How Many Kids Age 12 – 15 Have Dental Fluorosis?
In plain numbers how many kids are affected by each degree of fluorosis severety?
These are the raw figures:
40.7% of children 12 – 15 years old have fluorosis, while 8.6% suffer from moderate fluorosis (white spots and some brown spots with up to 50% of enamel impacted), and 3.6% suffer from moderate and severe fluorosis (white spots and brown spots and sometimes pitting and chalky teeth and 100% of enamel impacted).
How many kids are there in each category?
These are my sources for raw data:
| US 2010 Census | |||||||
| http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf | |||||||
| 308,745,538.00 | US Population 2010 | ||||||
| 53,980,105.00 | all kids 5-17, a span of 13 years | ||||||
| 16,609,263.08 | 5.3796% | ages 12-15, a span of 4 years | |||||
| 4/13 of all kids 5-17 | |||||||
| Beltran’s degrees of fluorosis: | |||||||
| 6,577,268 | 2.1303% | 39.600% | unaffected | ||||
| 3,272,025 | 1.0598% | 19.700% | questionable | ||||
| 59.300% | no significant fluorosis | ||||||
| 4,733,640 | 1.5332% | 28.500% | very mild | ||||
| 1,428,397 | 0.4626% | 8.600% | mild | ||||
| 597,933 | 0.1937% | 3.600% | moderate-severe | ||||
| 6,759,970 | 40.700% | significant fluorosis | |||||
| Everett Calculations | |||||||
| 700,000 | population served | ||||||
| 14,912 | 2.1303% | 39.600% | unaffected | ||||
| 7,419 | 1.0598% | 19.700% | questionable | ||||
| 59.300% | no significant fluorosis | ||||||
| 10,732 | 1.5332% | 28.500% | very mild | ||||
| 3,238 | 0.4626% | 8.600% | mild | ||||
| 1,356 | 0.1937% | 3.600% | moderate and severe | ||||
| 15,327 | 40.700% | significant fluorosis | |||||
It is not acceptable to give mild, moderate, or severe fluorosis to 597,933 of our kids nationwide.
It is not acceptable for Everett to give mild, moderate, or severe fluorosis to 15,327 of our kids in the Everett service district.
Pro-fluroidationists write off damage to these kids as acceptable loss in return for a dubious slight reduction in caries.
James,
For an alternative approach that exposes the CDC calculations as fraud, soo my commentary at http://www.ukcaf.org/what_the_cdc_fluorosis_data_really_show.html
Whilst my calculations are only approximate – they assume that kids in non-fluoridated water areas don’t get ANY fluorosis, which is not a true approximation – they do show how the CDC data have been massaged to provide an improperly optimistic (?) view of the problem of fluorosis in American teenagers.
Generalising from data drawn from the entire population is a dangerously deceptive practice. To understand what the data show you must take into account the exactly time when the kids wth fluorosis as teenagers were actually exposed during their most vilnerable period in infancy. This time-lag is critical, since the extent of fluoridation in the USA has not been constant over the relavant period beng examined, nor does it represent the risk to infants NOW. When you ‘correct’ the data used by CDC for the time-frame and prevalence of fluoridation, you get a far more alarming picture than anyone seems to be prepared to admit!
Doug