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

UK Against Fluoridation

Saturday, February 25, 2017

EPA Won't Ban Fluoride In U.S. Drinking Water Supplies

By Michael Phillis

Law360, New York (February 24, 2017, 7:12 PM EST) -- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency denied a petition submitted by health advocates that asked the agency to issue a rule banning the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water, saying that claims the substance is harmful to humans are not based in sound science.

Community drinking water supplies often include added fluoride, and proponents of the practice say it helps prevent tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention went so far as to name it one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of...


  • Bill, I'm impressed that you posted this!!

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    By Blogger Steve Slott, at 25 February, 2017  

  • Why not it's news?
    I'm waiting for your president to ban fluoridation throughout the States.

    By Blogger Bill, at 25 February, 2017  

  • https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/epa-comprehensively-debunks-anti-fluoride-claims-of-a-fluoride-iq-effect/

    By Blogger Ken, at 26 February, 2017  

  • Ken, why is it that every published paper on fluoridation's ill affects you find fault and dismiss yet you do not give the same scrutiny to papers exhorting the benefits of fluoride?

    Silly question I suppose we are all human and believe we are right and side with those who think the same

    By Blogger Bill, at 27 February, 2017  

  • I am a scientist, Bill. I am used to critically considering submitted and published papers - all papers. It is part of the scientific ethos to attempt objectivity and ask for evidence.

    When I find a paper claiming a correlation between fluoride and IQ which does not present the data - then I call it out.

    As I did with the Hirzy et al rubbish - see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313853949_CRITIQUE_OF_A_RISK_ANALYSIS_AIMED_AT_ESTABLISHING_A_SAFE_DAILY_DOSE_OF_FLUORIDE_FOR_CHILDREN

    There are of course paper showing the ill effects of excessive foodie which I think are well presented and supported by data.

    By Blogger Ken, at 27 February, 2017  

  • You may be a scientist Ken but if you saw your son violently sick after a fluoride coating on his teeth and subsequently the white spots an indication of fluorosis you might not be so supportive of fluoridation.

    Not only that although science has made tremendous beneficial as well as negative affects on humanity it is a myopic way of seeing the world as an objective external reality when it patently isn’t.

    By Blogger Bill, at 27 February, 2017  

  • You don't get it, Bill.

    Yes, I do support beneficial and safe social health policies. But I also support democratic rights when people are concerned about these policies. In fact, it was the democratic issue which I found of most concern when our local council ignored the expressed wishes of voters and succumbed to pressure from ideologically and commercially motivated activists over fluoridation.

    But my concern in this particular issue is the rampant misrepresentation and distortion of the science that is going on. That is what I have been writing abiout.

    Now, if you think my corrections of this scientific misrepresentation is wrong in any respect and am more than happy to discuss it.

    For example, the EPA document responds to every single argument used by the anti-fluoride petitioners, showing them to be wrong or misrepresentative of the science.

    Do you have any issues with that EPA assessment?

    If so - what specific example can you provide?

    By Blogger Ken, at 27 February, 2017  

  • I've never met a commercially motivated activists Ken? Not saying there are none but we had none in Southampton when we successfully stopped fluoridation.

    No I've no issues with anything I just publish what other people are saying and look forward to when President Trump bans it in the USA.

    By Blogger Bill, at 27 February, 2017  

  • I suspect you avoid recognising the commercial links, Bill.

    And, of course, nothing is completely one or the other. Mercola, Connett and crowd have both commercial and ideological motivations.

    The commercial motivations are strong in NZ with the NZ health trust and New Health NZ.

    See https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/anti-fluoridationists-go-to-supreme-court-who-is-paying-for-this/

    By Blogger Ken, at 27 February, 2017  

  • Suspect what you like Ken We did invite Prof Connett and he came over several times. He never got paid by us, he mainly slept in spare bedrooms of activists. Only once we were able to pay for a modest hotel room. I admire his stamina when he ought to be enjoying his retirement he is on a never ending quest to stop fluoridation and incinerators from harming us.
    Prof Stephen Peckham risked his career to join us in the fight. He had a lot to lose.

    The BFS were being paid to push it even the government paid money into the organization for a number of years. About £1,000,000was spent altogether by the NHS but we still beat them. We spent about £4,000 with hiring halls and advertizing.

    Still we will never agree about anything but never mind.

    By Blogger Bill, at 27 February, 2017  

  • Mercola's payments to the Connett family and FAN are well documented.

    By Blogger Ken, at 27 February, 2017  

  • Don't doubt it but my version of his involvement with us is right.

    His son devoted a lot of time and isn't he an attorney. They don't come cheap. They need money to take the fight to another level.

    Good for Mercola to help pay costs. Can't see anything wrong in that.

    By Blogger Bill, at 27 February, 2017  

  • Of course, you don't see anything wrong in Mercola funding an organisation and personnel promoting misinformation when you support that promotion for your own ideological reasons.

    not surprised at that.

    The point is that the motivation for the anti-fluoride activists is a mixture of the ideological and commercial. They are not motivated by support for science - as I am.

    That is why the EPA was able to so roundly critique the petition prepared by Michael Connett (an attorney pretending to be a scientist in this case).

    Micheal's "science" was extremely poor and easily critiqued.

    Yet FAN and other anti-fluoride groups are still attempting to publicly ignore this huge defeat.

    By Blogger Ken, at 27 February, 2017  

  • Must be frustrating for you as an expert to listen to our ill informed views having such an effect in society.
    An apt article today you might like to see HAVE WE FALLEN OUT OF LOVE WITH EXPERTS?


    By Blogger Bill, at 28 February, 2017  

  • Not at all, Bill. The world has far bigger problems (and these do concern me) than the few people who reject the science over things like community water fluoridation. And fluoridation is itself a relatively minor issue when we consider the problems humanity faces.

    By Blogger Ken, at 28 February, 2017  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home