While researching 'synthetic fluorine foaming agent'...

[alexpgp]

I've written a number of letters to the editor in my time, starting when I was in college in New York and continuing through the time I lived in Jacksonville, Florida. One of the first letters I wrote that was published was addressed to the editor of the New York Daily News, and it concerned fluoridation.

This was way before I'd gotten anything published with my name on it outside of Locust Valley, and I must admit, I was pretty jazzed about having my letter printed. That lasted about as long as it took for someone I knew to find the letter and then look me up and castigate me as a right-wing nut job.

I didn't understand the criticism. In my letter, I argued the libertarian position: that it was not right to tax people and use the money to add medication to drinking water, literally forcing it down the throat of the citizenry. I also raised the issue of there possibly being other than purely disinterested, public-spirited motives at work behind the push to fluoridate.

In the end, I don't think this or any of my letters had any effect - except, perhaps, to stroke my ego - so I gave up the practice some time ago. (Getting paid for what you write is ever more satisfying, even without a byline, but I digress...)

In doing a little 'net research on synthetic fluorine foam firefighting agents, I managed to stumble across this page at the web site of the Fluoride Action Network.

If the information presented can be trusted, it turns out that:

• Cavities have declined at impressive rates throughout the entire western, industrialized world over the past half century. This includes Western Europe, 98% of which drinks unfluoridated water.
  
• Fluoride used to fluoridate water is actually a phosphate fertilizer industry waste product.
  
• The chemicals used to fluoridate over 90% of U.S. drinking water have never been tested for safety or effectiveness.
  
• The largest dental survey ever conducted in the US found virtually no difference in dental decay between children living in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated areas.

The Network's page suggests that the real "oral health crisis" in the U.S. today is not lack of fluoride in the water, but the lack of private dental insurance among the poor and "underinvestment" in Medicaid by the government, which is not exactly a position one associates with "right-wing nut jobs."

Wandering ever further away from the topic of my research, I also stumbled across this reasonably balanced GoodTimes article by Rob Pratt on the struggle for and against fluoridation in Santa Cruz, California.

Still haven't found what I'm looking for, though.

Cheers...

Comments

[bandicoot.livejournal.com]

Both the sites you cite are quite anti-fluoridation. I'm quite familar with the Santa Cruz situation, and the anti-fluoridation spokespeople there are the same rabid nuts who rail against everything, from fluoridation to logging. They have no new information and rely on "sources" such as the first page you cite, which is an anti-fluoridation advocacy group.

As far as fluoridation effectiveness goes, both my parents were born in South Dakota in different areas. That state is well-known for it's horrible - ie, highly mineral-laden - water, with the specific minerals differing from area to area. Some areas have water that's naturally high in flourine. My dad came from such an area, and he never had a cavity in his life. My mother had bad teeth from day one, mineral-stained and soft. So the mineral content of water does play a part, even if you chose to argue the degree of effectiveness and the method of delivery.

Yes. I'm grouchy this morning. Bite me ;)