최성현 메인 Successful fluoride plebiscite in the township of deniliquin

335 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
335
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

최성현 메인 Successful fluoride plebiscite in the township of deniliquin

  1. 1. 3조 62번 최성현
  2. 2.  Water fluoridation is not mandatory in NewSouth Wales(NSW), Australia, as the executivedecision rests with local government councilsunder the NSW Fluoridation of Public WaterSupplies Act 1957. Deniliquin’s water supplies were fluoridatedwhen the local water treatment plant was firstcommissioned in 1986. However, the councilceased fluoridation in 1988 because of a shift inthe proportion of pro-fluoridation councilmembers after the mayor’s death.
  3. 3.  2003년 가을, 지역 초등학교 학생들 40%가 우식경험이 있다고 알려졌는데 이러한 높은 우식경험은 상수도불소화 시행을 중지했기 때문이라 생각했다. 그 이유는 같은 강물을 공유하는이웃마을은 계속 상수도불소화를 시행했는데그 마을은 아이들의 우식경험이 유의할 정도로낮았기 때문.-> 그래서 학생회가 의회에 상수도 불소화 재시행을 요청하게됨.
  4. 4.  Deniliquin 의회는 NSW Health Department 대표와 저명한 anti-fluoridationist를 초청 A key element of the community informationprogram was the use ofcontemporary, epidemiological evidence toillustrate Deniliquin’s dental decay crisis.( 사회경제적 수준이 비슷한 두 근접한 상수도불소화 마을에서 아이들의 우식경험율 감소)
  5. 5.  A local grassroots commettee for carrying outthe various campaign activities was formedunder the leadership of a prominent localdentist. These activities included strategically placingwater fluoridation posters endorsed by theNSW Health Department around variouspublic venues, the printing of “How to vote”cards and distributing them on the day of theplebicite.
  6. 6.  5,280명의 지역민 중 4,539명이 투표에 참여(86%) Do you support the addition of fluoride toDeniliquin town water supply?- Yes/2,533명(55.8%), No/1,879명(41.4%)- Deniliquin Council resolved to reintroducewater fluoridation by a vote of all but one infavor of the motion.- 2005.1월, Deniliquin 지역민들은 다시 불소가첨가된 상수도를 제공 받을 수 있게됨.
  7. 7. 1. Vote “yes” for fluoridation1) Dental decay crisis in Deniliquina) Local children have higher decay ratesb) And higher general anesthetic rates forextractions of fillingsc) Due to the absence of water fluoridationd) Treatment needs cannot be met by ruraldentists alone
  8. 8. 2) Healthy mouths, healthy livesa) Poor oral health is associated with poor generalhealthb) Dental decay is preventablec) water fluoridation benefits anyone with naturalteeth3) Water fluoridation – nature thought of it firsta) water has naturally occurring amounts offluorideb) water fluoridation is safe, effective, efficient,cost-effective and equitable
  9. 9. 4) Water fluoridation – top 10 public healthachievements of the 20th Centurya) impeccable record of safety andeffectiveness as a public health measureb) Unethical of anti-fluoridationists to imposetheir demands on community
  10. 10. 2. Vote “NO” for fluoridation1) water fluoridation is unethicala) Never implemented in Europeb) Unscientific propagandac) violation of medical ethicsd) Mass medication2) Water fluoridation is unsafea) Associated health hazardsb) Causes skeletal fluorosis and other diseases
  11. 11. 3) Water fluoridation is ineffectivea) reductions in dental decay rates not due towater fluoridationb) fluoridated toothpastes more appropriate4) Who gains from fluoridation?a) vested interests from corporations andpoliticiansb) unethical, unsafe, and ineffective
  12. 12.  행정가들의 입장이 아닌 공중보건에 의존하여그동안의 경험에 의거하여 결정 그 밖의 요인들- 높은 투표율(86%)- turnout rates 높을수록 보통 긍정적인 쪽으로투표하게 되는 경향- handing out of the “ how to vote cards” bythe local health professionals and schoolchilidren on the day of the plebiscite had apositive effect
  13. 13. 1. Diesendorf M. the mystery of declining toothdecay. Nature. 1986 Jul;322:125-9 외 9편

×