↓ Skip to main content

When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Health Review, December 2007
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
29 X users
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
27 Wikipedia pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature
Published in
Australian Health Review, December 2007
DOI 10.1186/1743-8462-4-25
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jason M Armfield

Abstract

The addition of the chemical fluorine to the water supply, called water fluoridation, reduces dental caries by making teeth more resistant to demineralisation and more likely to remineralise when initially decayed. This process has been implemented in more than 30 countries around the world, is cost-effective and has been shown to be efficacious in preventing decay across a person's lifespan. However, attempts to expand this major public health achievement in line with Australia's National Oral Health Plan 2004-2013 are almost universally met with considerable resistance from opponents of water fluoridation, who engage in coordinated campaigns to portray water fluoridation as ineffective and highly dangerous. Water fluoridation opponents employ multiple techniques to try and undermine the scientifically established effectiveness of water fluoridation. The materials they use are often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation. These materials are used to sway public and political opinion to the detriment of public health. Despite an extensive body of literature, both studies and results within studies are often selectively reported, giving a biased portrayal of water fluoridation effectiveness. Positive findings are downplayed or trivialised and the population implications of these findings misinterpreted. Ecological comparisons are sometimes used to support spurious conclusions. Opponents of water fluoridation frequently repeat that water fluoridation is associated with adverse health effects and studies are selectively picked from the extensive literature to convey only claimed adverse findings related to water fluoridation. Techniques such as "the big lie" and innuendo are used to associate water fluoridation with health and environmental disasters, without factual support. Half-truths are presented, fallacious statements reiterated, and attempts are made to bamboozle the public with a large list of claims and quotes often with little scientific basis. Ultimately, attempts are made to discredit and slander scientists and various health organisations that support water fluoridation. Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that has been found to be safe and effective. Nonetheless, the implementation of water fluoridation is still regularly interrupted by a relatively small group of individuals who use misinformation and rhetoric to induce doubts in the minds of the public and government officials. It is important that public health officials are aware of these tactics so that they can better counter their negative effect.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Researcher 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 18 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 32%
Social Sciences 8 10%
Environmental Science 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Other 17 21%
Unknown 18 22%