Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Regarding flouride

August 4, 2013

I read with concern and interest regarding the front-page story about a local dentist seeking removal of fluoride from the Williamsport drinking water....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(16)

Garben78

Aug-04-13 6:47 AM

Fluoride is the last thing I'd be worried about in the water

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CaveFelem

Aug-04-13 7:30 AM

I remember taking fluoride pills in grade school. The teacher passed them out each day. Many of us drank well water at the time, so that's how we got our fluoride.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-04-13 7:34 AM

Fluoride is a potent neurotoxin fraudulently promoted as a cure for cavities for over 50 years. Three published studies from Germany, Finland and Canada found that tooth decay rates did not increase in communities that ended fluoridation. In each of the studies, the rate of tooth decay continued to decrease. There is a huge difference between what is dumped in the water supply and what is offered through topical application at a dental office. Secondly, The US has never done any study on the effects of fluoridation in the water supply, and the EPA considers it a toxic substance. 24 separate studies have found an association with lowered children IQ with fluoride in the water finding a correlation between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in children's blood. Tooth decay is caused by acids in your mouth, typically created from sugar being metabolized by bacteria(Streptococcus mutans), and the number one source of calories in the United States -high fructose corn syrup.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-04-13 7:51 AM

The Journal of the American Dental Association published in 2010 a study that found, contrary to what most people have been told, fluoride is actually bad for your teeth. The US is one of only eight countries in the entire developed world that fluoridates more than 50% of its water supply. Any benefit from fluoridation are topical; fluoride works from the outside of the tooth, not from inside of your body, so why swallow it? "I would advise against fluoridation.. Side-effects cannot be excluded. Dr. Arvid Carlsson, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000) "The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects." - Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of of Environmental Health, American Medical Association. "E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just o

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Aug-04-13 7:53 AM

, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects." - Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A. "Water contains a number of substances that are undesirable, and fluorides are just one of them" stated Dr. F. A. Bull, State Dental Director of Wisconsin, speaking at the Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors. "I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable." - Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association. Personally I'll take the opinion of these guys over a local dentist who seemingly does not understand the toxicity of ingested fluoride.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Aug-04-13 8:41 AM

Good letter.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

NYSCOF

Aug-04-13 10:35 AM

When polled anonymously, 56% of dentists oppose fluoridation, according to The Wealthy Dentist.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Aug-04-13 2:54 PM

Once they get rid of the fluoride they want to bring back lead paint.

They found a guy somewhere who wrote a paper once about how maybe lead paint got a bad rap so now the science of the matter is in question.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

KurtFerre

Aug-06-13 12:47 AM

CarlHiller: Charles Gordon Heyd is now particularly remembered for his opposition to fluoridation. He was president of the American Medical Association from 1936 to 1937.

Carl: 1936-37!!! Heyd was also from the state of Wisconsin and was a supporter of Joseph McCarthy, also from Wisconsin. Joseph McCarthy is best remembered as going on a Congressional witch hunt for Communist sympathizers. You remember, the Commies who wanted to take over the World by fluoridating the Capitalistic pigs and dumb them down.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnnyJohnson

Aug-06-13 8:58 AM

Fluoridation is supported by almost every major scientific organization in the world.

The opposition lacks a single group that supports a single claim that they are attempting to create fear in your residents with.

Fluoridation is Safe, Effective, & Saves folks from the pain and suffering of preventable cavities by simply drinking the water.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnnyJohnson

Aug-06-13 9:08 AM

It is important that you know the complete lack of credentials that those posting in opposition to fluoridation have.

NYSCOF (new york state coalition OPPOSED to fluoridation) is a propaganda spreading group that only cares to deprive your citizens of the safe & proven Public Health benefits of fluoridation.

Here is a document that takes only a few minutes to read. It will quickly expose this group's members and their agendas:

THE ANTI-FLUORIDATIONIST THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH ***********scienceinmedicine****/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist.pdf

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnnyJohnson

Aug-06-13 9:25 AM

It looks like this comment section will not allow links. Therefore, I will paste the link in pieces:

****

scienceinmedicine.

org/policy/papers/AntiFluoridationist

.pdf

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ajcdds

Aug-06-13 3:37 PM

Both authors Dodes and Easley are members of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). It is an independent no-profit that accepts funding from Coca-Cola, Kellogg, General Mill, Pepsico and from Alcoa.

They also receive support from American Cyanamid, Cheveron, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Exxon, Monsanto and Union Carbide. In one of their press releases they stated, "... that environmental risks, especially the risks of toxic chemicals, are not so great as the public is being led to believe."

They claim 1.2 ppm is safe. But they do agree with the National Research Council report that anything over 4 ppm could be harmful. Well don't have two glasses of water, a bowl of soup, a glass of grape juice and retire with a glass of wine ... you would be over the limit.

Yeah, I am going to believe someone with their conflict of interest when it relates to environmental toxins including fluorides.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ajcdds

Aug-06-13 4:17 PM

If one follows JohnnyJohnson’s link you will see an attempt by the authors (Easley and Dodes) to denigrate prominent researchers in their fields. Easley’s decade long approach has been to attack the messenger and not the message. Johnny questions the credentials of just one organization that is opposed to fluoride opponent ... what about your disclaimer related to the authors? They discredit Hardy Limeback B.Sc, DDS, PhD (Biochemistry), past chairman Dept. Preventive Dentistry U. of Toronto, also past president of the Canadian Research Council - they claim he became an anti-fluoridationist because he lost his bid for president of the Canadian Dental Association. Wow, now that is a stretch. I know Hardy; you will not find anyone more dedicated to studying and evaluating pure scientific literature in the field of preventive dentistry including fluorides.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnnyJohnson

Aug-06-13 7:51 PM

Ajcdds,

The message is indeed the problem.

No one, not the World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Dental Association, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, or the Institute of Medicine, calls for a stop to fluoridation.

On the contrary. These outstanding and credibly recognized authorities on health and diseases support water fluoridation.

I choose to place the health of my family and children in the trusting hands of these folks.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ajcdds

Aug-06-13 8:56 PM

Endorsements are no substitute for science

Let me issue this challenge to JohnnyJohnson. Based on the levels of fluoride causing adverse health effects, as identified in the NRC (2006) report, please point to a written analysis by the CDC, or any of the organizations you cite, which demonstrates that there is an adequate margin of safety to protect all members of the population drinking uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water as well as consuming fluoride from many other sources. Include all members of society; the very young, the very old, those with poor kidney function, those with diabetes, those with poor diet and those with borderline iodine deficiency. Show me that message please ... you confuse endorsements with science. Don't worry, you are not alone ... sadly there are those that would believe the CDC, ADA, WHO etc. if they said there really was a tooth fairy.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 16 of 16 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web