USA - Rutland Herald

Article published Dec 28, 2015
Fluoride opponents
argue points
The Vermont State Dental Society has begun its campaign effort in
Rutland in anticipation of the March 1 advisory vote. Its glossy
handout is titled “The REAL Facts About Fluoride.”
A few observations:
1. “REAL Facts” insinuates that opposition to fluoridation, which
offers only ordinary “facts,” is quackery. This kind of put­down has
been a standard tactic of the pro­fluoridation forces from the
beginning. Yet, their own “facts” are demonstrably false or only
partly true in many cases.
2. In its handout, the Dental Society uses the words “fluoride” and
“fluoridation” interchangeably. This is a clever sleight­of­hand.
“Fluoride” in toothpaste and other topical applications is much less
controversial than “fluoridation” and generally accepted as effective
in preventing tooth decay.
Very little toothpaste or fluoride rinse is swallowed when properly
used. Also, one has a choice to use it or not. “Fluoridation” is much
different. It’s effectiveness is doubtful. The dose one receives is
uncontrolled. Fluoride is in the drinking water, and people lack a
choice unless they buy bottled water. By using the two words
interchangeably, the benefits of “fluoride” used topically are subtly
linked to “fluoridation.” This is clever public relations but not honest
communication.
3. “Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral and a proven strategy
for improving a community’s oral and general health,” declares Dr.
Grace Dickinson­Branon of St. Albans, president of the Dental Society.
Well, at least she’s not calling it a “nutrient,” which the dentists often
do. How is fluoride used in fluoridation a “mineral?” What Rutland
adds to its water is fluorosilicic acid, a corrosive hazardous waste
byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer business, and not “natural” at
all.
4. “It is safe, proven and effective,” says Dr. Judith Fisch of
Rutland, trustee of the American Dental Association, about
fluoridation. As far as “real facts” go, the “safe” and “proven” are
simply assertions, with much evidence suggesting neither is accurate.
“Effective?” Marginally effective, or not at all effective, are closer to
the truth.
JACK CROWTHER
Rutland