Say No To Fluoride At Dentist
Do Not Be Exposed To Toxic Fluoride
According to studies, fluoride levels in excess can have a negative impact on health. A lower IQ score and neurotoxicology issues are some of the consequences of fluoride toxicity. It is not something we feel comfortable with putting in the mouths of our children, and it should not be in their mouths either.
Fluoride is something that parents have the power to decide to avoid. Although some dental offices will allow parents to refuse fluoride treatments, they may not be aware that fluoride may also be found in the prophy paste (the paste the hygienists use to clean patient’s teeth). Sometimes, parents don’t have any other options.
Our water and prophylaxis paste do not contain fluoride.
56% Of Dentists Say “No” To Fluoridation
Print PDF. This is the official position of The American Dental Association in favor fluoridation. It’s safe, effective, and necessary to prevent tooth decay. Since 1950 when policy was established, this has been the Association’s position.
The organization may want to rethink their role as the voice for all dentists.
The Wealthy dentist, a site that markets dental practices online, asked a simple question. “Do you support water floridation?”
70% of those surveyed said no. Counting only responses from dentists, a clear majority still said no – 56%, to be exact.
“Fluoride belongs with toothpaste, and not in water.” That way, those who want it can have it. Fluoride works only topically.
Fluoride shouldn’t be added to water supplies as it can have adverse effects on people and cannot be controlled. In some cases, treatment may be done in the dentist’s office. However, fluoride toothpaste and other rinses are also available.
As the Fluoride Action Network points out, “I think that the classification of it as an a toxic waste seems pretty self explanatory.”
Yet, public health professionals continue to support fluoridating water supply. Today’s supporters insist that fluoridated waters provide a reliable source for topical fluoride, unlike their predecessors. They do this by increasing fluoride levels in saliva and plaque. Even though this may be true, there has been no evidence to support the claim. Recent research shows that teeth decay rates in non-fluoridated areas are almost identical. If fluoridated water has a cosmetic effect on teeth it seems that it is so small that it can be easily replaced with topical fluoride.
It doesn’t appear to have enough evidence to support the health risks from fluoride ingesting, from fluorosis through to development issues to cancer. Xanax without prescription http://www.pharmacynewbritain.com/xanax/ There is also growing concern that we are getting too much of the stuff, which has lead the Department of Health and Human Services, among others, to recommend that EPA lower the levels allowed in water. Fluoride-loving people can get it easily through toothpastes and rinses. However, you won’t find fluoride toothpaste in many stores, including some Tom’s products. There is an alternative.
Landmark In Oral Health
Fluoride can be credited with improving oral health and decreasing the number of dental caries. After it was discovered that cavities were more common in communities where there is naturally fluoridated water, a number of studies have been conducted to determine if community water fluoridation could be used. The first of these trials began in Michigan, New York state and Ontario, Canada, in 1945. Michigan researchers conducted a comparison of the tooth decay rates in Grand Rapids, Michigan (where fluoride is added to community water supply), and Muskegon, Michigan. Five-year analysis and formal review of data revealed that the results were striking enough for Muskegon to abandon the trial and start adding the mineral in its water. Over the following five decades, fluoridation was introduced in communities around the United States.
The practice remains common not only in the United States but elsewhere, including Australia (where 90% of municipal water supplies are fluoridated), New Zealand (47%), and Canada (39%), and has strong proponents in the United Kingdom (10%), where many dentists and public-health officials have been exerting pressure to start fluoridating the water in more communities.
Fluoridation is still a common practice among dentists. Nigel Carter, who was a paediatric dental practitioner and the chief executive officer of the Oral Health Foundation of Rugby, UK, says that his first practice was located on the boundary of Birmingham which had fluoridated. Their charts showed that almost all children with severe tooth decay were from Sandwell, he said. Sandwell, one of the latest UK communities, began fluoridating their water in 1987. Carter says that the fluoride in water made Sandwell’s oral health improve dramatically in just five years.
Birmingham resident, UK. In 1964, he lined up empty bottles to fill them with unfluoridated water. As research progressed in the late 1970s/80s, it became apparent that people had a wrong understanding of fluoride. For many decades it had been believed that fluoride would strengthen teeth most effectively if it was eaten. The same thought was held for pregnant women exposed to fluoride at the time of birth. However, even though fluoride in teeth development is present in utero and protects against tooth decay, this is not the case. Instead, fluoride ions build up inside the mouth to form plaque. In the event that the acidic environment causes tooth decay, the fluoride ions in plaque can release from it. The fluoride can be ingested or applied directly to teeth by using varnish and toothpaste. Fluoride ions are secreted slowly in saliva, which results in only a very small amount. Around 50% of fluoride that is consumed in saliva is stored in bone and teeth. Any excess is then excreted by the kidneys.
Because of research showing topical fluoride to be at least equal in effectiveness as the systemic doses, toothpastes with fluoride were quickly introduced. In primary schools, children were told to shake and spit fluoride tablets. The fluoride varnishes, and lacquers were added by dentists to their patients’ two-yearly cleanings. The incidence of dental cavities in America and the rest of the world declined despite widespread use of tap-water fluoridation. Opponents question why fluoride continues to be added to drinking water when it has been proven effective in treating dental caries. Connett thinks it shouldn’t be. Other people argue that it isn’t so easy and point out more complex issues such as health injustices and environmental justice.
Do No Harm
The majority of research on water fluoridation’s protection effects dates back to 1975. Therefore, few studies address the question of whether widespread fluoridated toothpastes or rinses have rendered systemic fluoride redundant. But there are some clues that suggest this might be the case. Even in countries with no water fluoridation, such as Denmark, tooth decay has declined at rates comparable to those seen in US communities with fluoridation. This is sufficient evidence to convince many researchers that fluoride in water does not need to be added to prevent cavities.
“We’re talking about a simple, highly electronegative anion. That’s it. That’s all fluoride is,” says Pamela Den Besten, a paediatric dentist who studies fluorosis and enamel formation at the University of California, San Francisco.
Den Besten worked tirelessly to understand the systemic effects that fluoride can have on the human body. Ameloblasts are the cells that form and deposit teeth enamel. Fluoride has been shown to affect them. In fact, she notes, studies in animals and humans show that, in addition to fluorosis, cellular effects of fluoride also include inflammation and altered neurodevelopment. It is possible that fluoride may make it into the brain. Den Besten states that researchers need to investigate the potential impact of fluoride on the central nervous and other systems. “It should be a high priority to answer these questions. This is despite the fact that it has not been.
Connett wants to bring attention to neurological effects as part of his lawsuit against EPA. The finding that has garnered the most attention is a 2019 study in JAMA Pediatrics , in which researchers compared the IQ of children who were born to women living in fluoridated areas and non-fluoridated areas. The data, which came from 512 mother-child pairs in 6 cities in Canada, indicated that, depending on how fluoride intake was assessed, exposure during fetal development was associated with as much as a five-point drop in IQ. Howard Hu, a public-health physician who is also an epidemiologist from the KeckSchool of Medicine in Los Angeles, conducted a second study that found a connection between fluoride in maternal urine and low IQ. Christine Till at York University in Toronto (Canada) was the main researcher in the JAMA Pediatrics study. But what happens at lower levels, such as the 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per litre recommended in US fluoridation, is contested. Till and her fellow researchers have tried to find out the truth. “You have some weaker studies saying there’s no effect. And then you have our study, and the Mexico study, that are high quality, saying there is an effect,” she says.
On the basis of these two studies, Philippe Grandjean, a physician and environmental medicine researcher at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense, put together a benchmark-dose study on fluoride to document concentrations at which fluoride begins to have detectable adverse effects on IQ. This level, according to the June report was at 0.2 milligrams/litre. This amount is just one-third below the US recommend level for water supplements and one-twentieth under the US maximum permissible level of four mg l-1. (A level that was originally meant to prevent skeletal flakyrosis). These numbers are just the start. Cohort studies continue, with toxicologists and epidemiologists hoping they will help clarify the complicated debate.
Grandjean, in an earlier stage of his career, had been involved with the proof of dangers from mercury and lead. Bruce Lanphear of Simon Fraser University was also involved. Both Lanphear and Grandjean testified during Connett’s lawsuit, noting that the data from their fluoride analyses are comparable to those used to limit the use of mercury and lead.
Research has shown over 30 years that neurotoxins such as lead and mercury are particularly harmful for the developing brain. Lanphear says that while low-level lead may have been controversial, fluoride is not. “I doubt people were skeptical enough about the safety and benefits of systemic fluoride.
Some public-health dentists think the issue isn’t quite so clear cut. E. Angeles Martinez Mier is a public-health dentist at Indiana University. She agrees fluoride safety merits further investigation, but she says that there isn’t enough evidence yet to prove that the risk outweighs the benefit. Martinez Mier (author of the papers) says that fluoridated water is effective in caries prevention. Her laboratory performed the fluoride analyses on the Canadian as well as Mexican cohorts.
It is possible that this benefit will be of limited magnitude. When comparing non-fluoridated US communities to fluoridated ones, the average number of cavities seen by dentists in fluoridated US areas is about 1 versus 0.3 for adults. “The size of the effect is not as much as people might think,” Till says.
Crystals of sodiumfluoride. Credit: SPL/NIH. However, this benefit can still be a big help for people who are financially strapped or have to take time off from work due to poor dental health. Martinez Mier says, “It isn’t realistic, given what we have,” that every child will be provided with topical fluoride. Martinez Mier says that many public-health dentists insist that fluoridated drinking water is the only option that can reach the general public.
They point out, however that tooth decay rates are down around the world. However, many countries in the study have health programs funded by government to educate people about how to take care of their gums. The United States is not one of them. “We’re not Scandinavia. Canada is not our country. Martinez Mier says that we have a very different public-health infrastructure than other countries. “In Scandinavia you can find nurses in your home who teach you to brush your teeth and provide fluoride treatment through universal health care.” However, fluoridated water is accessible to everyone who consumes or prepares water that has been treated. That’s insurance Martinez Mier is not yet willing to give up.
“If we look at a practice which affects so many, we need it to be examined. Brittany Seymour (a dentist) studies the epidemiology of oral-health policies and policy at Harvard School of Dental Medicine. According to her, there may be some people who remain rigid in their opinions about fluoridation and will refuse to reevaluate their position no matter how new research shows. It is important to her that Till, Lanphear, as well as others ask these questions.
Seymour, who also serves as spokesperson for American Dental Association has researched online health misinformation and seen the many ways that fluoride was demonized. She thinks that it is too soon to reconsider a program that clearly has made an impact on children’s dental health. The data available are very limited and may not be reliable. She doesn’t believe that fluoridated toothpaste is the only reason tooth decay has fallen globally. Two cities in Alaska, Juneau and Calgary are two examples where water fluoridation has been ended. She states that “if we get rid of something that we believe has a benefit, that’s when we give up on another problem.”
Martinez Mier agrees. She believes it is premature to respond to water fluoridation and not understand the implications on a community. She states that new measures must be taken if the protective measure intended to protect oral health was removed.
The importance of equity is hard to miss in these arguments. One, dentists feel that fluoridated waters are best for those who do not have access to fluoride toothpaste, dental education, or dental services. This is the group most vulnerable to bad oral health and most in financial distress when it comes to dealing with dental issues. Toxicologists are concerned about the impact fluoridated water might have on IQ in people who already suffer from high levels of pollution or poverty. These populations may be aware of potential fluoridation risks, but they will not have the financial means to purchase bottled water when formula-feeding infants.
One can’t have too many cavities, but you should still be concerned about the health of the whole community. A small number of IQ points could not make a huge difference if your environment and privileges are good. For others it might be. But it depends on the circumstances. And it does make a huge difference at the level of the entire population. In a poor position, you can fall into three categories: economics, health and education. The most vulnerable populations are most vulnerable to a lot of things, not just dental caries and neurotoxicants.” More from Nature Outlooks
Connett’s case was finally closed at Zoom federal courts. A series of experts in epidemiology toxicology and risk assessments took to the virtual witness stand, each stating that evidence was strong supporting fluoride’s role as a developmental neurotoxicant. And Connett informed the judge of a draft report from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), which reached the same conclusion in early 2019. Connett said that although the draft report was not used as evidence, it “loomed large”. Today the case remains open. Prior to the judge making a ruling, Connett wants to know what the NTP has concluded. He expects the final draft to arrive in 2022.
Till does not hold her breath. She states, “I don’t think that they’ll ever find a consensus,” noting that she does not anticipate any scenario that would please both toxicologists and dentists. It is now a circular argument. They can’t agree on anything because they are having separate conversations. Hu states, “We’re stuck in an unusual situation. Dental public health is at odds with environmental public safety. And it’s really just a family dispute.”
Hu sees two big problems with how the dental public-health community has reacted. He says the first is that many in the dental profession who criticize Till and his conclusions don’t have a good understanding of their origins. The methods used in recent studies about prenatal fluoride and neurodevelopment were rigorously peer reviewed and passed the environmental epidemiology view. Another problem is the false belief that decades worth of research on fluoride have proven it to be safe. “They are ignoring the fact that almost none of these ‘decades’ of research have focused on the very specific issue of prenatal fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment. The unfortunate result is that the two sides environmental health and dental public health keep talking past each other.” What they need, he says, is a neutral forum in which experts can dispassionately discuss and debate the evidence.
The other thing they need is more data. Hu stated that there have not been any studies in the US on fluoridation prenatal exposure or natal development. He and his collaborators are starting one now, using data from past studies, and they aim to have answers in the next two years. Their existence, regardless of whether the NTP revision is revised or not, will help to move the conversation along.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02924-6 This article is part of Nature Outlook: Oral health , an editorially independent supplement produced with the financial support of third parties.
Can I Refuse Fluoride At The Dentist?
No exposure to toxic fluoride Parents are entitled to make a decision about whether to use fluoride. Some dental offices allow parents to decline fluoride treatment, but they might not know that the prophy paste is also contaminated with fluoride (the paste used by hygienists to clean patients’ teeth).
What Makes People Resist Fluoride at the Dentist?
Lower-income parents might also exhibit fluoride resistance behaviors. They may be disempowered by dental office discrimination, and feel powerless during visits. Jul 1, 2018
Do Teeth Need Fluoride?
Fluoride can prevent tooth decay. This is because it makes teeth more resistant to acid attacks caused by bacteria in plaque, sugars, and other mouth-irritants. It also reverses early decay.Jul 29, 2021
Why shouldn’t I use fluoride instead?
Fluoride Toxicity: Concerns
.Say No To Fluoride At Dentist
Angel Care Dental
|Address||7511 120 St #103, Delta, BC V4C 0C1, Canada|
|Category||['Dentist', 'Cosmetic dentist', 'Dental clinic', 'Dental implants periodontist', 'Emergency dental service', 'Teeth whitening service']|
Read customer feedback for Angel Care Dental
I have been going to this place for the last 5 years. I have had many problems. They took care of them. The customer service, care, guidance and treatment I have got have been always extraordinary. Everyone is professional and dedicated to deliver the best. I am sorry, I don’t remember all the names of the wonderful staff. Some of the names of the wonderful team members I remember I would like to mention like : Dr. Bains, Alex, Anna and Rupa. A big thank you for all the years for the amazing service🙏 Keep up the great work. You all are amazing! – RIGHT PATH LEARNING
I have been going to Angel Care Dental since I was a young child… so quite a while 😉 and I wouldn’t go anywhere else. The facility is beautiful, the care and gentle touch mean everything to me because I don’t like going to the dentist – who does? But it’s different here and I leave feeling genuinely happy. Mihaela is the BEST hygienist and Dr Galo is kind and extremely gentle. Even a root canal isn’t half bad with Dr Galo! Dr Soraya is also wonderful! Thanks Angel Care. ☺️ – Tara H