To The Editor, Onalaska Life Newspaper:
Sir,
(Your Guest Columnist) Dentist, Mr Randall Moseng, states that Mr Michael Berkley is beating the drum of inaccuracy. If that is the case, then Mr Moseng has a whole brass band! I hardly know where to begin to retort to his dogged "dentistry school world view", regurgitating "facts" he learned there without the benefit of actual research. But, with the reader's indulgence, I will make an attempt:- MY COMMENTS IN CAPITALS:
Mr Randall Moseng: Michael Berkley makes a nice attempt to frighten the public into fearing community water fluoridation, but unfortunately his argument is mostly opinion, assertion and speculation rather than based on any actual science. PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES?
His greatest argument seems to be that fluoridating a community water supply is mass medication. Fluoride is not a medication in the water supply, it is a naturally occurring mineral found in the earth, soil and water all around the planet. IF CARIES ARE A DISEASE, AND FLUORIDE PLACED THERE IS TO FIGHT CARIES, DOESN’T THAT MAKE IT A MEDICATION? FLOURINE IS A COMMON ENOUGH ELEMENT, FOUND IN SEAWATER AT 1.35 PPM, HIGHER THAN USED IN FLUORIDATION. GOOD THAT WE DON’T DRINK SEAWATER THEN! IN SURFACE RIVER WATER IT IS AT 0.10 PPM – ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION RAISES THIS BY A FACTOR OF TEN! 0.2 PPM HAS BEEN SHOWN TO AFFECT FISH STOCKS IN RUN-OFFS FROM FLUORIDATED CITIES – SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG.
In fact, the earliest studies in the 1930s to determine the benefits of fluoridation were conducted in areas where natural fluoridation was present in the water supply and the foundations for which scientists were able to determine the proper amounts of fluoride to ingest for maximum benefit. THE STUDIES WERE TO FIND WAYS TO ELIMINATE FLUOROSIS. THE LIMITS SET ARE AN ARBITRARY GUESS BUILT ON ERRONEOUS SCIENCE. MODERN TECHNOLOGY HAS PROVED NEUROTOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS AT 1PPM. ORIGINAL "RESEARCH" WAS FUNDED BY ALCOA AND ALUMINIUM, NUCLEAR AND STEEL INDUSTRY PARTNERS.
Water fluoridation involves precise adjustment of the existing naturally occurring fluoride levels to ideal levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service. THE ORIGINAL BRIEF TO SELL FLUORIDE TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WAS INSTIGATED BY THE HEAD OF THE TREASURY DEPT., WHICH RAN THE P.H.S.
(At the end of the war, with massive amounts of fluoride waste needing disposal, the Public Health Service began pushing to add fluoride to the water in Grand Rapids, Mich., and dozens of other U.S. cities. At the time, the Public Health Service was being run by Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa), which had dominated fluoride research since the 1920s. By 1950, as the fluoridation campaign gained steam, the Public Health Service was headed by another top Alcoa official, Oscar R. Ewing, who in turn was aided by Edward L. Bernays, the father of modern public relations and author of the book "Propaganda," who sought to portray fluoride's opponents as wackos.)
No, community water fluoridation is not mass medication. Mr. Berkley and his ilk have been beating this drum of inaccuracy for many years under the guise of “too much government.”
He claims the chemicals commonly used to adjust fluoride levels to optimum levels are similar in chemical composition to “waste products of the fertilizer industry.” What he neglects to tell readers is that they are not the source of said chemicals. H20 is water, H202 is hydrogen peroxide. Similar chemical composition, but one is essential for human life, one is not. THEY ARE NOT SIMILAR – THEY
ARE ACTUALLY WASTE PRODUCTS FROM THE FLORIDA PHOSPHATE CHIMNEY SCRUBBERS (AND IN EUROPE FROM FINLAND AND BENELUX PHOSPHATE FERTILISER COMPANIES) – THIS CHEMICAL IS HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID – H2SiF6 – A CHEMICAL HODGE PODGE WHICH INCLUDES CHROMIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, LOTS OF PHOSPHORUS, SULPHUR,MERCURY, INDEED OVER 30 CHEMICALS ARE INVOLVED! SEE MY BLOG FOR THE PRECISE BREAKDOWN OF A TYPICAL ANALYSIS.
Dentistry simply supports this idea as a cost effective means to prevent tooth decay. DENTISTRY NEVER LOOKS AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS OF FLUORIDATION – ONLY AT THE MOUTH.
Fluoridation always wins in the court of law as a safe, effective, inexpensive means to protect the public health. The truth is, no court of last resort (including the California Supreme Court in 2006) has ruled against community water fluoridation. Ever. NOT QUITE TRUE -
(Findings of Fact by Judges: In three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas (18), judges with no interest except finding fact and administering justice heard prolonged testimony from proponents and opponents of fluoridation and made dispassionate findings of fact. I cite one such instance here.In November, 1978, Judge John Flaherty, now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, issued findings in the case, Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, tried before him in the Allegheny Court of Common Pleas. Testimony in the case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully elucidated the benefits and risks of water fluoridation as understood in 1978. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds. His findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action. Judge Flaherty, in a July, 1979 letter to the Mayor of Aukland, New Zealand wrote the following about the case:“In my view, the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and, a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to the contrary. . . .“Prior to hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any, thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impune (sic) the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation.”In the Illinois decision, Judge Ronald Niemann concludes: “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”Judge Anthony Farris in Texas found: “[That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by {Houston} City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illness in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to reduction of tooth decay in man.”The significance of Judge Flaherty’s statement and his and the other two judges’ findings of fact is this: proponents of fluoridation are fond of reciting endorsement statements by authorities, such as those by CDC and the American Dental Association, both of which have long-standing commitments that are hard if not impossible to recant, on the safety and efficacy of fluoridation. Now come three truly independent servants of justice, the judges in these three cases, and they find that fluoridation of water supplies is not justified.Proponents of fluoridation are absolutely right about one thing: there is no real controversy about fluoridation when the facts are heard by an open mind.)
He argues that we do not have data to know the long term effects of fluoridation. Again, here he is either ignoring the literature, or refuses to acknowledge that over 60 years of scientific data supports the practice of community water fluoridation. RUBBISH! THE LAST 30 YEARS HAVE SHOWN A LOT MORE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON HUMANS THAN POSITIVE ONES. DENTAL CARIES HAVE DROPPED WORLD-WIDE, WITH OR WITHOUT FLUORIDE, IT IS THE SAME. AS SCIENTISTS, CHEMISTS AND TOXICOLOGISTS LOOK AT THE WHOLE BODY EFFECTS, MORE AND MORE ARE COMING OUT AGAINST THIS DISGUSTING PRACTICE OF DUMPING CHEMICAL WASTE INTO DRINKING WATER. SEE THE EUES IRELAND BLOG FOR THE FULL TEXT OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE E.P.A. SCIENTISTS UNION GAVE TO A CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE. THEY WORK WITH TOXIC WASTE EVERY DAY, THEY INVESTIGATE IT AND DEAL WITH THE PROBLEMS IT POSES EVERY DAY, AND
THEY FEEL THAT THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE STOPPED! WHAT CREDENTIALS FOR ACTUALLY WORKING WITH THIS TOXIC WASTE DOES MR MOSENG HAVE? THE
YORK REVIEW IN THE U.K LOOKED AT OVER 3000 STUDIES OF FLUORIDE AND FOUND:
“We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.” – READ THE FULL TEXT ON
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htmFrankly, it is almost cavalier of him to suggest proper oral hygiene at home is the only answer to a healthy mouth and prevention of oral manifestations. He is obviously ignoring a big at-risk segment of the population who are at or below the poverty line and lack proper access to good dental care and frequently have poor oral hygiene habits. IN 1937, THE A.D.A PUBLISHED RESEARCH WHICH SHOWED THE BLACK PEOPLE ACROSS THE U.S. HAD VERY LOW CARIES RATES. MUCH LOWER THAN WHITES. AFTER 50 YEARS OF FLUORIDATION, BLACK PEOPLES TEETH ARE THE WORST IN THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE ALSO PRONE TO DAMAGED IMMUNE SYSTEMS DUE TO POOR DIET. FLUORIDE THEREFORE HAS PROPORTIONALLY GREATER EFFECTS FOR THE POOR ON THEIR GENERAL HEALTH THAN ON HIGHER INCOME GROUPS. WHEN GIVEN ACCESS TO DENTAL TREATMENT, POORER PEOPLE ACTUALLY ARE VERY GOOD ON THE TAKE-UP OF THOSE SERVICES, SO THE HIGHER CARIES RATES CANNOT BE ASSIGNED TO POOR DENTAL REGIMES, BUT MUST ALSO INCLUDE DIET. IT IS WELL KNOWN THAT FLUORIDE INGESTION OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS MAKES TEETH BRITTLE. HAVE YOU SEEN PEOPLE WITH BROKEN TEETH? THIS HAPPENS MUCH MORE NOW THAN EVER BEFORE!
What about the senior citizen who cannot get to a dentist easily due to a physical limitation? Community water fluoridation helps young and old the most, and it is a good thing, since they are the most in need. RIDICULOUS POINT TO MAKE – RESEARCH HAS BEEN PUBLISHED TO SHOW THAT FLUORIDE HAS LITTLE OR NO EFFECT ON OLDER PEOPLE’S TEETH!
Mr. Berkley also questions whether we should use “the public water supply to deliver drugs, chemicals or substances for the prevention of disease.” I suggest the answer is yes — as evidenced by the use of iodized salt (prevents thyroid problems like goiter), Vitamin D to milk (links with calcium to strengthen bones) and Vitamin C to many foods (to prevent many ailments such as scurvy). MR. MOSENG AGAIN MISSES THE POINT – PEOPLE HAVE A CHOICE TO TAKE THESE THINGS. FLUORIDATED WATER MEANS THAT THEY ARE FORCED TO TAKE IT, AND THAT IT IS IN EVERYTHING MANUFACTURED IN FLUORIDATED AREAS, AS WELL. HE FEELS THAT IT IS OK TO MEDICATE PEOPLE THIS WAY – MOST PEOPLE, WHEN ASKED,
DON’T.Go ahead, Google fluoride on the Internet. But beware while the Internet can be a wonderful tool and great resource for information, it is fraught with hucksters and charlatans purported to be authentic or scientifically based but are in fact distortions of fact and merely opinion to skew the truth and support a belief system rather than present true science in an unbiased fashion. SPEAK FOR YOURSELF, MR. MOST PEOPLE I KNOW WHO ARE AGAINST FLUORIDE AND WANT TO TELL OTHERS ABOUT IT HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN. THEY MERELY SEEK TO ALERT PEOPLE TO A HARMFUL PRACTICE WHICH THEY HAVE RESEARCHED THEMSELVES, AND/OR HAVE ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE OF THE HARMFUL EFFECTS TO HEALTH OF THIS PRACTICE. NOW WHO IS PEDDLING CONSPIRACY THEORIES?
Please take the time to visit the Web sites of authorities charged with protecting the public such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (cdc.gov), American Dental Association (ada.org), Academy of General Dentistry (agd.org) to learn what science says about fluoridating your water. WHICH REMINDS ME, THE FLUORIDE LOBBY TOOK THE NAME
http://www.fluoridealert.com/ TO CONFUSE PEOPLE AND TAKE THEM AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL SITE
http://www.fluoridealert.org/ !! LOVELY PEOPLE, INSTANTLY TRUSTWORTHY - NOT.
And finally, Berkley even goes so far as to claim that fluoride does not prevent cavities. Truth is, the scientific community has conducted dozens of peer reviewed, non-biased, double blind credible studies since 1945 and the overwhelming weight of evidence concludes that fluoridation provides a clear, real, measurable, direct correlation with a decrease in cavity rates for all people, whether they practice proper oral hygiene or not. FLUORIDE HAS AN EFFECT ON CAVITIES, IT KILLS THE ENZYMES WHICH CAUSE CARIES – THAT IS WHY PEOPLE USE FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE. PUTTING IT IN DRINKING WATER WHEN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT WORKS TOPICALLY AND NOT SYSTEMICALLY IS NON-SENSICAL! YOU DO NOT NEED TO DRINK IT!! PERSONALLY, I USE A NON-FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE AND MY RATE OF CARIES HAS SINCE ALMOST STOPPED. FURTHERMORE THE YORK REPORT COULD NOT FIND ANY GREATER EVIDENCE WORLDWIDE GREATER THAN A CLAIM OF 14% CARIES DECLINE WITH FLUORIDE, IN MANY PLACES THE EFFECT WAS UNMEASURABLE. EVEN SO, THIS IS LESS THAN 1/2 A TOOTH! NOT WORTH THE DOCUMENTED RISK TO OTHER BODY AREA HEALTH!
Please do not let the likes of Mr. Berkley frighten you. Dentistry is in the profession of preventing disease and promoting public health. Our focus is helping the public, not harming it. Why else would we support an idea which stands to decrease business and by extension our income? FIGURES HAVE SHOWN THAT DENTISTS MAKE ON AVERAGE 17% HIGHER INCOMES IN FLUORIDATED AREAS. THE COSTS IN WHAT THEY CALL THE “COSMETIC” TREATMENT OF FLUOROSIS ARE VERY HIGH. TODAY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KINGSTON, N.Y. THE FIRST FLUORIDATED TOWN AND ITS UNFLUORIDATED CONTROL TOWN IN THE NUMBER OF CARIES. DR.H.TRENDLEY DEAN, THE “FATHER OF FLUORIDATION” DECLARED FLUORIDE WAS SAFE AND ESTABLISHED THE FIRST TRIALS IN GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN IN 1945. SINCE THEN, HE HAS TWICE CONFESSED IN COURT THAT STATISTICS FROM THE EARLY TESTS, ALLEGEDLY SUPPORTING THE USE OF FLUORIDATION IN COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS, WERE INVALID.
Based on 2002 data, approximately 170 million people (or over two-thirds of the population) in the United States are served by public water systems that are fluoridated. In Minnesota and Iowa, community water fluoridation is state law. OVER 95% OF THE WORLD’S POPULATION DOES NOT FLUORIDATE ITS WATER. SOME COUNTRIES TRIED IT AND STOPPED DUE TO HEALTH CONCERNS. SOME HAVE OUTLAWED THE ADDITION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN CLEANSING AGENTS TO THEIR WATER. THE TEETH OF FORMERLY FLUORIDATED EAST GERMAN CITIZENS ACTUALLY IMPROVED WHEN THEY JOINED WITH WEST GERMANY, WHICH WILL NOT ALLOW FLUORIDATION. IF ONE LOOKS AT THE FIGURES FOR FLUORIDATION PERCENTAGES VS CARIES ACROSS THE U.S. THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT CORRELATION TO PROVE THE EFFICACY OF FLUORIDE. AFTER 60 YEARS WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR ANYONE ON THE PLANET TO DO A MAJOR HEALTH STUDY OF OTHER EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE ON A MAJOR POPULATION! HOW DOES IT FEEL TO BE PART OF AN “EXPERIMENT”?
