Raise the Hammer

Regardless of whether or not we continue to fluoridate our water, this city's dental services to the poor are woefully insufficient. Fluoridation may help strengthen teeth, but it does little once a cavity has formed, or wisdom teeth are coming in crooked, or a tooth gets chipped in an accident/assault, or orthodontic work is needed. Though the city does provide some dental work for low-income residents, it involves long line-ups, a serious possibility that one won't be seen, and the cut-offs are ridiculous. A good friend of mine was turned away after waiting in line outside all morning in the snow, because he wasn't poor enough - which they judged by the fact he lived with his girlfriend, despite the fact that their incomes, together or combined, are still leaps and bounds below the poverty line. To add insult to injury, many of the public health workers involved also have no dental plan.

Anyone who's has serious tooth problems knows that this is no less essential than any other medical service. Fluoridating water is no substitute for expert attention.

undustrialism.blogspot.com

(Permalink)

I agree with your assessment of both the importance and the inadequacy of dental care for the poor. However, the city isn't in a position to take on that financial responsibility - you just can't run elaborate social programs on a property tax base. Instead, the province should be ensuring that full dental care is covered under OHIP.

(Permalink)

Ryan, I agree with your post. Taken one step further, the city should not be involved in social services as the lack the tax base. These should be provincial decisions.

(Permalink)

Fluoridation has never been about real science but it is about industrial lobby and special interest groups. The grand claims are very far from reality. Proof by bias design is quite easy if only one result is accepted for grants. The York Review 2000 discovered of the thousands of claimed proofs not one was of high quality but all of bias design and poor quality. So poor they could not prove safety or benefit. They did state that fluoridation tripled dental fluorosis damage from 15% to 48% with 12.5% being ugly enough for cosmetic repair. The most current review Pizzo 2007 showed 51% with dental fluorosis and no increrease in cavities when fluoridation ends. Also no narrowing of the dental gap between rich and poor which the health department claims. The NIDR huge study in 1986-87 showed no difference in cavities between fluoridated and non fluoridated so they delayed release for 3 years and only reported on small subsets not the overall no difference. Fluoridealert.org has a long analysis of the true results not the for the public lies. Studies in Canada and New Zealand have proven this but to admit this end the persons job immediately. Same just happened in Australia. Ingested fluoride damages teeth and has no benefit but topical reminerizes but not at 1ppm. It is nothing but a con job that damages kids teeth and give the rest chronic cumulative toxin issues as the NRC 2006 showed but is ignored for policy. Waterloowatch.com is a excellent site with lots of very current data and videos by researchers. Let this be about science not political power. Kids need dentists.

(Permalink)

The products used in 92 % of the cities comes directly from smokestack scrubbers and has about 20 toxic contaminates not mentioned to the public.Arsenic leads the list and is often the main source of arsenic in a cities water. The EPA testimony in 2004 in New Jersey showed 20-25 cancers from this alone per million. Lead is second but the FSA product is very corrosive and leaches lead from brass meters,faucet,shut offs,fittings ,solder and is by far the main source of lead in your homes water. When chloramine is used it can go off the charts and did in Washington DC for 4 years as they did not discover it for almost 3 years as lead in homes is tested every 3. They did an excellent coverup and blamed lead supply lines only. After adding corrosion control chemicals the problem is under control. Not one chronic study was ever done for safety or benefits on FSA but it is Known to be 25 times more deadly then natural calcium fluoride which the theory is based on and you hear refered to. Smoke and mirrors. The Yoder K.M. 2007 study showed only 17% of dental professions understood the new science of fluoridation. Most still believe the myth taught in school with blind faith. Only 14% got it right in Illinois. Should that qualify anyone for leadership on a issue. It has so far. Look up some studies and then read the safe for all and everyone benefits PR material again in a new light. It should scare you. Jim Schultz

(Permalink)