Jump to content
New slide ready for action
City invests $96,500 into concert series
Drug team looks at fire
Dance Academy puts on gold medal performance
TD baseball, softball take losses to Hood River
Dufur reels off home victory over Culver
For the Record, May 3, 2016
Winslow sets Sherman High record in pole vault
Hawk track stars set 20 PRs at Dean Nice Invite
Road sweep puts TD back in CRC mix
Romero: Term limits vital
Walden: Reform plan ready
Haul away house trash this Saturday
The Dalles Clean Air Coalition focuses on emiss...
Reward for ram killing
TD rallies the troops in final four-game stretch
Red-hot Huskies post two-game sweep
Memaloose Hills a favorite hike
Riding for a cause
Looking Back on May 1
Yes, citizens of Dalles, "garrett" is asking you to do your own "research", then provides links to biased, antifluoridationist websites, and biased, antifluoridationist YouTube videos. This is nothing but an attempt to funnel "information" of the New York based Fluoride Action Network, which is the sponsor of the website "fluoridealert.org", into Dalles. He then attempts to discredit the Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association with unsubstantiated claims of "corruption", a tactic frquently used by antifluoridationists, in lieu of facts supported by valid scientific evidence.
The question is whether you wish to heed information being funnelled directly from a biased New York abtifluoridationist group which answers to no one for any information they choose to disseminate, or that from respected, authoritative sources which are held publicly accountable for ALL information they disseminate? Again, the websites of the EPA, the CDC, the ADA, the World Health Organization, among others of like caliber and respect, all have a wealth of accurate information on water fluoridation, based on valid, peer-reviewed science, readily available to anyone.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Yes, "garrett", "The Great Culling"...... More nonsense from New York antifluoridationists which you are attempting to funnel to your fellow citizens in Dalles. They deserve far better than that from you or any other of their fellow citizens.
Congratulations, "garrett"! You know how to Google! There was no need for you to do that, however, as I always attach my full name to my comments and will gladly provide any reasonable information about myself which anyone may wish to know. Yes I practice dentistry in Burlington, NC, and am an alumnus of the University of North Carolina School of Dentistry. I have spent the overwhelming part of my 32 year dental career providing dental care, and advocating, for the needy of our society. Through my private practice, which is primarily Medicaid, and the large free dental program i founded and directed for 6 years, i have seen, nearly every day of my working career, the devastating effects of untreated dental disease. It is excruciating, debilitating, life-threatening, and sometimes fatal. Water fluoridation has been repeatedly shown in countless peer-reviewed studies, to be a very effective dental decay preventive, while causing no adverse effects. Thus, when I see uninformed antifluoridationists such as you, seeking to deprive all citizens these proven benefits, through the posting of misinformation, I, naturally, correct them with facts supported by valid scientific evidence.
If you wish me to go away, then cease regurgitating nonsense you copy and paste off of biased, antifluoridationist websites such as "fluoridealert.org", which, by the way, is sponsored and maintained by an antifluoridationist group in New York, not anyone in Dalles, OR, either. If you wish to properly educate yourself on the issue of water fluoridation, then exert the effort and take the necessary time to access accurate information from reliable, respected, and original sources.
The people of Dalles deserve far better than to have you being a funnel for misinformation coming directly from New York antifluoridationist groups.
I could not agree more with "Garrett". Oregon citizens, please DO properly educate yourselves on the issue of water fluoridation. However, I would strongly suggest that instead of relying on the non peer-reviewed "book" of staunch antifluoridationist Paul Connett, you obtain accurate information from reliable sources as the EPA, the CDC, the ADA, the World Health Organization, and others of this caliber, all of which have a wealth of accurate, factual information based on peer-reviewed science, readily available on their websites.
Too, it would be advisable to question the reliability and honesty of anyone who seeks to steer you to antifluoridationist websites and videos instead of to original sources of information where you may read it yourselves in complete, proper context, without having been first filtered and edited by antifluoridationists.
Congratulations to the citizens of Dalles, and a sound vote of admiration for your town council, and the dedicated professionals who took the time and made the effort to act on the behalf of the best interests of all your citizens. Dalles is truly fortunately fortunate to have such sound leadership from the private and public sector.
"YouTube" as scientific references? What, nothing on your other favorite "cite", "fluoridealert.org"?
Does it ever occur to you that in scientific discourse, antifluoridationist websites and "YouTube" do not qualify as valid scientific references? A lot of the readers of these comments are intelligent enough that they don't really need to be insulted by being constantly steered to filtered and edited information. Why not cite original sources and trust the intelligence of the readers to be able to ascertain the difference between "junk science" and valid science? Or.....is that exactly what you fear will happen?
I'm simply going on your comment, nyscof. You state that 343 dentists oppose Fluoridation. There are 183,000 dentists in the a United States alone. 343 out of 183,000 is hardly anything that would seem to support your position in any manner, your "extrapolated" nonsense notwithstanding. But, I suppose since you guys routinely "extrapolate" effects of fluoride at high concentrations to mean they occur at 0.7 ppm, too, "extrapolating" a few dentists would not be too much of a stretch for you.
How about if we "extrapolate" this.......As I'm sure you're well aware, Paul Connett was very recently quoted as saying that "fluoride in public water supplies has substantially reduced cavities for millions in Connecticut and the U.S.". I suppose that this could reasonably be "extrapolated" to mean that antifluoridationists, as a whole, do indeed recognize the effectiveness of water fluoridation?
"Fluoridealert.org" is a biased, antifluoridationist website. If you wish for accurate information, I would advise not depending solely on such sites as this. The EPA, the CDC, the ADA, the WHO, and many more, legitimate, sites such as these all have a wealth of accurate information located on them. It takes a bit more effort than simply clicking on "fluoridealert.org" and regurgitating half-truths found there, but it will be well with your time and effort to do so.
As for infants, the CDC and the ADA have simply suggested that for those parents who wish to avoid all risk of the barely detectable, benign condition of mild to very mild dental fluorosis for their infant, they may just use nonfluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or use premixed formula. Mild to very dental fluorosis is such a benign condition that causes no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth, that it is not even considered an adverse effect. In fact, as Kumar has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more resistant to dental decay, it is not even considered undesirable by some, much less an adverse effect.
Nyscof, instead of steering readers to your biased website "fluoridealert.org", why not just cite the original studies? Do they really need to view your filtered, edited versions?
When the original, unfiltered, unedited, original Choi, Grandjean study which I cite below, is viewed, it is difficult to see what is the "false information" you claim Geshan distributed. As can be seen from the study itself, the fluoride levels were indeed high levels, not in the concentration range of 0.7 ppm as is used in US fluoridation. As can also be seen, the studies had "serious deficiencies", exposure limits could not be derived, key information was missing and the children could not even be classified correctly. In other words, as Choi and Grandjean stated....these studies cannot be used to draw conclusions about water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm in the U.S.
"The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang et al. 2007), thus in many cases concentrations were above the levels of 0.7.-1.2 mg/L (HHS) and 4.0 mg/L (US EPA) considered acceptable in the US.
The present study cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, as the actual exposures of the individual children are not known. Misclassification of children in both high and low exposure groups may have occurred if the children were drinking water from other sources (e.g., at school or in the field).
Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which limit the conclusions that can be drawn. However, most deficiencies relate to the reporting, where key information was missing. The fact that some aspects of the study were not reported limits the extent to which the available reports allow a firm conclusion. Some methodological limitations were also noted."
------Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang, Philippe Grandjean
Of the 183,000 dentists in the United States alone, 343 oppose fluoridation. Of the 850,000 MDs, in the United States, 538 oppose fluoridation. Those figures are a clear demonstration of the overwhelming support that water fluoridation has in this country by respected healthcare providers.
New York Coalition Opposing Fluoridation (nyscof) implies that instead of relying on the worldwide body of respected dental, medical, and other healthcare organizations who have the knowledge, expertise, and experience to give credible information, and who are all held accountable for the information and recommendations they disseminate, we should instead rely on that information provided by antifluoridationists who are accountable to no one for the information they post all over the Internet, and who constantly steer readers to their extremely biased antifluoridationist websites such as "fluoridealert.org", instead of to websites such as the EPA, the CDC, the WHO, the ADA....all of which have a wealth of accurate information on fluoridation, readily available, which has not been filtered and edited on on third party, biased websites
Trust nyscof and other antifluoridationists, or the worldwide body of respected healthcare organizations?
Steven Slott, DDS
View all listings
Last login: Monday, May 11, 2015
Contact/Submit: Subscribe / Staff list / News Tip / Letter to the Editor /
Birth Announcement / Engagement / Wedding / Anniversary / Obituary
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Eagle Newspapers, Inc. All rights reserved.