I don’t usually worry about opinion pieces, but the “Fluoridation is false security” piece (on page 2) by Lois Titchener had spread around the anti-fluoride groups as fact.
My reply (on page 2):
“Your newspaper published a letter entitled ‘fluoridation is false security’ which I believe is misleading. Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFA) is no more toxic than other products that are used in water treatment, such as sodium hydroxide and chlorine. HFA is prepared to stringent quality requirements specifically for fluoridation of water supplies. It is essentially a water-based acidic solution of fluoride and sand (silica). No HFA is left once added into water, only a safe and beneficial trace element at controlled levels. The relative concentration of fluoride in toothpaste fluoridated water alluded to by your correspondent is a red herring. Toothpaste companies only started adding fluoride to toothpaste in the 1960s, after the discovery in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride in drinking water reduces tooth decay. Every formal scientific review worldwide has affirmed the effectiveness and safety of community water fluoridation with most, if not all, major health organisations in New Zealand being for it. Population-level public health interventions such as community water fluoridation are foundational for maintaining a healthy population. Individual targeting of care is also an important secondary level of public health, but its implementation is only as good as the targeting. Some children and adults may ‘slip through-the-cracks’; fluoridation doesn’t have that problem since it is universal. Differences (or inequalities) between the dental health of those disadvantaged and those well-off people tend to be lower in areas with fluoridation than in those without fluoridation.”
Update:
The Fluoride Free NZ Facebook page posted about my opinion piece. I tried to defend myself in the comments but of course they hide all my comments.
Leave a Reply