|
DONATIONS If our site or organization has been helpful to you, please consider donating to us, if you can afford to do so. This is a free website, no one is paid by our totally volunteer organization and we have no office to support. Most money raised goes to the dissemination of information either electronically or via snail mail. Checks should be written to: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation PO Box 263 Old Bethpage, NY 11804 Thank You |
Links Section
More Fluoride = More Cavities - NYS DofH
|
|
LOOK MA - - MORE FLUORIDE MEANS MORE CAVITIES! SAYS NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STUDY
After over 50 years of water fluoridation, many children in Newburgh, New York have more cavities and more fluoride-caused discolored teeth (dental fluorosis) than children in never-fluoridated Kingston, New York, according to a New York State Department of Health study.
Kids in Newburgh and Kingston have opened wide for research since 1945 when public health officials first added fluoride to Newburgh's water supply to prove fluoride reduces childhood cavities. Five years later this demonstration project helped launch fluoridation throughout the United States even before children born into the experiment had permanent teeth.
Tooth decay reductions up to 70% were reported in Newburgh's fluoride swizzling children -- a figure still sometimes quoted today. In reality, most of Newburgh's children have more cavities than their never-fluoridated Kingston counterparts (1) and more dental fluorosis, report New York State Department of Health dentists Kumar and Green, New York State Dental Journal, February 1998. Children risk dental fluorosis without additional decay prevention when optimal fluoride levels are exceeded, report Kumar and Green. In 1950, 1 milligram daily from drinking water alone was optimal.
"While fluoridation was the main source in the 1950s, fluoride is available from many sources today," report Kumar and Green. Besides dental products, "fruit juices, carbonated beverages, infant formulas, certain cereals are also known to contain significant amounts of fluoride and may contribute to the total intake of fluoride," they report.
"Fluoride is out of control -- whether it prevents cavities or not," says Paul Beeber, President and General Counsel, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "Fluoride, the only water supply additive that treats the person, not the water, is unnecessary and harmful. Water fluoridation must he stopped or rejected everywhere like we have done on Long Island, New York, with the help of our legislators," says Beeber.
"The prevalence of dental flourosis now ranges somewhere between 35% and 60% in fluoridated communities and between 20% and 45% in nonfluoridated areas," according to "Trends in Prevalence of Dental Fluorosis in North America," Community Dental Oral Epidemiology, June 1994.
"Dental fluorosis reflects damage to the growing tooth and is a warning against providing fluoride systemically (i.e. in the drinking water) rather than topically, via toothpaste or gel," says Paul Connett, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY. "If we couple this warning with an ever growing body of peer reviewed and published research which indicates fluoride's negative impact on the brain, the pineal gland (responsible for melatonin production) and the bone (osteosarcoma and hip fracture), our task is not to put more fluoride into the drinking water but to get it out," says Connett.
Kumar and Green instruct dentists and physicians to prescribe fluoride therapy based upon patients' total fluoride exposure and that "caries-free children in fluoridated areas are not likely to benefit from topical fluorides."
"How can anyone calculate a child's total fluoride exposure," asks Paul Beeber. "Food and beverage manufacturers aren't required to identify fluoride content."
The only way to remove embarrassing fluorosis stains is through bonding, capping or other expensive dental procedures that usually aren't covered by insurance.
(1) Figure 1, Page 41, "Recommendations for Fluoride Use in children" NYS Dental Journal, February 1998 (NYS Department of Health, 518-474-1961).
SOURCE New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
-0- 11/04/98 /CONTACT: Paul S. Beeber, Esq., of New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. nyscof@aol.com or Paul Connett, Ph.D. of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, ggvideo@northnet Fluoridation Action Network http://www.fluoridealert.org
Dr. Kumar attempted to refute this news release in a letter he wrote to Michael Easley,D.D.S., Director of the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research (http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/pdf/kumartoeasley.pdf)
Kumar writes, "This release presents an inaccurate report on the findings of the study published in the July 1999 issue of Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Fluoride Exposure and Dental Fluorosis in Newburgh and Kingston, New York:Policy Implications."
However, the careful reader discovers Dr. Kumar is refuting a study presented in "Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology," and the above news release is based on a study in "The New York State Dental Journal." Is this just a mistake or another way to circumvent the truth? We're not sure.
