Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

No more fluoridation in the county

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    Yes, a Chinese study. Not an Irish study.
    That article
    • studies on children in China differed in many ways or were incomplete
    • states may affect or seems to affect
    • appears to be dealing with areas of high levels of fluoride
    No valid data whatsoever in that. Just a lot of conjunction and comes across as a concerned group rather than an expect group.

    I'm all for full investigation on this issue, and I'm very much open to being convinced. But the data been offered is extremely poor.

    Repeating myself but it's risk vs gain. Any study produced is going to have astrix's next to it because there are so many variables. You could probably pick the same holes out of studies linking cancer to smoking (exaggeration but you get my point?).

    Flouride is flouride, whatever country it's in. We're all human, it affects us all the same way. Argue the merits of the study but don't try dismiss it on a technicality like that.

    I'd be happy to see a full on study too but in the meantime, where's the argument to keep adding it? Not one person has provided one here.


  • Options
    #63
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Bacchus wrote: »
    I provided two links and made my stance already that it's risk vs gain that I base my opinion on.
    Neither link has any data to backup its stance.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    Where's your proof that it does have any health benefits?
    The onus is suddenly on me? I'm looking for proof that it is causing harm as stated, but not receiving it.[/QUOTE]


  • Options
    #64
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    Neither link has any data to backup its stance.

    Look if there was concrete proof, we wouldn't talking about this. What there is evidence of links, you draw your own conclusions. To me (and the Harvard researchers ;) ), there looks to be a link and I see no benefit in continuing to add flouride.
    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    The onus is suddenly on me? I'm looking for proof that it is causing harm as stated, but not receiving it.

    Well if the onus is on me to show studies linking flouride to ill health effects, the onus should be on you to show why we should keep adding it.


  • Options
    #65
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Bacchus wrote: »
    You could probably pick the same holes out of studies linking cancer to smoking (exaggeration but you get my point?).
    Not really. The link between the cancer/smoking has an enormous weight of evidence behind it. The fluoride case appears to have nothing but speculation.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    Flouride is flouride, whatever country it's in. We're all human, it affects us all the same way. Argue the merits of the study but don't try dismiss it on a technicality like that.
    Yes, fluoride is fluoride. But the levels of fluoride is important.
    Sugar is sugar, but adding 1 teaspoon as opposed to 10 spoonfuls to your tea changes the risk.
    Pointing out a technicality such as that isn't being dismissive. I'm very open to being convinced with credible data.


  • Options
    #66
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Bacchus wrote: »
    Well if the onus is on me to show studies linking flouride to ill health effects, the onus should be on you to show why we should keep adding it.
    Not really. I'm not taking a definite stance on either side, as I said I'm open to being convinced. Asking me to provide proof of the benefits does nothing to aid the argument that it is causing the diseases stated.

    But as for proof, a quick Google search will give you the links you require.
    From the World Health Organisation: http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    Last post on this for the night. The smoking-cancer comparison was a poor one of the top of my head. I was just trying to make the point that all studies are going to have *'s.

    Amounts do matter but I see no argument that justifies adding any amount.

    The only benefit in your link was dental hygiene. That's not a good enough reason IMO when there are risks associated with fluoride (at the very least you can agree the risks are not well understood?) and dental hygiene shouldn't be an issue in a 1st world country.

    To me, lack of any real benefit adding it is on its own a reason to stop adding it. When you throw in the potential health risks is an easy choice for me.


  • Options
    #68
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Bacchus wrote: »
    The only benefit in your link was dental hygiene. That's not a good enough reason IMO when there are risks associated with fluoride (at the very least you can agree the risks are not well understood?)
    I agree that high levels of fluoride does appear to carry health issues.
    But what I'm looking for is proof:
    -Of the level required for those heath issues to occur
    -That Ireland's fluoride levels are that high
    At the moment there is no such proof at all.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    To me, lack of any real benefit adding it is on its own a reason to stop adding it. When you throw in the potential health risks is an easy choice for me.
    But it does appear (according to the WHO) to have health benefits: "In some developed countries, the health and economic benefits of fluoridation may be small, but particularly important in deprived areas, where water fluoridation may be a key factor in reducing inequalities in dental health."

    The potential health risks from links are speculated, unproven, and without any data to back it up.

    If Cork County Council are worried about peoples health, then add an additional tax to outlets who sell high cholesterol foods and use that to supplement and lower the price of fruit and veg.


  • Options
    #69
    enda1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭enda1


    Do people understand that tooth decay is a breeding ground of bacteria and a significant contributing cause to childhood illness? Fluoridation of water is not done for aesthetic reasons and any move to remove it from council supplied water will contribute to illness in the population. The removal of it should only be done for provable scientific reasons.


  • Options
    #70
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    I agree that high levels of fluoride does appear to carry health issues.
    But what I'm looking for is proof:
    -Of the level required for those heath issues to occur
    -That Ireland's fluoride levels are that high
    At the moment there is no such proof at all.

    I think we are in agreement of what should be the outcome, it where we draw the line that is the disagreement. I believe the evidence that links flouride to health issues including brain development issues & thyroid problems. I, like you, would love to see conclusive proof on the subject but that could take decades. So, to me, I see no reason to keep adding it when there are a lot of potential issues associated with it. To go back to my smoking comparision :o there was once a time when there was no proof that it caused cancer. I believe the evidence that exists now and in time believe more will come. Right now, I'd like it out of my water.
    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    But it does appear (according to the WHO) to have health benefits: "In some developed countries, the health and economic benefits of fluoridation may be small, but particularly important in deprived areas, where water fluoridation may be a key factor in reducing inequalities in dental health."

    Not a good enough reason for me. If people can't brush their teeth 2/3 times a day, then that is on them, not on the state.
    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    The potential health risks from links are speculated, unproven, and without any data to back it up.

    It's unproven until it is. We've seen things like this before with smoking, alcohol, sugar, salt.... it starts out as speculation, evidence builds up and eventually there's enough evidence that people wake up and pay attention. Flouride is a much smaller issue though than any of those so the process is slower and is going to be less... publicised... if that's the right word.
    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    If Cork County Council are worried about peoples health, then add an additional tax to outlets who sell high cholesterol foods and use that to supplement and lower the price of fruit and veg.

    :confused: That has nothing to do with this topic and is a whole other debate on it's own.

    enda1 wrote: »
    Do people understand that tooth decay is a breeding ground of bacteria and a significant contributing cause to childhood illness? Fluoridation of water is not done for aesthetic reasons and any move to remove it from council supplied water will contribute to illness in the population. The removal of it should only be done for provable scientific reasons.

    Toothbrush. Toothpaste. Mouthwash. It is people's own personal responsibility to look after their teeth. Aside from the potential health hazards of adding flouride, I see no reason to add it that can't be covered by simply brushing your teeth regularly.

    I'll pose the question I asked earlier again. If the situation was turned around and there currently was no added flouride in the water but there were proposals to add it. How would you feel?


  • Options
    #71
    enda1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,166 ✭✭✭enda1


    Bacchus wrote: »
    snip


    Toothbrush. Toothpaste. Mouthwash. It is people's own personal responsibility to look after their teeth. Aside from the potential health hazards of adding flouride, I see no reason to add it that can't be covered by simply brushing your teeth regularly.

    I'll pose the question I asked earlier again. If the situation was turned around and there currently was no added flouride in the water but there were proposals to add it. How would you feel?

    To answer your second point first, i'd feel perfectly good as (has been consistently proven) there are no known significant side effects and if they launched a pilot scheme to check the improvement in childhood health brought on by the fluoridation of water and it proved effective.

    About brushing teeth, the government has to cater for every child, not just those brought up with perfect parents who ensure their children follow recommended oral hygiene. There are those that don't and fluoridation helps tackle these difficult cases.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    enda1 wrote: »
    To answer your second point first, i'd feel perfectly good as (has been consistently proven) there are no known significant side effects and if they launched a pilot scheme to check the improvement in childhood health brought on by the fluoridation of water and it proved effective.

    There is no proof it is good for your teeth. Sure, there is evidence that it is good and effective but there is no proof. There is even evidence that flouride can contribute to dental disease. It is this unknown which bothers me. It is not fully understood yet we add it to the water we drink every day.
    enda1 wrote: »
    About brushing teeth, the government has to cater for every child, not just those brought up with perfect parents who ensure their children follow recommended oral hygiene. There are those that don't and fluoridation helps tackle these difficult cases.

    The government doesn't need to do this. Proper education should be preferred when the tools are easily available to take care of your teeth. Quite glib of you to suggest only 'perfect parents' can enforce brushing your teeth at night. Everyone has a personal responsibility to look after all aspects of their health. It is lazy to expect the state to do everything for us.


  • Options
    #73
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Bacchus wrote: »
    where we draw the line that is the disagreement.
    This is not about where we draw the line, it's about where professionals in this area draw the line. The WHO have provided the guideline of usually around 1mg/litre.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    I believe the evidence that links flouride to health issues including brain development issues & thyroid problems.
    I don't doubt that evidence. But none of those articles will give a 'level' of fluoride required for this to occur, nor does it give the chances that it will occur, i.e. does it require a 10mg/litre and then that gives a .005% chance of an issue?
    Bacchus wrote: »
    I see no reason to keep adding it when there are a lot of potential issues associated with it.
    Again, and we are probably going around in circles, there are other chemicals added to our water that in the wrong percentages would cause issues. But because they are at low levels, then it's safe to drink the water, which also appears to be the case for fluoride.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    To go back to my smoking comparision :o there was once a time when there was no proof that it caused cancer. I believe the evidence that exists now and in time believe more will come.
    Again, I think the smoking comparison is a poor one to make. The cigarette industry had known about the additive and health issue caused by smoking, but continued anyway for profiteering purposes. I'm not sure how that relates to a government adding fluoride to it's citizens water.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    Not a good enough reason for me. If people can't brush their teeth 2/3 times a day, then that is on them, not on the state.
    Repeating myself, but if the cost of dental care > cost of fluoride, then it does affect the state and it's taxpayers.
    Plus, this isn't a World of equals; not every child is the state gets the parenting that you and I were lucky enough to receive.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    It's unproven until it is. We've seen things like this before with smoking, alcohol, sugar, salt....
    Smoking isn't a good comparison.
    Alcohol, sugar and salt, all have health benefits when consumed in the correct percentages. And as with most substances, when consumed in the wrong quantities leads to issues. Any of the articles against fluoride never produce any evidence in this area that you could with alcohol/sugar/salt; there isn't even a smoking gun on the issue.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    :confused: That has nothing to do with this topic and is a whole other debate on it's own.
    You can bring up smoking/alcohol/sugar/salt, and I can't just mention cholesterol as an aside? No double standards please.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    If the situation was turned around and there currently was no added flouride in the water but there were proposals to add it. How would you feel?
    I would question it. I would be worried. I would listen to the advise by professionals.
    But as we live 50 odd years into the future of fluoride been added, we have the benefit of seeing no link to any issues of fluoride being added and only the dental benefits.
    And it's not just Ireland's sample size, this have been done in multiple locations, and aside from some concerns and fear on this issue, nothing concrete has been produced to substantiate those fears.

    We are going around in circles on this.
    We disagree, but that's fine.
    It appears that Simon Coveny is going to try and have a investigation based on the Councils vote (it doesn't stop fluoride been added at the moment).
    Let's hope that we can get at least an answer to some of the concerns on this to aid the debate.


  • Options
    #74
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Here is a massive thread in CT about fluoride in the water

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056973983

    and if you do a search on boards there are over 4200 threads going back 10 years so i don't think we will be coming up with anything new in here about the health +/- of it.

    Interesting article here on Cork's county council decision

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/claims-by-antiflouride-campaigners-just-dont-wash-with-the-facts-30084145.html
    While Mr Waugh preached his woo on RTE radio yesterday, Cork County Council revealed on Monday night they are also devotees of bad science.

    The local authority unanimously supported a motion seeking the immediate cessation of fluoridation of the public water supply, with councillors claiming the policy was a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, a leading cause of cancer and, perhaps, most damningly, makes people "docile".

    Fine Gael councillor Adrian Healy claimed our entire food industry was at risk. "Some of the countries we are exporting food to are now calling into question the use of fluoride in our food products and this would be very detrimental to the food industry," he said.

    This came as a surprise to the Department of Agriculture, who told me yesterday that it was not aware of any such concerns having been raised by other countries.


  • Options
    #75
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Bacchus wrote: »

    As I've said, it's the risk vs the gain. Show me an argument FOR keeping flouride in the water and you have my attention.

    You have seen a dentist in this thread already state the differences are large between the population with flouride and without. If you speak to any practicing dentist you will hear the same story. If you want to pay the cost difference between adding some flouride to water, and paying for the massive increase in dental costs for the taxpayer, then I vote for some kind of anti-flouride tax... where those who oppose common-sense policies pay more for the health care consequences.

    You can say that dental hygience products are readily available, but you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think the entire population use them.

    Also, you clearly do have a choice on whether or not to drink out of your tap. Buy your drinking water. Shops stock it. I don't know why the irish expect drinking quality water available to flush their piss down the loo with anyway. Overblown sense of entitlement as usual.


  • Options
    #76
    Bacchus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,701 ✭✭✭Bacchus


    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    This is not about where we draw the line, it's about where professionals in this area draw the line. The WHO have provided the guideline of usually around 1mg/litre.

    No, I'm saying where you and I draw the line (personally) in terms of what we think is enough evidence to get rid of flouride is where our disagreement is. Basically, I think we have to agree to disagree on that. As you say, we're both going round in circles.
    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    Again, and we are probably going around in circles, there are other chemicals added to our water that in the wrong percentages would cause issues. But because they are at low levels, then it's safe to drink the water, which also appears to be the case for fluoride.

    I do not know about the other chemicals but talking about flouride, the gain does not justify the risk. Even regardless of the potential health risks, I do not believe flouride is necessary in our water supply. That is my stance.
    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    Again, I think the smoking comparison is a poor one to make. The cigarette industry had known about the additive and health issue caused by smoking, but continued anyway for profiteering purposes. I'm not sure how that relates to a government adding fluoride to it's citizens water.

    Yeah it's a poor comparison but I'm just making the point that it can take time for the full impact of something on people's health to come to light. Something as high profile as smoking took decades. All the while a generation were smoking themselves to an early grave. I don't believe the impact of flouride is anywhere near the same level but I just don't see a reason to keep adding it when there are potentially harmful side effects.

    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    You can bring up smoking/alcohol/sugar/salt, and I can't just mention cholesterol as an aside? No double standards please.

    You were trying to propose if we want to take flouride out of water the council should implement a tax on certain 'unhealthy' foods. The two are completely unconnected. I was making reference to a history of different substances (smoking, alchohol, salt, sugar) that were once deemed perfectly ok but after years of research... not so much (the sugar and salt debate still rages on).
    munstermagic11 wrote: »
    I would question it. I would be worried. I would listen to the advise by professionals.
    But as we live 50 odd years into the future of fluoride been added, we have the benefit of seeing no link to any issues of fluoride being added and only the dental benefits.
    And it's not just Ireland's sample size, this have been done in multiple locations, and aside from some concerns and fear on this issue, nothing concrete has been produced to substantiate those fears.

    We are going around in circles on this.
    We disagree, but that's fine.
    It appears that Simon Coveny is going to try and have a investigation based on the Councils vote (it doesn't stop fluoride been added at the moment).
    Let's hope that we can get at least an answer to some of the concerns on this to aid the debate.

    Yeah look, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do agree with you that a comprehensive study should be done in Ireland but whatever the result of that study, there's going to be another one countering it and the debate will rage on. Meanwhile, flouride is being added for, IMO, redundant purposes while the health risks remain at the very least 'unknown'.


  • Options
    #77
    j8wk2feszrnpao
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,438 ✭✭✭j8wk2feszrnpao


    Bacchus wrote: »
    I do not believe flouride is necessary in our water supply. That is my stance.
    You may be correct in that stance.
    The advise from the WHO and from dental practitioners is that it does have a benefit, and as they are the pros in this area, I would trust their judgement.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    IYeah it's a poor comparison but I'm just making the point that it can take time for the full impact of something on people's health to come to light. Something as high profile as smoking took decades.
    Yes, but that's because the companies conspired to hide the truth.
    Are you suggesting that the government/WHO/dentists are also conspiring? That's why I think it's a poor comparison.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    You were trying to propose if we want to take flouride out of water the council should implement a tax on certain 'unhealthy' foods. The two are completely unconnected.
    No I wasn't.
    I merely suggested that the council could take some proper effective measures if they have health concerns about what people are consuming. But that would involve some actually action/innovation/forward-thinking being taken rather than sitting and raising their hands to a vote.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    I was making reference to a history of different substances (smoking, alchohol, salt, sugar) that were once deemed perfectly ok but after years of research... not so much (the sugar and salt debate still rages on).
    Smoking issues were hidden, so not relevant.
    Excessive consumption of alcohol/sugar/salt have always shown clear evidence of medical issues, unlike this debate on fluoride which provides speculated evidence.
    Bacchus wrote: »
    Meanwhile, flouride is being added for, IMO, redundant purposes while the health risks remain at the very least 'unknown'.
    It might be redundant, I don't know.
    The WHO and dental surgeons suggest it's still of benefit.
    I would suggest the health risks at the very most remain 'unknown', and without data to back it up.

    But as has been stated, there's a big debate on another thread, plus plenty of other places have discussed this at length without finalising the issue. So I doubt you or me are going to get it resolved here either :)
    I'll bow out at this point, cheers for the debate, we'll agree to disagree, which is a good way to end this. Later dude.


  • Options
    #78
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    pwurple wrote: »
    Also, you clearly do have a choice on whether or not to drink out of your tap. Buy your drinking water. Shops stock it. I don't know why the irish expect drinking quality water available to flush their piss down the loo with anyway. Overblown sense of entitlement as usual.

    Are you for real? I know Ireland/being Irish takes a bashing all the time here on boards...(we are the WORST at everything in the world judging by people attitudes here) but in fairness this is just about the most silly example of this type of anti-Ireland comment I have ever read on boards.
    You turned what was a very valid post with good points into a load of rubbish by stating the above.
    Can I ask do you actually believe the above or is it just a throw-away comment you made to try to back up your otherwise good points.


  • Options
    #79
    corkonion
    Registered Users Posts: 526 ✭✭✭corkonion


    This argument could go on and on, its getting silly and is missing the point.

    I personally would rather there was not fluoride added to my water.

    As an adult I would like to be allowed a choice like in many other countries where you can buy products such as salt with added fluoride for those who chose it. I just don't want to have to have it.

    (I don't see the people that I know that have there own water wells walking around with toothless smiles).


  • Options
    #80
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Ludo wrote: »
    Are you for real? I know Ireland/being Irish takes a bashing all the time here on boards...(we are the WORST at everything in the world judging by people attitudes here) but in fairness this is just about the most silly example of this type of anti-Ireland comment I have ever read on boards.
    You turned what was a very valid post with good points into a load of rubbish by stating the above.
    Can I ask do you actually believe the above or is it just a throw-away comment you made to try to back up your otherwise good points.

    Do I believe it's a waste of money to provide drinking quality water to private homes, for people to shower in it, run baths, flush it down the toilet, clean their cars with it, water their plants, clean their floors, run their washing machines etc? Of course!

    What % of the drinking water in your home does anyone actually even drink? 1%, if that?

    I think it's a huge luxury spend, that we don't actually need, and people completely take for granted. I've lived in places in europe, the US, and africa where no-one ever drinks the water. You want to drink water, you go to the shop and buy it. No clue why it's expected here on this little dot of an island.


  • Options
    #81
    Ludo
    Registered Users Posts: 5,015 ✭✭✭Ludo


    pwurple wrote: »
    Do I believe it's a waste of money to provide drinking quality water to private homes, for people to shower in it, run baths, flush it down the toilet, clean their cars with it, water their plants, clean their floors, run their washing machines etc? Of course!

    What % of the drinking water in your home does anyone actually even drink? 1%, if that?

    I think it's a huge luxury spend, that we don't actually need, and people completely take for granted. I've lived in places in europe, the US, and africa where no-one ever drinks the water. You want to drink water, you go to the shop and buy it. No clue why it's expected here on this little dot of an island.

    You are making out it is just Ireland that expects the water from the tap to be drinkable? Really? Just Ireland?

    I also have spent time/lived in many other countries where the tap water is drinkable and this is the norm in those places (europe and USA). Making out it is JUST an Irish expectation/entitlement is just plain silly and wrong and detracts from what was a good post up to that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    pwurple
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,449 ✭✭✭✭pwurple


    Ludo wrote: »
    You are making out it is just Ireland that expects the water from the tap to be drinkable? Really? Just Ireland?

    I also have spent time/lived in many other countries where the tap water is drinkable and this is the norm in those places (europe and USA). Making out it is JUST an Irish expectation/entitlement is just plain silly and wrong and detracts from what was a good post up to that.

    Did I say it was JUST ireland? Try having a problem with something I wrote instead of your own personal bugbear. :)


  • Options
    #83
    Treora
    Registered Users Posts: 376 ✭✭Treora


    This is the same issue with alcohol and tobacco where social habitualisation campaigns change behaviour along with universal education

    http://www.mah.se/CAPP/Country-Oral-Health-Profiles/EURO/

    Compare Denmark, Sweden and Ireland's DMFT. They replaced medication with education in the early 1980's and saved millions per year in insurance costs from accidental spills.

    Now look at page 183

    "where public dental awareness is very high and alternative vehicles for fluoride (e.g. toothpaste) are widely available and widely used, a decision not to replace fluoride removed from the d[r]inking water would be of no consequence. "
    WHO 2005 - Prof Whelton & O'Mullane


    imitation wrote: »
    My parents think fluoride was a good thing, as it came in during there lifetime they can see clearly the difference before and after. Plenty of people had nasty teeth before it came in and plenty of misery, I know dental hygiene wasn't exactly a thing back then either. On the other hand now people basically drink acid on a regular basis with most soft drinks. People also snack regularly on sugar treats, so the risks are lot higher with no dental treatment.

    ..

    I also think the less well off will be hit by this, dental care gets very expensive fast and is one of the first things to go off peoples lists, and cheaper diets are often more sugary.


Advertisement