Data for 40 states shown in this chart come from two separate documents
published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention:
"1) "Percentage of third-grade students with treated or untreated tooth decay
(various dates; no data for 10 states as of December 2010)
Update, January 4, 2011: two more states were added:
Minnesota: tooth decay rate = 55% (fluoridation rate = 99%)
Virginia: tooth decay rate = 47% (fluoridation rate = 95%)
If this tooth-decay chart represents the quality of data that justifies the policy of prescribing fluoride for everyone via their drinking water, then fluoridation's statistical association with rates of mental retardation, obesity, infant mortality, ADHD, and arthritis provides even more compelling evidence to stop fluoridation.
|
A key finding in the 2007 Oregon Smile Survey was that children living in non-fluoridated Portland actually had better dental health than the rest of Oregon. Oregon Department of Human Services reported that "Children in the Portland metropolitan area have less untreated tooth decay, are less likely to have ever had a cavity and are less likely to need urgent dental treatment."
See Reference #15 for details how Oregon's tooth decay rates increased as its fluoridation rates increased.
Ontario has Canada's highest rate of water fluoridation, while Quebec has one of the lowest, with practically no one drinking fluoridated water. But the two provinces have very little difference in tooth-decay rates; less than half a cavity per child. – The Globe and Mail, April 15, 2010 |
The CDC's flagship claim that water fluoridation
causes an 18% reduction in tooth decay is statistical spin.
This table is from a U.S. government report in 1990.
|
TABLE 6
MEAN DMFS OF U.S. CHILDREN WITH PERMANENT TEETH BY AGE AND WATER FLUORIDATION EXPOSURE |
|||
|
Life-long Water Fluoridation
Exposure
|
No Water Fluoridation
Exposure
|
||
|
Age
|
Mean DMFS*
|
Mean DMFS*
|
Percent Difference
|
|
5
|
0.03
|
0.10
|
70
|
|
6
|
0.14
|
0.14
|
0
|
|
7
|
0.36
|
0.53
|
32
|
|
8
|
0.64
|
0.79
|
19
|
|
9
|
1.05
|
1.33
|
21
|
|
10
|
1.64
|
1.85
|
11
|
|
11
|
2.12
|
2.63
|
19
|
|
12
|
2.46
|
2.97
|
17
|
|
13
|
3.43
|
4.41
|
22
|
|
14
|
4.05
|
5.18
|
22
|
|
15
|
5.53
|
6.03
|
8
|
|
16
|
6.02
|
7.41
|
19
|
|
17
|
7.01
|
8.59
|
18
|
|
All Ages
|
2.79
|
3.39
|
18
|
| * All means adjusted to age and gender distribution of total U.S. population ages 5-17. | |||
DMFS = Decayed, Missing, and Filled permanent tooth Surfaces.
That 18 percent difference for all ages refers to an actual difference in tooth decay of only six-tenths (0.60) of one tooth surface out of a total of more than 100 tooth surfaces.
The data show that kids in fluoridated communities averaged 97.2 healthy undecayed tooth surfaces (based on 100 surfaces), while unfluoridated kids averaged 96.6. That 0.6 difference is less than 1% of the total, so this huge government study actually showed water fluoridation had an insignificant effect on the oral health of children.
That 18% is very misleading becomes obvious when looking at the similarly calculated result for five-year-olds where a mere seven one-hundredth (0.07) of one tooth surface is considered a 70% reduction in tooth decay!
See Reference #4 for further information.
Another example showing the lack of correlation between water fluoridation
and tooth decay is seen the first national Oral Health Report Card (2000).
Nationally, the CDC says "approximately 8 million persons received water with sufficient naturally occurring fluoride concentrations." (See Reference #11.) Why do we never hear about the better oral health these people are supposed to have? The failure of naturally fluoridated water to reduce cavities must not be ignored, because this unscientific assumption was the original rationale for artificially fluoridating drinking water more than half a century ago.
|
Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD, concluded in her May 27, 2010 comments to EPA: "The best recent data available indicate little or no beneficial effect of water fluoridation on oral health." In his comments, Paul Connett, PhD, cited 13 studies and reviews published since 1980 that "indicate little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities." |
Fluoride works topically (see Reference #20) – when applied directly to teeth, not by swallowing it. But even that mechanism is questionable, as reported in December 2010: The protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. It's only 6 nanometers thick. It would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. The researchers question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay. (Does fluoride really fight cavities by 'the skin of the teeth?')
The true link to tooth decay is income status, not fluoridation status.
Poorer kids everywhere have more tooth decay. (See Reference #13.)
|
What's Lead Got to Do with It? When 24,901 persons aged 2 years and older were given a dental examination and tested for lead, "blood lead level was significantly associated with the number of affected surfaces for both deciduous and permanent teeth in all age groups, even after adjusting for sociodemographic characteristics, diet, and dental care. The researchers concluded: "Environmental lead exposure is associated with an increased prevalence of dental caries in the US population. Findings may help explain the distribution of caries by income and region of the United States."
– "Association of Dental Caries and Blood Lead Levels,"
Fluoridation chemicals leach lead into drinking water
|
See chart of CDC data for tooth loss compared to fluoridation rates in 49 states.
Dr. A.K. Susheela has extensively researched fluoride toxicity.
Find your state data for rates of fluoridation and diseases in one table.
Charts of CDC data show statistical associations
Water Fluoridation – Sales Pitch vs. Reality Check
This page revised February 22, 2011
See her Publications on Fluoride Toxicity & Fluorosis: On Human Subjects.
between states' fluoridation rates and adverse health effects.
is a comprehensive 2008 report by John D. MacArthur.