It seems that this has become a battle with the Department of Health here in CO, because if your city opts out of the fluoridation program, it opts out of all CDOH programs. Gosh. Whatever would they need to be so stringent for? That's not terribly malignant/sketchy at all. Quote (from CDPHE):
"Community Water Fluoridation within the state of Colorado is not regulated or non-enforceable. However, all US Environmental Protection Agency rules and regulations apply to the Community Water Fluoridation Program just as they normally would if not adjusting, or managing the natural fluoride levels found in all water sources. Communities can volunteer into the program by Mayoral delegation, Council or Board Decision, or even by public vote. Once a community volunteers to provide the great public health benefit that comes from having optimal levels of fluoride in their public water, the community agrees to participate fully in the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment program."
I actually sent the below message, via email, to the Durango City Water Board before the newspaper article even came out... which is republished through the last post ("the prior" I spoke of above).
6 January 2009
To All Water Commission Board Members,
I am writing this letter to you as a review, for important consideration, regarding the pro-fluoride presentation given on January 5th this year by the CO Department of Health. I will simply address a few topics identified at that meeting, and then ask questions and/or assert data about proclamations made and crucial information which was left out of this presentation.
* If, as explained, and made known by the WHO, community DTMF levels are decreasing everywhere, no matter the level of fluoride, then precisely what quantitative purpose does fluoride serve?
* If, as explained, the NAS report covered “mainly naturally occurring fluoride” in their report, and if, as known by the ACS, sodium fluoride ion is quite different from calcium fluoride ion (with 80x the human danger), would this mean that artificial fluoridation is much more able to affect physiological systems?
* If, as admitted, the levels of fluoride obtained in food (mainly from fluoride pesticides) are well above and beyond the levels ‘optimal’ for treatment of dental caries, and, as admitted, fluoride is systemic and bio-accumulative – always excreting in the saliva and stored in bones as a replacement of vital calcium -- why fluoridate at all?? And, moreover, what does this say for the percentage charts regarding periods of non-fluoridation in certain areas; if fluoride is supposed to help us systemically, then why, when it is still in people’s bodies as an accumulative contaminant, would the absence of merely topical treatment affect the decline of caries so much?? Does this prove that it truly is topical, as the JADA report states?
* Even if osteosarcoma is not studied well enough as relative to fluoride, which it may or may not be, the documented affects of fluoride on human thyroid systems is well known as far back as 1869 – and, in fact, simple sodium fluoride at levels no greater than 2mg per day (2 liters of water) were used through the 1970s in America as a hyperthyroid treatment. The FDA has never since regulated fluoride chemicals as pharmaceutical grade medicine, making them simple industrial waste byproducts instead, and, the EPA continues to consider fluoride a “contaminant.” In as such, should everybody be treated the same and be forced to take a large dose of thyroid-suppressing chemical every single day that they drink water in their home town? Even the NAS report has given this alone as a reason, amongst myriad studies, for the public to be seriously concerned with PWS fluoridation; further research, before any more continuance of fluoridation practices, was suggested in this voluminous record.
* At the start, fluoride was called “essential.” This is not true, as no country has listed fluoride as an essential nutrient, and, in fact, it is rather considered an EPA regulated toxin. Dental health can be perfect without any fluoride - even calcium fluoride - in the water (anthropological fact).
* The newest article in November by the Journal of Health Dentistry, made the scientific adjustment to literature suggesting that the term “optimal” be removed from fluoride applications entirely.
* The claim that milder forms of dental fluorosis have no clinical significance… is there proof of that?
* ”No health effects have been documented related to fluoride.” This statement is entirely contrary to the truth, in many countries of the world – including the USA.
* If fluorosis is evident, and connections can be made to reductions in hip fractures dependent upon consumption of fluoride, can fluoride, as a bone matrix mutagen, cause marrow – and therefore protoplasmic (like the AMA claim in 1943) or immune system - imbalances?
* Good for developing children?? FDA and ADA have now laid claim that no child under 6 should even come near fluoride consumptives!
* Fluoride is bactericidal – could it be that this is the main mode of any sort of caries prevention; would this effect be the same as organic lifestyle tea-drinking & vegetable dietary prevalence?
* Why were hardly any health effects regarded, aside from osteosarcoma and fluorosis, at the presentation? Why are dentists allowed to decide upon a drug that we are all mass medicated by? How does the dental health benefit, if it exists at all, outweigh the nature of systemic toxic effects on human neuro-physiological systems?? Opponents of fluoridation don’t majorly focus on whether or not fluoride helps caries; they focus on systemic bodily tolerances and reactions. Heavily diluted hydrogen peroxide, too, can prevent caries and mouth infections, but nobody is drinking it – each bottle of the substance is labeled with “drug facts” because of its capable negative side effects, just like toothpaste. Who has the licensure to mass medicate society without consent or against educated protest?
With Respect in Duty,
ps: I am a little creeped out when I think of how the biological, paleoanthropological, and forensics sciences all use (from time to time) a method of relative dating which utilizes Fluoride-Nitrogen ratio differences in bone remains. The older the bone remains are, generally, the less nitrogen (and calcium) they contain and the more fluoride (from ground sources only) it is all replaced with. As I'd mentioned above, chemical history has it that the anthropological record, up to the last hundred years or so, can use such methods for dating the deceased. Can it any longer? Now that, as Theresa Anselmo (director of the oral health unit at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment) and local Durango dentist Ryan Mickelson mentioned, "sodium fluoride readily replaces calcium in bones;" might we all appear as walking dead, by these standards?