NEWS RELEASE
For immediate release: 4 March 2009
For more information contact: Jack Cook, jcook56050@aol.comFor immediate release: 4 March 2009
Nashville Receives Budget Proposal
That Could Save More Than $412,000
By Ending Fluoridation
Fluoridation is Voluntary in Tennessee and Controversial
NASHVILLE - The repercussions of Nashville's looming budget shortfall are prompting city departments to consider cuts to a broad variety of programs. The City has solicited suggestions for savings from citizens.
One recently submitted proposal is from East Nashville resident Jack Cook, who has compiled and submitted to the Mayor's Office of Management and Finance and to all City Council members a plan to save more than $412,000 in the next fiscal year and beyond by ending water fluoridation. A resident of East Nashville, Cook, who is an activist against the practice of water fluoridation, has included recent documents by qualified scientists and researchers who have been actively warning municipalities across the United States and other fluoridated countries of the adverse health effects associated with the substance. Cook has been researching fluoride since 2007 when he discovered the true nature of the neurotoxin, and has interviewed many of the scientists and researchers whose papers are included in his proposal. He is a member of the Fluoride Action Network, a non-profit organization that is actively engaged in educating the public about this unnecessary and risky program.
Water fluoridation began in Nashville in May of 1953, and was heavily promoted by the U. S. Public Health Service even before several major public trials were completed.
After researching the issue in 2006, Dr. Joey Hensley, who is the only practicing physician and member of the State Legislature, issued a letter to every water utility in the State of Tennessee asking them to cease their fluoridation programs. Although more than 18 water utilities have complied, the fluoride and dental lobby, Centers for Disease Control, and American Dental Association continue to strongly support fluoridation despite mounting evidence of long term health problems associated with very small concentrations that are intentionally placed in public drinking water.
One recently submitted proposal is from East Nashville resident Jack Cook, who has compiled and submitted to the Mayor's Office of Management and Finance and to all City Council members a plan to save more than $412,000 in the next fiscal year and beyond by ending water fluoridation. A resident of East Nashville, Cook, who is an activist against the practice of water fluoridation, has included recent documents by qualified scientists and researchers who have been actively warning municipalities across the United States and other fluoridated countries of the adverse health effects associated with the substance. Cook has been researching fluoride since 2007 when he discovered the true nature of the neurotoxin, and has interviewed many of the scientists and researchers whose papers are included in his proposal. He is a member of the Fluoride Action Network, a non-profit organization that is actively engaged in educating the public about this unnecessary and risky program.
Water fluoridation began in Nashville in May of 1953, and was heavily promoted by the U. S. Public Health Service even before several major public trials were completed.
After researching the issue in 2006, Dr. Joey Hensley, who is the only practicing physician and member of the State Legislature, issued a letter to every water utility in the State of Tennessee asking them to cease their fluoridation programs. Although more than 18 water utilities have complied, the fluoride and dental lobby, Centers for Disease Control, and American Dental Association continue to strongly support fluoridation despite mounting evidence of long term health problems associated with very small concentrations that are intentionally placed in public drinking water.
Fluoridation is voluntary in Tennessee and not mandated by law.
"In these times of economic stress, it is simply ludicrous to continue fluoridation when anyone can easily buy fluoride toothpaste at the super market," states Cook. " We are overloaded with fluoride because it is in our foods, our cold drinks, and anything processed with tap water. We give it to our pets, water our grass and gardens with it, and run it down the drain where it eventually ends up in our rivers and streams as a pollution hazard. It doesn't just go away. I now drink and cook with distilled water that my family makes at home because you can't simply filter out fluoride. I do not want this poison in my family's drinking water, but Metro refuses to remove it or even acknowledge the many scientific studies linking it to endocrine problems, bone fractures, fluorosis, thyroid problems, lowered IQ among children, osteoarthritis, and many other known adverse effects. Citizens of Nashville and other cities across the nation have no choice. The introduction of fluoride into our drinking water, a very potent neurotoxin once used in rat poison and pesticides, amounts to involuntary mass medication of our citizens with no prescription or monitoring by a qualified and licensed medical practitioner. It is clearly illegal under Tennessee state law. Although Nashville has placed approximately 1 part per million in our water for sixty years now, the danger lies in fluoride's accumulative effects. People in Davidson County rarely think about, much less understand the issue.
Even though our mayor and our council have been alerted to these problems, the Davidson County Health Department continues to endorse a practice that is essentially illegal in every state in our nation. And, they do so using old, tired and intentionally misleading information that is in most cases copied straight from the talking points used by the Centers for Disease Control Oral Health Division. Rather than spending money on proven programs for individuals who cannot afford professional dental care, it seems our health officials prefer to defend and protect the fluoridation program at all costs and by any means necessary. It makes no scientific sense and is criminal at best.
For more information about harm from ingested fluorides and fluoridation visit
The Fluoride Action Network is a non-profit, international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.
"In these times of economic stress, it is simply ludicrous to continue fluoridation when anyone can easily buy fluoride toothpaste at the super market," states Cook. " We are overloaded with fluoride because it is in our foods, our cold drinks, and anything processed with tap water. We give it to our pets, water our grass and gardens with it, and run it down the drain where it eventually ends up in our rivers and streams as a pollution hazard. It doesn't just go away. I now drink and cook with distilled water that my family makes at home because you can't simply filter out fluoride. I do not want this poison in my family's drinking water, but Metro refuses to remove it or even acknowledge the many scientific studies linking it to endocrine problems, bone fractures, fluorosis, thyroid problems, lowered IQ among children, osteoarthritis, and many other known adverse effects. Citizens of Nashville and other cities across the nation have no choice. The introduction of fluoride into our drinking water, a very potent neurotoxin once used in rat poison and pesticides, amounts to involuntary mass medication of our citizens with no prescription or monitoring by a qualified and licensed medical practitioner. It is clearly illegal under Tennessee state law. Although Nashville has placed approximately 1 part per million in our water for sixty years now, the danger lies in fluoride's accumulative effects. People in Davidson County rarely think about, much less understand the issue.
Even though our mayor and our council have been alerted to these problems, the Davidson County Health Department continues to endorse a practice that is essentially illegal in every state in our nation. And, they do so using old, tired and intentionally misleading information that is in most cases copied straight from the talking points used by the Centers for Disease Control Oral Health Division. Rather than spending money on proven programs for individuals who cannot afford professional dental care, it seems our health officials prefer to defend and protect the fluoridation program at all costs and by any means necessary. It makes no scientific sense and is criminal at best.
For more information about harm from ingested fluorides and fluoridation visit
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
The Fluoride Action Network is a non-profit, international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures.
#####
The text of the Budget Proposal
Submitted to:
Metropolitan Nashville Office of the Mayor
Office of Management and Budget
Metro Courthouse
1 Public Square
Nashville, TN. 37201
From:
Jack Cook
jcook56050(at)aol(dot)com
A Proposal for Metro Water Services to Eliminate the Fluoridation Program
from Nashville and Davidson County Utilities
Minimum savings: $412,068
3 March 2009
The Problem
In the last two quarters of fiscal year 2008, a surge in energy prices, a failing home mortgage system, and a rapidly falling stock market created a cascade of decreasing commerce with resultant decreases in tax revenue streams to city governments across the country and the world. Municipalities have been particularly challenged by issues of decreasing revenue while being forced to exert pressure on government service departments to decrease budgetary requests for the following fiscal year to make up for inevitable shortfalls. This issue has forced service departments to make cuts to every area of operations up to and including personnel. Continuing budget cuts create the very real problem of choosing the best of several previously unacceptable options in order to provide a reasonable response to the needs of constituents who have come to expect a certain level of service from government. This also leaves open some options that may have remained unnoticed or for which the previously perceived need did not match the actual practical value of continuing the service. It is that conundrum of perceived need versus actual practical value that this proposal is aimed.
Proposed Budget Cut
The proposal is that of terminating the fluoridation program currently in operation at all water utilities under Metro Water Services. By the estimate of Metro Water Services, the savings generated by cessation of the fluoridation program would amount to a minimum of $412,068 from the next budget year. (see letter from Metro Water Services) Due to the emerging possibility of lawsuits against Metro Government or other government agencies from litigants claiming harm from fluoride exposure, the true cost savings may be much higher in future budgets.
Purpose
1) To save financial resources for the government of Metro - Davidson County so that those funds may be placed in more useful and efficient programs or save jobs which might otherwise be terminated.
2) To take advantage of a growing trend in the United States whereby municipalities are revisiting the program of water fluoridation with a renewed interest in emerging scientific data strongly suggesting that the practice of water fluoridation is inefficient, medically risky, and therefore unnecessary for the overall purpose for which it was originally intended at inception, that being the introduction of fluoride into the diets of children whose teeth were to benefit directly by the process of remineralization by the fluoride ion in order to harden teeth and prevent cavitation. If implemented, the elimination of the fluoride program will allow for the application of the Precautionary Principle, whereby a program that is in question will be ceased until unbiased scientific investigation determines it to be safe.
3) To initiate an action that may be compatible with Mayor Karl Dean's Executive Order no. 025, or the Healthy Nashville Initiative. Specifically, under section IV.2.a-b wherein it is the responsibility of the Healthy Nashville Leadership Council for "assessing health systems for essential services, and assessing potential forces of change" while "Establishing strategic priorities and mobilizing community initiatives to achieve improvements in health."
4) To bring this information to the attention of government officials of Metropolitan Nashville - Davidson County who might otherwise never be fully informed about the issue.
4) To bring this information to the attention of government officials of Metropolitan Nashville - Davidson County who might otherwise never be fully informed about the issue.
History
The operation of fluoridation programs in Nashville began in 1953 during a period when such programs were being heavily promoted by the Public Health Service of the United States. The USPHS began promoting fluoridation even though the original trial programs were never completed. In 1938, H. Trendley Dean and the USPHS conducted the "Galesburg-Quincy" study, one of the two studies upon which the practice of water fluoridation would rest (the other is the "21 cities" study, done in 1939 and 1940). On these two studies rested the "fluorine-dental caries hypothesis" which was tested in experiments at Grand Rapids, Michigan, Newburgh, New York, and Brantford, Ontario. Those trials were never actually completed before fluoridation began in other cities.
Note: These studies were later examined by non-government expert statisticians, and found to be statistically flawed, as well as having a significant number of other serious problems, making the studies worthless.
These programs, that are operated in most major municipalities across the country fluoridate the water of approximately two-thirds of the population of the United States. Most utilities began the program without unbiased and thorough scientific review and without fully informing the population in whose water the substance was to be placed.
These programs, that are operated in most major municipalities across the country fluoridate the water of approximately two-thirds of the population of the United States. Most utilities began the program without unbiased and thorough scientific review and without fully informing the population in whose water the substance was to be placed.
The substances used most often in fluoridation are fluorides that are readily available from industrial sources. That used most often in the United States is fluorosilicic acid, which has not been approved as a drug by the FDA, although it is used by water utilities as a medication to change the human body in some way. All other chemicals used in water treatment are added to make water safe from bacteria and suspended solids. Use of a non-approved medication in the water of an entire population constitutes mass medication without measured dosage and without prescription by a qualified and licensed medical doctor. The practice is ultimately illegal under Tennessee law and a contradiction of the Nuremburg Code. All subsequent medical codes have their origins in the Nuremburg Code, and though their wording may vary, they all incorporate the basic requirement that routine medical research and procedures must be done with the voluntary cooperation of the subjects, who must be fully informed of the risks and benefits of the medical procedures in which they are involved. A state's interest may legitimately override that of the individual if failure to act will expose the population to a potentially life-threatening and contagious disease. Tooth decay does not qualify as such, and in fact, there are alternate forms of treatment for cavitation that are both individual and effective in both preventing and treating the disease as seems to be indicated by European countries that do not fluoridate, yet continue to see oral health that is comparable or better than that of the United States.
Due to the sometimes overwhelming complexity of the subject, several papers by qualified and credentialed individuals have been included with this proposal that cover both the scientific and legal arguments that demonstrate the practice of fluoridation is completely unnecessary and, in fact, illegal in its application. In order to facilitate a quick reference for the purposes of this document, the following is provided:
Major Arguments Against the Practice of Fluoridation
The level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is extremely low. At 0.004 ppm it is 250 times less than the average level added in fluoridation programs (1 ppm = 1 milligram per liter). Based on this single fact, it is extremely unlikely that the baby or infant needs fluoride to develop healthy teeth or any other tissue. To suggest otherwise is tantamount to saying that evolution screwed up on an infant’s dietary needs. In addition, it poses another question. Did nature have some reason to keep fluoride away from the infant? Put another way, is it not reckless to give to a bottle fed baby 250 times more fluoride, a known toxic substance - than it would otherwise get from mothers milk?
Mechanism of benefit is topical not systematic. Even ardent promoters of fluoridation like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) now admit that the predominant benefits of fluoride – if any – are topical not systemic (CDC, 1999). It makes no sense to expose every tissue in the body to a toxic substance in order to deliver fluoride to a tissue that can be reached easily using topical means such as fluoridated toothpaste. Especially so since fluoridated toothpaste is universally available.
No difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. The fact that today, according to World Health Organization (WHO) figures, we cannot see significant differences in tooth decay in 12-year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. suggests that even if swallowing fluoride reduced tooth decay, it is not the most important factor out of many that can influence dental health. So why take the extreme measure of forcing fluoride on the whole population via the water supply? Clearly, other countries have found alternative methods of dealing with tooth decay in their populations.
No Margin of safety. There is absolutely no question that fluoride can damage health. Hundreds of studies in India, China and other countries with high natural levels of fluoride in their water, demonstrate this fact. The key issue in this debate is whether or not there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses that cause these health effects and the full range of doses people will get in a fluoridated area. In addition, that margin of safety would need to be sufficient to protect for the whole range of sensitivity expected for any toxic substance in a human population which contains, the very young, the very old, those with impaired kidney function, and those who have a poor diet, including borderline or outright iodine deficiency. By no stretch of the imagination is there an adequate margin of safety to protect for either the range of dose or the range of sensitivity, and certainly not both.
Fluoridation violates the Precautionary Principle. When we are exposing a whole population to a known highly toxic substance, if we wait for scientific proof of harm, so strong that not even invested interests can object to it, then it will be too late for millions of people if the warning signals prove to be valid. Thus a prudent public policy demands that we consider probabilities. How strong are the warning signals? We must look at the weight of evidence and make a judgment call. We must weigh the risks and benefits. How serious are the end points if we are right? How great are the loss in benefits if we are wrong? Our judgment is that a) the warning signals are strong for several adverse health effects, b) these adverse health effects are very serious, c) because there are safer and more appropriate alternatives, the evidence that ending this practice will lead to a negative outcome is small to non-existent. Thus fluoridation violates the Precautionary Principle.
Fluoridation violates the individual’s right to informed consent. In the unlikely event that it could be demonstrated that swallowing fluoride was both safe and effective, whether someone does so or not should be an individual or parental decision. While it may be attractive for public health enthusiasts to have the unusual short cut of putting this medicine in the public water system, thereby circumventing possible individual or parental neglect on this matter, taking that short cut is unethical. It simply violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medication. This is a precious ethical principle of modern medical practice derived from the Nuremberg Code from which all states have fashioned their guidelines on medical ethics. Here is an excerpt from the code:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiated, directs, or engaged in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.
Fluoridation is a violation of Tennessee State law. By definition, fluoride is a non-approved (FDA) legend drug with toxic properties for which a prescription is required for dispensing by a qualified and licensed medical doctor. Fluoridating community water systems in Tennessee are dispensing and administering industrial grade products rather than pharmaceutical grade products. The State of Tennessee Department of Health, Oral Health Division clearly states in its web site that the purpose of adding fluoride is to create a physiological change in the human body for the purpose of preventing cavitation in teeth, thus clearly defining its use as a legend drug under the Tennessee Code of law. Every aspect of the use of legend drugs in Tennessee is assigned to the Tennessee Board of Pharmacy. By adding hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride to its customer's drinking water with no measured dosage per individual and no monitoring or prescription by qualified medical personnel, Metro Water Services is in clear violation of Tennessee statutes. Though multiple statutes apply under Chapter 53, a clear violation can be seen under 53-10-105 concerning the possession of a drug without having a prescription issued by a licensed medical practitioner or those listed under the exceptions.
Included Papers
The following response is from Metro Water Services in answer to a request for the latest costs for continuing the fluoridation program at both water processing plants in the Nashville-Davison County area:
February 12, 2009
Mr. Jack Cook
jcook56050(at)aol(dot)com
Dear Mr. Cook:
As per your request, Metro Water Services is pleased to provide you with the following information based on our costs for calendar year 2008:
1. Price per ton of hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride. If both are used, give a breakdown of the percentage used and cost of each.
For calendar year 2008, price per ton is as follows:
Hydrofluorosilicic acid: $590/ton
Sodium fluoride: $775.80/ton
Hydrofluorosilicic acid is used at the Unit 1 Treatment Plant and sodium fluoride is used at the Unit 2 Treatment Plant.
2. Price per ton of sodium hydroxide: $440/ton
3. Annual cost of fluoride chemicals.
a) Total cost for all areas served by Metro Water Services.
$343,885
b) Breakdown of cost for each unit serving Davidson County.
Unit 1 Plant: $147,085
Unit 2 Plant: $196,800
4. Annual cost of sodium hydroxide or, if used instead of NaOH, lime slurry.
a) Total cost for all areas served by Metro Water Services.
Lime: $8,343
b) Breakdown of cost for each unit serving Davidson County.
Unit 1 Plant: $8,343
Unit 2 Plant: $0
5. Quantity of hydrofluorosilicic acid purchase: 249.3 tons
6. Quantity of sodium hydroxide purchased: Sodium hydroxide is not added to the treatment process to adjust pH.
7. Number of employees employed full time in connection with the fluoridation program.
There are no treatment plant employees solely dedicated to the fluoridation program. The salaries listed in 9 (k) are indicative of the time it requires to run 24 total fluoride analyses per day, 12 per unit (treatment plant). If our fluoridation program ended today, it would not result in a reduction of staff.
8. Number of employees employed part time including supervisors, maintenance, plant operators, and monitoring in connection with the fluoridation program.
Zero
9. What is the annual cost of :
a) Equipment installation: estimated $100,000/one time cost – does not recur
b) Housing of materials: $0
c) Laboratory reagent for fluoride testing: $18,200.00
d) Hazardous waste disposal of used reagent: $0
e) Building maintenance: $0
f) Maintenance and repair of equipment: $30.00
g) Repairs for corrosion: $0
h) Gathering of samples: $41,610
i) Laboratory research: $0
j) Record keeping: $0
k) Personnel salaries: see h
l) An estimate of the cost of delivery of the chemicals as borne by the supplier:
unknown
m) Other costs: $0
10. Projected total cost to continue the fluoridation program in the next fiscal year.
$412,068
If you need any further information, please feel free to contact my office at (615) 862-4584.
Sincerely,
David M. Tucker
Water Services Assistant Director
Operations Division
Mr. Jack Cook
jcook56050(at)aol(dot)com
Dear Mr. Cook:
As per your request, Metro Water Services is pleased to provide you with the following information based on our costs for calendar year 2008:
1. Price per ton of hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride. If both are used, give a breakdown of the percentage used and cost of each.
For calendar year 2008, price per ton is as follows:
Hydrofluorosilicic acid: $590/ton
Sodium fluoride: $775.80/ton
Hydrofluorosilicic acid is used at the Unit 1 Treatment Plant and sodium fluoride is used at the Unit 2 Treatment Plant.
2. Price per ton of sodium hydroxide: $440/ton
3. Annual cost of fluoride chemicals.
a) Total cost for all areas served by Metro Water Services.
$343,885
b) Breakdown of cost for each unit serving Davidson County.
Unit 1 Plant: $147,085
Unit 2 Plant: $196,800
4. Annual cost of sodium hydroxide or, if used instead of NaOH, lime slurry.
a) Total cost for all areas served by Metro Water Services.
Lime: $8,343
b) Breakdown of cost for each unit serving Davidson County.
Unit 1 Plant: $8,343
Unit 2 Plant: $0
5. Quantity of hydrofluorosilicic acid purchase: 249.3 tons
6. Quantity of sodium hydroxide purchased: Sodium hydroxide is not added to the treatment process to adjust pH.
7. Number of employees employed full time in connection with the fluoridation program.
There are no treatment plant employees solely dedicated to the fluoridation program. The salaries listed in 9 (k) are indicative of the time it requires to run 24 total fluoride analyses per day, 12 per unit (treatment plant). If our fluoridation program ended today, it would not result in a reduction of staff.
8. Number of employees employed part time including supervisors, maintenance, plant operators, and monitoring in connection with the fluoridation program.
Zero
9. What is the annual cost of :
a) Equipment installation: estimated $100,000/one time cost – does not recur
b) Housing of materials: $0
c) Laboratory reagent for fluoride testing: $18,200.00
d) Hazardous waste disposal of used reagent: $0
e) Building maintenance: $0
f) Maintenance and repair of equipment: $30.00
g) Repairs for corrosion: $0
h) Gathering of samples: $41,610
i) Laboratory research: $0
j) Record keeping: $0
k) Personnel salaries: see h
l) An estimate of the cost of delivery of the chemicals as borne by the supplier:
unknown
m) Other costs: $0
10. Projected total cost to continue the fluoridation program in the next fiscal year.
$412,068
If you need any further information, please feel free to contact my office at (615) 862-4584.
Sincerely,
David M. Tucker
Water Services Assistant Director
Operations Division
Legend of included electronic documents:
Documents included in this listing are included as examples of the current arguments against the practice of fluoridation by qualified, credentialed, and competent authorities and researchers.
ASA2008Thiessen.pdf document by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen covering major points, 2008. Dr. Thiessen is the senior scientist for SENES Center for Risk Assessment in Oak Ridge. In 2006, she submitted a fully documented assessment of fluoride's adverse health effects to Governor Bredesen, whose administration has not responded as of this date.
Cheng-2007.pdf Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies, Article from bmj.com publishing, an analysis of public and professional points concerning the controversy, 2007.
Complaint Appendix A Lack of Benefit.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.
Complaint Appendix B exposure.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.
Complaint Appendix C Harm.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.
connett.limeback.pdf Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence. A systematic review, by Paul Connett, PhD, and Hardy Limeback, PhD., IADR 83rd General Session and Exhibition, July 4, 2008.
Fluoridation issues-Thiessen.r.doc Water Fluoridation: Suggested issues for consideration, a listing of issues for concern about water fluoridation by one of the authors of the National Research Council's report; Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, 2006.
NTEU CHAPTER 280 statement.doc, Why EPA Headquarters' Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation, Statement against water fluoridation by the NTEU Chapter of the union representing scientists and workers of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D. C., 1998
Risks-benefits-singles.pdf Fluoride: risks and benefits, Disinformation in the Service of Big Industry, by David Hill, P.Eng., University of Calgary, Canada. 1997.
RL33280 Congressional Report on Fluoride.pdf RL33280 Congressional Report on Fluoride, a report from the Congressional Research Service, by Mary Tiemann, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, your attention is strongly directed to the last three paragraphs of this document, 2008.
The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation.doc The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation, by Paul Connett, PhD, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network; http://www.FluorideAlert.org . References may be found here.
Violation of Medical Ethics-Cross 2003.pdf Fluoridation: a Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Rights, by Douglas W. Cross and Robert J. Carton, PhD (recipient of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for 2000), 2003.
Copies of these documents will be sent by request from jcook56050(at)aol(dot)com
An Addendum to the above presentation:
Consider that less than one percent of the water in our water utility system is actually used for drinking. The vast majority of our water is used for cleaning, cooking, industrial processes, watering lawns and many others that have nothing at all to do with ingestion. Most of our water ends up going down the drain or back into the environment where it once again becomes an unacknowledged pollutant. The substance does not magically go away. It accumulates in the ecosystem causing damage that has not been studied or evaluated.
Therefore, only a very small quantity of the fluoride substance actually reaches its intended demographic (young children as defined by the ADA), and the assumption is that every child will drink the same amount of water per day in order to be exposed to the recommended amount of fluoride. That is absolutely ludicrous on the face of it. Fluoridation (even if it works - and it most assuredly does not) is the most inefficient method of delivering a medication of any kind to a population. It is also the most medically unethical way of doing so.
ASA2008Thiessen.pdf document by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen covering major points, 2008. Dr. Thiessen is the senior scientist for SENES Center for Risk Assessment in Oak Ridge. In 2006, she submitted a fully documented assessment of fluoride's adverse health effects to Governor Bredesen, whose administration has not responded as of this date.
Cheng-2007.pdf Adding Fluoride to Water Supplies, Article from bmj.com publishing, an analysis of public and professional points concerning the controversy, 2007.
Complaint Appendix A Lack of Benefit.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.
Complaint Appendix B exposure.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.
Complaint Appendix C Harm.doc appendix A from a complaint to the Oregon Board of Pharmacy by Bill Osmuson, DDS, MPH of Washington State, 2008.
connett.limeback.pdf Fluoride and its effect on human intelligence. A systematic review, by Paul Connett, PhD, and Hardy Limeback, PhD., IADR 83rd General Session and Exhibition, July 4, 2008.
Fluoridation issues-Thiessen.r.doc Water Fluoridation: Suggested issues for consideration, a listing of issues for concern about water fluoridation by one of the authors of the National Research Council's report; Fluoride in Drinking Water, A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards, 2006.
NTEU CHAPTER 280 statement.doc, Why EPA Headquarters' Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation, Statement against water fluoridation by the NTEU Chapter of the union representing scientists and workers of the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D. C., 1998
Risks-benefits-singles.pdf Fluoride: risks and benefits, Disinformation in the Service of Big Industry, by David Hill, P.Eng., University of Calgary, Canada. 1997.
RL33280 Congressional Report on Fluoride.pdf RL33280 Congressional Report on Fluoride, a report from the Congressional Research Service, by Mary Tiemann, Resources, Science, and Industry Division, your attention is strongly directed to the last three paragraphs of this document, 2008.
The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation.doc The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation, by Paul Connett, PhD, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network; http://www.FluorideAlert.org . References may be found here.
Violation of Medical Ethics-Cross 2003.pdf Fluoridation: a Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Rights, by Douglas W. Cross and Robert J. Carton, PhD (recipient of the Nobel Prize in Medicine for 2000), 2003.
Copies of these documents will be sent by request from jcook56050(at)aol(dot)com
An Addendum to the above presentation:
Consider that less than one percent of the water in our water utility system is actually used for drinking. The vast majority of our water is used for cleaning, cooking, industrial processes, watering lawns and many others that have nothing at all to do with ingestion. Most of our water ends up going down the drain or back into the environment where it once again becomes an unacknowledged pollutant. The substance does not magically go away. It accumulates in the ecosystem causing damage that has not been studied or evaluated.
Therefore, only a very small quantity of the fluoride substance actually reaches its intended demographic (young children as defined by the ADA), and the assumption is that every child will drink the same amount of water per day in order to be exposed to the recommended amount of fluoride. That is absolutely ludicrous on the face of it. Fluoridation (even if it works - and it most assuredly does not) is the most inefficient method of delivering a medication of any kind to a population. It is also the most medically unethical way of doing so.
No comments:
Post a Comment