Friday, March 30, 2012

Contradicting Fluoride Articles - No Wonder People Are Confused!

First off, this sounds like a potentially good idea for here in Utah!  The folks up in Port Orchard, Washington, are sending out surveys to their residents WITH their monthly water utility bill, asking if they favor having fluoride in their drinking water or not.  It started out last August 2011 when a couple, Elissa and Nick Whittleton appeared before the city council giving out facts against fluoride.  Their statements are included on the survey.  The downtown area gets fluoride, but the surrounding areas get their water from another town that does not fluoridate.  This came about because an earlier citizens' group back in 1999 stopped fluoridation in their city by presenting facts included in this below statement, same statement the Whittleton's used, and is on the ballot-like survey that the residents get to voice their vote:   
“'The FDA classes it as a drug, EPA a contaminant, DOT a poison. CDC warns infant formula must not be mixed with fluoridated water and dental fluorosis is on the rise in 30 percent of U.S. children,' the survey statement claims."
While "Dentistry IQ" has a letter entitled "Fluoride is not waste product," but then forgets to address that issue in the letter, merely repeating the myth that fluoride is the same as the mineral fluorine in the ground >>
and while there appears to be a national call for mandating fluoride, based on articles nationwide quoting the dental community that there's a "need for more fluoride" because of the "rise in children's tooth decay," even attacking the bottled water industry as being the "reason" children have increased tooth decay, because their parents are giving them bottled water instead of tap water (nobody's mentioning the rise in sugar consumption)>>
and while a new pro-fluoride study in Sweden proves that rubbing fluoridated-toothpaste on the teeth with your finger will suffice in protecting your teeth from cavities while enduring a food break where brushing is not available, such as lunch (which could also help decrease that "rise in children's tooth decay" if they just rubbed their teeth with a daub of free, fluoridated-toothpaste) >>  
and while there are more hopeful situations where people are doing their own research on the facts and speaking against mandated fluoridated water (Arkansas, England, Canada, New Zealand, Tennessee, New Jersey, and now Montana), here's University of Texas college students requesting two fluoride-free water fountains on their campus for those who do not wish to ingest fluoride >>
plus, ironically, while we're having one-sided debates from the dental and public health communities to install fluoride, over in India where they have too much fluoride and can testify to the overall health damage it causes, they're installing de-fluoride units to get rid of the fluoride >>
"...Also, to deal with the excessive amount of fluoride in drinking water, the state government would install de-fluoridation units in 10,000 villages. He said so far 5,300 villages have been covered and in the next year all the 10,000 villages will be covered completely under the project..."

Monday, March 12, 2012

Fluoride Battles Continue...

Seems to be a campaign for proponents of fluoride to call on the states to start mandating fluoride by posting several articles about a “trend” in the rise of children’s tooth decay.  Here’s one that finally admits that the rise in tooth decay seems to be in spite of fluoridated water >
In the Knight Science Journalism Tracker, it poses the question of why science is not used by the opponents of fluoride, then cites several scientific studies FOR fluoride, but none against it. "The Fluoride Wars" closes with the observation that perhaps the public is "scientific illiterate," and questions why opponents of fluoride aren’t questioning the use of chlorine in the water instead of fluoride.  Dr. Connett and others give excellent comments below the article >
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?