Home > Uncategorized > Fluoride, Vaccination, Government Impositions, etc…

Fluoride, Vaccination, Government Impositions, etc…

A thread to discuss fluoridation, etc… without trampling on the Eureka City Council discussion.

  1. October 2, 2012 at 7:18 pm

    The whole thing about the Eureka Council is they need to get us some jobs…

  2. ah ha
    October 2, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    “When you reach a fork in the road, take it!”

    -Yogi Berra

  3. anonymous
    October 2, 2012 at 7:33 pm

    The city council is not a magic act. That is for sure. Why doesn’t The Chamber of commerce bring in some jobs.

  4. anonymous
    October 2, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Fluoride it a waste product that is foisted on an ignorant and naive public. Not all towns are fooled.

  5. Walt
    October 2, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    It seems to come down to this: Do you trust corporations/Koch Bros/Rob Arkley to take care of you (give you jobs, tell you the truth, not hurt you), or do you trust government/CDC/Public Health.

  6. Ponder z
    October 2, 2012 at 7:56 pm

    I trust noBODY. Big business will short change you every chance they get. But Gov., they will force ridiculous agenda on you every time and most times it is bad for you.

  7. Gil Yule
    October 2, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    Seriously??? nom sequitour. Some re-hashing of the “should we fluoride” issue in an attempt to “provoke Humboldt County” once again?!?

    Hey, what about those Arkley’s and all their money and how they choose to spend it…again?

  8. Anonymous
    October 2, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    Really, 7:38? Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance and is in many water sources, discovered in Switzerland in a town where nobody had cavities. Current water systems try to copy the minimum level to achieve this effect and it has been deemed one of the most important public health discoveries of the last century, even with all the voo-doo science that people find on the internet and believe, instead of studies by the NIH, American Cancer Society, etc. It prevents dental disaster in many populations, especially low income areas who cannot afford good dental care. It is a known fact today that dental disease affects general health, including cardiac health and is considered the prelude to an early death. The positives of properly balanced fluoride have vastly outweighed the negatives. Ask the public health officials of most every small and large community.

  9. Plain Jane
    October 3, 2012 at 6:42 am

    “Many European countries have rejected water fluoridation in general. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland,[33] Scotland[34] Iceland, and Italy.[citation needed] ”

    In 1952, Norrköping in Sweden became one of the first cities in Europe to fluoridate its water supply.[59] It was declared illegal by the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court in 1961, re-legalized in 1962[60] and finally prohibited by the parliament in 1971,[61] after considerable debate. The parliament majority said that there were other and better ways of reducing tooth decay than water fluoridation. Four cities received permission to fluoridate tap water when it was legal.[59]:56-57 An official commission was formed, which published its final report in 1981. They recommended other ways of reducing tooth decay (improving food and oral hygiene habits) instead of fluoridating tap water. They also found that many people found fluoridation to impinge upon personal liberty/freedom of choice by forcing them to be medicated, and that the long-term effects of fluoridation were insufficiently acknowledged. They also lacked a proper study on the effects of fluoridation on formula-fed infants.[59]:29

    Water was fluoridated in large parts of the Netherlands from 1960 to 1973, when the High Council of The Netherlands declared fluoridation of drinking water unauthorized.[56] Dutch authorities had no legal basis adding chemicals to drinking water if they will not improve the safety as such.[4] Drinking water has not been fluoridated in any part of the Netherlands since 1973.

    In Switzerland since 1962 two fluoridation programmes had operated in tandem: water fluoridation in the City of Basel, and salt fluoridation in the rest of Switzerland (around 83% of domestic salt sold had fluoride added). However it became increasingly difficult to keep the two programmes separate. As a result some of the population of Basel were assumed to use both fluoridated salt and fluoridated water. In order to correct that situation, in April 2003 the State Parliament agreed to cease water fluoridation and officially expand salt fluoridation to Basel.[62][63]

    Fluoridated salt is available in France,[23] and 3% of the population uses naturally fluoridated water,[32] but the water is not artificially fluoridated.[33][32]

    Drinking water is not fluoridated in any part of Germany. One experiment, started 1952 in Kassel-Wahlershausen, was discontinued in 1971.[40] The GDR used to fluoridate drinking water in a few cities, but it was discontinued after the German reunification.[1] Fluoridated salt is available since 1992 with steadily increasing market share.


  10. October 3, 2012 at 6:51 am


    For better or worse, the societies you list have lower inequality and more intact safety nets. It is reasonable for public health officials in those societies to look at the same fluoride data ours see and reach different risk/benefit analyses.

    It’s important to protect infants and children whose parents are dysfunctional. The proportion of incompetent and/or uneducated parents and guardians is higher here.

  11. Plain Jane
    October 3, 2012 at 6:53 am

    In Europe they have fluoridated salt available, Mitch. Makes better sense if you have any concern over the rights of people not to ingest industrial waste.

  12. October 3, 2012 at 7:06 am



    The ability to use a by-product from fertilizer production is great. That’s called recycling.

    It’s a play on emotions to call it waste rather than by-product.

    Do you honestly believe that the reason so many people support water fluoridation is that they’re tricked by the phosphate fertilizer industry into buying its waste?

  13. Plain Jane
    October 3, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Yes I do, Mitch. The original source of fluoride waste was from manufacturing aluminum which was so desperately needed that they were granted permanently reduced electricity rates. Dumping fluoride in the water at “safe” levels was their cheapest method of disposal. To take your theory of protecting children from incompetent parents to its logical end, there are a lot of substances that we should add to the water to make up for the deficiencies in diets of the poor and ignorant like vitamins and calcium. Of course, I don’t believe we should do that either. Medicating the population with their drinking water is a bad idea, no matter what they are dosing it with.

  14. October 3, 2012 at 7:35 am

    Wow, PJ. I think of myself as pegging the cynicism meter, but I just can’t buy the idea that water fluoridation is about helping the aluminum industry any more than I can believe it’s a commie plot to poison America. If I’m wrong, I’m wrong. It’s happened.

  15. Plain Jane
    October 3, 2012 at 7:43 am

    For 10:02, your little story is pure fiction. Fluoride was discovered in Colorado Springs, CO, by a dentist who noticed brown stains (fluorosis) on the teeth of his patients.

    Alcoa biochemist,Gerald Cox, suggested adding fluoride to water and fluoride went from being a troublesome industrial pollutant to a marketable and assumed beneficial dental treatment. How convenient for them.

  16. Plain Jane
    October 3, 2012 at 7:59 am

    The other industry which benefits from being able to sell their fluoride waste is, of course, the phosphate fertilizer industry. Questioning whether these 2 powerful industries have the political clout to dump their wastes into our water at “safe” levels seems naive to me.

  17. Anonymous
    October 3, 2012 at 8:00 am

    rolling of the eyes ………..

  18. ThreadJack
    October 3, 2012 at 9:56 am

    Speaking of eyes………how about some fluoride.

  19. anonymous
    October 3, 2012 at 9:59 am

    Plain Jane is right about Aluminum being an industrial waste product.

  20. October 3, 2012 at 10:36 am

    Mitch #10: “It’s important to protect infants and children whose parents are dysfunctional. The proportion of incompetent and/or uneducated parents and guardians is higher here.”

    His argument for a totalitarian government/police state. Force feed the fools, they don’t know any better!

  21. Labtech
    October 3, 2012 at 8:55 pm

    Have no fear low income kids. When your teeth rot and your parents can’t afford dental work Plain Jane will take care of you

  22. Plain Jane
    October 3, 2012 at 9:55 pm

    Plain Jane advocates for universal dental care. Dental health is, after all, an important aspect of general health.

  23. pepsico inc
    October 3, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Labtech :
    Have no fear low income kids. When your teeth rot and your parents can’t afford dental work …

    …they will buy another case of soda pop. Sure beats that tap water filled with foul tasting toxic flouride No ###ing way we’re drinking that shit.

  24. anonymous
    October 4, 2012 at 8:43 am

    plain jane must work for dentists who suffer when we use flourid and don’t need them as much.

  25. October 4, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Wait, if the water has fluoride, doesn’t Pepsi have it to then?

  26. October 4, 2012 at 8:58 am

    Worried about fluoride? Avoid black or green tea, and probably red as well.



    One correction to the obviously self-interested teavana post — most commercial water filters do not filter out fluorine [Correction: fluoride!, see below], so using a typical water filter will not reduce your fluorine [again, fluoride, see below] intake.

  27. Not a believer
    October 4, 2012 at 10:00 am

    aaah Quickdraw MchGoogle strikes again….. Mitch, if you are getting fluorine out of your tap run out of the house. Fluorine is a gas that is highly toxic. Fluorides are compounds of fluorine and another element. Much of its toxicity comes from what it is bound up with which is why comparing the predominantly used silicofluorides from the phosphate industry to the naturally occuring calcium fluoride is odious, as the silicofluorides are rated as extremely toxic. The only study whatsoever on the use of silicofluorides showed that its corrosiveness in the city pipes led to an uptake of lead in the blood of children. The nation is swilling the fluoride that cannot be released into the air or water because that would be hideously polluting, but those polluting industries can profit by selling it to municipal water districts. Sure beats taking it to a class whatever hazardous waste site. And it is a great distribution method, less than one percent of the fluoride is ever drunk— the rest is flushed back into the environment.
    You raise a good point with your information about tea. Before the 2006 National Academy of Sciences panel that investigated fluoride science reported on their work, the tea industry was a twitter because safety standards might get changed. There was an industry paper stating that since your average tea infusion (which actually can range quite high) was about 4ppm, one cup of tea would contain about 1 mg of fluoride and therefore one would have to drink ten cups to approach the 10mg a day figure that the IOM ho’s had set as a dangerous level in the mid 1990’s. (I have a late 1980’s Physician’s Daily Reference Guide that states that one wouldn’t want to ingest more than 1.5 mgs of fluoride a day— American exposure are way over that). So, tea can be a significant source of fluoride in one’s diet, with the lower grades of bulk tea containing the most fluoride and white tea or good quality green tea (the newest leaves) being the best choices.
    “Naturally occuring” fluoride in groundwater is causing horrendous health problems in India where concentrations and exposures are much higher than most but not all Americans. Because half of what you ingest is stored in the bones and teeth, the accumulative nature of fluoride causes many arthritic symptoms. Amongst that NAS panels recommendations, besides lowering the 4ppm MCL, was to use stage II skeletal fluorosis as an endpoint, and not just dental fluorosis. Decades of accumulation have real effects.
    As you may remember from your chemistry class, Fl toxicity is rated right between arsenic and lead which are regulated in parts per billion, Fl has an MCL of 400 parts per billion, arsenic and lead around 1-2 parts per billion. Lead’s standards are based in part on lifetime exposures because it too accumulates in bone. Fluoride is held to no such standard because it is America’s “protected pollutant”.
    And FYI, for over a decade it has been acknowledged that whatever protective benefits fluoride may provide come from its topical use on teeth, not its ingestion. This is the old myth propped up by a lot of old junk science from the early 1950’s.

  28. October 4, 2012 at 10:05 am

    Not a believer is correct, but it’s more Quickdraw McTypo than Quickdraw McGoogle. I try to check my usage, and I think I’ve pretty consistently referred to fluoride, but it’s easy to slip, especially when other commenters here and elsewhere use fluorine and fluoride interchangeably. Thanks for the gentle correction.

  29. October 4, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Mitch :
    One correction to the obviously self-interested teavana post — most commercial water filters do not filter out fluorine, so using a typical water filter will not reduce your fluorine intake.

    We have a Multi- Pure water filter at home that pretty much takes out everything. Multi- Pure says on its web site that the filter doesn’t remove natural fluoride and other minerals in water. I’m not sure whether it removes the fluoride added to the water, though, since it isn’t quite the same. I’m just guessing it does?

  30. October 4, 2012 at 10:20 am

    Yes, Fred. Your Multi-Pure water filter has an artificial intelligence module. Millions of times per second, it asks the fluoride molecules in your water whether they came from the phosphate and/or aluminum industry. When they answer yes, or even if they hesitate, it plucks them from your water, while letting the natural molecules through.

    That’s why your water filter may seem expensive.

  31. October 4, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Love the sarcasm, Mitch, but I’m sure it has more to do with the molecular size of the chemical in question. It does remove chlorine, but is that the same form as natural chlorine? I don’t know.

  32. October 4, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Quickdraw’s back. If there’s really a difference in biological activity between silicofluorides and calcium fluoride or sodium fluoride, then water systems should not use them interchangably. I will continue to put my faith in experts at CDC and EPA as far as defining what is properly used to fluoridate my water supply.

  33. October 4, 2012 at 10:40 am

    Hey Mitch, know why no one is beating the drums about the so-called debate last night? I would of thought someone like you or one of your other apologizers would have jumped right on that debacle.

  34. October 4, 2012 at 10:50 am

    Mitch :
    I will continue to put my faith in experts at CDC and EPA as far as defining what is properly used to fluoridate my water supply.

    Good. You decide what’s best for you. Let the rest of us decide what, or what we don’t, want in our water. That should make everyone happy as I’ve written before:

  35. October 4, 2012 at 10:50 am


    I find myself in what looks to be the minority as far as my thoughts about the debate.

    I thought the President did just fine, and that Romney was allowed to lay out a fresh crop of lies and evasions that a free press or, in the alternative, political advertising, will be able to highlight.

    I recognize that President Obama, above all else, must not look angry or as if he is a supporter of “class warfare,” and he successfully negotiated that challenge.

    I also believe the American public does not need to be reminded of Romney’s 47% comments at the debate, because the American voters are smart enough to remember the comment, and keep it in mind when judging Romney’s honesty at the debate. The appropriate people to keep reminding us of the 47% comment are, basically, anyone but Obama.

    I realize that the MSM will probably not get around to challenging Romney’s lies, not because I believe it is controlled by conservatives, or liberals, but because I believe it is grossly incompetent and insists on covering the race as if it is a soap opera or sporting event. In the end, I don’t think the MSM will matter to the outcome.

    I’m not sure what “deserves” to be a thread on the Herald and what doesn’t, but I’m sure our opinions are not 100% in agreement.

  36. October 4, 2012 at 10:57 am

    Im sorry, Joe. On behalf of Mitch, I apologize.

  37. October 4, 2012 at 10:57 am


    I could easily be wrong, but I think the fluoride molecules dissolved in water are in the form of ions. A fluorine ion is a fluorine ion is a fluorine ion. I’m glad “Not a believer” can correct me, because s/he probably knows for sure.

  38. October 4, 2012 at 10:58 am


    Thanks. But you’ll have to explain before I understand.

  39. October 4, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Mitch, there’s a difference between opinions and observations – then there’s the truth. Well, you’d assume or deduce that the importance everyone puts on the presidential election such earth-shattering events like the first debate just might be of some “deserving” relevance, but maybe not.

    Obama is making the American voter take responsibility for reelecting him and if not, he’ll simply just walk away, no gain no foul – it won’t be his responsibility. When America reelected George Bush they sold their souls and he knows it. That’s why he didn’t challenge Romney on his lies.

    I made this mistake once: “I believe it is grossly incompetent” only to find out the truth was just the opposite. They know exactly what they are doing and why. When you can accept that you can deal with all the ramifications that comes with someone’s deliberate conduct that appears grossly stupid and inane. The MSM create a perception, just like people do all the time on this blog, and that DOES matter.

  40. October 4, 2012 at 11:06 am

    See what I mean about perception, Mitch?

    Mitch :
    Thanks. But you’ll have to explain before I understand.

  41. October 4, 2012 at 11:09 am

    Joe, I put up a thread. I’ll probably get criticized for posting yet another non-local topic.

  42. October 4, 2012 at 11:17 am

    Mitch, you said, “I recognize that President Obama, above all else, must not look angry or as if he is a supporter of “class warfare,” and he successfully negotiated that challenge.”

    I have a serious question, why must he “NOT look angry” and why would that make him be a “supporter of ‘class warfare’”?

  43. October 4, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Looking angry is separate from his looking like he supports class warfare.

    He must never look angry, even miffed, because he is black (well, not lily white) and the slightest display of anger will frighten a share of the white people who claim to be undecided.

    Looking like he supports class warfare would also turn off a share of the people who claim to be undecided.

  44. October 4, 2012 at 11:20 am

    Sorry Mitch, I hit the wrong quote…

    bolithio :
    Im sorry, Joe. On behalf of Mitch, I apologize.

  45. Plain Jane
    October 4, 2012 at 11:22 am

    Because angry black men using class warfare scares too many people, Joe?

  46. October 4, 2012 at 11:23 am

    I know that Mitch. My question is “WHY”? Class warfare is a matter of fact, just look at some of the comments about the homeless on other blogs right here in Humboldt County.

    Mitch :
    Looking angry is separate form his looking like he supports class warfare.
    He must never look angry, even miffed, because he is black and the slightest display of anger will turn off a share of the people who claim to be undecided.
    Looking like he supports class warfare would also turn off a share of the people who claim to be undecided.

  47. October 4, 2012 at 11:25 am

    Jane, too many people or too many women?

  48. October 4, 2012 at 11:26 am

    And I know that, Joe. The immediate “why” is that he wants to be reelected. I believe he wants to be reelected because he believes his policies (constrained as they will be) will be less damaging than those of his opponent.

  49. October 4, 2012 at 11:27 am

    Actually, Joe, I think the answer to your 11:25 is too many non-college-educated white Christian men. Women prefer Obama over Romney by miles. It’s Joe the Plumber who can’t stand him.

  50. October 4, 2012 at 11:37 am

    Well, that’s true, Mitch. I Romney were to fulfill his threats to Iran and the Middle East upon election, welfare, Social Security, Medi-Care and Jobs would immediately become irrelevant. I’m still not completely convinced why anger is such a sin. Real men and women get angry, you know? Genuine anger is not a character flaw when some bully threatens your wife or your family.

  51. October 4, 2012 at 11:44 am

    To add the “If Romney were to fulfill…” Forgot the “f” in “If”.

    Well I spent a lot of years working with “Joe the Plumber” non-college educated types and I’m here to tell you they were mighty quick to get angry. Maybe if he showed a little more backbone and conviction he’d win some of those people over. Maybe.

  52. October 4, 2012 at 11:53 am


    I’m not saying anger is a sin. I’m saying a display of anger by Obama would hurt his reelection chances.

    And just because someone is comfortable expressing anger doesn’t mean they react well to another person expressing it, especially a non-lily-white person in a position society deems superior.

  53. October 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    Mitch :
    And just because someone is comfortable expressing anger doesn’t mean they react well to another person expressing it, especially a non-lily-white person in a position society deems superior.

    You mean someone like Mitt Romney?

    You may be right, I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m just not convinced why “anger” is a voter turnoff. A lie is a lie and a liar is a liar and liars are offensive and repulsive. Maybe its time to start drawing some distinctions. Maybe Jane has it right after all.

  54. October 4, 2012 at 1:20 pm

    Joe, I don’t understand why “anger” from a person like Obama turns voters off, either, but I’m convinced that President Obama believes it does, and that Obama generally does what he feels needs to be done to get to the next step. Negotiating a rise to the top from a starting position of, basically, zippitydoodah, doesn’t just happen. He knows what works.

    I also get a thrill of gratification when I hear people called on their extraordinarily big piles of bullshit, and I’ve been known to act out. One of Obama’s most amazing features is his self-control and self-discipline. I’d bet he’s angry a whole hell of a lot, but he’s never, ever going to let it show near the public.

  55. Anonymous
    October 4, 2012 at 6:11 pm

    Fluoride appears in water as a naturally occurring substance, in springs unaffected by industrial waste. Some communities have so much natural fluoride they have to remove it. Some have to add to protect their most vulnerable.

  56. October 5, 2012 at 8:52 am

    Interesting commentary (on Obama and anger) by Gary Younge of the Guardian:


  57. labteh
    October 5, 2012 at 11:58 am

    Plain Jane :
    Plain Jane advocates for universal dental care. Dental health is, after all, an important aspect of general health.

    But of course, “dental health” doesn’t include access to fluoridated water, does it.

  58. Plain Jane
    October 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm

    There are other means to deliver fluoride to people who need it without medicating everyone. In most of Europe they have fluoride salt, there are fluoride rinses and toothpastes, etc. Since malnourished children need vitamins and minerals more than fluoride, why don’t we add a full complement of vitamins and minerals to our tap water?

  59. labteh
    October 5, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    Figured. Jane blithely ignores the studies that show, overwhelmingly, that poor families can’t afford or even access these “other ways” to protect their children’s teeth. In fact, in non-flouridated water areas the rate of tooth decay and periodontal disease among the poor is astronomical.

  60. Plain Jane
    October 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    So is malnutrition, Labtech. Which do you think has the greatest negative impact on a poor person’s life? In case you missed it, I am an advocate for universal dental care along with universal health care (as well as adequate nutritional food being supplied to those who can’t afford it) because they are actually one and the same.

  61. Plain Jane
    October 5, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Furthermore, universal dental care would improve the dental health of the rural poor who don’t have access to fluoridated water even if they wanted it.

  62. suzy blah blah
    October 5, 2012 at 1:46 pm

    Plain Jane advocates for universal dental care.

    – LOL! a pathological, self-centered, narcissistic, altruist.

  63. Water worker
    October 5, 2012 at 2:42 pm

    Fluoride for water system use is regulated by NSF.It is made from extraction from an ore that also provides phosphates. Suppliers are inspected and regulated. Fluorine is used in the Aluminum smelting process and ends up as a waste product of that industry but does not enter the supply chain for the drinking water industry.

  64. labteh
    October 5, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Well, on the one side we have superstition, stupidity and rank paranoia. And on the other side, peer-reviewed science. Plain Jane is perfectly happy to put us all at risk by creating a completely avoidable public health crisis.

  65. labteh
    October 5, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    Of course, when an actual “universal health care” measure, fluoridation, is proposed Plain Jane opposes it.

  66. labteh
    October 6, 2012 at 8:47 am

    If you want to learn more about the benefits of drinking fluoridated water talk to your dentist. 100% of the dentists in Humboldt County support water fluoridation.

    Get your information from scientists who have peer-reviewed studies to support rock solid conclusions. Do not listen to the paranoid cranks. They will not be there to care for your children’s teeth. Fluoridation is not only safe and effective, it’s a rare public health bargain.

  67. Doubter
    October 6, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Listening to dentists about fluoride’s effects on the thyroid, IQ, bones, pineal gland or its association with bone cancer in young boys is like going to a tire dealer for advice about your car engine.

  68. October 6, 2012 at 11:12 am


    OK, you don’t trust dentists. But Quickdraw McGoogle is here to share this set of



    American Dental Association (ADA)
    “The Association endorses community water fluoridation as a safe, beneficial and cost-effective public health measure for preventing dental caries. This support has been the Association’s policy since 1950.”
    –ADA Operational Policies and Recommendations Regarding Community Water Fluoridation

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    “During the 20th century, the health and life expectancy of persons residing in the United States improved dramatically. To highlight these advances, MMWR will profile 10 public health achievements in a series of reports published through December 1999 (Fluoridation of drinking water was chosen as one of these achievements and profiled in the October 22, 1999 MMWR). Fluoridation safely and inexpensively benefits both children and adults by effectively preventing tooth decay, regardless of socioeconomic
    status or access to care. Fluoridation has played an important role in the reductions in tooth decay (40%-70% in children) and of tooth loss in adults (40%-60%).”
    –CDC, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. “Ten Great Public Health Achievements-United
    States 1900-1999” April 1999.

    American Medical Association (AMA)
    “The AMA recognizes the important public health benefits of drinking properly fluoridated water and encourages its member physicians and medical societies to work with local and state health departments, dental societies, and concerned citizens to assure the optimal fluoridation of community drinking water supplies.”
    –AMA Letter to the American Dental Association, March 10, 1995.

    American Academy of Pediatrics
    “Water fluoridation is a community-based intervention that optimizes the level of fluoride in drinking water, resulting in preeruptive and posteruptive protection of the teeth. Water fluoridation is a cost-effective means of preventing dental caries, with the lifetime cost per person equaling less than the cost of 1 dental restoration. In short, fluoridated water is the cheapest and most effective way to deliver anticaries benefits to communities.”
    –AAP Policy Statement Preventive Oral Health Intervention for Pediatricians. Pediatrics

    U.S. Surgeon General
    “A significant advantage of water fluoridation is that all residents of a community can enjoy its protective benefit – at home, work, school or play – simply by drinking fluoridated water or beverages and foods prepared with it….Water fluoridation is a powerful strategy in our efforts to eliminate differences in health among people and is consistent with my emphasis on the importance of prevention…Fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay and improve oral health over a lifetime, for both children and adults.
    While we can be pleased with what has already been accomplished, it is clear that there is much yet to be done. Policymakers, community leaders, private industry, health professionals, the media, and the public should affirm that oral health is essential to general health and well being and take action to make ourselves, our families, and our communities healthier. I join previous Surgeons General in acknowledging the continuing public health role for community water fluoridation in enhancing the oral health of all Americans.”
    — Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona, Statement on Community Water Fluoridation, July 28,

  69. October 6, 2012 at 11:14 am

    (part deux, without re-wrapping)

    Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors
    “The Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors (ASTDD) fully supports and endorses
    community water fluoridation (maintaining optimal fluoride levels between 0.7 and 1.2 parts per million) in
    all public water systems throughout the United States.”
    –Community Water Fluoridation Policy Statement. Association of State and Territorial Dental
    Directors (ASTDD) Adopted: April 18, 2009.
    American Association of Public Health Dentistry
    1. Reaffirms its support for the continuation and expansion of community water fluoridation; and
    2. Encourages its members and constituents to be well informed about and to continue to support optimal
    fluoridation, and to help develop national and regional coalitions in support of fluoridation; and
    3. Commends communities and states that are providing access to optimal levels of fluoride in the
    drinking water and encourages them to continue to fluoridate and to monitor the process, and participate
    in national monitoring activities;…”
    –Adopted by the Assembly of AAPHD members, October 16, 1992. J Pub Health Dent
    American Public Health Association
    “…Therefore be it resolved that APHA—
    • Reiterates its strong endorsement and recommendation for the fluoridation of all community water
    systems as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of tooth decay;…”
    –APHA Policy Statement: Community Water Fluoridation in the United States (Policy Number
    20087) Adopted 10/28/08
    National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
    “The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research continues to support water fluoridation as a
    safe and effective method of preventing tooth decay in people of all ages. Community water fluoridation
    is a public health effort that benefits millions of Americans. For more than half a century, water
    fluoridation has helped improve the quality of life in the U.S. through reduced pain and suffering related to
    tooth decay, reduced tooth loss, reduced time lost from school and work, and less money spent on dental
    –NIDCR: Statement on Water Fluoridation, June 2000.
    World Health Organization (WHO)
    “Most recently, efforts have been made to summarize the extensive database (on fluorides) through
    systematic reviews. Such reviews conclude that water fluoridation and use of fluoride toothpastes and
    mouthrinses significantly reduce the prevalence of dental caries….Water fluoridation, where technically
    feasible and culturally acceptable, has substantial advantages in public health…”
    –WHO Effective use of fluorides for the prevention of dental caries in the 21
    century; the WHO
    approach.” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 2004;32:319-21
    International Association of Dental Research
    “The International Association for Dental Research (IADR), considering that dental caries (tooth decay)
    ranks among the most prevalent chronic diseases worldwide; and recognizing that the consequences of
    tooth decay include pain, suffering, infection, tooth loss, and the subsequent need for costly restorative
    treatment; and taking into account that over 50 years of research have clearly demonstrated its efficacy
    and safety; and noting that numerous national and international health-related organizations endorse
    fluoridation of water supplies; fully endorses and strongly recommends the practice of water fluoridation
    for improving the oral health of nations.”
    –IADR Policy Statement Fluoridation of Water Supplies (Adopted 1979, Updated 1999).

  70. Anonymous
    October 7, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Thank you, Mitch. The top health organizations all believe in it.

  71. Labtech
    October 7, 2012 at 11:08 pm

    All true, Mitch. Plain Jane and her paranoid friends are trying to shut down one of the few public health programs we have.

  72. Anon
    October 8, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    all believe” …. the operant phrase.

    I invite the flock of the fluoride faith to read The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson and you will never look at the fluoride ion and this public “health” program the same again.

  73. Anonymous
    October 8, 2012 at 11:12 pm

    What, you think this is a giant conspiracy to medicate the public and make a fortune? I maintain that the research from the top institutions trumps the lame statements and small, loose studies done by those who are eager to get rid of fluoride. I don’t want mass medication, but this is a naturally occurring substance already in many spring water sources that has been found to be a health aid. The challenge is to make sure the level is appropriate for each community.

  74. Anonymous
    October 8, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Right, believe investigative reporting over proper scientific study.

  75. Kaylee
    October 24, 2012 at 10:02 pm

    So,does Eureka California fluoridate their water or not? I read somewhere it was rejected by Humboldt County in 2008.

    If they do fluoridate, can anyone tell me where to buy unfluoridated water? I can’t afford the reverse osmosis gizmo.

  76. Mitch
    October 25, 2012 at 7:25 am

    It would probably be cheaper to put in a reverse osmosis filter, but you can find unfluoridated water at the supermarket — the labels should tell you the fluoride content.

    If you have kids, you might want to do more research before insisting they not have fluoride in their water.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s