USA - Weighing in on the fluoride debate

C
Posted: Thursday, Apr 3rd, 2008
Dear Editor:
I would like to respond to the fluoride issue of the addition of a highly toxic substance to our water supply. It was my understanding that our water supply was already contaminated by substances making it unfit to drink so we were compelled to buy bottled water. Now we want to add another substance to the water that has been tested and proven to cause many health problems in animals. All this animal testing seems to have been in vain because people who should know better insist that this poison be added to our water. With this kind of persistence, our animals should have not been subjected to this kind of maltreatment.

I raised five children without fluoride and without cavities. It has been noted that fluoride did not cause a reduction in the number of cavities. Cavities increased in fluoridated studies. Countries without fluoridation have a decrease in cavities suggested by a large extent to better diet and higher standard of living.

Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. No disease exists because of fluoride deficiency. It will knock out the thyroid gland. Plenty of diseases will occur if that happens. It does and can cause kidney damage because it is a cumulative poison like mercury. It can cause chromosome damage and interfere with the repair of DNA. It can bind with other metals, causing a multitude of problems.

This substance can be applied directly to the teeth in the form of toothpaste. There can simply be no sense in subjecting the entire water supply with this toxin. People showering in this water absorb a double whammy through the skin. Then they have to drink it to. Babies and small children are even more susceptible to this poison. What possible benefit can come from any of this nonsense?

Veneda Trout,

Torrington