Nov 24

The main item this week is good news from Canada.

 

Prince George, British Columbia, Canada

 

Voters say no to fluoridation

Prince George residents rejected public water fluoridation in a referendum on Saturday. In February 2013, city council agreed to put a question on the 2014 civic election ballot asking voters if they were in favour of the city of Prince George fluoridating its water supply.

According to unofficial results, 10,171 people voted in opposition, with 8,764 votes cast in favour of the practice. “We were predicting a victory and we got that,” said Dave Fuller, co-owner of Ave Maria and one of the proponents behind the anti-fluoride campaign. “We know the people of Prince George have said what we thought for a long time – that the majority of people do not want fluoridation in the water and will be happy to see it removed.”

When the first unofficial results were released Saturday night from the three days of advanced polling, the Yes side was holding the lead. “I was actually out picking up our signs because I had a little bit of nervous energy,” said Fuller about where he was when he received a call about the early numbers.

He said his first thought was those votes were the effect of the Say Yes coalition’s campaign reaching post-secondary students. Canada’s chief dental officer Dr. Paul Cooney gave a presentation at UNBC on Nov. 12 on oral health, including the benefits of water fluoridation. “I wasn’t too worried at that point,” Fuller said. “Definitely it’s wonderful to see the swing was in favour of us.”

The referendum is non-binding, meaning future city councils aren’t required to follow the results. But Fuller said those who let their names stand of mayor and council indicated they would be abiding by the will of the electorate. “So we expect them to just that – to honour that vote and to stop fluoridation in Prince George,” Fuller said

 

U.S.A.

Newburyport, Massachusetts

Nov 22

NEWBURYPORT — The Board of Health agreed Thursday to continue a public hearing on whether to keep fluoride in the city’s water supply, following a lengthy and ardent debate.  After listening to a range of speakers presenting facts, figures and anecdotes, the three-member board said they would like more time to study the contentious matter.

Dr. Daniel Eyink, who has a healing practice in the city, said the the substance is dangerous, in part because the dosage that residents imbibe cannot be controlled since people consume at different rates. He suggested that some consumers of city water are ingesting too much of the substance. Opponents to fluoride were energized — almost vehement — as they urged the Board of Health to stop use of fluoride.

The matter came to the Board of Health after Eyink wrote a letter of concern to the City Council last spring. The council sent the letter to the Public Utilities Committee, which assigned it to the Board of Health for study.

The board listened Thursday to numerous presentations, including one by Dr. Sam Merabi. He is a Newburyport dentist who holds a master’s degree from the Harvard School of Public Health.

He suggested that the board focus on methodology rather than anecdotal claims. An example: One middle-aged woman declared that she had grown up in a city that used fluoride but said it didn’t help her, adding, “I have had cavities in every tooth.”

Merabi said that the federal Centers for Disease Control still considers fluoride a useful additive if not consumed in excess.

A local dental hygienist who works with youngsters said that if fluoride is removed from drinking water, Newburyport children will have more cavities.

“I work with youngsters in Amesbury, and I have seen more problems with bad teeth since fluoride was removed” several years ago, she said.

City Councilor Bruce Vogel, while not taking a position, asked board members if they knew how city officials could remove the substance they chose.

Board members appeared unclear on legislative steps required to ban the substance, and they suggested that more research should be done.

Members of the three-member board, which includes chair Dr. Robin Blair, Dr. Susan Beluk and nurse Patricia Lawrence, took no position on whether to ban it.

They indicated that fluoride has a track record of aiding dental health but all three urged more study on the methodology and the science.

NEWBURYPORT — The Board of Health agreed Thursday to continue a public hearing on whether to keep fluoride in the city’s water supply, following a lengthy and ardent debate.

After listening to a range of speakers presenting facts, figures and anecdotes, the three-member board said they would like more time to study the contentious matter.

The city spends about $8,000 a year putting fluoride into the city’s water supply.Thousands of communities have been following such a practice for decades, under the assumption that a limited amount is beneficial to deterring cavities, especially among children.

The American Dental Association endorsed the practice in 1950 and the American Medical Association approved of it in in 1951, according to dentists at the meeting.

But a local group called Health Roundhouse has in recent months been urging city officials to halt the practice.

They say that fluoride is a toxic, and that consumers who use it are risking the health of their teeth and other parts of the body that come into contact with it.

Dr. Daniel Eyink, who has a healing practice in the city, said the the substance is dangerous, in part because the dosage that residents imbibe cannot be controlled since people consume at different rates.

He suggested that some consumers of city water are ingesting too much of the substance.

Opponents to fluoride were energized — almost vehement — as they urged the Board of Health to stop use of fluoride.

The matter came to the Board of Health after Eyink wrote a letter of concern to the City Council last spring. The council sent the letter to the Public Utilities Committee, which assigned it to the Board of Health for study.

The board listened Thursday to numerous presentations, Tthe three-member board, , took no position on whether to ban it.  They indicated that fluoride has a track record of aiding dental health but all three urged more study on the methodology and the science.

http://www.newburyportnews.com/news/local_news/use-of-fluoride-protested/article_83725b62-c3d6-5e6e-8671-3378b06a6024.html

 

 

Nov 19

Madison, Wisconsin

Fluoridation Up For Debate In Wisconsin’s Capital City

Wisconsin’s capital city is wading into one of the water sector’s most controversial questions: Should it fluoridate its water?

The city’s water supply has been fluoridated since the 1940s, but the issue went up for discussion at recent water board meetings.

http://www.wateronline.com/doc/fluorination-up-for-debate-in-wisconsins-capital-city-0001

 

Gloucester MA

Nov 20

Two letters, th e first with an interesting comment about the famous CDC claim

To the editor:

The pro-fluoridation pamphlet titled “Common Facts About the Advantages of Community Water Fluoridation” contains what I believe are many errors and omissions, only some of which can be addressed in this space.

No name appears to take credit for the tract, but it seems to have been produced by the American Dental Association, and was distributed at Rockport Fall Town Meeting, also to citizen groups and town committees.

The first “fact” in the handout claims there’s a “2010 study” proving the efficacy of fluoridation. Yet the link to this supposed study leads us to an opinion piece, which quotes an article on another topic that mentions fluoridation only in passing.

Following links, we arrive at a 2010 Centers for Disease Control article titled “Top Ten Health Achievements, U.S., 2001-2010”. However, this 2010 report doesn’t mention fluoridation at all, not once, even in passing.

Did the CDC drop fluoridation from its “top ten” list while proponents weren’t looking? Proponents may have assumed this article would repeat a 1999 CDC report, which fueled the oft-quoted phrase by proponents. However, the CDC claim was never based on the efficacy of fluoridation, but rather on the CDC’s efficacy in fluoridating water supplies.

The pamphlet’s first “fact” goes on to claim that adjusted fluoride levels in water prevent tooth decay. Yet multiple studies since the 1980s have shown no difference in cavities between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, and others — some $3 million U.S. taxpayer dollars spent on a comparative study of over 39,000 children proved no such difference.

The first “fact” also states that fluoride exists naturally in nearly all water supplies. What proponents neglect to mention is that lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury also exist naturally in water. But we don’t “top off” those contaminants. Also, naturally occurring calcium fluoride is far less toxic than the artificially generated fluoride compounds added to our water, as well as having that very important calcium component.

In conclusion, I do not believe there is any “2010 study” supporting the ADA pamphlet’s claim that fluoride makes teeth stronger or decay resistant 40 or 50 years later, nor is there a study from any year supporting this false claim. Goll 5ptsFeatured 13 hours ago

 

 

Nov 22

Letter: Where’s the science behind pro-fluoride claims?

“We, dentists of Rockport and Gloucester, favor the continued use of community fluoridation in these towns to help prevent tooth decay.”

Thus began a letter signed by 35 dentists this past August, based on the oft-repeated American Dental Association’s pronouncement that water fluoridation is “safe and effective”. And that echoes the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control pronouncement that fluoridation is one of the “greatest public health achievements of the 20th century”.

Naturally, the OHD will agree with a statement its members have made themselves. Yet, these extraordinary statements are almost always made without reference to any credible supporting scientific studies. ADA articles on ingested fluoride are seldom footnoted to lead us to information sources which will help us make up our own minds about community water fluoridation.

When dentists went to dental school, they may not have been asked to read the adverse reaction research, such as that of Dr. George Waldbott. They were probably not taught that the University of Melbourne did a careful statistical analysis on the Grand Rapids, Brantford and Newburgh trials upon which fluoridation is based, and found them to be scientifically worthless.

The National Dental Research Institute did a study of over 39,000 American schoolchildren, and the data showed no correlation between water fluoridation and cavity prevention. But this knowledge is not taught in dental schools. Instead, dentists are taught that because topical fluoride is “effective”, ingested fluoride must be, too — perhaps like swallowing shampoo to make your hair clean.

It may not make good bedtime reading, but a letter of concern written by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Union of Scientists and Engineers tells the truth: artificially fluoridated water is unsafe at any level. Dentists could research some of these things online if interested and, if done at home, the ADA wouldn’t even have to know they’re doing it.

Fluoride is nothing magical. It’s a halogen, albeit an incredibly reactive and toxic one. Systemically, it’s neither safe nor effective, as dentists have been led to believe.

Clearly, there are reasons why dentists feel they must support fluoridation, and their parent organization’s stance. But patients deserve the professional integrity earned by knowing the complete story of one of the medications frequently used, rather than simply believing the repetitious words of a trade organization or a bureaucracy

Loveland, Colorado

Nov 20

Advisory group gives nod to fluoridation

The Loveland Utilities Commission approved the continued fluoridation of the city’s water after months of public meetings on the issue. Commissioners voted in favor of fluoridation based on testimony by health experts and recommendations from health agencies.

The discussion resurfaced after resident Larry Sarner found out that the city had stopped fluoridating its water for a period of time in 2010 When the city resumed fluoridating, the levels didn’t return to pre-2010 levels

… Additionally, he said the water treatment plan is moving from a powdered form of fluoride to a liquid form at the expanded water treatment plant, which is expected to be completed in about 18 months….

http://www.reporterherald.com/news/loveland-local-news/ci_26974843/advisory-group-gives-nod-fluoridation

 

Boyne City water fluoridation should resume Wednesday November 19

The Boyne City Gazette  (sub.)

The fluoride issue that was supposed to have been settled at the Tuesday Nov. 4 general election was again the topic of heated debate .

Cranbrook

The referendum qustion on the ballot was whether to discontinue the fluoridation of the Cranbrook water supply. (“Are you in favour of Council adopting City of Cranbrook Cease Fluoridation Bylaw No. 3799, 2014, which authorizes stopping the addition of fluoride to the municipal water supply effective January 1, 2015?”)

2794 voted against, 2473 voted in favour. Fluoridation will continue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *