Using percentages, instead of number of cavities, gives the mis-guided appearance that fluoride added to water supplies reduces tooth decay
December 7, 2005 (Press Release) --
Little or no difference in children’s cavity rates occur whether or not water supplies are fluoridated, but are described as “significant,” in a new Australian study. Fluoride chemicals, expensively added to 2/3 of U.S. public water supplies, are supposed to reduce cavities and save money. But do they?
The actual number of cavities “prevented” by fluoridation in New South Wales, Australia, ranged from 1/2 to 7/10 of one tooth over approximately five years, but are reported as a 47.6% to 75% significant benefit from water fluoridation by author, J. M. Armfield in the October 2005 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Heath (1).
Armfield divided 60,000 five- to six-year-olds into four socioeconomic groups. The most disadvantaged, living in fluoridated areas, averaged 1.26 dmft (decayed, missing and filled baby teeth). Their non-fluoridated counterparts averaged 1.86 dmft. Fluoridated water drinkers had 0.60 less dmft than non-fluoridated water drinkers, which is 47.6% of 1.26 dmft.
So, in this case, disadvantaged children living in a fluoridated community had 6/10 of one tooth less decay than disadvantaged children living in a non-fluoridated area over their lifetimes.
Armfield’s 75% claim reflects the average cavity rate difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated children in the second best socioeconomic group. Fluoridated children averaged decay in about 1 tooth (0.92 dmft). Non-fluoridated children averaged about 1 ˝ affected teeth (1.61 dmft). In this case, the 75% represents about seven tenths of one tooth “saved” by fluoridation over approximately five years.
“Since fluoridation delays eruption of teeth (2), we even doubt these meager fluoridation benefits,” says Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).
Armfield found no fluoridation benefit for 11 - 12-year-olds permanent teeth within the two middle (of four) socioeconomic groups.
“Health consequences linked to fluoridation are cancer, bone diseases, stomach disorders, thyroid and kidney dysfunction, increased lead absorption and dental fluorosis and more,” says Beeber. “It’s astonishing that public health officials risk our children’s health, and waste our tax dollars promoting, instigating and continuing fluoridation, for such a slim, if any, benefit,” says Beeber.
In 2004, NYSCOF revealed another Armfield-authored study showing no difference in cavities between fluoridated and non-fluoridated water drinkers. (3)
Armfield concurred with NYSCOF’s findings. He reported, "Their [NYSCOF’s] news release accurately states that we found no significant effect of fluoridated water on the permanent caries experience among 10- to 15-year-olds…”(4) in a U.S. issued news release intending, but failing, to discredit NYSCOF’s report.
Cavity crises occur in many U.S. fluoridated communities. (5)
References:
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
www.FluorideAction.Net
The actual number of cavities “prevented” by fluoridation in New South Wales, Australia, ranged from 1/2 to 7/10 of one tooth over approximately five years, but are reported as a 47.6% to 75% significant benefit from water fluoridation by author, J. M. Armfield in the October 2005 Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Heath (1).
Armfield divided 60,000 five- to six-year-olds into four socioeconomic groups. The most disadvantaged, living in fluoridated areas, averaged 1.26 dmft (decayed, missing and filled baby teeth). Their non-fluoridated counterparts averaged 1.86 dmft. Fluoridated water drinkers had 0.60 less dmft than non-fluoridated water drinkers, which is 47.6% of 1.26 dmft.
So, in this case, disadvantaged children living in a fluoridated community had 6/10 of one tooth less decay than disadvantaged children living in a non-fluoridated area over their lifetimes.
Armfield’s 75% claim reflects the average cavity rate difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated children in the second best socioeconomic group. Fluoridated children averaged decay in about 1 tooth (0.92 dmft). Non-fluoridated children averaged about 1 ˝ affected teeth (1.61 dmft). In this case, the 75% represents about seven tenths of one tooth “saved” by fluoridation over approximately five years.
“Since fluoridation delays eruption of teeth (2), we even doubt these meager fluoridation benefits,” says Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).
Armfield found no fluoridation benefit for 11 - 12-year-olds permanent teeth within the two middle (of four) socioeconomic groups.
“Health consequences linked to fluoridation are cancer, bone diseases, stomach disorders, thyroid and kidney dysfunction, increased lead absorption and dental fluorosis and more,” says Beeber. “It’s astonishing that public health officials risk our children’s health, and waste our tax dollars promoting, instigating and continuing fluoridation, for such a slim, if any, benefit,” says Beeber.
In 2004, NYSCOF revealed another Armfield-authored study showing no difference in cavities between fluoridated and non-fluoridated water drinkers. (3)
Armfield concurred with NYSCOF’s findings. He reported, "Their [NYSCOF’s] news release accurately states that we found no significant effect of fluoridated water on the permanent caries experience among 10- to 15-year-olds…”(4) in a U.S. issued news release intending, but failing, to discredit NYSCOF’s report.
Cavity crises occur in many U.S. fluoridated communities. (5)
References:
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
www.FluorideAction.Net
Email
Print
SPAM
