Update on Fluoridation Debate and Prospects for REAL Review

[Guest guest]

-

<arnoldgore

Update on Fluoridation Debate and Prospects for REAL Review

 

 

It appears to be the time to contact Federal legislators, members of the

house and senate to ask them to have a staff member interview Dr. Bill Hirzy

of EPA on the fluoride issue since the program is continuing on momentum

ALONE--Nobody is willing to publicly defend it svientifically in a debate

where they must confront the recent studies and aguments accumulating

against it.

To find out your Hose member go to <A HREF= " www.house.gov " >www.house.gov</A>

put in your zip code and

you will find out your representativr.

To find out your senators go to <A HREF= " www.senate.gov " >www.senate.gov</A>

each xtate has 2 senators.

arnold

 

>From Paul Connett. (I know most of you get this already. This is for those

who don't)

 

INTERNATIONAL FLUORIDE INFORMATION NETWORK

 

IFIN BULLETIN: IFIN #778: Impressions from May 6.

 

May 10, 2003

 

Dear All,

 

Several people have asked me for my impressions of the May 6 US EPA

Science Forum where the pro-fluoridation forces nationwide were

unable to field anyone to defend the practice of water fluoridation

in an open public debate.

 

First, it was fantastic that we had an overflow audience to witness

this debacle of the pro-fluoridation lobby. The audience included at

least 8 congressional aides, members of the press and some important

environmental organizations as well as many professionals from the

EPA.

 

Second, it was great to switch from the frame of mind that we had

" failed to persuade the opposition to debate " , to the more positive

realization that " fluoridation promoters nationwide have lost this

issue by default " . I hope people will bring this to the attention to

the political leadership in every community that practices

fluoridation. They have to be told that they are practicing something

which promoters cannot defend when challenged.

 

Third, I was greatly relieved that I was able to get across most of

the important arguments in my opening 20 minute presentation and the

15 minute summary at the end. There was a tricky moment at the

beginning when the technicians had trouble getting my power point

presentation to work (this is the first time I have ever used power

point, thanks to the effort of one of my SLU students Ashley

Sullivan) but it eventually went forward without a hitch. Some of you

might be interested to have a copy of a statement on which my closing

summary was based. I have printed this below, with some contact

details if you would like to share it with anyone.

 

Fourth, it was important to hear from an EPA spokesperson that the

EPA feels new evidence on fluoride's toxicity, which has emerged

since the 1993 NRC Review was published, needs to be examined. This

spokesperson urged the audience on several occasions to make sure

that any concerns we have should be communicated to the National

Academy of Sciences which announced in April a panel to examine this

new evidence. Many of us have been very pessimistic that any

pro-fluoridation government would ever appoint a panel which would

examine this issue comprehensively and honestly. Most reviews in the

past have been self-fulfilling prophesies, rubber stamping the status

quo. However, this one is going to be extremely visible. We all must

make sure that the NAS knows that their reputation is on the line.

We must demand INTEGRITY. They must be told emphatically how

important it is to have one scientific body in this country which is

capable of reaching an independent judgment. This is not just

important for the fluoridation debate, but for any controversial

issue which pertains to public health. Right now the panel is heavily

weighted to those known to be pro-fluoridation. The chairman (John

Doull, MD) is actually a member of the American Council for Science

and Health ( ACSH) an industry funded group which is actively

pro-fluoridation. According to Dr.Edward Ohanian of the US EPA, the

NAS provides opportunity for feedback on this project through their

web site http://www.nationalacademies.org. The project name is

" Toxiolcogic Risk of Fluoride in Drinking Water " Project number

BEST-K-02-05-A. May I recommend that those concerned about this write

in and simply request that this panel be balanced and that the

chairperson should not have taken an active position on the

fluoridation debate.

 

Finally, it was great to have so many of our colleagues in the

audience (Gerhard Bedding, Bob Carton, Myron Coplan, David Kennedy,

Lynne Landes, Deb Moore, Jim Presley, students from Ohio Univeristy

in Athens and of course, the indefatigable Bill Hirzy and his

colleagues from the EPA Union) to offer their moral and verbal

support at question time. It was also great to know how many people

around the country - and in other countries - were rooting for our

side. Thanks to you all.

 

Paul Connett.

 

 

Those Promoting Fluoridation Have a Formidable Task.

 

1) They have to persuade us that using the public water supply to

deliver medication is acceptable. This is a highly unusual practice.

Apart from one short experiment with iodide (which unlike fluoride is

a known essential nutrient) this has never been done before or since.

The vast majority of countries in the world don't fluoridate their

water supply.

 

2) They have to persuade us that it is acceptable to use industrial

grade chemicals for this purpose, as opposed to pharmaceutical grade.

 

3) They have to persuade us that it is aceptable to use a chemical

(Hexafluorosilicic acid) which acording to the US EPA has never been

subjected to long term animal testing. All the testing has ben done

on pharmaceutical or analytical grade sodium fluoride.

 

4) They have to persaude us that the practice significantly reduces

dental decay in children.

 

5) They have to persuade us that it is safe. Which in this context

means that it is safe:

 

a) for bottle fed babies to consume fluoride at 100 times the

levels normally found in mothers' milk (0.01

ppm, according to IOM, 1997).

 

b) for everyone, regardless of their health status. Public

health policy should protect the most vulnerable

not just the average person.

 

c) to consume fluoride at 1 ppm in our water every day for a

whole lifetime, even though

approximately 50% we ingest accumulates in our bones.

 

d) to consume the fluoride in the water in addition to the

fluoride in processed foods and beverages made with

fluoridated water, dental products and all other sources we

are exposed to on a daily basis (1.6 - 6.6 mg

per day in a fluoridated community according to DHHS, 1991).

 

6) They have to persuade us that this program is so important and the

risks so minimal that it justifies the government's decision to

override the individual's right to " informed consent " to medication -

a cornerstone of modern medical ethics.

 

The promoters of fluoridation cannot do this and that is why they

refuse to debate this issue on a public platform. That is why they

are not here today. They know that Fluoridation is:

 

Unethical

Unnecessary

Inequitable

Inefficient

Ineffective

Unsafe

Unscientifically promoted, and

A massive distraction from the real causes of dental decay.

 

Dr. Paul Connett,

Professor of Chemistry,

St. lawrence University,

Canton, NY 13617.

315-229-5853 (office)

315-379-9200 (home)

315-229-7421 (fax).

__________________________

__

 

To keep up to date with the arguments and news on fluoridation

battles worldwide, to the International Fluoride

Information Network (IFIN) bulletins which can be obtained free of

charge from ggvideo

 

 

 

 

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation

<A HREF= " http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof " >

http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

<A HREF= " http://tinyurl.com/ad9k " >http://tinyurl.com/ad9k</A>

 

Fluoride Action Network

<A HREF= " http://www.fluoridealert.org/ " >http://www.fluoridealert.org</A>