USA - Letters: Fluoridation
Loveland doesn’t need to add toxic fluoride to water
I read the fluoridation article in Tuesday’s R-H and was horrified to find that Loveland uses a liquid acid form of fluoridation instead of the solid form used in other cities that “poses less of a health hazard than the acid.”
What? They’re using something that they know poses an increased health hazard?
Actually, they say “less” of a health hazard because fluoride is a known toxin in any form. Applying fluoride directly to tooth enamel helps to harden the enamel against cavities, but ingesting it does nothing for the teeth. Ever wonder why there is a warning on toothpaste not to swallow it?
The article said that “the Public Health Service lowered its recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water … in part to account for the prevalence of fluoride in other oral-health products.” Do you realize that there is fluoride in many medications and other substances, not just in toothpaste? It’s toxicity is not the kind that will immediately make you sick if you ingest it. It is cumulative in our systems, and there are independent studies that link accumulated fluoride to many health problems. (including that the fluoride-hardened tooth enamel is more susceptible to cracking after years of “treatment”).
It has become common knowledge that regulated industries write the regulations that our federal agencies rubber stamp for them in order to protect corporate profits over public health, so I tend to give more credence to independent studies by entities that have nothing to gain financially.
I would hope that our city would do more independent research on the health effects of what they are doing and not just blindly accept the industry/government “safety guidelines.” But if they insist on following those guidelines, at least use the alternative that “poses less of a health hazard”!
Jan Schockner
Loveland
I read the fluoridation article in Tuesday’s R-H and was horrified to find that Loveland uses a liquid acid form of fluoridation instead of the solid form used in other cities that “poses less of a health hazard than the acid.”
What? They’re using something that they know poses an increased health hazard?
Actually, they say “less” of a health hazard because fluoride is a known toxin in any form. Applying fluoride directly to tooth enamel helps to harden the enamel against cavities, but ingesting it does nothing for the teeth. Ever wonder why there is a warning on toothpaste not to swallow it?
The article said that “the Public Health Service lowered its recommended concentration of fluoride in drinking water … in part to account for the prevalence of fluoride in other oral-health products.” Do you realize that there is fluoride in many medications and other substances, not just in toothpaste? It’s toxicity is not the kind that will immediately make you sick if you ingest it. It is cumulative in our systems, and there are independent studies that link accumulated fluoride to many health problems. (including that the fluoride-hardened tooth enamel is more susceptible to cracking after years of “treatment”).
It has become common knowledge that regulated industries write the regulations that our federal agencies rubber stamp for them in order to protect corporate profits over public health, so I tend to give more credence to independent studies by entities that have nothing to gain financially.
I would hope that our city would do more independent research on the health effects of what they are doing and not just blindly accept the industry/government “safety guidelines.” But if they insist on following those guidelines, at least use the alternative that “poses less of a health hazard”!
Jan Schockner
Loveland
posted by Bill at
9:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home