The John Birch Society has been against flouridation of the water supply since before it began.
What are you? Some kind of Anti Dentite?
An aside to the main argument.
1) A new nanotechnology water filter has been invented that uses only 1/4th of the energy of typical reverse osmosis, energy that might even be provided manually. It does this with a filter full of nanotubes only wide enough to pass water molecules, nothing larger. So the output truly is pure water.
Ironically, it would probably be good over extended use to add a small amount of sea salts to such pure drinking water, for the tiny quantity of trace elements the body needs. In turn, this would give those who abhor fluoride and other contaminants an easy way to avoid them in their potable water.
2) Solar distillation is also becoming a realistic alternative to purchasing distilled water, for the increasing number of household uses. However it is less desirable, because it may also pass some hazardous contaminants that vaporize at lower temperatures than water and condense back into the water.
Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide......along with inductees of the Baseball Hall of Fame and Paul Erlich. /sarc
>>Dentists Spread False Fluoride Data<<
This is lame even for a conspiracy theory - why would dentitsts conceal data that fluoride is bad when putting fluoride in water has greatly reduced the demand for dentists?
More evidence that fluoridation proponents spread false information is In a California newspaper: (Santa Cruz Sentinel)
August 26, 2007
Nick Bulaich: Fluoridation full of fallacy
In the latest push for water fluoridation onto the people of Watsonville, the county’s health
officer, Dr. Poki Namkung, has hit a new low for misinformation and omission of facts on
the issue.
In her recent column to the Sentinel, Namkung clearly suggested that a young boy from
Maryland, who died from a severe case of tooth decay, could have been saved if he had
the benefit of fluoridation. Yes, the young boy from Prince George’s County, Md., did die
because bacteria from an abscessed tooth spread to his brain, but what Namkung did not
tell you is that the water in Prince George’s County is already fluoridated. As has become
the norm for the issue of fluoridation, a county health officer has omitted a key fact in
statements presented to the public.
Furthermore, she accused fluoridation opponents of using “scare tactics” in questioning the
safety of fluoridation, but in her column she used a blatant “scare tactic” of claiming future
“dire headlines” of a child’s death from the results of tooth decay could be avoided simply
by injecting a chemical into our water supply despite the fact that the diseased boy lived in
an area of fluoridated water. Using such a disgusting scare tactic to push her agenda is
simply not acceptable from a county health officer.
Namkung claimed “fluoridated water means that everyone can have healthy teeth” Yet, she
made no mention that when she was health officer for the city of Berkeley, she was well
aware of a significant amount of dental disease for many of the city’s children, even
though Berkeley has been fluoridated since the 1970s. Obviously, fluoridation is not the
miracle cure for tooth decay as Namkung claims it is.
It is important to point out that our rights to oppose the actual policy of fluoridation have
basically been taken away from us by our state politicians and our courts. What remains
for the people is the actual selection of the substance. The state will not select the
substance; chemical suppliers will not say their substance is effective at reducing the
incidence of tooth decay at the recommended rates of usage; and public health officials
refuse to say which substance will fulfill their intent for fluoridation. If none of them will
say which substance is the right one, then we should not use any of the substances.
As far as the substance is concerned, Namkung made no mention of the fact that the
proposed substance [hydrofluosilicic acid] for water fluoridation in Watsonville is a
byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry and it contains lead, arsenic and other
similar contaminants. In addition, as stated by the EPA in a letter from Nov. 16, 2000,
there are no scientific studies of the effects of hydrofluosilicic acid on the health and
behavior of humans. [See: http://www.keepers-of-the-well.org/product_pdfs/Masters-
EPA-00.pdf.]
Namkung, a medical doctor with a master’s in public health, has apparently not produced a
single scientific study attesting to the effectiveness of hydrofluosilicic acid in reducing the
incidence of tooth decay when ingested in dilution amounts as set by state guidelines.
Apparently, she has not produced a single scientific study showing that the proposed
substance is safe for the full range of expected human consumption.
Since it appears she has no studies to back up the effectiveness and safety of the proposed
substance, how can she expect the public to believe such a waste dumped into our water
will prevent tooth decay? Having an MD or MPH after one’s name does not give someone a
license to misinform the public or omit facts in the hope of getting the public to accept the
injection of an untested, unproven toxic waste into our water supply.
If County Health has to resort to such tactics on the issue of water fluoridation, then we
cannot trust their comments on any public health issue. Misleading statements and
omissions of key facts by a public health officer should never be tolerated; thus Namkung
should resign or else be relieved of her duty. Call your supervisors at 831-454-2200 and
ask them to find us a new health officer; we need one.
http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/August/26/edit/stories/03edit.htm
LMAO!