Reasons to vote against fluoride

By
The Martha's Vineyard Times
-
18
The voters of Edgartown will decide whether the town public water supply should be fluoridated during the annual town election next week. — Courtesy Pexels

To the Editor:

On April 12, the citizens of Edgartown have the right to vote for or against adding fluoride to our water system. All Edgartown voters were granted this right to vote on fluoride treatment as a result of a successful petition signed by 10 percent of the registered voters as required by law to stop the automatic “order” to add fluoride, initiated by the Edgartown board of health. The board of health had taken the liberty to vote for the automatic fluoridation of our water without notification or consideration of the board of selectmen, water department, or the citizens of Edgartown.
We reached out to the board of selectmen immediately to discuss the “order” and try to understand the board of health’s “order” and how it would affect our water supply, distribution system, and those who digest the fluoride.

We eventually did meet with the board of selectmen, who supported the effort to stop the “order” by way of a petition and allow the voters to determine whether the community would like fluoridated water. The petition to stop the board of health’s “order” was underway, but the community was against the 90-day time period for petition submission, and days had passed. As the petition signatures were accumulating, board of health agent Matt Poole again attempted to interfere by requesting that the petition language be changed to language which he drafted. This would have resulted in the disposal of the signatures already obtained. This request was made despite town counsel notifying him that he could not be part of the petition initiative as the board of health agent. This was another attempt to interfere with and delay the efforts of the petition due within 90 days, with his hopes of the petition failing. If the petition effort failed, the board of health’s automatic “order” to add fluoride would prevail without consideration of the voters and citizens of Edgartown.

The board of health was forced to initiate their Plan B, and held a fluoride forum on March 8, which included Matt Poole, board of health member Dr. Orazem, and a panel of Island professionals in support of adding fluoride to the municipal water system. The panel was asked if they were aware of the active federal lawsuit filed to stop fluoride from being added to any U.S. municipal water supply. Panel member Dr. Samuels responded by informing he was aware of the lawsuit, but that that the lawsuit was dismissed and did not go anywhere. This is not true, and no one on the panel corrected Dr. Samuels.
The federal lawsuit is not only active, but in January of this year federal Judge Edward Cohen of California allowed the lawsuit to continue, despite efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to stop the lawsuit.

If the lawsuit is successful in stopping fluoride added to municipal water systems, then the $640,000 capital cost to add the fluoride to our water system would be lost money, and any remaining fluoride would become hazardous waste. Clearly, the board of health and their panel did not want the citizens of Edgartown to consider this fact.

The facts:

  • Fluoride is a drug, a medication. Fluoride treatment (other than toothpaste and mouth rinse) requires a prescription.
  • Nobody should have the authority or right to dictate that others have fluoride in their water, and it should not be done without the knowledge of, input of, and consent of the consumers.
  • Fluoride treatment for a water system utilizes the waste of manufacturing processes.
  • Fluoride is not F.D.A.-approved for ingestion.
  • Studies have shown that fluoridated water contributes to tooth mottling (fluorosis) and lower IQ points in children.
  • Fluoride has been recognized as a neurotoxin, an endocrine disrupter, and a carcinogen.
  • Only nine communities have added fluoride treatment since 2000. Of the communities that fluoridate their water, most introduced fluoride between 1950 and 1980.
  • Fluoride has 2 MCLs – 2 ppm and 4 ppm. MCL is a MassDEP acronym that stands for maximum contaminant level. Fluoride is an inorganic compound and listed as an IOC contaminant. Like many other contaminants with an MCL, we must routinely sample our sources for fluoride.
  • The addition of anything to a public water system that is classified as a contaminant is ill-advised.
  • Fluoride is sodium-based or acid-based. We have high sodium levels already in our sources. The health effects of sodium are well documented, and should have been considered prior to the vote of the board of health, since it will potentially raise the sodium level of the public water.
  • There are alternatives for those who want or require fluoride treatment.
  • The order to fluoridate comes with a cost. Capital and operational expenses include building modifications, the purchase of equipment, chemical, permitting, engineering, and construction. The board of health’s order has a capital cost of approx $640,000 and annual operational at $14,500. To date, the board of health has not disclosed a funding mechanism or that the capital and operational costs were considered prior to their vote. To order fluoride treatment without a cost analysis or funding source is premature and not consistent with municipal project financing.
  • Voters and residents will ultimately pay for the implementation of fluoride treatment through higher taxes or water rates.
  • This is not the most cost-effective method of providing fluoride. Much is wasted due to toilets, irrigation, and any other use besides human consumption. As it relates to irrigation, toilets, and outside use, it is unclear as to what the environmental impacts are from fluoridated water.
  • The long-term effects of fluoride are still questionable, and regardless of the dosage, it is hard to trace how much fluoride one has consumed.
  • This order and the addition of fluoride to our sources does nothing for those on private wells. Edgartown has a large population that is not on the water system.

As the board of water commissioners, it is our obligation to ensure that the water system and the quality of the water we provide to you is the best it can be. We urge you to consider this vote carefully, recognize the alternatives, and most of all, be part of a transparent, community process.

Scott Ellis, chairman, on behalf of board of water commissioners

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

18 COMMENTS

  1. Since when did bureaucrats assume the right to force medicate the population?
    Will those same bureaucrats take responsibility when it goes wrong?
    Notice that promoters of this poisonous drug, fluoride, never discuss the ethics or morality of forcing EVERYONE to consume fluoride without consent, something a doctor or dentist cannot legally do.

    • The ADA says a lot of things but none of those things do they bother to substantiate with relevant citations of modern research literature. We are expected to take their word for it just ‘cuz they sez so. Sorry, but that will no longer fly in this day and age. Apparently one thing the ADA does not say, but which is alarmingly obvious given their position on water fluoridation, is that they have absolutely no regard for the principle of informed consent, which, if we are to continue to consider ourselves a democracy rather than an Orwellian dystopia, should be defended by our citizens and government alike as an inalienable human right.

  4. Here are reports by four dentists on the dangers of fluoride. There are many more just like them.
    “The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” – Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2007)

    “If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)
    “When I looked at the research, it was like a knee in the gut. My bias was I thought (fluoridation) was safe and effective because I had not looked at the research.” – Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2016)
    “Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and they’ll make the kid sick, too.” – Dr. David Kennedy DDS MPH, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)

  5. Clearly the board of water commissioners is choosing to go to extreme lengths to portray fluoridation in the most unfavorable light possible. Nearly all of the points raised by the chairman of the water commissioners are straight from the national talking points promoted by the anti-fluoridation network (lowered IQ? endocrine disrupter? carcinogen?).

    This reliance on incorrect and thoroughly dis-proven claims also raises a question about the credibility of the cost estimate generated by the water department. On March 7, the water department indicated that their very high cost estimate is a verbal estimate delivered to them by phone. Every experienced person I have spoken with at DEP, the Massachusetts Dental Society and the American Dental Association is surprised at the amount. The water department’s goal to portray this proposal in the worst possible light is clear and makes the cost estimate suspect. The town of Mansfield, MA, implemented community water fluoridation in 1997. Adjusted to 2018 dollars, their one-time cost to implement (today) would be approximately $163,000 (approximately 25% of Edgartown’s estimate). At the time of Mansfield’s implementation, their water system consisted of several wells, like Edgartown. Additionally, funded by a CDC grant, KC Industries based in Mulberry FL, has developed a small system saturator that is Underwriter Laboratories and NSF approved. The introduction of that equipment to the market is going to be jointly presented by CDC and KC Industries at the National Oral Health Conference on April 16 and 17 in Louisville, KY. It is reported that the equipment is safe, reliable and could serve Edgartown for less than $100,000 in startup costs. I am confident that the Edgartown water department is very capable of developing a much more realistic and reasonable cost estimate for implementation if they choose.

    I encourage readers to inform themselves with facts from reliable sources, both pro and con, and make an informed decision. More than 100 national and international organizations recognize the public health benefits of community water fluoridation, ranging from the American Water Works Association to the World Health Organization. Read the list at: https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium

    • Shame on you, Matt and your board–the Board of Health is charged with protecting our water supply, not acting as a mouthpiece for the ADA, who, by the way, have no interest nor expertise with regards to the science of water purity. How do you look yourself in the mirror while advocating to use our water supply for disposal of industrial waste? Clearly, the BOH also has no interest in the democratic process or the principle of informed consent. You are all a disgrace to your community.

  6. “Hundreds of research articles published over the past several decades have demonstrated potential harm to humans from fluoride at various levels of exposure, including levels currently deemed as safe. Fluoride is also known to impact the cardiovascular, central nervous, digestive, endocrine, immune, integumentary, renal, and respiratory systems, and exposure to fluoride has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, and many other adverse health outcomes.” – International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT, 2017)

    The IAOMT is just one of several dental & medical associations who have openly opposed fluoridation in this century based on modern evidence. Millions of Americans with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid & renal disease are having their symptoms caused or worsened by fluoride, whether they know it or not. Government figures from 2011-12 show that over half of our teens have some level of dental fluorosis with 1 in 5 having brown stains and even pitting on at least two brittle teeth which will require costly veneers and crowns in young adulthood.

    Industrial fluoridation chemicals are invariably contaminated with poisons like arsenic, barium and lead. Fluoride itself is a neurointoxicant (brain poison) and consumption is ill advised for pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, and the elderly. Vote it out!

  7. Request of the MVT editors:

    Did Mr Ellis submit to the MVT any concerns about spraying herbicide to clear growth along the electrical corridors? Fluoride compounds occur naturally and herbicides are developed to kill plants; I should expect at least the same concern about herbicides.

    • I will quote from another letter posted on this site:
      “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.”

  8. A heartfelt thank you to Mr. Ellis and the Edgartown Board of Water Commissioners for taking a strong position in the interest of protecting our town’s water supply, for speaking out in support of the right of informed consent, and for taking aggressive steps to protect our citizen rights to democratic process. Clearly, the BOH also has no interest in the democratic process or the principle of informed consent. They are nothing more than a disgrace to our great community.

  9. Let us be clear. The American Dental Association is but one of the upwards of 150 prestigious societies, advocacy groups and associations who, based on systematic reviews of all relevant science agree that fluoridation is safe and important to preventing cavities. Citizens will have to choose to believe the likes of jWillie, Jesse Ventura and Sapphire or the CDC, America’s Pediatricians, Family Physicians and Public Health experts.

    Here’s a convenient collection of what the legitimate scientific experts way about fluoridation in their own words brought to you by the American Academy of Pediatrics

    http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

    Massachusetts has strongest state-wide expert opinion in favor. The Deans of the Harvard Medical, Dental and School of Public Health have a crystal clear position. Say they: “We continue to support community water fluoridation as an effective and safe public health measure for people of all ages.”

    http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Harvard-Med-Dental-School-Deans-March-2013.pdf

    Citizens should have confidence in the collective expertise and judgement of such experts. All of the worries and concerns raised in letters and articles such as this have been examined. The overwhelming consensus among whose who know and care the most about oral health is that fluoridation is important, prevents cavities and is safe.

  10. Fluoride is present in all water sources, hugely contributing to this is fluoride is the 13th most abundant element in Earth’s crust. Concentrations range from minimally detectible to greater than 10 parts per million (ppm). Levels in rivers and lakes varies widely reflecting rainwater contact with windblown soils and other elements in the environment. Well water levels vary depending on the minerals in the rock and ores that the water passes through. Fluoride in ocean water (96.5 percent of Earth’s water) is typically in the range of 1.2 to 1.4 ppm.

Comments are closed.