Alaska - Considering fluoride - Good comments added
newsminer.com
The voice of Interior Alaska since 1903
News-Miner Editorial
Considering fluoride
Decision on additive should take more time
Published Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Comments
The Fairbanks City Council has taken note of these concerns. About 50 or so people who have signed on with a group calling itself Fluoride Free Fairbanks are convinced that fluoride in the local public water supply is a bad thing. The Fairbanks City Council has taken note of these concerns.
The group does make some fair points, not the least of which is that they believe people should be allowed their own medical decisions rather than having a supplement injected into the public water supply. The group often points out that the city of Juneau pulled fluoride from its water supply last year.
Public policies always should be open for debate, and it is always instructive to watch what other communities are doing. But that doesn’t mean city officials should change public policy here based on the fact that there is disagreement about the risks and benefits of fluoridation or because Juneau did it.
There are conflicting views on the additive even within the dental profession, and the conflict is not a slight one. Either you believe fluoridation is a public health benefit, or you believe the public is slowly being poisoned.
That’s a pretty broad gap to bridge.
Those most at risk if the additive is pulled — if the full benefits of fluoride are to be believed — are lower income families or children whose parents are either not concerned or ill-informed about dental health.
For a practice that has been in place for decades, the council’s decision to take up a proposed ordinance after only one work session felt a bit hurried. It takes time to sort out this issue.
So it is somewhat reassuring to see that the council will hear from at least one expert.
At the request of the Alaska Dental Association, a doctor from the Centers for Disease Control will speak with the City Council by teleconference during a noon work session Thursday.
Maybe the CDC expert can help set some of the issues straight for us, but the testimony of only one expert seems inadequate. The studies of any one entity can be challenged or at least brought into doubt in public debate.
A little more time and discussion with more experts can’t hurt either side in a debate over the best course for public health.
Comments
Bernie 3/4/2008, 5:05 a.m. Suggest removal Ask the CDC the following questions:
1.) In 1999 the CDC said that any benefit to fluoride were topical and not systemic, so why add it to the drinking water were it can effect every organ in the body? Isn't that like ingesting fingernail polish to harden your nails?
2.) Since Nov. 2006 the ADA posting a warning on their website that no child under one year of age should be given fluorided drinking water or in reconsistuted baby formula, because of the incresed risk of dental fluorosis by early exposure. Why would the CDC still what to administer a one size fits all approach for a prescribtion drug where it can't control the dose or dosage of the medication?
3.) The PDR gives a special warning for the use of sodium fluoride. No child under the age of six should be given a full strength 1 milligram table. Now, if doctors by law cannot administer the same equalivalent 1ppm dose found in the drinking water, how can politicians be allowed to add fluoride to the water supply at this concentration?
jims 3/4/2008, 5:12 a.m. Suggest removal The CDC and other public health agencies are first and last fluoridation promoters. They have memorized talking points but decline to approach anything that resembles a debate where real questions about policy flaws are addressed. The very foundations of the policy were developed on flawed theory with the bedrock studies so poorly designed and performed as to have no basis in science. The sad fact total promotion began before any of the science on health effects were in. The transcripts of the meetings showed they understood benefit balanced against no greater then 10% of the very mildest dental fluorosis damage at 1ppm exposure. They knew chronic toxic exposure would be the real risk by middle age but refused to collect any data. The variables in the data which were not accounted for such as delayed eruption and examiner variability easily can exceed the reported benefits as most likely did. See fluoridealert.org for the science.
Pegeen 3/4/2008, 10:09 a.m. Suggest removal Here are to be found 50 FAIR POINTS to oppose fluoridation:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons....
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Peggy Bixby DeSpain
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
suecameron 3/4/2008, 10:19 a.m. Suggest removal Let's step back a minute and look at this logically.
When you put fluoride in the water supply, you're putting it into all your internal organs and bones - not just your teeth. If fluoride is strong enough to affect tooth enamel, it must affect the rest of your body, and there is no medical reason (nor medical evidence) to assume that those effects will be only positive. Is fluoride good for your kidneys? For your heart? For your spine? If there's any question, the only ethical response is to keep it out of the water supply.
When you put fluoride in the water supply, you give an unmonitored, arbitrary dosage (after all, it depends on how much water you drink) to infants, 3-year-olds, 30-year-olds, pregnant women, and the elderly. You give an unmonitored dosage to everyone regardless of their individual health issues. Would you do that with any other medication? Of course not. The medical profession would not allow it.
If Fairbanks wants to be responsible, the only fair and ethical option is to take fluoride out of the water supply and give people a choice.
MEL1776 3/4/2008, 10:32 a.m. Suggest removal Fluoride Free Fairbanks should put their petition online.
5050 3/4/2008, 10:38 a.m. Suggest removal Missing from this discussion is the right to privacy that all Alaskans are born with.
From Article 1 of the Alaska Constitution:
SECTION 22. RIGHT OF PRIVACY. The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.
For those who do not want the government medicating our otherwise pure drinking water, their right to privacy is being violated.
I am sure that some could make an argument that the government should be dosing our drinking water with other medications- how about low-does aspirin? We've seen the studies that low dose aspirin may reduce the chance of heart attack. So how about dosing our water with it? Ridiculous? Certainly. Our water should be left alone.
Those who want fluoride can easily obtain all they wish from a one dollar tube of toothpaste.
Kudos to the City Council for taking a positive step to promote pure, safe, drinking water for our citizens.
Great work-
Skeptic 3/4/2008, 11:29 a.m. Suggest removal It's gratifying to see that this debate is finally being taken seriously. In the past, fluoridation opponents have often been cast as kooks on the fringe, but slowly public perception is awakening to the hazards of adding this industrial poison to our drinking water.
Just because something has been accepted by the mainstream doesn't mean it's good or right. Not long ago frontal lobotomies were viewed as a quick and easy fix for the mentally ill.
lemonparty 3/4/2008, 12:51 p.m. Suggest removal Skeptic: "Not long ago frontal lobotomies were viewed as a quick and easy fix for the mentally ill."
Now the solution is a bottle in front of me.
osiandoe 3/4/2008, 1:34 p.m. Suggest removal Several members of my family are as allergic to fluorides as others are to penicillin. Two of us are "Double-blind" tested "fluoride hypersensitive." Because "F" can be absorbed via the skin, we can't even bathe or swim in (especially artificially) fluoridated water without a return of symptoms; therefore, we do not spend our Tourist $$$ on restaurant food or hotel/motel lodging in fluoridated communities. When we vacationed in Alaska a few years ago, we took our motorhome.
seanhinckley 3/4/2008, 2:57 p.m. Suggest removal Water fluoridation is a violation of freedom of choice. I'm allergic to fluorides (proven in a double-blind study) and what are my choices if mass medication of the population is forced on me through the water supply? Today I live in an unfluoridated city by choice. What of those, like me, who are also allergic to fluorides? Has the Public Health Service or any of those pushing fluorides bothered to study how much fluoride the population is *already* getting through all sources before unscientifically deciding that very same population needs more fluoride? Those who think they want fluoride can get it in paste, pill, or mouthwash form without forcing it on those those who do not want it and/or DO NOT NEED IT and must not be exposed to it. In addition, are those people promoting water fluoridation violating the law by using public monies to promote a political public "health" agenda? Where their money comes from and how it is spent should be investigated by a diligent investigative reporter.
Coert Olmsted 3/4/2008, 5:18 p.m. Suggest removal FDN-M "About 50 or so people who have signed on with a group calling itself Fluoride Free Fairbanks are convinced that fluoride in the local public water supply is a bad thing."
This is obtuse.
Many more than 50 of us think fluoridation is bad. What you mean is that AT LEAST 50 are convinced it's SO bad they are willing to assemble and petition their government for the grievance.
Thousands of well informed of Juneau voters think fluoridation is bad enough to ban it.
FDN-M "There are conflicting views on the additive even within the dental profession, and the conflict is not a slight one. Either you believe fluoridation is a public health benefit, or you believe the public is slowly being poisoned."
This is NOT true and either displays ignorance or an intent to cast doubt by playing up political polarization.
No poll evidence supports this false claim. Neither the N-M or any pro-fluoridation groups will run a poll to find out the true numbers. From the many municipal votes on the issue, normal, not skewed bimodal distributions (a rare kind result) are likely. Many people will have mild, neutral or no opinion. Only minorities will be adamant.
The question is not the strength of people's beliefs. That would be faith based mob rule. We need up to date scientific accuracy. Those 50 activists care enough discover a wealth of important information, based on good evidence, which shows strong likelihood of human health hazards from fluoridation.
The CDC and other established agencies dogmatically present mainly biased and poorly controlled studies and devote considerable effort to defending their outdated orthodoxy by finding technical quibbles to discredit the newer and more complete science. Dissenters to the orthodoxy are fired arbitrarily and are blackballed from future Federal funding. See
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/17news...
Sure there's conflict. That's a reason to look closer at the evidence, not put on blinders and take a position based on faith in "expert" authority.
FDN-M "Those most at risk if the additive is pulled — if the full benefits of fluoride are to be believed — are lower income families or children whose parents are either not concerned or ill-informed about dental health."
This is an entirely political statement, again, with no survey data to justify it, only a hypothetical belief. There are many factors leading to poor dental health in low-income, isolated, and less-educated communities. Any worker in public health can testify that such conditions lead to a host of problems (crime, substance abuse, poor nutrition & mental health, etc).
Good government sponsored health care and education programs benefit such communities more than any top down, BIg Brother enforced, mass medication.
But that is considered Politically Incorrect Socialized Medicine. Instead, poor people get a cheap quick fix of dubious value and known danger.
motorhommie 3/4/2008, 6:25 p.m. Suggest removal Get F the F*** out of the water! F (fluoride) can be in two forms and the mind trickster’s bank on the sheeples ignorance and apathy. There is an organic form and a metallic form. They use the metallic form and where these guys are getting this from is usually aluminum smelters where F is a hazmat bi-product. By selling it to municipalities, it is now a product and they get PAID to get rid of their problem to the unsuspecting public.
Take a look at what Hawaii did to keep "mass inoculations and medicating" out of the public municipal water supply.
Pegeen 3/4/2008, 7:05 p.m. Suggest removal Editor states (above) that: "Those most at risk if the additive IS PULLED --(if the full benefits of fluoride are to be believed) --are lower income families or children whose parents are either not concerned or ill-informed about dental health."
I understand it quite differently, with all due respect, in that those most at risk if the additive IS NOT (I repeat... NOT)PULLED --, are from lower income families and children. Higher income families can afford to haul water from unfluoridated sources, buy unfluoridated water in the grocery store, buy organic produce and canned goods, buy and install reverse osmosis filters (which by the way, doesn't entirely do the trick), buy unfluoridated toothpaste, buy unfluoridated beverages from health food sections. Sodas and fruit "drinks" contain fluoride which are more affordable than unfluoridated beverages. Fluoride comes-at-us from many sources besides just the water coming out of our taps. For example anti-depressants (Paxil and Prozac) are made with fluoride, but at least those are made with pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, and prescribed with consent and proper dosage, and not spilling out of everyones municipal water taps!
Children are the ones who have the largest danger of flurosis (stained teeth from fluoride overdose). ADA warns against using fluoridated water to mix with infant formula. ADA warns against a child's toothpaste useage amount. Small bodies risk higher concentrations of fluoride than big people. Fluorosis is on the rise. Studies show that ingesting fluoride or not ingesting fluoride is not at all what makes the cavity difference.
The remarkable thing in all this is that there are no recent studies showing that this corrosive, toxic, chemical waste product fluoride, which is being dumped in our water supply is safe, but there are plenty of studies showing the opposite.
If this controversy piques your concern, please do your own research, from your own balanced sources, draw your own thoughtful conclusions, and speak-out one way or the other.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Peggy Bixby DeSpain
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
Dirk 3/4/2008, 8:12 p.m. Suggest removal I think that the assertion that "we are moving too fast," re. removal of fluoride from the city drinking water, is in error.
If there are relatively recent findings that cause questioning of the wisdom behind water fluoiridation, and raise the potential of it being a health issue, then is it best to;
a.) Leave it in the water until we're absolutely sure that it's not a source of a variety of negative outcomes or conditions?
or,
b.) Take it out until more is known re. the recent research?
If your mechanic tells you that your fuel line is leaking, do you state, "That's o.k. I'll drive it 'til it burns up in a fireball, at which point I'll KNOW that my lack of concern was incorrect." or do you state, "Hey, perhaps I should cease driving this vehicle until I've properly determined whether or not the fuel line really IS leaking." (??)
Why would our approach to chemistry or medicine be any different? Especially when we're talking about medicating SOMEONE ELSE, rather than just ourselves, other than for the possibility that the impact of fluoridated water, if it really is a health risk, might not be as notably catastrophic or immediate in nature..
It seems to me that the News Miner's editorial on this subject proposes an approach that's bass ackwards at best.
If there are those who should have fluoride, and they don't know enough to seek it out (i.e., at the Public Health Nurse's office, or in the tooth pastes which can be purchased at the store), then I'd say that's a matter of Darwinism.
Government shouldn't involve itself so thoroughly with the business of protecting us from our own ignorance. That's our own responsiblity as adults, and our parents' responsibility when we were children.
Put the 'nanny state' to bed, and let it remain there. It's presence is eroding the concept of freedom and personal responsibility. And some of us find it extremely offensive and intrusive.
The voice of Interior Alaska since 1903
News-Miner Editorial
Considering fluoride
Decision on additive should take more time
Published Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Comments
The Fairbanks City Council has taken note of these concerns. About 50 or so people who have signed on with a group calling itself Fluoride Free Fairbanks are convinced that fluoride in the local public water supply is a bad thing. The Fairbanks City Council has taken note of these concerns.
The group does make some fair points, not the least of which is that they believe people should be allowed their own medical decisions rather than having a supplement injected into the public water supply. The group often points out that the city of Juneau pulled fluoride from its water supply last year.
Public policies always should be open for debate, and it is always instructive to watch what other communities are doing. But that doesn’t mean city officials should change public policy here based on the fact that there is disagreement about the risks and benefits of fluoridation or because Juneau did it.
There are conflicting views on the additive even within the dental profession, and the conflict is not a slight one. Either you believe fluoridation is a public health benefit, or you believe the public is slowly being poisoned.
That’s a pretty broad gap to bridge.
Those most at risk if the additive is pulled — if the full benefits of fluoride are to be believed — are lower income families or children whose parents are either not concerned or ill-informed about dental health.
For a practice that has been in place for decades, the council’s decision to take up a proposed ordinance after only one work session felt a bit hurried. It takes time to sort out this issue.
So it is somewhat reassuring to see that the council will hear from at least one expert.
At the request of the Alaska Dental Association, a doctor from the Centers for Disease Control will speak with the City Council by teleconference during a noon work session Thursday.
Maybe the CDC expert can help set some of the issues straight for us, but the testimony of only one expert seems inadequate. The studies of any one entity can be challenged or at least brought into doubt in public debate.
A little more time and discussion with more experts can’t hurt either side in a debate over the best course for public health.
Comments
Bernie 3/4/2008, 5:05 a.m. Suggest removal Ask the CDC the following questions:
1.) In 1999 the CDC said that any benefit to fluoride were topical and not systemic, so why add it to the drinking water were it can effect every organ in the body? Isn't that like ingesting fingernail polish to harden your nails?
2.) Since Nov. 2006 the ADA posting a warning on their website that no child under one year of age should be given fluorided drinking water or in reconsistuted baby formula, because of the incresed risk of dental fluorosis by early exposure. Why would the CDC still what to administer a one size fits all approach for a prescribtion drug where it can't control the dose or dosage of the medication?
3.) The PDR gives a special warning for the use of sodium fluoride. No child under the age of six should be given a full strength 1 milligram table. Now, if doctors by law cannot administer the same equalivalent 1ppm dose found in the drinking water, how can politicians be allowed to add fluoride to the water supply at this concentration?
jims 3/4/2008, 5:12 a.m. Suggest removal The CDC and other public health agencies are first and last fluoridation promoters. They have memorized talking points but decline to approach anything that resembles a debate where real questions about policy flaws are addressed. The very foundations of the policy were developed on flawed theory with the bedrock studies so poorly designed and performed as to have no basis in science. The sad fact total promotion began before any of the science on health effects were in. The transcripts of the meetings showed they understood benefit balanced against no greater then 10% of the very mildest dental fluorosis damage at 1ppm exposure. They knew chronic toxic exposure would be the real risk by middle age but refused to collect any data. The variables in the data which were not accounted for such as delayed eruption and examiner variability easily can exceed the reported benefits as most likely did. See fluoridealert.org for the science.
Pegeen 3/4/2008, 10:09 a.m. Suggest removal Here are to be found 50 FAIR POINTS to oppose fluoridation:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons....
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Peggy Bixby DeSpain
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
suecameron 3/4/2008, 10:19 a.m. Suggest removal Let's step back a minute and look at this logically.
When you put fluoride in the water supply, you're putting it into all your internal organs and bones - not just your teeth. If fluoride is strong enough to affect tooth enamel, it must affect the rest of your body, and there is no medical reason (nor medical evidence) to assume that those effects will be only positive. Is fluoride good for your kidneys? For your heart? For your spine? If there's any question, the only ethical response is to keep it out of the water supply.
When you put fluoride in the water supply, you give an unmonitored, arbitrary dosage (after all, it depends on how much water you drink) to infants, 3-year-olds, 30-year-olds, pregnant women, and the elderly. You give an unmonitored dosage to everyone regardless of their individual health issues. Would you do that with any other medication? Of course not. The medical profession would not allow it.
If Fairbanks wants to be responsible, the only fair and ethical option is to take fluoride out of the water supply and give people a choice.
MEL1776 3/4/2008, 10:32 a.m. Suggest removal Fluoride Free Fairbanks should put their petition online.
5050 3/4/2008, 10:38 a.m. Suggest removal Missing from this discussion is the right to privacy that all Alaskans are born with.
From Article 1 of the Alaska Constitution:
SECTION 22. RIGHT OF PRIVACY. The right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed.
For those who do not want the government medicating our otherwise pure drinking water, their right to privacy is being violated.
I am sure that some could make an argument that the government should be dosing our drinking water with other medications- how about low-does aspirin? We've seen the studies that low dose aspirin may reduce the chance of heart attack. So how about dosing our water with it? Ridiculous? Certainly. Our water should be left alone.
Those who want fluoride can easily obtain all they wish from a one dollar tube of toothpaste.
Kudos to the City Council for taking a positive step to promote pure, safe, drinking water for our citizens.
Great work-
Skeptic 3/4/2008, 11:29 a.m. Suggest removal It's gratifying to see that this debate is finally being taken seriously. In the past, fluoridation opponents have often been cast as kooks on the fringe, but slowly public perception is awakening to the hazards of adding this industrial poison to our drinking water.
Just because something has been accepted by the mainstream doesn't mean it's good or right. Not long ago frontal lobotomies were viewed as a quick and easy fix for the mentally ill.
lemonparty 3/4/2008, 12:51 p.m. Suggest removal Skeptic: "Not long ago frontal lobotomies were viewed as a quick and easy fix for the mentally ill."
Now the solution is a bottle in front of me.
osiandoe 3/4/2008, 1:34 p.m. Suggest removal Several members of my family are as allergic to fluorides as others are to penicillin. Two of us are "Double-blind" tested "fluoride hypersensitive." Because "F" can be absorbed via the skin, we can't even bathe or swim in (especially artificially) fluoridated water without a return of symptoms; therefore, we do not spend our Tourist $$$ on restaurant food or hotel/motel lodging in fluoridated communities. When we vacationed in Alaska a few years ago, we took our motorhome.
seanhinckley 3/4/2008, 2:57 p.m. Suggest removal Water fluoridation is a violation of freedom of choice. I'm allergic to fluorides (proven in a double-blind study) and what are my choices if mass medication of the population is forced on me through the water supply? Today I live in an unfluoridated city by choice. What of those, like me, who are also allergic to fluorides? Has the Public Health Service or any of those pushing fluorides bothered to study how much fluoride the population is *already* getting through all sources before unscientifically deciding that very same population needs more fluoride? Those who think they want fluoride can get it in paste, pill, or mouthwash form without forcing it on those those who do not want it and/or DO NOT NEED IT and must not be exposed to it. In addition, are those people promoting water fluoridation violating the law by using public monies to promote a political public "health" agenda? Where their money comes from and how it is spent should be investigated by a diligent investigative reporter.
Coert Olmsted 3/4/2008, 5:18 p.m. Suggest removal FDN-M "About 50 or so people who have signed on with a group calling itself Fluoride Free Fairbanks are convinced that fluoride in the local public water supply is a bad thing."
This is obtuse.
Many more than 50 of us think fluoridation is bad. What you mean is that AT LEAST 50 are convinced it's SO bad they are willing to assemble and petition their government for the grievance.
Thousands of well informed of Juneau voters think fluoridation is bad enough to ban it.
FDN-M "There are conflicting views on the additive even within the dental profession, and the conflict is not a slight one. Either you believe fluoridation is a public health benefit, or you believe the public is slowly being poisoned."
This is NOT true and either displays ignorance or an intent to cast doubt by playing up political polarization.
No poll evidence supports this false claim. Neither the N-M or any pro-fluoridation groups will run a poll to find out the true numbers. From the many municipal votes on the issue, normal, not skewed bimodal distributions (a rare kind result) are likely. Many people will have mild, neutral or no opinion. Only minorities will be adamant.
The question is not the strength of people's beliefs. That would be faith based mob rule. We need up to date scientific accuracy. Those 50 activists care enough discover a wealth of important information, based on good evidence, which shows strong likelihood of human health hazards from fluoridation.
The CDC and other established agencies dogmatically present mainly biased and poorly controlled studies and devote considerable effort to defending their outdated orthodoxy by finding technical quibbles to discredit the newer and more complete science. Dissenters to the orthodoxy are fired arbitrarily and are blackballed from future Federal funding. See
http://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/17news...
Sure there's conflict. That's a reason to look closer at the evidence, not put on blinders and take a position based on faith in "expert" authority.
FDN-M "Those most at risk if the additive is pulled — if the full benefits of fluoride are to be believed — are lower income families or children whose parents are either not concerned or ill-informed about dental health."
This is an entirely political statement, again, with no survey data to justify it, only a hypothetical belief. There are many factors leading to poor dental health in low-income, isolated, and less-educated communities. Any worker in public health can testify that such conditions lead to a host of problems (crime, substance abuse, poor nutrition & mental health, etc).
Good government sponsored health care and education programs benefit such communities more than any top down, BIg Brother enforced, mass medication.
But that is considered Politically Incorrect Socialized Medicine. Instead, poor people get a cheap quick fix of dubious value and known danger.
motorhommie 3/4/2008, 6:25 p.m. Suggest removal Get F the F*** out of the water! F (fluoride) can be in two forms and the mind trickster’s bank on the sheeples ignorance and apathy. There is an organic form and a metallic form. They use the metallic form and where these guys are getting this from is usually aluminum smelters where F is a hazmat bi-product. By selling it to municipalities, it is now a product and they get PAID to get rid of their problem to the unsuspecting public.
Take a look at what Hawaii did to keep "mass inoculations and medicating" out of the public municipal water supply.
Pegeen 3/4/2008, 7:05 p.m. Suggest removal Editor states (above) that: "Those most at risk if the additive IS PULLED --(if the full benefits of fluoride are to be believed) --are lower income families or children whose parents are either not concerned or ill-informed about dental health."
I understand it quite differently, with all due respect, in that those most at risk if the additive IS NOT (I repeat... NOT)PULLED --, are from lower income families and children. Higher income families can afford to haul water from unfluoridated sources, buy unfluoridated water in the grocery store, buy organic produce and canned goods, buy and install reverse osmosis filters (which by the way, doesn't entirely do the trick), buy unfluoridated toothpaste, buy unfluoridated beverages from health food sections. Sodas and fruit "drinks" contain fluoride which are more affordable than unfluoridated beverages. Fluoride comes-at-us from many sources besides just the water coming out of our taps. For example anti-depressants (Paxil and Prozac) are made with fluoride, but at least those are made with pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, and prescribed with consent and proper dosage, and not spilling out of everyones municipal water taps!
Children are the ones who have the largest danger of flurosis (stained teeth from fluoride overdose). ADA warns against using fluoridated water to mix with infant formula. ADA warns against a child's toothpaste useage amount. Small bodies risk higher concentrations of fluoride than big people. Fluorosis is on the rise. Studies show that ingesting fluoride or not ingesting fluoride is not at all what makes the cavity difference.
The remarkable thing in all this is that there are no recent studies showing that this corrosive, toxic, chemical waste product fluoride, which is being dumped in our water supply is safe, but there are plenty of studies showing the opposite.
If this controversy piques your concern, please do your own research, from your own balanced sources, draw your own thoughtful conclusions, and speak-out one way or the other.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Peggy Bixby DeSpain
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
Dirk 3/4/2008, 8:12 p.m. Suggest removal I think that the assertion that "we are moving too fast," re. removal of fluoride from the city drinking water, is in error.
If there are relatively recent findings that cause questioning of the wisdom behind water fluoiridation, and raise the potential of it being a health issue, then is it best to;
a.) Leave it in the water until we're absolutely sure that it's not a source of a variety of negative outcomes or conditions?
or,
b.) Take it out until more is known re. the recent research?
If your mechanic tells you that your fuel line is leaking, do you state, "That's o.k. I'll drive it 'til it burns up in a fireball, at which point I'll KNOW that my lack of concern was incorrect." or do you state, "Hey, perhaps I should cease driving this vehicle until I've properly determined whether or not the fuel line really IS leaking." (??)
Why would our approach to chemistry or medicine be any different? Especially when we're talking about medicating SOMEONE ELSE, rather than just ourselves, other than for the possibility that the impact of fluoridated water, if it really is a health risk, might not be as notably catastrophic or immediate in nature..
It seems to me that the News Miner's editorial on this subject proposes an approach that's bass ackwards at best.
If there are those who should have fluoride, and they don't know enough to seek it out (i.e., at the Public Health Nurse's office, or in the tooth pastes which can be purchased at the store), then I'd say that's a matter of Darwinism.
Government shouldn't involve itself so thoroughly with the business of protecting us from our own ignorance. That's our own responsiblity as adults, and our parents' responsibility when we were children.
Put the 'nanny state' to bed, and let it remain there. It's presence is eroding the concept of freedom and personal responsibility. And some of us find it extremely offensive and intrusive.
posted by Bill at
9:46 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home