Spokane7
32°
August 15, 2010 in Idaho Voices
Council vote to quit flouride hurts Sandpoint’s youth most
If there is one word that pushes buttons for Sandpoint residents these days, it is fluoride.
After years of debate, the Sandpoint City Council voted 4-2 last month to remove fluoride from the city’s water supply.
Council President John Reuter, one of the two dissenting members, said not only does he support keeping fluoride in the water, but he also is disappointed that a decision affecting virtually every citizen was not put to a citywide vote.
“Local citizens should have been given the opportunity to vote rather than have a few politicians overturn nearly 60 years of a successful policy,” said Reuter, who has suggested two times – once to a previous council and again to the current members – that the issue of water fluoridation be put to a public vote.
Why does Reuter support fluoridation?
“For the same reasons as why it’s supported by the American Medical Association, the American Dental Association and every U.S. Surgeon General since the 1950s,” said Reuter referring to the position that fluoridation of water is the most effective means to prevent tooth decay and that the studies regarding its impact and safety are closely monitored by these entities.
But others disagree.
In May 2009 some residents addressed the City Council urging them to remove fluoride from the city’s water supply.
One of them was Sandpoint resident Gerald Fluhrer, who said fluoride is not a nutrient nor does it serve to purify the water, according to minutes of the meeting. He urged the city to remove fluoride out of respect for individual rights and freedom of choice.
Also present at that meeting was resident Mary Baenen, who argued that fluoride is a chemical waste product that has never been approved for human ingestion by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
The consensus among council members who voted last month in favor of removal of fluoride is that people should have the choice.
“I do not feel it is appropriate for a governmental agency to add anything to the water beyond what is needed to clean the water in an effort to make the water safe to drink. I understand that fluoride helps prevent tooth decay although I don’t think it is government’s role to determine one’s dental health needs with disregard for other known or speculated and unknown ramifications of any particular product,” said council member Justin Schuck. “The human body needs vitamin C too, but I don’t think it is appropriate to add that product to the water system either.”
Marsha Ogilvie said that for her it was also a matter of personal choice and indicated that due to the number of increasing studies pointing to the possibility that there may be health hazards related to fluoride consumption, the responsible position is to err on the side of caution and safety.
“Years down the road, further studies may confirm toxic effects, in which case the damage is already done,” said Ogilvie.
Councilwoman Jamie Davis says whether or not to ingest fluoride is not a decision that should be made by the government.
“More people are asserting their right to make their own choices,” said Davis. “I think a part of society has operated with the mindset that believes if government is doing it, it must be OK, and that government officials know what’s best for our health.”
Former city councilwoman and mayoral candidate Sue Haynes said she was disappointed in the vote to remove fluoride from the water.
“The arguments I heard before (when she was a council member), and that I’ve seen recently, all seem based on emotion and false information,” said Haynes. “When the Centers for Disease Control lists water fluoridation as one of the top 10 greatest public health achievements, and when all dentists and public health officials come out in support of fluoridation, the decision to remove this public benefit shouldn’t be taken lightly.”
She adds that water fluoridation has proven to be a safe and cost-effective way to dramatically improve a community’s dental health, which translates into an improvement of overall health.
“The people who will suffer most in the coming years are the poor in our community, and there are many.”
Steve Anderson is a Sandpoint dentist who supports fluoridation of the water, but said that Sandpoint is a unique place in that even before last month’s vote, the city did not add fluoride to the water during the summer months – usually May to September.
“The city does not put it (fluoride) in the water when they take it (the water) out of the lake,” said Anderson who adds that when he writes a prescription for fluoride he has to be sure to advise his patients that they should only take it during those months when fluoride is not being added to the city’s drinking supply; an issue he will no longer have to deal with. “I’ve always been challenged by this because it’s hard to tell people the right amount to take. It’s a complex issue because most public water systems are the same all year.”
Anderson said he has patients on both sides of the issue and respects both views, but thinks fluoride in the water has great benefits.
He said that the time between six months to sixteen years of age is a critical time period for a child to receive the benefits of fluoride.
I am concerned about the impact this decision will have on the health of the younger members of our community – especially in light of the economy.
With the increasing cost of medical insurance, many are forced to go without. When this happens, visits to the doctor and dentist tend to decrease and therefore the only source of fluoride a child may receive during those critical years is through the water supply.
With 70 percent of the country having fluoride in its water, it is our children here in Sandpoint who will suffer by not having it.
Haynes advises that it is important to not get caught up in the emotional side of whatever topic is before the council.
“I’d recommend that council members consider the facts,” said Haynes. “Something I don’t think they did with this vote.”
As for Anderson, he would have liked to see fluoride remain in the city’s water even though it is not year round.
“Getting it (fluoride) for eight months is better than not getting it at all,” he said.
McEuen Field would be reimagined in new dream 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
nyscof on August 15 at 8:59 a.m.
Fluoride Could Contribute to Early Puberty
The medical and public health community is shocked by the news that young American girls are reaching puberty at ages as young as 7 years (1). However, according to Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network, “If fluoride’s dangers had not been taken off the scientific radar screen by the US Public Health Service when it prematurely endorsed fluoridation in 1950, maybe key warning signals would not have been ignored for over 50 years.”
In 1956, it was reported, after one of the first fluoridation trials (1945-55) had been completed in Newburgh/Kingston NY, that young girls were starting to menstruate on average five months earlier in fluoridated Newburgh compared to non-fluoridated Kingston (2). This result was ignored and there was no follow-up research.
In 1997, Dr. Jennifer Luke in the UK, as part of her PhD thesis (3), reported that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland. The pineal gland produces the important hormone melatonin which acts like a biological clock. One of the processes it is thought to control is the onset of puberty. Luke published this work in 2001 but the result has been ignored and no fluoridating country has attempted to repeat her findings, something which would be easy to do if there was the will to do so.
Luke also found that animals exposed to fluoride had lowered melatonin levels and showed signs of reaching puberty earlier. Again this result has been ignored and no fluoridating government has attempted to repeat Luke’s work.
Connett says, “We are not saying that exposure to fluoride is a definite cause of early puberty in girls, but not pursuing this possibility is bad for science, bad for medicine and bad for public health.”
Simply put: if you don’t look, you don’t find. The medical community is being kept in the dark on the possibility that fluoride, a highly toxic substance, which is deliberately added to the drinking water of 184 million Americans daily, is causing a variety of harms from the subtle to the serious.
Connett says, “Apparently, it has become more important for the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies of the US Department of Health and Human Services to protect this outdated, unethical, ineffective and the dangerous practice than it is to protect the health of the American people. Key research is not being done. Doctors are not being warned.”
References:
1) Study: More U.S. girls starting puberty early
By Amanda Gardner
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/08/09/girls.starting.puberty.early/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn#fbid=Iu-PTrweJn5&wom=true
2) Newburgh-Kingston caries-fluorine study. XIII. Pediatric findings after ten years.
J Am Dent Assoc. 1956 Mar;52(3):296-306. SCHLESINGER ER, OVERTON DE, CHASE HC, CANTWELL KT.
3) Luke J. (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35:125-128.
http://www.icnr.com/articles/fluoride-deposition.html
jwillie6 on August 15 at 10:39 a.m.
Fluoride is still legal and available for anyone who wants it. Just keep it out of the drinking water.
Isn’t it strange, doctors cannot force one person to take a drug, yet the government wants to force everyone to be drugged with fluoride, a prescription drug, against their will and with no medical supervision, no control over how much you consume and no treatment for side effects.
Many research studies show fluoridation is ineffective, including 14 years of data from 17 countries by the World Health Organization and very large studies in Tucson, AZ, New Zealand, Japan and India. Europe has refected it and is now 98% fluoride free.
Dentist J.V. Kumar recently published a study in the main U.S. Dental Journal (JADA) which once again shows that fluoride is totally ineffective for teeth. You should go read it yourself.
“JADA Study Proves Fluoridation is Money down the Drain”
NEW YORK, Sept. 29, 2009
Children’s cavity rates are similar whether water is fluoridated or not, according to data published in the July 2009 Journal of the American Dental Association by dentist J.V. Kumar of the NY State Health Department(1),
(http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jada-study-proves-fluoridation-is-money-down-the-drain-62572357.html)
Fluoridation not only causes cancer, brittle bones, etc., (see www.fluoridealert.org) but is an absolute waste of tax money. People only drink 1/2% of the water they use.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 would be consumed by children. Can you think of a more wasteful government program?
Would anyone purchase a bottle of 100 EXPENSIVE ‘medicant’ pills, take just one and throw the rest away into our habitats only to pollute our environments? Of course NOT!
jwillie6 on August 15 at 11:07 a.m.
That fluoride is ineffective for teeth, causes mottled teeth (fluorosis), destroys thyroid glands and causes brittle bones resulting in broken hips, seems to pale in significance with the increase in cancer it causes in both children and adults. See (www.fluoridealert.org)
Tlhe most devastating effect of fluoridation is the vast increase in bone cancer in children by the time they reach their 20’s.
A 2006 Harvard University study by Dr. Elise Bassin shows a link between water fluoridation and a SIXFOLD increase in osteosarcoma, a very deadly bone cancer, in young boys.
(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190977,00.html)
This confirms another earlier study in 1992 by the New Jersey Department of Health study showing osteosarcoma rates much higher among young males in fluoridated vs. unfluoridated regions of New Jersey.
nyscof on August 15 at 11:11 a.m.
There were 14 responses to this article early this morning that have disappeared. Why is that?
marytormey on August 15 at 3:07 p.m.
I grew up is Sandpoint and the water was disgusting! If kids have a choice they want soda. Bottled water tastes much better then the chemical waste, that I drank rarely even when nothing else was available.
JBlim on August 15 at 4:09 p.m.
Next up, take the iodine out of salt, another big government conspiracy. Although iodine deficiency is the leading preventable cause of mental retardation, it’s removal will help swell the ranks of the Tea Party crowd.
jwillie6 on August 15 at 4:15 p.m.
To JBlim:
Please note that plain salt without iodine is available so one has freedom of choice to use iodine.
Fluoridation is forced medication on everyone against their will.
JBlim on August 15 at 6:49 p.m.
jwillie6 says: “plain salt without iodine is available”
Just like unfluoridated bottled water, jwillie. Nobody is forced to drink fluoridated water either.
jwillie6 on August 15 at 9:06 p.m.
But JBlim, surely you understand that the citizens have to pay for the water from their tap. Why should they have to pay for bottled water in addition? Why not simply leave it out of the drinking water and then anyone wanting fluoride can get some tablets.
JBlim on August 15 at 9:53 p.m.
but jwillie6, for each gallon of bottled water you buy, that’s one less gallon of tap water that you have to buy via your tap. You don’t have to buy any additional water,
nyscof on August 16 at 2:29 a.m.
JBlim - We just don’t drink water, we bathe and shower in it also. Fluoride is inhaled in showers and absorbed in baths.
Iodine is a nutrient needed for our thyroid’s to function properly. Fluoride is not a nutrient. If we consumed a fluorde-free diet, it would not be the cause of tooth decay.
Consuming an iodine deficient diet would cause goiter and other thyroid dysfunction.
Ironically, fluoride is especially harmful to the iodine deficient, even at the low levels added to water supplies as revealed in the 2006 National Research Council’s fluoride toxicology report.
Fluoride is not safe for everyone in a community to drink e.g. the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise that infant formula not be mixed with fluoridated water because it puts baby’s at unnecessary risk of growing discolored teeth.
The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation because people with malfunctioning kidneys may not excrete fluoride properly, allowing a toxic amount of fluoride to build up in their bones.
Other people who need to filter the fluoride out of the water are high water drinkers, heavy tea drinkers, those allergic to or intolerant of fluoride, the malnourished and others.
Toothpaste contains 1,000 ppm fluoride. Studies show that toothpaste containing 500 ppm fluoride does not reduce tooth decay. So why is it that 1 ppm fluoride (the average level in water fluoridation) can possibly reduce tooth decay.
The CDC tells us it can’t. The CDC says:“Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…”“The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low – approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas.
“This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity”
“The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”
CDC employees are hired to promote and defend fluoridation. They tell the truth in some reports on the internet; but few people read them, including the media. Then they criticize people for using the internet to get their fluoridation information.
JBlim on August 16 at 5:58 a.m.
nysof says: “We just don’t drink water, we bathe and shower in it also. Fluoride is inhaled in showers and absorbed in baths.”
Nothing you cited after that said anything about inhaled or absorbed fluoridated water.
nyscof on August 16 at 12:44 p.m.
It’s not surprising people still believe in fluoridation despite the growing scientific evidence of its harm and ineffectiveness. This information is never broadcast past the pages of a scientific journal because there’s no money in telling people they get enough fluoride form their food and dental products.
Even dental professionals are unaware of the new science showing ingesting fluoride delivers no benefits See this study by Yoder
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899898
“The majority of dental professionals surveyed were unaware of the current understanding of fluoride’s predominant posteruptive mode of action through remineralization of incipient carious lesions.”
The Centers for Disease Control covers itself legally by touting fluoridation loudly but quietly telling the truth on its website:
The CDC says:“Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…”“The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low – approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas.
“This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity”
“The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”
The American Dental Association is made rich by corporations that profit from fluoride and tooth decay. The ADA’s wealth parlays into political influence with legislators who are lobbied to pass laws that favor dentists and they do.
A study was published showing that Connersville Indian children already get too much fluoride from their food and dental products; but dentists lobbied successfully to have fluoridation implemented anyway. Now those children are at risk of fluoride’s adverse health effects without any benefits. Under-educated dentists are wasting our money and endangering our children.
No Sandpoint child will be harmed by the decision to stop adding fluoride chemicals into them, but many will be helped