/Nexus - 1106 - New Times Magazine/pages/0028/image.png)
Page Content (OCR)
6) The CDC's 1999 and 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerms. 6) The CDC's 1999 and 2001 reports advocating fluoridation stand to profit from the public's being misinformed about fluoride. were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much concerns. of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC issue. As with the case of mercury amalgam, it is difficult for DEBATE institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this prac- to the health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if tice in open debate because they know that they would lose that they were to do so. debate. The vast majority of health officials around the US and in However, difficult as it may be, in order to protect millions of other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon _ people from unnecessary harm it is nonetheless essential that the someone else's advice and not based upon first-hand familiarity US government begin to move away from its anachronistic, with the scientific literature. This second-hand information pro- increasingly absurd status quo on this issue. There are duces second-rate confidence when these officials are challenged precedents; they were able to do this with hormone replacement to defend their position, which has more to do with faith than with therapy. reason. But getting any honest action out of the US government on this Those who pull the strings of these public health "puppets" do is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail know the issues and are cynically playing for time and hoping that through wood: science can sharpen the nail, but we need the they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to of "authorities" which support fluoridation, instead of engaging in _ require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book, Scientific recruit their help to put sustained pressure on our political repre- Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the sentatives. At the very least, we need a moratorium on fluorida- Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is tion (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) based upon the exercise of political power, not on rational until there has been a full congressional hearing on the key issues analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?" With the issue of education, we are in better shape than ever Motivations, especially those which have operated over several _—_ before. Most of the key studies are available on the Internet (see generations of decision-makers, are http://www.slweb.org/bibliography. always difficult to ascertain. However, html), and there are videotaped inter- whether intended or not, fluoridation has views with many of the scientists and served to distract us from several key protagonists whose work has been so issues: . o. important to a modern re-evaluation of a) The failure of one of the richest The vast majority this issue (see videos at http://www. countries in the world to provide decent fluoridealert.org). dental care for poor people. of Western Europe With this new information, more and b) The failure of 80% of American has rejected water more communities are rejecting new dentists to treat children on Medicaid. fluoridati on. fluoridation proposals at the local level. c) The failure of the public health com- munity to fight the huge overconsump- tion of sugary foods by the nation's chil- dren, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft- On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue drink machines into schools. Their attitude seems to be, "If fluo- re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other ride can stop dental decay, why bother controlling sugar intake?" national groups to get involved in order to make this the national d) The failure to address adequately the health and ecological issue it desperately needs to be in the United States. effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the I hope that if there are RFW [Red Flags Weekly] readers who damage which fluoride pollution has caused and is still causing, disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a can't, then I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of "pollutant". the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the United e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a maximum contami- States. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without nant level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation represents a defended. very powerful "belief system" backed up by special interests and f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are by entrenched governmental power and influence. oo being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharma- ceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these com- _ Editor's Note: pounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment _ All references cited in this article can be found at the web as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e., they are — pages http://www. fluoridealert.org/reference.htm and highly persistent and fat soluble, and many accumulate in the food —_http:/Awww.slweb.org/bibliography.html. chains and our body fat), those organisations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other | About the Author: halogenated products seem to have a blind spot for the dangers Paul Connett, PhD, is Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence posed by organofluorine compounds. University, Canton, New York, USA, and Executive Director So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues — of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). For more information, to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which _ visit FAN's website at http:/Avww.fluoridealert.org. Fluoridation is UNDEFENDABLE IN OPEN PUBLIC DEBATE The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this prac- tice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. The vast majority of health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else's advice and not based upon first-hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second-hand information pro- duces second-rate confidence when these officials are challenged to defend their position, which has more to do with faith than with The vast majority of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Editor's Note: All references cited in this article can be found at the web pages http://www. fluoridealert.org/reference.htm and http://www.slweb.org/bibliography.html. About the Author: Paul Connett, PhD, is Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University, Canton, New York, USA, and Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). For more information, visit FAN's website at http:/Avww.fluoridealert.org. NEXUS + 27 OCTOBER — NOVEMBER 2004 www.nexusmagazine.com