While I agree that fluoridation is only part of increasing resistance to tooth decay, the fact that over 80% of cavities occur inside deep pits and fissures in chewing surfaces of back teeth where the brush cannot reach, suggests chewing carbohydrate like sugar confection is more likely to cause acid demineralisation than drinking soft drink or fruit juice, which like the brush, saliva and toothpaste have no access inside pits and fissures.

Yes sugary drinks do cause tooth decay but only where saliva and fluoride toothpaste are excluded from easy access to neutralise acid and remineralise demineralised tooth by the constant or frequent wash of sugary drinks.

Improving saliva and fluoride access inside pits and fissures may decrease tooth decay more than fluoridation certainly better oral hygiene will help communities that don't have fluoridated water as recommended by Supertooth.org .

Fluoride increases tooth resistance to acid demineralisation from plaque bacteria and sugar.

Few cavities occur on smooth surfaces where most plaque can be seen with food dye and where saliva and fluoride have easy access to neutralise acid and remineralise demineralised tooth except when frequent consumption of sugary drinks or fruit juice cause more demineralisation than remineralisation.

While most food is trapped between teeth, over 80% of cavities occur inside deep pits and fissures where saliva and fluoride toothpaste have no access.

The Supertooth.org suggests the best way to reduce decay is to improve oral hygiene is to improve saliva and fluoride toothpaste access inside pits and fissures.

Chewing celery after eating helps saliva neutralise acid and remineralise tooth. How can we chew toothpaste?

I was born in 1944 in England and for the first 5 years drank non-fluoridated water. My mouth ended up a mass of cavities. My sister was born in Arizona in 1950 which had naturally fluoridated water and had a few cavities. Both my daughters now aged 30 & 31 drank fluoridated water and have no cavities. Get real this has been one of the best public health advances known. What was amazing in that the dentists acting against their self-interest promoted it.

Almost all major health and dental organizations support water fluoridation, or have found no association between fluoridation and adverse effects.[6][23] These organizations include the World Health Organization,[24] the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,[1] the U.S. Surgeon General,[25] and the American Dental Association.[26]
quote from wikipedia

Regarding the American Dental Association, please help me out. Wasn’t it the Food and Drug Administration that originally come out with the warnings on fluoride and our babies? The ADA jumped on board after FDA announced it. This reminds me about the dental crown and bridge outsourcing supported by the American Dental Association and then after the NADL National Association of Dental Laboratories report to the FDA regarding lead and other poisonous metals in our dental crown and bridge coming back from overseas, the American Dental Association takes credit for reporting it to the Food and Drug Administration. ADA should have credited NADL for taking a stand not ADA. ADA continues to give us the ADA corporate greed stamp of approval like they did and continue to do with fluoride. Here in the United States, the American Dental Association continues to fight, the denturist, dental health aide therapist, and independent dental hygienist practices while dental care cost continues to skyrocket leaving those in need without. Thank you for your consideration---gary

I think the author is overlooking the golden era of dental health, when our water was fluoridated but before the booming consumption of juices and sweetened drinks. You know - way back in the 60s and 70s, and a bit into the 80s. I was the only child in our family to develop all my permanent teeth drinking fluoridated water, and have the best teeth in the family. I'd have to agree that putting fluoride into bottled water is pretty feeble - but perhaps better than nothing if people are going to shun perfectly good, exquisitely cheap fluoridated tap water. And don't forget that many people can't afford to pay for proper dental care and dentists are in short supply!

EQ describes water fluoridation as "one of the best public health advances known". Professor Albert Scahtz, the Nobel Prize-winning microbiologist and co-discoverer of Streptomycin described it as "the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated..." He has the weight of evidence on his side.
The trend to better dental health throughout the developed world began before fluoridation, and occurred simultaneously in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, often to a greater degree in the latter. That rules out fluoridation as the causative factor.
The most recent Child Dental Health Surveys for Australia show that the ACT (100 percent fluoridated) has the highest rates of decay in the nation in the permanent teeth of 12-year-old children. Tasmania (83 percent fluoridated, and the first Australian state to fluoridate its water) has the worst permanent teeth overall (5-12 years).
Fluoridationism is like an extreme religious sect. Its followers believe because they have been told to believe. They cannot, or dare not, think of anything other than the consumption of fluoride which might influence the health of a person's teeth, even to the absurd extreme of completely ignoring fluoride toothpaste, which contains fluoride at concentrations around 1000 times higher than used in the drinking water. If you brush your teeth regularly with such extreme concentrations of fluoride (as most people do in unfluoridated areas), and your teeth still rot, that is compelling evidence that fluoride does not prevent decay, not that it should be added to the water. But flouridation advocates don't talk about fluoride toothpase. To honestly face this very embarrassing topic would bring their house of cards down. It is the elephant in the room they just can't talk about.

Peter D is not keen on fluoridation and thinks Fluoride toothpaste is better, but the average DMFT for 12-year-old Australian children was only 1.02 per child in 2002 with only 76% with fluoridation. Non-fluoride areas had more than 2 decayed missing or filled teeth.
However tooth decay is still Australia’s most common and second most expensive disease.
Gabon had 4.4 decayed missing or filled teeth per 12 year old child in 2000
The Philippines had 4.6 DMFT in 1997
Guatemala had 5.2 in 2002
Saint Lucia and 6.0 in 2004

Though Fluoridation increases resistance to acid, much of the food left on teeth after every meal or snack can still cause acid demineralization between teeth and inside pits and fissures on chewing surfaces where over 80% of cavities occur and saliva has little or no access to neutralise acid and remineralise demineralised tooth.

Expensive fillings and fissure sealants from the dentist, block food from being trapped and like avoiding carbohydrate like sugar and fluoridation, greatly prevents the progress of tooth decay.

Perhaps Peter D has a point if only fluoride toothpaste could gain access inside pits and fissures where 80% of cavities occur, demineralised tooth could be remineralised while brushing. But for now, fluoridation has the best track record.

Supertooth, in his three posted comments, tells us how decay in the pits and fissures of teeth is one of the main problems (correct) but then makes the bizarre leap to suggest that fluoride in drinking water could prevent it. Absolutely wrong - I thought all dentists understood that by now. Perhaps some do not keep up with the scientific literature.
Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit
and fissure tooth decay:
(1) Seholle RH. (1984). Preserving the perfect tooth (editorial). Journal of the American Dental Association 108: 448.
(2) Gray, AS. (1987). Fluoridation: time for a new base line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 53: 763-5.
(3) U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). (1993). Toward improving the oral health of Americans: an overview of oral health status, resources, and care delivery. Public Health Reports 108: 657-72.
(4) Pinkham, JR, ed. (1999). Pediatric Dentistry Infancy Through Adolescence. 3rd Edition. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia.

It is significant that fluoride is useless for this problem because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987). Pit and fissure decay is best prevented with sealants (and proper diet of course).
Supertooth presents his defence of water fluoridation with religious zeal plus an appearance of 'white coat' authority. But if he is so ignorant of the research on fluoride and pit and fissure decay then to me it looks as though everything he claims is probably equally dodgy. Blind faith in fluoride is no substitute for properly examining the literature and scientific data.
The only posted comment that looks sensible to me so far is the sixth, by Peter D.

Very interesting comments about fluoridation, but I would like to remind some people that we are Not just made up of teeth. There are many cells and organs which make up a human body.

Another thought is, all chemicals and medications come with precautions and adverse reactions. This morning whilst inserting my contact lenses I noticed the product information sheet for the sodium chloride injection (saline solution) that I was using.

The sheet clearly stated some of the precautions in using this chemical
eg.safety in pregnency has not been established, safety in lactation has not yet been established.
Interactions with other drugs-additives may be incompatible with sodium chloride. Co medication of drugs inducing sodium retention may exacerbate any systemic effects.

Another heading was Adverse reactions-excessive amounts of sodium chloride may cause hypernatraemia, hypokalaemia and acidosis. etc

My point is this, why does an injection of saline solution come with precautions and warnings and fluoridation is deemed safe for all? Am I meant to believe that sodium chloride can be dangerous, but fluoride at any dosage is safe?

The last warning on the sodium chloride sheet was, if any adverse effects are observed during administration, discontinue use and consult your doctor. If anyone suffers an adverse reaction to fluoride how will they know if their is no precautionary sheet with information on adverse effects from fluoride. All Doctors and even dentists know that all medication and chemicals can have adverse effects in some people.

Recent studies from India have shown that magnesium, calcium, vitamin D and selenium build strong bones. Mums and Dads need to make sure their children get enough of all the above mentioned, avoid sugar and our country will have children with beautiful teeth.
Read the latest studies www.fluorideAlert.org

cheers Nana Anna

Ironer is right in saying Fluoridation cannot totally prevent decay, in fact even with Fluoridation tooth decay is still the most common of diseases caused by thousands of small acid demineralisation episodes after meals and snacks that contain acid and or carbohydrate like sugar that plaque bacteria change to acid.
Fluoridation only increases tooth resistance to acid demineralisation not totally prevents it.
Topical fluorides like in toothpaste cannot prevent tooth decay because like saliva they don't have access inside pits and fissures.
However chewing forces sugars and acids present even in a proper diet inside pits and fissures, which fissure sealants can prevent.
Some foods like nuts and confection are hard to displace.
Chewing tooth friendly foods like nuts before eating helps prevent meals and snacks including proper diet from being trapped for a time and so reduces acid demineralisation much the same as fissure sealants that are not available to everyone.
Chewing foods like nuts after eating helps displace trapped food and also reduces demineralisation. It can help both fluoridated and non fluoridated communities.
Chewing fibre like celery after eating forces saliva inside grooves to dilute sugars, neutralise acid and remineralise demineralised tooth.
Nana Anna is also correct that we need calcium etc for strong bones. We also need them and a minute amount of fluoride, that less than 1mg a day, for strong teeth ans so as not to cause fluorosis.
Nana you have mixed up sodium fluoride with sodium chloride, which is common salt. We all make a mistake sometimes.
Regards Supertooth.org

I wish to inform Supertooth that I haven't mixed up Sodium fluoride with sodium chloride. I was merely pointing out that there are more warnings for the use of the saline solution that I use when inserting contact lenses, than there are for fluoride.

I think that it is the dentists, health department and government who are confusing Fluorosilicic acid for Sodium Fluoride, which is the poison that they use for water fluoridation. You sound like a dentest Supertooth. Are you aware that fluorosilicic acid comes with co-contaminants of Arsenic, lead, Cadmuim and Mercury?

Does Arsenic clean out the pits and fissures? Maybe the lead has a special role in cleaning our teeth or making them stronger? I wonder if our mouth has a direct connection to our brain and do any of the magical chemicals make their way there to clean out the cobwebs in our brains or maybe they just might cause our brains to deteriorate like in Alzheimers or dementia. Like I said before, our bodies don't just have teeth, we have other organs.

By the way I do know the difference between Calcium fluoride, Sodium fluoride and fluorisilicic acid. The latter is a by product from Pivot fertiliser, my husband use to work there and he told me that fluorosilicic acid is made from phosphate rock (chicken poop).

Cheers, Well informed Nana Anna

Nana Anna,

I really didn't want to get involved in this OLO thread ... but, arsenic is an essential trace element for our health - believe it or not.

My point is that what we take into our bodies is about concentrations, not what we take in - some call it TLV - threshold limit values.

And don't get me started on Alzheimers, aluminium uptake and such - something I could write a thesis on. The subject matter is not so much about fluoridation of drinking water but fluoridation of soft-drink for Pete's sake - stupid, IMHO.

Btw, love the tag.

Thanks Nana.
So I made the mistake.
However all surveys conclude fluoridation halves tooth decay.
Yes it can be used as a poison in sufficient concentration and it can cause fluorosis of children’s teeth if over one part per million of fluoride is consumed every day as can happen with green tea made with fluoridated water.
I don’t know if eating chickens will cause fluoride, Arsenic, lead, Cadmium or Mercury poisoning but I have not heard of it although I know they can be contaminants.
That is the point. Contaminants are monitored to be at recommended safe levels and fluoridation has been around over 30 years and clearly is safe though may need slight reduction in fluoride levels where communities have naturally occurring fluoride or drink a lot of tea.
Yes I am a dentist and before fluoridation I had to extract teeth for some 2-year-old children but never after fluoridation.
Yes fluoridation does no prevent tooth decay, but is half the equation. See supertoothndk.org for the other half.

Supertooth & others - you sound open to debating fluoridation and taking in new information, something very rare among dental officials.
Arsenic, lead, mercury are definitely contaminants of the fluorosilicic acid and/or sodium silicofluoride that are used in Australian water fluoridation. They are listed as contaminants in the material data sheets from water suppliers.
Arsenic is a carcinogen, mercury and lead are neurotoxins, and fluoride itself is harmful to bones and is emerging in the scientific consensus as a neurotoxin. There is NO SAFE DOSE of arsenic. Nowhere among sensible scientific bodies is arsenic considered useful for health, it is a poison. What right do water authorities or governments have to increase our exposure to arsenic by adding contaminated (cheap & nasty) fluoride to our water?
By the way, there is no recent survey or study that shows fluoridation halves tooth decay. If that was the case QLD, with almost zero fluoridation in the state till last month, would have twice as much child tooth decay as other states. It does not. Its levels of tooth decay are within 10% of other states. In a number of age groups the heavily fluoridated states of Tasmania and ACT have higher tooth decay than QLD.
I understand that dentists have been heavily indoctrinated by fluoridation 'puff pieces' in their newsletters for decades. It is now an article of religious faith. But that does not excuse policy makers from studying the primary literature themselves, and pulling the wool away from their eyes.
Start with the 2000 York Review of fluoridation from Britain, and the 2006 review of the Toxicology of Fluoride in Drinking Water, by the US National Research Council. The strong evidence of harm to consumers in the latter review, from even low levels of fluoride in water, is very alarming. It is what led the US ADA and Centers for Disease Control to issue their warnings for infants to NOT use fluoridated water in making up baby formula. They are covering their backsides legally for the damages suits that are sure to emerge in the near future.

Thank you Ironer, for referring to Scientific reviews (not junk science).You are correct in saying that the wool has been pulled over our dentists eyes, but I would go further and say that the wool is being pulled over everyones eyes for too long.

Supertooth admits to being a dentist and then tells us how before fluoridation he/she had to extract teeth from some 2yr old children, but never after fluoridation. Was that a scientific study that was conducted by Supertooth? Did Supertooth take blood tests to see if the children were fluoride deficient or magnesium, calcium or selenium deficient and then blood tests after fluoridation to see if the fluoride levels had increased in their bodies? Or is Supertooth practicing junk medicine by assuming that fluoride had something to do with his patients having better teeth after fluoridation.

Perhaps the childrens diet had improved, perhaps those 2yr olds were suffering from baby bottle rot and now with mothers being told not to give their babies bottles with juice or flavoured milk to bed the rot has decreased. Perhaps the mothers of these children are practicing better oral hygiene for their children.

You see Supertooth, if someone would just run ONE Scientific Study in Australia and not take the word of other countries , this debate would be put to bed.

If we are all going to make assumptions like Supertooth then let me tell you, I am one of those so called fluoride generation babies and my mouth is full of fillings. My 4 children were raised without fluoride and they have fantastic teeth and 3 fillings between the 4 of them.

Super Nana Anna

I don't care honestly if fluoride helps to prevent tooth decay in kids or not. The main thing is: it is unethical to medicate the whole population for the sake of a minor group. Let's say, I don't want fall pregnant, please add the pill to our water supply, that I wouldn't bother to go to see my doctor?.
It is such an outdated 70-s view that all can be fixed just by swallowing one chemical or another. Following this route now almost 99% of Australian population is sick. There's been a FSANZ decision to add folate (to help mums-to be) and iodine (to help children become smarter)to all breads and flour.
When will be the end of this nonsense?

I thought fluoride was invented by the nazis to add to the concentration camps water supply to keep the inmates docile and stupid. I would predict that the current east european monopoly of womens tennis is partly due to their players growing up on non--flouridated water. New born babies are the most in danger of having flouride in their growing brain cells.

I tend to agree with wizardress about forced medication where there is still some scientific debate about possible harmful side effects. Where there are no harmful effects I have no problem about adding folate and iron to bread etc because there are are no potential risks.

My dental health vastly improved by moving from one state to another where the water was fluoridated so my own personal experience (and many others) would suggest there is vast experiential and rhetorical evidence to suggest further study is warranted.

One factor to consider is despite water fluoridation we are still living longer lives than previously. There is mounting evidence to suggest that introduction into the food chain of dangerous chemicals such as pesticides, hormones, GM food, etal that our lives might be longer but we are suffering more from allergies and immune disorders. There have been many theories: margarine, vaccinations, grains, high carbohydrate intake, obesity, mercury in fish - you name it.

Is fluoride toxicity accumulative or is it expelled by the body? What are the effects of fluoride long term if any? Is there a safe level that can be easily processed by the body ensuring dental health does not come at a higher cost?

Further study would certainly eliminate doubt and provide a clear way forward.

Using the GOOGLE search engine for [ nazi flouride additive ] I got a total of 17,300 hits but spelling the same search as "fluoride" I got a total of 5,490 hits. Can some one tell me what this means?

Supertooth. I have an article from Hansard where the Health Minister, the Hon Stephen Robertson answers a question on notice No: 1987 (asked on the 4th December 2008) and says a child aged 4 - 8 years can safely consume 2.2 mg/day of fluoride without adverse health effects.
He is wrong as according to you fluorosis of the teeth can occur at a much lower dose than this. Others would agree with you.

Fluorosis is an adverse health effect. The chemical companies selling these fluorides say fluorosis is a symptom of overexposure.
They say overexposure to their fluorides can result in teeth fluorosis, nausea, stomach problems and skeletal fluorosis.

What does it matter if your teeth have no holes if you have overdosed on fluoride and damaged your teeth,bones and health?

Another article regarding fluoride. This thread is educational for me. I came on board earlier just to say corporate ADA, American Dental Association can't be trusted giving their ADA Seal of Approval and this was based on my personal experience with the ADA keeping the denturist and dental health aide therapist from practicing here in the United States. This thread has taken me into a new area of study and consideration. Thanks for being here.

http://www.businessreport.com:80/news/2009/jan/12/theres-something-water-hlcr1/

Using the YAHOO search engine for[ nazi flouride additive ] I got a total of 25,000 hits and for the same search spelling "fluoride" I got 26,600 hits. The AMA is the biggest collection of quacks since god created the duck. So what if a nuerotoxic carcinogen decreases the incidence of dental cavaties.

It is still OK WWG, 2.2mg of fluoride salt contains about 1mg of fluoride, which is in 1 liter of water. Some believe it should be a little less to try and prevent mild fluorosis which is not a health risk and could be associated with ingestion of fluoride toothpaste because it is better not to wash the paste off teeth after brushing.

However even with fluoridation, tooth decay is still the most common disease. Though there has been a significant drop in caries incidence with only one cavity per 12 year old child, this increases four fold by age 21.

This indicates that although there is an increase in resistance to acid demineralization it just takes linger to develop cavities so we need to look for better personal tooth care that can help reduce acid demineralization and increase saliva and other remineralisation as seen in the www.supertooth.org web site particularly inside pits and fissures on chewing surfaces where over 80% of cavities occur.