Fluoride Action Network

Fairbanks. Letter: No to fluoride

Source: Fairbanks Daily News-Miner | Data analyst for Fluoride Free Fairbanks
Posted on October 20th, 2010
Location: United States, Alaska
Industry type: NIDCR

To the editor:

Pro-fluoridation lobbyists say “… there are no adverse health effects associated with fluoridated water.” This is simply false.

The fluoridation orthodoxy tolerates no doubt, dismissing opposition as quackery after cursory review, holding faith in “expert opinion” of public health bureaucrats.

Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson is as qualified as any, but is strongly opposed to fluoridation. He believes fluoridation violates pharmalogical principles — medications should be tailored to individuals.

In the early 1990s, the National Toxicology Program found that rats exposed to fluoride were likely to develop osteosarcoma. The National Cancer Institute found that young males living in fluoridated communities were at higher risk of osteosarcoma. Independent researchers confirmed these results.

In 2006, Elise Bassin published peer-reviewed science showing strong evidence that fluoridation increases osteosarcoma risk. WebMD: www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20060406/does-fluoridation-up-bone-cancer-risk?print=true

The National Research Council reported (2006) environmental standards on fluoride are weak and “not protective” of public health, and “… the evidence on the potential of fluoride to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, is tentative and mixed.”

The Center for Disease Control and Prevention website states: “… a large study, based out of the Harvard School of Public Health and due to be published soon, should add important information … further research … is needed…”

Plainly, there is good evidence that fluoridation is carcinogenic. Other studies are inconclusive, so obviously it is not clearly known that fluoridation is safe. It’s imperative to assess this real risk. Nonetheless, policy makers invert logic, saying it’s not obvious that fluoridation is carcinogenic, thus it’s OK because of “no adverse health effects.” Working this astounding reversal of common sense and medical practice is masterful propaganda, but is standard at public health policy agencies.

The Harvard study by Chester Douglass has not appeared after 4.5 years. Douglass is compromised, serving on dental industry editorial boards, and administering National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research grants, a conflict of interest as both groups are biased pro-fluoridation.

Don’t believe everything you see on the internet, especially big brother government saying “Trust me, fluoridation is good for everybody and perfectly safe.”

– END –

See Fluoride Free Fairbanks website