Hi Linda,

To answer your question about the chiropractor … Trustee Harper said that in answer to a question from Trustee Colaianne, who wanted to know about the conference he attended and who was making the claims about fluoride. Trustee Harper also noted, though, that the speaker has a doctorate in nutrition.

Thanks for clarifying, Chris. My opinion stands that the board has made a rush to judgment based on misinformation and junk science, and I don't think Mr. Harper helps his position with his statements. One thing he has done is shown me a lot more of what he's all about, which I will remember come election time.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying there isn't any evidence the other way, but what I am saying is that I've done a lot of research (despite the assumptions made by those who disagree with my position) and based upon that, I cannot come to the conclusion that water fluoridation should conclusively be stopped. There needs to be more evidence for me to undo decades of tests and studies.

The way that it has been represented (a commie plot, a government conspiracy, "forced" medication) does nothing to lend credibility to its opponents and only makes them look alarmist and silly. Likewise, the statement made by poster Audrey on another related article that assumes that because I have a problem with the way the anti-fluoridation proponents spam new sites and message boards, I therefore must favor having the "right to choose" taken away. Poor critical thinking and another way to deflect from having to provide sufficient scientific evidence to back up the spammed misinformation.

Linda, the "YEARS of scientific research" are frauds! The book, "The Greatest Fraud," 1996, examining all the research studies at the time, was a critique by Australia's Univ. of Melbourne dental professor, Dr. Philip Sutton, who found no fluoride proponent's study that could pass scientific scrutiny (i.e., following the "scientific method"). All were "junk science."

The World Health Organization compared tooth decay in about 20 developed countries (fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated) : no significant difference in decrease rates.

Thirteen Nobel Prize winners in chemistry and medicine oppose fluoridation as do the Nobel Committee and the Pasteur Institute. Virtually all European countries have banned fluoridation.

Dr. Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD (biochemistry), former spokesperson and Canada's Dental Association fluoridation promoter for 12 years, looked into fluoridation's effects for himself and is now an outspoken opponent. Most dentists have not made the effort to research the literature for themselves and accept the ADA's promotion.

Twenty-six studies now show brain damage (ADHD, etc) by fluorides.

Dr. Albert Schatz, PhD, Nobel Prize winner and streptomycin developer stated in 1982: "Fluoride is the greatest and potentially the most dangerous medical hoax...of all time. It is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it's been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud."

It's not about children's teeth. Follow the money!

As an FYI, I live in Hartland Estates along with Clerk Hopkins and Trustee Petrucci. The sub began construction before being connecting to the water system though, so while Trustee Petrucci and I have the township water, there are a few homes in the sub still on wells. The Hopkins were one of the first families in the sub, so I do believe he was being fully truthful in his statements. It doesn't negate the fact that he was committing a blatant logical fallacy, but there is no reason to believe he was lying.

Bob, chlorine is added to help make water potable, fluoride (F) compounds are prescription medications. Fluoridation (F'n) has been labeled "mass medication" by the courts.

The chemical used for f'n, hydrofluorosilicic acid, has never been approved by the FDA which admits that they have no studies (none exist) on file confirming that the chemical is safe to drink or reduces tooth decay if swallowed.

Hydrogen bonding holds proteins together. F has an affinity for hydrogen, combining and removing the hydrogen bonding and rendering proteins unusable. DNA, hormones, allergens and enzymes are all proteins helping explain why cancers, diabetes, hypothyroidism, and asthma are all increasing.

Hydrofluorosilicic acid will eat through any storage container including glass which makes disposal extremely difficult. Also, it is so radioactive there are no accepting dump sites for this kind of waste. Huge, mile-long holding ponds lined with calcium carbonate (shells) hold the toxic waste of mining companies until they can convince gullible towns to buy the unrefined, EPA-rated, "Extremely Hazardous Waste" that comes from EPA-mandated chimney scrubbers of these companies.

My grandson's baby teeth erupted with severe dental fluorosis: crumbling, black-stained teeth, capped at a cost of over $8,000. A NJ study found that osteosarcoma, a bone cancer, was 3 to 7 times higher in fluoridated counties.

Do you really want to swallow this? Read your toothpaste warning!

Bob, great comments on what the world of water non-treatment would look like. Too bad that the anti-government outcry has gotten so outrageous that people are willing to ignore established science and threaten the health of the community.

I will also be thinking about this for the next election.

Thank you for yor sincerity.

Actually, Bob, fluoridation is not about stopping children's tooth decay, it's about getting rid of an extremely toxic by product of all mining companies. It's been estimated that it would cost these companies about $400,000,000/year to dispose of the fluoride. This is a powerful incentive to find cost-cutting methods

The U.S. government got into the promotion of fluoridation when in the mid '40's the atomic bomb was being developed which needed lots of fluoride. The companies making it were damaging prize peach crops downwind in NJ and farmers were threatening to sue. Released classified papers about the bomb development, told of the government's concern over the farmers' suits and the suggestion to join the promotion of fluorides as good for people's teeth to avoid paying high reparations. Result: farmers each received only a couple hundred dollars for their losses and the
public was convinced about the magic of fluoridation.

As fluoride-producing plants continued spewing out hydrofluoric acid, the EPA stepped in and made them capture the fluoride in scrubbers.

As more fluoridation's dangerous side effects are now being discovered, the government (CDC, FDA) as well as the mining companies are concerned about liability suits of parents of children whose teeth have been permanently damaged by fluorosis. To now admit the damaging effects opens up potential class action to rival the tobacco companies' fiasco.

The scam continues.

Thanks for the link.

Thanks jwillie. Unfortunately, your link leads to an organisation with a stated agenda against fluoride in water. It is anything but objective "scientific" information. In fact, it is quite the opposite.

Bob:
Of course the link I gave is anti- fluoride. Dr. Paul Connett manages it. He is a Ph.D. retired Chemistry Professor who has written many books on the subject. The latest one from last year includes over 1200 research references proving just how ineffective and dangerous to health fluoridation is. I recommend you spend some time reading the truth.

Jordan, you are lying. There is not a "majority" of scientific community that supports Fluoride. There is a handful of lobbyists in only a few countries (US, UK, Australia, NZ...).

For the evidence that Fluoride, when INGESTED, is NOT safe, please see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-dangers/health/index.aspx

My point of view is that Fluoride is OK on the teeth, but NEVER ingested. It sticks in the body and is not fully ejected with urine etc. It stays in the bone and creates osteoroposis and many other very dangerous brain damage etc.

You must educate yourself by simply reading one of the many excellent reviews done by REAL scientists, from all over world, peer reviewed papers: http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-dangers/health/index.aspx

http://www.fannz.org.nz/scientific_consensus.php

Please take 1 hour to read through these, and you will see why there are so many of us fighting against the status quo. Status quo is comfortable for all these people, but it is not acceptable if you love life and your human friends.

Audrey,

Here is a link with multiple peer-reviewed studies regarding fluoride:
http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/journal_articles.htm#cwf

Now, not all of those articles find no problem with fluoridation, but they conclude that there are actual benefits. And this is the CDC, the same organization that Harper tried to claim was on the side of getting rid of fluoridation. He simply cherrypicked statements from the CDC out of context, and represented them as being their position regardless of the CDC's actual conclusions.

Example- there is a study in the link that says there is a slight esthetic risk to fluoridation. Yet in the conclusion, it states:
"The risk of perceived esthetic problems attributable to fluoridation must be weighed against its lifetime benefits..."

So if you ignore the fact that they are acknowledging there are benefits to fluoridation, or course you can mislead the public into thinking the CDC is against fluoride. It's completely unethical, but that hasn't stopped conspiracy theorists in the past, and it won't stop them in the future. So we as the public should not allow conspiracy theorists to succeed in their goals by using such dishonest tactics.

So my question to you, which you still failed to answer, is how you explain the studies that show fluoride to be effective at preventing cavities? If you can't answer that question, and are effectively conceding the evidence is valid, how can you think you're not a conspiracy theorist?

>> Now, not all of those articles find no problem with fluoridation, but they conclude that there are actual benefits.

Anti depressant drugs also have some benefits for some people - Let's put anti depressants in the water shall we?

pascal-

So you feel there is no difference between adding a chemical to the drinking water that is shown to provide general public health benefits, and adding a prescription drug that has not been shown to provide any general public health benefits.

What I can say is that if there was overwhelming evidence that showed adding anti-depressants to the water made significant improvements in public health, with basically no negative consequences (as is the reality with fluoride), then I would have no reason to be opposed to its addition. If there were negative consequences, I would weigh the cost/benefit analysis and decide from that, with the default position being against the addition.

But if before performing the cost/benefit analysis of the decision, someone said they had evidence of all sorts of negative consequences, and upon my review of that "evidence", it was clear they were trying to mislead me, I would find myself in the same position I am currently- wanting those individuals to address the points in favor of the addition.

I actually think that if you wanted to discredit the anti-fluoride position, you would make the same arguments you are currently making. I have to wonder if you are a sheep in wolf's clothing.

Before anyone misrepresents what I wrote, I will clarify. I would not support adding anti-depressants to the water, because I see no reason to, and I see very obvious reasons why not to. That may be the difference between us, I require valid reason to support my actions.

Your side tries to give people reasons to be opposed to fluoride, but those reasons are based on lies and misrepresentations. And there are clear reasons to be in favor of fluoride (with overwhelming evidence showing those reasons to be based on fact). All your side has to do is provide legit reasons to be opposed (and acknowledging that your evidence up to this point is based on misrepresentations would be a plus), and explain how those reasons outweigh the benefits (and denying that there are benefits is an irrational position). If you can do that, I would join you in opposing fluoride.

What would it take for you to admit fluoride is fine?

Education time....
Peer reviewed papers means that they have been reviewed by independent scientists. There are papers from all over the place highlighting the effects on brain, bones, etc. from scientists from US, UK, India, Australia, France, etc.

Proving that a toxic waste is indeed toxic is self serving OF course, it is serving humanity. It is serving your kids, your parents and your friends. We love you, this is why we fight against this!

Have you read any of the DOZENS of peer reviewed scientific reports? please do, before judging :)

I don't see how it is "forced". AFAIK, it is still legal to have a well, or to go to the store and buy bottled water.

Public drinking water is a product, and the government's role is to protect the health of the population. When there is valid evidence showing that fluoride promotes dental health, it is absolutely within the duty of the government to provide water with the optimal health benefits.

Fluoridated water is no more "medicine" than cereal fortified with folic acid is "medicine". Fluoride is like any other vitamin or mineral that provides health benefits when consumed in optimal amounts. Now like vitamins, minerals, and any other substance imaginable, if we consume exponentially more of the substance than what is optimal, there are dangers. Showing the public studies that state fluoride is dangerous at levels much higher than what is in the drinking water is no more convincing than saying that if you drink 20x the recommended amount of water, you will die, therefore you shouldn't drink the recommended amount of water. That is an absurd argument, but it's what the anti-fluoride conspiracists often use as the basis for their position.

Diane, I appreciate your concerns, but have you looked at the other side of the issue? If your opinion comes from the negative information only, its not not objective. You can find books out there by "PhDs" which promote all kinds or crazy or fringe ideas. That doesn't make them credible. A book called the "Fluoride Deception" is clearly not the place to get accurate, objective information.

> If your opinion comes from the negative information only, its not not objective.

WRONG, as long as there is ANY negative effect (osteoroposis, brain damage), this is enough evidence to prove that we should not put it in the water. If something is sometimes dangerous it should not be forced upon people.

if you don't agree with this, we can only agree to disagree. I will drop anti depressant in your family tap water, just because it helped my aunty get through her though time.

I think it is clear by now that the two sides of this debate are not playing by the same rules. One side tries to give a sincere counter-argument to the points being made by the other, yet that same earnest approach to the discussion is not being reciprocated.

When Diane comes along and makes statements that have already been contended, and she gives no response to the counter-argument, only repeating the same flawed points, it's obvious they know they can't win if the debate is an actual back & forth discussion. So they parrot their talking points, and ignore the opposition.

The only thing that may be more sad than their technique is the fact that it works on some people. And they've found how to translate that strategy for victory into actual political influence. If the debate takes place on a large scale (like statewide), they won't be as successful because too many people will see through their fraudulent ways. But by working at the township level, where not many people pay attention, it's easier to sneak their agenda through and never address the logical opposition.

You, myself, Dan, Linda- we can make the best argument possible, but it wouldn't affect their response in any way.

What I do find intriguing though is that these people only exist (online) to promote their misinformation. It would make an interesting psychological case study, to get inside the head of someone who lacks such basic morality.

This is a prime example of how flawed your position is. Let's take the "Fluoridation and lead" category you copy/pasted from fannz.org. The studies in 1999, 2000, and 2007 are all from the same researchers, Coplan and Masters. The other one in 2007 was a study about plumbing. And the 2010 example was a study on animals, with only speculation that it may relate to humans.

So the 3 from Coplan and Masters would be your "best" evidence, if you ignore the fact that the use of 3 studies from the same researchers to support a claim that no other researchers have found is shady at best. Well here is a rebuttal from the CDC to Coplan & Master's 1999 study:
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/pp/oralhealth/fluoridation/fl-142.pdf

Key highlights:
"This manuscript is poorly written and provides insufficient detail on study method to allow a full evaluation"
"This is a very poor conceived and developed piece of research. The review of the literature is highly selective and one of the key documents to support the author’s point of view is authored by one of the authors"
"Masters and Coplan’s conclusions are unsupported even by their own limited data"
"The paper will not stand up to rigorous review by expert scientists experienced in the relevant disciplines"

You try to overwhelm with quantity, but there's no quality. Again, you undermine any credibility the anti-fluoride movement may have everytime you post. I think I'm onto something with the sheep in wolf's clothing idea.

Pascal, since you seem to like to quote "science", how about some reference citations for these "facts". Nobody is going to accept your statements of fact presented in such a flawed manner. And please find some alternative to the use of "lying". It makes you look paranoid.

Rob, your points are well taken, but there are risks or negatives to most things we do to protect our health. For example, chlorine forms chlorinated hydrocarbons in the process of killing bacteria. Some studies have linked these compounds (in quantity) to cancer. But, the benefits vastly exceed the risks. We put iodine in table salt to prevent goiter. Iodine is obviously poison in other context. There are many other examples.
The thing that make fluoridation a little different is that it became a political issue
as early as the 1960s. As a result, science and reason take a back seat to anger, accusations and hysteria.