[PLUG-TALK] Fwd: Newspapers and Fluoride

[Russell Senior]

>>>>> "glen" == glen  <gepr at ropella.name> writes:

glen> Yeah, while I appreciate that Novick pointed out that article, I
glen> still haven't seen my argument addressed.  It just seems lazy
glen> and stupid to continue using 60 year old technology to solve the
glen> problem of cavities in poor children.

glen> What other 60 year old technologies do we still use in their
glen> original form? Phones? Internal combustion engines?
glen> Hydroelectric power?  Pencils?  Paperclips?  And, of those that
glen> we still use in their original form, which ones are still used
glen> because they are specific and no more optimal solutions have
glen> been found versus which ones could clearly be replaced with more
glen> effective and efficient solutions?  Surely, there are better
glen> solutions to the problem of cavities in poor children. [...]

>From my reading about this, it appears that the primary mechanism by
which fluoride has a protective effect is by the presence of fluoride
ions in the mouth, over time, as potentially erosive chemical
processes are at work.  So, the challenge would be to invent some
device that would deliver that fluoride in the mouth, distributed over
time.  What device can you imagine to do that safely and at low cost?
I'm having trouble imagining anything that wouldn't be invasive and
high maintenance.  So, you can well say "hey, can't we do better?" But
the next sentence should be: "here's a better way, look at how much
better it is!"  I haven't heard that second sentence.

I suppose it would help to have free dentisty clinics for everyone.

One of the things I learned only as an adult is that living teeth are
continuously being re-calcified from within.  Blood delivers calcium
which is diffused through the tooth material to the surface.
Sometimes you have small cavities that "go away" because your body is
able to "heal" them.  (IANADentist, this is my layman's understanding)
The problem with missing periodic dental hygiene is that plaques get
calcified too, resulting in porous tartar.  Once it is calcified, you
can't brush tartar away, it has to be carefully scraped off.  The
problem with tartar is that the acids that erode tooth enamel can find
refuge inside the tartar and accelerate tooth decay.  The dental
hygienist is scraping off these tartars, to remove the "safe harbor"
for the acids.  

So, step 1) brush and floss to remove plaques; step 2) periodic dental
visits for cleaning/repair.  Children in particular are not very good
at (1), and poor people often don't have good access to (2).  I'm not
sure (1) is really solvable.  It would be interesting to see a
proposal for solving (2), and a model for how to fund it.

That said, there may well be a benefit to water fluoridation *anyway*.
It is inexpensive, and its risks seem very small from what I can
tell.

FWIW, I'm not particularly a proponent of fluoridation.  However,
every thing I've looked at from the opponents of fluoridation side
seems to fall apart when you look closely.


-- 
Russell Senior         ``I have nine fingers; you have ten.''
seniorr at aracnet.com