Saturday, August 24, 2013

Fluoridation: Why Not



 

Fluoridation: Why NOT
by Thomas D. Bonfigli (Clean Water Sonoma Marin, a group which opposes water fluoridation)

Recently, the Press Democrat editorial department wrote an editorial criticizing our Grand Jury for not endorsing municipal water fluoridation.  While I, too, am disappointed that they took no stand, it is for the opposite reason, as I do not feel that fluoride, which is a by-product of the phosphate-fertilizer industry, belongs in our precious Sonoma County Water supply.  The dangerous side effects caused by fluoride are numerous, and include dental fluorosis, bone fractures and, as proven recently by a Harvard University study, diminution of I.Q.


However, the purpose of this article is not to dwell on the dangers but, rather, the inefficacy, ineffectiveness and expense of this old-school idea whose time has passed.
And to prove these points, we find ourselves reviewing the situation in Kentucky.     
If municipal water fluoridation were the magic panacea and dental-health-care cure-all that some people in this county are claiming it is, then Kentucky, which is the most fluoridated state in the entire union, at 100%, and began the practice of municipal water fluoridation in 1951, should have the best dental health in the nation.  But the stubborn and irreducible fact is that they have among the worst dental health in the entire country.
In fact, recent statistics indicate that Kentucky has the second highest tooth loss in the entire country, at a staggering 38.1%, leads the nation in the number of dental cavities and has the highest number of toothless adults.  And in a 2001 study, half of Kentucky's children had decay in their primary teeth.

Other cities and states, which boast of high rates of water fluoridation, West Virginia, Washington, D.C., Boston and Detroit, also suffer from high rates of cavities.
By contrast, Hawaii, which has just nine percent of its municipal water fluoridated, has the lowest rate of toothless adults in the nation at 10%.

Kentucky's state governor, Steve Beshear, felt that the problem was so serious that he dedicated a large portion of his Governor's Blog on 10-03-09 and 8-26-11 to address this serious health issue.

He said: "Kentucky has a problem with its national image.  Whether it's 20/20 News show or a made-for-TV movie, too often, the face of our state is that of a person missing a mouthful of teeth" As a result, he has instituted a program called "Smiling Teeth," which has three main components:

1.  Applying protective varnish to the teeth of children in 1st through 5th grade;
2.  Conducting outreach to increase public awareness of the importance of children's dental health;
3.  Having local health-department nurses examine children for other dental problems and, if necessary, referring those who need additional treatment to dentists.
The governor also makes mention of increasing the number of mobile dental clinics in that state and purchasing additional dental equipment, as well as teaching dental education to the students.

You will note that nowhere in his program does he make reference to that state's municipal water fluoridation program, which began in 1951.  That's because to do so would be to admit that it has been a complete and utter failure, not to mention a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

I submit that what Governor Besher is proposing to do is the "new progressive."
The question now is:  Are our county leaders going to follow Kentucky's lead?  I will remind them that this is progressive Sonoma County.  We've supposed to be the leaders in this respect.

And, conversely, it cannot be denied that Kentucky has wasted a HUGE sum of money on fluoridation since it was first instituted in that state in 1951.  And what did they get in return for their unwise investment?  Some of the worst dental health in the nation.
Let's learn from their mistake and not repeat their error here.  Let's instead learn by their example and adopt some of the components of their program and make them available to those who need them most and toss the tired, old, anachronistic and scientifically discredited practice of municipal water fluoridation out the window where it belongs -- once and for all.

4 comments:

  1. The people who "don't get it", will continue to resist the truth, even if it comes from Harvard Medical School. There is not much you can do but try to reach one person, or many people. There is enough crap in the foods people eat as it is. In Hawaii, at least on the island of Ohau, the water comes from the volcanoes. I doubt the water is fluoridated. Everyone has beautiful teeth. I know if I had a new baby I'd be dammed if I used treated water to mix with formula, or let my kids drink it every day. There is no excuse to be ignorant any longer. Bev.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I completely agree bev, thank you for those words of wisdom..Ignorance is unexcusable!!! Calling members of the community which one represents "gang rapists" is indeed Ignorant!! No Excuse!!! I completely agree and thank you for your stance and support on this important issue..It is time Templeton does away with Ignorance in it's beautiful town.. Like Bev says, it all comes out in the wash..what goes around comes around..You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well lets get something straight, I do not walk on water, and I did say the town was getting raped a couple of times, on the blog. I said that because it is the truth. It is very difficult to see what you have worked on for so long go down the tubes. Our aim was to try to get our town back on its feet slowly. People gave up a lot, so we did not want pressure to be on the tax payers. We will pay for Echo Hills mess for many years, unless we can find a buyer for 252, but that is doubtful because we just spent way to much for it. Along with the money the ESBC gave away, with nothing to show for it, around 230,000, I think. We now have to decide how to deal with Thursday night's decision. How do we deal with the conflict between the voters who voted no to a override, and the town meeting vote? It will all come out in the wash. Bev.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete