- Email: [email protected]
An Invitation
The Reader Comments
j o u r n a l devotes this section to comment by readers on topics of current interest to dentistry, The editors reserve the right to edit all com munications to fit available space and require that all letters be signed. Signatures will be deleted before publication at the request of the author. Printed communications do not necessarily reflect the opinion or official policy of the Association. Your participation in this section is invited. The Editor
th e
AN INVITATION
Many American dentists probably will be pass ing through Glasgow in traveling to or from the International Dental Congress. May I say how delighted I shall be. by a visit from all who are interested in the history of our pro fession. It would afford me considerable pleas ure to show them my collection of pre-1850 books, advertisements, prints, dentures, in struments and other items. All are now arranged in cases and comprehensively catalogued. Further, it would prove a great stimulus to discuss various points with those imbued with similar interests; one can learn much from an interchange of views. My telephone number in Glasgow, West ern 2640. / . Menzies Campbell, D.D.S., 14, Buckingham Terrace, Glasgow, W. 2, Scotland
FLUORIDES IN TABLE SALT
To the Editor.— Would it not be less wasteful to put fluorine in minute amounts in our table salt, as has been done with iodine, than to put it in the water supply? Such a small quantity of the water in the mains ever reaches a person’s digestive tract, but most of the salt in salt shakers eventually does. Z. F. Endress, M .D ., Pontiac, Mich.
Answer.— Caries inhibition by fluoride (about 1 ppm of fluorine) in drinking water has been studied in great detail. No com parable information is available for judging the effect of fluoride added to table salt. The known variations in the consumption of salt by different persons suggests that the latter procedure would not be satisfactory. Further 567
more, many drinking waters naturally contain adequate fluoride, and the use of a fluoridized salt would be undesirable in these cases. It is more logical to add iodine to salt, because iodides have a much wider margin of safety than do fluorides. The wastefulness of adding fluoride to a water supply is more apparent than real. The added materials are readily available and inexpensive, and also the labor involved in a carefully controlled program is negligible when computed in terms of the individual child. Taken from “ Queries and Minor Notes." J.A.M.A. 148:87 (Jan. 5) 1952. T H E CASE AGAINST INCLUDING DEN TISTS IN SOCIAL SECURITY
On March 3, 1952 the French franc fell to a new low of 483 to the United States dollar.1 This means that you can get five francs for one cent. In 1914 the exchange rate was five francs for one dollar. French money is worth one one-hundredth of what it once was. Suppose a French dentist who was 27 years old had started Social Security payments in 1914. Today he would be 65 and eligible to receive 100 francs each month for the rest of his life. Do you know what he could buy for that 100 francs? As of March 10, 1952 he could buy two loaves of bread. France is a country roughly 27 per cent as big as our own, and what happened there might not happen here. Or could it? Since 1939 our dollar has shrunk at the rate of five cents per year and is now worth about 40 cents. At this rate, it will be worthless in another eight years. Is there any reason to assume that inflation will stop soon, and that the value of the dollar will rise? No. All of the factors that caused this inflation are still with us. Two of these factors are:
j o u r n a l devotes this section to comment by readers on topics of current interest to dentistry, The editors reserve the right to edit all com munications to fit available space and require that all letters be signed. Signatures will be deleted before publication at the request of the author. Printed communications do not necessarily reflect the opinion or official policy of the Association. Your participation in this section is invited. The Editor
th e
AN INVITATION
Many American dentists probably will be pass ing through Glasgow in traveling to or from the International Dental Congress. May I say how delighted I shall be. by a visit from all who are interested in the history of our pro fession. It would afford me considerable pleas ure to show them my collection of pre-1850 books, advertisements, prints, dentures, in struments and other items. All are now arranged in cases and comprehensively catalogued. Further, it would prove a great stimulus to discuss various points with those imbued with similar interests; one can learn much from an interchange of views. My telephone number in Glasgow, West ern 2640. / . Menzies Campbell, D.D.S., 14, Buckingham Terrace, Glasgow, W. 2, Scotland
FLUORIDES IN TABLE SALT
To the Editor.— Would it not be less wasteful to put fluorine in minute amounts in our table salt, as has been done with iodine, than to put it in the water supply? Such a small quantity of the water in the mains ever reaches a person’s digestive tract, but most of the salt in salt shakers eventually does. Z. F. Endress, M .D ., Pontiac, Mich.
Answer.— Caries inhibition by fluoride (about 1 ppm of fluorine) in drinking water has been studied in great detail. No com parable information is available for judging the effect of fluoride added to table salt. The known variations in the consumption of salt by different persons suggests that the latter procedure would not be satisfactory. Further 567
more, many drinking waters naturally contain adequate fluoride, and the use of a fluoridized salt would be undesirable in these cases. It is more logical to add iodine to salt, because iodides have a much wider margin of safety than do fluorides. The wastefulness of adding fluoride to a water supply is more apparent than real. The added materials are readily available and inexpensive, and also the labor involved in a carefully controlled program is negligible when computed in terms of the individual child. Taken from “ Queries and Minor Notes." J.A.M.A. 148:87 (Jan. 5) 1952. T H E CASE AGAINST INCLUDING DEN TISTS IN SOCIAL SECURITY
On March 3, 1952 the French franc fell to a new low of 483 to the United States dollar.1 This means that you can get five francs for one cent. In 1914 the exchange rate was five francs for one dollar. French money is worth one one-hundredth of what it once was. Suppose a French dentist who was 27 years old had started Social Security payments in 1914. Today he would be 65 and eligible to receive 100 francs each month for the rest of his life. Do you know what he could buy for that 100 francs? As of March 10, 1952 he could buy two loaves of bread. France is a country roughly 27 per cent as big as our own, and what happened there might not happen here. Or could it? Since 1939 our dollar has shrunk at the rate of five cents per year and is now worth about 40 cents. At this rate, it will be worthless in another eight years. Is there any reason to assume that inflation will stop soon, and that the value of the dollar will rise? No. All of the factors that caused this inflation are still with us. Two of these factors are: