|
|
| |
| Occassionally, an
opponent of fluoridated water questions the safety of fluoride.
Over time, these oppositions have never been substantiated by
science. |
|
|
| |
| Be wary of pseudoscientific
literature. Although some people may look at this material as
reputable, it may not have any scientific validity at all. Draw
your conclusions only after critically reviewing all literature.
|
|
|
| |
Below
are some facts to consider when listening to an opponent, or reading
an opponent paper: |
| |
|
|
Have you looked at the background of the author? Does this
person have any experience with fluoride? What research
background does he/she have?
|
|
|
Is the year of the publication current? Keep in mind
that well researched and designed studies will be valid and
creditable over time. However, an old publication may not
be using the most current studies.
|
|
|
Are the quotes valid? Are they entire quotes, or taken
out of context? Could they be misrepresented? Does the
author have biases? Ask the author for the source of
the quotes being used. Then, check for yourself.
|
|
|
Does the research use the most valid measures? Does the study
use 0.7 parts fluoride per million, or as high as 125 parts
per million? Make sure what is being compared is accurate.
0.7 parts per million are safe, whereas 125 parts per million
are not.
|
|
|
Carefully review all information given on animal studies.
An experiment conducted on a rodent yields much different
results than one conducted on a cat. Be wary of animal studies
compared to humans.
|
|
|
Are the journals scientific? Is there an editorial board
who reviews the articles? Be sure the articles are written
by scientists educated the the field. Unsubstianed opinions
are just that, unsubstianted. You should be able to obtain
a copy of the journal yourself quickly and easily. If it isn't
available at the library or a reputable website, tread cautiously.
If you can't obtain the source at all, be wary of the
validity of the resource.
|
|
|
Educate yourself about quackery. If the author or publication
uses a secret formula from out of the country,
for example, question the reliability. If the author
claims to have sources the medical community can't even obtain,
be cautious. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true,
it probably is.
|
|
Freedom to choose whether or not
to use fluoridated water seems to be the biggest
reason a few people oppose fluoride programs. Community Action
Programs designed to improve health of all residents are not
looked at favorably by all, mostly because of misinformation,
mis-quoting, or half-truths. It's important to note that threatening
or alarming statements made by opponents of fluoride are not
accepted by scientific knowledge.
(Newbrun E. The fluoridation war:
a scientific dispute or a religious argument? J Public Health
Dent 1996;56(5 Spec No):246-52. Easley MW. The new antifluoridationists:
who are they and how do the operate? J Public Health
Dent 1985;45(3):133-41. Wulf CA, Hughes KF, Smith KG, Easley
MW, Abuse of the scientific literature in an antifluoridation
pamphlet, Baltimore: American Oral health Institute;1985.)
| top of page |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
