Bolivar, Missouri had a tie vote about keeping or removing fluoride in their city water, and their Mayor got to cast the tie-breaking vote. Mayor Best voted to remove fluoride!
Ohio has a state-mandated fluoride rule as of the early 1970's, and Athens, Ohio with 29 other cities in Ohio used the "opt-out" rule. But then in 1997 Athens voted fluoride in their water against the resident wishes, and it's been a debate ever since. Currently there are still 23 cities in Ohio who are still using the original "opt-out" rule, even though that loophole has been removed.
Jamaica columnist says the toothless residents need more than fluoridated water in their national mandated healthcare insurance because the fluoridated water has not solved the problem.
New Hampshire state legislators have introduced a bill to remove their state-mandated fluoridated drinking water policy. It's to be voted on this legislative 2012 session.
Here's an article that's questioning the issue of fluoride, categorizing it as an environmental issue gone political by conspiracy theorists who believe fluoride is a "communist plot." Lots of informed comments follow the article.
Then there's Rolla, Missouri where the city council covered several issues, i.e., their city library, with resident opponents speaking out against fluoride in their city water (it's covered at the end of the article), citing Austin, Texas as only one of many major cities that have stopped using fluoride, but the city council only recorded it without any action or comments.
In Windsor Canada, after hearing their health officer give the same "there is no evidence against fluoride" speech last week, the city council had the director of the Canadian chapter of the International Medical Geology Association give her evidence that was against fluoride this week. They've been without fluoride since April 2011, and in this week's meeting they unanimously voted a moratorium on having fluoride ever added to their water.
Wanting to join the other eleven states that have state-wide fluoride mandate, New Jersey has passed their state-wide legislation out of their Senate Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee with a vote of 7-1-2. It now heads to the Senate Budget and Appropriations for further review.
And last but not least, here's an update about another group who weighs in against the FDA's NDI guidelines by asking this very pointed question against the alleged "spiked supplements" issue causing this controversy. Atrium Innovations, carrying brands for Douglas Labratories and Garden of Life, "...We question why, after 17 years, FDA has promulgated such stringent guidelines, as we do not believe that a consumer safety crisis exists to merit such action by the Agency..."
My question is why is it proponents for fluoride can accept "scientific" evidence for fluoride, when it's been proved to be flawed at best, but just can't accept that there's scientific evidence against fluoride?
Proponents for fluoride continue to say that any scientific evidence that's against fluoride is "flawed at best" -- hummm.... one of my staff members with a master's degree in behavior disorders has mentioned that psychologists call this "projection," where the guilty person doing something project what they're doing on to somebody else, usually an innocent person, to get the focus away from themselves, which causes mass confusion until the facts finally surface.
My question, based on that thought, is this what fluoride proponents appear to be doing against fluoride opponents, using their own flawed research problems as something to project on to the other side? It seems to be the only logical reason why proponents can continue to uphold the flawed studies as their "proof" that fluoride is good while at the same time accusing the opponents as having flawed studies or no studies.
What do you think?