Causes of Increased Drinking in Dogs

Protect Your Well

30 days without eating or drinking anything, but water …
In smaller communities cost effectiveness was more dependent on the risk profile of the population. But these elements, while measurable in the product when delivered, are not detectable because of the great dilution in the finished water. Sukhabogi Jr, et al. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride. As an example, consider again the fear-laden headlines used by fluoridation opponents that often completely misrepresent the stated conclusions of the studies. As you evaluate the available evidence and the way that evidence is presented by fluoridation supporters and opponents, consider the following suggestions.

Mod #70: Drinking Water Filter

Code Section Group

Cut the tubing with the tubing cutter to the appropriate length. Attaching the tubing is incredibly simple with the type of filter and dispenser used in this mod. All you have to do is insert the tubing in to the ends of the filter and in to the bottom of the dispenser. No compression fittings or special tools are required. The tubing may appear to be loose in the filter and dispenser but try pulling the tubing out.

The fittings hold the tubing in place and water pressure actually prevents the connections from leaking. Just be sure to connect the lines correctly, observing the filter input and output arrows. All that is left is to do now is turn on the water pump and check for leaks. Let the dispenser run for a minute or two to eliminate charcoal sediment in the new filter.

Now enjoy a great tasting glass of water! ModMyRV recommends these parts for this mod: Our coach came with a water filter. We just bring 2. I guess we should clean the water tank. What type of water filter does your coach have? Was the coach new or used? Have you looked at the inside of the filter to see if it needs replacement?

It looks like the shurflo. The coach was used. I guess i should just put in a new filter. My wife can smell the water that has come thru a standard water hose…. I have to keep a white rv hose and a carbon water filter hooked to the rv when we camp…. I guess my smeller is not as sensitive as hers….. Here is how I connect my water filter to my TT…. A few things not discussed regarding water filters that I would like more discussion and information on: To those of you who are using standard garden hose to feed water to your RV- this is not a good idea.

They will affect the flavor of the water and may cause flu-like symptoms. Anyone that sells RV supplies sells proper hoses. You can also get brass hose ends and reinforced vinyl hose and make your own if you are handy. Commercial reinforced vinyl has a higher pressure rating and is generally more durable and safe to use. The flow rate is slow, but the output quality is excellent. We bought pex hose and attached male and female hose ends to it. It works like a charm.

One thing about water filters that people should be aware of is that the contaminates they filter are usually limited to particulates and bacteria. Know your water supply, especially if you are spending very much time in one place. Yes, a good Drining Water Hose is really important also.

We have a Water System at the Kitchen sink. We also use a whole house Filter System as well. But the DW will only drink bottled water, go figure.

The way RV holding tanks and plumbing systems are… [ If you are not a member, please consider registering so you don't have to fill out this form each time you comment.

Mail will not be published required. Severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms include: However, you may still experience some unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. Preventing relapse will take a significant effort on your part. Overcoming chronic alcoholism is extremely difficult. Seek out support and take steps to make sure your recovery sticks. Some important steps you can take include:. Chronic alcoholism can cause damage to the liver, brain, and cardiovascular system.

In the long term, your body and brain will start to repair some of the damage caused by excess drinking. You should switch your focus towards your own personal and spiritual growth — this ensures that complacency and the eventual relapse will never set in.

Could someone tell me what actually happens to the body on a daily, weekly,monthly basis after quitting alcohol. For example roughly for each: How long for your skin to get better. How long for alcohol to leave your system. Moderate drinker is too broad a term to be able to give an accurate answer to those questions.

The answer to many of those questions will depend on varying factors, for example: The fluoridation chemicals are valuable co-products of the fertilizer industry, not waste products http: Standard 60 was developed to establish minimum requirements for the control of potential adverse human health effects from products added directly to water during its treatment, storage and distribution.

The standard requires a full formulation disclosure of each chemical ingredient in a product. It also requires a toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level and to evaluate potential contaminants in the product.

The standard requires testing of the treatment chemical products, typically by dosing these in water at 10 times the maximum use level, so that trace levels of contaminants can be detected. A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects.

Table 1 documents that there is no contamination of drinking water from the fluoridation products NSF has tested and certified. Scientific evidence supports the fluoridation of public water supplies as safe for the environment and beneficial to people. Reports at the local, national, and international levels have continued to support this most important public health measure.

There appears to be no concern about the environmental aspects of water fluoridation among those experts who have investigated the matter. Furthermore, since the chemicals used for water fluoridation are co-products of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, and the raw material used is a natural resource rocks excavated for their mineral content , water fluoridation could accurately be described as environmentally friendly, as it maximizes the use made of these natural resources, and reduces waste.

Controlling for covariates, water fluoridation method was significant only in the models that included dwellings built before and dwellings of unknown age. Across stratum-specific models for dwellings of known age, neither hydrofluosilicic acid nor sodium silicofluoride were associated with higher geometric mean PbB concentrations or prevalence values.

Given these findings, our analyses, though not definitive, do not support concerns that silicofluorides in community water systems cause higher PbB concentrations in children.

Current evidence does not provide a basis for changing water fluoridation practices, which have a clear public health benefit. We conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead 0 or lead I1 compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as bi carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.

Given the caveat that science can never be absolute, the panel is unanimous in its conclusion that there are no adverse effects of fluoride of any significance arising from fluoridation at the levels used in New Zealand.

In particular, no effects on brain development, cancer risk or cardiovascular or metabolic risk have been substantiated, and the safety margins are such that no subset of the population is at risk because of fluoridation. All of the panel members and ourselves conclude that the efficacy and safety of fluoridation of public water supplies, within the range of concentrations currently recommended by the Ministry of Heath, is assured.

We conclude that the scientific issues raised by those opposed to fluoridation are not supported by the evidence. An anti-fluoridation critique, and a rebuttal. Opposition to fluoridation has existed since the initiation of the first community programs in and continues today with over 60 years of practical experience showing fluoridation to be safe and effective.

An article that appeared in the local newspapers shortly after the first fluoridation program was implemented in Grand Rapids, Michigan, noted that the fluoridation program was slated to commence January 1 but did not actually begin until January Interestingly, health officials in Grand Rapids began receiving complaints of physical ailments attributed to fluoridation from citizens weeks before fluoride was actually added to the water.

The Science of Fluoride: This publication pulls together the official policy statements and consumer information on fluoride from the nation's leading scientific and advocacy organizations that support community water fluoridation. It is an effort to give you the whole truth about fluoride - its benefits, its risks and its history. Fluoridation of community water systems is not the only way to administer fluoride and reduce cavities. Some countries in Europe put fluoride in salt.

Some invest heavily in school-based dental programs. Many countries rely on socialized medicine to ensure regular dental care and fluoride treatments. The American model allows individual states or communities to decide on the best ways to protect oral health. Since the s, many have relied upon community water fluoridation.

To date, about two-thirds of the nation adds fluoride to its water, one reason once common dental problems are now at an all-time low. Although its role in the prevention of dental caries tooth decay is well established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element because humans do not require it for growth or to sustain life.

However, if one considers the prevention of chronic disease dental caries an important criterion in determining essentiality, then fluoride might well be considered an essential trace element. Fluoride levels in the water supplies should be monitored and adjusted to ensure consistency in concentrations and avoid fluctuations. It is safe, effective, ethical, legal, reduces oral health disparities and is cost-effective. There is no difference in absorption between natural or added fluoride in drinking-water.

Fluoride may be an essential element for humans; however, essentiality has not been demonstrated unequivocally. Meanwhile, there is evidence of fluoride being a beneficial element with regard to the prevention of dental caries. Low concentrations [of the fluoride ion] provide protection against dental caries, both in children and in adults. The protective effects of fluoride increase with concentration up to about 2 mg of fluoride per litre of drinking-water; the minimum concentration of fluoride in drinking-water required to produce it is approximately 0.

There is no evidence to suggest that the guideline value of 1. Concentrations above this value carry an increasing risk of dental fluorosis, and much higher concentrations lead to skeletal fluorosis. The value is higher than that recommended for artificial fluoridation of water supplies, which is usually 0. Because of the powerful benefits of the right amount of fluoride, water fluoridation programmes have been established in many countries since the s when its ability to reduce dental caries was first recognized.

Water fluoridation in low fluoride-containing water supplies helps to maintain optimal dental tissue development and dental enamel resistance against caries attack during the entire life span.

Fluoride in drinking water acts mainly through its retention in dental plaque and saliva. Frequent consumption of drinking water and products made with fluoridated water maintain intra-oral fluoride levels. People of all ages, including the elderly, benefit from community water fluoridation. It is possible that in areas where fluoride intake via routes other than drinking-water e. Common themes are the concern to reduce demands for compliance with fluoride regimes that rely upon action by individuals and their families, and the issue of cost.

We recommend that a community should use no more than one systemic fluoride i. Jones S, et al. Unlike arsenic, fluoride is beneficial at low doses. Higher rates of dental caries are observed below approximately 0. In common with every other recognized national dental association across the world, the Irish Dental Association strongly supports the policy of fluoridation in Ireland as an essential element of oral health policy.

The benefits of fluoridation as regards the oral health of the population, and most particularly those in deprived circumstances, are extremely well documented.. From its inception the Society has been a multi-disciplinary organisation, and has enjoyed the support of politicians from all political parties. Conclusion The report provides further reassurance that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure. Public Health England continues to keep the evidence base under review and will use this report as part of an ongoing dialogue with local authorities before publishing a further report within the next four years.

The adjustment of the fluoride level in community water supplies to optimal concentration is the most beneficial and inexpensive method of reducing the occurrence of caries.

The National Cancer Institute and the National Heart and Lung Institute have recently issued statements that refute claims suggesting a relationship between fluoridated water and mortality from cancer and heart disease.

Key Points - Fluoride prevents and can even reverse tooth decay. More than 60 percent of the U. Many studies, in both humans and animals, have shown no association between fluoridated water and risk for cancer.

The general consensus among the reviews done to date is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer. However, the last of these reviews was published in Several of the reviews noted that further studies are needed to clarify the possible link. Two more recent studies have compared the rates of osteosarcoma in areas with higher versus lower levels of fluoridation in Ireland and the United States Neither study found an increased risk of osteosarcoma in areas of water fluoridation.

Fluoridation of community drinking water is a major factor responsible for the decline in dental caries tooth decay during the second half of the 20th century.

The history of water fluoridation is a classic example of clinical observation leading to epidemiologic investigation and community-based public health intervention. Although other fluoride-containing products are available, water fluoridation remains the most equitable and cost-effective method of delivering fluoride to all members of most communities, regardless of age, educational attainment, or income level.

Safety of Water Fluoridation: Early investigations into the physiologic effects of fluoride in drinking water predated the first community field trials. Since , opponents of water fluoridation have claimed it increased the risk for cancer, Down syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis and bone fracture, acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, low intelligence, Alzheimer disease, allergic reactions, and other health conditions.

The safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation have been re-evaluated frequently, and no credible evidence supports an association between fluoridation and any of these conditions. The report highlights four proven solutions that can improve both the dental health of children and their access to care. Solution 2 - Community water fluoridation: Water fluoridation stands out as one of the most effective public health interventions that the United States has ever undertaken.

Fluoride counteracts tooth decay and, in fact, strengthens the teeth. A study found that women who grew up in communities with fluoridated water earned approximately 4 percent more than women who did not. The effect was almost exclusively concentrated among women from low-income families, and fluoride exposure in childhood was found to have a robust, statistically significant effect on income, even after controlling for a variety of trends and community-level variables.

The authors of the study attributed this difference primarily to consumer and employer discrimination against women with missing or damaged teeth. Since APHA has supported CWF as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of dental caries tooth decay , reaffirming this policy in , , , , , , , , , ,,16 , , , , , , , and This website contains an interesting selection of information about fluoridation benefits.

Fluoridation is being challenged in Massachusetts and nationwide because a vocal minority has been adept at confusing and scaring the public on the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

The public is being misled daily on the Internet. Antifluoridationists continue to mislead, misinform, and scare the public with poorly done studies or misinterpreted results of studies conducted by reputable individuals, organizations, or institutions.

This update contains excellent corrections to the misrepresented results of several studies and topics regularly used by fluoridation opponents including, the Harvard IQ Study, the Lancet Neurology article, the Harvard study on osteosarcoma, infant formula and fluorosis.

Heyroth concludes, "The evidence as a whole is consistent in offering assurance that bringing the fluoride concentration in communal water supplies to that known to be optimal for dental health is a prophylactic public health procedure which has an ample margin of safety.

Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that has been found to be safe and effective. Nonetheless, the implementation of water fluoridation is still regularly interrupted by a relatively small group of individuals who use misinformation and rhetoric to induce doubts in the minds of the public and government officials.

It is important that public health officials are aware of these tactics so that they can better counter their negative effect. A few fringe activists claim that fluoridation of water carries more danger than benefit. The 50 reasons are put forward by Dr Connett as a 'thorough review of the scientific literature as regards both the risks and benefits of being exposed to the fluoride ion'.

However, the listing is not a review, but a selection of published findings that question or use data to cast doubt on the value and safety of fluoridation. No balance of evidence for- and against- fluoridation is provided, as might be expected in a review.

The author of the '50 Reasons' document has stated in one of the many versions of the ' 50 Reasons' document ' that the '50 Reasons' offered in this article for opposing fluoridation are based on a thorough review of the scientific literature as regards both the risks and benefits of being exposed to the fluoride ion.

There is no explicit statement of the questions being addressed; no systematic search for pertinent research; no use of a priori selection criteria to separate relevant from irrelevant research; no critical appraisal of studies to determine their validity and no integration of evidence based on sources of evidence, research design, direction and magnitude of clinical outcomes, coherence and precision.

No conclusions can or should be drawn from this poor quality document. This paper discusses versions available before , but it illustrates the overall methodology of fluoridation opponents. We, along with most utilities, use fluorosilicic acid. That is produced as a byproduct of the fertilizer industry, specifically in the mining of phosphate.

We get a detailed report with each shipment showing the impurities, and the ones that draw attention are lead and arsenic. But these elements, while measurable in the product when delivered, are not detectable because of the great dilution in the finished water. So while it is important to know what impurities may be introduced in any chemical we add during water treatment e.

This book reviews the effects on health of fluoride ingested from various sources. Those health effects reviewed include dental fluorosis; bone fracture; effects on renal, reproductive, and gastrointestinal systems; and genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. The book also reviews the Environmental Protection Agency's current drinking-water standard for fluoride and considers future research needs.

The Health District was a participant in the Fluoride Technical Study Group, which included community members with an interest in community drinking water fluoridation and with specific technical, medical or scientific capabilities.

The group met at least once a month between December and December The group presented a report to the Fort Collins City Council which voted to continue fluoridation of city water supplies in July The findings of the report prompted the Health District's Board of Directors to vote to recommend that the city continue fluoridation.

Part 1 Pati Caputto, a clinical nutritionist and leader of Clean Water Advocates, a group campaigning against fluoridation, shares her perspective. Greg Evans, a pediatric dentist and member of the Vote No On 2 committee, shares his perspective. Abstract - It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to support optimal systemic and topical fluoride as an important public health measure to promote oral health and overall health throughout life.

Fluoride is an important element in the mineralization of bone and teeth. The proper use of topical and systemic fluoride has resulted in major reductions in dental caries and its associated disability. Dental caries remains the most prevalent chronic disease in children and affects all age groups of the population.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has named fluoridation of water as one of the 10 most important public health measures of the 21st century. However, only 27 states provide fluoridated water to more than three quarters of the state's residents on public water systems.

Fluoride also plays a role in bone health. However, at this time, use of high doses of fluoride for osteoporosis prevention is considered experimental only. Dietetics practitioners should routinely monitor and promote the use of fluorides for all age groups. J Acad Nutr Diet. Top Cairns dentist defends fluoridea: Queensland Health Cairns district director of oral health Robyn Boase said the effect dental decay had on children was far more of a concern than the effect of fluoride on the human body.

It's the most frequent cause of hospitalization in children up to age 4. They get hospitalized from dental decay. The first community trial of water fluoridation - January 1, in Grand Rapids Michigan. A bill to protect the public health from the dangers of fluorination of water.

May 25, 26, 27, The page record of a debate on water fluoridation 9 years after the introduction of community water fluoridation in Grand Rapids Michigan. The first two thirds of the document is largely anti-fluoride arguments and the last third is the pro-fluoride rebuttal. Things have not changed much in the decades since this debate.

British Dental Journal , 1 - 4 Water fluoridation has been described by the Centre for Disease Control as one of the ten most important public health advances of the 20th Century1. In this brief paper, I will describe the history of water fluoridation and discuss the value of this policy in the early years of the 21st Century. Fluoridation of Water , Skeptic's dictionary In , the United States Public Health Service recommended that communities without naturally occurring fluoride add it to their public water supplies at a concentration of 1.

Despite the fact that doing so would mean a reduction in business for those dentists who filled the cavities of youngsters, the American Dental Association supported the policy. The safety of fluoridation has been challenged many times.

In the small amounts that people are likely to be exposed to from public drinking water, the main health concern that has not been exaggerated and distorted over the years is the fear of dental fluorosis. The staining and pitting of teeth from too much fluoride does not affect adults, so concerns about fluorosis focus on the amount of fluoride children are likely to be exposed to. In January , the U. Department of Health and Human Services proposed to change its recommended limit for fluoride to 0.

With the exception of one review article Pizzo et al. Scroll down - this page document is mostly blank at the top. The Center became a major program of Oral Health America in In recognition of the importance of promoting dental health through water fluoridation, the FDI World Dental Federation states that:.

At the fluoride concentrations recommended for the prevention of dental decay, human health is not adversely affected. The FDI recognises that prevention by using fluoride is the most realistic way of reducing the heavy burden of dental decay worldwide. Water fluoridation is an important public health measure. It is listed by the Centre for Disease Control in the United States as being one of the 10 most important public health initiatives of the 20th Century.

It is an initiative which, from the very start, has been supported by the dental profession in Ireland. Indeed, in the s the Irish Dental Association was at the forefront in making the case for what was then a radically new approach to the management of dental decay.

However, it is the case that the justification for the policy water fluoridation requires constant revision. If a better way of achieving the same ends becomes available, we should not hesitate to move away from this policy. Similarly, if evidence of genuine negative health effects came to light, it would require change. We know that not fluoridating also carries health risks.

We also know that if general health risks do exist, they have escaped detection in the 70 years or so that the topic has been researched. But that is not to say they do not exist.

Continued scrutiny is required. Don't Let the Poisonmongers Scare You! Benefits and Risks Report of the ad hoc subcommittee on fluoride of the committee to coordinate environmental health and related programs.

Extensive studies over the past 50 years have established that individuals whose drinking water is fluoridated show a reduction in dental caries. Although the comparative degree of measurable benefit has been reduced recently as other fluoride sources have become available in non-fluoridated areas, the benefits of water fluoridation are still clearly evident.

Fewer caries are associated with fewer abscesses and extractions of teeth and with improved health. The health and economic benefits of water fluoridation accrue to individuals of all ages and socioeconomic groups, especially to poor children.

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis.

Complete Task Force Finding. Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet A number of specific techniques have been used by antifluoridationists in their attempts to prevent fluoridation of public water supplies.

For instance, by repeatedly alleging that fluoride causes cancer, kidney disease, heart disease, and other serious maladies, fluorophobics persuade some people that their claims are true, even though no scientifically valid evidence exists to corroborate their allegations.

The public tends to believe such claims, assuming that their repeated appearance in print, most often in letters-to-the-editor columns, is evidence of their validity and that "authorities" would "never" allow unproven claims to be printed.

Antifluoridationists have also become masters of the use of half-truths and innuendo. Among the most serious violations of the scientific ethic are those with which this monograph focuses and which can be categorized as abusive uses of the scientific literature. Opponents of fluoridation frequently quote statements that are out of date, taken out of context, or misrepresentations of legitimate scientific research. Numerous examples of this technique are apparent when one reviews closely the popular antifluoride pamphlet, "Lifesavers [sic] Guide to Fluoridation".

Those articles referred to as containing the most convincing antifluoride arguments are usually not from recognized peer-reviewed journals and often are authored by the same antifluoridationists editing the controversial journals.

Painstaking library research by Wulf and colleagues has shown that many of the references used actually support fluoridation, with works of respected fluoride researchers selectively quoted and misrepresented in order to appear to discourage the use of fluorides. The average consumer, unable to properly evaluate misinformation and misrepresentations in the antifluoride literature, falls prey to what amounts to a marketing fraud.

Nothing summarizes the situation better than the often-repeated quotation from a Consumer Reports article, "The simple truth is that there's no 'scientific controversy' over the safety of fluoridation. The practice is safe, economical, and beneficial. The survival of this fake controversy represents, in CU's [Consumers' Union] opinion, one of the major triumphs of quackery over science in our generation.

The original book provides an analysis of each reference - the linked article is a summary. The specific references used by today's fluoride opponents are different, but the way that references are used and abused remain the same - RJ].

One of the newer health claims made by fluoridation opponents is that fluoride exposure from drinking water, even at fluoride levels around 2. Recent papers that report a correlation between high fluoride levels and low IQ scores are reviewed in the Bazian Review of IQ Studies: They sought to investigate whether high environmental exposure to fluoride or arsenic or low exposure to iodine, was associated with lower IQ and used observational cross sectional and ecological methods.

In our appraisals we found that the study design and methods used by many of the researchers had serious limitations. The lack of a thorough consideration of confounding as a source of bias means that, from these studies alone, it is uncertain how far fluoride is responsible for any impairment in intellectual development seen. The amount of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water and from other sources and the socioeconomic characteristics in the areas studied is different from the UK and so these studies do not have direct application to the local population of Southampton.

Community Water Fluoridation Community Water Fluoridation is strongly recommended based on its effectiveness in reducing the occurrence of dental caries within communities. Other positive effects mentioned, but not systematically evaluated, include 1 reducing disparities in caries risk and experience across subgroups defined by socioeconomic status, race or ethnicity, and other predictors of caries risk; and 2 the 'halo' or 'diffusion' benefits to residents of nonfluoridated communities by means of exposure to processed food and beverages made from fluoridated water.

Fluoridated water refers to water that contains fluoride either naturally occurring or artificially added at a level that is effective for preventing cavities.

The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation, although some continental countries fluoridate salt. This scientific study specifically considered potential adverse health effects of substances in drinking water. The central effort of the study was an assessment of the long-term biological effects of ingesting the variety of different substances present in trace amounts in drinking water.

The volume included an extensive analysis on fluoride intake and concluded that 'There is no generally accepted evidence that anyone has been harmed by drinking water with fluoride concentrations considered optimal. Some blogs about fluoridation and anti-fluoridation claims from a variety of sources: Every once in a while chain emails or Facebook posts make their way back into prominence.

It happened last year with HPV killing girls. Recently, it seems to be Fluoride. A number of you have been forwarding me a post from last year which features a meta-analysis published a few years ago on Fluoride and IQ. The Danger du jour: All blog authors have professional expertise in an area relevant to the health care system. We are researchers and professors in health economics, law, or health services.

Our goal is to help you understand it too, and to empower you with research-validated information so you can be a more informed observer of or participant in the ongoing debate over how to reform our system. Science, Scams and Society: Now, a little disclosure from me, first: Fluoride in the Water: There are no physical harms for which there is any evidence for, and the government is not controlling your mind.

If you need more proof, below I have outlined the history, safety, and science behind water fluoridation. I tend to go where the evidence leads me, and I realize that lately fluoridation has been questioned, given the widespread use of fluoride in toothpaste, which could potentially produce the same benefits, and increasing concerns about fluorosis.

The issues surrounding the benefits and risks of water fluoridation are not straightforward. They never have been, actually. However, what I don't get are the overheated simplistic arguments that come out of the anti-fluoridation movement. Numerous studies credit water fluoridation efforts with major reductions in tooth decay during the second half of the 20th century. Many too, attest to the safety of fluoridation at optimum levels.

Yet in spite of reams of scientific evidence, debate and fear remain in some places. Last year in Portland, Ore. Fluoride is safe and effective - " Looking back over his career in dentistry, Jim said it's easy to name his most important accomplishment - helping get fluoride added to the local water supply in the s.

Drink the Water, Not the Kool-Aid: It seems to have caused quite a stir. Just three weeks ago, Newsweek published another article by the same author about a potential link between water fluoridation and thyroid disease. If you read the comment threads - which I wouldn't recommend, you'll see fluoride implicated in arthritis, intellectual disability, kidney disease, hip fractures, and a multitude of other maladies. You may also notice that the vast majority of the hundreds of comments are written by the same handful of people - or that some of the comments are directly copied and pasted onto over other sites - not very creative.

By the time you get to the end, you'll probably be thinking that 'fluoridation is the most monstrously-conceived and dangerous Communist plot we have ever had to face. I'll be honest - doctors and dentists aren't perfect. Some aren't even very good. But we're not evil, and we're not oblivious to the need to balance the benefits of our therapies with their potential risks.

The thousands of pediatricians and dentists represented by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Dental Association aren't trying to poison your child; we've devoted our lives to protecting them. This is evidence that there is no public safety measure that is so effective, safe, and cost effective that there will not be those who vigorously oppose its implementation. The fluoridation votes affect some 73, residents nationwide. The controversy, however, merely makes it even more important that our politicians do not bow to pressure from scare-tactic groups and appeals to emotion, but decide based on the best available evidence.

An F minus For Effort: Her main approach to publicity seems best captured by the Google image search result to the right of this text. I was curious as to why she so vehemently opposed this safe and long-standing improvement to the dental health of the Irish nation so I travelled to her about page, where I read that FitzGibbon is a qualified 'Master Integrated Energy Therapist' ".

Fluoridation does not affect the appearance, taste or smell of drinking water. Fluoridated water has fluoride at a level that is effective for preventing cavities; this can occur naturally or by adding fluoride. I have listed references here to some studies that demonstrate positive and negative health effects of three other common water contaminants. These are just a few of the papers that you can find during a brief search of PubMed that can support drastically different conclusions about the health effects of these contaminants - take a look.

I discuss elsewhere details of the many concerns I have with the way fluoridation opponents present their evidence, but I included a specific example below that contrasts two recently published studies to illustrate the differences between a paper that presents evidence that fluoridation does not have a negative effect on IQ and another paper used by fluoride opponents to bolster their claim that fluoridation decreases IQ.

I encourage you to search the National Library of Medicine and evaluate for yourself the evidence for and against community drinking water fluoridation. A search on general topics like, fluoridation will return a large number of results 6, in November , or community water fluoridation , 1, results , but it is a good way to find other words to include that limit the search. For example you can reduce the number of results to a more manageable size by using more restrictive search terms like:

The Power of Fear