During its next meeting on Tuesday (February 3rd), the Three Rivers City Commission will conduct a public hearing on proposed chlorination of the city’s drinking water supply.
Action to schedule the public hearing to gain citizen input on the subject came during the commission meeting on January 20th.
The possibility of fluoridation of the water supply, along with chlorination, has also been mentioned. In that regard, you’ll find two links below to items that may be helpful to understanding fluoridation.
The first item focuses on “Community Water Fluoridation” and comes from the Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. The second is from the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research and tells “The Story of Fluoridation” and notes that the first use of fluoridation in a public water supply took place right here in Michigan – in Grand Rapids.
Here are the links:
In keeping with a suggestion in one of the comments submitted in response to this story, below is a link to the Fluoride Action Network which is described as “an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.”
Tuesday’s city commission meeting will get underway at 6 p.m. in the Commission Room of City Hall at 333 W. Michigan Avenue.
Bruce Snook
River Country Journal
Editor’s Note: This story was updated at 12:03 p.m. on February 2, 2009 to add the link to the Fluoride Action Network.
Flouride is an industrial waste by-product and was foisted upon an the unsuspecting public by a notorius sales and marketing scammer back in the fifties. It is a poision and a thorough investigation into PROS and CONS should be done before proceedng.
Now for the dark side of fluoride. I am sorry but I disagree. If you Google toxic effects of fluoride,you will get the other side of the story.Which by the way I believe. That it is toxic waste, rodent poision, and used as a insecticide. The U.S. EPA even states it causes bone disease and mottled teeth in children and is a discharge from fertilizer and aluminum factories. The goverment should not have the right to medicate us.It should be our choice not the goverment. If it is safe why does it state on tooth paste boxes if more then used for brushing is accidently swallowed get medical help or contact the Posion Control
Ctr right away? And keep out of the reach of children under 6yrs old!!
To give a fairer balance to your article, you might like to include the following link to those opposed to fluoridation for very good reasons: http://www.fluoridealert.org (NOT http://www.fluoridealert.com, which the ADA hijacked to confuse the concerned citizen)
No current researcher can show any measurable ingested benefit from fluorides. The theory was just that and they never mentioned that the frar larger number of fluoridated countries reduced cavities as much and often more. No relationship in a single state in CDC data between fluoridation and dental quality. Every state has a relationship to income and the best predictor is preventative dental cre in last 12 months. Good nutrition and actually having a dentist who will treat the child is the real issue. The dental community would like you to not know that often only 20 will treat the poor kids on medicaid dental. My county is only 4% with 45,000 of 50,000 being underserved. Burt in detroit showed nuitrition was the big issue as all drank fluoridated water but soda and chips were the next common foods. Almost ZERO vegetables and fruits. High sugar and refined carbs destroy teeth. Calcium and magnesium make them strong but ingesting fluoride damage the enamel and blacks get double the damage is most of the studies but the CDC even after a ethics charges still refuses to inform minories they are damaged more and even uglier damage. Kidneys and thyroid function are also affected and a who long list the sites can show you. This is government data and taxpayer funded –why not read it as your dentist will not tell you. Most dentists failed when tested on fluoride science. They got the old theory right but problem is they still believe it. http://tinyurl.com/yoder read the study yourself and 17% Indiana and 14% Illinois is not even a passing grade in Detroit.(Worst school results in counrty)
19 of the EPA professional unions asked congress to halt fluoridation with no response. They filed the first lawsuit finding fraud in 1985. They believe a goal of ZERO just like other cumulative toxins arsenic and lead. Just for yucks the product is so corrosive it puts most of the lead into the homes water by leaching from brass and also can eat holes in pipes depending unpon the water and pipes in system. Every city is different. Chloramine is much more corrosive then chlorine and Washington DC had the most lead it their water from 2000-2004 by a factor of hundreds often when they changed to chloramine which is chlorine mixed with ammonia. http://www.waterloowatch.com has two corrosion studies which show how destructive the chemicals often are. Maas 2006 Coplan 2008.The DC water authority hid this risk for over 2 years before the truth leaked out and they fired that employee Seema Bhat. The court ordered her back pay. Last week new study is coming out the agencies faked studies and data thousands of kids were lead toxic. They claimed ZERO were affected after years at levels often off the scale.Meanwhile they put landlords in jail if they had lead paint while the city lied on huge levels they put in the water. Double standards rule in DC. Congress only drinks bottled water for your information.They are not as stupid as you might think.
Burt study in Detroit showed almost 100% of children had cavities by 5 years. But by 14 over 75% have severe damage with most untreated. Of course most also have dental fluorosis so we know they were fluoride toxic so as your dentist how that proves fluoridation a benefit. Most big inner cities were fluoridated in about 1950 and most have this drasticly increasing cavity problem. It is a nutrition issue and second a dentist issue and that is what Burt At U of Michigan said and he got it right.
They started a Iowa study in 1992 to prove fluoride dose children actually recieved and discovered little if any relationship of cavity reduction to fluoride dose. Great relationship to enamel discolored and porous if that is what you want for kids. Dental incomes are soaring doing these expensive repairs so someone does benefit. The Iowa study also mentions the ingested theory was disproved but the reason for believing it would work. What they did not mention is the industrial polluters are ther ones that made this theory up. Alcoa with Andrew Mellon was behind the whole thing by 8 industries put money in the pot to get fake studies. Andrew Mellon ended up in charge of the Health department for 10 years to help this along. Then Oscar Euwing the Alcola Lead attorney was in charge of the health department to use Public realation skills to force flouoridation and end the lawsuits of fluoride damage against industry and the Atomic Energy Commission. The other Ace in the hole is the secret Manhatten nuke program needed millions of tons of fluoride to refine uranium and had lawsuits threating their programs. Big money can make big changes not for everyones benefit.
The H2SiF6 comes direct from smokestack pollution scrubbers ordered installed by EPA to stop cattle death and crop damage downwind.No government agency in any country has ever tested this waste product for human use in chronic health and benefit study. The FDA has to date never reviewed a single ingested fluoride product. It sort of got grandfathered in as used for rat poison and insecticide prior to FDA established in 1938. There are lots of studies for accute toxicity and natural calcium fluoride is at least 25 times less toxic then what they use. Lots of good studies for killing rats . The York review looked at 3200 studies in 2000 and said not a single one was high quality bias unlikely ever. Lots of poor quality lousey designed studies the dentists like to quote.
The biggest fluoridation study was Newburgh NY and they claimed huge benefits but when the state looked at it in 1999 strangely then the never fluoridated control city but double the dental fluorisis. The 70% benerfit did not exist but many ways do exist they could have easily faked the data. A professior Sutton looked at all the data and believed that is exactly what happened. These did not even approach real science as the variables were not controlled or repored on. A doctor Osmunson has a video showing all the data clearly showing this benefit does not exist. World Heath Organization and CDc data clearly show this. Its all a dog and pony show. A boat load of cumulative toxic risks mean this is really stupid as we are overdosed just from foods and berverages and dental products without fluoride water.
I applaud the editors of the newspaper that they have included the link to the Fluoride Action Network. So often editors introduce their own bias by not allowing links to websites which run counter to their own belief. Only through an open, democratic, and transparent process will public healths’ most controversial measure, be evaluated based on the known, unknowns, and perhaps a bit of precaution.
Come on people!! We have to stand up to the city on this one or we all will be drinking toxic waste!! Once it is in the water we will never get it out! Everyone needs to go to this meeting and at least stand up and say they do not want flouride and chlorine in there water system. Together we can move mountains but alone I am afraid we might fail. FILL THE
COMMISSION MEETING!! LET YOUR VOICES BE HEARD ON THIS ONE!!!WE DO NOT WANT THIS IN OUR WATER
Modern science indicates that adding fluoride chemicals into water supplies, to treat the humans drinking it, is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, harmful to health and a waste of money.