Alaska - Letter and comments
To the editor:
With the gaining support of the fluoride ban I feel I need to right this. Fifty years ago the American Dental Association found that fluoride was a great treatment for stopping cavities in young children, since then we now have fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash.
The need seems to be gone for the fluoride in our water but just look at what has come since vaccines; a drop in mumps, a drop in measles and among others, the flu. The water company only uses 1 part per million of fluoride; 100 parts per million will make you sick and 200 parts per million will kill you.
I know that fluoride is a poison, but without poisons we can’t kill the bugs in the water to make it good for you — and everyone else, for that matter. Just like any drug or poison, if used in the right amount, it does wonders for the human race. Why are people trying to go back? We already know it’s good for us, it’s been tried and proven.
For people 50 and older, I can relate. More sickness is not a good thing, and leaps and bounds have come since you were kids. But I think you can appreciate what I have to say.
Comments
Douglas Yates
3/3/2008, 2:53 a.m.
Thanks for writing Mr. Watts; I wish the reality was as simple as you state. However, in the last 50 years there have been great strides in the study of fluoridation's effects on the whole body. The new knowledge does not conform to earlier promises of better teeth.
We now know that when fluoride is used systemically, even at small concentrations, it has profound effects on the health of human and animal organisms. In the last several years, these effects have been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association. Both groups have issued warnings that pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants under three years of age should avoid water that contains fluoride. These announcements have been low key (I urged the NM to carry the news, but was ignored), but it is a fact and can be found if you look for them.
Further, both the CDC and the ADA, also acknowledge that the new science on fluoride shows that the drug only works when it's applied directly to the tooth surface, that is topically, and not when swallowed.
Fluoride, when used in water systems, interferes with extremely subtle enzymatic process that organize the body's chemical communication system. It is especially harmful to the thyroid gland. Fluoridation is also implicated in causing brittle bones, connective tissue damage, IQ impairment, kidney dysfunction and a rare form of bone cancer in boys.
Much of this data is available at the web site www.fluoridealert.org, which is organized by a PhD chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University in New York state. I urge you to visit the site and learn about what is now known about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
Despite the unfortunate headline to your letter (applied by the editor, I'm sure), after reviewing the new science I'm sure you'll come to see that Fluoride Free Fairbanks is not a group of luddites. We are pursuing a course of action that will end a 50-year mistake and once again bring clean and pure water to the residents of Fairbanks.
Douglas YatesCommunications DirectorFluoride Free Fairbanks
Pegeen
3/3/2008, 5:11 p.m.
Indeed, Mr. Watts I can well appreciate that you think fluoride is a good thing, and want what's good for Fairbanks. Admittedly, not so long ago, I thought and felt like you on the subject. For most of my sixty years (no "kid" anymore either), I've been exposed to fluoridated water. I thought it was good for my family, just as my own parents did for me. But now with a bit of research, my thinking has turned-around on the subject.
As you know, things change. Conventional wisdom sometimes doesn't always hold up to new science. Across the world, and the country, informed people are questioning and challenging the efficacy of fluoridated water. For example, in August of 2007, 600 doctors, dentists, and other professionals signed a petition calling for a halt to water fluoridation, and for congressional hearings on fluoridation (See: www.FluorideAction.net). And in the same month, a formal complaint charged the Centers for Disease Control, Oral Health Division, with ethics violations for not communicating the dangers of ingested fluoride in certain minority groups (See: www.fluorideaction.org/ethics.release.au...)
You're right that: "fluoride is a poison" but with all due respect, it's not put in the water to "kill the bugs", as you say. The fluoride that is put in our water system is not pharmaceutical-grade, but rather it's a corrosive, toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry, that needs to be properly disposed of in some other way.
In the day, fluoride was considered useful for preventing cavities, although studies now are showing that cavities are diminishing in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, and sometimes moreso in the unfluoridated areas. I agree with you, that the need is gone for fluoride in our water, since we now have other ways for those who want-it to get-it, such as you suggested, with fluoride mouthwash and toothpaste. Fluoride's alleged benefits are derived from topical application, so we shouldn't be swallowing it, because doing so causes some people negative long-term consequences, such as cancer, thyroid, bone, mental, joint, and kidney problems. By mass-medicating everyone, no one can be guaranteed a proper dosage. In my view, this is not what governments, by city ordinance, should be doing. So hopefully you can see that we don't want to "go back", but rather forward on this.
Lastly, I'm wondering whether "Luddites" was your word or the editor's choice. Hopefully, neither you nor the editor would be one to dismiss the messenger, and in so doing...miss such an important updated message. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,Peggy Bixby DeSpainFairbanks Free Fluoride
Coert Olmsted
3/3/2008, 5:53 p.m.
Fluoridation has been tried, but it's far from proven.
The early studies were biased and incomplete. More recent studies found elevated health risks but were suppressed and contested unethically by regulatory agencies and Federally funded research groups.
But scientists reviewed and published those new studies as good science. If you can find a recent (last 15 years) peer-reviewed study that says fluoridation at 1 ppm is safe, I would love to see it.
Check out "Fear of Fluorude" athttp://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/17news...
With the gaining support of the fluoride ban I feel I need to right this. Fifty years ago the American Dental Association found that fluoride was a great treatment for stopping cavities in young children, since then we now have fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash.
The need seems to be gone for the fluoride in our water but just look at what has come since vaccines; a drop in mumps, a drop in measles and among others, the flu. The water company only uses 1 part per million of fluoride; 100 parts per million will make you sick and 200 parts per million will kill you.
I know that fluoride is a poison, but without poisons we can’t kill the bugs in the water to make it good for you — and everyone else, for that matter. Just like any drug or poison, if used in the right amount, it does wonders for the human race. Why are people trying to go back? We already know it’s good for us, it’s been tried and proven.
For people 50 and older, I can relate. More sickness is not a good thing, and leaps and bounds have come since you were kids. But I think you can appreciate what I have to say.
Comments
Douglas Yates
3/3/2008, 2:53 a.m.
Thanks for writing Mr. Watts; I wish the reality was as simple as you state. However, in the last 50 years there have been great strides in the study of fluoridation's effects on the whole body. The new knowledge does not conform to earlier promises of better teeth.
We now know that when fluoride is used systemically, even at small concentrations, it has profound effects on the health of human and animal organisms. In the last several years, these effects have been recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association. Both groups have issued warnings that pregnant women, nursing mothers and infants under three years of age should avoid water that contains fluoride. These announcements have been low key (I urged the NM to carry the news, but was ignored), but it is a fact and can be found if you look for them.
Further, both the CDC and the ADA, also acknowledge that the new science on fluoride shows that the drug only works when it's applied directly to the tooth surface, that is topically, and not when swallowed.
Fluoride, when used in water systems, interferes with extremely subtle enzymatic process that organize the body's chemical communication system. It is especially harmful to the thyroid gland. Fluoridation is also implicated in causing brittle bones, connective tissue damage, IQ impairment, kidney dysfunction and a rare form of bone cancer in boys.
Much of this data is available at the web site www.fluoridealert.org, which is organized by a PhD chemistry professor at St. Lawrence University in New York state. I urge you to visit the site and learn about what is now known about the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
Despite the unfortunate headline to your letter (applied by the editor, I'm sure), after reviewing the new science I'm sure you'll come to see that Fluoride Free Fairbanks is not a group of luddites. We are pursuing a course of action that will end a 50-year mistake and once again bring clean and pure water to the residents of Fairbanks.
Douglas YatesCommunications DirectorFluoride Free Fairbanks
Pegeen
3/3/2008, 5:11 p.m.
Indeed, Mr. Watts I can well appreciate that you think fluoride is a good thing, and want what's good for Fairbanks. Admittedly, not so long ago, I thought and felt like you on the subject. For most of my sixty years (no "kid" anymore either), I've been exposed to fluoridated water. I thought it was good for my family, just as my own parents did for me. But now with a bit of research, my thinking has turned-around on the subject.
As you know, things change. Conventional wisdom sometimes doesn't always hold up to new science. Across the world, and the country, informed people are questioning and challenging the efficacy of fluoridated water. For example, in August of 2007, 600 doctors, dentists, and other professionals signed a petition calling for a halt to water fluoridation, and for congressional hearings on fluoridation (See: www.FluorideAction.net). And in the same month, a formal complaint charged the Centers for Disease Control, Oral Health Division, with ethics violations for not communicating the dangers of ingested fluoride in certain minority groups (See: www.fluorideaction.org/ethics.release.au...)
You're right that: "fluoride is a poison" but with all due respect, it's not put in the water to "kill the bugs", as you say. The fluoride that is put in our water system is not pharmaceutical-grade, but rather it's a corrosive, toxic waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry, that needs to be properly disposed of in some other way.
In the day, fluoride was considered useful for preventing cavities, although studies now are showing that cavities are diminishing in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, and sometimes moreso in the unfluoridated areas. I agree with you, that the need is gone for fluoride in our water, since we now have other ways for those who want-it to get-it, such as you suggested, with fluoride mouthwash and toothpaste. Fluoride's alleged benefits are derived from topical application, so we shouldn't be swallowing it, because doing so causes some people negative long-term consequences, such as cancer, thyroid, bone, mental, joint, and kidney problems. By mass-medicating everyone, no one can be guaranteed a proper dosage. In my view, this is not what governments, by city ordinance, should be doing. So hopefully you can see that we don't want to "go back", but rather forward on this.
Lastly, I'm wondering whether "Luddites" was your word or the editor's choice. Hopefully, neither you nor the editor would be one to dismiss the messenger, and in so doing...miss such an important updated message. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,Peggy Bixby DeSpainFairbanks Free Fluoride
Coert Olmsted
3/3/2008, 5:53 p.m.
Fluoridation has been tried, but it's far from proven.
The early studies were biased and incomplete. More recent studies found elevated health risks but were suppressed and contested unethically by regulatory agencies and Federally funded research groups.
But scientists reviewed and published those new studies as good science. If you can find a recent (last 15 years) peer-reviewed study that says fluoridation at 1 ppm is safe, I would love to see it.
Check out "Fear of Fluorude" athttp://www.salon.com/news/1999/02/17news...
posted by Bill at
9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home