Push to fluoridate water in San Jose

So far, tooth fairies have had it great in San Jose: The city is the largest in the country that doesn't fluoridate its water. But now a major effort is under way to shed that title.

In a push toward better dental health in the valley, advocates have launched a campaign to raise the millions needed to upgrade the city's water infrastructure. Given the controversy that typically surrounds fluoridation efforts, they expect progress to be slow. So on Wednesday backers of the effort brought a top engineer from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention together with San Jose Water Co. officials to begin talking science and quelling myths.

"California is really behind," said Kip Duchon, the fluoridation engineer who presented the workshop. "So we're very excited at the CDC to know that the people of Santa Clara County are really ready to take this important health initiative."

About 70 percent of community water systems in the United States are treated with fluoride, recognized by international health experts as a key method in preventing tooth decay, particularly among children. In California, only 30 percent of water systems are fluoridated, Duchon said, partly because of the state's highly complex water systems.

Instead of wasting money on the engineering costs of fluoridation, San Jose needs to prove that San Jose residents are fluoride-deficient. Just measure the fluoride content of commonly consumed foods and fluoride air emissions.Otherwise, you may be dangerously overdosing members of the community and should be held liable for that.

We know there’s loads of evidence showing Americans are dentist-deficient. Now that government-sponsored insurance is cutting out dental benefits, the number of dentist-deficient will increase.

In recent years, two US children died from the consequences of UNtreated tooth decay. At least one of them lived in a fluoridated area and was turned away by about a dozen non-Medicaid accepting dentists. What good did fluoridation do for him?

Dentists have grown very rich treating wealthier Americans and neglecting the less-wealthy. 80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients and 130 million Americans don’t have dental insurance.

However, the Centers for Disease Control reports that up to 48% of US school children are fluoride overdosed and its ruining their teeth with dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth. As a result, the CDC now advises that infant formula not be mixed with fluoridated water. I wonder why the CDC’s engineer who is promoting fluoridation, Kip Duchon mentioned in this article, didn’t tell you that? It’s on their website.

But then I wonder why the CDC sends a water engineer instead of a medical doctor or a toxicologist to tell you about fluoride’s health effects. Maybe he’s just a PR representative - paid to promote fluoridation; not evaluate it. It’s no wonder that the CDC is losing credibility these days on many issues not just fluoridation.

The CDC’s website also tells us that ingesting fluoride does not reduce tooth decay as it was once believed. Fluoride hardens outer tooth enamel by topical means alone. However, fluoride’s adverse effects such as dental and skeletal fluorosis occur upon ingestion. This means there’s really no good reason to swallow fluoride.

In fact, the Nov 2008 Journal of the American Dental Association has a review of fluoride supplement research which shows that ingesting fluoride supplements shows no benefit to children’s primary teeth but does unnecessarily increase dental fluorosis.

Supplements are prescribed to children who don’t live in fluoridated areas to equate the “benefits” of fluoridation. Obviously, if supplements don’t reduce tooth decay, neither does water fluoridation.

In fact, there’s much evidence showing fluoridation is ineffective in California and elsewhere.

“It may...be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a strong protective effect against early childhood caries (cavities) reports dentist Howard Pollick, University of California, and colleagues, in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry.

A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities. Pollick’s team studied 2,520 California preschool children as part of the California Oral Health Needs Assessment of Children Study which convinced California legislators to mandate fluoridation statewide in 1995 . “Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water,” they reported.

The July 2009 JADA has an article by J. V. Kumar which reveals similar decay rates, nationally, whether the water is “optimally” fluoridation or “sub-optimally” fluoridated.

A study in the Fall 2008 Journal of Public Health Dentistry reveals that cavity-free teeth have little to do with fluoride intake. Researchers report, “The benefits of fluoride are mostly topical…while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.”

Dental fluorosis provides lucrative work for dentists who many will charge $1,000 a tooth to cover with veneers - often not reimbursed by dental insurance and not affordable for low income children.

So if fluoridationists really care about low-income people, they will put aside a fund to pay for the inevitable fluorosis that will occur among poor people without money to pay dentists for expensive cosmetic dentistry.

for more info

Fluoridation 101

http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

Adverse health effects of fluoride

http://www.FluorideAction.net/health

If ingesting fluoride isn’t good for the teeth, why is it the “policy” in the U.S. to add it into the water supply? What’s the motive?
Let’s stop using the phrase conspiracy theory as, they wrote down their motives.

The current Science and Technology “policy” Czar John Holdren wrote it down in a book called ECOSCIENCE. The year was 1977 and the topic was population control. Here’s a quote from his book:

“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”

Does fluoride decrease sperm count?

“High doses of fluoride have repeatedly been found to interfere with the reproductive system of animals. Commonly observed effects in fluoride-exposed animals include: oxidative stress, damaged sperm, reduced sperm count, and reduced fertility.”

Remember, the govt doesn’t do illegal experiments on humans that would be considered immoral and illegal.

So this is probably nothing to worry about. How about that local sports team of ours?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.