Some may have thought the debate over fluoridation is over, but it seems not.<\/p>\n
Apparently in Canada the debate has been thrown wide open once more by the new administration of Calgary.<\/p>\n
Why this dispute is continuing is somewhat of a mystery since fluoridation of water supply has been around for a long time now, and any reports of adverse affects are seemingly very minimal, if there are any at all.<\/p>\n
The debate has been going on for a long time now \u2013 since the 1950\u2019s in fact, with even organisations such as the US Centre for Disease Control making the observation that water fluoridation was, to use their words: \u201cthe ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th<\/sup> century.\u201d<\/p>\n So, what are the arguments for and against?<\/p>\n Most dentists on both sides of the Atlantic agree that fluoridation has helped improve dental<\/a> health for the past 60 years. The major argument in favour is that it has significantly reduced caries the major reason for tooth loss, and adverse risks are minimal.<\/p>\n In fact the pro camp says the only possible adverse affect is dental fluorosis, a condition which affects the development of teeth in babies and infants, the critical period being 1 \u2013 4 years. But even this is not affecting many children. Children over 8 are not affected at all.<\/p>\n Those in the anti camp have offered a range of objections over the decades from a Communist conspiracy to undermine public health to developing long term illnesses including cancer<\/a>. As for the latter, a study was carried out in Australia to try to find a link between fluoridation and bone cancer in particular and cancer generally. No clear link was established.<\/p>\n