do and from a public health standpoint, there is not public health measure more effective in the United States than community water fluoridation,” he said. “Oak Bluffs should definitely not take it out.”
He said there are many children from low-income families on Martha’s Vineyard who need fluoride on a daily basis. “They need it because they can’t afford to go to the dentist,” he said.
Fluoride remineralizes the enamel on teeth, making it less soluble to the acids that are produced by the bacteria which digest the leftover food in the mouth.
It also limits bacterial plaque, Dr. Golden said. Still, people who live in Oak Bluffs and drink tap water should not have other sources of fluoride besides toothpaste, he said. Toothpaste is not swallowed.
He said fluoride costs about 75 cents per person in the community per year but much more is saved in dental care costs.
Dr. Garrett Orazem, who has practiced dentistry on the Island for 33 years, concurred with the sentiment that ending fluoridation would be a setback for Island children, especially those whose families cannot afford dental care. “One of the ways to keep them from growing up with an excess of dental health problems is to have fluoride in the public water supply,” he said, adding: “It will simply mean more business for the dentists, more missing teeth, more dentures, and missing front teeth again on the Vineyard."
Dr. Orazem also said water fluoridation has been rigorously researched for safety, and the claims that it presents health risks are unfounded.
“People have been blaming fluoride for unexplainable maladies since they first discovered that it’s useful,” he said.
Tisbury Water Works superintendent Paul Wohler said his department only alters the water by raising its pH level, which prevents the buildup of lead and copper.
Edgartown selectmen considered water fluoridation in the 1960s, but ultimately voted in favor of encouraging fluoride intake in pill form. The Gazette ran a series of stories and editorials backing community fluoridation, sparking impassioned debate on the newspaper’s editorial pages.
“We never wanted to take it on,” said Shane Ben David, chief operator of the Edgartown water system, this week. “It’s just an extra thing that you have to do paperwork for the state, and we didn’t see a need for it.”
Comments
Love the picture, so classic
Vineyarder OBLove the picture, so classic Vineyard -- rocking the Dickies shirt with the Rolex, understated yet classy.
There are many studies done
jwillie6There are many studies done by research scientists which indicate a variety of health dangers associated with water fluoridation. Many of them are presented at the site below. It begins with a statement from Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, PhD in pharmacology:
"fluoride exposures today are out of control," and ".. there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit." Dr. Mullenix cites data from 18 clinical studies in her analysis.
The list is supported by over 40 scientific references. Take a look.
http://www.nofluoride.com/scientific_studies.cfm
There are no valid, peer
Steven D. Slott, DDSThere are no valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies which prove ANY adverse effects from water fluoridated at the optimal level. In the 69 history of this very beneficial public health initiative, no adverse effects.
If jwillie/James Reeves cares to stack the opinion of one scientist against the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare, fine. Would he care to see the list of over 100 highly respected organizations which recognize the importance of water fluoridation? Statements from the past five U.S. Surgeons General? The Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry and Public Health? A highly respected Endocrinologist from the University? I will be glad to provide them, if so.
As is typical of jwillie and most other antifluoridationists, he very deceptively attempts to steer readers to a biased antifluoridationist website where readers will find nothing but filtered and edited "information", instead of to legitimate sources of information. For intelligent readers who truly desire accurate information on fluoridation, the websites of the CDC, the EPA, the ADA, the National Sanitary Foundation and the World Health Organization, each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information readily available to anyone. Readers would be well served by seeing through the deceptive diversionary tactics of antifluoridationists and instead obtain accurate information from legitimate,accurate, and primary sources of information.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
We do not need to ingest
RobinWe do not need to ingest fluoride. If people want it, they can get it in their toothpaste and in their mouthwash. Heck...put it on floss. But keep it out of our water. With IBS and celiac disease on the rise, it has to make you wonder here it's coming from. It's from all the toxins in our food and water. You and all your high-up muckity mucks and their theories hold no water with those of us waking up and realizing that we are being poisoned. It's old science that we have figured out is not good for us. Tell your patients to just brush their teeth...we don't need it in our water.
Fluoridation Opposition is
nyscof NYFluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing
Over 4,600 professionals (including 366 dentists and 568 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped because science shows fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/text/
Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”
Instead of spreading less tooth decay across the land, fluoridation spread dental fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) into every nook and cranny of America. Even though the CDC reports up to 60% of adolescents are afflicted with dental fluorosis, 51% of them have cavities.
Opposite to predictions, since fluoridation began in 1945:
1) Tooth decay crises occur in all fluoridated cities.
2) New dental professionals were created, e.g. dental therapists.
3) New dental schools opened.
4) Dental expenditures have gone up substantially, higher than the inflation rate.
5) Poor children’s cavities are more prevalent, severe, occur earlier and more likely to be untreated.
6) Despite dental spending growth, 42% percent of adults and 4 million children with dental problems could not afford dental care.
US Senator Bernie Sanders, in his 2012 report, “Dental Crisis in America,” says that 9,500 new dental providers are needed to meet the country’s current oral health needs
Emergency rooms are flooded with people in dental pain, costing taxpayers millions of dollars, because 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients, 130 million Americans don’t have dental insurance. Many of those with insurance can’t afford dentistry’s high out-of-pocket costs. No American is or ever was fluoride-deficient. Too many are dentist-deficient.
Nyscof, the "Media Relations
Steven D. Slott, DDS North CarolinaNyscof, the "Media Relations Director" for the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, makes an excellent point here. Given that there are 175,000 dentists and 850,000 MDs in the United States, alone, the 366 dentists and 568 MDs, worldwide, whom she claims oppose fluoridation, are clear demonstration of the near unanimous support fluoridation has amongst respected healthcare professionals.
As do most antifluoridationists, nyscof deceptively attempts to steer readers to the filtered and edited "information" found on biased antifluoridationist websites, this time to "fluoridealert", the website of her own antifluoridationist faction, FAN. It is really no mystery, i suppose, why antifluoridationists like nyscof and jwillie are fearful of accurate information which hasn't been filtered through their own websites.
As far as Aarvid Carlsson.......well, combined with jwillie's scientist who opposes fluoridation that makes a sum total of two.
The only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with water fluoridation is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect of the teeth which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many do not even consider this effect to be undesirable, much less adverse.
----The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
The CDC reported on a study by Beltran-Aguilar, that 41% of adolescents examined show signs of dental fluorosis. That "41% of all children" is composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign conditions requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The other 3.8% are those with moderate dental fluorosis, a condition which manifests as white areas on teeth. Whether or not these moderately fluorosed teeth require any restoration depends on the preferences of the patients and their parents. Some may be concerned enough with the cosmetics to desire treatment, others may not. There was not enough evidence of severe dental fluorosis to even be quantifiable.
The percentage of that 3.8% who may desire cosmetic treatment does not override the dental decay preventing benefit to the whole population. The cosmetics alone from dental decay are far worse than any from moderate dental fluorosis, and this not even take into account the amount of pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection that is prevented by water fluoridation. The cost savings of preventing the need for restoration of decayed teeth completely dwarfs any expenses involved in cosmetic treatment of the very few with moderate fluorosis who may desire to have it.
Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Finally, as nyscof correctly points out, we do indeed have a crisis in access to dental care in this country. However, this is a strong reason FOR fluoridation, not against it. Water fluoridation has been clearly demonstrated effective, with no adverse effects. We cannot afford to lose such a valuable tool we have with which to battle the problem of untreated dental disease.
Nyscof, jwillie, and other antifluoridationists constantly seek to unconscionably exploit the plight of the underserved population to further their own, personal ideology against water fluoridation. Instead of seeking to take productive action to help alleviate the problem, they sit by their computers and do nothing but everything they can to undermine the efforts of those of us who truly are seeking to make life better for all. The overwhelming part of my 32 year dental career has been spent delivering dental care to Medicaid, low-income, and indigent individuals, both in my private practice as well as in a large free, portable dental program I founded and directed, all on a volunteer basis, for 6 years. I have advocated loudly and publicly for improved access to dental care, including my full support of the concept of dental midlevels. It is truly offensive to me, and others who have spent their careers providing for the underserved, to see these self-absorbed, self-serving, fringe activists attempting to exploit the unfortunate circumstances of the underserved to further their own ideologies while lifting not one single finger to do anything of any value to provide help for our neediest citizens.
Are these honestly the types of people to whom this Board of Health wants to accord credence??
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Fluoridation is the best
LindaRosaRN ColoradoFluoridation is the best investment local government can do for citizens.
For less than the price of a tube of toothpaste per year per person, studies have found cavities can be reduced 20-40%. Children in fluoridated areas often grow up without a single cavity.
Fluoridation provides enough fluoride ions, via the saliva, so that the teeth can be continually remineralize throughout the day. Adults also benefit; even the exposed roots of the elderly are protected.
A 2001 study found that for every $100 invested in fluoridation, $3,800 is saved in dental bills.
Fluoride is classified as a nutrient, and fluoridation is just an adjustment of the fluoride that is found in all ground water. The EPA and several systematic reviews have found fluoridation safe for humans and the environment.
Oh Linda,
David Green PeterboroughOh Linda,
You know that fluoride is not "classed" as a nutrient except in the wishful thinking of those who don't want to admit that it is a drug. Saying that over and over again won't make it true. How can the public believe anything else you are saying when you mislead about the basic stuff?
“The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”
SOURCE: CDC (2001). Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 50(RR14):1-42.
So much for you theory that saliva fluoride is beneficial. We should be measuring saliva levels in people to judge the degree of poisoning they are enduring, since after the teeth are formed we don't have dental fluorosis to tell us, and the other harm is either not visible or won't be recognized until years later.
I beg to differ. Fluoride is
LindaRosaRN ColoradoI beg to differ. Fluoride is a nutrient. Here's the evidence:
Linus Pauling Institute in Oregon, which specializes in nutrition research, says:
“Although its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) is well established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element because humans do not require it for growth or to sustain life. However, if one considers the prevention of chronic disease (dental caries) an important criterion in determining essentiality, then fluoride might well be considered an essential trace element.”
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/fluoride/
AI (Adequate Intake) from Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Fluoride: Not Just in Your Toothpaste - Fluoride provides health benefits throughout a person’s life, especially for bones and teeth. Fluoride helps harden tooth enamel and so helps protect your teeth from decay. It also may offer some protection from osteoporosis, or brittle bone disease, by helping to strengthen your bones. Consuming too little fluoride may cause tooth enamel to weaken and put you at greater risk of cavities. Consuming excess amounts can cause fluorosis which is when the teeth become mottled, or marked with brown stains although teeth are healthy in every other way. An Adequate Intake (AI) for fluoride levels for children ages four to eight is 1 milligram daily, ages nine to 13 is 2 milligrams daily, for teens 3 milligrams daily and for adults the guideline is 4 milligrams for men and 3 for women. Fluoride is not widely available in food.
http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6442474377
While fluoride is not an
Billy BuddWhile fluoride is not an essential nutrient, like the non-essential amino acids present in all meat, it benefits health and certainly is a nutrient. It is officially considered a nutrient and a mineral component of some bottled water which the FDA regulates as such.
What I've learned from talking with people is what ordinary Americans are not concerned about hair-splitting definitions. What they want to know is this -- is fluoridation really going to help protect my teeth, is it safe and can we afford it.
Many of the folks here seem of the view that "No" is the correct answer but 99.99% of the public health scientists see it as a resounding and obvious "Yes."
At 0.7 ppm fluoride ions simply prevent cavities. This is a straight forward and easy decision.
"If"s and "might" by one
David Green Peterborough"If"s and "might" by one organization don't carry much weight in the real world. Check out the definition of a nutrient in the Oxford dictionary and the FDA classifying of fluoride as an "unapproved drug". You are free to invent new parameters to the word nutrient, but when people realize what you are doing as a PR move, they are likely to question your credibility about everything else you say.
What Linda Rosa writes is a
nyscof nyWhat Linda Rosa writes is a belief. She has no evidence that fluoridation is responsible for reduced tooth decay over the years. It could have been vitamin D supplementation of foods, better access to dental care, better awareness of healthy eating. But now that diets are decaying so are teeth. In fact, after 70 years most fluoridated cities are having a dental crisis and tooth decay rates are increasing http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com
<br><br> The latest fluoridated city to report such a crisis is Toronto in Canada. Fluoridated for decades. Yet, Students’ rotting teeth show ‘inequality of health’
Toronto Public Health dental health screenings find 44 per cent of schools designated ‘high risk’ based on condition of children’s teeth<br><br>
Excerpts:<br><br>
Photographs of students’ mouths taken during dental screenings portray a startling picture of a public health problem in Toronto that has flown under the radar for years. Broken teeth. Bubbling abscesses. Dark pools of leathery decay.<br><br>
Root canals are “not uncommon” among these children<br><br>
At two schools in North York, nearly one out of every two students was suspected of having a cavity. At Grenoble Public School in Flemingdon Park, a “high-priority” area where the student population represents more than 73 different languages, more than a quarter of these children required urgent care. <br><br>
Clearly fluoridation is no benefit to low income children and not needed by the rest of the children. Fluoridation is outdated, ineffective, wa$teful and, most importantly, damaging people's health. Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. The water supply should never be used as a vehicle for drugs and administered based on thirst and not age, health, weight or need.
Once again, nyscof, the
Steven D. Slott, DDS North CarolinaOnce again, nyscof, the "Media Relations Director" for the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, insidiously attempts to steer readers to an annantifluoridationist source of filtered and edited "information", this time a "blog", instead of to legitimate sources of accurate, authoritative, and primary information on the public health initiative of water fluoridation.
Just to enlighten nyscof, there are, indeed, ample, peer-reviewed scientific studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation. The following are but a few. I will be glad to provide as many as anyone would reasonably care to see.
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/
Results
Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively.
------Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease
Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD
2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550501
CONCLUSIONS:
Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.
------Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Source
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
3). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23488212
CONCLUSIONS:
The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.
-----Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
Source
Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland. [email protected]
4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8500120
Abstract
The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars.
----Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8.
Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation.
Murray JJ.
Source
Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23252588
CONCLUSIONS:
Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities.
----Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.
Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR.
Source
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. [email protected]
Steven D.Slott, DDS
STeve,
David Green PeterboroughSTeve,
Which of those studies controlled for household income?
Why doesn't the broadest of surveys available, the WHO data for 12 year olds, confirm any of your studies?
Why didn't the largest US Survey back what you are suggesting? Perhaps it is because it is harder to fix a study with a large number of subjects.
We know from many studies
LindaRosaRN ColoradoWe know from many studies comparing similar communities that fluoridate and those that don't that fluoridation reduces tooth decay significantly.
Here's a recent one:
“Effects of Fluoridated Drinking Water on Dental Caries in Australian Adults,” G.D. Slade, et al, Journal of Dental Research, March 1, 2013. http://jdr.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/01/0022034513481190
This study in Australia looked a data from nearly 3,800 adults and found that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 21% to 30%. The decay prevention was higher for those who were exposed to fluoridated water for the most years.
Did that study correct for
David Green PeterboroughDid that study correct for family income? 3800 subjects make it one tenth the size of the NIDR study that showed minimal effect on children. Why don't you ever talk about the big studies that don't support your case?
Fluoridation is the safest,
Catherine Baltimore, MDFluoridation is the safest, most effective way to prevent tooth decay for all members of a community. This is one of the best public health protection measures a community can provide its' residents.
Catherine,
David Green PeterboroughCatherine,
If your second statement is true, you make a good case for shutting down public health programs completely.
It always refreshing to hear
Phillip McCavity Oak BluffsIt always refreshing to hear a chiropractor expressing his professional opinion on the use of fluoride and pediatric dental health. I am quite certain the approximately $200 a month the town of Oak Bluffs spends on fluoride powder could be far more efficiently allocated for some other beneficial purpose. Perhaps the Board of Health can upgrade from Folgers to Starbucks coffee in the office coffee machine.
The Centers For Disease Control in 1999 released a report on the "Ten Greatest Public Health Achievements In The 20th Century". http://www.cdc.gov/about/history/tengpha.htm
Surprise, surprise fluoridation of the public water supply was listed along with such other weighty measures as control of infectious diseases, immunizations and increased medical care for mothers and babies.
At least the Chief Operator of the Edgartown Water System was honest in his opposition to fluoridation. Who can blame a public official preferring the children of his community suffer additional tooth decay rather take on the monumental task of reporting water fluoridation levels to the state.
I always take the word of a
Ken Esq EdgartownI always take the word of a chiropractor and public employee who doesn't feel like filling out some paperwork and wants to spend the $2,500 on "something else." over the word of three respected dentists.
Let's see last week it was the anti-vaccination people. This week it's fluoridation.
Anyone notice the alert put out yesterday that polio is making a comeback because some places aren't vaccinating their children?
Science and logic just can't compete with sensationalistic web pages and scum trying to gain evidence for law suits.
Could we please remove the chlorine from the water supply too? It's a deadly chemical, used in poisons and whats a little cholera among friends?
Chiropractors as a group have
Steven D. SlottChiropractors as a group have historically opposed water fluoridation. Their objection, as is the objection of the vast majority of antifluoridationists, is not grounded in science. It is grounded in personal ideology. We have, in all areas of this country, and most others, an overwhelming problem with untreated dental decay. Tens of millions of our citizens have struggled their entire lives with the extreme pain, debilitation, and life-threatening infection of untreated dental disease. Aside from the horrific problems that this causes for these individuals, it causes an enormous drain on society, as well. For every $1 saved by not fluoridating, it has been estimated that it costs $20-$38 in dental/medical bills resultant of untreated dental decay. A large part of this cost is borne by taxpayer borne public assistance programs such as Medicaid, Healthchoice, and others. Additionally, there are enormous costs incurred as a result of lost productivity at school and work, lost income, and lost tax revenues, to name but a few.
As a former long term member and Chair of my own, local Board of Health, and former President of our state association of Boards of Health, I am truly disappointed and disgusted that any local BOH would be so negligent in its duty as to even consider elimination of this very valuable public health initiative. This BOH has a choice. It can be misguided by an antifluoridationist chiropractor who gets his "information" from biased antifluoridationist websites, blogs, books, and dubious online "publications", or it can pay attention to legitimate science and the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare. The opinion of the local chiropractor or that of over 100 of the most highly respected organizations in the world? The opinion of the local chiropractor, or that of the last five United States Surgeons General? The opinion of the local chiropractor, or that of the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health? The local chiropractor or that of the United States Public Health Service? The opinion of the local chiropractor, or that of the United States Centers For Disease Control, and the United States Environmental Agency? And finally, and most importantly, the opinion of the local, chiropractor, or the opinion of your own respected healthcare community?
This BOH needs to clean up its act, pay attention to respected science and healthcare, and do its job. The opinion of the local chiropractor, or the best interests of the health and well-being of its local citizenry?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dr. Slott should be applauded
Robert S Blacklow MD Oak Bluffs and Lincoln MADr. Slott should be applauded for his vigorous support of fluoridation. I have been a Vineyard Summer Resident and homeowner for over 40 years and am appalled at the amount of misinformation about health prevention that is spread about: whether it is fluoridation, vaccinations against polio, measles, mumps, tetanus, etc. there are always those who choose to be opposed to these things, when the bulk of the SCIENTIFIC evidence supports them. Recently, the Town of Lincoln where I and my wife reside off-season, had the issue of fluoridation come up at a town meeting. There was vigorous to and from debate, but in the end the Town wisely decided to continue fluoridation. I have three sons with a total age of 150 between them: they grew up with water that was fluoridated and there is not one cavity between them. Let's be rational about this. As a long-time faculty member at Harvard Medical School who teaches prevention as well as treatment, I urge the BOH to reject the very emitonal and misinformed appeal to discontinue fluoride.
Dr. Blacklow, you are
Steven D. Slott,mDDS North CarolinaDr. Blacklow, you are precisely one of the very respected healthcare professional to whom this Board of Health, and all other local leaders around this country who are being misled, need to listen. Hopefully they will.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Well, I still boil my
Glenna Barkan Oak BluffsWell, I still boil my drinking water, after the last disgusting effects of my drinking my tap water.
Another inconvenient meeting
Kimberly Burke, D.C. Oak Bluffs, MAAnother inconvenient meeting time. How can a public hearing be held in the middle of the day?
Ending fluoride treatment is
Dan ObEnding fluoride treatment is a Great idea.
Water fluoridation prevents
Billy BuddWater fluoridation prevents operations for mouth fulls of rotten teeth in preschool kids, about 25% of the cavities in adult teeth and the cavities on the exposed root surfaces of elderly adults. Especially the preschoolers and the older people often don't or can't perform proper brushing and flossing. Many cannot afford regular dental care.
For the sake of all citizens, one prays that Oak Bluffs will listen to the enormous professional and scientific consensus the over 100 prestigious societies, associations and advocacy organizations which recognized the importance of community water fluoridation represents.
100 Black Men Of America
Academy of Dentistry International
Academy of General Dentistry
Academy for Sports Dentistry
Alzheimer’s Association
America’s Health Insurance Plans
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
American Academy of Periodontology
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American Association for Community Dental Programs
American Association for Dental Research
American Association for Health Education
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Endodontists
American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
American Association of Orthodontists
American Association of Public Health Dentistry
American Association of Women Dentists
American Cancer Society
American College of Dentists
American College of Physicians
American Society of Internal Medicine
American College of Preventive Medicine
American College of Prosthodontists
American Council on Science and Health
American Dental Assistants Association
American Dental Association
American Dental Education Association
American Dental Hygienists’ Association
American Dietetic Association
American Federation of Labor and Congress
of Industrial Organizations
American Hospital Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Pharmacists Association
American Public Health Association
American School Health Association
American Society for Clinical Nutrition
American Society for Nutritional Sciences
American Student Dental Association
American Water Works Association
Association for Academic Health Centers
Association of American Medical Colleges
Association of Clinicians for the Underserved
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Association of State and Territorial Public Health
Nutrition Directors
British Fluoridation Society
Canadian Dental Association
Canadian Dental Hygienists Association
Canadian Medical Association
Canadian Nurses Association
Canadian Paediatric Society
Canadian Public Health Association
Child Welfare League of America
Children’s Dental Health Project
Consumer Federation of America
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Delta Dental Plans Association
FDI World Dental Federation
Federation of American Hospitals
Hispanic Dental Association
Indian Dental Association (U.S.A.)
Institute of Medicine
International Association for Dental Research
International Association for Orthodontics
International College of Dentists
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
National Association of Community Health Centers
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of Dental Assistants
National Association of Local Boards of Health
National Association of Social Workers
National Confectioners Association
National Council Against Health Fraud
National Dental Assistants Association
National Dental Association
National Dental Hygienists’ Association
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
National Foundation of Dentistry for the Handicapped
National Head Start Association
National Health Law Program
National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
Oral Health America
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Society for Public Health Education
Society of American Indian Dentists
Special Care Dentistry
Academy of Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities
American Association of Hospital Dentists
American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
The Children’s Health Fund
The Dental Health Foundation (of California)
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
U.S. Public Health Service
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
World Federation of Orthodontists
World Health Organization
Billy,
David Green PeterboroughBilly,
How many of your "prestigious" organizations have conducted any research with respect to fluoride or fluoridation? I'm guessing that the National Confectioners Association hasn't and probably more than 95 per cent of the others haven't either. They are simply endorsing others endorsements. That's where the mainstream errs; choosing the emotional security of being part of the majority view instead of thinking for themselves.
Clearly the trusted dental
Billy BuddClearly the trusted dental professionals of Oak Bluffs know fluoridation to beneficial, safe and affordable.
For the nay-saying views found here to be true the entirety of North America's medical, dental and public health professions would have to be asleep at the wheel.
Public health workers have only better health and life as a goal for those for whom they have responsibility. To believe the crackpottery here is to believe that thousands of health professionals are in cahoots with state and federal agencies and are hiding the truth so they can poison over 200 million citizens.
While fluoridation is not a silver bullet, it decreases the oral health disparities which come with economic disadvantage. To argue against it is to argue for greater pain, suffering, greater health inequality and lifelong oral health disadvantage.
These are tragically mistaken ideas. Citizens must decide who is more worthy of consideration: a vocal minority armed with junk science and paranoid scare theories, or the many children who will live lives of better oral health with fluoridation. It is particularly tragic that those opposing could cause today's children to have less healthy teeth later in life in order to satisfy their mistaken beliefs.
The truth is that fluoridation receives so much mainstream support because it does exactly what it's supposed to it prevents cavities
Or the truth could be that
David Green PeterboroughOr the truth could be that all of those professionals and organizations primary motivation is to protect their own egos and professional reputations. The mainstream used to believe the world was flat and anyone who doubted that was a crackpot. How did that turn out?
The medical mainstream used to think smoking was safe; doctors might even smoke during an appointment. Following the majority view can be hazardous to your health.
My physician in 1956 did not
Billy BuddMy physician in 1956 did not think that smoking was a good idea. Yours is a typical straw man fraudulent argument.
Professional societies carefully guard their credibility. Real scientists learn the discipline of accepting new ideas when there is legitimate data to justify a change. That same discipline aggressively defends the real science against political and emotional attacks.
You argue that face saving is the explanation for the overwhelming professional and scientific consensus for fluoridation's support. Truth is the gold standard amongst scientist. You simply do not get to choose your personal reality. Public health experts seek better health for all citizens, they do not seek to poison people.
Fluoridation simply prevents cavities. New data from the Delta Dental Insurance company reveals that the life time cost of a molar cavity acquired as a teen is over $6000. The life time cost for an individual's fluoridated water is under $100. To argue against fluoridation is to argue for more pain and suffering. This is an easy decision.
Fluoridation is unethical.
Dan ObFluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.
Add new comment