or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › Dental › Fluoride
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fluoride - Page 3

post #41 of 143

A cleaning & floride treatments at 18 months?

First, how important is this to do it at this age? If she freaks out I will not let them hold her down... also floride treatments, I am tempted to refuse this, i have no problem doing that but I am unsure if it is needed. I will go check out the AAP site for reference but wanted to know your opinions.
thanks!
post #42 of 143
Hi Xander's mama!

There are some great threads on this board about helping children enjoy brushing.

There are actually several threads which address fluoride on here; one is "is swallowing toothpaste safe" and others. I think they will help.
Ideally you all would brush twice a day, morning and evening. If it can be only once, then the night brushing is the most important.

As far as checkups, there is also a thread on here about first visits that I think will help. You can use your search button to pull up specific topics on here and elsewhere on the Mothering boards.

Good luck!
post #43 of 143
Hi Kiddoson! Check out the thread titled "first visit" or something like that; that explains how I like to handle children's visits, and it sure doesn't involve holding anyone down . It also talks about the real purpose of the visit, and it's not really primarily about teeth, it's more about comfort and trust and relationships.


Good luck, I hope it goes great!
post #44 of 143

Fluoride; the debate continues

Thought I would re-post some of the links I have on this subject (warning, I am as biased as SmileMomma is since the threads I previously posted to on the subject were lost in the move.
This is just a brief selection of what I have found in researching the subject for a book I may eventually finish writing (say, after my toddler is a bit older, lol!) The last one is esp. interesting for history buffs, imo. I look forward to any comments/opinions/etc. Kimberly
post #45 of 143
post #46 of 143
post #47 of 143
post #48 of 143
Smilemomma, I meant no offense by stating that *I* am as biased as *you* on this issue. Simple fact/disclaimer. You ARE biased on this issue; to attempt to deny it is futile. You are, based upon YOUR education and research and no doubt also your pre-existing beliefs, biased in favor of fluoride use as a dentifice. Doesn't make you unprofessional, just Human. I am also biased, based on my research and pre-existing beliefs.
We can debate all day long your view that "fluoride prevents cavities" and it has been conclusively proven, can't be denied or debated. I disagree, based upon raw data and in depth analysis of the original studies in question. The numbers alone, without interpretation or editorial, indicate the exact opposite of the claims made for fluoride at the time. But every conclusion made since has been grounded in these first, incredibly poorly done and biased studies, which were packaged for public consumption, and seldom actually examined by dental professionals/scientists not affiliated with the government contracted team who carried them out.
And based upon reams of other data/peer reviewed writings I have examined, even if fluoride were/is effective at preventing cavities, the negative effects, even at typical levels, far outweigh that benefit.
You take offense at the implication you might be biased; seeing it as an assault upon your professionalism as a scientist(Dentist). I might as well take offense at the implication that my conclusions are biased; seeing it as an insult to MY professionalism as a writer. But we can seldom avoid bias in the purest sense; a leaning toward one conclusion or another based upon our experience.
You know, I didn't set out to condemn fluoride; I set out to learn about it, out of curiosity and concern. I assumed, as most do, that it was probably a good thing (did the same with vaccines, but it came back to bite me, hard, and that motivated me to research that further) What I discovered was so blatantly disturbing, I delved further, confirming the original sources (raw data from studies, peer reviewed materials, historical records, etc) wherever I could before assuming the information was correct. It's what any good researcher/writer does before putting their name behind a statement.
For example, the quote that fluoride affects the mind/fosters "mind control" is based on fact/science; fluoride has been used for exactly that purpose, in Russian concentration camps, and there is no debate among scientists that it is a powerful neurotoxin, affecting intelligence, and inducing pasivity and suggestability. Similar to lead in cumulative effects. The only debate is over what levels of this toxin are acceptable, given the assumed positive effects on dental health. Without that assumption of dental benefit, no one in their right mind would suggest ingesting fluoride was a good idea, any more than they suggest a certain dosage of lead in our children's drinking water is necessary or beneficial.
It remains a fact that fluoride is listed on US government tables as slightly less toxin than arsenic, and slightly more toxic than lead.(both of which are universally recognized as damaging when consumed, esp. in drinking water. Even the Bush administration has reversed itself on the acceptable quantities of arsenic in drinking water. But where is the same degree of concern over fluoride, which is intentionally added and for which there is much more evidence to indicate harm? Did I include in my links the statement by employess of the EPA, putting forth their objections to continued government approval of fluoridation in the face of the data their agency collected indicating it was dangerous?)
We are free to draw our own conclusions from that information,(that the assumed benefits outweigh the risks or that they do not) but the information itself is valid.
It is fact that fluoride is one of the most toxic and widespread industrial pollutants,(vital to numerous industries in this nation, incl. aluminum, glass, gasoline and other petrochemicals, and steel) that it was a vital component in the production of nuclear weapons during the early days of that program, and that the government and industry were heavily involved in seeking to cover up damages from accidental releases (many of which are fully documented), prevent lawsuits, and seek a way to put a positive spin on/find a positve use for fluoride to divert public attention from its negative effects/find ways to dispose of industrial wastes more economically. They funded and directed the first studies into fluorides possible use as a dentrifice, and pushed relentlessly for mass fluoridation. This is not speculation or biased interpretation. It is fact, gleaned from the historical record. Again, interpret it as you will, but the implication is that there was a great deal of corruption and bias involved in the "discovery" of fluoride as something good to drink, and a great still still in its perpetuation. And that every assumption since has been founded in this PR manipulation.
Ultimately, we agree to disagree on this one, as I said. And that's fine. I simply feel those who come here looking for information should have as much as possible to examine. We both perform that function here. But there's no need to pull the "How dare you imply I am not an honest, skilled scientist by challenging my opinions" card, imo. I never implied any such thing, only admitted that we are BOTH biased (in the sense of holding strong views based on pers. knowledge/experience which resist opposition). I have no doubt that you feel very strongly about the correctness of your views, and that you present what you honestly conclude to be the truth. Same goes for me.
Peace, Raven/Kimberly
post #49 of 143
post #50 of 143

Risks v. benefits

:

Hi folks,

I am new here, and I have questions about fluoride. My son was BF, and now, at 7 months, eats solids, some EBM, and some formula. Our pede, whom I am not particularly comfortable with (he gave AWFUL and antiquated advice about bfing) has prescribed fluoride drops for my son. We are on well water, and he says it is necessary since we're not getting the fluoride in normal tap water. I want to make an informed decision about these drops. I have been fortunate to have great teeth, and I generally take good care of them. I'd like my son to continue in this tradition, of course!

I read most of the posted links...and I'm still confused. I guess my question is: what are benefits vs. risks for this kind of fluoride I've been given for Ian? What might happen if he doesn't take these drops? What might happen if he does? What do folks do for their own children?

TIA for the help!

Dee
post #51 of 143
Welcome, sidhe66!

There are several threads on this board (mostly on this forum, but elsewhere, too) that discuss the fluoride issue. You can peruse the Dental board, or you can use your search button (upper right corner) to direct you to the appropriate posts.


Good luck, it is a delicate issue.
post #52 of 143

fluoridation

Hey don't leave off the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation from that list of sources http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof.

You can see from our name, where we come down on fluoridation. However, our position is based on sound science. If you look at the news releases on our website, you will see many of them are based on scientific studies or reports that organized dentistry will not bring to your attention. ("latest news releases" are below the links button)

Of particular concern is that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control now says swallowed fluoride doesn't confer any beneficial effects.
Fluoride's decay preventing properties occur topically. So there's absolutely no reason any toothless baby should swallow fluoride in tablets, in water or in foods. Only adverse effects like dental fluorosis are risked when swallowing fluoride.

Even the CDC says the small amount that emerges in saliva when fluoride is swallowed is too small to have any therapeutic effect on any already erupted teeth.

Dental researchers and professors themselves now question the value of fluoridation. Locker and Cohen report in the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association that fluoridation is outdated and immoral.

Leading fluoride researcher, and editor of the journal "community dentistry and oral epidemiology," Brian Burt, wrote a 1999 dental textbook that explains how fluoridation is based on belief not science.

In fact a recent National Institues of Health Consensus Conference on Tooth Decay reports most dental research is flawed including hundreds of studies on fluoride.

To be kind, fluoridation is a big fat boo-boo.

Cheers,
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.fluoridealert.org
post #53 of 143
Yes, that's a huge point, is it not? The fact that injested fluoride fails to confer the touted benefits and incidentally(no pun intended carries risks, both confirmed and suspected.
I have encountered your organization in my research; thanks for all the tips on where to look for further info/debate.
And imo, the issue of fluoridation of puplic drinking water is very distinct from the issue of fluoride as a dentrifice/supplement. One is mass medication without dose control/'consent, and the other is a pers. choice. Kimberly
post #54 of 143
I hear you talking about ingested flouride but what about the flouride treatments at the office. My daughter is 6 and they want her to have these treatments. Both my brother and I had them and fluoride drops as children and we both have had terrible problems with cavities. I don't see any prevention that occurred. Can you direct me to any info about this subject?
Sheri
PS. I will check out your site.
post #55 of 143
Sherri, at some point, I brought this up and Smilemomma was of the opinion that you can ask your dentist not to do these treatments/use non-fluoridated cleaners. (I pers. wonder how many dentists keep them on hand, but I don't plan to allow my kids to have any(more). My son had one at 7, before I'd really thought about it too much.
We (DH and I) also grew up with fluoride in the water, paste, at every office visit, and we both have a great many fillings from childhood. I didn't stop getting cavities until I stopped using fluoride, as a matter of fact, and haven't had one in over a decade. Son has had 1 tiny one, dd, none so far.
He goes to the dentist (new one, referred by our out of state dentist; a non-mercury office) on Tues., so I will get to exercise my parental choice/authority then, I guess
Kimberly, mom to Forest, 9 and Lily, 2
post #56 of 143

2.5 ppm flouride?

Just got back from the dentist, DD did NOT allow them to do a cleaning (I told them so!!) at 19 months & we discussed flouride, they promote it, I didn't get into it (we won't have flouride treatments) since she isn't getting a cleaning for another year but she said 2.5 ppm is the minimum dose. The baby book by Dr Sears says .03 ppm is fine & no need to supplement. We won't anyhow, I quoted WHO & AAPDA & she backed off with her flouride push but that seemed high to me. Is it?

Kim
post #57 of 143

fluoride in breastmilk?

I recently self-diagnosed the loss of enamel, so probably a cavity, on the back of one of my two and a half year daughter's front teeth. I'm sure she got it from night nursing (she dawdles a little and falls asleep with her mouth downward just so).

We brush twice a day with a smidgen of fluoride toothpaste, but don't have fluoridated water here in San Diego. She has a prescription for fluoride/vitamin drops, but after finding out that ingested fluoride doesn't do much good (and knowing that from experience, too: I used fluoride tablets but not fluoride toothpaste as a kid, and have fillings in 25 of my teeth!!!!), we haven't been refilling the prescription.

My question is: if I take her prescription, i.e. ingest toddler-doses of fluoride, will enough of it (or any at all) show up in my breastmilk to make her dawdling habit a little less destructive? I try to wipe her teeth after bf-ing, but I'm usually too happy she's asleep at all that it's a pretty cursory wipe. I just hope that the lightly fluoridated milk would counterbalance the bf-ing a bit!

Oh, and we will see a ped dentist soon -- even though I'm sure it's going to be GA 'cause cooperative she ain't!
post #58 of 143
post #59 of 143
post #60 of 143
For ingestion, she told me it was a minimal amount??, she also said to send in the flouride test of my water & they would prescribe flouride to make up the difference, up to 2.5. I thought that was way too high, we have no intention of doing that anyway but I bet lots of other moms do just that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dental
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Women's Health  › Dental › Fluoride