"Don Wiss" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 18:01:45 -0700, Miles
wrote:

Vox Humana wrote:

both populations. The AMA and ADA set standards a few years ago for
fluoride supplements for children on non-fluoridated water supplies.

Treatments for children have been done by dentists for decades. They
may or may not provide a benifit but are a far better choice than adding
it to our water. There is just no need to do so with such treatments
available. Besides, toothpaste has fluoride in it, use it!!

Exactly. Fluoride works best topically, not systemically. America is the
land where money can buy a study that shows whatever is desired, and money
pays for lobbyists to get whatever industry wants implemented.


NO. Not exactly. Fluoride works best when it is incorporated into the
enamel matrix during development. The only way to accomplish that is by
ingesting fluoride. (Remember, teeth start to develop in utero. The crowns
of all teeth develop in the jaw and erupt fully formed. There is no way to
treat them with topical fluoride during development, even if it was somewhat
effective.) Topical fluoride treatments are an inferior second tier measure
and should be seen as extra insurance to prevent decay. Topical fluoride
treatments do not penetrate very far into the enamel. They are somewhat
effective in reversing demineralization of the enamel and can reverse
insipient decay.

I find your logic about "what the industry wants" to be flawed. The
industry would be far richer if there was no fluoride in water supplies.
Dental offices would be overwhelmed treating rampant tooth decay.
Communities wouldn't have to spend money fluoridating water.