Fluoridation

Press, 12 July 1979, Page 16

Fluoridation

Sir, — I wonder why it is that dentists are pushing the case for fluoridation? I fail to understand why, if fluoride does eliminate dental caries, dentists are trying to talk themselves out of work? Surely the unemployment situation is bad enough Without dentists attaching themselves to the dole queue? Why do we not hear from scientists who are trained in research instead of from dentists whose training is in the extraction and filling of teeth, for which they are well recompensed. — Yours, etc., MARGARET HEAP. July 10, 1979.

Sir, — In reply to M, Macdonald’s statistics (July 10) I would crave permission to quote from my broader-based research. The approximate population of the world today is 5000 M, but of this immense number only 100.4 M are subject to fluoridation, and 100 M of these reside in the United States with a total population of 220 M, so that less than half have responded to the magical “caries cure.” Having never had fluoridation, or having had it and rejected it, are Belgium, France, Germany, Austria, Luxemburg, Spain, Italy, Greece, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Yugoslavia and the Netherlands, the last country to reject fluoridation “as a public health measure.” Basle, the only city in Switzerland to be fluoridated, is at present considering rejection, “because it has not lived up to expectations.” Even in the United States some of the unfluoridated cities such as New York or Los Angeles have three times the population of New Zealand. — Yours, etc., JOHN J. FORSTER, Publicity Officer. New Zealand Pure Water Association Canterbury Rranr.h

July 10, 1979. Sir, — What is the good news of fluoridation? The teeth of the nation are improving. The Department of Health in June released figures showing that in 1979 among high school aged children, the number of fillings on average at each comnleted treatment was

Sir, — What is the good news of fluoridation? The teeth of the nation are improving. The Department of Health in June released figures showing that in 1979 among high school aged children, the number of fillings on average at each completed treatment was 1.41 fillings. In 1968, the figure was 3.53 fillings, a reduction in treatment of approximately 60 per cent. Furtl-ermore, in four sample areas last year, the figures showed a difference in the proportion of completed treatments in which no fillings were required. These ranged from 30 per cent for a non-fluoridated area to 46 per cent for a predominantly fluoridated area. So the costs to the taxpayer from the fluoridated areas is less because fewer fillings are required. The non-fluoridated areas, such as Christchurch, spoil the New Zealand aver-

age. and their children have less chance of that top rating “no fillings.” — Yours, etc., JOHN ASHBY, President, Canterbury branch New Zealand Dental Association. July 10, 1979. Sir, — After reading the letters of M. Macdonald and B. Stanley one would think that parents in the Christchurch City Council area do not care about their children’s teeth and are depriving their children of something special. If this is the case, then most parents around the world, are irresponsible according to our correspondents, for only 3 per cent of the world's population is on fluoridated water. The following Western European countries have rejected or have no fluoride or have only a pilot scheme: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Western Germany (discontinued a study on December 13, 1978, because the question of harm could outweigh the possible benefit), Greece, the Netherlands (removed all fluoridation in 1976) Norway, Sweden (stopped in 1971 on medical grounds) Switzerland, Hun* gary, Yugoslavia, Italy. If all these advanced countries reject fluoridation, on whatever grounds, why are our dental and medical spokesmen pushing so hard when after 25 years of promotion, hardly any nation, in the world, has it? — Yours, etc., C. G. MARSHALL. July 10, 1979.

Sir, — Many children for numerous reasons cannot endure the emotional stresses associated with dental treatment. Manx’ of these are under five. Often because of anxiety and lack of co-operation treatment is delayed, the consequences being gross destruction of teeth with associated pain and infection. These children are dental cripples, in a society which is placing increasing emphasis on the social reward of good oral health. This situation can be prevented by correct diet and good oral habits, but sadly there are many children in Christchurch who have neither, as the figures for decay indicate. Therefore, the most effective and safe community measure is to fluoridate our water supply. This alone will reduce the number of children seeking relief of pain by 85 per cent and the number of general anaesthetics required for extraction of teeth by 75 per cent (Whitehead, 1976). — Yours, etc.,

G. LINGARD. Specialist in Children’s Dentistry. July 9, 1979.

Sir, — Several of your correspondents have stated that fluoride tablets are a suitable substitute for water fluoridation. I disagree because: (I) In giving tablets there is little local effect on the surface of the teeth and this benefit is not repeated throughout the day as with fluoridated water. (2) Parents with the best of intentions still forget to give the tablet every day. (3) Motivating the parents of the children who probably most need fluoride supplement is very difficult and has been unsuccessful in the past, e.g. in Tasmania where fluoride tablets were available free of charge only 18 per cent of the parents bothered to make use of the service. (4) The cost of buying one year’s supply of tablets is $1.50 per person compared with Waimairi’s budgeted running costs of 23 cents per person per year. — Yours, etc., F R E E R K KEMPKERS, B.D.S. July 9, 1979.

Sir, — For the benefit of Dr MacKinnon (July 10) the Canterbury branch of the Royal Society facilitated the 1974 report; it did not endorse it and only one member was on the committee. No Royal Society anywhere has endorsed fluoridation. The W.H.O. in a letter says

“. . . as far as we know no international control limits for fluorides or standards of analysis exist. Certainly none have been established or recommended by the W.H.0., nor, to the best of our knowledge by any other United Nations agency.” Christchurch is unfiuoridated yet dental nurses now spend 30 per cent of their time lecturing on dental health and oral hygiene. This educational policy means fewer fillings being required. The 1969 intake of dental nurses was 60, this year 25. In an unfluoridated area with such a success rate we do not need fluoridation and the caries rate is only slightly higher than Waimairi. — Yours, etc., JACK D. MEECHIN. July 10, 1979.