Published On: Wed, Mar 30th, 2016

Dentist Mark Walker on the Decrease in Fluoride Use and if We Should Be Concerned

Dentists across Canada are voicing their concern about the decrease in fluoridation that is beginning to sweep across the country.  A recent report states national fluoride rates may have dropped as much as 15 percent over the last five years, a trend that has many dental health professionals puzzled and worried.

“You scratch your head wondering why,” said Larry Levin, a Hamilton area dentist and Vice President of the Canadian Dental Association “These big organizations who have studied it have told us that it’s safe. Our own physicians have told us that it’s safe.”

Canada’s water fluoridation program dates back to 1945, when the city of Brantford, Ontario introduced the naturally-occurring mineral into its water supply. The move was intended to increase the oral health of Brantford residents, while also reducing the risks of cavities in children, especially children living below the poverty line.

According to the American Dental Association, “studies show that fluoride in community water systems prevents at least 25 percent of tooth decay in children and adults, even in an era with widespread availability of fluoride from other sources, such as fluoride toothpaste.”

Fluoridation has proven a vital player in the oral health of children, who are more likely to skip brushing or brush improperly.

“Fluoride is beneficial in children for so many reasons.  Because they are growing, it supports the growth of strong, healthy teeth.  It also prevents tooth decay, thus reducing cavities,” commented Dutton, Ontario dentist Mark Walker.

photo dozenist

photo dozenist

City-wide fluoridation programs also help reduce health care costs.

“When fluoridation is incorporated into a regular oral health routine, we see reduced instances of cavity or abscess-related emergency room visits, which saves us all money,” notes Dr Mark Walker.

Despite the abundance of verified data, fluoridation has decreased at an alarming rate in Canada.

One large city is already starting to see the negative impact that removing fluoride from the water supply is having on the general oral health of its residents, especially children.

In 2011, Calgary city council voted to remove fluoride from the city’s public water supply, much to the dismay of the city’s dentists and doctors. Because Calgary had previously provided city-wide fluoridation, it was to track the data on cavity rates once fluoride was removed.

What researchers found was shocking.

Using comparative data from neighboring Edmonton over the same time period, researchers found both cities experienced a general increase in tooth deterioration compared to an early study in 2004-2005. However, in Calgary, where fluoride was removed, the number increased at a higher rate, with an average of 3.8 surfaces in the mouth evidencing decay while Edmonton’s rate was 2.1.

“We designed the study so we could be as sure as possible that [the increased tooth decay] was due to [fluoride] cessation rather than due to other factors,” said Lindsay McLaren, University of Calgary researcher and study lead. “We systematically considered a number of other factors … and in the end, everything pointed to fluoridation cessation being the most important factor.”

The city’s dental community is worried the problem will get a lot worse before it gets better.

“It’s not unusual for us to see a child with almost full-mouth decay in the population that we’re looking at, and considering that we’re in Calgary, we shouldn’t be seeing that degree of disease here and we are,” said Denise Kokaram, who works on the Alex Dental Health Bus.

Kokaram believes water fluoridation is the cheapest, most economical way to protect dental health in children — especially for families who can’t afford dental care.

The startling data has prompted Calgary’s mayor Naheed Nenshi to announce his plans to look into presenting a motion to council that would reintroduce fluoride into the water supply.

Nenshi told the media, “Based on the science that we’ve got, I would vote in favour of putting it back.”

On the DISPATCH: Headlines  Local  Opinion

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter

* indicates required

About the Author

- Outside contributors to the Dispatch are always welcome to offer their unique voices, contradictory opinions or presentation of information not included on the site.

Displaying 14 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Soren (sorennt96) | Pearltrees says:

    […] set of benefits that one should become familiar with before they decide to choose one or both. Dentist Mark Walker on the Decrease in Fluoride. Dentists across Canada are voicing their concern about the decrease in fluoridation that is […]

  2. How To Choose A Dentist | Site Title says:

    […] let’s discuss how to find a Check this site. How should someone go about selecting a dentist? Now, a lot of people would answer this inquiry […]

  3. dr mark walker dentist – ayureski15 says:

    […] dr mark walker dentist […]

  4. KSpencer says:

    “Community water fluoridation is a malignant medical myth.”  – Dr. Joel Kauffman, Professor Emeritus in Chemistry (2006)

    Check out the citations in these documents. They are peer-reviewed and published in credible science journals. Most dentists haven’t read them because they are taught to deny their existence and treat fluoridation promotion like a “political campaign” instead of a medical investigation:

    1 2016 letter to the American Thyroid Association from Richard Shames, MD, et al. (endocrine disruption) http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf

    2 2015 letter to Institute of Medicine from Erin Brockovich, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, et. al. (contraindications and safety): https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf

    3 2014 legal analysis by Prof. Rita Barnett-Rose (ethical & legal considerations): http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/ 

    4 2014 Peel Canada legal memo and scientific affidavit 2006 NRC panelist, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen (disproportionate harm to susceptible populations): http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Fluoridation-Legal-Opinion-June-24-14.pdf 

  5. Kallie Miller says:

    I wonder if Mark Walker would direct me to where I could view the legally required toxicology studies on the toxic waste, hydrofluorosilicic acid, used to fluoridate which the National Sanitation Foundation uses for the NSF Certificate 60? He must have them in order to say fluoridation is safe. It has already been proven scientifically that fluoridation is not effective while topical application is. I wonder if Mark has done any review of the science of AWF lately?

    Does Mark know that studies show that Vitamin D3, 1000 IU daily prevents cavities. Of course, good nutrition, good oral hygiene is also required.

    Fluoridation does not prevent cavities. (see http://cof-cof.ca/convincing-canadian-studies-demonstrating-water-fluoridations-questionable-merit/ for five Canadian studies regarding the effectiveness of AWF).
    Two studies from the l930’s show that 1000 IU of Vitamin D3 prevent cavities. No doctor or dentist in my life has ever told me about taking Vitamin D for good teeth or good health.

    1000 IU of Vitamin D3 daily does prevent cavities, make strong bones, prevent heart disease, colds and flu. Here are two actual studies done in 1934 and 1938 showing 1000 IU daily of Vitamin D3 prevents cavities.

    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1558862/

    Fewer caries with added vitamin D to nutritional diet.
    2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1528682/pdf/amjphnation01003-0080.pdf

    A more recent study. Article first published online: 9 NOV 2012
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00544.x

    3. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00544.x/abstract;jsessionid=E3BCC934E097574C9C3DE90553868264.d04t0

  6. Richard Hudon says:

    Fluoridation of a population is known to promote adverse health effects in a significant minority of the population in the short term and most of the population in the long term, thus helps increase health care costs – this is an indication of the ignorance of those promoting this terrible, unnecessary and harmful practice.

  7. Richard Hudon says:

    Anyone promoting fluoridation is ignorant of the facts about the Fluorine element and the resulting Fluoride ion in water.

    To top it off, the fluoride compound used as a fluoridating agent is in liquid form called Hydrofluorosilicic acid and as used comes from the mining waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry, it’s equivalent to tailings in the mining industry.
    It is a US EPA banned environmental contaminant; it’s a toxic fluoride industrial waste chemical mixture that contains some other toxic and harmful compounds and elements such as Lead, Mercury, Arsenic Polonium, Radon and many others that are put into tap water untreated.

    That is utterly stupid and amazing.

  8. Ann Wills says:

    There are several reasons why fluoridation schemes are being decreased. In US around 40% of children in fluoridated areas suffer dental fluorosis – permanent staining and mottling of teeth caused by too much fluoride. Also, The American Dental Association had to advise parents not to make up babies’ feeding formula bottles with fluoridated tap water as babies would receive too much fluoride. Any benefit has been found to come from application to teeth – not from drinking it. `

  9. jwillie6 says:

    Comments are too confining to fully explain why fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. The facts are well presented by 15 professionals and scientists in this 15 minute video.

    Professional Perspectives on Fluoride

  10. Dan Germouse says:

    I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.

    • Kallie Miller says:

      Great question Dan Germouse.

    • Kurt Ferre DDS says:


      A typical “red herring” by an anti-fluoronista. What the 2006 NRC Fluoride Study that was a sytematic review of the MCL and MCLG of fluoride (4 ppm) and whether it was protective from adverse health effects. The 12 member panel included 3 anti-fluoronistas who ALL signed off on the final report.

      There are 200,000 U.S. citizens who have naturally-occuring fluoride levels of 4 ppm and above. Controlled fluoridation is 0.7 ppm, 1/4 the level.

      The conclusion was that drinking water with a fluoride concentration of 4 ppm and above, there are 3 possible concerns:

      1) For children, born in an area with this increased concentration, up to the age of 8 years old, 15% would be at risk for severe dental fluorosis.

      Drinking water with a concentration of 4 ppm or above for a LIFETIME:

      2) There would be an increase risk for skeletal fluorosis
      3) There would be an increase risk for bone fractures.

      You’ll never understand this, but hopefully, the readers in this comments section will, “The dose makes the poison”

      Being from Australia, Mouse, how many vegemite sandwiches would a person have to consume before he or she dies of an overdose?

      • KSpencer says:

        Since at least 50% of the fluoride we consume remains in our body, mostly in our bones, but also in soft tissue, it’s been estimated that it only takes a couple of years to have sufficient fluoride in our bones to begin experiencing symptoms, such as arthritis…. the leading cause of disability in the USA.

        Plus, an 8 ounce glass of water provides a different dose to an 8 year old child, 28 year old healthy man, a 38 year old woman with kidney disease.

        If that 28 year old had a diabetic 26 year old diabetic brother who drank 3 times as much water, that brother would also have a different dose. Consequently, their toxic load would be acquired on a different time frame.

      • KSpencer says:

        “The available data, responsibly interpreted, indicate little or no beneficial effect of water fluoridation on oral health.”  – Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2011)

        The NRC said a lot of things, very little of which the fluoridationists claim.

        Exposure: They wrote about how fluoridation is number one source of exposure, but all sources need to be considered when considering the EPA MCLG of 4 ppm, and that means community water fluoridation is the major contributing factor. Page 24

        Table 9.4 Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Cells: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=296
        ⁃ Excerpt: “There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune responses.”
        ⁃ Excerpt: “Fluoride, usually in the millimolar range, has a number of effects on immune cells… Fluoride also augments the inflammatory response to irritants.”
        ⁃ Excerpt: “From an immunologic standpoint, individuals who are immunocompromised could be at greater risk of the immunologic effects of fluoride.”

        High intake groups: NRC wrote “defines sensitive subpopulations in terms of either their response (more severe response or a response to a lower dose) or their exposure (greater exposure than the general population). Hence, it is appropriate to consider those population subgroups whose water intake is likely to be substantially above the national average for the corresponding sex and age group…..” Page 30

        “In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased” Page 172

        Accumulation in children and kidney patients: “In sum, although the data are sparse, severe renal insufficiency appears to increase bone fluoride concentrations, perhaps as much as twofold. The elderly are at increased risk of high bone fluoride concentrations due to accumulation over time; although less clear, decreased renal function and gender may be important.” on Page 100-103

        The entire last chapter politely informs the EPA that to set MCLG, they need to have some science behind it. Between the lines, it says you’re pulling these numbers out of a hat. The EPA came back with a non-responsive response mostly referring to 1940s data.

        Last chapter: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=340

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



The Global Dispatch Facebook page- click here

Movie News Facebook page - click here

Television News Facebook page - click here

Weird News Facebook page - click here