How sad that the fluoride debate turned into ad hominem attacks against those who are against fluoridation.
This is especially disconcerting when these remarks were directed at Eloise Kailin — a steadfast, courageous advocate for the general public.
She has a history of being a precise scientist, so suggesting “fake science” is totally unwarranted and imprecise.
Environmental exposure research is ever-evolving.
We are still learning how to study the 82,000 commercial chemicals in use as well as metals and inorganic compounds such as fluoride.
At that, only a few dozen have been studied even inadequately.
The sources for exposure to fluoride include tap water, beverages, ambient air levels and pesticides.
Just who is calculating the total exposure for individuals?
People affected by kidney and/or bone diseases may not want to further stress those organs with even more fluoride.
Will the city be delivering water that is safe for them?
Will people who do suffer ill effects be guaranteed health care?
Of course not. In my opinion, this is a free-from-liability decision the city will make.
In the meantime, while prevention practices languish for fluoride and other toxic substances, our society will invest elsewhere: more special education classes, bigger and nicer cathedrals for cancer treatment, more dialysis centers and higher medical costs.
Choose fluoride toothpaste, reduce dietary sweets and get fluoride treatments at the dentist.
Do not force this substance on everyone.