USA - Lobbyists spent over $350,000.
LETTER: Health board member defends fluoride action
Monday, March 5, 2007 11:58 PM EST
To the editor:
In response "Everything, including fluoride, in moderation" (David Boulay, March 2), fluoride is a small part of what I've attended to while serving on the board of health, but it gets the most publicity because it's the most controversial issue.
I'm pretty sure that I've done more research on this issue than any member of any other board in this town. According to a growing body of scientific literature, we know overexposure to fluoride is harmful, and because there are multiple sources of fluoride exposure, there is no way to measure daily intake. Both the Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now recommend all babies under 12 months not have fluoridated water because of the high risk for overexposure and health harm.
It's the role of the board of health to protect the public health. I investigated the board's statutory authority, and I am convinced that we have the right to halt fluoridation. Another board not respecting our authority is the reason for the current lawsuit. I've worked hard to ensure minimal cost to the taxpayer. At the end of February, the cost to the taxpayer is only 6.7 hours of town counsel's time or $1,005.
Anyone interested in knowing how much money lobbyists spend to influence voters to favor putting fluoride into the water can call the election board. In New Bedford the lobbyists recently spent over $30,000 pushing the ballot question there. More shocking, however, is Worcester, where the election board reports that in 2001 the lobbyists spent over $350,000.
Diane Battistello
Monday, March 5, 2007 11:58 PM EST
To the editor:
In response "Everything, including fluoride, in moderation" (David Boulay, March 2), fluoride is a small part of what I've attended to while serving on the board of health, but it gets the most publicity because it's the most controversial issue.
I'm pretty sure that I've done more research on this issue than any member of any other board in this town. According to a growing body of scientific literature, we know overexposure to fluoride is harmful, and because there are multiple sources of fluoride exposure, there is no way to measure daily intake. Both the Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now recommend all babies under 12 months not have fluoridated water because of the high risk for overexposure and health harm.
It's the role of the board of health to protect the public health. I investigated the board's statutory authority, and I am convinced that we have the right to halt fluoridation. Another board not respecting our authority is the reason for the current lawsuit. I've worked hard to ensure minimal cost to the taxpayer. At the end of February, the cost to the taxpayer is only 6.7 hours of town counsel's time or $1,005.
Anyone interested in knowing how much money lobbyists spend to influence voters to favor putting fluoride into the water can call the election board. In New Bedford the lobbyists recently spent over $30,000 pushing the ballot question there. More shocking, however, is Worcester, where the election board reports that in 2001 the lobbyists spent over $350,000.
Diane Battistello
posted by Bill at
4:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home