To the Editor:
In the decades since the Newport City Council first authorized fluoridation, study after study around the world has documented serious adverse effects of fluoride. At last week’s city council meeting I cited just one, a large study funded by the National Institute of Health which found that exposure to even small amounts of fluoride reduced IQ in children (rutlandherald.com/ articles/study-deals-blow-to-fluoridation).
I continue to call for a moratorium on fluoridation because there is solid evidence that the risks far outweigh the claimed benefits. Since new science has consistently raised the alarm about this known neurotoxin and industrial waste product, and since a federal judge has twice ruled against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to allow a lawsuit (rutlandherald.com/articles/fluoridation-on-trial-coverage lacking) to move forward to full discovery, the only sane and responsible course of action is a fluoride moratorium. Sadly, even though the city council has been presented with a mountain of evidence counter to official proclamations of safety and been contacted by a local dentist echoing her own professional concern, the mayor and the council have refused to apply the precautionary principle and halt the practice to allow for an independent, open investigation and public debate.
Christopher Bryson, an award-winning investigative journalist and BBC producer, studied the issue for 10 years and presented his exposé in the 2006 book, “The Fluoride Deception.” Maybe the mayor and council members should read it. The writing is on the wall. Fluoride will follow DDT, lead, asbestos and tobacco on the list of things we were once told were safe and beneficial but were found to be horrifically toxic and harmful to public health. Who knew? Sometimes officialdom just gets it wrong. Let’s hope our mayor and the city council make this one right. And soon. Every day more people in our great city are being exposed.
Kyle F. Hence
Newport
*Original letter online at http://www.newportthisweek.com/news/2018-05-31/Opinion/LETTERS_TO_THE_EDITOR.html
Print 
PDF