USA - Fluoridation is wrong
Fluoridation is wrong
Rutland Herald | March 17, 2017
It is truly unfortunate that the Proctor Town Meeting voted March 6 to continue fluoridation of the town water supply. Since only a tenth or so of registered voters turned out, here are my remarks of that evening. My husband is a retired dentist and an opponent of fluoridation due to his belief it is an unsafe and ineffective practice. Due to his age, however, he was unable to be at the meeting to explain his views.
You probably know that fluoridation is endorsed by the American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control and many other prestigious agencies and organizations. They constantly tell us that fluoridation is “safe and effective,” “safe and effective,” “safe and effective.” How could all these organizations be wrong for the nearly 70 years that fluoridation has been approved as public policy in this country? The answer is not so surprising. It comes down to the needs of American industry, the need to protect its operations and profits by making us think that fluoride is not only safe but good for you.
Fluoride is essential to industries like aluminum and steel, manufacturing and chemicals. During the Cold War, it was used for nuclear weapons. But it’s always been dangerous – dangerous to workers and dangerous to crops and livestock and people near factories using fluoride. Did you know that in l948 in Donora, Pennsylvania, 20 people died when a temperature inversion trapped pollution from a zinc smelter operated by U.S. Steel? Did you know that fluoride was the likely cause of the deaths, but that the U.S. Public Health Service wrote a report that glossed over evidence pointing to fluoride? Were you aware that, at the time, 1948, hundreds of potential lawsuits loomed over the wartime industries that had spewed tons of fluoride into the air as American struggled to defeat Germany and Japan?
We can talk about fluoridation being ineffective and a neurotoxin and a violation of informed consent. That’s a necessary conversation. But we also need to understand the reason we have fluoridation in the first place, and it comes back to industry. Just as industry profited from leaded gasoline and tobacco while covering up their hazards, so, too, has it profited from fluoride while concealing its hazards. Eventually the truth will be known, and fluoridation will pull a longoverdue disappearing act.
BEA STAGG
Rutland Herald | March 17, 2017
It is truly unfortunate that the Proctor Town Meeting voted March 6 to continue fluoridation of the town water supply. Since only a tenth or so of registered voters turned out, here are my remarks of that evening. My husband is a retired dentist and an opponent of fluoridation due to his belief it is an unsafe and ineffective practice. Due to his age, however, he was unable to be at the meeting to explain his views.
You probably know that fluoridation is endorsed by the American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control and many other prestigious agencies and organizations. They constantly tell us that fluoridation is “safe and effective,” “safe and effective,” “safe and effective.” How could all these organizations be wrong for the nearly 70 years that fluoridation has been approved as public policy in this country? The answer is not so surprising. It comes down to the needs of American industry, the need to protect its operations and profits by making us think that fluoride is not only safe but good for you.
Fluoride is essential to industries like aluminum and steel, manufacturing and chemicals. During the Cold War, it was used for nuclear weapons. But it’s always been dangerous – dangerous to workers and dangerous to crops and livestock and people near factories using fluoride. Did you know that in l948 in Donora, Pennsylvania, 20 people died when a temperature inversion trapped pollution from a zinc smelter operated by U.S. Steel? Did you know that fluoride was the likely cause of the deaths, but that the U.S. Public Health Service wrote a report that glossed over evidence pointing to fluoride? Were you aware that, at the time, 1948, hundreds of potential lawsuits loomed over the wartime industries that had spewed tons of fluoride into the air as American struggled to defeat Germany and Japan?
We can talk about fluoridation being ineffective and a neurotoxin and a violation of informed consent. That’s a necessary conversation. But we also need to understand the reason we have fluoridation in the first place, and it comes back to industry. Just as industry profited from leaded gasoline and tobacco while covering up their hazards, so, too, has it profited from fluoride while concealing its hazards. Eventually the truth will be known, and fluoridation will pull a longoverdue disappearing act.
BEA STAGG
posted by Bill at
10:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home