USA - To fluoridate or not
To fluoridate or not
Published Thursday, February 14, 2008
Feb. 9, 2008
To the editor:
Historically, I’ve grouped anti-fluoride folks with conspiracy theorists; somewhere out there with Area 51ers and Big Foot hunters.
Still, we invest trust in health organizations and government agencies as though we’ve forgotten history. Focusing on the fallibility of these groups and individuals creates discomfort. Agency assurances that various drugs, vehicles or appliances are safe have frequently been disproved years later, and the costs tallied in pain and loss.
We tend to place undeserved trust, often based on little more than “We’ve been doing it this way for years.”
Few have the time necessary to research every aspect of our lives.
So when a neighbor mentioned fluoride, I listened politely and respected his animated sense of the issue, but initially found difficulty feeling concern.
Then I read recent research, including the January 2008 Scientific American article and statements from professionals who described potential long-term damage to both dental and physical health.
The more I read, the more I realized that fluoridated water means being subjected to what some regard as questionable medicine, and without what’s traditionally regarded as informed consent.
My personal drinking water comes from a well, utilizing a reverse osmosis system.
However, my children attend schools using city water. And the vegetables we buy are misted with city water. And the swimming pools hold fluoridated water.
What’s the dosage of milligrams of fluoride per day for my children? How many persons drink exactly ‘X’ amount of water per day?
Suddenly, the debate over fluoridated water didn’t seem quite so loony.
The more I thought about this, the more I realized that fluoride should be an individual choice; subsidized, if a majority wishes it so, but a matter of personal choice.
Juneau’s recent decision to ban fluoride from the community’s water overwhelmingly favored this approach. The rationale behind the vote indicates it’s better to be safe than sorry. Similarly in Fairbanks, it appears we’d be safer thinking for ourselves than accepting a chemical that has not been proven safe.
Children’s lives require caution in decision-making. Especially when science shows that there are serious concerns with fluoridated water.
Dirk R. Nelson
Ester
Published Thursday, February 14, 2008
Feb. 9, 2008
To the editor:
Historically, I’ve grouped anti-fluoride folks with conspiracy theorists; somewhere out there with Area 51ers and Big Foot hunters.
Still, we invest trust in health organizations and government agencies as though we’ve forgotten history. Focusing on the fallibility of these groups and individuals creates discomfort. Agency assurances that various drugs, vehicles or appliances are safe have frequently been disproved years later, and the costs tallied in pain and loss.
We tend to place undeserved trust, often based on little more than “We’ve been doing it this way for years.”
Few have the time necessary to research every aspect of our lives.
So when a neighbor mentioned fluoride, I listened politely and respected his animated sense of the issue, but initially found difficulty feeling concern.
Then I read recent research, including the January 2008 Scientific American article and statements from professionals who described potential long-term damage to both dental and physical health.
The more I read, the more I realized that fluoridated water means being subjected to what some regard as questionable medicine, and without what’s traditionally regarded as informed consent.
My personal drinking water comes from a well, utilizing a reverse osmosis system.
However, my children attend schools using city water. And the vegetables we buy are misted with city water. And the swimming pools hold fluoridated water.
What’s the dosage of milligrams of fluoride per day for my children? How many persons drink exactly ‘X’ amount of water per day?
Suddenly, the debate over fluoridated water didn’t seem quite so loony.
The more I thought about this, the more I realized that fluoride should be an individual choice; subsidized, if a majority wishes it so, but a matter of personal choice.
Juneau’s recent decision to ban fluoride from the community’s water overwhelmingly favored this approach. The rationale behind the vote indicates it’s better to be safe than sorry. Similarly in Fairbanks, it appears we’d be safer thinking for ourselves than accepting a chemical that has not been proven safe.
Children’s lives require caution in decision-making. Especially when science shows that there are serious concerns with fluoridated water.
Dirk R. Nelson
Ester
posted by Bill at
9:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home