I do not remember saying that it was ME in this position. I was talking about free choice, vs privilege and clarifying what they were. I got money dude.
No. You were complaining about the government "poisoning" YOUR water. You were talking about YOUR position.
If the water in your community is fluoridated it's because the community wants it that way. If you don't like it, then change your community's mind, or buy a filter or move somewhere else.
2) MY water is referring to my ability to obtain water... not the water itself. I currently have the privilege of buying water, but very very few people have the right. If you pay no property tax, then you have the right and free choice to collect water on your property. If you want to discuss this further then send me a p.m. this is getting off-topic and I have already asked several times to talk about the main topic, which is fluoride. Can you do that now please?
1) Fluoridation is UNETHICAL 2) Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY 3) Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE 4) Fluoridation is UNSAFE 5) Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE 6) Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE 7) Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED 8) Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE
Please stop posting that list. It's already been discussed, and the disagreements have been clearly laid out in this thread already.
If you really want to discuss it more, then why not pick one, and make your case for that one? How about #4? Can you see why there might be some disagreement there?
If you want to discuss this further then send me a p.m. this is getting off-topic and I have already asked several times to talk about the main topic, which is fluoride. Can you do that now please?
You sent this thread off topic in post #217 with your little rant about groupthink and how we (statists) should be ashamed of ourselves and so on...
About that list. It was pulled directly from the Fluoride Action Network site from a post made by Paul Connett. Including the supporting bullets, it would literally take days ( more likely weeks) to properly debunk the 50 points made in that article. I know, because I started it. There is an overwhelming amount of crap in there, most of which has already been debunked (some of it within the very thread).
Maybe a separate thread is in order just to deal with that article? I'll post what I have.
Please stop posting that list. It's already been discussed, and the disagreements have been clearly laid out in this thread already.
If you really want to discuss it more, then why not pick one, and make your case for that one? How about #4? Can you see why there might be some disagreement there?
If it was clear then I would not have to ask again. I am glad you are willing to discuss it now Mick. I will tackle #4 and then you can pick another one, just so that we are clear that every issue has been covered.
Now, one could argue that a mentally disabled person, or an incompetent person of some type... or a person who has a guardian... etc etc are not able to protect themselves, and they need protection. This is an irrelevant argument though for an adult of sound mind, who has not individually agreed to the protection offered and forced upon him. Denying an individual of sound mind, who is able to comprehend and understand the risks and benefits, and has the the ability to make individual choices for themselves is not an act of safety, it is an act of oppression. Therefore, fluoride is unsafe because it is added by force to a shared water supply in which individual consent from each person involved (100% majority) has not been acquired.
riiiiiiiight. Simple. LOL! When you earn something you are supposed to be able to keep it. You have not earned your property Jay. Stop paying property taxes on it if you think that is true.
riiiiiiiight. Simple. LOL! When you earn something you are supposed to be able to keep it. You have not earned your property Jay. Stop paying property taxes on it if you think that is true.
I earned it all right. I pay property taxes as I receive services and the state constitution requires it. Paying property tax doesn't mean I don't own the land. When I bought the land we had to cross six creeks to get in. In 20 years they've built six bridges, my children have been educated, the fire dept came out once, and I've enjoyed the library etc. I don't expect those services for free, and neither should you.
I earned it all right. I pay property taxes as I receive services and the state constitution requires it. Paying property tax doesn't mean I don't own the land. When I bought the land we had to cross six creeks to get in. In 20 years they've built six bridges, my children have been educated, the fire dept came out once, and I've enjoyed the library etc. I don't expect those services for free, and neither should you.
The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex. Let me re-clarify my statement. You have earned the privilege of using property by trading money for the privilege. In reality, The only thing you can truly own, is your own thoughts.
As for services, I remember bringing in my car to a mechanic as a kid, and telling him that I wanted the exhaust system replaced. I made an appointment for another day. When I arrived for the appointment I sat and waited for hours and wondered what was taking so long. They did not even do any work.. and he guy that I made the appointment was not even there. I approached the mechanics and told them that I needed the exhaust replaces, and asked how long it would take. one of the mechanics looked at the car, and came back a few minutes later, and wrote up an estimate. Then he asked me to pay him 5 dollars. I asked for what, and he pointed to the estimate where advice was listed. He wanted to charge 5 dollars to give me advice to replace the exhaust system. I told him I did not ask for advice, or ask what was wrong with my vehicle. I have been waiting for hours for you to replace my exhaust, not give me advice that I need to replace my exhaust. THAT IS WHY I AM HERE! He got annoyed and replied that $5 was a reasonable price for the service of his advice and would not do the work, and would not release my car until I paid him. I don't expect ANY services that I have not approved and neither should you.
Neither statement invalidates the other. The first states that I agree with others who agree with me. Nothing more. I represent their stance, not the individuals themselves. If you do not agree with the way that is worded, I am clarifying what I mean by it now... so don't pull your usual argument of picking apart what I said, when you know what I mean because I have explained it to you. The second says that I am accountable for my actions. Now I am going to have to click ignore on you for repeatedly distracting from the topic and causing me to answer meaningless questions. You constantly feel the need to attack my character, and avoid the facts... and I do not see that changing any time soon. *click* (I advise you to do the same so that you are not wasting your reply on deaf ears)
The process and mechanics of ownership are fairly complex. Let me re-clarify my statement. You have earned the privilege of using property by trading money for the privilege. In reality, The only thing you can truly own, is your own thoughts.
As for services, I remember bringing in my car to a mechanic as a kid, and telling him that I wanted the exhaust system replaced. I made an appointment for another day. When I arrived for the appointment I sat and waited for hours and wondered what was taking so long. They did not even do any work.. and he guy that I made the appointment was not even there. I approached the mechanics and told them that I needed the exhaust replaces, and asked how long it would take. one of the mechanics looked at the car, and came back a few minutes later, and wrote up an estimate. Then he asked me to pay him 5 dollars. I asked for what, and he pointed to the estimate where advice was listed. He wanted to charge 5 dollars to give me advice to replace the exhaust system. I told him I did not ask for advice, or ask what was wrong with my vehicle. I have been waiting for hours for you to replace my exhaust, not give me advice that I need to replace my exhaust. THAT IS WHY I AM HERE! He got annoyed and replied that $5 was a reasonable price for the service of his advice and would not do the work, and would not release my car until I paid him. I don't expect ANY services that I have not approved and neither should you.
Unbelieveable........I hate that strongarm grease monkey mentality, I had something similar when I called for a towtruck they quoted me $60 after learning where I was and where I needed to go, about a 10 minute drive. The guy was there in 5 minutes I had to tell him all over again where my home was, he replied "No Problem $200 bucks"......I told him the lady on the phone told me $60 his reply was "yeah well they dont have anyone available so they called me", I told him " Nevermind I'll call someone else", his reply "what about my time", I told him not to worry i would be filing a strong complaint for him.....
Unbelieveable........I hate that strongarm grease monkey mentality, I had something similar when I called for a towtruck they quoted me $60 after learning where I was and where I needed to go, about a 10 minute drive. The guy was there in 5 minutes I had to tell him all over again where my home was, he replied "No Problem $200 bucks"......I told him the lady on the phone told me $60 his reply was "yeah well they dont have anyone available so they called me", I told him " Nevermind I'll call someone else", his reply "what about my time", I told him not to worry i would be filing a strong complaint for him.....
Some ass tow truck driver put my vehicle on a tow truck once... and I came out to stop him. He said there was a drop fee of 20 dollars. I said let me run over to the corner store and get it out of the ATM. I came back within minutes and he now said $40. I said that he said $20 before, and he said he changed his mind. He then sat and did nothing and made me drive the vehicle off of the tow truck by myself.
Now I am going to have to click ignore on you for repeatedly distracting from the topic and causing me to answer meaningless questions. You constantly feel the need to attack my character, and avoid the facts... and I do not see that changing any time soon. *click* (I advise you to do the same so that you are not wasting your reply on deaf ears)
The cool part about these folks who think they can 'ignore' is that you can then say whatever and they won't even have a clue.
[that is if they don't ever take an eeentsy weeentsy peak every once in awhile. Which of course they'd never do, but of course.....
It seems we can all agree that adding fluoride is expensive. If this is the case, why is the burden of proof on the sceptics? As defenders of fluoridation, the burden of proof should be yours - you need to prove the benefits outweigh the costs.
Otherwise, it is only logical to conclude that alternatives should be considered.
Try not to pedantically attack the following idea:
Stop fluoridation, take the money it would have cost and use it to subsidize the purchasing of anti-decay medicine.
Now we have an opt-in strategy (tin hat crowd will rest easy), and save money.
It seems we can all agree that adding fluoride is expensive. If this is the case, why is the burden of proof on the sceptics? As defenders of fluoridation, the burden of proof should be yours - you need to prove the benefits outweigh the costs.
An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation. (PDF 1.0Mb) Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. J Publ Health Dent 2001;61(2):78–86. An analysis of the most current data available on the effectiveness and costs of water fluoridation. The study compares average per person cost of community water fluoridation with the cost of prevented disease. This study:
Demonstrates that fluoridation not only is cost-effective, but also is cost saving, which is rare for public health interventions.
Shows that the reduction in costs of fillings (dental restorations) greatly exceeds the cost of water fluoridation in communities of any size.
Illustrates the annual per person water fluoridation costs for communities of various sizes.
Determines an average cost savings, which ranges from $15.95 per person per year in a small community to $18.62 per person per year in a larger community.
Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation Studies continue to show that widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money, both for families and the health care system. Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay—Louisiana, 1995–1996
MMWR, September 3, 1999;48(34):753–757. Findings suggest that Medicaid-eligible children in communities without community water fluoridation had an increased cost for dental treatment per child that was twice as high as those children living in fluoridated communities.
Community water fluoridation in drinking water can reduce tooth decay by 20 – 40% for people of all ages. Additional benefits include the prevention of pain and infection, tooth loss, lower dental costs, and fewer missed school or work days. The cost of fluoridation is about 60 cents to $1.00 per person per year depending on the size of the community.
Cost of Fluoridation: 44 Florida communities
The total mean cost per person for all installations was $1.14 per year at 2 percent and $1.25 per year at 4 percent. The mean cost at 4 percent for communities of fewer than 10,000 was $2.12; for communities between 10,000 and 50,000 it was $0.68; and for communities over 50,000 it was $0.31. The total mean cost per person across all installations was $0.41 at 2 percent and 0.45 at 4 percent.
An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation. (PDF 1.0Mb) Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. J Publ Health Dent 2001;61(2):78–86. An analysis of the most current data available on the effectiveness and costs of water fluoridation. The study compares average per person cost of community water fluoridation with the cost of prevented disease. This study:
Demonstrates that fluoridation not only is cost-effective, but also is cost saving, which is rare for public health interventions.
Shows that the reduction in costs of fillings (dental restorations) greatly exceeds the cost of water fluoridation in communities of any size.
Illustrates the annual per person water fluoridation costs for communities of various sizes.
Determines an average cost savings, which ranges from $15.95 per person per year in a small community to $18.62 per person per year in a larger community.
Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation Studies continue to show that widespread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and saves money, both for families and the health care system. Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay—Louisiana, 1995–1996
MMWR, September 3, 1999;48(34):753–757. Findings suggest that Medicaid-eligible children in communities without community water fluoridation had an increased cost for dental treatment per child that was twice as high as those children living in fluoridated communities.
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fluoridation cannot be cost-effective since it does not prevent tooth decay. (See Benefits section).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]" ... several recent studies, here and abroad, show that fluoridation is correlated with higher caries, rather than lower ones. ... There has been no study that shows any cost-saving by fluoridation. This claim has been researched by a Rand corporation study and found to be 'simply not warranted by available evidence'." (See 41-1: "The Truth About Mandatory Fluoridation" by John R. Lee, M.D. Apr. 15, 1995).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A study was done to determine "The Amount of MediCal Money Spent in 1995 & 1994 for Dentistry in Relation to Fluoridation in the 15 largest Counties in California, which comprise 83% of the Eligible Recipients." (Tables are shown). "As is obvious from the above tables, fluoridation does not reduce MediCal dental treatment costs." The tables show that the cost is slightly higher in the fluoridated areas. "The statement made by Elizabeth G. Hill and Craig L. Brown, that fluoridated water systems ... reduce costs associated with dental treatment (including) ' ... higher Media-Cal dental costs' is so obviously false that the question of how such a statement could be made is worth examining." (See 41-2: Superior Court of the State of California statement, p.5, by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, 1997).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas. There are no savings. (See 41-3: "Impact of Water Fluoridation on Dental Practice and Dental Manpower" from The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972, pp. 355-367).[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Natick Fluoridation Committee Report, dated September 27, 1999, included this statement on the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"One has to consider the savings due to (possibly) fewer cavities in some children and the cost to treat those children. However, it is also true that there will be increased treatment costs due to dental fluorosis (between 10-30% of children in communities that fluoridate develop some form of dental fluorosis). Although these costs are not borne by the community at large, they should be considered in any assessment of cost-effectiveness. ... it seems clear that there will be a greater increase in fluorosis than there will be a reduction in cavities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"The committee has also identified indirect costs that should be included in the cost effectiveness calculations. These include the costs borne by individual Natick residents who choose not to drink fluoridated water and individual Natick residents who may incur medical or dental costs due to drinking fluoridated water. Finally, there are other costs to the town such as amortization, repair, etc., of equipment necessary to the program. These cost include (but are not limited to) the following identifiable items:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Increased dental costs (not covered by insurance) to treat fluorosis. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Purchase of unfluoridated water from other sources ($3-4 per week) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Increased medical costs [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Legal costs to the town to defend against lawsuits (see below) [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Increased plumbing costs resulting from corrosion (See 41-5)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"When a claimed 20% decrease in tooth decay is compared to a 600% increase in bone cancer or a 41% increase in hip fractures, when the cost of a tooth filling is compared to the cost of a hip fracture or cancer treatment, it is obvious that the human and economic costs of fluoridation are staggering." (Fluoridation-Why the Controversy?, by Janet Nagel, Ed.D., from National Health Federation.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fluoridation is also a financial hazard to the electronics industry who rely on pure water. Lucent Microelectronics states it will probably cost them $5,000,000 to remove fluoride from the water they buy from the city.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]When the ADA claims that fluoride "prevents tooth decay systemically when ingested during tooth development," it is out of step with most leading dental researchers today who are now admitting that the major benefits of fluoride are accrued topically, not systemically. These authors include: Levine, 1976; Fejerskov, Thylstrup and Larsen, 1981; Carlos, 1983; Featherstone, 1987, 1999, 2000; Margolis and Moreno, 1990; Clark, 1993; Burt, 1994; Shellis and Duckworth, 1994 and Limeback, 1999, 2000.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This point has even been conceded by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the very same article, which claimed that fluoridation was one of the top ten achievements of the twentieth century.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The CDC states: "Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children." ("Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries," Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999.)[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]While the CDC acknowledges this point, it does not draw the logical conclusion. If fluoride provides its benefits topically, it makes more sense to apply it in the form of toothpaste, than to put it in the drinking water, where systemic exposure and all the accompanying risks become inevitable. Moreover, by using this method of application, it not only avoids exposing tissues in the body, which do not need fluoride, but it also avoids exposing people who don't want this medication.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Thus the key question both the ADA and the CDC avoid is: Why should we run the risks of exposure of our whole system to fluoride, if the major benefits of fluoride come from topical application? [/FONT]
the key question both the ADA and the CDC avoid is: Why should we run the risks of exposure of our whole system to fluoride, if the major benefits of fluoride come from topical application?
2. Bacteria metabolizes food and produces an acid as a byproduct.
3. The acid demineralizes teeth.
4. A cavity is formed under the plaque.
How fluoride prevents cavities
1. Bacteria and fluoride accumulate in dental plaque.
2. Bacteria metabolizes food and produces an acid as a byproduct.
3. The acid frees the fluoride trapped in the plaque.
4. As acids demineralize teeth, the freed fluoride remineralizes them.
5. The freed fluoride also slows the demineralization process by interrupting the bacteria's metabolism.
6. The process takes place on the boundary between the plaque and the tooth surface.
While fluoride is present in the mouth it disrupts the bacteria's metabolism by preventing it from forming acids. A few hours after brushing with fluoride tooth paste, there is no fluoride left in the mouth. However, by drinking fluoridated water, a constant minute resupply of fluoride can be delivered topically to the plaque throughout the day.
Ref:
Topics in Dental Biochemistry --Martin Levine
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks SCHER Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water
......Thus the key question both the ADA and the CDC avoid is: Why should we run the risks of exposure of our whole system to fluoride, if the major benefits of fluoride come from topical application?
I read "run the risks", as an unknown risk, based of suspicions......where as "assume the risks" is a probability of risk, based on health status and amount of intake, based on overwhelming evidence.. Maybe I'm dissecting the definition too much (??)
Tap water where I live, also contains chlorine (bleach).
Chlorine may or may not help or hurt all those that ingest it, but nearly all tap water contains it. It may kill bacteria and pathogens present in such water, if they are present. Many countries don't ingest water-heater heated water, because such micro-vermin (lol) fester in warm-water conditions.
Steamy showers atomize tap water (lungs) and pour it upon open pores.
In humans and animals exposed to chlorine in drinking-water, specific adverse treatment related
effects have not been observed. IARC has concluded that hypochlorites are not
classifiable as to their carcinogenicity to humans
So why is fluoride highlighted ? Is it an internet-spread favorite ?
Other controversial substances in tap water:
copper leaching
lead leaching
rust and zinc(in old pipes)
plastics leaching
water softening systems (salts)
pathogens
chlorine
....which is supposedly why the kind of water is important in fish tanks, and fish ponds.
I'm not trying to change the subject....just that if you are worried about some/any of the other possible hazards, why not just filter your water ?
Example....my tropical plants are claimed to be sensitive to ordinary tap water, and the water fed to the plants should undergo reverse-osmosis filtering.
Did I sum that up correctly? I'm not sure if there are any other reasons to add it or not? I'm doubtful as chlorine and ozone are the normal sterilizers I believe
Yep, you forgot the most important reason; free disposal of toxic byproduct of aluminium production which costs millions to otherwise dispose of. As only around 0.01% of water is actually drunk by humans, the rest, containing the vast majority of the fluoride is disposed of naturally back into the ecosystem
Yep, you forgot the most important reason; free disposal of toxic byproduct of aluminium production which costs millions to otherwise dispose of. As only around 0.01% of water is actually drunk by humans, the rest, containing the vast majority of the fluoride is disposed of naturally back into the ecosystem
1) Fluoridation is UNETHICAL 2) Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY 3) Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE 4) Fluoridation is UNSAFE 5) Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE 6) Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE 7) Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED 8) Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE
Fluorides are present in all natural water sources that aren't either collected rainfall or snow meltwater, because fluorides are a natural constituent of ROCK. Fluorides have existed in the sea since the sea itself existed. We evolved from the sea. We didn't evolve in rainwater.
How come we've suddenly become sensitive to the slightest proportion of fluoride? Answer: we didn't. We can deal with the fluoride as it appears in our environment within limits because we've had 3.8 billion years to get used to it.
Is the application of fluoride to reservoir water carefully limited*? Answer: yes.
So is there a real issue here? Answer: NO.
* There is a possible issue with accumulated fluoride from manufactured products coupled with limited consumer awareness and insufficient scientific monitoring, I suggest. But that's a possible first world adult and societal issue.
Reply from my trusted dentist...
.
" Actually dentin does heal itself but the cells are only on the inside within the pulp. New dentin will form over time walling off the nerve from trauma. Unfortunately where there is decay on the outside, the cells are too far away. Good thought though "
I think you should really have us at a significant disadvantage here, as you've been diligently studying this topic for, what, 20 years? I only started seriously Googling it last week.
As an outside observer, it seems to me that he does indeed have you at a serious disadvantage. As far as I can tell he has refuted every argument you've made. Actually I have to admit that it's entertaining to see how some of the debunkers' logic holds up against an educated individual rather than a confused conspiracy theorist.
The fact that you "only started seriously Googling it last week" explains quite a bit.
I'm beginning to suspect that some of the debunkers here are the type of people that can not possibly believe in any conspiracy, or that human beings ever conspire to do evil, and that they certainly never get away with it. That's a dangerous and narrow-minded position.
I'm beginning to suspect that some of the debunkers here are the type of people that can not possibly believe in any conspiracy, or that human beings ever conspire to do evil, and that they certainly never get away with it. That's a dangerous and narrow-minded position.
It seems like a pretty stupid conclusion to come to too.
there is clearly plenty of capability for people to do evil, and there are plenty of real conspiracies - criminal, financial, political, etc.
It is entirely possible that there IS some form of conspiracy around the fluoride issue - but if ther is then it has nothing to do with trying to kill off or do harm to people with fluoride at roughly 1 ppm in drinking water - because the lack of toxicity at that level is well established
Unregistered, the normal level of fluoride in Seawater is around 1.3 ppm. Compare that level to that of municipal supplies.
It has been at such levels before humans even appeared on earth, way back before the dinosaurs walked the earth, and living creatures have drunk, swam and lived in such concentrations for untold generations.
Now tell me again what conspiracy theorists say about fluoride in water.... it's incredibly toxic to all life right?
"......Dean wondered whether adding fluoride to drinking water at physically and cosmetically safe levels would help fight tooth decay. This hypothesis, Dean told his colleagues, would need to be tested.In 1944, Dean got his wish. That year, the City Commission of Grand Rapids, Michigan-after numerous discussions with researchers from the PHS, the Michigan Department of Health, and other public health organizations-voted to add fluoride to its public water supply the following year. In 1945, Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water.The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but was taken over by the NIDR shortly after the Institute's inception in 1948. During the 15-year project, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids' almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, Dean- who was now director of the NIDR-announced an amazing finding. The caries rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60 percent. "
