Volume 48, Issue 4 pp. 214-219
Full Access

Water Fluoridation: a Response to Critics in Australia and New Zealand

Brian A. Burl BDS, MPH, PhD

Brian A. Burl BDS, MPH, PhD

Program in Dental Public Health School of Public Health The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ml 48109–2029

Search for more papers by this author
Eugenio D. Beltran DDS

Eugenio D. Beltran DDS

Program in Dental Public Health School of Public Health The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Ml 48109–2029

Search for more papers by this author
First published: December 1988
Citations: 7

This study was supported by a contract from the Dental Disease Prevention Activity, Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia. Send correspondence and reprint requests to Dr. Burt. Manuscript received: 12/29/87; returned to author for revision: 2/26/88; accepted for publication: 4/20/88.

Abstract

Recent questions about the effectiveness of water fluoridation have come from Diesendorf in Australia and Colquhoun in New Zealand. This report examines the arguments of both authors in detail and finds errors in each. Diesendorf employed an outdated view of how fluoride exerts its anticariogenic action and took a number of quotations out of context. Colquhoun's data are questionable. Neither author has produced evidence to challenge the established safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.