F.A.N. newsletter
The case against
fluoridation is incredibly strong, with countless arguments available as to why
we should prohibit the practice of artificial water fluoridation. One of the most
difficult tasks for campaigners is to hone all of these argument choices down to
a handful of points that will have the most influence over decision-makers.
From my experience, the most influential arguments continue to be choice, negative health effects (particularly dental fluorosis, neurotoxicity, and hypothyroidism), availability of topical fluoride and alternatives, as well as water employee safety and the corrosiveness of the additive.
A good way to choose your arguments is to reference the points decision-makers remembered and repeated to the media in recent quotes or public statements opposing the practice. Below, I have provided some of the statements they made in 2017, but first here is the latest update on our annual fundraiser:
Fundraising Report
Our current totals are $17,122 from 52 donors. Paul writes,“Thanks to our loyal supporters we have started very well. But we need to keep this momentum up. To this end one of our super donors has pledged to double the next $2,000 donated. Which means that donations today will go twice as far!”
In Their Own Words: Why Public Officials Opposed Fluoridation in 2017
“I don’t think it should be the business of the municipality to put something in the water that forces everyone who pays for it to ingest the same thing. I think it’s a personal choice, and I don’t think the municipality should be doing it.”
“I think the true debate is what is the role of government and do they have the right to force individuals to ingest a substance that many believe is harmful…I can’t fathom that those who dutifully battle for the basic rights of individuals are willing to violate the same rights of those who choose not to be forced to ingest fluoridated water.
“We’re exposed to a lot of stuff down there at the treatment plant; a lot of different chemicals at the treatment plant. This is one that is not absolutely necessary for the purification of the water system [posing a health risk].”
“What I took away from the presentation is that our customers want to decide and control what they put into their bodies. They don’t want a fluoride additive forced on them.”
“We need to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are doing no harm if we were to introduce this and that’s a tough one to make. [There] are simply too many questions and a lack of consistent scientific consensus…is worrisome to me.”
“Fluoridation is legally unjustified.”
“Considering the permitting work, the cost of replacing (the system), the yearly increase in chemical costs for the fluoride itself, the water authority board thought it would be good to consider the removal of fluoride from water,”
“Given the elevated number of fluoride sources and the increased rates of fluoride intake in the American population, which have risen substantially since water fluoridation began in the 1940s, it has become a necessity to reduce and work toward eliminating avoidable sources of fluoride exposure, including water fluoridation, fluoride containing dental materials, and other fluoridated products.”
“It’s hazardous for us to use, so we would not be opposed to getting rid of it...workers have to protect themselves, including wearing face shields when handling the chemical. It’s worse than battery acid.”
We have additional quotes online from public officials on why they oppose fluoridation.
From my experience, the most influential arguments continue to be choice, negative health effects (particularly dental fluorosis, neurotoxicity, and hypothyroidism), availability of topical fluoride and alternatives, as well as water employee safety and the corrosiveness of the additive.
A good way to choose your arguments is to reference the points decision-makers remembered and repeated to the media in recent quotes or public statements opposing the practice. Below, I have provided some of the statements they made in 2017, but first here is the latest update on our annual fundraiser:
Fundraising Report
Our current totals are $17,122 from 52 donors. Paul writes,“Thanks to our loyal supporters we have started very well. But we need to keep this momentum up. To this end one of our super donors has pledged to double the next $2,000 donated. Which means that donations today will go twice as far!”
How to Donate:
or by check, payable to Fluoride Action
Network, and mail to:
FAN
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton, New York
13905
|
In Their Own Words: Why Public Officials Opposed Fluoridation in 2017
“I don’t think it should be the business of the municipality to put something in the water that forces everyone who pays for it to ingest the same thing. I think it’s a personal choice, and I don’t think the municipality should be doing it.”
“I think the true debate is what is the role of government and do they have the right to force individuals to ingest a substance that many believe is harmful…I can’t fathom that those who dutifully battle for the basic rights of individuals are willing to violate the same rights of those who choose not to be forced to ingest fluoridated water.
“We’re exposed to a lot of stuff down there at the treatment plant; a lot of different chemicals at the treatment plant. This is one that is not absolutely necessary for the purification of the water system [posing a health risk].”
“What I took away from the presentation is that our customers want to decide and control what they put into their bodies. They don’t want a fluoride additive forced on them.”
“We need to be able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are doing no harm if we were to introduce this and that’s a tough one to make. [There] are simply too many questions and a lack of consistent scientific consensus…is worrisome to me.”
“Fluoridation is legally unjustified.”
“Considering the permitting work, the cost of replacing (the system), the yearly increase in chemical costs for the fluoride itself, the water authority board thought it would be good to consider the removal of fluoride from water,”
“Given the elevated number of fluoride sources and the increased rates of fluoride intake in the American population, which have risen substantially since water fluoridation began in the 1940s, it has become a necessity to reduce and work toward eliminating avoidable sources of fluoride exposure, including water fluoridation, fluoride containing dental materials, and other fluoridated products.”
“It’s hazardous for us to use, so we would not be opposed to getting rid of it...workers have to protect themselves, including wearing face shields when handling the chemical. It’s worse than battery acid.”
We have additional quotes online from public officials on why they oppose fluoridation.
Thank You,
Fluoride Action Network
See all FAN bulletins online
posted by Bill at
5:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home