NETU Chapter 280 - US Environmental Protection Agency wrote on Apr 12, 2007 12:08 AM:
" Eleven Unions, representing 7,000 scientists, engineers, professionals and technical workers of the Environmental Protection Agency, have requested a moratorium on water fluoridation. These are the people who regulate our water. Does this not concern you? See Statement of Concern and more..........
http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridestatement.htm "
Notable Quotes wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:46 PM:
" 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.
http://www.nofluoride.com/quotes.htm "
Notable Quotes wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:44 PM:
" 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
http://www.nofluoride.com/quotes.htm "
Notable Quotes wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:36 PM:
" 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)
http://www.nofluoride.com/quotes.htm "
Notable Quotes wrote on Apr 11, 2007 11:32 PM:
" "Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age" -Dr. Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist. http://www.nofluoride.com/quotes.htm "
Robert Kopitzke, Phd wrote on Apr 11, 2007 6:22 PM:
" Several studies in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere demonstrate that the socio-economic variable that correlates best with tooth quality within a social structure is wealth; the greater the wealth is the better tooth quality is expected. This is true on both an individual and a group basis. Some studies show a small reduction in tooth decay for fluoridated areas. In particular a study of 39,207 children in 1986-87 showed a reduction of .6 tooth surface per child in fluoridated areas (Brunelle, 1990). This result forms a basis for such claims as $1 for fluoride prevents $38 in dental care. None of these studies took into account economic status and are thus worthless. A study
(Tijmstra, 1978) showed a similar reduction in cavities due to fluoride but when intervening variables – socio-economic, tooth brushing habit – were taken into account
the difference disappeared.
"
Susan Miller wrote on Apr 10, 2007 10:14 PM:
"
See Health Effects Database: Contact the Fluoride Action Network at http://www.FluorideAction.net "
Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection wrote on Apr 9, 2007 5:40 PM:
" Cities all over the US purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh pollution concentrate from Florida - fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) - to fluoridate water. Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to human health and the greatest potential liability for manufacturers. Phosphate fertilizer suppliers have more than $10 billion invested in production and mining facilities in Florida. Fluorides and radionuclides are the primary toxic pollutants. People living near the plants and mines, experience lung cancer and leukemia rates that are double the state average. - "Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection," by George Glasser.
http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_phosphates.html "
Pollution through Dillution wrote on Apr 9, 2007 5:11 PM:
" Fluoride has never been approved for ingestion in any form by the Food and Drug Administration. When parents give their children fluoride tablets/drops, they expect these medications to be FDA approved for safety and efficacy. In fact, they have never been approved for either. You can verify this on the FDA web site in the search browser. Thus, through water fluoridation, an unapproved prescription medication, the American People have been subjected to a 60 year experiment. See Nuremberg Code of Medical Ethics: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/
The CDC now states that fluoride works topically not systemically. So, why do proponents continue to push water fluoridation? $$$$$$$ "
Low-Income Families Suffer Greater Risk for Fluoride Toxicity wrote on Apr 9, 2007 4:56 PM:
" Low-income families suffer greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well
established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council, which recently reviewed fluoride toxicity, stated: "I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." "
Fluoride Poses Added Burden to Low-Income Communities wrote on Apr 9, 2007 4:50 PM:
" A new report from the National Academy of Science, National Research Council 2006, stated that infants and young children are receiving 3-4 times the dose of fluoride as do adults, on a body weight basis. In November 2006, the American Dental Association quietly issued a new recommendation that infant milk formula not be mixed with fluoridated city water, to help prevent a teeth condition known as "dental fluorosis." In light of the ADA’s new recommendation, "who is going to pay for poor families to use bottled water to mix baby formula?" and "how will all mothers and caregivers who need this information obtain it?" Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water, due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filtration systems. Only reverse osmosis and steam distillation systems are capable of removing the extremely small, highly reactive fluoride ion. "
Dan from Antigo: wrote on Apr 9, 2007 10:26 AM:
" The city of Antigo, WI has fluoridated it's water since 1949. Antigo is in Langlade county. I recently conducted a study to compare the number of dentists (per capita) in Langlade county to the number of dentists (per capita) in neighboring Shawano county. The results proved to be stunning! Langlade county, which fluoridates approximately 40% of it's population, had 30% more dentists (per capita) than Shawano county, which flouridates 15% of it's population. If water fluoridation is truly "one of the 10 greatest health measures of the 20th century", then the number of dentists (per capita) in these communities should be reversed. I have been told that this is only anecdotal evidence. BULL! But alas, numbers don't lie, people do!
"
Mary wrote on Apr 9, 2007 9:18 AM:
" I guess it goes to show, people choose to be ignorant and I guess they choose to be unhealthy. You can show them the facts proving flouride is toxic and they still want it in their water?!?! I give up. What don't you understand?!?! Give them their stinkin' flouride. Don't come running to us when the toxic affects start to rear their ugly heads. Kind of reminds me of a recent supreme court judge election. Some people will never cease to amaze me.
P.S. Most bottled water does in fact contain flouride. You must purchase water that has gone through reverse osmosis purification. "
Blazer Communications wrote on Apr 9, 2007 9:03 AM:
" In response to "Mickey" and all other fluoridation supporters, the following facts need to be brought forward:
1. Calcium fluoride occurs naturally in water, but so does lead and arsenic, that doesn't make it safe.
2. The substance used to fluoridate most water supplies is 25 times more toxic than calcium fluoride. (see "Fluoridation: The Great Deception" [p.88]
3. The substance used to fluoridate most water supplies is not "food grade", it is "industrial grade".
4. The substance used to fluoridate most water supplies is not approved by the FDA.
5. The substance used to fluoridate most water supplies is not the same substance used in toothpaste. (see "Fluoridation: The Great Deception" [p.88].
6. Fluoridated water does not hit every tooth surface, toothpaste does.
7. Few children drink water, but most brush their teeth.
The choice is yours, choose wisely! "
just curious... wrote on Apr 9, 2007 7:59 AM:
" if the ones who are all for flouridation. also fall in the goup that wants to ban smoking. if so, just use your brain and think about THAT contradiction. "
Buyer Beware wrote on Apr 8, 2007 10:37 PM:
" The only chemicals which should be added to public water are those which are essential for its purification for public consumption; the addition of medicines to public water supplies is a breach of fundamental human rights. Fluoridation of water reflects high receptivity to the fluoride industry, and indifference with significant public health penalties to the population. Fluoride used for this purpose comes from highly contaminate industrial grade fluorosilicic wastes; contaminants include heavy metals. Furthermore, there is significant experimental evidence that fluoride induces a dose-related incidence of bone cancer in rats. The imposition of fluoridation on the public presents a significant public health hazard. - Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine University of Illinois, and Chairman, Cancer Prevention Coalition. www.preventcancer.com
"
Buyer Beware wrote on Apr 8, 2007 9:54 PM:
" Airborne fluorides have caused more worldwide damage to domestic animals than any other air pollutant. - US Department of Agriculture. Air Pollutants Affecting the Performance of Domestic Animals. Agricultural Handbook No. 380. Revised. 1972. p. 109
Certainly, there has been more litigation on alleged damage to agriculture by fluoride than all other pollutants combined. - "Effects of Fluorides on Plants and Plant Communities: An Overview." In: Shupe JL,Peterson HB, Leone NC, (Eds). Fluorides: Effects on Vegetation, Animals, and Humans. Paragon Press. Salt Lake City, Utah. pp. 53-59.
Between 1957 and 1968 fluoride was responsible for more damage claims against industry than all twenty [nationally monitored air pollutants] combined. - Groth E. (1969) "Air is Fluoridated." The Peninsula Observer Jan 27 - Feb 3.
See these articles and more: contact the Fluoride Action Network www.FluorideAction.net
"
Philip Robertson Naturopath wrote on Apr 8, 2007 9:05 PM:
" When fluoride is prescribed by government and supplied via water engineers (not pharmacists) through water, what could go wrong? Comments below noting numerous documented health problems answer the question. However reports of fluoride-related side-effects emerged right from the beginning of fluoridation http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/allergy/
Once fluoridation becomes treatment by bureaucrats, government shuts its eyes to side-effects. The Hippocratic Oath ’first do no harm’ doesn’t apply. My patients who get sick from fluoride find their doctors and dentists recognize it, putting warnings not to treat with fluoride on their medical record. But the government doctor pushing fluoridation tells them he won’t recognize such side-effects. I recommend the community reject this scientifically ignorant treatment by government and support Holmen’s Board of Public Works recommendation to keep fluoride out of your water.
"
Prof Noel Campbell BDSc LDS FACNEM FASID wrote on Apr 8, 2007 5:32 PM:
" Now that the American Dental Association has warned that fluoridated water is dangerous to mix baby formula it should be a no brainer that fluoridation of drinking water should cease immediately.
Modern studies show dental decay rates are so low in North America that the effects of water fluoridation cannot be measured.
The major reasons for the general decline of tooth decay worldwide, both in non-fluoridated and fluoridated areas is the widespread use of fluoridated toothpaste, improved diets and overall improved general and dental health (antibiotics, preservatives, hygiene etc).
Fluoridation increases the risk of bone fracture, joint pain and arthritic symptoms, kidney impairment and osteosarcoma in young males.
The risk/benefit ratio is too high to justify fluoridation. "
Chris Anderson wrote on Apr 8, 2007 2:13 PM:
" Might be a good idea to become educated on the removal of this mineral from you tap water.
Here are some resources.
www.waterfilterfacts.com "
To MN Fluoridation observer wrote on Apr 8, 2007 10:43 AM:
" It's interesting that you bring that up.As a former Minnesota resident your dead on about the time they started.I did some research on it for a family dispute regarding fluoridation.(My family always tried to say that I had the best teeth in the family because of fluoridation).I tried contacting the water department in my hometown (in Northern Minn),over the course of several months.They wouldn't even respond to me with an answer(about when they started fluoridation).It took a State Senator to get an answer out of them.Interestingly enough, they hadn't started fluoridation until well after my adult teeth were in.Just goes to show you that nothing beats good dental care and personal hygiene. "
To Majority Rules wrote on Apr 8, 2007 10:31 AM:
" The fact of the matter is that everyone has to live with it.YOU might live there but ANYONE drinking the water there has to live with the consequences.Your right though.The residents are the ones that will have to vote.I only hope that they listen to all the facts and the evidence presented from all sides before making a decision. "
MN Fluoridation observer wrote on Apr 8, 2007 9:45 AM:
" I sure hope Holman WI does not make the same mistake MN made 40 years ago. MN, TN, KY, IL, and ND are the 5 most fluoridated states in the country.
Can you honestly tell me that fluoridation has helped KY, TN, or IL in the least? They are no better off than before fluoridation started.
The intent is good (cheap widespread oral health), but the idea is flawed.
Consider the wastefulness. We DRINK less than 2% of total household water used. The rest washes your dishes, clothes, car, etc. Fluoride won't help polish the chrome bumper or make the flowers grow any better than non-fluoridated water! "
Robert Dinkle wrote on Apr 8, 2007 8:56 AM:
" Have any considered that Holmen does not need to fluoridate its water for the residents of Holmen to receive more then antiquate fluoride?
50 years ago about the only source of fluoride was what added to our drinking water. today our toothpaste is so loaded with fluoride that they needed to place a danger label on the back telling us to call poison control if we swallow it. Look for yourself. We also get plenty of fluoride in canned vegetables, soda, and so many other places that some cities are warning residents they are overdosed.
Add to that the fact that infants are to receive no fluoride at all, and you have to wonder: what benefit will their be to Holmen if they do fluoridate "
Majority Rules wrote on Apr 8, 2007 8:08 AM:
" I never said that Holmen couldn't listen to advice from others. I did say that only Holmen residents could vote on it. We are the ones that live here and will have to live with the decision. "
Dr. Paul Connett wrote on Apr 8, 2007 7:04 AM:
" Mikey claims there is ZERO evidence fluoride can cause harm at 1 ppm. Check the literature: 1% of population is sensitive to 1 mg/day (Feltman, 1961); At 0.9 ppm Lowered IQ in children with borderline iodine deficiency (Lin, 1991); At 1 ppm increased uptake of aluminum into rat brain (Varner, 1998), over 30% of US children have dental fluorosis (CDC, 2005), Increased bone defects in children (Schlessinger, 1956), Osteosarcoma in young men (Hoover, 1991; Cohn, 1992, Bassin, 2006); At 1.5 ppm Doubling of hip fractures (Li, 2001); At 1.7 ppm Skeletal fluorosis in young US male with impaired kidney function (Juncos, 1972); At 1.8 ppm Lowering of IQ (Xiang, 2003) and At 2.3 ppm Lowering of thyroid activity (Bachinskii, 1985). There is no margin of safety here. In 2006 the National Research Council recommended that EPA lower its safe drinking water standard from 4 ppm (NRC, 2006).
"
To Majority Rules wrote on Apr 8, 2007 12:30 AM:
" I hear you and I understand what your trying to say,but what makes you think that input by people living in Holmen is the most important thing?Facts can be produced by anyone and if anything the people of Holmen should be listening to EVERYONE!This could be more than just a money issue for the people that live there. It could also be a health issue. "
Arthur Brooke wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:53 PM:
" Until a few months ago, I had a conventional view of fluoride/fluoridation-use fluoride toothpaste, get fluoride at the dentist, don't worry too much about what's in the water. So I was amazed to discover that there are literally thousands of scientific papers detailing the dangers of fluoride to cells, neurons, plants, animals, and humans, with more bad news almost every day. Meanwhile, the benefits, already small in the 80s, seem to have just about disappeared.
Summary: Fluoridate? Too Late! "
No Medication without Consent wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:50 PM:
" The addition of fluoride to water supplies violates modern pharmacological principles. Recent research has revealed a sometimes enormous individual variation in response to drugs. If a pharmacologically active agent is supplied via the drinking water, the individual response, which is considerable even when the dosage is fixed, will be markedly increased by the individual variation in water consumption. In addition, this measure is ethically questionable and unnecessarily expensive. - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, 2000 Nobel Laureate for Physiology Medicine (for discoveries concerning signal transduction in the nervous system) from postcript "The Fluoride Deception," by Christopher Bryson, Seven Stories Press 2004.
Watch a video of Mr. Bryson as he discusses the findings of his new book. Go to www.Google.com Click VIDEO and type fluoride. "
Robert G. Briggs, Retired Engineer wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:32 PM:
" It has never been shown by creditable evidence that tooth decay is the result of a fluoride deficiency in ones diet. However it is widely accepted that tooth decay is the result of poor nutrition (too much sugary food and drink), poor oral hygiene, and the lack of professional dental care. I have not found "indisputale evidence that one mg of fluoride per litre reduces cavities dramatically" as previously posted. If there is what is it and where is found? "
Susan Miller wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:15 PM:
" Read "The Fluoride Deception," by Christopher Bryson, an award winning investigative journalist and former producer at the BBC. Learn how a grim work place poison and the most damaging pollutant of the cold war was added to our drinking water and toothpaste.
Hundreds of once-secret World War II documents, including declassified papers of the Manhattan Project (the U.S. military group that built the atomic bomb) indicate that fluoride was the key chemical in the production of the atomic bomb. Massive quantities of fluoride - millions of tons - were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride rapidly emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the U.S. atomic bomb program - both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal.
"
Anita Knight wrote on Apr 7, 2007 10:33 PM:
" To determine whether fluoridation agents are safe, contact county health department and ask for the American Water Works Association Standard for B703. The Foreword gives the source and process evolving the agents, and instructions are given if concerns for contaminants are too high by shaking and taking a sample from top, middle and bottom. There is an entire page of contaminants.
The National Academy of Sciences' report for Congress: "Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride" 1993 is available online. See pages 5, 11, 16, 30, 34, 40, 44-45, 128 and 129. "
Robert G. Briggs wrote on Apr 7, 2007 10:19 PM:
" It has never been shown, by cretible evidence, that tooth decay is the result of a fluoride deficiency. On the other hand, it is widely recognized that tooth decay is caused by poor nutrition (too much sugary foods and drinks), poor oral hygiene, and the lack of professional dental care. The fact that many cities, such as, New York, Boston, Washington DC, and Cincinnati, to name a few, have dental decay rates that are much higher than the national average, was instrumental in causing Honolulu, Hawaii to prohibit putting anything, such as fluoride, in the public water for the purpose of treating people rather than to keep or make the water safe to ingest. Without fluoridation, Holmen's dental decay rates are probably lower than in these and other fluoridated cities.
"
I'm sure... wrote on Apr 7, 2007 10:11 PM:
" Holmen must be against Iodine in salt......most of you don't get this......when it rains it pours! "
Tom Cole wrote on Apr 7, 2007 9:54 PM:
" Pronoucements that fluoride is safe, effective and economical is only an assumption based on ignorance. If people believe in fluoride then it can only be blind faith because they never quote studies that prove it, only that so many doctors, dentists, etc. are saying it's so, we've done it for 60 years so it must be good. That's not proof. If they had the scientific integrity to really research it for themselves, they would change their minds. The sad fact is that having made such blanket statements, like "Fluoridation is the among the ten best medical advancements of the century," how can you now say it isn't without losing face (and law suits).
So we're stuck with it for a while until the evidence becomes as unequivocal to us as it is to most of the rest of the world. "
Majority Rules wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:28 PM:
" Yes. I do think having fluoride put into Holmen's drinking water should be put to a vote. It would be interesting to see what the people of Holmen actually think... rather than imput from people who don't live here. When the votes are counted, majority rules! It's the only fair way to do it. "
Average Joe wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:27 PM:
" It be would be nice to hear from some dentists on this subject.It would also be nice to hear from the people that purchase the fluoride and monitor it's application into the water supply.At least that way we could get some info without attending a meeting. "
interesting blogs... wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:24 PM:
" the people against flouride sure have the facts to back them up, and from what i can see, the ones for it don't have squat. i guess that says a lot, after reading these blogs, i'm definately against flouridation. "
Interesting wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:19 PM:
" that nobody is responding to anyone on here that has submitted facts regarding fluoridation.It appears that the people supporting it don't have any facts.I think it's like a previous poster said - that people are just lazy and they think that putting fluoride in the water will keep their children's teeth white and cavity free.Do people really believe that children benefit that much from fluoride by drinking water?I would be willing to bet that children today drink way more juice,milk and soda than water anyway.I would also be willing to bet that children today would have better teeth if they ate less sweets. "
Douglas L. Cook, DDS wrote on Apr 7, 2007 8:11 PM:
" Modeled enamel in permanent teeth is reason enough to stop fluoride in our public water systems. The science has proved fluoride inhibits enzymes in the human body causing a nutritional problem.
Good nutrition and home care is the key to good teeth. "
Keep off this bandwagon! wrote on Apr 7, 2007 7:28 PM:
" It is well established that any benefit of fluoride comes from topical application to the teeth -- as in toothpaste. It makes no sense to drink the stuff for a lifetime and risk all of the proven harmful effects of long term fluoride ingestion, including epidemic levels of discolored tooth enamel (fluorosis) among children, risks to thyroid function, and elevated risk of bone cancer in boys. Fluoridation has always been unscientific as it mass medicates whole populations without considering variation in water intake and individual sensitivities. This archaic practice is sustained by endorsements from agencies whose reputations depend on its continuation plus a docile response from the mass media which simply falls in line in the presence of these endorsements. But fluoridation's days are numbered and it will invevitably be consigned to the scrap heap of bad public health policies; it's just a matter of time. "
Jody RDH wrote on Apr 7, 2007 6:51 PM:
" I have been a professional hygienist for 12 years. I remember being in school and being fed study after study which touted the benefits of fluoride but many of these studies were funded by the manufacturers themselves. I have seen fluorosis, and toxicity due to flouride first hand and do not believe there is a way to create a margin of safety for every individual. I am against water fluoridation
because it takes our free choice away from us. Lastly there is no valid reason to fluoridate water supplies because that is not how fluoride works on the tooth structure! This is a completely eroneous assertion! "
Dr. Paul Connett wrote on Apr 7, 2007 2:29 PM:
" 1 ppm (the level at which water is fluoridated) may seem small to some, but it is actually 250 times the level that occurs in mothers milk in unfluoridated communities (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006). Dr. Arvid Carlsson, who led the successful fight against fluoridation in Sweden in 1970s, and won the Nobel prize for Medicine in 2000, argued in 1978 that it is not wise to expose a baby’s developing brain to these levels. Since then there have been over 30 animal studies which indicate that fluoride can damage the brain and 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children at levels as low as 1.8 ppm. How many more do we need before we stop this foolish practice? The references to many of these studies can be found at the web site of the Fluoride Action Network. "
Private well owner wrote on Apr 7, 2007 1:28 PM:
" Since fluoride is available to anyone to add to their water if they feel it's necessary,why is local gov't considering forcing fouoride on people that don't want it. It you want it go and get it , if you don't you shouldn't have to pay taxes to provide it those that do. Considering how controversial it has been for about 40 years, it should be a simple personal choice. "
last time i checked.... wrote on Apr 7, 2007 12:54 PM:
" flouride is available for anyone to buy and use if they wish. why should people who don't trust or use flouride be forced to have it added to the water? when you factor in how little of the water we use is used for actual drinking, flouridation is an utter waste. "
Holmen public works wrote on Apr 7, 2007 12:27 PM:
" Yeah, outlaw vaccinations while you are at it. "
wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:19 AM:
" Fluoride and cancer have been linked by the government's own animal carcinogenicity test.
In 1975, John Yiamouyiannis, a biochemist and controversial fluoridation opponent, and Dean Burk, a retired National Cancer Institute official, reported a 5 to 10 percent increase in total cancer rates in U.S. cities which had fluoridated their water supplies.
The paper did trigger congressional hearings in 1977, at which it was revealed, incredibly, that the government had never cancer-tested fluoride. Congress ordered the NCI to begin.
Twelve years later, in 1989, the study was finally completed. It found "equivocal evidence" that fluoride caused bone cancer in male rats.
The NCI found that nationwide evidence "...of a rising rate of bone and joint cancer of all ages combined, due mainly to trends under the age of 20, was seen in the 'fluoridated' counties but not in the 'non-fluoridated' counties.
"
wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:16 AM:
" Benefit to industry from fluoridation:
Companies forced to reduce their emission can recoup some of the expense by selling the waste to cities for water fluoridation.
And MOST OF THE FLUORIDE ADDED TO DRINKING WATER HAS BEEN RECYCLED WASTE, particularly from the fertilizer industry.
When new scientific evidence threatens fluoride's protected pollutant status, the government immediately appoints a commission, typically composed of several veteran fluoride defenders and no opponents; usually, these commissions dismiss the new evidence and reaffirm the status quo. When one didn't in 1983, the government simply altered the findings.
The latest study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that "low levels of fluoride may increase the risk of hip fracture in the elderly."
Fluoride and cancer, too, have been linked by the government's own animal carcinogenicity test
"
wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:10 AM:
" But fluoride has another side the government never mentions. It is a toxic industrial pollutant one of the oldest and biggest of them all.
The nation, however, has been successfully conditioned to think of fluoride solely as a benevolent substance and to dismiss as a crackpot, anyone who claims otherwise.
Fluoride is not biodegradable; gradually accumulating in the environment, in the food chain, and in people's bodies, where it settles in bones and teeth.
Industry and government have long had a powerful motive for claiming an increased dose of fluoride is safe for the population. Maintaining this position has not been easy because, of industry's largest pollutants, fluoride is by far the most toxic to vegetation, animals, and humans.
In fact, it's one of the most toxic substances known.
"
Mikey wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:06 AM:
" There is naturally occurring fluoride in many areas of the country up to 10 times the level recommended for controlling tooth decay. There is ZERO evidence of any harm to the people of those areas, other than some tooth discoloration at levels 5 to 10 times the clinical level. On the contrary, there is indisputable clinical evidence that 1 mg of fluoride per liter (one ounce of fluoride per 8000 gallons) reduces cavities dramatically. Healthy teeth are crucial to good health generally. Holmen is going through the same pseudoscience fear mongering that La Crosse went through 25 years ago, victims of a minority tyranny of small minds with big mouths. "
Majority Rule? wrote on Apr 7, 2007 11:03 AM:
" I thought democracy was supposed to protect us from "majority rule." if you look back through history, majorities have often been wrong. most breakthroughs in science came from persistent people who were in opposition to the majority view at the time. it is in our best interest not to blindly follow uninformed majority viewpoints. look what it gets us in most elections! crooks, swindlers and ego maniacs. "
Fluoridate the water when wrote on Apr 7, 2007 9:50 AM:
" Go ahead and fluoridate the water when it matches how the studies with fluoride and tooth decay were conducted. Oops! Silly me. You can't do it then because the studies never dealt with the ingestion of fluoride. If I can show that if I apply anti-fungal cream medication to a rash on my skin (caused by fungus) that the rash will go away then should I try mixing that medication in a glass of water and drink it to try to get the rash to go away? Lets say it does make the rash go away. What else is it doing to my body [internally]? What if the internal health affects are only minimally negative? Should we still mass medicate everyone? "
Studies show wrote on Apr 7, 2007 9:42 AM:
" Gunniess beer is good for you (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3266819.stm and http://www.ivo.se/guinness/health.html) does that mean the city of Holmen should run tap lines to everyones home? The studies on fluoride and tooth decay used medical grade fluoride in a topical application; not a cheap industrial byproduct by ingestion. Fluoride tablets require a prescription. Tell me what dosage you or your child has taken today? Why is it that children's toothpaste doesn't contain fluoride? Because swallowing it causes flouridosis. Funny that the EPA lists fluoride as a toxic substance... "
Against fluoride wrote on Apr 7, 2007 9:35 AM:
" Do all of you people spouting off in favor of it even know what fluoride is? I think a lot of people are just lazy and think that this is the answer for not taking care of your teeth.It is a daily task that can be done without added fluoride in the water. After George W Bush's war in Iraq this is perhaps the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. "
To 50% wrote on Apr 7, 2007 9:32 AM:
" If people don't have the money for fluoride tablets nor the money for insurance,how are they going to afford higher taxes?A vote for fluoridation means a vote for higher taxes. "
I agree wrote on Apr 7, 2007 7:32 AM:
" So much for majority rule. For those of us who are in favor of adding fluoride to the drinking water... I guess we are getting the short end of the stick (once again) and our voice is still not being heard! Let those who don't want it find an alternative like we have had to for the past years. VOTE YES, please! "
50% wrote on Apr 7, 2007 7:23 AM:
" He "assumes" 15% of the village is against and 35% in favor but those people will continue to purchase tablets... What about the other 50% of the village, does he know what they favor? Perhaps that 50% doesn't have the means to purchase tablets, or they don't have dental insurance? Where are the costs (real numbers)associated with this topic? No more assumptions. I'm in favor of fluoridation, I live in the village and it's time to act on this issue, and do what the majority of the village wants and needs. "
Tommy Toothache wrote on Apr 7, 2007 7:21 AM:
" Thank you Holmen Board for not pushing this poison down our throats......and Thank you Dr. Berkley for stating the facts....and for educating the Holmen Board....... "
Mikey wrote on Apr 7, 2007 7:12 AM:
" Fluoridation is one of the most cost effective public health solutions, up there with immunizations. It is all natural - there is fluoride in most wells around here, but about 25% of the levels needed to prevent cavities - and helps kids keep their teeth into old age. Public health costs money. Let the anti-fluoride people drink bottled water, which has no added fluoride. "
NYSCOF wrote on Apr 7, 2007 6:30 AM:
" History will show that Holmen is beacon of light and one of the smarter cities to see through the haze of unscientific claims and clever PR that surrounds water fluoridation. "
Cheaper for who? wrote on Apr 7, 2007 5:28 AM:
" ..and of course cheaper for the village NOT to add fluoride. Sort of a conflict of interest, the way I see it. The only fair way to decide is to have the people vote on it. By the way, did the village forget to tell the people the results of the Apr 3 non binding referendum on the library, or did it just turn out differently than what they wanted so they didn't say anything? "
What century is Holmen living in? wrote on Apr 7, 2007 1:45 AM:
" From the logic of those on the board who voted against floridization, all I have to say is that it is high time for a board shakeup. Just who does Holmen have on its village boards and committees? "
Advertisement
