Fluorides & Fluoridation

Welcome to FluoridationFacts.com, incorporating the Australian Fluoridation News Archive and HREX fluoride-related files.

Please note: This website is mostly inactive. The nature of this website will also change to an archive-cum-database for out-of-print magazine articles, dental health data and related publications, and scientific literature. The Australian Fluoridation News has also moved to another server based in Australia. However, the 'AFN' will be backed-up on this website on a regular basis. The Webmaster, 7th August, 2005.

About Us

Useful Links

Translation

Site Map

Infodocs

Opinion Polls

Pictures

Propaganda

Unethical Con.

News Centre

Press Release

Political

Dental Data

Forums/Reviews

Papers

Statements

Aus F News

Copy List

HREX

UPDATED

02 MAR 06

Ad-Rate:4

Homepage

Education

Opinion Polls

Secretive / Biased

California [USA, Sept. 1995]

West Midlands [UK, July 2000]

Wichita [USA, Jan. 2001]

Redding [USA, June 2001]

Kennewick [USA, Nov 2001] - Now combined with Richland and Pasco to make the Tri-City (Washington State) opinion polls

Salt Lake / Utah [USA]

Open / Unbiased

Ocean Park [USA, Nov. 2000]

OPCS [UK, 1993]

The OPCS Survey [1993]

A more honest approach to the subject of dental health has been employed by the Office of Population Censuses & Surveys (OPCS). A survey published in 1993 was structured so;-

"Q. What do you think can be done to stop teeth rotting (or going bad)?" NB. More than one answer could be given.

ANSWERS	Parents with children aged ...	5	8	12	15
Avoid sweet things		59%	56%	47%	42%
Clean regularly		81%	80%	81%	83%
Have a balanced diet		26%	26%	27%	28%
Visit a dentist regularly		25%	24%	27%	29%
Preventative treatment at dentist		3%	4%	4%	4%
Take fluoride supplements / use fluoride toothpaste		5%	3%	4%	5%
Add fluoride to water		1%	2%	2%	1%
Fluoride ( nothing else specified )		2%	2%	1%	2%
More / better dental education		3%	3%	3%	4%
Other specified answer		0%	1%	2%	1%
Don't know		1%	1%	1%	1%

NB. There is no indication that the respondents were primed with leading questions and therefore the answers appear to be more honestly arrived at.

The above table is in contrast to the surveys carried out to test peoples reaction to water fluoridation. This is where the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity comes in. The OPCS survey asked respondents a question which did not have a simple yes or no answer. It was not a leading question and the respondents had to use their own initiative.

Unbiased surveys v. biased opinion polls

Conversely, opinion polls sometimes propose a question based on emotional blackmail and supposition. For example, it may say: "do you believe that fluoride should be added to water if it prevents tooth decay". The question may seem quite harmless and innocent but it has been constructed in such a way that the expected answer has to be 'yes'.

Firstly, the question supposes that fluoridation works.

Secondly, fluoride is mentioned but who knows what fluoride really is?

Thirdly, the expression "prevents tooth decay" is again an assumption.

Fourthly, why use the word "if". We are told by the pro-fluoride lobby that fluoridation works. So why don't they say "because it will" instead of "if it". The answer should be obvious. To say that fluoridation will reduce DMFT is fraudulent because it cannot be proven.

The emotional blackmail element is somewhat more subtle. Who, for example, would say 'no' to this type of question. To say 'no' would make you appear anti-social and selfish. So for this reason, you feel obliged to say yes. Finally, the question is obviously one-sided and does not allow any contrary opinion to be stated.