.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Wednesday, August 12, 2015

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:
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!
I would also like to share an excellent letter submitted to the Denver Water Board by a water engineer.  Remember, if you are a professional please say so in your submission - and if time is short feel free to copy and paste the letter below and say, "I fully agree with the sentiments expressed to you by this professional water engineer."
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. 
John Mueller, P.E.
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."  -Simon & Garfunkel / “The Boxer”

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Manager,


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home