Study Proves Fluoride Does Not Promote Dental Health – US Teeth “Significantly” Worse than UK

Posted by on December 31, 2015 in Hazards, Issues & Diseases, Health with 39 Comments
image_pdfimage_print

us-teeth-uk-teeth

By Claire Bernish | Natural Blaze

Blowing the pro-water-fluoridation argument out of the water, a new study by Harvard and University College London just found Brits — notoriously crooked smiles and all — actually have better dental health than people in the United States. No, seriously.

Related Article: Other Nations Avoid This Like the Plague, Yet the US Shamelessly Peddles It


Despite a water fluoridation rate of 66%, and 74% for those who rely on a public source, Americans’ dental health simply doesn’t match up to that of their British counterparts — where only 10% of supply contains fluoride.

“Contrary to popular belief, our study showed that the oral health of U.S. citizens is not better than the English, with Americans having significantly more missing teeth,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Richard Watt, Professor in Dental Public Health, Dept. of Epidemiology and Public Health, at UCL.

There is a longstanding belief in the United States that the British have terrible teeth, much worse than U.S. citizens. This view dates back at least 100 years, with toothpaste adverts extolling the virtues of American smiles.

Contemporary examples of this belief in popular U.S. culture range from The Simpsons to the popular Hollywood character Austin Powers and his repugnant smile.

Related Article: New Landmark Study: ‘No Evidence’ Water Fluoridation Prevents Cavities

Researchers looked to data on thousands of people in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the English Adult Dental Health Survey and found the “mean number of missing teeth was significantly higher in the U.S.,” at 7.31 versus 6.97 in England. The numbers are striking for juveniles, as 12-year-old Britons with missing or filled teeth averaged 0.7, while U.S. 12-year-olds averaged 1.3. With fluoridated water being touted as the reason for outstanding dental health in the U.S., the results of this study certainly call such boastful claims to task.

In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found rates of dental fluorosis — “caused by long-term ingestion of fluoride during the time teeth are forming” and characterized by white spots in its mildest forms, to “staining andpitting in the more severe forms” — increased from 1999-2004 (the year of its study data) over previous numbers in the period from 1986-1987. This happened despite the original goal of fluoridation in the 1930s of decreasing the dental fluorosis rate.According to the CDC’s web page on Community Fluoridation:


Water and processed beverages (e.g. soft drinks and fruit juices [note: food processed using fluoridated water is listed elsewhere]) can provide approximately 75% of a person’s fluoride intake […]You should know the fluoride concentration in your primary source of drinking water, especially if you have young children.

With all this fluoride consumed in the U.S., one would expect the Harvard/UCL study to have dramatically different findings — if fluoridated water were actually doing what the government purports. Though the study did not factor in rates of fluoridation — and indeed was “not able to explore in depth potential explanations for [its] findings” — the comparison is certainly worth consideration.

“Water fluoridation was implemented before statistics had been compiled on its safety or effectiveness,” Stephen Peckham, Director and Professor of Health Policy at Kent University’s Centre for Health Service Studies, told the Guardian. “You can’t really confidently say that water fluoridation is either safe or effective. There is a problem where the evidence is seen as either totally in favor or totally negative, and it’s more murky than that.”

Doubts, as the Guardian pointed out, certainly abound, as experts and researchers have cited studies finding correlations to fluoridated water supplies and bladder cancer, bone cancer in boys, hyperthyroidism, hip fractures, and lower IQ in children.

Related Article: New Evidence Links Fluoride (In Our Drinking Water!) to Increasing Cases of ADHD

“It’s been going on since 1950, and we are still having the same arguments over the same research,” Peckham continued. “We don’t have the information to address this. I think they should have a moratorium [on water fluoridation].”

In the meantime, you might want to rethink jabbing the Brits for their, er, gangly smiles.

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Read more great articles at Natural Blaze.

Tags: , , , , ,

Subscribe

If you enjoyed this article, subscribe now to receive more just like it.

Subscribe via RSS Feed Connect on YouTube

39 Reader Comments

Trackback URL Comments RSS Feed

  1. 1705697613010585@facebook.com' Jessica Camacho says:

    Must be a money maker. They only make prescription infants vitamins with fluoride, and push it on parents.

    • 1018549664855807@facebook.com' Barbara Halstead says:

      The Nazis used it before WWII……it makes people more docile….and dumbs them down.
      It has been known for decades that it is harmful…..yet it is still added to the public water.

    • 1705697613010585@facebook.com' Jessica Camacho says:

      It’s added to bottled water marketed to children also. Never knew that Nazi information. Really amazing what goes on, and what people so readily accept. O remember growing up, learning about Nazi’s and the holocaust. Always wondered how it could have happened. Sad to see and imagine how very easily it must have happened, and terrifying to know history could very well repeat itself.

    • 10207951003523520@facebook.com' David Copping says:

      Yet another poorly written and researched article. Very self serving – as many of the articles published here are.
      The main reference article doesnt mention flouridisation as a causative or correlational factor at all. The differences between missing teeth are very small – they are statistically significant at the 3 sigma limit but the differences for adults is 0.34 and 0.6 for children. This represents a difference of 1 and 2 percent respectively. Not a bigg difference huh.
      Further, fluoridation has positive imapcts on preventing caries formation ( more than 5000 studies over 25 years confirm this and less than 300 present any negative findings – of these 85% found the impact only to be cosmetic )
      Further, the fluoride ions added to water supplies are (0.3 ppm naturally occuring levels) are identical and come from the same souce – phosphate based minerals. The added fluoride brings concentrations up to between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm – representing 1 tenthousandth of a percent per litre of water.
      Next, fluoride concentrations in toothpastes – used twice daily – exceed these values (but still in the ppm) and lastly. Diet and general oral care are more signigicant contributors to the reduction of tooth decay than fluoride. Fluoridation is just a great low cost preventative health care initiative and does nothing but reduce the chances of dental caries.

  2. 983978681660374@facebook.com' Douglas Dwayne Jones says:

    Doesn’t make any difference to the ones that have already lost their teeth

  3. 1120357331309049@facebook.com' Aiden Nedia Ashlie says:

    We need a class action lawsuit against these corrupt USA officers for the implementing and continual utilization of such a horrific man made nuclear waste product as sodium fluoride

  4. 10153999423175579@facebook.com' Brandon Capes says:

    weeooooww what a surprise

  5. 1066589133372830@facebook.com' Russell Angerer says:

    It’s called a tooth brush not a teeth brush!!!?

  6. 1643436245945507@facebook.com' Jennifer Ramjit says:

    1 for toothache hahaha

  7. 147256585646138@facebook.com' Patricia Mercado says:

    The cost of dental care is to high.

  8. 1075100935833566@facebook.com' Thomas Rooney says:

    dont think hes going to be able to eat the whole apple…lol

  9. 414225402105685@facebook.com' Rhonda Ciccolella says:

    Don’t believe this drivel!!

  10. 1627756817486369@facebook.com' Djinni Man says:

    when a research says that your teeth are less healthier than those in the UK, thats when you need to wake up, ja ja

  11. 10205255556450883@facebook.com' Erin Howard says:

    My dental health improved significantly when I gave up fluoride toothpastes. Haven’t had a cavity in two years!

  12. 10153607988649548@facebook.com' Patricia McCarthy says:

    Not all British are toothless, this is an american myth by watching comedy movies…

  13. 132046467162721@facebook.com' Xavier Axe says:

    citizens x
    murica loves fda big gov

    it crates jobs
    bullshit jobs

  14. 147592155612040@facebook.com' Janet Mcvicar says:

    Probably because Brits have better health care programs. Also Americans eat a lot of sugar.

  15. 10153364482697219@facebook.com' Tim Withington says:

    Toothless fatties then,UK 1,’Murica 0!

  16. 172883543065277@facebook.com' Laura Asselin Puckett says:

    I think its because dentist are too exspensive

  17. 1114602081891428@facebook.com' Kalli Hauter says:

    Fluoride and Meff

  18. 933385023398451@facebook.com' Bryce Hitt says:

    Now

  19. 10153806470129500@facebook.com' Sadie Light says:

    I have to say the cost of saving teeth is astronomical and most dental insurances are crappy…. if you have the state insurance they will only cover having a tooth pulled not a root canal or anything other than a cavity…. and once you start pulling teeth it is a domino effect losing more teeth and bone

  20. 1549226785399052@facebook.com' Corey Holmes says:

    Glenn Cartwright

  21. 10153709557380791@facebook.com' Larry Saunders says:

    Must be interesting getting in an argument. …shut up. Or I’ll knock your tooth out

  22. 1542313689422494@facebook.com' Chillah Moezi says:

    Jam Moe. Damon Root.

  23. 10207951003523520@facebook.com' David Copping says:

    David Copping Yet another poorly written and researched article. Very self serving – as many of the articles published here are.
    The main reference article doesnt mention flouridisation as a causative or correlational factor at all. The differences between missing teeth are very small – they are statistically significant at the 3 sigma limit but the differences for adults is 0.34 and 0.6 for children. This represents a difference of 1 and 2 percent respectively. Not a bigg difference huh.
    Further, fluoridation has positive imapcts on preventing caries formation ( more than 5000 studies over 25 years confirm this and less than 300 present any negative findings – of these 85% found the impact only to be cosmetic )
    Further, the fluoride ions added to water supplies are (0.3 ppm naturally occuring levels) are identical and come from the same souce – phosphate based minerals. The added fluoride brings concentrations up to between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm – representing 1 tenthousandth of a percent per litre of water.
    Next, fluoride concentrations in toothpastes – used twice daily – exceed these values (but still in the ppm) and lastly. Diet and general oral care are more signigicant contributors to the reduction of tooth decay than fluoride. Fluoridation is just a great low cost preventative health care initiative and does nothing but reduce the chances of dental caries.

  24. 10153499967383580@facebook.com' Kimberly Lucas says:

    If dental health is so important to physical health, I’m not sure why the insurance is so crappy. There is mental health parity. Why don’t we have dental parity?

  25. 1222403771107914@facebook.com' Skyler Champagne says:

    Tibetha Stonechild

  26. 921902167888914@facebook.com' Annie Halpin says:

    Nor does expensive Dental fees.

  27. 1125285054161818@facebook.com' Jeremy Colwell says:

    Amanda Lee Crowe

  28. 10153321971587467@facebook.com' Wheezy Williams says:

    John Andrew Williams you were saying? ?

  29. 10153667205303745@facebook.com' Rick Es says:

    But it’s a great cheap way to dispose of a hazardous chemical by industry. Poison the general public, convince dentists and municipal government and save billions in handling fees.

New Title

NOTE: Email is optional. Do NOT enter it if you do NOT want it displayed.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

FAIR USE NOTICE. Many of the articles on this site contain copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making this material available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental issues, human rights, economic and political democracy, and issues of social justice. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law which contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. If you wish to use such copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use'...you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. And, if you are a copyright owner who wishes to have your content removed, let us know via the "Contact Us" link at the top of the site, and we will promptly remove it.

The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. Conscious Life News assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to these terms.

Paid advertising on Conscious Life News may not represent the views and opinions of this website and its contributors. No endorsement of products and services advertised is either expressed or implied.
Top
Send this to a friend