0

Fluoridation, streets face city

A public hearing on how to fund street maintenance and a discussion on fluoride top The Dalles City Council’s agenda at their Monday, July 8, meeting, starting at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall.

The public hearing centers on two different measures the council is considering as options for the Nov. 4 ballot. Their initial plan was to seek a 3-cent-per-gallon increase in the gas tax that currently funds city street maintenance. However, at the county’s request, they are also considering participation in a county service district property tax.

The city is responsible for maintaining 88 miles of streets within town and is seeking funds to catch up on a backlog of repairs. Officials want to cover the cost of a revenue bond for $6.1 million with a term of 20 years for repairs and improvements of main arterials and 60 of the 315 blocks of streets within neighborhoods that also need repairs. The tax would yield about $450,000 more in revenue each year.

The county’s revenue for maintenance and repair of 700 miles of roads has fallen from $3.75 million per year to $2.5 million in the upcoming fiscal year. The reason for that drop in funding, said Chuck Covert, chair of the county’s Road Advisory Committee, in an earlier meeting, is the loss of federal compensation for logging cutbacks in national forests.

The joint proposal currently being considered is for $2 million per year, $1.25 of which would go to the county and the remaining $750,000 to the city.

The fluoridation issue comes before the city council as a result of concerns expressed by Robert Boyet of The Dalles during the Feb. 11 council meeting. In response to those concerns, the city decided to provide an opportunity for expanded discussion of the issue.

“It is my belief that fluoride, especially industrial and not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride, is a dangerous toxic chemical, which is unnecessarily added without my consent to my drinking water,” Boyet wrote June 18 in The Chronicle.

The Dalles has been fluoridating its municipal water supply since 1957, when a local service organization purchased the first equipment for the purpose.

“The practice of fluoridation of public water supplies is recommended by US and world health agencies,” wrote Dave Anderson, public works director, in a staff report on the subject. Among those supporting fluoridation are the World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. Centers of Disease Control, and the American Dental Association.

“The CDC lists fluoridation of drinking water as one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th century,” Anderson added.

Local dentists have also been quoted as noting a distinct reduction in tooth decay in children in cities with fluoridated water supplies, compared to those without.

Anderson also quoted the U.S. Surgeon General stating that “community water fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective, equitable and safe means to provide protection from tooth decay in a community” and that “every $1 invested in Fluoridation saves $38 or more in treatment costs.”

Anderson acknowledged that fluoridation remains a controversial topic with opponents citing a possible link between fluoride and cancer.

“However, the American Cancer Society has currently posted information stating that, after review of over 50 population-based studies [and other studies], the general consensus among the reviews done to date is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer,” Anderson wrote.

Comments

emmettgook 1 year, 2 months ago

The ADA and the CDC also suggest that infant formula not be mixed up with fluoridated water, so it's great stuff but don't give it to babies. If fluoridated water is in the top ten, it doesn't say much positive about the value of public health initiatives. www.fluoridealert.org

2

Sslott 1 year, 2 months ago

Emmettgook,

"Fluoridealert.org" is a biased, antifluoridationist website. If you wish for accurate information, I would advise not depending solely on such sites as this. The EPA, the CDC, the ADA, the WHO, and many more, legitimate, sites such as these all have a wealth of accurate information located on them. It takes a bit more effort than simply clicking on "fluoridealert.org" and regurgitating half-truths found there, but it will be well with your time and effort to do so.

As for infants, the CDC and the ADA have simply suggested that for those parents who wish to avoid all risk of the barely detectable, benign condition of mild to very mild dental fluorosis for their infant, they may just use nonfluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered formula, or use premixed formula. Mild to very dental fluorosis is such a benign condition that causes no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth, that it is not even considered an adverse effect. In fact, as Kumar has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more resistant to dental decay, it is not even considered undesirable by some, much less an adverse effect.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

I suggest everyone look into fluoride further than Fluoridealert.org. Steven D Slott, DDS only sited one site. I would also like to add that a dentist is only a DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY. If a dentist is pro fluoridation of the water supply then are you supposed to trust him just because he is a dentist? Are you to trust that individual only on the basis that he has a degree in Dental Surgery? The only thing anyone should trust is their own research and the facts. If the dentist has conducted his own research then he or she should provide their research, documentation and findings before it can be considered a legitimate study. The truth about Fluoridation is out there and will only take a few hours of you take the time to become educated. Please don't take anyones word that fluoride is safe or even harmful (which it is). Look it up for yourself. There is a lot of information on the internet. There are many other sites with way more information. I'm not saying that Fluoridealert.org doesn’t have good information I'm just saying that if people are going to look into fluoride then they need to more research. I will post many sites so everyone can educate themselves on the harmful effects of Water Fluoridation and where the Fluoride comes from and what really goes into the city water. Don’t stop here either, these are just a few sites. Sometimes we have to unlearn something before we can see the truth. The hardest thing anyone can do is admit when they are wrong. I am only a messenger of information and I do not consider myself to be an expert on water fluoridation but I can say that I have done my own research on this matter and now I will never stop educating myself or others.

Look up:

The Fluoride Deception - Christopher Bryson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYl8dD...

http://poisonpaste.com/fluoride-history.php

www.just-think-it.com/f-facts.htm

http://anewsreporter.weebly.com/fluoride.html

www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/1k1/01/fluoridation-time-reevaluate

http://www.abilene-rc.com/newsdetail.asp?article_id=1051&HL=News:Safety%20issue%20closes%20city%20fluoride%20room

http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/afrikan-wholistic-health/40608-fluoride-highly-toxic-waste-byproduct-aluminum.html

Sodium fluoride MSDS http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927595

This is the law that shows that the City cannot fluoridate the water; Fluoride is a drug so it cannot be put into the water supply.
http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148690.htm

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

Of course it's a aniti fluoridation website. If anyone wants to research facts about water fluoridation then that's the best place to start. I also suggest looking up these other sites I've listed at the bottom. They are anti fluoridation websites too but what does that mean anyway? It simply means they oppose Water Fluoridation, the end. It doesn't mean its a website full of lies and misinformation. Is everyone starting to see a patern with all the pro fluoride white coat dentists and activists. They attack the websites that have all the information you need. I wonder what the don't want you to know. Maybe you should take a look and see.

http://www.just-think-it.com/f-facts.htm

http://anewsreporter.weebly.com/fluoride.html

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/01/fluoridation-time-reevaluate

Garrett Wallen, resident of The Dalles OR

0

CHaynie 1 year, 2 months ago

Mr Boyet's ideas are tragically mistaken and are dangerous in that they can easily mislead both City Councils and average citizens to discard what is one of public health's most effective programs.

The fluoride water additive used (I thought since 1956) in the Dalles is not an industrial chemical.

The National Sanitation Foundation standard-60 which defines the water additive grade is more specific and demanding than is the USP standard for medication. The USP also does not provide for independent quality control oversight, the manufacturer is the only guarantor of purity.

see: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#9

The concentration of fluoride for optimal fluoridation is neither dangerous nor toxic. It simply prevents cavities.

Important comparisons between The Dalles and non-fluoridated Hood River show a 70% decrease in The Dalles of operations on little preschool kids for mouth fulls of terrible cavities.. These operations include root canals, extractions and stainless steel crowns and must be done in the hospital under general anesthesia. They can cost as much as $15,000 each.

The benefits The Dalles children enjoy are consistent with good peer reviewed scientific studies in Louisiana, New York, Texas, Scotland and Australia.

Fluoride ions are naturally present in two of The Dalles water sources. Exactly the same ions are supplemented at the other two sources to provide water which is best for oral health

Mr. Boyet's demand to have water his way, to have the "right" to demand a specific chemical composition for the town's drinking water will cause more cavities.

The Dalles Citizens and the City Council should simply say no to the vocal minority armed with junk science and paranoid scare theories. The people who are currently children in The Dalles, especially low-income children, will benefit their entire lifetime from continuing the long standing and successful fluoridation program.

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

You say it SIMPLY PREVENTS CAVITIES but fail to mention all the harmful effects of fluoride. Fluoride is a drug that effects many areas of the human body. Fluoride weakens your bones, calcifies your penal gland, effects the thyroid, your IQ, causes cancer and many other problems that anyone can research if they just take the time to educate themselves. I suggest starting here http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/ and start connecting the dots. There are many dentists and health officials that will try and discredit fluoridealert.org but all they do is provide information for anyone to research. The truth is out there but sometimes you have to find it yourself.

Garrett Wallen, resident of The Dalles OR

0

nyscof 1 year, 2 months ago

Shelly Gehshan of the Pew Foundation distributed false fluoridation information to The Dalles officials in a 7/2/2013 letter. The most egregious is dismissal of Harvard research linking fluoride to lower IQ. (Grandjean et al)

When Gehshan writes, “the Harvard researchers publicly distanced themselves from the way that anti-fluoride groups were misrepresenting these IQ studies,” she uses an error-laden Wichita KS newspaper article as a reference which some believe was ghost-written by Pew’s fluoridation Public Relations guru. Grandjean states the newspaper never "checked their information with the authors, even though statements were attributed to them."

Grandjean criticized the Wichita paper for deceptively attributing its own conclusions on fluoridation to the Harvard scientists. Fluoridation's potential to produce "chemical brain drain," Grandjean writes, is an issue that "definitely deserves concern."

Grandjean also takes objection to the Wichita paper's claim that the Harvard review only looked at studies that used "very high levels of fluoride."

The truth, Grandjean writes, is that "only 4 of 27 studies" in the Harvard review used the high levels that the Wichita paper described, and "clear differences" in IQ "were found at much lower exposures."

Grandjean identifies fluoride as one of 213 known brain-toxic chemicals that may lower the intelligence of generations of children, in his new book, “Only One Chance”

“Fluorides are known to cause brain toxicity and neurological symptoms in humans,” Grandjean says. He laments that vested interests often manipulate brain-drain research and manufacture uncertainties to wrongly discredit scientists’ conclusions and credibility.

Vested interests caused decades to pass before children were protected from the reported brain-damaging effects of lead. We unnecessarily lost a generation to lead-induced brain damage, reports Grandjean.

We don’t want the same thing to happen with fluoride.

When Grandjean’s research team published a careful review of studies (meta-analysis) linking fluoride to children’s lower IQ, worried fluoridation promoters and regulators immediately and incorrectly claimed that only excessive exposures are toxic, the effect is insignificant, decades of fluoridation would have revealed brain deficits (although nobody looked, yet), and that it was probably lead and arsenic that lowered IQ, not fluoride.

“When such a misleading fuselage is aimed at the authors of a careful meta-analysis of 27 different studies, what would it take to convince critics like that,” asks Grandjean.

37 human studies now link fluoride to children's lowered IQ, some at levels considered safe in the US. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/iq-facts/ and that no research on fluoride’s human brain effects have ever been conducted in the US

We don’t understand why Pew continues to distort the truth.

3

Sslott 1 year, 2 months ago

The Chinese studies of the meta-analysis of Choi, Grandjean, et al, were found in obscure Chinese scientific journals. There was information missing from the studies, and there were critical controls for which there was no accounting. It is questionable whether any of these studies were even peer-reviewed prior to their publication, and no one seems even to be able to find English translations of any of them. These studies were so flawed in this manner that the lead authors issued this statement:

"These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard."

--Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

-----http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/files/2012/07/Media-Statement_Fluoride-9-12-12-Revised.pdf

Yes, of course, it cannot be concluded from these studies that no risk is present. It cannot be "concluded" anything at all from them. Obscure, unreliable studies which the authors themselves state do not allow any judgment of risk in water fluoridated in the United States.

Antifluoridationists using the review of these Chinese studies as some sort of "support" for their position, is yet one more fine example of the "science" they claim supports opposition to water fluoridation.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0

Sslott 1 year, 2 months ago

Nyscof, instead of steering readers to your biased website "fluoridealert.org", why not just cite the original studies? Do they really need to view your filtered, edited versions?

When the original, unfiltered, unedited, original Choi, Grandjean study which I cite below, is viewed, it is difficult to see what is the "false information" you claim Geshan distributed. As can be seen from the study itself, the fluoride levels were indeed high levels, not in the concentration range of 0.7 ppm as is used in US fluoridation. As can also be seen, the studies had "serious deficiencies", exposure limits could not be derived, key information was missing and the children could not even be classified correctly. In other words, as Choi and Grandjean stated....these studies cannot be used to draw conclusions about water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm in the U.S.

"The exposed groups had access to drinking water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang et al. 2007), thus in many cases concentrations were above the levels of 0.7.-1.2 mg/L (HHS) and 4.0 mg/L (US EPA) considered acceptable in the US.

The present study cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, as the actual exposures of the individual children are not known. Misclassification of children in both high and low exposure groups may have occurred if the children were drinking water from other sources (e.g., at school or in the field).

Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which limit the conclusions that can be drawn. However, most deficiencies relate to the reporting, where key information was missing. The fact that some aspects of the study were not reported limits the extent to which the available reports allow a firm conclusion. Some methodological limitations were also noted."

------Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang, Philippe Grandjean

http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104912

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

Bias bias bias..... It doesn't matter what this dentist thinks a website is as long as the links to the INFORMATION are there. The truth is easiest thing to find so don't let anyone steer you away from the facts. Follow your heart and the truth will be revealed.

Garrett Wallen, resident of The Dalles OR

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

From what I read fluoride is bad, the end. Next argument dentist.

1

DianeDraytonBuckland 12 months ago

Perhaps the population would be most interested to learn that before Fluoride Action Network which is www.fluoridealert.org had been able to secure the .com for fluoride alert also - that it was most 'interesting' indeed that the American Dental Association at that time, sought to acquire the .com address of fluoride alert before Fluoride Action Network.

So to re-clarify this 'interesting' piece of allegedly devious pro-fluoride manoeuvring by the ADA:-

Fluoride Action Network Professor Paul Connett www.fluoridealert.org

Tutt, Tutt, Tutt American Dental Association www.fluoridealert.com

0

ToothTruth 1 year, 2 months ago

The wisdom of The Dalles leadership to begin fluoridation back in 1956 has prevented hundreds of thousands of dollars and reduced pain and suffering for the citizenry of this fine city on the Columbia River. Here are a few links to cost savings:

Cost savings resources: http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/savings/

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm

http://fluorideworks.org/benefits/effective/

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

I suggest everyone watch on YOU TUBE the fluoride deception and then research the information after the VIDEO. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eBZRb-73...

I forgot to mention that there is a BOOK to read http://www.amazon.com/The-Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583227008/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Check out the reviews and comments http://www.amazon.com/The-Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/product-reviews/1583227008

Garrett Wallen, resident of The Dalles OR

1

nyscof 1 year, 2 months ago

Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing

More than 4,500 professionals (including 343 dentists and 538 MD’s) urge that fluoridation be stopped because fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. See statement: http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/text/

Most dentists are trained to use politics and not science to promote fluoridation, according to Armfield and Melbye in the Journal of the American Dental Association . The researchers write: "Studies of dentists' attitudes about water fluoridation suggest that a lack of knowledge and preparedness are barriers to discussing the topic ... more than one-half of the respondents believed they needed more information and training on the issue.

Armfield and Melbye postulate that: "Dentists' lack of self-efficacy with respect to critically evaluating scientific literature may help to explain their reluctance to promote water fluoridation in their clinical practices." Other studies how dentists don’t keep current on new fluoride science, e.g. this research by Yoder http://tinyurl.com/Yoder

2

Sslott 1 year, 2 months ago

Of the 183,000 dentists in the United States alone, 343 oppose fluoridation. Of the 850,000 MDs, in the United States, 538 oppose fluoridation. Those figures are a clear demonstration of the overwhelming support that water fluoridation has in this country by respected healthcare providers.

New York Coalition Opposing Fluoridation (nyscof) implies that instead of relying on the worldwide body of respected dental, medical, and other healthcare organizations who have the knowledge, expertise, and experience to give credible information, and who are all held accountable for the information and recommendations they disseminate, we should instead rely on that information provided by antifluoridationists who are accountable to no one for the information they post all over the Internet, and who constantly steer readers to their extremely biased antifluoridationist websites such as "fluoridealert.org", instead of to websites such as the EPA, the CDC, the WHO, the ADA....all of which have a wealth of accurate information on fluoridation, readily available, which has not been filtered and edited on on third party, biased websites

Trust nyscof and other antifluoridationists, or the worldwide body of respected healthcare organizations?

Steven Slott, DDS

0

nyscof 1 year, 2 months ago

Actually, you really don't know how many dentists are in favor of fluoridation unless you did a closed-ballot vote. According to a Wealthy Dentist survey, 35% of dentists are opposed to fluoridation - extrapolated out to your number of dentists in the US, it would mean that 64,000 dentists oppose fluoridation.

2

Sslott 1 year, 2 months ago

I'm simply going on your comment, nyscof. You state that 343 dentists oppose Fluoridation. There are 183,000 dentists in the a United States alone. 343 out of 183,000 is hardly anything that would seem to support your position in any manner, your "extrapolated" nonsense notwithstanding. But, I suppose since you guys routinely "extrapolate" effects of fluoride at high concentrations to mean they occur at 0.7 ppm, too, "extrapolating" a few dentists would not be too much of a stretch for you.

How about if we "extrapolate" this.......As I'm sure you're well aware, Paul Connett was very recently quoted as saying that "fluoride in public water supplies has substantially reduced cavities for millions in Connecticut and the U.S.". I suppose that this could reasonably be "extrapolated" to mean that antifluoridationists, as a whole, do indeed recognize the effectiveness of water fluoridation?

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0

kkwallen 1 year, 2 months ago

Steven D. Slott, DDS, do you even live in this town? A search for your name in this local area doesn't bring up anything. Tell me, why are you involving yourself so heavily in this towns affairs? Do you not have anything better to do? Do you feel proud of yourself when you mock or make fun of others? It sure seems like you do. It seems as though you are invested in keeping a town fluoridated beyond just general concern with all of this involvement you are having on a newspapers site that serves a town of 12,000. Why don't you concern yourself with where you live or your own affairs a little more and quit trying to wield your smug, self appointed authority over people trying to inform themselves about what's happening in their own town.

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

All your number dropping tells me is that more dentists and MDs are realizing the harmful effects of water fluoridation and its only a matter of time until more dentists and MDs realize the harmful effects of water fluoridation. I suggest you start looking into anti fluoridation websites too. I'm sure you don't want to be the last one to admit that you where wrong.

Garrett Wallen, resident of The Dalles OR

0

nyscof 1 year, 2 months ago

New Zealand Dentist Blows Whistle on Fluoridation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZy-Ws...

Dr. Anna Goodwin speaks out about water fluoridation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vCgB_PGbTEDentist

Dr. Jane Beck speaks out about water fluoridation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnrO-2...

Dentist Dr. Lawrie Brett speaks out about water fluoridation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ysa51l...

Dentist, Dr. Andrew Harms, former President of the Australian Dental Association, once promoted fluoridation until he read the science. Now, as he explains in this YouTube video, he opposes fluoridation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NEZY2...

Dentist and fluoride researcher, Hardy Limeback BSc,PhD,DDS discusses the drawbacks of water fluoridation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sRWgD...

Dentist Bill Osmunson also once promoted fluoridation until he read the literature himself. Now he is opposed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1...

2

Sslott 1 year, 2 months ago

"YouTube" as scientific references? What, nothing on your other favorite "cite", "fluoridealert.org"?

Does it ever occur to you that in scientific discourse, antifluoridationist websites and "YouTube" do not qualify as valid scientific references? A lot of the readers of these comments are intelligent enough that they don't really need to be insulted by being constantly steered to filtered and edited information. Why not cite original sources and trust the intelligence of the readers to be able to ascertain the difference between "junk science" and valid science? Or.....is that exactly what you fear will happen?

Steven D. Slott, DDS

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

Yes a VIDEO can be used as evidence. Welcome to technology. I suggest everyone watch on YOU TUBE the fluoride deception and then research the information after the VIDEO. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eBZRb-73...

I forgot to mention that there is BOOK to read http://www.amazon.com/The-Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/dp/1583227008/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Check out the reviews and comments http://www.amazon.com/The-Fluoride-Deception-Christopher-Bryson/product-reviews/1583227008

Garrett Wallen, resident of The Dalles OR

1

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

I suggest everyone look into fluoride further than Fluoridealert.org. Steven D Slott, DDS only sited one site. I would also like to add that a dentist is only a DOCTOR OF DENTAL SURGERY. If a dentist is pro fluoridation of the water supply then are you supposed to trust him just because he is a dentist? Are you to trust that individual only on the basis that he has a degree in Dental Surgery? The only thing anyone should trust is their own research and the facts. If the dentist has conducted his own research then he or she should provide their research, documentation and findings before it can be considered a legitimate study. The truth about Fluoridation is out there and will only take a few hours of you take the time to become educated. Please don't take anyones word that fluoride is safe or even harmful (which it is). Look it up for yourself. There is a lot of information on the internet. There are many other sites with way more information. I'm not saying that Fluoridealert.org doesn’t have good information I'm just saying that if people are going to look into fluoride then they need to more research. I will post many sites so everyone can educate themselves on the harmful effects of Water Fluoridation and where the Fluoride comes from and what really goes into the city water. Don’t stop here either, these are just a few sites. Sometimes we have to unlearn something before we can see the truth. The hardest thing anyone can do is admit when they are wrong. I am only a messenger of information and I do not consider myself to be an expert on water fluoridation but I can say that I have done my own research on this matter and now I will never stop educating myself or others.

Look up:

The Fluoride Deception - Christopher Bryson http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYl8dD...

http://poisonpaste.com/fluoride-history.php

www.just-think-it.com/f-facts.htm

http://anewsreporter.weebly.com/fluoride.html

www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/1k1/01/fluoridation-time-reevaluate

http://www.abilene-rc.com/newsdetail.asp?article_id=1051&HL=News:Safety%20issue%20closes%20city%20fluoride%20room

http://www.assatashakur.org/forum/afrikan-wholistic-health/40608-fluoride-highly-toxic-waste-byproduct-aluminum.html

Sodium fluoride MSDS http://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9927595

This is the law that shows that the City cannot fluoridate the water; Fluoride is a drug so it cannot be put into the water supply.
http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ucm148690.htm

1

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

I would like to review your sientific evidence Steven D. Slott, DDS. If you be kind to post your findings for us all to see. This way we can compair your information and others and seek the truth about water fluoridation.

1

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

The dentist commenting here isn't even from The Dalles OR. He doesn't have to drink the toxic DRUG fluoride that is being put in YOUR drinking water.

Slott Steven D Dr Dentist is a dentist at 835 Heather Road, Burlington, NC 27215 http://www.insiderpages.com/doctors/Steven-D-Slott-DDS-Burlington

FDA/FLUORIDE FILES http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/

Garrett Wallen, resident of The Dalles OR

1

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

Oregon Dental Association has a bigger agenda than just keeping fluoride in The Dalles water supply. They want to mass medicate the whole state at OPTIMUM fluoride levels. Optimum means the greatest degree or best result obtained or obtainable under specific conditions. Optimum levels could mean even higher dosing than what they already do with a DRUG that is harming our health. Please don't let them mislead you into believing that the "poor"children need water fluoridation to prevent cavities. I've read paper after paper from health officials talking about the percentages of children with cavities. I want the proof that the percentages of tooth decay are not related to poor dental hygiene and poor diet. Why should I be fluoridated because parents don't feed their children healthy food and brush their teeth. Has anyone ever thought of that? Child obesity in this country is ridiculous. Wouldn't poor nutrition contribute to poor teeth and gums? I'm going to say yes! This is only my opinion but I'm sure if you looked at any study done on obesity in the US you will see an increase in every town. I'm pretty sure after kids choke down a couple fast food burgers, fries, ice cream and coke they are not rushing to brush their teeth afterwards. Again that's my opinion. This is just something to think about when the white coat wearing dentists and MDs talk about percentages concerning cavities and tooth decay.

http://www.odha.org/new/documents/ThecaseforStatewideFluoridationinOregon.pdf

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=1

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/fda-2000a.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/34704.php

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

More on why fluoride should be removed from the water supply.

Watch The Great Culling http://youtu.be/P7BqFtyCRJc

http://www.thegreatculling.net/index.html

0

garrett 1 year, 2 months ago

Shocking results!!! See how much fluoride your kids are taking in daily. http://www.nofluoride.com/school_lunch.cfm

0

garrett 1 year, 1 month ago

There was new evidence presented on the day of the city counsil meeting but they only listened to the white coats that were obviously brought in to manipulate the city council. I suggest you also educate yourself as should everyone on the harmful effects of putting toxic waste into our water supply. http://www.hotpress.com/Water-Fluoridation-in-Ireland/news/Israeli-Supreme-Court-Backs-Work-of-Irish-Scientist-on-Fluoride/10088280.html

0

DianeDraytonBuckland 12 months ago

Let us clarify something regarding FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK (Professor Paul Connett) website www.fluoridealert.org - FAN seeks to broaden awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds among citizens, scientists, and policymakers alike. FAN not only provides comprehensive and up-to-date information, but remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that impact the public's exposure to fluoride.
I am sure many will be disturbed by the actions of the ADA and when this first happened some years ago, it certainly was disturbing to all Truth Seekers; the lengths to which some pro-fluoride fanatics go, in this case, please note that after Fluoride Action Network and the dot org domain was originally secured (fluoridealert.org ) and before Fluoride Action Network could secure the domain name fluoridealert.com - that the American Dental Association (allegedly) deviously many say, swooped in and 'nicked' the fluoridealert.com domain name of Fluoride Action Network's fluoridealert.org
 So to re-clarify this ‘interesting’ piece of pro-fluoride ‘manoeuvering’ by the ADA:- Fluoride Action Network Professor Paul Connett www.fluoridealert.org
 American Dental Association (who allegedly) 'nicked' the dot com www.fluoridealert.com I guess that’s a pretty effective way to impede people and researchers getting truth ! (allegedly) ~~

Brief Overview of water fluoridation/pollution http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/brief-overview-of-water-fluoridation_pollution-11-september-2013-diane-drayton-buckland.pdf

REPORT: 100% fluoridated Kentucky, USA - Rampant Dental Decay & chronic disease epidemic - DDB        http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/rampant-dental-decay-chronic-disease-epidemic-in-100-fluoridated-kentucky-usa-13-aug-2013-ddb.pdf 

Can Dentists & Doctors be trusted when they say Water Fluoridation is Safe & Effective? http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/can-dentists-doctors-be-trusted-when-they-say-water-fluoridation-is-safe-effective.pdf

Download Full Report > http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/report-water-fluoridation-pollution-must-end-diane-drayton-buckland-independent-researcher-14th-january-2013.pdf

0

Sign in to comment