As we did in the year 2000 when North Attleboro voters faced the question of adding fluoride to the drinking water supply, The Sun Chronicle urges a Yes vote when Plainville voters face the same question on April 1.

Adding a tiny amount of fluoride — at 1 part fluoride per 1 million parts of water, the dosage would actually be less than tiny — will afford the town’s children a tremendous degree of protection from dental cavities. Older users would benefit as well.

Fluoridation is supported by such prestigious organizations as the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the World Health Organization and the federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

Plainville’s elected health board followed solid research when it voted unanimously to add fluoride.
The April 1 question appears on the ballot as the result of a petition process allowed under state law where fluoridation decisions are challenged.

Dentists and hygienists in the area have noted the benefits of fluoride in comparing the numbers of cavities experienced by patients from Attleboro, where the water has been fluoridated for years, to those from towns with unfluoridated water. An impressive number of pediatricians and public health nurses in the area have joined local dentists and hygienists in supporting fluoridation.

We respect the views of those who oppose fluoridation out of a general concern over unnecessary additives in food and water, but the research they have cited is questionable. Where fluoride is harmful in quantity, the CDC has found that its only noticeable effect at 1 part per million is to make teeth stronger.

Plainville voters should also take note that the town has a one-sixth share in a water treatment plant with North Attleboro, where fluoride is being added in accordance with the vote of 2000. State officials have declined to give an authoritative answer on which town would have to pay the more than $300,000 estimated costs of equipping the plant to separate fluoridated water from unfluoridated water in the event fluoride is opposed at the ballot box. A court case would be likely.

That would best be avoided for a water-short town like Plainville, especially when the alternative is a vote for healthy teeth.

————————————————————————

March 23, 2002

Dear Editor,

I would have to give your editorial “Fluoridation better choice in Plainville” (March 23, 2002) a failing grade for accuracy and understanding of the basic arguments. Instead of providing helpful advice and balance to the citizens of Plainville you have merely parroted the opinions of discredited “authorities”.

My comments are in bold below.

Sincerely,

Dr. Paul Connett,
St. Lawrence University,
Canton, NY 13617.
315-379-9200 (home)

EDITORIAL: Fluoridation better choice in Plainville

“As we did in the year 2000 when North Attleboro voters faced the question of adding fluoride to the drinking water supply, The Sun Chronicle urges a Yes vote when Plainville voters face the same question on April 1.

Adding a tiny amount of fluoride — at 1 part fluoride per 1 million parts of water, the dosage would actually be less than tiny — will afford the town’s children a tremendous degree of protection from dental cavities. Older users would benefit as well. ”

This argument is toxicological nonsense. The Maximum Contaminant Level for lead is approximately one seventieth of one of these “less than tiny” units. The Maximum Contaminant Level set for fluoride by the USEPA is only four of these “less then tiny” units. At just one and half of these “less than tiny” units, Li et al ( Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 2001) found a doubling of hip fracture rate in the elderly. At just three of these “less than tiny” units Freni (1994) found a decrease in fertility. At just four of these “less than tiny” units Zhao et al (1996) found a lowering of 5 -10 IQ points.

The claim of a “tremendous degree of proetection” is also nonsense, unless the editor considers that 0.6 of one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth ( Brunelle and Carlos, 1990) is tremendous!

“Fluoridation is supported by such prestigious organizations as the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the World Health Organization and the federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention.”

This is an appeal to “authority” which is unjustifed in this case. The ADA is as partisan on this issue as it was on their discredited promotion of mercury amalgams. The AMA has not conducted a recent review of the literaure on this issue. AAFP simply refers to other reviews as does the CDC, which is 6 years out of date on the relevent data on health threats. While endorsing fluoridation, the WHO makes it clear that communities should calculate the current intake of fluoride from all sources before adding more to the water, which has not been done in this case. Moreover, the WHO’s own dental decay data shows that largely unfluoridated Europe has shown the same decline in tooth decay as the fluoridated USA.

“Plainville’s elected health board followed solid research when it voted unanimously to add fluoride.”

Where is this solid research? Have they been able to refute the scientifically based and referenced “50 reasons for Opposing Fluoridation” at http://ww.www.fluoridealert.org?

“The April 1 question appears on the ballot as the result of a petition process allowed under state law where fluoridation decisions are challenged.

Dentists and hygienists in the area have noted the benefits of fluoride in comparing the numbers of cavities experienced by patients from Attleboro, where the water has been fluoridated for years, to those from towns with unfluoridated water. An impressive number of pediatricians and public health nurses in the area have joined local dentists and hygienists in supporting fluoridation. ”

Have these studies been peer reviewed and published? Or are they merely anecdotal? Have any of these pediatricians and public health nurses done their own review of the literature or are they relying on second hand opinions? Have any of them been prepared to defend their position in an open public debate?

“We respect the views of those who oppose fluoridation out of a general concern over unnecessary additives in food and water, but the research they have cited is questionable. ”

Where is the referenced article or paper which supports this claim? Which research presented on the webpage http://www.fluoridealert.org do they consider “questionable”?

“Where fluoride is harmful in quantity, the CDC has found that its only noticeable effect at 1 part per million is to make teeth stronger. ”

First, the CDC has been six years out of date in its 1999 and 2001 reports on the health studies which they claim support their position. Even they have to admit that an inevitable result of fluoridating the water at 1 ppm is an increase in dental fluorosis, which has now reached three times the percentage of children that their program originally intended.

“Plainville voters should also take note that the town has a one-sixth share in a water treatment plant with North Attleboro, where fluoride is being added in accordance with the vote of 2000. State officials have declined to give an authoritative answer on which town would have to pay the more than $300,000 estimated costs of equipping the plant to separate fluoridated water from unfluoridated water in the event fluoride is opposed at the ballot box. A court case would be likely. ”

Plainville should never have been forced to drink fluoridated water before this vote had been taken. This comment amounts to economic blackmail on the voters of Plainville.

“That would best be avoided for a water-short town like Plainville, especially when the alternative is a vote for healthy teeth. ”

Both a report done for the Ontario government ( Locker, 1999) and another for the British government ( York Review, 2000) have indicated that the benefits of fluoridation for teeth is very small and it is highly questionable whether the increased dental fluorosis makes it worth the price. Not only will a yes vote inevitably result in an increase in damage to the tooth enamel in a high percentage of the children in Plainville, it will also lead to an increased accumulation of fluoride in their bones; an increased accumulation in their pineal glands and also a possible lowering of the activity of their thyroid glands. Whether the risks presented are high or low, whether they impact an unlucky minority or a sizeable fraction, the tragedy is that it entirely unnescessary. Children can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride. If fluoride has any meager benefit at all it can be obtained by brushing it on the surface of the tooth without swallowing it and without forcing on those who don’t want it. There are better ways of getting dental care to poor children without violating the right of Plainville’s citizens to “informed consent”. This has been proved in Europe. In the USA fluoridation is a convenient red herring to cover up the failure of state governments to provide adequate dental care for families not covered by insurance and the reluctance of dentists to treat children on Medicaid.