Friday, March 30, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
This “Hot Debate” article poses the question of why, after all these years of scientific studies in favor of fluoride, why is the debate still going on at all. It lists the states that are either fighting it or mandating it, and then quotes the National Cancer Institute of having done their own investigation and “…found after analyzing 2.2 million cancer death records and 125,000 actual cancer cases of people living in counties where water fluoridation is present, was that there is no indication whatsoever of cancer risk that can be directly associated with drinking fluoridated water…” >
A March 6, 2012 Letter to the Editor in Philomath, Oregon quotes a 2007 study done by their state’s Benton County Health Dept. It compared Benton County, with 33% fluoridated water, and two other counties with 27 cities combined in Washington and Clackamas Counties, but only 3 of those 27 cities having fluoridated water. Their resulted evidence was that the children in the 2 counties had better oral health than the children in Benton County. The statistics were done by their own health dept., and done scientifically, but somehow it's not considered as "scientific" and gets ignored. Why is that? >
Gary Null posts this on his blog, listing the states who are fighting fluoride > New Scientific Data Forces Government to Reverse Its Stance on Fluoride in the Water Supply
Yes, why is it Dr. Hardy Limeback, Dr. Paul Connett, and all the other 4,000+ published professionals are continually ignored, never debated, and their research never accepted as "scientific" by the proponents of fluoride? Do you think the states should be mandating fluoride in all their cities' drinking water?