Dental Exam went well? Thank Fluoride!

[c9]

"Every $1 invested in fluoridation saves approximately $38 in dental treatment costs, according to the C.D.C. The cost of a single filling averages $140, and that’s only the beginning. Through the years, a filled tooth is likely to require further repairs and maybe even extraction and replacement with a bridge or implant costing thousands of dollars.

None of this, however, has quelled the controversy over the safety of fluoridation, which dates back to the first studies in the 1940s. In addition to being labeled a Communist plot and an unconstitutional form of mass medication, fluoridation has been accused of causing a host of medical horrors: heart disease, cancer, Down syndrome, AIDS, allergies, Alzheimer’s disease, mental retardation, osteoporosis and fractures, among others.

None of these supposed risks has ever been established in scientifically valid studies. The only proven risk, a condition called fluorosis, which results in white and sometimes brownish markings on the teeth from too much fluoride, rarely results from a normal intake of fluoridated water."

Read the full article here: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/dental-exam-went-well-thank-fluoride/

(and city Councillors in Toronto and Calgary and elsewhere who like to cut costs by scaremongering about fluoride? I'd like you to shut it, please.)

Update: Learn more about fluoride history and controversy here: http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/4/1/25 

Comments

[c9.livejournal.com]

Interesting study, thanks for the link. Can you clarify why you say the authors are pro-fluoridation? Is that covered in the study write up, or is that a subjective judgement? The abstract certainly doesn't support that description so I'm curious if you have other resources on this topic.

[richie73.livejournal.com]

I call them pro-fluoridation because they call caries reduction brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water an "established fact" in their abstract. When your working hypothesis has just suffered a major predictive defeat and you still call it an established fact, that's some pretty heavy bias.

[c9.livejournal.com]

OK thanks! Just wanted to clarify if that was the only source. I would have thought established and fairly evidence-supported hypotheses would carry some weight when describing results of a single study in case it's an outlier but I'm not certain of the rules that journals have.