References, Information and Debunking |
Safety IssuesAround 60 years ago, when water fluoridation began, most research was not very high quality resulting in faulty conclusions. In 1950, Time magazine ran an add stating that 19,293 dentists advised people to smoke Viceroy Cigarettes. The fallacy of this thinking was revealed only after decades of research and millions of deaths. In the June 1947 issue of Time, it was stated that “The great expectations for DDT have been realized. During 1946, exhaustive tests have shown that when properly used...DDT is a benefactor of all humanity.” Similarly incorrect conclusions were drawn about PCBs, MTBE (a gasoline additive), lead, asbestos, dioxin, and Thalidomide. These products were felt to be safe by scientists, doctors, dentists, and government officials—in short, the very people that are most respected and relied upon for safety information. We are still being told by many of these same “authorities” that fluoride is safe and effective, but that ignores more recent and higher quality research showing that fluoride is not safe. The following represent a few of many examples.
Disinformation on Fluoridation
York Report — In September of 2000, the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at York University published a comprehensive review of 3,246 studies on the effects of water fluoridation on humans. The results have been widely cited by fluoridation advocates, including Clallam County Health Officer Tom Locke. This report has been so misrepresented by fluoridation advocates that the chair of the group that conducted the review was prompted to write an open letter stating:
Despite studies such as this, the Port Angeles Water Fluoridation Fact Sheet states that “Community water fluoridation adjustment is effective. It prevents cavities in people of all ages.” They further claim “Fluoridation is safe. There is overwhelming support from the scientific and medical communities.” The British Dental and Medical Associations
American Dental Association Misrepresentations
What Others Are DoingCities That Rejected Fluoridation—Cessation or Rejection of Fluoridation, Since 1990-partial list updated April 8, 2008. Countries That Do Not Fluoridate Water—May 1, 2008 Keith Wollen and Paul Lamoureux Ethical ConsiderationsScience and Ethics of Water Fluoridation—Journal of the Canadian Dental Ass'n. 2001, Vol. 67 No.10: 578-580 ” It is our contention that water fluoridation, by the very nature of the way it is administered, engenders a number of moral dilemmas that do not admit to any easy solution. In this paper, we attempt to elucidate the particular problems posed by this public health initiative, according to the principles of bioethics.” Fluoridation: A Violation of Medical Ethics and Human Rights—Douglas Cross and R. J. Carton, Ph.D. International Journal of Public Health: 2003:9:24-29. From the introduction: “Silicofluorides, widely used in water fluoridation, are unlicensed medicinal substances, administered to large populations without informed consent or supervision by a qualified medical practitioner. Fluoridation fails the test of reliability and specificity, and, lacking toxicity testing of silicofluorides, constitutes unlawful medical research.” Fluoridation vs. Informed Consent—Michael Connett. Fluoridation Action Network July 10, 2001. “One of the problems with fluoridation of public water is that it violates a key tenet of medical ethics - the principle of informed consent.” Legal Issues & LawsuitsThe Issues: Issues surrounding fluoridation lawsuits in other states and misrepresentations by fluoridation advocates are elaborated in a paper written in 1999. The authors are John Remington Graham, an attorney and law professor, and Pierre-Jean Morin, Ph.D. in Experimental Medicine. Legal Precedent: The legal precedent for our Supreme Court Case is Kaul vs. the City of Chehalis, 1954. A divided court ruled in favor of Chehalis that the city had the right to fluoridate the water via “police power,” according to which the City has the right to protect public welfare. The majority and minority opinions in this case will probably reflect arguments that will arise in our case. Legal Analysis: This article is an excellent analysis of the legal foundation for the argument that fluoridation is justified because the constitution permits states to exercise “police power” for the common good. The article was written by Douglas Balog who received his law degree in 1997. The article appears in the Pace Environmental Law Review, which is one of the first scholarly, peer-reviewed journals devoted to environmental law. |
Laws Relating To FluoridationWashington State Constitution ARTICLE I: DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
Washington State Laws conferring the power to refuse medication by persons in nursing homes, the mentally ill, the dying:
|
Other OrganizationsFluoride Action Network—The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of current fluoride exposures. Along with providing comprehensive and up-to-date information on fluoride issues to citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike, FAN remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that may impact the public's exposure to fluoride. Keepers of the Well—Citizens for Safe Drinking Water. This web site has a lot of information concerning fluoride and the battle to keep it out of water supplies nationwide. Jeff Green, the webmaster of this site, has provided considerable advice and support for our Port Angeles group.
No Fluoride—Another group called Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, based in Mt. View, California, has an excellent and extensive web site with some information not available at other sites. Protect the Peninsula’s Future—A nonprofit public benefit corporation registered in Washington State, dedicated to environmental protection to enhance the quality of life for present and future citizens of the North Olympic Peninsula, since 1973.
|
|
