Canada - Paul Connett, Ph.D., The Case Against Fluoride
Fluoridation critic responds
In his letter to The Oakville Beaver, Ivor Davies asked: is there anything more to be said on water fluoridation? The answer is clearly yes.
Davies puts great store in the fact that fluoride occurs ‘naturally’ in some groundwater (the average is about 0.1 ppm in North America) and in the sea at 1.3 ppm, but just because something occurs naturally does not make it safe.
Arsenic also appears naturally in some groundwater. What Davies fails to mention is the natural levels in mothers’ milk. These are extremely low.
In a non-fluoridated community, the level is 0.004 ppm and rises slightly to 0.011 ppm in a fluoridated community (NRC, 2006, p.40). This means that parents that bottle feed their babies in Halton will be giving them over 100 times the dose a breast-fed baby gets. That’s not a wise thing to do.
Nor does Davies mention the fact that nearly every dental researcher now concedes that fluoride — if it works at all — works topically, i.e. on the surface of the teeth.
Why on earth force systemic risks on the baby’s delicate developing tissues before its teeth have emerged?
Needless to say, Davies also ignores — along with every other piece of scientific information presented in our book The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green 2010) — the fact there have now been 25 studies that have found an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ.
Is Davies happy that no health agency in Canada has attempted to investigate this serious matter for itself?
Or does he believe that saving a minimal amount of tooth decay (0.6 of one permanent tooth surface, according to the largest survey conducted in the U.S.) could possibly justify damaging a child’s mental development? Or our bones or our endocrine system (NRC, 2006)?
Davies claims opponents engage in “disinformation” and “misinformation,” but does not give a single instance of such.
As Davies singles me out as a leader (he says granddaddy) of this movement I request that he provide one example of where I have intentionally misinformed anyone on this issue.
He also claims that the opposition to fluoridation is miniscule.
However, nearly 4,000 professionals are now calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.
If Davies is so convinced that the majority of scientists enthusiastically support this outdated practice, how come he cannot produce a single one of them to debate opponents like myself in Halton?
I am ready Mr. Davies, are you?
Hopefully, Halton will come to its senses and join the other 27 communities, with a combined population of over 2.4 million that have halted fluoridation since October 2010.
Meanwhile, Davies’ sarcastic and superficial comments add little to a genuine scientific debate on this issue.
Paul Connett, Ph.D., The Case Against Fluoride, co-author, Fluoride Action Network, director
In his letter to The Oakville Beaver, Ivor Davies asked: is there anything more to be said on water fluoridation? The answer is clearly yes.
Davies puts great store in the fact that fluoride occurs ‘naturally’ in some groundwater (the average is about 0.1 ppm in North America) and in the sea at 1.3 ppm, but just because something occurs naturally does not make it safe.
Arsenic also appears naturally in some groundwater. What Davies fails to mention is the natural levels in mothers’ milk. These are extremely low.
In a non-fluoridated community, the level is 0.004 ppm and rises slightly to 0.011 ppm in a fluoridated community (NRC, 2006, p.40). This means that parents that bottle feed their babies in Halton will be giving them over 100 times the dose a breast-fed baby gets. That’s not a wise thing to do.
Nor does Davies mention the fact that nearly every dental researcher now concedes that fluoride — if it works at all — works topically, i.e. on the surface of the teeth.
Why on earth force systemic risks on the baby’s delicate developing tissues before its teeth have emerged?
Needless to say, Davies also ignores — along with every other piece of scientific information presented in our book The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green 2010) — the fact there have now been 25 studies that have found an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ.
Is Davies happy that no health agency in Canada has attempted to investigate this serious matter for itself?
Or does he believe that saving a minimal amount of tooth decay (0.6 of one permanent tooth surface, according to the largest survey conducted in the U.S.) could possibly justify damaging a child’s mental development? Or our bones or our endocrine system (NRC, 2006)?
Davies claims opponents engage in “disinformation” and “misinformation,” but does not give a single instance of such.
As Davies singles me out as a leader (he says granddaddy) of this movement I request that he provide one example of where I have intentionally misinformed anyone on this issue.
He also claims that the opposition to fluoridation is miniscule.
However, nearly 4,000 professionals are now calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.
If Davies is so convinced that the majority of scientists enthusiastically support this outdated practice, how come he cannot produce a single one of them to debate opponents like myself in Halton?
I am ready Mr. Davies, are you?
Hopefully, Halton will come to its senses and join the other 27 communities, with a combined population of over 2.4 million that have halted fluoridation since October 2010.
Meanwhile, Davies’ sarcastic and superficial comments add little to a genuine scientific debate on this issue.
Paul Connett, Ph.D., The Case Against Fluoride, co-author, Fluoride Action Network, director
posted by Bill at
9:57 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home