from harktheherald.com postings fluoridation

WRONG....

as posted at http://www.harktheherald.com/pollBooth.php?op=results&pollID=114 Dec.2002

Lets look at this statement by a fluoridation promoter.

Dr. BULL: "One thing that is a little hard to handle is the charge that fluoridation not needed. They talk of other methods, and when they get through adding up all the percentages of decay that we can reduce by such methods, we end up in a minus. When they take us at our own word they make awful liars out of us. And that will be brought up."

--------------------------------------------------

In Harlem, NY, which has been fluoridated for 32 years, "There's more dental decay among these kids; we see the beginning of inflamed gingivitis in their mouths." American Dental Association, May 2000

--------------------------------------------------

Feb. 16, 2001 - Nicholas Regush (ABC News, Second Opinion), brief overview, ending: "What is amazing, however, is that public health policy in this country has allowed water fluoridation to continue in the absence of solid scientific evidence that its benefit is greater than its risk. When you commit to putting a powerful chemical into the water supply, you'd better have the best of evidence that it is both safe and effective. The required level of evidence is just not there." http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridelist.htm

--------------------------------------------------

Why is the CDC, NIDCR, ADA, Surgeon General Etc., promoting Experimental Drugs? Fluoridation Drugs have never been approved effective or safe by the US FDA???

http://www.fluoridealert.org/fda.htm

August 14, 2000

Senator Robert Smith, Chairman

Environment and Public Works Committee

c/o John Pemberton

307 Dirkson Senate Office Building

Washington D.C. 20510-0001

Dear Senator Smith:

In 1992, the New Jersey Department of Health released a study suggesting an association between fluoridated water and osteosarcoma in young males. The New Jersey study was undertaken in response to a national epidemiology study (Hoover 1991) and a National Toxicology program study (1990) linking fluoride and osteosarcoma.

Upon receiving this study, I immediately contacted the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (AAPD) and asked them to send me the studies supporting the safety and effectiveness of fluoride supplements. (Fortunately, New Jersey has little fluoridated water. As a result, pediatricians in our state prescribe fluoride supplements -- drops for infants and tablets for children.) I was promised the studies - they never came. When I pressed the AAPD, they admitted they had no such studies and informed me the studies could be obtained from the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR). They assured me they would forward the studies. Again, they never came. NIDR acknowledged they did not have any studies. The NIDR recommended I obtain the studies directly from the FDA since that agency was responsible for approving these products.

After filing a FOIA and waiting six months, I was stunned when I was advised by the FDA that fluoride supplements were not approved by the FDA (emphasis in original). Incredibly, in fifty years, no one has ever bothered submitting a petition to the FDA to have these products approved!

The water fluoridation debate has been raging for fifty years. The dose recommended for water fluoridation when adjusted for weight is the same dose recommended for prescription supplements. However, no clinical trials have been conducted and submitted to the FDA to demonstrate the effectiveness of ingesting fluoride.

So, the question remains, if the FDA does not recognize the safety and effectiveness of fluoride supplements, how can we even consider fluoridating water?

Toxicology studies and clinical trials of fluoride supplements submitted to the FDA would have been the simplest, clearest and lawful way of demonstrating the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluoride. There is no reason to debate epidemiology studies. Simply submit fluoride supplement studies to the FDA and we will know whether fluoride is safe and effective.

Of course, the reason this has not happened in half a century is because the promoters of fluoride supplements dare not go anywhere near the FDA, fully aware that they could never meet the requirements of demonstrating safety and effectiveness. Rejection by the FDA of petitions for fluoride supplements would be the death knell for water fluoridation, so the FDA and the law are simply ignored.

It is my understanding that in 1975, the FDA issued a regulatory letter asking manufacturers to remove fluoride supplements from the market. To date, the FDA has not responded to my inquiry asking for clarification of their actions in 1975. Also, in 1993 I petitioned the FDA to enforce the law and remove children's fluoride supplements from the market. The FDA has ignored my repeated requests.

At best, fluoride supplements are a waste of precious health care dollars. At worst, they are causing real harm to our infants and children.

I urge you to hold hearings on this issue. I also urge you to demand that the FDA enforce the law and remove these unapproved products from the market.

Sincerely,

John V. Kelly

Assemblyman District 36

--------------------------------------------------

US EPA Scientist:

June 29, 2000 - J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., Vice-President of the union of scientists and other professionals at EPA Headquarters, testifies on fluoridation before an Environment and Public Works subcommittee at a U.S. Senate Hearing on Safe Drinking Water Standards, reaffirming the union's call for a national moratorium on fluoridation. http://www.senate.gov/~epw/hir_0629.htm

--------------------------------------------------

FLUORIDATION PROMOTERS MANTRA...

...some individuals are against fluoridation, you have just got to knock their objections down. The question of toxicity is on the same order. lay off it altogether. just pass it over, " We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay," you say , and go on.

www.nofluoride.com/State%20Dental%20Directors.pdf

----------------------------------------------

"Fluoride has been shown to adversely effect the central nervous system, causing behavioral changes, increased hip fractures and reproduction problems." Natick Report Research Team

[Research Microbiologist, U.S. Army, Dr. B. J. Gallo, Environmental Chemist, J. Kupperschmidt Apollo Program Project Scientist, Dr. N.R. Mancuso, U.S. Army Natick Research Labs, A. Murray, Molecular Biologist, Dr. Strauss]

--------------------------------------------------

"Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems." Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943

--------------------------------------------------

DR. BULL: "I wish I knew the answer to these questions. I don't know why they didn't include a letter from about two-thirds of the deans of the dental schools of the universities saying fluoride is rat poison and shouldn't be used". June 1951

>> www.nofluoride.com/State%20Dental%20Directors.pdf

Two years ago we really had a mess in Wisconsin with Immunization. We had two county nurses that nearly went crazy, because they had so many sick children from an Immunization Program.

--------------------------------------------------

"[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children."- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. MMWR, 48(41): 933-940.

"[F]luoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical." - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. August 17, 50(RR14):1-42.

"The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries." - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review. August 17, 50(RR14):1-42.

------------------------------------------

Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation:

http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

by JOHN COLQUHOUN*

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1, Autumn 1997

Former Advocate

To explain how I came to change my opinion about water fluoridation, I must go back to when I was an ardent advocate of the procedure. I now realize that I had learned, in my training in dentistry, only one side of the scientific controversy over fluoridation. I had been taught, and believed, that there was really no scientific case against fluoridation, and that only misinformed lay people and a few crackpot professionals were foolish enough to oppose it. I recall how, after I had been elected to a local government in Auckland (New Zealand's largest city, where I practised dentistry for many years and where I eventually became the Principal Dental Officer) I had fiercely — and, I now regret, rather arrogantly — poured scorn on another Council member (a lay person who had heard and accepted the case against fluoridation) and persuaded the Mayor and majority of my fellow councillors to agree to fluoridation of our water supply.

A few years later, when I had become the city's Principal Dental Officer, I published a paper in the New Zealand Dental Journal that reported how children's tooth decay had declined in the city following fluoridation of its water, to which I attributed the decline, pointing out that the greatest benefit appeared to be in low-income areas [1]. My duties as a public servant included supervision of the city's school dental clinics, which were part of a national School Dental Service which provided regular six-monthly dental treatment, with strictly enforced uniform diagnostic standards, to almost all (98 percent) school children up to the age of 12 or 13 years. I thus had access to treatment records, and therefore tooth decay rates, of virtually all the city's children. In the study I claimed that such treatment statistics "provide a valid measure of the dental health of our child population" [1]. That claim was accepted by my professional colleagues, and the study is cited in the official history of the New Zealand Dental Association [2].

INFORMATION CONFIDED

I was so articulate and successful in my support of water fluoridation that my public service superiors in our capital city, Wellington, approached me and asked me to make fluoridation the subject of a world study tour in 1980 — after which I would become their expert on fluoridation and lead a campaign to promote fluoridation in those parts of New Zealand which had resisted having fluoride put into their drinking water.

Before I left on the tour my superiors confided to me that they were worried about some new evidence which had become available: information they had collected on the amount of treatment children were receiving in our school dental clinics seemed to show that tooth decay was declining just as much in places in New Zealand where fluoride had not been added to the water supply.

http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

Read the rest... I suggest the ADA, CDC, and ALL other promoters of water fluoridation do the same.

--------------------------------------------

"I would advise against fluoridation.. Side-effects cannot be excluded .. In

Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances."

- Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)

__________________________________________________

In 1965 05 1966 The American Medical Association stated (:http://www.nofluoride.com/amaletter.htm)

"The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm

will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of Environmental Health, American Medical Association.

Will the AMA of 2002 contradict this? Please forward the revised statement and studies to me.

--------------------------------------------------

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs.

Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a

long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."

- Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

--------------------------------------------------

"E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer

data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects." - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A.

--------------------------------------------------

"Water contains a number of substances that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one of them" stated Dr. F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors.

--------------------------------------------------

Dr. BULL: "We are living down some past history a lot of us helped create. These fellows can just take the statements of the American Dental Association or the U.S. Public Health Service or the deans of dental schools or research workers around the country, and they can prove to you that we are absolutely crazy for even thinking about fluoridation. You are going to have to live that down. There is no way of avoiding it"

http://gjne.com/fluoride/dentist%20dr%20bull%20fluoride%20rat%20poison.htm

--------------------------------------------------

Fluoridation promoters do not really care about all people.

"Segments of the population are unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. They include "postmenopausal women and elderly men, pregnant woman and their fetuses, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems." United States Public Health Service Report (ATSDR TP-91/17, pg. 112, Sec.2.7, April 1993)

--------------------------------------------------

"fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain." Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, May 2000

--------------------------------------------------

"It is now clear that fluoride is a potentially harmful substance when present in the drinking water in any amount." Dr. Simon Beisler, Chief of Urlogy, Roosevelt Hospital and Past President of the American Urological Association.

--------------------------------------------------

"The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of the water supply is 'safe.'" Dr. Ludgwig Grosse, Chief of Cancer Research, U.S. Veterans Administration.

--------------------------------------------------

Limeback is not the first fluoride expert to survey the evidence and recant. In 1980, Dr. John Colquhoun, chief dental officer of Auckland, New Zealand, examined children's dental records to help promote fluoridation. To his surprise, he found fabricated statistics and errors - but no advantage at all from fluoridation. He eventually campaigned against fluoride.

http://www.nofluoride.com/toronto_star_part2.htm

------------------------------------------

WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS

OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

--------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------

Fluoridated water is long overdue

by The Daily Herald on Friday, December 27

We have a suggestion for the first government act of 2003: Utah County cities should put a water fluoridation referendum on the ballot.

It does not make sense that a community of health-conscious people are not getting the most effective method of preventing tooth decay.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance that has been found to prevent cavities by shielding teeth from harmful acid secreted by bacteria on teeth. While fluoride is available in toothpaste, oral rinses and tablets, dentists and doctors found the best way to deliver fluoride is through drinking water.

The American Dental Association found, through analyzing 113 studies in 23 countries, that water fluoridation reduces tooth decay in permanent teeth by 50 to 59 percent.

In 1960, Antigo, Wis., discontinued water fluoridation after 11 years, and tooth decay in children increased 200 percent in five years.

And it is cost-effective, working out to $1 a year per person for a community the size of Provo. When you compare that with the cost of a visit to the dentist, it is money well spent.

The National Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Medical Association, the U.S. Public Health Service and countless dentists endorse it. In 1999, The Daily Herald published a letter signed by more than 200 Utah County dentists and orthodontists calling on the county to adopt a fluoride program.

Unfortunately, Utah lags behind the nation in fluoridating water. The only counties that have approved fluoridation are Salt Lake and Davis counties. Efforts to bring fluoride into other areas are stymied by unenlightened groups of so-called nutritionists and the Utah Eagle Forum.

Those groups bring up a flurry of backward arguments designed to cloud the issue and scare the public away from adopting a proven course of action. Some of the arguments are reminiscent of McCarthy-era canards that fluoridation was an attempt by communists to poison the public.

In communities that care for their growing children, fluoride is added to drinking water at between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million. To put that in perspective, 1 part per million is the equivalent of one pancake in a four-mile-high stack of flapjacks, or 0.0001 percent (10,000 ppm equals only 1 percent).

Panicky anti-fluoride forces typically trot out "studies" claiming that fluoridated water causes brittle bones, heart disease and various cancers. But in 50 years of research, scientists have found no evidence that fluoride contributes to any of those things, or, in fact, that it does anything bad at all.

The only documented side effect of fluoride can be fluorosis, a rare discoloration of the teeth that can occur in a small number of people after drinking triple the proper amount of fluoride over an extended period of time. But even here, a slight risk of stained teeth is a far better choice than the likelihood of problems arising from tooth decay. Like a vaccine that prevents disease, fluoride inoculates your teeth.

The final argument opponents raise is that public health is not the proper concern of government. It should not administer medicine through water pipes, they say, adding that people can buy fluoride for themselves rather than force it on everyone.

But government clearly already is, and should be, involved in public health. It requires water to be treated to remove harmful bacteria, for instance. We have a health code that regulates everything from swimming pools to restaurants to residential plumbing. Every public school is acquainted with a host of legal requirements.

If we follow the anti-fluoride logic to its illogical conclusion, we should stop chlorinating water and let those who want "pure" water buy filters, use purification tablets or boil it, since we don't want to force a "medical procedure" on unwilling people. Likewise, we should ban the pasteurization of milk, since some people believe raw milk is better for you. Why should they be forced to drink a product that has been treated to kill harmful bacteria?

Not everyone can afford fluoride rinses and tablets. And the downside hits children particularly hard. If they don't get fluoride through the water system, chances are we'll all pay for it through publicly funded medical programs such as the Children's Health Insurance Program or, later in life, Medicaid.

Local city councils must put this on the ballot this year, and provide meaningful, accurate information to the public so voters can make an informed decision: fewer cavities or rotten teeth.

* * *

Should Utah County cities fluoridate water? Tell us what you think, either on our call-in line, 344-2942, or on our Web site, www.HarkTheHerald.com. We'll take your comments until Jan. 1, and publish them Jan. 5.

When you respond, please include your name, hometown and phone number for verification purposes. Only names and hometowns will be printed with the responses.

Anonymous and unverifiable responses will be discarded.

If you use the Internet, please keep your comments to 75 words or less and send them to dmeyers@heraldextra.com. If you call in, please limit your response to 30 seconds or less.

Members of The Daily Herald

editorial board are Publisher Kirk Parkinson, Executive Editor Randy Wright, Opinions Page Editor

Donald W. Meyers, Payson resident Amie Leavitt and Provo resident

Paul Evans.

This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A6.

---

Greg1

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water Hawaii

www.gjne.com/cfsdwh

REPLY TO POST

12/31/2002 7:29:02 AM

Thank you for posting your comment.

Our web editors will quickly review your comment and post it as soon as possible.

Click here to return to the article

Or check out these discussions on the following stories from today's HarkTheHerald.

A notice from our moderators

HarkTheHerald.com is an extension of The Daily Herald newspaper. As such, we respect the right of individuals to express their opinions.

Having said that, please understand that we cannot allow every comment and opinion to be printed on this website. As a result, the comments posted to these forums are moderated.

We do not have a formal list of rules or regulations regarding our message boards posted anywhere on our site. We hope that we never need one. Common sense should guide most people in understanding what kinds of things are, or are not, appropriate for posting to an open forum on a publicly owned newspaper web site.

In most cases, a rejected message would be just fine with a slight re-wording.

The following list may be useful as a brief guide to understand what types of comments will be rejected:

- Profanity/vulgarity.
- Adult material.
- Wild accusations or attacks based on skin color, sex, religion, age, etc, etc, etc.
- Meaningless gibberish, repetitive comments, flooding.
- Flaming.
- Assuming another person's identity.
- Libelous/slanderous material.
- Off-topic comments.
- Links to any site containing the material listed above.

Inappropriate comments will be rejected without warning.

We hope you will aid us in our efforts to support a civil exchange of ideas on this site. If you have any complaints about a particular post, or if you are uncertain as to why your post was rejected, please email us at dhwebmaster@harktheherald.com and we will be more than happy to explain to you why we rejected your post.

Re: Fluoridated water is long overdue (Score: 0)
by R. Minervini on Monday, December 30

Below is my 75 word response to your December 27, 2002, editorial:

Fluoridate? Then be prepared to publicly debate the issue; provide actual implementation costs, stop your McCarthy-era/Communist plot and name calling tactics (Utahn's are not buying that anymore); and admit that NO chemicals should be added to the public water supply for the intended purpose of preventing a disease unless the HEALTH CLAIM made for that chemical has been first approved as both safe and effective by the FDA--the only agency that can approve health claims.

Rosemary Minervini, RDH, MS
Registered Dental Hygienist
President, Citizens for Safe Drinking Water - Utah

Dear Rosemary,

Thank You. Your community should understand you are truley advocating for their health.

As More and More Independent, Medical and Dental Professionals Refrain from and Advise Against Forcing and Promoting Fluoride(s) and Fluoridation, in 2003 A.D.

Greg1

Dear Utah,

(Your)The Water Should be Pure as Possible, and Safe For ALL to Drink! Any Objections?

Fluoridation Promoters can NOT back up their arguments.

Lets look at this statement by a fluoridation promoter.

http://gjne.com/fluoride/dentist%20dr%20bull%20fluoride%20rat%20poison.htm

--------------------------------------------------

Is Your Sodiun Fluoride Toothpaste causing Gingivitis, and other oral diseases?

A US Patent discloses interesting issues.

64.177.90.157/pfpc/html/newsletter_9.html

Gingivitis and periodontal disease are the oral diseases requiring most urgent intervention. Over 90% of the U.S. population over 13 is affected.

--------------------------------------------------

Kind Regards,

Greg1

Citizens for Safe Drinking Water Hawaii

www.gjne.com/cfsdwh

--------------------------------------------------

Why is the CDC, NIDCR, ADA, Surgeon General Etc., promoting Experimental Drugs? Fluoridation Drugs have never been approved effective or safe by the US FDA???

http://www.fluoridealert.org/fda.htm

August 14, 2000

Senator Robert Smith, Chairman

Environment and Public Works Committee

c/o John Pemberton

307 Dirkson Senate Office Building

Washington D.C. 20510-0001

Dear Senator Smith:

So, the question remains, if the FDA does not recognize the safety and effectiveness of fluoride supplements, how can we even consider fluoridating water?

At best, fluoride supplements are a waste of precious health care dollars. At worst, they are causing real harm to our infants and children.

I urge you to hold hearings on this issue. I also urge you to demand that the FDA enforce the law and remove these unapproved products from the market.

Sincerely,

John V. Kelly

Assemblyman District 36

--------------------------------------------------

US EPA Scientist:

--------------------------------------------------

FLUORIDATION PROMOTERS MANTRA...

www.nofluoride.com/State%20Dental%20Directors.pdf

--------------------------------------------------

"Fluoride has been shown to adversely effect the central nervous system, causing behavioral changes, increased hip fractures and reproduction problems." Natick Report Research Team

--------------------------------------------------

>> www.nofluoride.com/State%20Dental%20Directors.pdf

Two years ago we really had a mess in Wisconsin with Immunization. We had two county nurses that nearly went crazy, because they had so many sick children from an Immunization Program.

--------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------

Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation:

http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

by JOHN COLQUHOUN*

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1, Autumn 1997

Former Advocate

INFORMATION CONFIDED

http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

Read the rest... I suggest the ADA, CDC, and ALL other promoters of water fluoridation do the same.

--------------------------------------------

"I would advise against fluoridation.. Side-effects cannot be excluded .. In

Sweden, the emphasis nowadays is to keep the environment as clean as possible with regard to pharmacologically active and, thus, potentially toxic substances."

- Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000)

__________________________________________________

In 1965 05 1966 The American Medical Association stated (:http://www.nofluoride.com/amaletter.htm)

"The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm

Will the AMA of 2002 contradict this? Please forward the revised statement and studies to me.

--------------------------------------------------

"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs.

Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a

long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."

- Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

--------------------------------------------------

"E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer

data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects." - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A.

--------------------------------------------------

http://gjne.com/fluoride/dentist%20dr%20bull%20fluoride%20rat%20poison.htm

--------------------------------------------------

Fluoridation promoters do not really care about all people.

--------------------------------------------------

http://www.nofluoride.com/toronto_star_part2.htm

------------------------------------------

WHY EPA HEADQUARTERS UNION OF SCIENTISTS

OPPOSES FLUORIDATION

http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm

--------------------------------------------------