If you read reporter John Stucke's story on fluoride Sunday, you know it's still a very divided issue in Spokane...you're either for it, or against it. There doesn't seem to be much of a middle ground.

Anti-fluoride activists show up at Regional Health District meetings, and claim fluoride is "a sisnister chemical additive."

Then you have those people who feel we need as much fluoride in our water as we can get. Proponents of adding fluoride to our water say "the lack of fluoridation in Spokane and Coeur d' Alene discriminates against the poor...especially children whose parents don't encourage good dental hygiene."

And here's something to chew on, the number of children throughout the county with dental decay rose from 49 percent to 62 percent between 2000 and 2005, according to the Spokane health district.

So, are you for or against fluoridation? We can start that conversation here...or continue it "On the Record with Rebecca Mack" Monday morning at 11a.m. Call us with your opinion at 232-0790.

-dan

What the Anti-fluoridation groups fail to realize is that even after water fluoridation, Spokane would still have less fluoride in the water than some communities have naturally.

Fluoridation has been proven to have a beneficial impact on public health in numerous cities. Which is why experts like the American Dental Association support it. But why listen to the experts when you can let fear and misconception drive your voting?

It is sad we live in a world where uninformed public perception drives policy.

I challenge Spokane to start looking at the whole picture for a change when it comes to fluoridation. And when you do, you'll find the benefits of it clearly outweigh any "risks".

I would challenge those in favor of adding fluoride to our drinking water to start looking at the facts and not react so quickly to all of the propaganda touting the benefits of fluoride.
Fluoride is a drug available by prescription from a doctor or dentist at a controlled dose. Adding this drug to our drinking water would be unethical. People have the right to informed consent to medication. There are many people who drink as much as a gallon of tap water every day and others who drink very little, if any, tap water. Therefore the dose of the medication cannot be controlled nor can the response to the dose.
Even the ADA admits on their website that children under the age of six should be carefully monitered because of the risk of ingesting too much fluoride has been associated with an increased risk of dental fluorosis.
Once you weigh the risks against the benefits it is clear that maybe the answer to the dental care problem is not a one size fits all problem. Fluoride supplements are inexpensive and available at any supermarket or drugstore.

According to CDC data, decay rates correlate more directly with income levels than with fluoridation. Not surprisingly, as this article points out, people with lower income levels in general have higher rates of decay, mainly due to poor diet, lack of education on proper dental hygeine, and lack of health insurance and access to dental care. These are the issues we should focus on rather than medicating everyone's water supply, particularly since we don't know how much we are already getting. Even the ADA says fluoridated water should not be used to mix baby formula and the National Kidney Association has recently stated that people with chronic kidney disease should be warned about the risks associated with fluoride exposure.

It is astonishing to me that this biased article does not include a single comment from an intelligent opponent of water fluoridation nor does it cite the growing voice of EPA and other scientists opposed to fluoridation of public water supplies. It marginalizes opponents as people who cite "the Internet" as if there is not factual information to be found online. Everyone interested in knowing the history of fluoridation should read "The Fluoride Deception" by an award-winning investigative journalist,available on Amazon.com. Also, according to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical". In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it. Medicating the water my children drink should be a choice, not a mandate. Read "Why EPA's Headquarters Professionals' Union Opposes Fluoridation" here:http://www.fluoridealert.org/hp-epa.htm

If there isn't a "one size fits all" solution to the dental problem, as noted by Ben, is there some reasonable solution that both sides (for and against) fluoridation can agree upon?

I'd be interested to hear what you have to say Monday morning "On the Record." Feel free to call the program at 232-0790.

-dan mitchinson

As a Dentist, I promoted fluoridation for 25 years. My patients finally persuaded me to look once again at the scientific evidence and it was like a knee in the gut.
We are ingesting too much fluoride from many sources.
Dentists are puzzled why we no longer see a reducetion in dental decay with fluoridation.
The risks from fluoridation are many and serious.

It is time for good scientists and stakeholders to carefully review the science together.

I would challenge Dan Mitchensen to give me one hour to provide scientific evidence on why Spokane should not fluoridate our water.

How sad that the Spokesman Review did not use the talent and skills of its investigative reporters to look into fluoridation. There is no shortage of scientific information about the hazards of fluoride ingestion.

I attended meetings of the Spokane Regional Health District and provided the board with information from the EPA's Manual of Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings years ago. That was one of the information sources that was considered right-wing whacko?

I have not seen reasonable refutation of the hazards of fluoride poisoning by the pro-fluoridation adherents. They have not addressed concerns about enzyme and genetic damage, nor fluorosis bone cancer, kidney damage or hip fractures. I did not read where this fluoride comes from, if not the hazardous waste of chemical fertilizer and aluminum industries, then whence? And of the different forms of fluoride, which?

It is a sad and disillioning experience to realize that some of the ideals of 1930s science and public health dreams are not healthy at all. And I offer my sympathies to people who really do care about poor children, who believed that fluoride will make it all better.

Allergies to fluoride? I suppose people can be allergic to a highly disruptive ion of a toxin that was used to kill insects and rodents. It is even more likely that those people have overreached their bodies capacity to deal with a poison, which is among the smorgasbord of poisons used these days we are exposed to regularly, some which likely include forms of fluoride as additives.

Those poor children with the rotten teeth do not have the levels of nutrients required to safely utilize ingested flouride. They will be more likely to suffer the ill effects of dental fluorosis, enzyme disruption, bone cancers, to name a few. Their fluoride problems will be less likely to be identified, especially by the fluoridation true believers. I had the worst dental problems when I lived in fluoridated areas as a child. My brothers teeth mottled and softened - fluorosis.

Soda pop, candy and other junk and processed foods produced from fluoridated water supplies elsewhere should be providing our target population more than enough fluoride to satisfy the proponents of adding the expensive and very corrosive element to our water supply.

Fluoride is listed in the EPA manual "Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings" as a highly toxic insectide in some forms, a lesser toxin in other forms. Fluoride accumulates in tissues, bone, primarily.

Two antidotes listed by the EPA for fluoride poisoning/ingestion (to prevent potentially lethal absorption in the gut) are calcium gluconate and magnesium citrate.

It is one of many highly toxic chemicals that were touted as the answer to hunger, health and sanity, that have proven to be hazardous. It is not safe to assume that most doctors and dentists have specialized knowledge of toxicology. It is not safe to assume that people with masters in public health have specialized knowledge in toxicology. Please do a real investigation this time.

2,000 professionals signed a statement urging Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html

Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, three officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.

Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, http://congress.fluorideaction.net and over 13,800 individuals have signed so far.

“The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.

As a result of the NRC report, the National Kidney Foundation has dropped its support of fluoridation citing evidence that fluoride harms all those with chronic kidney disease, not just those on dialysis. (2)

The Professionals’ Statement also references:

-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.

-- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.

-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.

-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.

-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”

Further, researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (1)



SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net

References:

(1) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007

2) National Kidney Foundation, “Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease,”

April 15, 2008

http://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

Fluoride Lowers IQ, Studies Show

New York – August 14, 2008 - Dr. Vyvyan Howard, a prominent fetal toxicologist said in a recent Canadian TV interview (1) that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.

Dr. Howard, President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment and Senior Lecturer, Developmental Toxico-Pathology, University of Liverpool, England, made presentations at three Toronto Canada meetings of the International Society of Fluoride Research, Fluoride Action Network and the Citizens for a Safe Environment.

Studies done in several countries show that children’s IQ are likely to be lower in high natural water fluoride areas, said Howard. These studies are plausible because fluoride is known to affect the thyroid hormone which affects intelligence and fluoride is also a neurotoxicant, said Howard. Such studies have not been conducted in countries that artificially fluoridate the water such as the US, UK and Canada, but should be, he said.

Howard’s assessments came before publication of “Fluoride and Children’s Intelligence: A Meta-analysis” in Biological Trace Element Research by Tang et al concluding “A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ." (e-published ahead of print 8/10/08)

"This new brain research together with the National Resesarch Council's (2) evidence of fluoride's thyroid and bone damage and the CDC's recommendation against use of fluoridated water in infant formula as well as the National Kidney Foundation's withdrawal of their fluoridation support makes a strong case for ending this 60-year-old fluoridation experiment." says attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc

Fluoride, added to water supplies ostensibly to prevent tooth decay, is also in virtually all US non-organic foods and beverages from pesticide residues and processing with fluoridated water.

“There have now been over 40 animal studies which show that fluoride can damage the brain, and no less than 18 studies which show that fluoride lowers IQ in children, and only 2 that don't,” says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

In 2006, the U.S. NRC expert fluoride panel reviewed recent fluoride toxicology and concluded, “It’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”

Michael Connett, Project Director for the Fluoride Action Network co-authored a poster presentation at the International Association of Dental Research entitled, “Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence.” which identified 20 ecological studies that purport an association between high fluoride exposure and decreased human intelligence.

"The weight of evidence that's on the table now says that, on a precautionary basis, we should stop this practice (fluoridation)," said Dr. Howard.

FAN is now working on getting an additional 7 Chinese studies published for the first time in English-language journals by the end of the year. These additional studies include two studies showing that fluoride can pass the placenta and damage the brain of the fetus, and 5 more studies finding a reduction in IQ among children exposed to excess fluoride.

“The Canadian Dental Association says there is no evidence to support the claims that fluoride in drinking water can lead to lower IQs,” reported the Lethbridge Herald

Here’s the evidence: http://www.FluorideAlert.org/brain

The President of the Ontario Dental Association further displayed ignorance of current fluoride research, apparently widespread in the dental community, when he insisted in the CTV broadcast that fluoride incorporates into children's developing teeth to prevent decay. That theory was discarded long ago in favor of science which shows fluoride gets into tooth enamel by topical means alone.

A study by Yoder concluded, "The majority of dental professionals surveyed were unaware of the current understanding of fluoride's predominant posteruptive mode of action."

"No child is, or ever was, fluoride deficient. In fact, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control tells us that 1/3 of U.S school children are fluoride-overdosed causing dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. It's time to stop fluoridation," says Beeber.

After 60 years of water fluoridation reaching 2/3 of Americans on public water supplies and virtually 100% via the food supply and fluoridated toothpaste being 95% of the market with a glut of fluoridated dental products and fluoride-containing pesticide residues on food, federal statistics show that 51% of 6 - 11 year-olds have cavities and 40% of 6 - 11 year-olds have fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth.

Short biography of Dr. Howard: http://www.scie

Continued:

Short biography of Dr. Howard: http://www.science.ulster.ac.uk/biomed/staff/howard_v.htm

References:

1) http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080807/fluoride_debate_080807/20080807?hub=Health

2) http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571

Fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

Fluoridation News Releases:
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Bill-

No need to "challenge" me...you're more than welcome to come on the program this morning at 11am and talk about the issue with Rebecca Mack.

As a professional, we would love to hear your point of view. Call us 232-0790. That goes for everyone else too.

-dan mitchinson

There are many forms of fluoride but natural calcium is by far the least toxic with the inorganic industrial waste products much more lethal as acute toxins on a LD50 scale for killing rats. The H2SiF6 product used in 92% of fluoridation comes directly from smokestack scrubber units the EPA ordered installed to protect the environment in 1972. Unknown to the public airbourn fluorides had more litigation for harm then the next 20 contaminates combined.This is some nasty stuff.
As a favor to industry with no testing ever for safety this evil brew of contaminates is added directly unaltered or purified to or drinking water. The EPA has admitted never doing a single chronic health,safety,or benefit study ever doing a single study on this product yet. They did mention they should but did not say they would.
Most are also not aware the FDA has never approved much less reviewed any ingested fluoride product. It took the FDA two years to admit this to congressman John Kelly NJ after a lawsuit. They did see fit to grandfather it in as a new unapproved drug as it had strong evidence of being a excellent rat poison prior to 1938. They did admit no human uses prior to 1938 to Sally Stride in a E-mail response.
The FSA product is a excellent corrosive even at 1ppm and has much data including Maas 2007 which shows its ability to increase lead leaching into a homes water up to 900% in testing. The commonly use disinfectants chlorine and even worse chloramine unleash this evil ability by many times. Washington DC had out of control lead levels from 2001 till 2004 after they switched to chloramine. Homes are only tested every three years for lead and it was off the meters when tested. they handed out bottled water and filters but only to the 25,000 that had lead supply pipes. They refused to mention the whole city had the high levels and fired the corrosion expert when he would not assist in a cover up. After adding corrosion control chemicals and changing out the lead pipes they fakes some tests to prove safety of the schools water. They waited up to a year before testing kids lead blood levels.
Did I mention the phosphate mines also produced up to 75% of the US yellow cake uranium until they were shut down when the price fell. Now all the uranium and many radioactive decay products are just left in all the product as the free unmentioned bonus. Even the huge phospogypsum piles are highly radioactive and must be protected from leaching forever as besides the many toxins very are very acidic.
Besides having 20 unmentioned contaminates the FSA product is the main source of arsenic for many cities water and also the same for lead because of the leaching. Arsenic and lead are the two biggest contaminates on the list of 20 but none are mentioned to the public. The theory is that this product converts to pure fluoride ions but the research shows the opposite much more likely and it mutates to many different deadly toxins.This is not a joke just the way your government protect you or not.
Remember ingested fluorides are now known to have no measurable benefit as that was just a theory. The claims are now that drinking 1ppm has a topical benefit but this is also a theory with no science to show benefit. The British Health services just last week
claimed little or no topical benefit under 1000ppm with toothpaste as many lower fluoride ones are in use there.
In Canada and the US we are warning parents that toothpaste swallowed causes much of the really ugly dental fluorisis. Young kids often swallow half or more of whatever toothpaste they put in their mouths. Please if you feel you must use this toxic toothpaste use very small dab and supervise and do not leave the toothpaste where the kids can eat it. This can destroy teeth and who knows what else. Please use one of the non fluoridated toothpastes as often they can result in more damage to kids teeth then any possible benefit. Good nutrition,dental care and avoiding the many sources of acidic sugar drinks which destroy enamel.
Read Yoder K.M. on Pub med which clearly shows most dentists do not know the current science of little benefit fro ingested fluoride. This science is decades old but still unknown to dentists and doctors and totally ignored by the Health department who only repeat disproved policy. Sad but true. fluoridealert.org Jim Schultz

For those who WANT fluoridated water, can't you just get something to add to your own water, much the way you can hook up a home water softener? Why poison the rest of us who DON'T want it?

As writer John Stucke pointed out in his story in Sunday's SR, there are pills you can buy...but proponents of fluoridation say many low income families can't afford the pills, suplements or trips to the dentist.

As a child, I remember going to the dentist and having mouth guards filled with fluoride that I had to chomp down on for 20 or 30 minutes....for a six year old, that wasn't a lot of fun.

-dan mitchinson

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) proclaimed fluoridation a great public health achievement but does not do original research. The. CDC relies instead on US and foreign systematic fluoride research reviews, according to CDC’s dentist William Bailey's testimony before the Fairbanks, Alaska city council.(1)

Bailey, recipient of an American Dental Association (ADA) fluoridation award(2), said “The systematic reviews which I am talking about – the [Australian] National Health and Medical Research Council – the National Research Council (NRC) in 2006 – the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 2003 – the Forum on Fluoridation in 2002 in Ireland – the University of York [UK] in 2000 and so forth… they have all said that water fluoridation is safe and effective and healthy”

Bailey is incorrect. The NRC was not even asked to study fluoridation’s effectiveness but revealed fluoride, even at low fluoridation levels, is especially harmful to infants and kidney patients. Based on the NRC study, CDC and ADA advises against mixing fluoridated water into infant formula and the National Kidney Foundation withdrew its fluoridation support.

The York Reviewers reported that they could find no reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide. (3)

The ATSDR reports, “The toxic effects of fluoride may be enhanced in the elderly, and in people with malnutrition, cardiovascular disease or kidney problems. In the elderly, fluoride has been associated with an increased incidence of bone fractures in areas other than the back and neck. Skeletal fluorosis is associated with malnutrition (deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C). In India, the contributing factors of tea consumption (tea contains fluoride) and high water intake are seen in skeletal fluorosis (ATSDR, 1993). Cardiovascular (heart and blood circulation) disease can be worsened by fluoride because it inhibits glycolysis (the use of sugar in muscles when oxygen supply is not sufficient). Kidney disease reduces the body's ability to rid itself of fluoride (ATSDR, 1993)”. (4)

Few people realize that the CDC is not the leader in fluoridation. The ADA heavily controls all of dentistry – from dental school curriculum to fluoridation of the water.
So having the CDC declare fluoridation a great achievement means nothing because they are not independent of special interest groups such as the ADA.

References:
1) Transcript of Bailey's testimony before the Fairbanks City Council
http://fluoridealert.org/bailey.fairbanks.html

2) http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=1959

3) http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

4) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/PHA/transcircuits/tci_p1.html

Dan

You have to realize that no Spokane child is fluoride deficient. In fact, there's a good chance they are fluoride overdosed because fluoride is in virtually all foods. Besides fluoride's beneficial mode of action is not through ingestion. It's through topical application.

The real reason there is an oral health crisis is because people can't afford to get their teeth fixed.

80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients and 108 million Americans lack dental insurance.

Two young boys died from untreated tooth decay in the last couple of years and at least one senior citizen.
The emergency rooms are inundated with emergency dental patients whose only recourse is to get a diseased tooth pulled when it gets bad enough. This is happening in fluoridated areas as well as non-fluoridated areas.

There is a solution and it doesn't have anything to do with fluoride.

Dental Therapists are two or three year trained individuals who can drill, fill and pull teeth in geographical areas where dentists refuse to work or live who will also take Medicaid patients.

DTs have worked for decades in other developed countries as effectively as dentists have.

The first one is working in rural Alaska. However, the American Dental Association spent $1 million trying to get the program stopped.

The ADA doesn't want any other viable groups infringing upon their lucrative monopoly - even if people are dying and getting seriously ill from untreated tooth decay.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reported that many dentists make three times as much as many physicians while working fewer days and fewer hours doing less critical work.

5% of dentists offices are now considered spas.

Why would organized dentistry use its political might and money to push hard on fluoridation if there wasn't something in it for them. The ADA just financed a state-wide fluoridation law in Louisiana, also.

What's in it for them, they hope, is to keep government off their back by mandating that dentists treat more Medicaid and low-income patients.

After all dentists didn't do it on their own. The Government subsidizes dental schools, tuitions and gives out the licenses to a limited amount of people - keeping the price of dentistry inflated.

In fact, a dental school in Washington state was going to start a school for Dental Therapists until the ADA pressured them not to, according to Reason magazine
http://www.reason.com/news/show/127434.html

Fact from mostly fluoridated state of Massachusetts. Does the income/ethinic mix match?
Untreated DecayChildren from low-income families and children from certain racial/ethnic groups not only have a much higher prevalence of oral disease but are also less likely to have had their dental caries treated. Among kindergarten children, the proportion of Hispanic children with untreated decay (23.5%) and the proportion of children from low-income families with untreated decay (25.7%) were at least double that of comparable groups.

To: ALL with “Common Sense” about keeping our drinking Waters CLEAN &
SAFE.

URGENT!
Know that the actual 'illicit chemical cocktail' that is ‘corruptly
Sold’ by phosphate chemical corporations to ‘peer pressured’ government regulated municipal water treatment plants all over North America is an USA-EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] 'Regulated Potential Pollutant' of Air, Water, and Land. Silicofluoride is derived from primarily the Phosphate ore mining & processing industries ‘HAPS’ units [e.g. Hazardous Air Pollution Scrubbers], and subsequently is
regulatorily classified by EPA as a 'Class 1 ..'HAZARDOUS WASTE'.

So called ‘fluoridation’ is nothing more than a phosphate mining &
processing illicit scheme for disposing of their toxic ‘Hazardous Waste’ without paying for disposal, and inversely making millions of water utilities RatePayers dollars all without regard for the Safety of
humans, or the pollution of millions of Habitats throughout the USA!

Politically appointed USA-EPA highest management is primarily in ‘political complicity’ to allow Silicofluorides to be sold and metered into our precious USA drinking waters. However, recently around 7,000+
EPA professional CAREER 'non-politically hired’ Scientists,
Toxicologists, Chemists, and professional field health workers signed a Petition to EPA top Management requesting ‘fluoridation’ be stopped.
Read the PR Announcement at:
http://www.world-wire.com/news/0830050001.html
_____

On March, 2006 a 'balanced' distinguished dozen group of Scientists on a National Research Council/National Academy of Science Panel, after 3-1/2 years of their intensely studying recent 'peer reviewed' published 'Fluoride' SCIENCE as related to possible health endangerment issued a 507 page REPORT in bound book format concerning ALL they learned and concluded with 'Recommendations'. One essential Conclusion was that the current USA governmental set maximum established levels for fluoride in drinking water are NOT Protective especially of children from 'fluorosis', and lifetime 'Bone damage' and other bodily damage! You can read the entire Report 'FREE' on Internet, or purchase a copy by going to:
http://nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
____

The daily swallowed DOSAGE of “fluoridated drinking water” swallowed by especially Pregnant Mothers, and very SMALL CHILDREN is UNCONTROLLABLE!
Read article about Amer. Dental Assoc. and CDC [Center for Disease
Control] WARNINGS to prevent Babies/Infants from getting any “fluoride”:
http://www.mothering.com/sections/news_bulletins/november2006.html#fluoride

So, how many of you are ready to call in and sound off about your views?

Hope to hear from you this morning at 11a, 790 kjrb, 509-232-0790.

dan mitchinson

If we are so concerned about children's health we should be asking the hard questions. Why are we a nation with skyrocking autoimmune issues of asthma, diabetes, ADD, and learning disabilities? Why when I started in special ed 7 years ago there where only 10 kids so sever they needed a self contained room and now there are 50 kids? Fluoride has been shown to have synergistic effects with mercury and other heavy metals. The CDC has already stated that 1 in 6 woman have such a high heavy metal load that it will neurologically impact thier children. We do not need to randomly fluoridiate the water, we need to start understanding the complexities of how all these chemical interact and how they are impacting our children.
Jenny

Tried to call in to the radio show but got a busy until when I got in and the last question on fluoride had been accepted. As anyone can easily see the majority of people have far more current scientific knowledge of fluoridation the the typical dentist, doctor or ,health department person who do their best repeating talking points of the ADA and how they can tell fluoridated teeth. Most that I have talked to that are pro fluoride just can not discuss current science and studies because they avoid reading them. They bluff their way and look smart but get few of the facts right. Do the pub med search of the Yoder K.M. Indiana ADA study.It is a brutal admission of ignorance that puts all at risk from ingested fluoride overdose. This entire policy of the 'ADA is about increasing income and making it look like poor kids get some care. The ADA fights to limit choices of treatment then refuse to provide any care to the poor. This is pathetic sinful with the poor as the casuality of greed. The huge increase of enamel damage by normal floridation is just the frosting on the cake for increased incomes of very rewarding cosmetic restoration. The average dentist might be a nice person but the ADA pulls the strings for this evil result.Dentists incomes have shot past doctors in the last 20 years working far fewer hours then doctors. Fluoridation benefits no one that drinks it. It has huge benefits for organized dentistry and industry but not from cavity reduction. Look at the WHO data and see the few fluoridated countries have not decreased cavities more and often less the the great majority of unfluoridated. The majority of developed countries do not fluoridate and many have or thought about it under pressure from the US. The York review 2000 showed 15% with dental fluorosis before a city is fluoridated and 48 when fluoridated with 12.5% being ugly enough damage to need cosmetic restoration. That is a red flag. The Augusta Ga 1990 study at 1ppm had 80% dental fluorosis with 14% moderate and severe. The CDC tries to claim Severe is impossible at 1ppm. They did admit that 4% of blacks now have moderate and severe with every tooth affected which is double of whites. The first study showed blacks damaged double of whites but the agencies hid this from blacks.The truth is rare at the CDC or health departments. See fluoridealert.org for a dose of science then talk to a dentist. They need help to do the right thing. Be gentle please. Florida health department Michael Easley DDS. was quoted saying"Nobody drags anyone to a water faucet and makes them drink. Dig a well. Move out of the country" He acts like a terrorist and most likely does more harm. We need to weed the useless chaff from government. Protect our water from fools like this.

What a workout. What happened to objective journalism. Clearly host Rebecca Mack, who invited and gave a large chunk of time to a fluoridation proponent, was not interested in what opponents had to say.

Mack criticized New York callers but had no problems with the Australian study her guest quoted because it favored fluoridation and both of their
opinions.

Thanks for inviting us to the party. But no thanks for setting us up to be insulted and humiliated.

If Mack wants to be a shock jock, she shouldn't disguise herself as a journalist.

For people who want more information:

Fluoridation 101
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

Fluoridation News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu

Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/

Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net

Fluoride Journal http://www.FluorideResearch.Org

Take action to stop fluoridation here:
http://congress.FluorideAction.Net

Careful nyscof when you throw around the term "objective."

Some of the callers who were anti-fluoride clearly had an agenda of their own.

The idea here was to discuss both sides. We had a guest who was for...and callers who were against... fluoridation. Would we like to continue this conversation...you bet. Feel free to call in to the show anytime...or e-mail your comments to rebeccam@spokesman.com

-dan

The "fluorophobes" love to take a few poorly done studies here and there and run with them. Are they scientific illiterates or do they deliberately misinterpret studies?

Look at the case of the Chinese I.Q. studies. These are so flawed (or not yet translated into English) that nothing can be concluded from them. So said the National Research Council.

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral. It would be deemed an essential nutrient if it wasn't needed in such minute quantities. Ideally, teeth need to be bathed in fluoridated water every two hours and be ingested in situations where teeth have not yet erupted (including for the fetus). Fluoridation is simply adjusting the amount in our drinking water to get the best benefit at the least risk. Over 30,000 research projects over the last 50 years have demonstrated fluoride's safety. Fluoride continues to be studied to make sure communities are getting what is needed for good dental health -- and hearing. Yes, fluoride is necessary for the proper development of the tiny bones in the inner ear.

Actually, Dan I'll wait until Rebecca has a guest who is a dentist or scientist opposed to fluoridation and allows him or her to answer the callers in favor of fluoridation.

I have a feeling Rebecaa isn't interested in this topic and you are just trying to make a dust-up to get more listeners. I think you've accomplished the opposite. Her treatment of callers will probably discourage people from calling in.

Dan, the issue about the pills and supplements is that it has been known for some time that there is no proof of any benefit but much data to show increased dental fluorosis. Canada health and Hardy limeback DDs of Toronto University has most likely stated this the clearest. He was a strong promoter for Canada of fluoridation and you can google his reasons for switching sides.
The fact is no current science shows ingested benefit of drops,pills or ingested water of mother or child or much of anyone. The policy has morphed by magic to have topical benefit for all but the past claim was it only benefited teeth by ingestion prior to them popping out. That is now know totally false with an unmentioned switch to the topical theory. How drinking f-water is topical is not mentioned but implied that is. The slava is important for dental health as it keeps things moist and neutralizes low acid ph with arginine and carbonate which bacteria breakdown for neutral or base which helps reminerize enamel. The fluoride if the level is high enough can help but 1ppm water has ZERO benefit. 1000ppm toothpaste can do the trick by raising the level in the spit for hours. The ADA and CDC knows well this is a con as they avoid any meaningfulo debate. They would kick our butts in a debate if they had proof of anything. They do not. It is all bluff and Total BS. The point people are liars and most the rest are just working stiffs that know the ADA has doubled their income in 20 years with doctors just lucky to not go backward. Most just parrot the talking points and are happy to be ignorant and rich. Most are backing away from mercury fillings quietly to avoid lawsuits but the ADA will not. Few want to be the black sheep hated by others and that can happen over fluoridation. Many have a blind passion to the point of stupid. Most seem to not even know that infant formula should not use f-water and even dialysis clinics do not alert patients of the f-water risk. I go to the clinics and ask and give them data. I have talked to every baby formula maker and not one will put a warning on the label of the CDC or ADA policy. Nestle will mention this if asked on hotline and has known of risk for years . Buyer aware and about 9 of 10 new parents have not heard of the issue in my area in Florida. The state of Florida will not discuss the huge increase in dental fluorosis because they say it is not a medical effect. The first study in Grand Rapids in 1945 showed double the dental fluorosis to blacks which is still true today in CDC studies but never mentioned to blacks. Informed consent is not part of fluoridation as poor people are not seen as smart enough to make any good decisions. Fluoridaion is the final solution as no one can avoid it easily. Fluoridation was to be a failure if dental fluorosis was over 10% of the very mildest. We are at 51% in the most recent review Pizzo 2007. The Augusta study in 1990 had 80% with 14% with moderate and severe which is claimed impossible at 1ppm. It is now 4% in the black community which seems higher then zero. Bill Osmonson is low key but excellent in his presentation and his CDC data charts prove the issue income never fluoride in every state and country. It is very rare for pro fluoride people to debate as they have little current data to use. They make statements and list endorsements and duck and run. Most the health department people are pathetic ignorant. They risk their job security to be honest. They are not.

Linda,

With all due respect, you make no sense. How can the amount of fluoride in our drinking water be adjusted to get the best benefit at the least risk when it is impossible to control individual water consumption!
As long as we are putting prescription medication in our drinking water why not subject everyone to other medications in our drinking water as well. A few kids have bad teeth so we fluoridate, but many adults have diabetes or high cholesterol and what with the obesity problem among our children as bad as it is lets add some drugs to our water to prevent those problems too.
Lets face it, to control the tooth decay problem we might be better off adding fluoride to soda pop and kool aid.

When the pro-fluosilicic acid crowd stoops to calling the anti-crowd "nut jobs who line their hats with tinfoil" (thanks Doug Clark) as the crux of their argument, their defensiveness exposes the lack of substance behind the name-calling.

Fluosilicic acid, which is a classified hazardous waste, is the substance used in 90% of the water fluoridation programs in the United States.

This fact has raised concern amongst health risk assessment scientists at the EPA who have helped draw attention to the fact that the only other place this fluosilicic acid can legally be disposed of is in a hazardous waste facility. As Dr. William Hirzy, Senior Vice President of the EPA's Professionals Headquarters Union, put it, "if this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing!" (1).

Amazing, but true. I challenge anyone to debunk the above fact.

fluorides can not Meet GRAS generallly reconized as safe so had to have exemptions at every turn. The best most promoters can do is list those who endorse fluoridation or should I say fall in line with no research to get
CDC grants and funding. The foundation of fluoridation is faked studies and deception. The risks of cumulative toxins at uncontrolled dose is not studied. Anyone who thinks that 1ppm is proven safe and controls dose is foolish. Many young kids are overdosed by fluoride toothpaste use alone. The sources are so many it is near impossible to know dose from beverages and foods or dental products. This is not about science but blind belief. Read the YoderK.M. 2007 Study at pub med and understand just how ignorant dental professionals are of current fluoride science. About 15% of dentists oppose fluoridation which is about the number that understand the science. Wealthy dentist .com . The drivel of the pro fluoride people only makes sense to fluoride ignorant people. Get professional please. Cite some specific studies for a change.

Unfortunately, I would have been more than happy to call in to discuss the sincere concerns validated by scientific reports and medical professionals standing up as whistle blowers in the EPA, CDC, and even dental industry that fluoridation is not the solution for the poor populace to eradicate tooth decay.

What I found in the last election from the People for Healthy teeth was the lack of proof of scientific study that launched the campaign to bring our levels of fluoride up to standards (by whom) and the unwillingness for their professionals to come to public meetings to discuss and help those in attendence see proof of its true benefit.

Instead, they launched a campaign to discredit those standing up against the move to create a public belief that anyone questioning it was so paranoid as to believe the propaganda on their flyer distributed a few weeks before the election. Statements like those against fluoridation were afraid that the fluoridated water would remove paint from an automobile leaving a satanic symbol or believed fluoride to be the spit of aliens, etc... Come on... if you have a valid fact for something, it is not necessary to create a negative image of those questioning it. By the way, the only ones who came up with those beliefs was the citizens for healthy teeth group...left me wondering if they knew something we didn't?

Three times the flouridation came up for vote to the citizens of Spokane. Three times we said NO!NO!NO! The Northwest has well informed, intelligent, "green"minded individuals who want a safe environment for all and not just go a band aid fix from those who show little concern for the overall ramafications of the act.

You have several reasonably stated points in the answers above. I do not see any "crazies" or crazy ideas listed. I see reasonable concerns. Many still unanswered by the groups touting that fluoridation is the answer for the poor children.

Instead of saying it is the solution why is there no investigation into lifestyles (poor hygiene, poor diet, unhealthy environments) before making those who can be harmed by the fluoridation be forced to have it in their drinking, washing, cooking and bathing water?

Many of these children have low nutrient diets and drink lots of soda or sugared drinks. You need a calcium (Magnesium too) rich diet to have the strength from any fluoride dose ... fluoride alone will not work, it will harm more intensively.

Spokane had more than 60% of their houses pre-60's which indicates a strong chance for lead (lead paint, lead pipes, lead residue in ground. Fluoride is used as a flux in drawing lead and other heavy metals in the mining industry. What do you think happens when you take a child of low income, living in low-income pre-60's housing lead environment with poor diet and poor hygiene habits and add a toxic chemical (on scale right next to arsenic) into their environment? Some are willing to take a risk because it is an easy choice we don't have to be bothered with ... the rest of us are not willing to take that chance with lives.

Can anyone give us the name of the company that would provide the chemicals? Last election I asked our local water department, they said most likely same as Seattle area. Seattle area did not know. I got ahold of a worker in the plant who read the name off one of the bags. I got the phone number of a company in Florida. A gentlman with foreign accent answered. I told them I would be traveling to florida and would like a tour. Was told there was no place to tour, they just were a warehouse in a strip mall. I asked them where they got their product from, they said from an agricultural chemical plant. When I asked if I could call them, he hung up. The next day, I got a call from a third party giving me the third degree. I have tried to find out if anything has changed and no one is sharing anything. The old number has since been disconnected. Are you willing to give millions to a fly by night strip mall warehouse company to add chemicals to our drinking water?

And here goes the next non-fluoride concern... our tax dollars and our water department dollars. AS if our pocket book isn't stretched enough!!! We are talking millions in plant conversions (have we finished the change up in our sewer treatment plant?) and then a constant bill for the chemicals, technicians and potential law suits if the technicians screw up.

Who is footing the bill now for these children? How is it being disbursed? When I was a child, we had a school nurse who taught us how to brush our teeth, gave us tablets in little cups to chew and they would check us ... I had to rinse with fluoride, we used the mouth wash, etc. I still had cavities and lots of amalgam ... and I ended up with all the problems that red flags the whole issue. Recently half of my teeth literally started breaking off as many reports explain happen in result

My last comment was truncated...

I was explaining the reports that come in about elderly having disintigrated bones and teeth that just crumble. I am not that old and have had too many of the things reported not to believe that there is a smoking gun behind the concerns of an overfluoridate society.

There are too many unexplained health and environment issues in communities that have been fluoridated long term. Come up with reasons there before suggesting to contaminate our environment as well.

CDC has claims in their top ten achievements I would not be too proud of .. to include better food??? I can't remember so many incidents of contaminated food than the last few years!!!

They went against smoking???? More like the people whose families were affected went against it and the CDC wanted a disclaimer to keep the lawsuits from flowing over to their "wonderful" record.

The trend in the last few years is that the citizens are waking up (slowly but still doing so) and taking more active roles in their health and environment. Cities who have informed citizens in these areas have stopped fluoridation. Why would we want to fluoridate now when others are choosing to reverse the damages?

For every claim there is an opposite ...

The public is much more informed and has tremendously more resources to seek answers ...

If there was truth in all the benefits of fluoride without negative side effects, do you truly believe that there would be a growing group of individuals against it?

There are many reasonable concerns to both side of this issue. What I see from reading these posts is that both sides have their opinions, and it doesn't look like one will be able to convince the other.

I urge you to continue to discuss this topic here on the blog, or feel free to call "On the Record" this week. I'm sure there will be time for open phones...and to continue the conversation from Monday's program.

-dan mitchinson

Dan

Please tell us why your newspaper, all of a sudden, is pushing fluoridation.

I did see an article by a journalism professor that said she was lobbied by a member of a Washington State "oral health" coalition member. As a result, this journalism teacher threw all objectivity out the window and touted fluoridation.

Now another reporter from your newspaper does the same while making fun of the opposition, instead of calling them for an interview.

I heard your editors laugh that there could possibly be opposition to fluoridation .

What's going on? If you really want a discussion on the radio show on fluoridation, you obviously have many intelligent people in the Spokane area that can be invited as guests.

I truly believe your newspaper has an agenda - and that agenda is to push fluoridation and ridicule the opposition.

Why would any one of us want to call your radio show?

The American Public Health Association won't hold annual meetings in non-fluoridated cities. Are you trying to get their business?

What's the real story?

The real story is our paper is NOT pushing fluoridation.

I am curious why someone from New York is so concerned about what is...or isn't...in Spokane's water?

The public has a right to make it's own decision about this issue...and doesn't have to agree with you, or others who might have a similar opinion or agenda. It's that simple.

And as for not calling the show...that's what's so great about this country...there are other opinions...other talk show hosts...and other stations to listen to if you don't agree with what you're hearing.

-dan

Well NYSCOF stands for the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc., which should make it obvious why we are concerned.

If the humanitarian reasons are not enough for you, you should know that what is in your water and other fluoridated areas DOES affect me.

First fluoride is in many foods and beverages made in fluoridated areas.
It's impossible to go shopping and read the labels and correlate it to a list of fluoridated cities.

Second, because fluoride is in the water and in many pesticides, we are all getting fluoride over-dosed - even if you believe 1 ppm is a safe and effective way reduce tooth decay. This makes people sick.

People getting sick costs me more money in taxes paid to Medicaid and Medicare patients and hospital emergency rooms for people who can't get insurance.

It also costs tax dollars to support the Centers for Disease Control's oral health section that spends too much time promoting fluoridation.

Federal tax dollars support building and repairing fluoridation facilities, training fluoridation engineers, wasting federal research money to find out how much fluoride people are ingesting and what it's doing to their teeth.

The Healthy People 2010 goal is to get 75% of the US fluoridated and many little bureaucrats all over the country are spending their time (on my dollar) trying to accomplish that dastardly deed.

Heck, the whole National Institutes of Health was founded upon fluoridation.

I believe every American has the moral obligation to speak up and speak out when injustice has occurred - especially when it's a topic that few people know more about.

If the doctor who had the cure for cancer lived in New York, would you fail to book him for your show?

I totally agree with you that people ought to make their own decisions. That's why it's inappropriate for 51% of the population to dictate that the other 49% should consume fluoride via the water supply.

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor required for healthy teeth and doesn't belong in the water supply.

I'd say the instance of dental decay rising from 49% to 62% from 2000 to 2005 wasn't from a lack of fluoride. You can't blame something that isn't present as the cause for the increase. It's not as if it was removed from the water supply recently. I'd say there is something else going on that is being overlooked.

For the same reason I would not remain silent if I knew a child was being molested or injured I must attempt to inform of the other side of the fluoride debate. The current science side that gets overlooked in favor of PR talking points. If researchers can not prove ingested value and even the CDC and ADa sort of admit it is a topical effect.. Well ingesting is just foolish. But then the YODER K.M.2007 at pub med shows dental professionals very fluoride ignorant. Yet the fluoride ignorant dentist is the expert. At reading talking points at least. The number of open debates is very small with health department people as they are terrified to have to cite science. Endorsements they can handle science kills the theory. Most developed countries figured this out long ago. The ADA has its honor to protect and that lawsuit thing. The kidney lawsuits and then the osteosarcoma cancer maybe. It will be like asbestos and tobacco but this is forced upon everyone even 2 gallon a day users like me. Babies drink more at 2.5 oz per pound per day which is 2 gal per 100 pounds. That would be 5 gal for me. Babies kidneys only reject about 14% of fluoride and healthy adults 50% and over 50 less and diabetics and kidney patients less. Bottom line is no dose control on something that has no ingested value and not ONE chronic study ever of a toxic waste product used H2SiF6. 11 EPA unions for immediate moratorium is a red flag. 19 as of feb 29 2008. Precaution is reasonable. I had 5 local talk shows willing and a city hall but the health department people refused to even talk after a offer of a debate. They hid like cockroaches. Poughkeepsie NY asked specific questions of health and safety and benefit to 33 chemical suppliers and the health department and received not a single answers after a year so ended 5 decades of fluoridation. Talk to Frank Mora the former commissioner and attorney who heads the water board. Honest people with answers do their job. The health department does not earn their paycheck unless they answer safety questions. They seem to be cowards that want to keep their job and retirement. Let them debate and earn their keep. Jim Schultz