The Dallas Issue of Drinking Water Fluoridation
Something that is striking, and gets lost by the City Council, is the basics of this issue...
The issue of Fluoridation is a Public Health Issue, whether a person is for or against it.
The City Council is charged with a grave responsibility: "Protecting the health of millions of people who live in or visit the Dallas Metroplex".
Contention on Fluoridation of the area drinking water revolves around two basic arguments concerning Public Health...
OVERALL BODY HEALTH RISKS
Pro-Fluoridation Supporters argue that consuming
fluoride via the drinking water, regardless of extreme dosages, might help
to prevent possibly some, but certainly not all, cavities. In reality, Dentists understand that consuming Fluoride
might be effective at preventing only about 15% of all cavities. (See Footnote
#1) Pro-Fluoridation would cost
taxpayers over a million dollars.
Anti-Fluoridation Supporters argue that consuming fluoride via the drinking water has countless overall body health risks, does not control dosage, and violates the civil rights of individuals to choose their own medications. Anti-Fluoridation would save taxpayers over a million dollars, while yet appeasing the Pro-Fluoridation Supporters because the raw water already has sufficient fluoride in it at 0.5 parts per million. It is also argued that fluoride for teeth should be only topical applications (not consumed internally), per the government reports and CDC along with a list of other scientific studies.
Overall Body Health Risks - There are literally hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed published scientific studies conducted at prestigious universities and institutions which suggest that there are many health risks from fluoride exposure.
So, which is a better choice?
CHOICE #1 - Possibly preventing some cavities, but potentially harming the overall health of the public (especially the fetus, infants, the poor, and minorities). And at a cost of over a million dollars.
CHOICE #2 - Not risking overall body health, utilizing the fluoride already in the Dallas source water supply for possible protection from cavities, and saving over a million dollars.
Should we risk the health of a baby or unborn by attempting to possibly prevent a cavity?
WHY RISK IT?
Dallas already has sufficient fluoride in its source water supply for those who want to ingest fluoride, and Dallas could save over a million dollars.
...In reality, Dentists understand that consuming Fluoride might be effective at preventing
only about 15% of all cavities.
(See Footnote #1)
It should be noted that the CDC states that Fluoride’s “actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.”
One of the Disturbing Revelations in the Fluoridegate Scandal:
Dentists have quietly acknowledged for years in their own Trade
Publications that Fluorides are ineffective at preventing cavities (in the
locations where the vast majority of cavities occur, such as in the Pits and
Grooves of children’s Back Molars). This is why Dentists promote “Use of Teeth
Sealants” (Plastic Resins placed in kids’ Molars), often through “School
→ “Pit and fissure cavities aren’t considered to be preventable by fluorides, they are prevented by sealants.”
SOURCE: Gray, AS (1987). Fluoridation: Time for a New Base Line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 10: 763-765
→ “It is estimated that 84% of the caries [cavities] experience in the 5 to 17 year-old population involves tooth surfaces with pits and fissures. Although fluorides cannot be expected appreciably to reduce our incidence of caries on these surfaces, sealants can.”
SOURCE: Scholle R. (1984). Editorial: Preserving the perfect tooth. JADA 108:448 (Journal of the American Dental Assn.)
→ “Fluoride primarily protects the smooth surfaces of teeth, and sealants protect the pits and fissures (grooves), primarily on the chewing surfaces of the back teeth. Although pit and fissure tooth surfaces only comprise about 15% of all permanent tooth surfaces, they were the site of 83% of tooth decay in U.S. children in 1986-1987.”
SOURCE: Dental Health Foundation, 1997. The Oral Health of California’s Children-A Neglected Epidemic: Selected Findings and Recommendations from the California Oral Health Needs Assessment of Children, 1993-1994.
Furthermore, Dallas is looking at spending over a million dollars to add only about 0.2ppm of Fluoride to the drinking water supply. It has been shown that this additional amount would have absolutely no benefit towards the reduction of cavities when raw source water already contains 0.5ppm.
In this short 4 minute video, hear from experts (including EPA scientists).
This short video presents four inconvenient facts about the purported miraculous benefits of water fluoridation.
Fact 1: If fluoridated water has a benefit, it is a topical one (there is no need to actually swallow it).
Fact 2: Despite 60+ years of research, there is not a single randomized controlled trial, let alone a blinded study, demonstrating fluoridation’s benefits.
Fact 3: The largest national surveys of dental health in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand have found no significant difference in tooth decay (as measured by DMFT) between children living their whole lives in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas.
Fact 4: Comprehensive data from the World Health Organization shows that western countries with no water fluoridation programs have experienced the same reduction in tooth decay over the past 40 years as countries with mass fluoridation programs such as the United States.
A vote will take place on January 28th.
8 of the 15 Dallas City Council members will decide the issue on Public Health and Water Fluoridation.
This website will let the public know how each City Council Member voted.
EMAILS - We welcome your communication, even if you have "a bone to pick". And we love to get Dog Pictures with captions.
In the Subject Header, be sure to describe the nature of the email.
The Debate on Fluoridation
During the past year, the debate on fluoridation of the Dallas drinking water has been seen in the media, both locally and nationally, on all venues. The world is watching.
Perhaps, one of the best articles which encapsulates the IMPORTANCE of this issue and debate is one that appeared in The Dallas Observer written by the nationally respected journalist, Jim Schutze. Entitled “Whatever You Do, Don't Stop Paying Attention to the Fluoridation Debate”, Jim points out “…But it's absolutely wrong to think we can afford to shut down the debate on fluoride or any other neurotoxin because of a cultural association with people who worry about neurotoxins. This isn't coonskin caps and anti-communism. This is all new, powerful and urgent. Not worrying about it would be the crazy thing.”See the full article here… http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/05/dallas_anti_fluoride.php
Don’t solely rely on “parroting” what an authority stated.
Don’t hinder your understanding with “water fluoridation occurs in many other cities”.
(Lead in gasoline also once occurred in all U.S. cities.)
Don’t let bias, prejudice, or false ideas block your road to understanding.
Don’t just be a “crowd follower” nor "puppet" of some marketing fad or mob.
Don’t bark up the wrong tree nor howl about things you have not thoroughly researched. (dog puns intended)
Understand relative importances, substance and meaningfulness – not soft ideas in the head, nor armchair intellectualism with no resulting action nor participation.
Don’t be shallow in your understanding or action, as that trait reflects your own personal worth.
After all, this issue is about the quality of health for all the millions of people and animals for the vast Dallas metropolitan area and its visitors, now, and in the years to come.
Critical Thinking Skills
Most well trained, competent educators place tremendous emphasis on
“Critical Thinking Skills” or “Higher Order Thinking Skills”.
Please do the same.