City should heed dental association and CDC advice to keep fluoride
Published Sunday, March 9, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!I’m no more of an expert on fluoride than the members of the Fairbanks City Council.
The people denouncing fluoridated water in Fairbanks are not experts either.
I’m willing to accept the judgment of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association, the Alaska Dental Association and many other health agencies that recognize the benefits of adding fluoride to community water supplies.
Two-thirds of the people in the United States drink water that is fluoridated, and Fairbanks has been in that category for nearly a half-century.
“Throughout more than 55 years of research and practical experience, the overwhelming weight of credible scientific evidence has consistently indicated that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe,” said the American Dental Association, which represents 155,000 American dentists.
“The possibility of any adverse health effects from continuous low-level consumption of fluoride has been and continues to be extensively studied. Of the hundreds of credible scientific studies on fluoridation, none has shown health problems associated with the consumption of optimally fluoridated water,” the association said.
I don’t believe the dental association and the CDC are part of a massive right- or left-wing conspiracy to lie to the public.
Many of the anti-fluoridation activists lobbying the city council have a different view.
They believe dental and other medical organizations are not telling the truth about hazards and are encouraging “mass medication” without consent.
In the early 1960s, the fight against fluoridation was a right-wing cause in America, ridiculed in “Dr. Strangelove,” when Gen. Jack D. Ripper branded fluoridation as a communist plot to contaminate America’s “precious bodily fluids.”
Today, it’s just as likely for those on the left side of the political spectrum to argue that fluoridation is part of a plot.
Those opposed to fluoridation — recognizing that local government bodies usually aim to please whoever shows up at that day’s meeting — appear to be making a lot of headway with the city council.
The majority of residents never show up at the meetings, however, and I’d guess that most of them haven’t spent any time thinking or worrying about this.
The public hearing Monday at the city council will probably again be dominated by those who are passionate about getting rid of fluoride.
My opinion is that this is more of a scientific matter than a political one, which is why the council is ill-equipped to handle it.
That’s not an insult to the council members. They didn’t run for office based on their grasp of the scientific method.
When I wrote here recently that the council should pay attention to the CDC study that defends the use of fluoride, one reader complained that this is a local matter and local leaders should decide. He claims we should pay no attention to the CDC, which is the nation’s leading public health agency.
I disagree. The council members — if they choose to ban fluoride — should be ready to explain to the residents of Fairbanks exactly where the CDC, the American Dental Association, the Alaska Dental Association and dozens of other scientific groups have gone wrong.
In addition to the CDC report on fluoridation, the council members should read “Fluoridation Facts,” a 70-page report from the American Dental Association.
The ADA said the arguments against fluoride have remained relatively constant over the decades, but different approaches have been used depending upon the politics of the moment.
“For example, in the 1950s, fluoridation was a Communist plot. With America’s growing concern for environmental issues in the 1960s, fluoridation was pollution,” the association said.
“After the Vietnam war in the 1970s, the antifluoridationists capitalized on the popularity of conspiracy theories by portraying fluoridation as a conspiracy between the U.S. government, the dental-medical establishment and industry,” the ADA said.
In the 1980s, claims were made that fluoride caused AIDS and Alzheimer’s disease, which led to claims in the 1990s that fluoride caused hip fractures and cancer.
“With the new millennium, overexposure and toxicity, in association with lead and arsenic poisoning, have surfaced as common themes,” the dentists said. “None of these approaches has ever really disappeared, but are often recycled as antifluoridationists choose which approach will have the most effect on the intended audience.”
One statement made repeatedly in Fairbanks and anywhere else this issue comes up is that fluoride is a poison that should not be placed in the water.
“This statement ignores the scientific principle that toxicity is related to dosage and not just to exposure to a substance,” the ADA said. “Examples of other substances that can be harmful in the wrong amounts but beneficial in the correct amounts are salt, vitamins A and D, iron, iodine, aspirin and even water itself.”
The dentists conclude that fluoridation is safe and contributes to good oral health.
In the end, this is about trust. I don’t believe there is a conspiracy among these health organizations to conceal the truth.
Dermot Cole can be reached at cole@newsminer.com or 459-7530.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
Maybe we can say to the CDC guy who gave the party line to the Council, "you're doing a great job, Brownie"
When in doubt about the legitimacy of an issue, take a long look at the adherents. Would you buy a used car from that person given their attitude on public display?
The reality is there are a million more things in our water systems that could do much more harm to us. And if someone thinks that removing fluoride from the water system will protect them, they are only fooling themselves.
This is the same tired refrain from people who refuse to read and digest the new science about fluoride in water systems. Writers such as Mr. Cole are Luddites when it comes to a full and open discussion of fluoridation.
With the replacement of a few words in this opinion, readers would see how closely it resembles a public relations effort to convince people that tobacco and cigarettes are a healthy habit. Shades of Edward Bernays.
Mr. Cole's defensive screed in favor of continued fluoridation is a curious position for a man who otherwise defends scientific discovery. I wonder now whether Mr. Cole would have stood with Galileo's defamers when he asserted the solar system was not ordered as the church decreed?
I encourage those with open minds on the issue to review this site.
http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/...
Here you will find the latest medical and research science. We are relying on science to make our case. Those who deny it will throw stones until overwhelmed by the truth.
Douglas Yates
Fluoride Free Fairbanks
N-M Eds won't say who is "denouncing fluoridated water in Fairbanks," so we must.
We are Fluoride Free Fairbanks (FFF) a citizens assembly petitioning our local government for redress of grievance. We include professional experts in science, dentistry, and research. Some are even pretty good at politics and journalism.
"I don’t believe the dental association and the CDC are part of a massive right- or left-wing conspiracy to lie to the public."
NEITHER DO WE!! We have never believed any such nonsense.
We are clear that we believe it is an OPEN and transparent dogmatic bureaucratic orthodoxy (DBO). If you're unclear on that concept, do some research in historical sociogy - something you're good at. Try WikiGoogle on 'sunk-cost effect'. We discover the DBO by reading its source.
Knowing it's a politically loaded term, we have never used the C-word. Since conspiracy is NOT an issue in our cause, we won't drag in such a red herring.
JUST THAT has been discussed face to face w/ the N-M Eds, so they KNOW how we feel.
Yet the pro-fluoridation News-Miner imputes, falsely, that we charge them and government agencies w/ a Clintonesque level of conspiracy. That's absurd, of course - there are NO SECRETS here. It IS a TRAGIC MISTAKE.
Conspiracy-mongering is a dangerous tactic. That N-M Eds stoop to use it, indicates they need a bloodier political weapon.
Thnx N-M for showing the gloves are off. I hope you are smart enough to drop this ploy.
"The ADA said the arguments against fluoride have remained relatively constant over the decades, ... in the 1950s, fluoridation was a Communist plot. ... the association said."
This is prejudicial.
Frankly, I don't believe ADA said that. They are more responsible. ADA probably liked it when 40 years ago a popular movie lampooned anti-fluoridationists as wacko, commie-crazed, conspiracy-mongers. But what does 60s comic agit-prop have to do with a public health issue in Fairbanks today?
"... the scientific principle that toxicity is related to dosage and not just to exposure to a substance,” the ADA said. “Examples of other substances that can be harmful in the wrong amounts but beneficial in the correct amounts are salt, vitamins A and D, iron, iodine, aspirin and even water itself.”
EXACTLY our argument and the sincere belief of my dentist. He says dosing is the big flaw of fluoridation. He likes putting it in salt. The other substances are MUCH LESS TOXIC at the small fluoridation level amounts. Fluoridation means NO CONTROL of the dose to fluoride sensitive people. The ADA EXCLUDES long-term epidemiology of F from their "systematic reviews."
It is only common sense and careful conservative policy to ensure that a specialized dental treatment is properly administered. That's impossible when it's put in the drinking water. GHU serves a larger community than the City. How can the City Council prescribe fluoride for the greater Fairbanks area?
"Those opposed to fluoridation — recognizing that local government bodies usually aim to please whoever shows up at that day’s meeting — appear to be making a lot of headway with the city council.
The majority of residents never show up at the meetings, however ..."
This is a shamefully and grotesquely absurd statement.
It DOES "insult" the Council members who are not fools to be conned by alarmists.
It does raise the obvious question of why no pro-F citizens find a need to come and testify.
And how could "a majority of residents," tens of thousands of people possibly crowd into City Hall? Is the N-M saying that an assembly to petition for grievances must be the physical presence of more than half the population in front of our representatives?
Please get real!
I guess I'm a bit surprised the issue had taken so long to reach the attention of the media and local Fairbanks government. After all, aren't Alaskans suppose to epitomize independent, critically-thinking folk who are wary of government's claims to be vigilant and unwavering in looking out for our best interests? Is this a liberal or a conservative issue? Please, tell me. I'm not a water scientist either, but would prefer to get my fluoride fix with a rinse or paste...or not at all. It should be my choice.
Great opinion piece Mr. Cole, took the words right out of my mouth. It's unfortunate a small minority of the public can provide such disinformation concerning this and other topics. I'm sure they mean well, but their gain will be a loss for many who don't speak up.
Unfortunately, many people don't do their research and believe the misinterpreted science involved in this topic. Everyday people are exposed to chemicals, yet the most trivial and beneficial of exposures are brought into focus as the issue of the day. We have a higher risk of exposure to more dangerous toxic substances by filling up our gas tank. Are we supposed to conclude gas is bad? No, instead we weigh the risks and benefits of the product and take measures to protect ourselves. We have arsenic in many of our water supplies - is this a disaster? No, we monitor the situation and evaluate the risk. If you believe small levels of fluoride are a problem, you could buy a reverse osmosis filter and remove it from your water - don't make the rest of us who believe in it's benefits suffer for your fears.
This subject reminds me of a public meeting regarding a polluted site. Just the word sounds scary...the levels were extremely low and not a risk, yet a single individual was very concerned and very vocal despite being explained the science. Unfortunately it was difficult to hear their comments due to the constant cough they had. As they stood up to leave, a pack of unfiltered cigarettes fell out of their pocket.
I couldn't help but comment after seeing some of the disrespectful comments from both sides, especially on the article concerning last night's vote. Folks, lets get some respect for differing opinions.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.