Letter: Local dentists stand behind fluoridation
To the editor:
We, dentists of Rockport and Gloucester, favor the continued use of community fluoridation in these towns to help prevent tooth decay.
Many measures are useful maintaining the oral health of our citizens, most notably community fluoridation with its proven track record for fighting tooth decay. Manipulating drinking water fluoride levels to fight tooth decay has been shown repeatedly to be safe, effective, and comparatively inexpensive. Additionally, practically all members of our communities receive fluoridation’s therapeutic benefits regardless of socioeconomic status.
For the entire letter to the editor click here to view it at The Gloucester Daily Times website
Interesting.
Here is the poster from the anti Flouride folks-
Good Morning Gloucester 
You mean the dentists of Cape Ann listen to the American Dental Assicoation, the American Medical Association, the U.,S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization when it comes to fluoridation of community water supplies and not freaky websites like the Food Babe, Mike Adams the Health Ranger and other kooky sites?
They listen to scientists and not charlatans? Say it ain’t so! Next you’ll be telling me that vaccines save lives. Stop being so rational!
LikeLike
The strategically timed “Dentist letter” is a reaction to Rockport and Gloucester residents’ concern over fluoridation of their water supplies. On September 8th, Rockport residents will be able to vote for the OPPORTUNITY to have the fluoridation issue put on the November ballot. It is all about giving the residents of Rockport a choice.
Our town water is supplemented with fluoride (from China) which is an industrial waste -by- product, scientifically proven harmful to our health.
Many individuals in our informed community choose not to drink, bathe and cook in water that is tainted with a proven neurotoxin. It is medication normally prescribed by a health professional.
Why is there such an extreme reaction from these dentists? Do they prefer that the community not be given a choice about supplemental fluoridation of our water? Do they think people do not need a choice regarding the medication they consume? Do not need a choice regarding their health in an increasingly toxic world?
Amesbury, Barnstable, Brewster, Littleton, Methuen, Plainville, Spencer, Worcester and Yarmouth have all stopped adding fluoride to the water and many more communities are working towards the same goal.
The public may want to be properly informed by reading fluoride studies such as those by the Harvard School of Public Health, fluoride research in the U.S. Library of Science regarding developmental neurotoxicity and the fluoride study discussed in the March 2014 issue of the prestigious, world reknown Lancet Neurology Medical Journal. Just a few of the many credible scientific references
Study the data and you’ll realize that it is incomprehensible not to give the people a choice as to whether they want fluoride added to their water.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Both Sides Now…..
Six months ago, I had little idea what “Fluoride” was, even though I’d been consuming it for sixty years. And I agree, Joey, that it has been very interesting watching the public reactions lately on our tiny island. So, I think it is important to frame the disagreement in clear terms, rather than to classify it as a simple “anti vs.pro debate”. The view from 10,000 feet for some is that this is a dentists vs. lay people debate. But the deeper you dig, as I and others have done, the more you realize that this is a research vs. establishment battle.
A Research vs. Establishment Battle ~ The Advantages of Both Sides
The Establishment end of this has some clear advantages, mainly your family dentist’s words and many years of declining cavities. The establishment end also has tremendous financial resources available, which originate from the aluminum, fertilizer and nuclear industries. These funds, some say to the tune of $28,000,000, are channeled to the American Dental Society to do their work. This provides for a great deal of ‘conditioning’ the market and the media to purchase sodium fluoride and other fluoridating chemicals, when the cost of toxic waste disposal to these industries would be astronomical.
The Research end of the battle also has some advantages. They have shown that the decline in dental cavities over the last 60 years has occurred throughout the industrial world, the vast majority of which does not fluoridate their water. (In the US, about 60% of our communities are fluoridated.) They have also demonstrated that diet and oral hygiene are largely responsible. Their studies over the years have shown links between drinking fluoridated water and skeletal, organ and neurological diseases. And, while not research related, the freedom of choice aspect motivates people to take action on the research findings.
A Research vs. Establishment Battle ~ The Disadvantages of Both Sides
The establishment end has some disadvantages as well. Regardless of how much funding they can apply to the media and the medical / dental organizations, the research findings are steadily getting to the public. Granted, this is not a rapid process, but it is progressing and with each person who sees and understands the science, the credibility of fluoride benefit claims come more into question. The EPA Union of Scientists opposing fluoridation while their bosses support it may be the most telling of all.
And the research end has some disadvantages as well. Most large media outlets will not print their articles. They must rely on smaller local media such as GMG and the GDT, who will print the cases of both sides. Also, for some strange reason, dentists who speak against fluoride find themselves with career and financial troubles. And, of course, the apparent attribution of fluoridation to the decline in cavities hurts their case, regardless of the reality of the matter.
It’s a Matter of Choice ~ Your vote matters a great deal
Smaller local governments provide their residents, as JoAnne mentions above, with something more closely resembling democracy. And democracy has a way of questioning the establishment and making positive changes. So when your city or town meets to discuss the fluoridation issue, please go, listen and vote. You can make a difference.
Thanks for Reading,
Michael Foley ~ West Gloucester
PS: Joey…Thank you for publishing Both Sides!
LikeLiked by 2 people
Meanwhile Israel, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of both the United Kingdom and Spain no longer (or never did) fluoridate. Australian cities are dropping it left and right. Even the ultra-conservative city of Dallas, Texas recently voted to drop it. Because it’s an industrial waste with very little regulation coming from China (this is not hyperbole, and easy to verify–even China does not use it). I vote choice. Fluoride in my toothpaste (which I can spit out), not in my water. Especially for those folks on dialysis, have allergic reactions, etc. Where is their choice? We absolutely should be given the choice to vote on it.
LikeLike
A fundamental right to know and to choose
We all now have the right to know what medications we are taking and there potential harmful side-effects. An then we have the right to choose to ingest them or not. Why should fluoride be any different? Vote to have the choice to decide for yourself.
LikeLike