Editor:
During Aspen City Council’s last review of fluoride, the supporters of fluoride used propaganda, which stated that the CDC named fluoride as “one of the 10 greatest accomplishments of all time.” It turns out that this is a complete lie and was fabricated by the CDC. This actually originated from an internal memo written by a dentist and an economist, neither of whom were qualified to evaluate the toxicity of fluoride. Unfortunately, this is another example of how the public has been deceived about fluoridating our water.
The following points are excerpts from an article by the Fluoride Action Network. I think that they raise some more interesting points, which will hopefully make us reconsider fluoridating our water.
The level in a mother’s milk is very low. This means that a bottle-fed baby consuming fluoridated water (0.6 to 1.2 ppm) can get up to 300 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).
Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60 percent of the fluoride they ingest each day, (Marier & Rose, 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland, (Luke, 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80 percent of ingested fluoride into their bones, (Ekstrand, 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC, 2006).
No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. No regular measurements are being made of the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bones, hair, or nails of either the general population or sensitive subparts of the population (i.e., individuals with kidney disease).
There has never been a single randomized clinical trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng, 2007). Randomized studies are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a grade A classification — despite 50 years of research, (McDonagh, 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”
Why do we take the approach of continuing to put a substance in our water which is being questioned about its safety, effectiveness and validity? A prudent approach would be to take it out of the water until a clear determination can be made.
Dr. Tom Lankering
Bio-energetic chiropractor
Aspen