To the Editor:
The proponents of fluoridation are asking the good people of Edgartown to believe that water fluoridation is so beneficial to teeth that we should ignore all evidence of neurotoxicity; all concerns regarding possible environmental and resource degradation should also be dismissed, as well as any concerns regarding the ethics of medicating a public water supply.
Fluoride occurs naturally in water as calcium fluoride, and even in this natural form there are naturally occurring levels in water which are considered to be toxic, and safe concentration standards continue to be adjusted downward.
It is a fact that all three of the compounds used to artificially fluoridate water are waste products of either aluminum smelting or phosphate fertilizer manufacturing. These compounds are not pharmaceutical grade, and there is nothing “natural” about any of the three, and yet fluoridation proponents continue to insist that fluoride is natural. This is true only in the broadest possible sense, in that these compounds do not come from outer space, but no competent researcher is ever going to equate the bioactivity of sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or fluorosilicate with that of calcium fluoride, and it is insulting that fluoride proponents continue to use this transparent fallacy as a selling point.
We are also being asked to believe that delivering a medication without being able to control the dosage or the target, while violating our human right to informed consent, is somehow effective and progressive public health policy. To me, that sounds Orwellian, rather than progressive.
And even though only an estimated 0.5 percent of water provided to users is actually consumed by humans, proponents of fluoride wish us to believe that fluoridation of a water system is an efficient and economical means of delivering fluoride. With an estimated initial capital cost of $640K, make no mistake, the only parties that come out ahead in this scheme are the manufacturers and installers of the fluoridation equipment, the engineers and, last, but certainly not least, the industries that have been given the means by which to profitably dispose of their toxic waste. If Edgartown voters are indeed inclined to dabble in government-sponsored health care, I’m sure we can come up with many other more effective ways of putting $640K to good use.
A list of highly trained medical professionals attaching their names to a statement fraught with logical and scientific fallacies only serves to underscore the limitations of that training, and illustrates, instead, their utter absence of humility and scientific objectivity.
In closing, I encourage the voters of Edgartown to support the work of the Edgartown water department and the water commissioners in their continuing efforts to provide the people of our town with a water supply that is clean and unadulterated. We can best show our appreciation and support of those efforts by voting no on Question 6 on April 12.