RFK Jr.’s fluoride ban would ruin 25 million kids’ teeth, cost $9.8 billion
The modeling estimates don't account for other costs, like parents' lost work
Why? Why hurt America's children? Ultra-rich kids don't have to worry - they'll have a private dentist for all their lives.
Red State kids - from West Virginia to Louisiana to Wyoming... will have more dental health problems. Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Despite decades of data proving its efficacy at protecting teeth from decay—particularly children's teeth—two states have now banned the use of fluoride in public water, and communities around the country have followed suit or are considering doing the same. The current US health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is known for his anti-vaccine advocacy and for peddling conspiracy theories, has pledged to remove fluoride from US water.
Now, a pair of researchers at Harvard—Sung Eun Choi and Lisa Simon—have modeled exactly what will happen in the US if Kennedy follows through on his pledge: The number of cavities and decayed teeth in American children and teens (ages 0–19) will increase by an estimated 7.5 percentage points over the first five years. That means there will be 25.4 million more rotten teeth in the mouths of children and teenagers. The dental bills for the added decay will total at least $9.8 billion in that time. Other costs, such as loss of work among parents, were not included, making the financial estimate conservative. But children will also be more miserable, with an estimated loss of 2.9 million quality-adjusted life years.
After 10 years, the number of additional decayed teeth would be 53.8 million at a cost of $19.4 billion.
The analysis, published Friday in JAMA Health Forum , drew from real-world dental utilization and oral health data from a national health survey. It also modeled tooth decay as a function of age, sex, race, ethnicity, and income. The model was calibrated against real dental decay prevalence. Costs for dental work were based on standard rates from the American Dental Association, insurance claims, and prior analyses.
In all, the increased decay and boosted dental costs would disproportionately affect children who are in low-income families, in rural areas, and/or on public health insurance.
The study's findings are likely unsurprising to those in the public health community, who have consistently supported fluoridation. The practice, however beneficial, has a long history of being under attack. After its introduction in the US in 1945, conspiracy theorists claimed fluoridation was a communist plot and a form of government mind control. More recently, critics have claimed that fluoridation lowers IQ.
The data linking water fluoridation to low IQ is controversial. Many of the studies on the topic are of poor quality and have numerous confounding factors and flawed methods. Many compare IQ levels in communities in China and other countries, where there are areas with water that is naturally high in fluoride—much, much higher than what is intentionally added to US water. Further, a federal meta-analysis —a type of study that aggregates and reanalyzes data from independent studies—has been plagued by criticism for bias, poor statistical methods, and a lack of data transparency.
But despite the controversy, one thing is clear in all the data and debate: Any possible association with low IQ and fluoridation only occurs at excessive levels—levels more than twice the amount used in the US and recommended by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC recommendation for water fluoridation levels is 0.7 mg/L, while potential harms are not observed until water levels exceed 1.5 mg/L. Some areas in China have natural levels as high as 11.8 mg/L .
The authors of the new study conclude that, at current US levels, the benefits are clear.
"These findings suggest that, despite the potential harms of excessive fluoride exposure, fluoridation at safe levels offers both individual and societal benefits that would be at risk."
Whatever
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Madmen.
Another detriment is that the Tooth Fairy will NOT pay for a deteriorated tooth.
Seriously, I don't give a damn what RFK Jr. does to ruin himself and his family, but what he is doing to damage the health of Americans is beyond belief.
And there's the other side of the story. Crest was the first to mass market a fluoridated toothpaste in 1956 and was recognized by the American Dental Association in 1960. Water fluoridation began in the United States in 1945 with Grand Rapids, Michigan being the first community to add fluoride to it's drinking water.
Today most toothpaste contains fluoride. It can be possible that this fear over tooth issues may be overblown. Teaching proper dental care is still the providence of parents (teach them young to brush their teeth) and no amount of fluoride added to drinking water will overcome the failure to brush.
One thing I have learned about dentists and the dental profession generally, is that if you even suggest doing less than the absolute maximum dental care, they freak the fuck out. They want you using a black and decker two stroke powered toothbrush for 10 minutes, 3 times a day. Then they want you spend another 10 minutes flossing with woven Vibranium, direct from Wakanda. And they want you come in for a cleaning every month and have your teeth soaked in fluoride.
No dental care is too much dental care, and certainly nothing any reasonable person would do could ever be sufficient.
unfortunately, my old dentist retired. I threatened my last dentist with an instant office remodel if he didn't remove the charge for the laughing gas off my bill since he didn't give me the amount I told him to give me.
Call me a skeptic. This sounds pretty dramatic.
I wonder what it costs us to add the fluoride to the water in the first place.
I have no idea what the “correct” level of fluoride is in our water that ensures the best dental outcomes. I don’t think most anyone else does, either. I would think fluoride in our toothpaste goes a long way toward negating the need for it in our water.
A lot of people don’t even drink much water out of the tap. I only get water from a bottle (which I assume is not fluoridated) or out of my refrigerator. I have no idea if the filter in my fridge extracts fluoride, but it might.
I suspect that RFK is looking to get the fluoride out of the water without regard for what the “correct” amount might be. The whole administration has a fetish for cutting shit just to be cutting shit.
On the other hand, I see the Left freaking out over the loss of fluoridated water as if all our children will just spontaneously have all their teeth fall out. I doubt this will be the case.
Dunno... Let's do a little "back of the envelope"...
350 million Americans... so 70 million teenagers and children. If one-third get dental problems that they would not have gotten with fluoride, that's in the ballpark.
Seems reasonable.
Yeah, “if.” But I don’t think we have a solid body of data supporting the assertion that that would happen just from taking out - or reducing - fluoride in the drinking water.
I drank a lot of water out of hoses when I was a kid, but I would bet today’s kids are already drinking way less tap water than we were 50 years ago.* Bottled water and other drinks are more typical today.
On the other hand, you really have to go out of your way to buy toothpaste that lacks fluoride. That was a lot more optional back in the day.
*So did a lot of other kids, who still got cavities, anyway.
The poor who cannot afford healthcare or dental care actually do drink tap water and are the beneficiaries of the fluoride mineral added to the water supply.
The amount of fluoride mineral added to water is an extremely small amount.
A province in Canada removed fluoride from the water supply and after the data was analyzed over 10 years, the deaths from infected teeth mostly in children and elderly was between 700 and 800 people dying from infection complications.
They have since opted to add the mineral fluoride back into the water supply.
These decisions to remove fluoride affect the poor, and the paranoia over a tiny amount of a mineral to fuel a political agenda is fear mongering to manipulate the public into accepting outcomes that harm already disadvantaged people.
RFK and this administration already cut back reporting on health outcomes.
So in a few years if there are increased deaths from infections in poor children and the elderly from infected teeth, we won't know about it because the data and research have been quashed.
Everything Republicans are allowing is an all out war on the poor. The Scrooge Doctrine in overdrive.
They offer no dental programs for poor children or the elderly and if they die, then without research and transparent reporting on health outcomes the public is kept in the dark about reality.
I cannot find any evidence that supports your statement of deaths from infected teeth. Please provide. I can find many articles, mostly quoting the same numbers where the percentage of children with tooth decay in areas where the water is fluoridated was 65% and the percentage in areas without fluoride was 55%. Those numbers would support putting fluoride back in the water supply. IMO those numbers also paint poor training on dental health.
What happened when Calgary removed fluoride from its water supply | PBS News
A tale of two cities finds that community water fluoridation prevents caries | American Dental Association
Two cities stopped adding fluoride to water. Science reveals what happened