Isman R
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1983 Aug;11(4):217-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1983.tb01881.x.
The political nature of fluoridation is due in part to public misconceptions about its purpose, and about its efficacy and practicality in preventing tooth decay as compared with other preventive practices. This paper describes a public opinion survey conducted in Portland, Oregon in May 1980, immediately following a referendum that repealed an earlier vote to fluoridate Portland's water supply. A household interview survey was conducted of 313 Portland residents aged 18 and over. The primary objectives of the survey were to: 1) determine attitudes on fluoridation; 2) gauge the effectiveness of several pro- and antifluoridation arguments; 3) determine key target populations for fluoridation education efforts; and 4) determine the relative impact of different sources of information about fluoridation. Among the significant findings of the survey were: 1) preventive practices involving fluorides were rated less important to dental health than other preventive practices; 2) 71% of respondents knew the purpose of fluoridation; 3) newspapers were the predominant source of information about fluoridation; and 4) the "loss of freedom of choice" was by far the most powerful argument against fluoridation.
氟化的政治性质部分归因于公众对其目的以及与其他预防措施相比在预防龋齿方面的功效和实用性存在误解。本文描述了1980年5月在俄勒冈州波特兰市进行的一项民意调查，该调查紧接在一次公民投票之后，此次投票废除了先前关于对波特兰市供水进行氟化处理的投票。对313名年龄在18岁及以上的波特兰居民进行了入户访谈调查。该调查的主要目标是：1）确定对氟化的态度；2）衡量支持和反对氟化的几个论点的有效性；3）确定氟化教育努力的关键目标人群；4）确定关于氟化的不同信息来源的相对影响。该调查的重要发现包括：1）涉及氟化物的预防措施在牙齿健康方面被认为不如其他预防措施重要；2）71%的受访者知道氟化的目的；3）报纸是关于氟化的主要信息来源；4）“失去选择自由”是迄今为止反对氟化的最有力论据。
