Peter Farrell's letter to the Worcester Telegram about Fluoride in Public Water Supply

Templeton Residents will have the opportunity to vote on a citizen’s petition concerning ending the practice of Fluoridating the public water supply at the Town of Templeton Annual Town Meeting to be held starting May 10 2011. As the person responsible for submitting the Citizen’s Petition for the removal of Fluoride from our water supply I would like to bring to the publics attention a few salient facts as discussed in the book “The Case Against Fluoride” by the authors, Connett, Beck and Micklem.
Fluoridation is a very bad medical practice. Once fluoride has been added to the public water supply, there can be no control over the dose people receive or who receives it.
Fluoridation defies medical ethics. When communities fluoridate their water, they are doing to a whole community what an individual doctor is not allowed to do to anyone: prescribe medication without the individual’s consent.

Fluoridation defies common sense. With leading proponents of fluoridation admitting that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic, the practice of forcing people to ingest fluoride has become even more absurd.
Nobody wants to be responsible for the problems associated with fluoride. Although many organizations promote and endorse fluoridation, including agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and over 180 million Americans drink fluoridated water every day, no U.S. federal agency (e.g., EPA,CDC or FDA) accepts responsibility (liability) for the safety of the program or the chemicals used in it.
The FDA has never approved fluoride for ingestion. The U.S. Food and Drug Agency has never approved fluoride for ingestion. It rates fluoride as an “unapproved drug.” However, the FDA does require an acute-toxicity warning to be place on fluoridated toothpaste. The designation “unapproved drug” puts into question the ethics and legality of school nurses and teachers administering fluoride pills and/or rinses to students in schools located in non-fluoridated areas.
Fluoride has never been subjected to rigorous, randomized clinical trials.
Fluoridation’s benefits have been wildly exaggerated.
Bottle fed babies are at risk. The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is 25 to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk, so a bottle-fed baby (when the formula is made up with fluoridated tap water) will get far more fluoride than a breast-fed one.
U.S. children are being overexposed to fluoride. Thirty-two percent of American children in fluoridated areas now have dental fluorosis- visible damage to the tooth enamel indicating that a child has swallowed too much fluoride before the permanent teeth have erupted.
There is no margin for safety. There is no margin of safety from fluoride’s harmful effects. In 2006 the National Research Council’s review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards, “ reported that fluoride was associated with damage to the teeth, bone, brain and endocrine system and possibly caused bone cancer. The review panel declared that the U.S. safe drinking water standard for fluoride (4 ppm) was not protective of health. Since the report was published, further evidence has emerged of lowered IQ associated with exposure to fluoride and of an increased incidence of osteosarcoma in boys who drink fluoridated water in the sixth to eighth years of life.
Fluoridation continues because its promoters have power and prestige. Promoters get away with false or doubtful pronouncements on safety and efficacy not because they provide convincing scientific evidence to support their claims but rather because they use the “authority” of their office or position they hold.
Fluoridation started at a time when scientists and government officials held a very optimistic view about the safety of chemicals used in many products. In 1950 when fluoridation began in the U.S., DDT, PCBs,tetraethyl lead (a gasoline additive) asbestos, DES and fluoride were considered safe by scientists and government officials. Except for fluoride, all have since been banned.
There is some evidence that fluoridation was started for reasons of political and corporate financial expediency.
Absence of study does not mean absence of harm. The only way fluoridating countries have been able to deny the adverse health effects of fluoridation is by not conducting relevant studies. Not only is the practice of fluoridation a giant experiment, but those who are conducting the experiment are not even collecting the data.
Any slight benefit from fluoridation must be judged against the risk of harm. How much doubt regarding just one of the health concerns identified in the book “ The Case Against Fluoride” is needed to override a benefit that, when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the United States, amounts to protecting less than one permanent tooth surface (out of 108) in a child’s mouth? This benefit has to be matched against the results of twenty-three studies that indicate a possible lowering of I Q at fluoride levels as low as 1.9 ppm-a level far too close to the 1 ppm used in artificial fluoridation to guarantee protection for every child drinking uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water.
The precautionary principle should be applied. A simple application of the precautionary principle, or indeed common sense, would show the practice of fluoridation to be indefensible. When exposing a whole population to a known toxic substance, decision makers should not wait until there is absolute proof of harm before acting. There is enough evidence of harm right now to stop this practice. This is perhaps the most fundamental point of difference between promoters and opponents of fluoridation.
Fluoridation is experimentation on humans without their informed consent.
Governments are trying to protect their credibility.
The 2006 NRC review is a beginning. The restoration of scientific integrity to the issue of fluoride’s toxicity begins with the 2006 review of fluoride in drinking water by the National Research Council. The Chairman of the review panel, Dr. John Doull, is quoted in a 2008 article in “Scientific American” as follows: What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years-far too long, really-and now we need to take a fresh look at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these (health) questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this (fluoridation) has been going on.
It is hoped that Templeton residents will take the time to explore the internet and read up on this most important health concern. The “Fluoride Action Network” is an excellent website with videos and a wealth of information of this topic.
Please consider going to Templeton Annual Town Meeting to vote on the Flouridation Citizen’s Petition article starting on May 10 2011.