American doctor against fluoridation polls

Press, Volume CXV, Issue 33774, 21 February 1975, Page 14

American doctor against fluoridation polls

Referendums on such issues as fluoridation are not favoured by a prominent American pediatrician who has spent 30 years promoting the fluoridation of public water supplies.

Dr Russell B. Scobie, of Newburgh, New York, said in Christchurch that a referendum could not destroy or establish a scientific fact. If people did not know anything about a subject they would vote against it. Dr Scobie said he was on a private visit to Christchurch but he always used opportunities to publicise the facts about fluoridation. A graduate of Yale University and the Yale School -of Medicine, Dr Sobie has been president of the paediatric section of the New York State Medical Society, state chairman of the American Academy of Paediatrics, head of paediatrics at St Luke’s Hospital in Newburgh and a district governor of Rotary J He was primarily responsible for Newburgh’s being selected in 1944 for the now classic Newburgh-Kingston fluoridation study and has presented papers and lectures i

around the world on water fluoridation. Referendums were the strongest field for “antifluoridationists,” said Dr: Scobie. Their tactics had always been "go heavy on the emotions and go light on the facts.” “In this way these people, mav avoid the scrutiny of science and the necessity of providing scientific evidence in support of specific factual claims.” Since 1945 Newburgh’s, water supply had been fluoridated with between 0.8 and 1.2 parts of fluoride to one million parts of water, a; generation had been bom and raised on fluoridated water; and no adverse or harmful; side-effects had ever been: revealed, said Dr Scobie. “Unfortunately, though the; scientific evidence of the; benefits of water fluoridation is overwhelmingly positive; and the safety factor has; been proved repeatedly, there remains a vocal and! persistent opposition to the fluoridation of communal; i water supplies.”

Few public health measures had had such extensive studies. The opposition relied on innuendo, half-truths and : deliberate untruths to support their position. “They never ask fori information although theyi are always willing to provide: instruction. They know the answer and are obviously not susceptible to educational efforts. ‘Don’t bother me with facts, my mind is madeup,’ is not an uncommon reply.” The answer to those who claimed that fluoridating water supplies was an infringement of personal liberties, Dr Scobie said that fluoride was not a medicine, it was an essential mineral nutrient. It was essential for growth and development. A medicine was given to heal, improve or cure a condition. Fluoride could not heal a cavity in a tooth. It could only help prevent it. COST It was estimated to cost an average of 10c a person a year in the United States to fluoridate water. The cost of supplying a person with fluoridated drinking water for a lifetime was less than the cost of treating one cavity in a tooth. A recent Boston study of children aged from six to 17 showed that in a 15-year period, the reduction in necessary dental services at present prices was calculated at $1.98m. Adding all costs, the result would mean that $1 spent on fluoridation would save $35 in dental bills.

Discussing the difference between fluoridation of a central water supply and the fluordiation of a school water

supply, Dr Scobie said that ! since children were aged five or six before entering school it meant fluoride would not be introduced into the calcifying ehamel in the important early years. He regarded methods which involved treatment of a single person at a- time, such as the direct application of a fluoride solution, as “time consuming, relatively expensive and difficult to administer on a public health scale.” “NO ILL EFFECTS” In areas where the natural occurrence of fluoride was above one part per million of water, there were no appreciable ill effects on people. In fact in Bartlett, Texas, the incidence was 8 p.p.m. and no old people ever suffered broken hips except in motor accidents—an indication of the strength of their bones. Neither did fluoride have any appreciable effect on plumbing systems, and the American Academy of Allergy had stated that there was no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluoride as used in water supplies.