Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Free Fluoride?

It doesn't get any better than this, does it?

I'd never thought all that much about how this water fluoridation proposal would be paid for. Now, the Times- Standard tells us that, while the Humboldt Bay Municipal Water District can fluoridate a community's water against the community's will, they can't charge unwilling customers for the fluoridation. By unwilling customers I would think they're referring to communities like Manila that recently voted against fluoridation of their water, not individual households.

So think about it: Even if you want your water fluoridated, you should vote NO, assuming you get the opportunity to vote on the issue. That way, if the NO vote wins in your community, the ratepayers in the communities that voted Yes have to pay for it, you don't.

Who says there's no such thing as a free lunch? Of course, if you're against water fluoridation, I guess you wouldn't be happy with what's being served.


At 12:47 PM, Blogger Kym said...

Ouch! Great punchline! In fact, excellently written.

At 2:15 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Thanx, Kym.

I've actually been thinking about this and love the way that would work: Only the people that want it pay for it.

We should do that more often. How about we start off with the proposal for mandatory garbage pick- up in Eureka. Let's get the city council to put it on the ballot.

I personally think such a proposal would get creamed if it was voted on, but let's give it a try. The deal is, if it passes, whoever votes for mandatory pick- up, gets to pay for it.

Then, the city figures out the cost and spreads it out amongst all the yea voters. Then, they can include the garbage bill with their water bill.

That should make everybody happy, right?

At 6:16 AM, Blogger nyscof said...

In a statement first released August 9, 2007, over 1,500 professionals urge Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. (http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html)

Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.

Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, www.fluorideaction.org/congress .

“The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.

The Professionals’ Statement also references:

-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.
-- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.
-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.
-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.
-- The silicofluoride chemicals used for fluoridation are contaminated industrial waste and have never been FDA- approved for human ingestion.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”

Further, researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (1)

In New York State, Cobeskill stopped 54 years of fluoridation in 2007, the Central Bridge Water District stopped fluoridation in 2006, Homer in 2005, Canton in 2003. Oneida rejected fluoridation in 2002. Ithaca rejected fluoridation in 2002. Johnstown rejected it in 1999. Before that several towns in Nassau County stopped fluoridation. Suffolk County rejected fluoridation in the 1990's.

On October 2, 2007 Juneau Alaska voters rejected fluoridation despite the American Dental Association's $150,000 political campaign to return fluoride into the water supply after the legislative body voted it out.

Many communities rejected or stopped fluoridation over the years. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/communities.htm

SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network http://www.FluorideAction.Net


(1) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007


Post a Comment

<< Home