December 17, 2014
The
frequent claim by proponents of fluoridation that for every $ spent on
fluoridation saves $38 in dental costs has just been demolished in a
comprehensively documented review article by Lee Ko and Kathleen
Thiessen. Before we get to the details here is an update on our annual
fundraiser.
Fundraiser update
Yesterday
our fundraising efforts slowed down considerably and we are not sure
why. We received 12 donations totaling $1055, but with Dr. Mercola's
doubling that added another $2110 to our total. Thus, as of Dec 16, we
have raised $53,026 from 280 donors.
Thus we have reached a third of the way to our goal of $150,000 from 1,000 donors by midnight December 31 and half way to our goal of $100,000 by Christmas Eve.
By
any other standards this is a lot of money, but in this case it is a
very small fraction of what the other side is spending to bamboozle the
public on this issue. For example, the ADA is planning to spend $500,000
just to raise the pro-fluoridation profile on social media and the CDC
is planning to spend $31 million of tax-payers' money over the next 5
years promoting this practice at the state level.
Remember, the ADA and the CDC have the money to do this but what they don't have is the ability to reach people interested in honest science like we do. So the money we raise goes much further - but we still have to raise it and we have a long way to go to reach our goals. Will you help? Large or small every dollar raised will help. Thank you very much for the 280 supporters who have donated so far.
Don't forget that every donation is doubled until we reach $86,000.
To make a tax-deductible donation you can either:
- Donate online using our secure server.
- Or by check – please make checks payable to Fluoride Action Network and send to: FAN, 104 Walnut Street, Binghamton NY 13905
You can also choose one of the several premiums available at different donation levels.
The third pillar of fluoridation promotion falls
In his wonderful book, Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered (Harper & Row, 1975) the late E.F. Schumacher wrote,
Call
a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation to man, a
peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future
generations: as long as you have not shown it to be “uneconomic” you
have not really questioned its right to exist, grow, and prosper
So even while the mantra of fluoridation’s so-called “safety and effectiveness” has been exposed for what it is (see our book The Case Against Fluoride,
Chelsea Green, 2010), many die-hard fluoridation promoters have clung
to the notion that fluoridation was cost-effective. However, in a recent
review article Dr. Kathleen Thiessen and her co-author Lee Ko, have
demolished this third pillar of pro-fluoridation propaganda.
In
a meticulously documented review (“A critique of recent economic
evaluations of community water fluoridation”) recently published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health,
Ko and Thiessen explained that the frequently cited claim that $38 is
saved for every dollar spent on fluoridation is based on faulty
assumptions. This claim from Susan Griffin (an economist working for the
CDC) has been cited ad nauseam by state health officials and other promoters of fluoridation around the world.
Ko
and Thiessen’s paper is thorough and accessible. The multiple tables
presented for their calculations are a mathematicians delight. As you
will find out, there are many, many quotable parts of this paper. Here
are some:
In
2010, amid a budget crisis, the City of Sacramento, CA, instructed all
departments to review programs and services. Mr. Marty Hanneman, then
Director of the Department of Utilities, wrote in a memo to the City
Council (18):
The
City of Sacramento has been fluoridating its water supplies just over
10 years. Within that time, the actual cost of operating and maintaining
the fluoridation systems has proven to be considerably more than the
initial estimate. … The fluoridation infrastructure at the E.A.
Fairbairn Water Treatment Plant is overdue for replacement and will be
very expensive to replace. … Fluoridating water is a very costly and
labor intensive process and requires constant monitoring of fluoride
concentrations to ensure proper dosages. … The chemical is very
corrosive, so all equipment that is used in the fluoridation process has
a very short life expectancy and needs to be replaced frequently. … but
also causes frequent and complex system failures.
This
was echoed by Mr. Rene Fonseca of Carroll-Boone Water District in
Eureka Springs, AR, which was required by a 2011 State mandate to begin
CWF [community water fluoridation] (Fonseca, 2012, private communication):
All of our chemical feed systems require regular maintenance which is routine but fluoride feed equipment often requires replacement and more frequent attention. … I have toured plants and seen in trade publications deteriorating pipes, steel doors and casing, electrical components, etc. There are millions of dollars spent yearly on infrastructure damage caused by fluoride in our industry.
…
Community water fluoridation proponents have a poor track record for
cost estimates. For example, the county health board of Davis County,
UT, provided a cost estimate of $1.38–$2 PPPY [per person per year] prior to a vote in 2000, but the true implementation cost was $4.29 PPPY (42).
This
is also seen in the estimates/observed figures for the two Utah systems
in Table 4. In 2001, Arkansas state legislators passed a state mandate
to fluoridate community drinking water. They were partially motivated by
an offer from Delta Dental of Arkansas to donate $500,000 total toward
startup costs for the 32 water systems affected (42).
Later
Delta Dental pledged $2 million for 34 systems and soon found itself
needing to raise another $6–$10 million (43). (State mandates in
California and Arkansas both require the initial implementation costs be
funded by outside sources.)
… Conclusion
For
decades, the U.S. federal and state governments have promoted CWF to
improve dental health of residents at low costs. Yet, in spite of the
presumed savings in dental costs to Americans due to widespread use of
CWF, employment of dentists is projected to grow by 16% between 2012 and
2022 (vs. 11% for all occupations) (122), and cosmetic dentistry in the
U.S. has grown to be a multi-billion dollar industry (123).
We
have shown that the promise of reduced dental costs was based on flawed
analyses. In particular, the primary cost-benefit analysis used to
support CWF in the U.S. assumes negligible adverse effects from CWF and
omits the costs of treating dental fluorosis, of accidents and
overfeeds, of occupational exposures to fluoride, of promoting CWF, and
of avoiding fluoridated water. In assessing the benefits, it ignores
important large data sets and assumes benefits to adults that are
unsupported by data. Thus this analysis, as well as other economic
analyses of CWF (Appendix 2), falls short of reasonable expectations for
a cost-benefit analysis from a societal perspective. Minimal correction
of methodological problems in this primary analysis of CWF gives
results showing substantially lower benefits than typically claimed.
Accounting for the expense of treating dental fluorosis eliminates any
remaining benefit.
-See references below
-See references below
So
the science is in on this inaccurate – but widely cited claim –but how
many people will hear about it? This is just another reason to help
support FAN’s education efforts.
Paul Connett, PhD
Executive Director of FAN,
co-author, The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)
Executive Director of FAN,
co-author, The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)
References:
18.
Hanneman M. Memo to the Mayor and the City Council of Sacramento
regarding fluoridation of the city’s water supply. 2010 [cited 2013 Aug.
11]; Available from: http://fluoridefree
42.
Crozier S. Arkansas success. State passes fluoridation law; coalition
credited with victory, ADA News. 2011 [cited 2013 Aug 8]; Available
from: http://www.ada.org/news/5572.aspx [link doesn’t work. This article is cited here,
43. KHBS. Arkansas Foundation trying to trim fluoridation costs. KHBS-TV. 2012. [cited 2013 Aug 11]; Available from:
122. Dentists. Job Outlook. 2014 [cited 2014 Aug 5]; Available from:
123.
American Association of Cosmetic Dentistry. Cosmetic Dentistry
Continues to Surge – Market Estimated at $2.75 Billion. 2007 [cited 2013
Aug 8]; Available from: http://www.aacd.com/index.php?module=cms&page=723
No comments:
Post a Comment