Articles
Vu Le, DDS
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is
finally fluoridating the drinking water of much of Orange County, reports the 
| I respect your opinions. I do understand your frustration; I would have supported putting this policy decision on the ballot so that your voice could have been heard in the decision making process. It is not practical to double blind a fluoride water study. You would have to sequester someone's entire liquid intake from all sources for practically their entire childhood. And you would have to do it for hundreds of people. Most of the research supporting fluoridation comes from eipdemiological studies, which rely on sound statistical principals and objective measurements of caries (tooth decay) rates. Epidemiological studies on fluoride HAVE been performed and published in peer reviewed scientific journals. I agree that is the most efficient way to administer fluoride is topically at the dentist's office, in toothpaste, or in a rinse. However, not everyone gets into the dentist, especially children in less economically advantaged areas. And government programs designed to help the poor pay at such low rates, that 80% of dentists cannot afford to participate. I've worked on dozens of poor kids whose parents did not or could not ensure their proper hygiene. Municipal water fluoridation is the only thing these kids have. That's why the FDA, ADA, CDA, National Institutes of Health, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, myself, and the great majority of dentists respectfully disagree with your opinion. |
Seekay
said:
| Dear Dr Le: Please explain the following: Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation May 1, 1999 by Dr. J. William Hirzy Senior Vice President, NTEU Chapter 280 The following documents why our union, formerly National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 and since April 1998 Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union, took the stand it did opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. Our union is comprised of and represents the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C. The union first became interested in this issue rather by accident. Like most Americans, including many physicians and dentists, most of our members had thought that fluoride's only effects were beneficial - reductions in tooth decay, etc. We too believed assurances of safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation... Then, as EPA was engaged in revising its drinking water standard for fluoride in 1985, an employee came to the union with a complaint: he said he was being forced to write into the regulation a statement to the effect that EPA thought it was alright for children to have "funky" teeth. It was OK, EPA said, because it considered that condition to be only a cosmetic effect, not an adverse health effect. The reason for this EPA position was that it was under political pressure to set its health-based standard for fluoride at 4 mg/liter. At that level, EPA knew that a significant number of children develop moderate to severe dental fluorosis, but since it had deemed the effect as only cosmetic, EPA didn't have to set its health-based standard at a lower level to prevent it. We tried to settle this ethics issue quietly, within the family, but EPA was unable or unwilling to resist external political pressure, and we took the fight public with a union amicus curiae brief in a lawsuit filed against EPA by a public interest group... |
Vu Le, DDS
said:
| EPA Headquarters Professional's Union is free to form its own opinions, and to pursue them through the appropriate channels. If what you are saying is true, it appears that they are doing so. Vitamin D and K are essential nutrients, but if you eat too much, they become toxic and potentially fatal. The same can be said for water. It doesn't mean that they should be avoided or banned, just moderated to the most beneficial amount. Fluorosis is indeed an unfortunate side effect of over fluoridation. Fluoride concentration can and should be monitored by local water authorities. If they are unable or unwilling to rein in high fluoride levels, then I would also agree that water fluoridation should be reconsidered. I've gotten a lot of feedback from this article, and I respect the sentiments of those opposed to fluoridation. I will maintain my position that most families who can afford dental care do not drink from the tap all that much, and the families who can't afford dentistry often DO drink water from the tap. For those children in the least advantaged families, fluoride from the tap may be their only source. It is for this reason and others that myself and the overwhelming majority of CDA and ADA members support municipal water fluoridation. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
(949) 600-7777
Email Dr. Le
Appointment | Forms
