I have practiced dentistry for 16 years and have specialized in caring for children. I have studied the cavity process in great detail. I have researched the physical changes fluoride produces to lower cavity rates, and I have studied common risk factors for high-risk patients. This I have done in three regions of the United States, and in three foreign countries.
As I treat children from all corners of this region, I assess their cavity rate, their diet, their socioeconomic status, their family dynamics, their access to care, and their dental IQ to understand on an individual level why a child has decay. These observations give me great insight into not only what is proven in national journals but what cavities looks like in areas around here.
Please hear this: The level of protection municipal fluoridation has for members of our community is resulting in a decreased risk of decay compared to non-fluoridated areas. Fluoridated water provides a layer of protection that if removed could be catastrophic for our children and the taxpayers who will have to afford the repair.
Don’t be fooled by the skewed statistics. A 20 percent reduction in cavities does not mean one less cavity in your lifetime. That means 12 cavities in a 4-year-old instead of 16. That means 20 fewer children undergoing comprehensive dental rehabilitation under general anesthesia every year in my practice alone. That means saving taxpayers a $100,000 burden in care costs. A 20 percent reduction may be the difference between multiple visits to the office instead of the risks with sedation.
I do not profess to understand all the statistics, but I can understand that for less than $1 per person, we can save our community hundreds of thousands of dollars. Almost 76 percent of our severe-risk patients do not have fluoride in the drinking water. That is a fact, not a fluke.
For the good of all, leave fluoride in the water. For your decision, should this come to a ballot, educate yourself on the known facts, not the fright.
Angela Pinkerton
Durango
