Local water fluoridation has long history | December 29, 2013
Source #1: Steve Sincox, CEO and general manager of Marshalltown Water Works (of course Steve supports fluoridation; he has a long-term contract with the phosphate fertilizer industry to supply their highly toxic/corrosive waste to his water treatment facility).
Source #2: Mary Mariani, president of Iowa Dental Association (of course Mary supports fluoridation; she is brainwashed by the cartel cronies who run the ADA, and besides, even if she wasn’t, it’s not like she has a choice in the matter).
“Recommended level of 0.7 parts per million.”
“Water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups. In addition to the “known” adverse health effects of dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis, and increased risk of bone fracture, “anticipated” adverse health effects from fluoride exposure or community water fluoridation include (but are not limited to) carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, endocrine effects, increased blood lead levels, and hypersensitivity (reduced tolerance) to fluoride. These effects (described in more detail below) are not as well studied as the dental and skeletal effects, which should indicate that a greater margin of safety is necessary to ensure protection of the population—“in the face of uncertain evidence it is important to act in a manner that protects public health” (Tickner and Coffin 2006). In addition, it should be noted that some of these effects may occur at lower fluoride exposures than those typically associated with dental or skeletal effects, such that protection against the dental or skeletal effects does not necessarily ensure protection against other anticipated adverse health effects. Elimination of community water fluoridation is the best way to reduce fluoride exposures for most individuals to a level at which adverse health effects are unlikely.”
“It’s one of the wonderful things about living in the United States and living in Iowa.”
“She said she can see a difference in the teeth of people in the communities that do not have fluoride added to their water.”
And because she is a member of the ADA, we must take her word for it, based on her own anecdotal evidence? Sorry, we don’t play that game.
“She said water without fluoridation is noticeable in the teeth of those living in lower socioeconomic statuses… It helps people no matter what socioeconomic status they are in.”
Really? How come the authors of the York Review, after examining the actual international evidence, concluded that, “The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable”? We guess she just ‘accidentally’ failed to mention those findings to the so-called ‘journalist’ who ‘wrote’ this ‘article.’
“I don’t want another kid to die of a tooth infection, that’s just silly in the United States, that shouldn’t happen.”
Okay, get your violins out for this emotive garbage. “The poor children.” Yes, indeed, the poor children – but wait a minute – that must mean that lots of children are dying in Europe, comparatively, because of their lack of access to fluoridated water. Let’s check those figures again. So what about these so-called ‘benefits’? **’Journalist’ scratches head** 🙂
“She said fluoridation is also important for senior citizens to help fight tooth decay.”
Again, what strong evidence she provides. Wow.
“It’s most important for our most vulnerable parts of society, the very young and the very old.”
“Several epidemiologic studies conducted in fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities clearly indicated that [water fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention, particularly in the industrialized countries where the caries level has become low.” “Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt.”
“I think the important thing to remember is that the Center for Disease Control said one of the top ten greatest achievements for the 20th century was adding fluoride to the water to prevent tooth decay.”
What press release would be complete without this dried up old turd of a quote? “Not a day goes by without someone in the world citing the CDC’s statement that fluoridation is “One of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century”… Those that cite this probably have no idea how incredibly poor the analysis was that supported this statement. The report was not externally peer reviewed, was six years out of date on health studies and the graphical evidence it offered to support the effectiveness of fluoridation was laughable and easily refuted by examining the WHO database”.
If this is not a paid press release, arranged directly by the ADA via their slithery network of fluoridation butt sniffers, then that would be a true Christmas holiday miracle. If not, what is it? Well, there is one thing we know for sure – Journalism, it certainly ain’t (an infant with a quarter of a firing brain cell could figure that out). That makes it a disgrace to the profession of Journalism and an insult to any member of the public who is unfortunate enough to read it.