The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

“A1 l Kl ( M)(,HIONI(.u: - Wednesdaylktubet 3.1003 ' J #3"- . ‘ i ' fâ€" 7 f f V‘â€" TITâ€""W Fluoridation facts Royal College of Dental Surgeons responds to questions raised by local debate BV‘BUBVRM'ut‘ metnbers of the public. voted like many natural substances, ’ I I ‘_ ‘. 7 7 "it'll”flllilfflrd W.-- unanimously iii support of water fluoride can be harmful iii exces> - $_‘L fluoridation. l'hey said the accept sive amounts. but Dr. Stechey said m ‘ “rays: in Mfg ' w te president oi the Royal (jolr ed facts determined by panels of changes made by Health Canada in '* 331” ”3""? i t.- ' fig 5 "$5 I lege of Dental Surgeons has international scientists frotn the 2007 etisures the exposure to fltio- » ‘ . h responded to questions World Health Organization, the ride remains below levels that _ 7 .. ., . .g‘E. regarding the practice of lluorida- U S ('entre for Disease (Lontrol to could cause adverse health effects . V 4' “h w”: . . ,3 . tioti tti Waterloo. reaffirming to Health (latitida endorse the while still achieving a ptiblic health zfitww-‘vfifiywr 1 urganiLation's support of its effet» practice. benefit ofpreventing cavtties. '~ . , . 'mi‘u V tivetiess in preventing cavtties and Since the college didn't want to Overall. Dr. Stechey said the . '1"! rg’vf' Wk'x" . its overall safety get involved iii the debate directly weight of evtdence does not sup- ‘31 ‘3‘”: Z 3 I" I"; ':‘ a ‘7 Dr. frank Stechey. was respond- \vith anti-tltioridation groups, the port a lirtk between exposure to flu- , t . Hug ” i “‘1' trig to a list of questions provided (Lhroniclc asked a number of its oride in drinking water at 1.5 ntg/l. " i 1“ N i URO pl UOPQ ‘ by the Waterloo ('lironicle after the own questions. and any adverse health effects ' ' i ‘ ~ Ontario regulatory body for the Dr. Stechey's written response involving cancer. reproductive or ". flag...» 1 Ni: x _ ’ province's detttists refused to get reiterated that fluoride is a natural development effectsor toxicity. ' Wfi“) itito a war of words With the execu- ly occurring mineral that is found Huorosilicic acid in the roost ‘ k‘fiw'fl’ " live director of Waterloo Watch. in the soil. air and water supplies conttnonly used compound used in ' \ I > ’ ' Robert Fleming. over an open letter [he big advantage of water fluori» the process and is derived front the , ~ >__.’ . his group submitted to the organi- dation is that it benefits all resi- production of phosphate fertilizers. I ..- Wilts: .2129". - ration in August. Waterloo Watch dents in a community, regardless of Dr. Stechey said it is recovered in websites and links to national. U.S. es mottled teeth. However, the asked the college for the source sci» age. socioeconoitiic status, educa- evaporators and condensed to a and international studies on the quality ofthis evidence was poor. ence behind the positions it staked tion. or employment or dental high purity fluorosilicic acid that issue. The Chronicle will include a An association between water out in a policy statement adopted insurance status, he said, It partictr can be used for water fluoridation. list of the links in its special cover» fluoridation and list of adverse in 2003. larly helps the underprivileged who There are no radioactive materials age of the issue as the Nov. 8. 2010 health effects. like cancer. was not Dr. Stechey reiterated that the are the hardest to reach with pre~ included. plebiscite grows near. found. However, the researchers college is not responsible for the vetttative measures. lt's certified bya number of bod- While the list seemed compre- felt that not enough was known to education of dentists and there is Another major benefit is that it ies including Health Canada. the hensive. it's interesting that one draw a conclusion because of the no legal or statutory requirement reduces the cost of dental care in National Sanitation Foundation those links Dr. Stechey cited was to poor quality of the evidence in the for dentists to agree with or imple- Canada. As it stands now it is still and America National Standards the Systematic Review of Water research reviewed. ment its position on fluoridation. the second largest item paid out by Institute. Fluoridation done by the University Also the evidence about reduc~ But the college‘s governing private insurers after drug As for the cost associated with onork looking at British and lnter- ing inequalities in dental health council. made up of dentists and treatments. fluoridation. Dr. Stechey said the national data. The “York Review" is was of poor quality. contradictory U.S. Centers for Disease Control often used as scientific confirma. and unreliable. and Prevention reports the annual tion of the effectiveness of water Since the York Review was ongi» Chmnldc’squesdonstoflle cost offluoridati'on is approximate fluoridation. nally published in 2000. the Royal W ofDental was ly 50 cents in communities equal to But the researchers involved researchers said there has been no 20.000 people to approximately $3 with the York Review were so con- other scientifically defensible Docs (In Royal w In. the m m b m a. per person in communities equal cerned about the continuing misin- review that would alter their find» mm. ”mm“ “lflhflpl to $5.000 in 1995 dollars for all but terpretations of their study that ings. As emphastzed in the report. 0“ mammthaFu m. the smallest water systems. they published a companion piece only high-quality studies can fill in “in“? A CDC study also estimated that about what their research really the gaps and not enough of that no" a” m W m on, m on mm my every dollar invested in community discovered. work has been done to date. mu m “mmdmmu water fluoridation saved $38 in The researches said they were it's exactly that type of research ” hum to mm.“ m an“ avotded costs for dental treatment. unable to discover any reliable. that Fleming said he's been asking ”mm . At the same time the national cost goodâ€"quality evidence in the fluori- for. and is missing in the run tip to The lay-I W m '5. W a d m .s. to fill a cavity was $05. dation literature worldwide. Waterloo‘s plebiscite. _ WMMMBWWWC db. In addition to his response. Dr. What eVIdence they did find “What the college provided in a mummuthm . Stechey attached a copy of the dis- suggested that water fluoridation request for source science is noth- m does the W W a” I. “mm cussion paper prepared by the Fed- was likely to have a beneficial ing more the web links recounting duals-l m “mega...“ eral-Provincial-Territorial Commit- effect. but that the range could be the same opinions. endorsements “mm-b“ IN“ a. tee on Drinking Water in Septem» anywhere from a substantial bene- and name dropping as always." mwmmumum “I‘- ber 2009 for Health Canada. The fit to a slight “disbenefit” to chil- said Heming. m on m m a.“ a. m m any up In a. federal ministry is still seeking pub- dren’s teeth. “Such claims. without scientific m ”mum a an “an lic comment on fluoride in drink» This beneficial effect comes at proof. remain meaningless regard- mumww ingwater until November. the expense of an increase in the less of how many times they're He also included three pages of prevalence of fluorosis, which caus- pointed to." Benjamin #â€" r} +- P (fl {1 a , f) L, / ) Moore A“ " =77»: W 9 1: fig t L11 U ‘. 8M) 9‘“ .418 9.9 t y I ’ .i \ , . Q r . ‘ it - «3:. .- . . i l W“ W . . . v \ I i \n i‘ ) ‘ 5 a ‘ . ' "v r; i l ’ - “Bell 0 to “81W.