Article
Cities resume fluoridating water after hiatuses
Health benefits, state requirements and new equipment have led several cities to resume fluoridating their water after hiatuses.
The American Dental Association (ADA) says that when the mineral known as fluoride — which naturally occurs in groundwater and ocean water— is present in drinking water at appropriate, recommended levels, it effectively prevents tooth decay. Fluoride opponents argue that fluoride is associated with reduced IQ, diabetes, cancer and thyroid problems, Water Online reports.
Some municipalities like Sulphur, La., had fluoridated its water until aging equipment made the process unreliable, Louisiana TV station KPLC reports. Sulphur has since designed a new fluoridation system to comply with state rules, which have required all community water systems to contain fluoride since 2008.
“It occurs naturally,” Sulphur Public Works Director Mike Daigle told KPLC. “Our particular water system has about 0.2 ppm content, but for it to be most beneficial for oral health, 0.7 is recommended by the state.” The city will also test the equipment twice a day to guarantee optimal feeding into the water.
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority in Chapel Hill, N.C. also had a malfunction in February that caused it to halt fluoridation in its water, the Tri-City Herald reports. The water authority made a $162,000 purchase of new equipment and said it would resume fluoridation soon.
Other cities have opted to resume fluoridation after a hiatus, After 39 years of fluoridating its water supply, Albuquerque, N.M., stopped putting the mineral in its water supply in 2012, according to the Albuquerque Journal. Following a vote in favor of appropriating $250,000 for the cause, the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority will purchase equipment to put fluoride in its water again.
Proponents argued that fluoride was scientifically proven to aid in mouth health. “At the end of the day, when there’s a question about science, we need to listen to the scientists,” Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis said before voting in favor of fluoridation, per the Journal.
Albuquerque Councilor Trudy Jones was one of two who voted against the measure, saying she was “philosophically opposed” to it, according to the Journal. “I don’t think at any time the government should add something to our water if some people don’t want it,” she said.
_____________
To get connected and stay up-to-date with similar content from American City & County:
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Watch us on YouTube
Over 4700 professionals,
Over 4700 professionals, including hundreds of MD’s and Dentists, urge fluoridation be stopped as ineffective and harmful. Their statement is here: FluorideAction.Net/researchers/professionals-statement
An International Dentists Group agrees. Its position statement opposing fluoridation is here: iaomt.org/media-resources/position-papers/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper/
nyscof – It is remarkable you
nyscof – It is remarkable you continue to promote proof that anti-F activists consist of a small group of professional outliers.
Hundreds of thousands of scientists and medical professionals support fluoridation based on the actual 21st century science and not the edited version provided by fluoridation opponents (FOs).
FOs represent a very small minority of scientists and medical professionals. That is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their thousands of members – experts in their fields) recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay and resulting health problems? These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.
~> ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium
~> ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride
How do you explain that fact? How many legitimate national and international scientific and health organizations can you list that support the anti-F opinions?
It is interesting that you use the “FAN Professionals Statement” to try and support your fabricated opinions. In any scientific or health field there are a few fringe outliers who do not accept the scientific consensus because of various, strong personal beliefs.
The FAN Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation, initiated in 2007, had collected about 4,700 signatures worldwide by March, 2015, and by September 2017 a whoppin’ 4,769 signatures had been collected out of the millions of working and retired medical, dental and scientific professionals in the world. For example:
** 375 dentists worldwide signed the petition. That’s roughly 0.02% of the 1.8 million practicing dentists in the world.
** 581 physicians signed the petition. That’s about 0.005% of the 10-15 million practicing physicians in the world.
** 105 pharmacists signed the petition. That’s approximately 0.005% of the more than 2 million practicing pharmacists world-wide. Those minute percentages don’t even reflect the millions more retired professionals who could have signed the petition if they believed the anti-F propaganda was accurate and legitimate.
The IAOMT you referenced is a fringe activist group of outliers with no credibility among respected science and healthcare professionals. They use typical fabricated fear-mongering techniques to boost their bottom line by scaring the public into having perfectly safe and durable amalgam fillings replaced by often less durable alternatives.
~> rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology
On September 19, 2017 the
On September 19, 2017 the results of a 12-year study of prenatal exposure to fluoride were announced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which funded the study. The results were published in the NIH publication Environmental Health Perspectives: Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico
The study showed significant reductions of IQ in children that correlate directly with the amount of maternal exposure to fluoride during pregnancy. Although the study was on Mexican mother-child pairs, the fluoride doses received by those mothers were the same as typical doses received by pregnant American mothers who rely on water systems that add fluoride chemicals to reach the CDC-recommended “optimal” level claimed to benefit teeth. Therefore comparable reductions in IQ scores in American children whose mothers drink “fluoridated” water would be expected.
The results of this carefully controlled NIH study make it clear that there is no basis for assuming that current water “fluoridation” policy is safe. In the words of the study’s lead researcher:
“The potential risks associated with fluoride should be further studied, particularly among vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children, and more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is clearly needed.”
There is no federal or state requirement for “fluoridation”. If it is likely, or even possible, that intentionally adding fluoride chemicals to public drinking water as non-consensual dental treatment is causing harm to unborn children, there is no constitutional, medical, ethical, or regulatory justification for continuing to do it. Continuing fluoridation in the face of this evidence is the moral equivalent of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment conducted by the US Public Health Service from 1932-197. It is the duty of local decision-makers to end this potentially harmful practice.
Ima Stickler – Fluoridation
Ima Stickler – Fluoridation opponents (FOs) grasp at any study they think can be used to support their unwarranted, self-inflicted paranoia about fluoridation. They extract what they want and ignore all of the red-flags about the appropriateness of drawing any conclusions – in this case five paragraphs that discuss the significant limitations of the study.
Employing studies that are not sufficient to change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective, but which can be used to scare the public, are just part of the fear-mongering tactics of FOs.
~> sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2017/09/24/maternal-urinary-fluoride-iq-update/
~> sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2017/09/22/fluoride-pregnancy-iq/