USA _ Letter
Letter: Adding fluoride to water is poor treatment method
By Jason Krueger, Fluoride Action Network, Sauk Rapids
In Minnesota, a state law was put in effect in 1970 that required all municipal water supplies to add hydrofluorosilicic acid. Depending who you ask, this "fluoride" is either derived from a natural element found in the soil or derived as a byproduct from a phosphate operation containing mercury, arsenic, lead and a few other goodies. Whether you believe what our health agencies and trade associations have to say about the safety/effectiveness of this practice, shouldn't we determine if enhancing the water in the name of any cause is a rational idea? Perhaps a brilliant scientist discovered a simple way to cure baldness, infertility, get fewer cavities, maintain a better attention span or whatever — without a single negative side effect. Should this medication get added to the water for everyone? I confess that adding a disinfecting agent (oftentimes chlorine) to the water might be necessary, but anything beyond that seems intrusive and wrong. As consumers, we have the ability to buy foods that we personally want to eat. Yes, it is oftentimes more expensive to buy organic, but at least the option exists. If you don't like what is coming out of your faucet, bottled water can only go so far. What will you do for showers? Washing clothes? Washing dishes? It is difficult, if not almost impossible, to avoid your tap water. Some folks can afford the $1,000-plus price tag for whole-house filtration systems. Most folks don't have the means to do so — nor should they be faced with that situation. I can name at least a dozen reasons why adding hydrofluorosilicic acid to the water is neither safe nor effective, but the logic of adding any form of medication to the water should have been abandoned at square one.
By Jason Krueger, Fluoride Action Network, Sauk Rapids
In Minnesota, a state law was put in effect in 1970 that required all municipal water supplies to add hydrofluorosilicic acid. Depending who you ask, this "fluoride" is either derived from a natural element found in the soil or derived as a byproduct from a phosphate operation containing mercury, arsenic, lead and a few other goodies. Whether you believe what our health agencies and trade associations have to say about the safety/effectiveness of this practice, shouldn't we determine if enhancing the water in the name of any cause is a rational idea? Perhaps a brilliant scientist discovered a simple way to cure baldness, infertility, get fewer cavities, maintain a better attention span or whatever — without a single negative side effect. Should this medication get added to the water for everyone? I confess that adding a disinfecting agent (oftentimes chlorine) to the water might be necessary, but anything beyond that seems intrusive and wrong. As consumers, we have the ability to buy foods that we personally want to eat. Yes, it is oftentimes more expensive to buy organic, but at least the option exists. If you don't like what is coming out of your faucet, bottled water can only go so far. What will you do for showers? Washing clothes? Washing dishes? It is difficult, if not almost impossible, to avoid your tap water. Some folks can afford the $1,000-plus price tag for whole-house filtration systems. Most folks don't have the means to do so — nor should they be faced with that situation. I can name at least a dozen reasons why adding hydrofluorosilicic acid to the water is neither safe nor effective, but the logic of adding any form of medication to the water should have been abandoned at square one.
posted by Bill at
9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home