> After reviewing the evidence on arsenic, the National Research Council
> concluded in 1999 that the current acceptable level of 50 ppb arsenic
> should be lowered as promptly as possible. The outgoing Clinton
> administration wanted to drop the safe level to 10 ppb. While officials
> and industry objected and, apparently, convinced the EPA, a study
> published in the Am. J. Epidemiol. (March 1 issue) reports an incresased
> cancer risk from arsenic in water at levels as low as 10 to 50 ppb.

> What has this got to do with dentistry? Anyone familiar with the history
> of fluoride and fluoridation will imediately see the same arguments to
> defeat lower acceptable levels. The difference to the arsenic discussion
> is, that fluoride interests -and there are quite a number of economic
> perspectives- have a far more powerful lobby.

> Cheers,
> Peter

> > ... there is another difference in the argument.
> > Arsenic has had no real therapeutic or preventive use for quite some time.

> If I remember correctly, arsenic once was in use in dentistry to
> devitalize dental pulps. This adds to a long list of problems in
> dentistry (which partly are history now), like

> - amalgam discussion (which led the first nationwide dental society to
> disband in 1856)
> - severe infections after improper dental treatment (i.a. "pulpless
> teeth") (Hunter 1910)
> - use of fluoride as a flux in the preparation of dental fillings
> (ceramics) which caused pulp irritation (unknown to most dentists until
> 1916)
> - use of aluminum base dentures (1924 and afterwards) ->corrosion
> problems
> - introduction of fluoridation in 1945 under somewhat special
> circumstances
> - nowadays, the use of fluoride-releasing dental filling materials
> (amalgams, ceramics, composites) - this time to reduce caries incidence.

> The fluoride/fluoridation and amalgam problems are with us even today
> (as some major cause of trouble).

> >     BTW, Peter, I find your interest in United States politics interesting.
> > Is this a hobby of yours?

> U.S. politics affects us all, everybody in every country. Sooner or
> later.

> With regard to fluoridation: It is very impressive to me (and I
> appreciate this kind of openness) how many related documents are
> available in the U.S. (e.g. correspondence between Drs. Dean, McKay and
> the early fluoridation promoters, about the Wisconsin fanatics [Bull and
> Co.] and their correspndence with ALCOA and other industry people, the
> ALCOA internal correspondence which details what led to the discovery of
> fluoride in drinking water as a cause of mottled teeth, the openness
> with which the American Dental Association detailed discussions about
> the pros and cons of the Social Security Act and its outcomes and
> meanings for the profession). This way, interest in fluoridation
> background leads to an interest in U.S. politics.

> BTW: I know of no comparable collections concerning our national
> fluoride sellers.

> We have -still- no water fluoridation here in Germany (a small part of a
> town was once fluoridated for some years, though), but fluoridated table
> salt (besides unfluoridated salt). From time to time there are
> discussions if water fluoridation should be introduced, often along with
> discussions about reduction of payments for dental treatment by health
> insurance companies (once it was 80 to 100%, now it is about 50 to 60).

> Regards,
> Peter

> > You are totally out of the world!

> Sure, my dear. Keep dreaming.

> > fluor exists NATURALLY in water differently concentrated in many places in
> > the world, it must be
> > dosed in every town a dentist has to move so he/she knows how much should
> > he/she complement.

> Ask a dentist to supplement? First ask the dentist whether he knows what
> "1 ppm" means. You will be surprised!
> (Well, there may be some who know, but its a minority!)

> > I wonder why would it be that people who GREW and live in places with
> > CERTAIN level of fluor in the water (natural fluor level) had LESS
> > CARIES?????

> Shown by what epidemiological studies? Could you _detail_ some to me?
> Explain to me how its done, please.

> > stop putting so much fluoride in the water mr. government, please or I'll
> > loose all my patients to it!

> There is no loss in business. Not for dentists. International Sugar
> Agreements will keep the dental business running. Fluoride as a
> preventative? If anything, its an excuse.

> > For your information it's called PREVENTION,......wait...toc,toc! anybody
> > there??

> Prevention? What does that mean? Prevention of what?

> Peter

> international sugar agreements?

> Steve

> Peter