USA - Letter: Vote to keep fluoride out of city of Stuart’s water supply
Letter: Vote to keep fluoride out of city of Stuart’s water supply
Friday, December 28, 2007The “Our View” editorial, “Add fluoride to water system” (Dec. 10, 2006), stated that the opponents of fluoridation have gained traction, “by appealing to emotion, by citing questionable studies and by picking and choosing select pieces of ‘evidence’ that support their position.”
The “Our View” editorial, “Stuart up soon; who is next?” (Dec. 21, 2007), stated that fluoride opponents have garnered some support, “by appealing to emotion, citing questionable studies and picking and choosing select pieces of ‘evidence.’ ”
Can anyone imagine a more anti-intellectual or lazier effort than repeating the same editorial language of a year ago? This year’s editorial couldn’t even get the date of the county commissioners’ anti-fluoride vote correct; it was Dec. 19, 2006 — not “December 2007” — as stated in the Dec. 21 editorial.
The magnum opus on the fluoride issue is the 2006 National Research Council of the National Academies’ 449-page report, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (www.nap.edu). References and appendices begin on page 301. Appendix A provides biographical sketches of the 12 authors, all very impressively qualified.
A shorter work, “Second Thoughts about Fluoride,” by Dan Fagin in the January 2008 Scientific American,” pages 74-81 (www.SciAm.com), fairly presents both sides of the fluoride debate.
There is no emotionally charged language in either of these pieces.
Would that the News had just an inkling of fairness and did not have to further degrade their retreaded editorial by relying on desperation phrases such as “anti-fluoride fearmongers.”
Vote a big “no” on Jan. 29, 2008. The county rejected fluoride on Dec. 19, 2006. Now let’s also vote to keep fluoride out of the city of Stuart’s water.
Andrew Treacy
Stuart
Friday, December 28, 2007The “Our View” editorial, “Add fluoride to water system” (Dec. 10, 2006), stated that the opponents of fluoridation have gained traction, “by appealing to emotion, by citing questionable studies and by picking and choosing select pieces of ‘evidence’ that support their position.”
The “Our View” editorial, “Stuart up soon; who is next?” (Dec. 21, 2007), stated that fluoride opponents have garnered some support, “by appealing to emotion, citing questionable studies and picking and choosing select pieces of ‘evidence.’ ”
Can anyone imagine a more anti-intellectual or lazier effort than repeating the same editorial language of a year ago? This year’s editorial couldn’t even get the date of the county commissioners’ anti-fluoride vote correct; it was Dec. 19, 2006 — not “December 2007” — as stated in the Dec. 21 editorial.
The magnum opus on the fluoride issue is the 2006 National Research Council of the National Academies’ 449-page report, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (www.nap.edu). References and appendices begin on page 301. Appendix A provides biographical sketches of the 12 authors, all very impressively qualified.
A shorter work, “Second Thoughts about Fluoride,” by Dan Fagin in the January 2008 Scientific American,” pages 74-81 (www.SciAm.com), fairly presents both sides of the fluoride debate.
There is no emotionally charged language in either of these pieces.
Would that the News had just an inkling of fairness and did not have to further degrade their retreaded editorial by relying on desperation phrases such as “anti-fluoride fearmongers.”
Vote a big “no” on Jan. 29, 2008. The county rejected fluoride on Dec. 19, 2006. Now let’s also vote to keep fluoride out of the city of Stuart’s water.
Andrew Treacy
Stuart
posted by Bill at
10:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home