Fan Newsletter
Today
(August 12th) is the last day to submit comments on
fluoridation to the Denver Water Board.
We know that the Denver Dental Society is urging its members to send letters to the water board members. It’s imperative we do the same, but at a greater volume. If you haven’t already submitted a comment calling for the end to fluoridation in Denver, Colorado, then please do so today! The board especially needs to hear from our professional supporters. Please help us make history and boost our movement’s momentum around the world significantly by helping end fluoridation in Denver. Contact the board TODAY:
We know that the Denver Dental Society is urging its members to send letters to the water board members. It’s imperative we do the same, but at a greater volume. If you haven’t already submitted a comment calling for the end to fluoridation in Denver, Colorado, then please do so today! The board especially needs to hear from our professional supporters. Please help us make history and boost our movement’s momentum around the world significantly by helping end fluoridation in Denver. Contact the board TODAY:
If you
missed the live coverage of the fluoridation forum in
Denver, you can now view video of the historic event.
- WATCH: 30-minute edited video of Dr. Paul Connett’s (FAN’s Director & Co-author of The Case Against Fluoride) presentation to the water board, closing remarks, and follow-up interview. Please share this video!
- WATCH: The full three-hour fluoridation information session with a panel of experts on both sides of the issue. Here is the meeting agenda and Powerpointpresentation for every speaker.
Dear
Water Commissioners,
I am
appealing to you again with my third and last submission of comments on your
fluoridation policy. This one has to do with the well-entrenched policy
statement on Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies of the American Water
Works Association. If you choose to vote in favor of changing Denver’s
fluoridation, I can understand how AWWA may feel rubbed the wrong way,
particularly since AWWA is headquartered in Denver. However, opposition to
fluoridation is not new to them.
Several
years ago, as a previously long-standing AWWA member, I took an online survey
AWWA was conducting. One question asked what it would take for me to renew my
membership after having let it lapse. I responded that they would have to
change their fluoridation policy. Previous to that, I sent comments during their
periodic (5-year) review and update of their published policy. I pointed out
the self-contradiction, i.e., “AWWA supports the application of fluoride in a
responsible, effective, and reliable manner . . .” because adding fluoridation
chemicals in and of itself is irresponsible considering the science associating
fluoride with adverse health effects. The National Research Council’s 2006
report on fluoride in drinking water is unequivocal in its conclusions that more
study is needed to determine safe levels of ingestion. More recently the
Cochrane review has suggested that ingesting fluoride is not effective at all
for preventing tooth decay, and Ko and Thiessen (2014) have debunked the mantra
that “every $1 spent on fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs,”
further diminishing fluoridation’s ability to be done
responsibly.
My
professional engineering licensure calls for me to hold paramount the public
health, safety, and welfare in the practice of my profession. Knowing what I
have learned and observed over the past six years, supporting water fluoridation
violates that professional commitment. The ANSI/AWWA Standards allow the
contamination of our drinking water with known carcinogenic heavy metals for
which the EPA has established MCLGs of zero. To that I object, personally and
professionally.
If you
look into AWWA’s history of fluoridation policy, you will find one of the
committee members for AWWA’s fluoridation standards was an employee of the CDC.
In fact, his position title at one time was National Fluoridation Engineer of
the CDC. I may be mistaken of the exact year, but I recall it was in 2007 that
fluoridating utilities were notified about an anticipated shortage of
fluorosilicic acid. But the FSA suppliers were not the ones who sent the
notifications of their supply shortage; it was the National Fluoridation
Engineer who sent the notifications from his CDC office. Surely the CDC has a
hotline to the FSA suppliers for that mailing list. My point here is that many
of the leadership in the anti-fluoridation movement, including Dr. Connett, Dr.
Hirzy, Dr. Carton, Dr. Limeback, Dr. Thiessen, and many others who have
researched the science and history of fluoridation, recognize the deep
infiltration of highest government level influence, frequently in collusion with
the phosphate fertilizer manufacturers and private funding machines (primarily
ADA, Delta Dental and PEW). We fully expect that you have been and are
currently being confronted with pushback from those entities warning you against
a vote for change. That pushback will likely continue after a vote for change,
may very well include ad hominem attacks with insinuations of lack of
responsibility or integrity, caving to junk science, possibly even veiled
threats of dental insurance group rate premium increases. So be it. And they
will congratulate you for being “responsible” in for voting the status
quo.
I also
would like to comment on the cosmetic dentistry industry. We know that ingesting
fluoride causes dental fluorosis, a cosmetic defect. Realizing of course that
not all cosmetic dentistry is performed to mitigate fluorosis, I find the
following interesting, and am curious to know how much is performed on
fluorosised teeth:
· The American Academy of
Cosmetic Dentistry estimates that Americans spend about $2.75 billion each year
on cosmetic dentistry. Two thirds of cosmetic dentistry patients are female and
33 percent are male.
· According to the ADA, a
person’s smile outranked eyes, hair and body as the most important physical
feature. (http://www.dentalplans.com/press-room/dentalfactsfigures)
There is
no doubt you will wrestle with pushback and ripple effects whichever choice you
make. But the fact remains that if the status quo is your ultimate vote, the
issue will not go away. The anti-fluoridation movement is growing commensurate
with the increasingly available and instant access to knowledge never before
imagined. The customers you serve are concerned about what they put in their
bodies. Once they are educated as you have been, they will support you to the
very end on your decision to change policy in a way that assigns a higher
priority to their future health and that of their children than to corporate
lobbying interests. Fiscal responsibility considering lack of quantifiable
benefit, and yielding to higher priorities, is also a viable option and
justifiable rationale for changing policy.
The
bottom line here is a face-off between the better future health of your
customers, and the reputations of those in distant high places who perpetuate an
obsolete policy and wrongfully mask it as being “safe and effective” for the
public good. There are better ways to spend money on improving public oral
health.
Again,
thank you for your deepest and heartfelt consideration of this
issue.
Sincerely,
John
Mueller, P.E.
"A man
hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." -Simon & Garfunkel /
“The Boxer”
Sincerely,
Stuart
Cooper
Campaign Manager,
posted by Bill at
8:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home