How can my dentist say that it's good for my teeth?
By receiving limited training on the subject and being misinformed on purpose by the ADA and CDA. Figures in ADA pamphlets contain an incredible amount of untruths, and outright fraudulent claims. If you check the references cited and numbers listed in your local libraries, you will undoubtedly come to the same conclusion. Some fluoridation endorsements are listed which proves fraudulent when checked. Most dentists never bother to take the time to study both sides of the fluoride issue. Consider this statement by the ADA in 1979: "Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non-participation is overt neglect of personal responsibility." There are NO reliable studies, conducted under ethical research guidelines, which prove the benefits of fluoride supplementation. The FDA admits to this! There are more than 500 peer-reviewed studies documenting the adverse effects.
Furthermore, dentists make higher profits in fluoridated areas and through fluoride use. As a result of mottled enamel, many more restorative measures are necessary, such as braces, bridges, etc. For the ADA/CDA, this condition is a real moneymaker, because cosmetic dentistry is far more lucrative than cavity repair. In addition, there is an abundance of evidence in the scientific literature indicating that fluoride causes a delay in the normal shedding of the "baby" teeth, and their replacement by permanent teeth. This delay has been shown to increase the number of children with malpositioned teeth. Again, braces are far more expensive than fillings.
(Note: In a 1972 report by the American Dental Association, it is stated that dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas.)
(Douglas et al., "Impact of water fluoridation on dental practices and dental manpower", Journal of the American Dental Association; 84:355-67, 1972)
In 1993 the National Academy of Sciences warned, "dental fluorosis...might be more than a cosmetic defect if enough fluorotic enamel is fractured and lost to cause pain, adversely affect food choices, compromise chewing efficiency, and require complex dental treatment."
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.
The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety or effectiveness. The FDA does not consider fluoride an essential nutrient.
Four major studies involving 480,000 children (US, 39,000; Japan, 22,000; India, 400,000; Tucson, 29,000) comparing fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas showed no significant difference in decay rates. Proven is that a higher intake of fluoride will actually cause MORE cavities, especially for children with low dietary calcium intake.