In this battle of intellects, we have Mike Plunkett, DDS, MPH the Dental Director of CareOregon Community Health, and Assistant Professor at OHSU School of Dentistry.CareOregon Incorporated isOregon's largest fully capitated Medicaid health plan, and is responsible for delivering the comprehensive health care benefits of over 160,000 Oregonians on the Oregon Health Plan.In his role at CareOregon Community Health, Dr. Plunkett provides clinical leadership for the integration of comprehensive dental services into its existing four site primary care clinic network [1]. We've also got Alejandro Queral, MS, JD a program officer for the NW Health Foundation. Alejandro has a law degree from George Washington University Law School, an MS in Biological Sciences from Northern Illinois University and a BA in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia [2]. Looks like Healthy Kids Health Portland (Portland's pro-fluoride grassroots organization) has some serious intellectual clout to bring to the table. Representing Clean Water Portland (the anti-fluoride grassroots organization) we've got Kellie Barnes a physical therapist(?) and Rick North the former CEO of the American Oregon Cancer Society, who also explicitly states he's not a doctor or scientist. I have to say CWP is a little out gunned here, especially since throughout the debate their only peer-reviewed, quality, scientific paper (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards) they pull out in defense of their arguments has many enlightening statements in it (some of these are from my earlier fluoride mythology blog post):
- Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge. (p. 2)
- The committee only considered adverse effects that might result from exposure to fluoride; it did not evaluate health risk from lack of exposure to fluoride or fluoride’s efficacy in preventing dental caries. (p. 2)
- The report makes no concrete claims to any negative effects of fluoride at the normal accepted levels of fluoridation other than dental fluorosis. It continually calls for more studies to be conducted.
- It calls for more studies and concern over possible negative human effects based off of animal studies in which rats were given extremely large (10 mg for 30 days in one) dosages of fluoride. The average rat weighs 550 grams while the average human in North America weighs 80.7 kg. Toxicity is weight dependent. That's 10 times the recommended human dosage to an animal that weighs 146 times less.
- It references the already mentioned above study linking lower IQ scores to fluoride that can be discounted because of its poor quality. It even states: Without detailed information about the testing conditions and the tests themselves, the committee was unable to assess the strength of the studies. (p. 208)
- Strong evidence exists that the prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is nearly zero at water fluoride concentrations to below 2 mg/L. (p. 346)
Sources:
[1] http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/education/schools/school-of-dentistry/about/academic-departments/community-dentistry/faculty-staff/plunkett.cfm
[2] http://nwhf.org/about/staff_person/alejandro_queral/
It took 50 years for the smoking/cancer link to emerge from the scientific literature into popular acceptance. MD's and dentists used to recommend smoking.
ReplyDeleteIt tool 75 years for surgeons to believe Semmelweiss when he reported that washing hands before surgery would save lives. He was ridiculed for it at the time.
The scientific literature is screaming that fluoridation is unsafe to some and most health effects have never ever been studied - let alone be exonerated of harmful effects.
Fluoride is not a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth making it a drug. Water supplies should never be used as a vehicle for drugs without concern for individual's weight, age, health and presence or absence of teeth.
http://www.fluoridation.webs.com
There is no scientific literature screaming that fluoridation is unsafe. There is only cherry-picked data that anti-fluoridationists scream about in the scientific literature with passionate ignorance. We've had community water fluoridation for over 60 years and the science has no signs of changing on it.
ReplyDeleteWe've had vaccinations for over 200 years and there are still people waiting for the scientific consensus to shift against it.
The point being, you can't make an argument from a lack of evidence or by pointing out science's past mistakes on other issues. Fluoride is essential for healthy teeth, that's why its in toothpastes and mouth rinses. We're voting on this issue in May, if people decide that the medical benefits outweigh the "assault to our personal freedoms" then we'll have it, we choose.
Sounds like the anti fluoridation side is giving credence to the claim by the late Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper, US Air Force, that fluoridation compromises our purity of essence, by the contamination of our precious bodily fluids.
ReplyDelete