WaterAnd Life.org / Utah
Utah News 2003

Fluoridation Update Letter from Dave Hansen June 4 2003:
Subj: Fluoridation Update, June 3, 2003 
Date: 6/4/03 2:12:13 AM Mountain Daylight Time 
From: dahansen@symm.net 
File: oledata.zip (1006518 bytes) DL Time (28800 bps): < 10 minutes 

Dear Friends,

     Our lawyer, George Diumenti, has sent a letter to the county regarding the initiative petition. We are awaiting the county attorney’s response. 

     I also had another nocturnal visitor at my home who, this time, loosened the lug nuts on one wheel of my utility trailer; the intruder actually took off the lug nuts and turned them around backwards so the rim would ride only on the studs, not on the nuts. By the time I figured out what had happened (on my way to the Artesian well in Ogden to pick up 80 gallons of water), the holes were large enough that the tire could have come off at high speed and injured someone. It just goes to show that people who push fluoride don’t care one wit about human life. My trailers are now tucked (more) safely in the backyard behind a locked fence. This is the third time my cars/trailer has been sabotaged. I take this as a positive reading that we must be doing the right thing.

This letter contains:

1.      Living in a “free” country

2.      More Artesian Well Information

3.      Fluoridation is harmful 

4.      Research Paper by Weber State University Student Karen Porter

5.      Davis County Board of Health says, “Drink it up”

6.      Fluoridation will cause suffering

7.      Tony Blair pushing fluoridation on all of Great Britain

8.      Davis failed to reveal fluoride truths

9.      Letter from Division of Water Quality on Layton’s request for Polluters Permit

10.   Vote again on fluoride

11.   Fluoridation useless against childhood cavities, study shows

12.   Bait and Switch

1. Living in a “free” country

“Forcing people to go to a special tap for their water is a good way to help folks understand what is was like to be colored in a "free" country. And yes, you can quote me.”
Dave Layton

2. Artesian Well information
I get water from the W Bountiful well and just to let you know that well goes dry.  Last year I think it went dry about June or July. 
Janet Kister

Lloyd Selleneit informed us that a Centerville Artesian well is currently available at 1361 N. 275 E.

3.  Fluoridation is harmful letter to editor

 Fluoridation is harmful 

Monday, May 19, 2003

     Your article regarding water fluoridation was interesting. It proves that a slight majority of the voters still believes the falsehoods told before the November 2000 elections. Fluoridation isn't easy, inexpensive, safe or beneficial.
      Thanks to the tireless efforts of our Davis County Health Board, most of us are now drinking fluoridated water. I have yet to see warnings that tiny babies shouldn't have it or that 3-year-olds should be limited.
      The May 2000 issue of "The Townsend Newsletter for Doctors" states:
      In a "scientific study conducted by four prestigious research institutions . . . fluoride has an adverse effect on the brain and central nervous system."
      Having been drinking fluoridated water in Anchorage, Alaska, for 28 years without my knowledge or permission, I recently learned that fact. I now understand why adverse problems began to affect me — arthritis, poor circulation, a heart attack, cracked teeth and a few others. 

John Hooper

4. Research paper by Karen Porter

Thanks, Karen! Karen received an A grade. 

Karen Porter


English 1010

Essay #4

Are We Drinking Ourselves to Death?

Fluoride has been a controversial subject among communities, dentists, and health professionals for many years.  The public has heard from many authoritative figures about the benefits of fluoride.  Many authorities state that the benefits far out way the negatives of having this substance put into the public water supplies.  Dentists have been promoters of fluoride for several years.  They use it in their offices and promote the use of fluoride tablets to children between the ages of 5 and 12.  However, fluoride has always been a safety issue, especially concerning fluoridated water.  While the convenience of fluoridated water generally appeals to the major portion of the community, it is now becoming more and more apparent that fluoride is indeed a toxic substance that we are putting into the public water, and ingesting on a daily basis.

Of course, several studies have been conducted, and have found fluoride to be safe and effective.  Dentists have known of these experimental findings for years, and have promoted the great benefits of fluoride.  Tests have shown a decrease in tooth decay, cavities, and dental caries.  From the book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy, Brian Martin quoted from a dental textbook, which stated the following:  “Fluoridation is the most effective and efficient means of reducing dental caries on a community-wide basis.  It reduces caries prevalence by 50-60 percent in the permanent dentition among children born and reared in a fluoridated community.”  Fluoride was first introduced as a topical method, such as in toothpaste and mouthwash, and the findings from studies show the value of using these products. 

But this is unsubstantial due to the fact that there are no such valid studies.  In the book Fluoride, Barry Grove stated the following:  “A table of studies (from the Murray and Rugg-Gunn book) gave the impression that fluoridated children were compared with children who had not had fluoride treatment.  Proponents claim that ‘over a hundred studies’ prove the efficacy of fluoride.”  He goes on to say that opponents found that thirty-four of the studies don’t exist, twenty studies were about something else, fifty-one were of very poor scientific quality, four could not be vilified, and the last nineteen came from fluoridated countries (none of them showing a scientifically acceptable manner that fluoridation was efficacious) (23-24).  It is also suggested that none of the studies were double blinded (where neither examiner or subject knows who has ingested fluoride). The examiners could be biased toward fluoride, and therefore examining the subjects with that in mind. 

Some may think that fluoride is perfectly safe and that the only known side affect is florosis, which is characterized by staining and pitting of the teeth.  Fluorosis is controlled by the amount of ppms (part per million) of fluoride put into the water.  The amount of 1 ppm is considered safe and 4 ppm’s can cause skeletal fluorosis, which is a disease that can cause stiffness and pain in the joints.  Therefore, the amount of 1 ppm is usually put into the water supply (Martin 25). The American National Dental Association states:  “Fluoride is safe and effective when used and consumed properly.  For generations, millions of people have lived in areas where fluoride is found naturally in drinking water in concentrations as high or higher than those recommended to prevent tooth decay.  Research conducted among these persons confirms the safety of fluoride in the water.”

However, fluoride is uncontrollable in this manner because everyone drinks different amounts of water.  Some people, especially athletes, tend to drink a lot of water.  Safety may be a major issue considering this alone, but there are other safety issues also involved.  The following precautions were found on the back of a bottle of fluoride tablets:  “The suggested dose of TRI-VI-FLOR 1.0 mg Chewable Tablets should not be exceeded, since dental floozies [fluorosis - see above in1st paragraph] may result from continued ingestion of large amounts of fluoride.”  This product and all other brands of fluoride tablets are not available without a prescription.  There are also warning labels on toothpaste, mouthwash, and other fluoride items, stating that the product should not be ingested. The following is the warning label from an average tube of toothpaste:  “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately."  It also goes on to state:  “Use only a pea sized amount and supervise child’s brushing and rinsing (to minimize swallowing).”  Then comes an additional warning to “keep the toothpaste ‘out of the reach of children under 6 years of age.’”  This is now required on all fluoride toothpastes by the Food and Drug Administration.  How ironic, we shouldn’t ingest fluoride products, but we should put fluoride in our drinking water. 

Still, one must admit that drinking fluoride would be easier than taking a tablet every day. Even the poor can afford fluoride when it is used in this manner.  Fluoride tablets are considered a hassle for people to take on a daily basis and can be quite costly.  Knowing the general public, one can assume that most people are apt to forget to take their fluoride tablets.  Therefore, it should be put into the water for negligent people.  In this way, whole communities can have the benefit of fluoride without ever leaving their home.  Children between the ages of 5 and 12 especially benefit from fluoride in the water, considering that’s when they need it the most in their diet.  It is also suggested by proponents of fluoride, that those who do not want fluoridated water, can simply buy bottled water.

But after all, shouldn’t everyone be responsible for they’re own health.  While the idea of fluoridating the water may seem convenient for those who want fluoride, it is forcing ALL of the general public to partake of the toxic substance.  Fluoride tablets are really only about $6.00 a bottle (which lasts a month or more); where as bottled water costs substantially more than that.  Fluoridated water will also raise our taxes significantly.  Davis and Salt Lake Counties have found that the price quoted for fluoridation supplies are in the millions of dollars.  The taxpayers, of course, will be paying for this whether they want fluoride in their water or not.  Opponents are also finding that the poor people, who cannot afford fluoride tablets, have better teeth.  Another problem arises when we consider the elderly, who do not benefit from fluoride, but will be receiving just as much fluoride as the rest of the community.  It’s also a ridiculous notion to have to bathe, wash our clothes, feed our animals, and do other household tasks using fluoridated water.  Is this really necessary, all in the name of better dental health?

Nevertheless, fluoride brings up many health issues for the young and the old.  One of the major issues is that of dental fluorosis, which is caused by excessive fluoride use.  Proponents of fluoride get around this issue by stating that the fluoride put in water is well below the toxic level.  Did you really hear toxic in that last sentence?  Do proponents actually say that?  Yes, in fact, they don’t deny the toxicity in fluoride.  They merely state that fluoride is only toxic if ingested at a dangerous level.  “Would you brush your teeth with arsenic?” asks Dr. Robert Carton, a former scientist at the Environmental Protection Agency.  “Fluoride is somewhat less toxic than arsenic and more toxic than lead, and you wouldn’t want either of them in your mouth” (News Real). 

Indeed, we have a lot of proof that fluoride is a toxic chemical that not only comes from the aluminum industry, but is also considered a hazardous waste material.  Belgium, Ireland, and Scotland have outlawed the use of fluoride, and several states in the U.S. have discontinued fluoridating their water because of its harmful effects on humans.  Many people have suffered from the effects of dental fluorosis, and some people have even died in the dentist chair from allergic reactions to fluoride.  Research is also being done to show the relation of fluoride to osteoporosis, cancer, and premature aging.  Dr. John Colquhoun said that hip fractures and a rare form of bone cancer, called osteosarcoma, were also caused by fluoride (University Press).  Most people also do not realize that fluoride is used to kill rodents by ruining their digestive system, and was “used in Nazi prison camps in WWII to keep the prisoners docile and inhibit them from questioning authority” (Ott.Aug 2000).

Fluoride is obviously a poisonous substance, but we also face the political question of ethnics.  Is it really ethical to mandate the whole community to ingest this medication, by adding it to everyone’s diet, in such a way that we have no control of what goes in our own bodies?  Paul Connett, PHD said:  “Fluoride violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medication, and violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.”  He also brings up the problem of not being able to control the dosage of the patients who ingest the fluoride medication (Red Flags Weekly).  As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation:  “No physician in his right sense would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’  It is a preposterous notion” (Red Flags Weekly).

Finally, fluoride is really unnecessary because children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.  Proponents admit that the benefits are more topical, so we should assume that fluoridated toothpaste is a more rational approach to preventing cavities.  Communities also receive doses of fluoride from other sources such as pop and processed food; thereby receiving more than is necessary.  “If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is .01 ppm, which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water” (IOM, 1997) (Red flags weekly on Nov. 28, 2002).  After we have been given all the facts, it’s hard to see the logic or necessity of adding such a substance to our water.

Therefore, a person must reason out all the evidence to know the consequences or benefits from a fluoridated water supply.  People who are interested in their health should consider the horrible effects that fluoride can bring upon themselves and their families.  A responsible person should take into consideration that fluoride is a medicine and a toxic chemical.  Fluoride is a health hazard and everyone should become aware of this fact.  As stated in News Real, “Fluoride is one of the biggest scientific hoaxes known to man.”  They also ask the significant question:  “If fluoride’s health advantages are at least open to question, why is it still being promoted in the United States?”

Indeed, there should have been a lot more testing before fluoride was allowed to invade the public water system. 

Works Citied

Achievements in Public Health 1900-1999 – “Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent
Dental Caries.” MMWR Weekly 22 Oct.1999
American Academy of Family Physicians. Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies. 2003
American Dental Association. Fluoridation facts. 1995-2003
Colquhoun, John. “Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.” University of
Chicago Press.1997 
Connett, Paul PHD.  “The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation.”  Red Flags Weekly. 
28 Nov. 2002  <http://www.redflagsweekly.com/connett/2002_nov28.html>
Crols, Bart. “Belgium to ban products containing fluoride.”  The Times 31 July 2002
Fitzgerald, Susan. “Some children are getting too much fluoride.”  The Philadelphia Inquirer 
19 April 2002
Groves, Barry. Fluoride Drinking Ourselves to Death. Parkwest:  Newsleaf, 2001
Hertsgaard, Mark and Frazer, Phillip. “Fear of fluoride.” News Real. 21st Archive 1999
Martin, Brian. Scientific Knowledge in Controversy the Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation 
                               Debate. New York:  State University of New York Press; 1991
The National Academy Press “Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus,
Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride.” Fluoride.(1999) chpt. 8:  288-313.
National Pure Water Association. Fluoridation Chemicals Have not been Safety Tested.
August 2002
Ott, A. True. The Truth About Fluoride (What Every Mother Should Know). Aug 2000
Worsnop, Richard L. “Water Quality”  CQ Researcher. 11 Feb. 1994

5.  Davis County Board of Health says, “Drink it up”

In the Standard Examiner recently (just before May 13), there was an ad run by the Health Department (paid for, once again, with your tax dollars) saying, "Drink It Up--Davis County Health Department wants to remind residents of Davis County to discontinue fluoride supplements now. Fluoride at optimal levels in the water will reduce dental caries up to 65%.”

No mention of course to young mothers not to use fluoridated water in infant formula. Why let safety issues cloud the agenda?? 

6.  Fluoridation will cause suffering

Standard Examiner - Fri, May 23, 2003 

Fluoridated water will cause suffering 

Everyone keeps saying we should just shut up and let the voters have their say concerning water fluoridation. 

Those who were trying to get this passed gave false information, with little time for those opposed to put together a counter to their information. They knew that they would have little opposition. 

Now, as to why I am sending this letter: My mother is allergic to fluoride; she cannot even use fluoride toothpaste. She will now be forced to buy bottled water. 

My mom will turn 85 in a week. She is in excellent health, but as you can understand, with my father gone, she lives on a very limited income. Now that income becomes even less. 

You say that the amount of fluoride in the water is not harmful. Fluoride builds up in your system and is not released. Now I get to watch my mother"s health fall apart. Do you think her last years are going to be good? 

I wonder how many people in Davis County will have their lives altered because of this poor legislation. The powers that be should have been truthful in the beginning. 

Joseph Hamblin 

7.   Tony Blair pushing fluoride on all of Great Britain


IFIN BULLETIN: IFIN #782: Pros make a huge UK blunder.

May 25, 2003

Dear All, 

I have no idea who advised Tony Blair to go for a fluoridation push in the UK but it was a huge blunder. The timing, coming just a few weeks after the April 9 announcement of the Basel council in Switzerland to stop fluoridation there after 41 years, was atrocious! Even without this Basel victory, the British public has given no indication recently that it is willing to be part of the fluoridation experiment. 

In Northern Ireland, the councils in all 26 counties have rejected fluoridation. So successful was the campaign there to stop fluoridation that it netted support from all parts of the political spectrum. Moreover, this momentum spilled over to the Republic of Ireland, where the government has been trying desperately to quell the growing opposition to fluoridation there, with stunts like the "Fluoridation Forum" (see http://www.fluoridealert.org for the sordid details).

In Scotland, the idea to fluoridate floated by the decentralized government has met with across the board opposition. See the most recent article, "Scots sink teeth into fluoride plan" at http://www.fluoridealert.org or the original at at http://www.scotlandonsunday.com/index.cfm?id=563752003

In England, the central government has long wished to go beyond the meager 10% who drink fluoridated water, but the privatized water companies would not do so without the government picking up the liabilities. The latest attempt by the British government to demonstrate that fluoridation was "safe and effective" miserably failed when the York University team (McDonagh et al, 2000) failed to find any grade A studies on either safety or effectiveness. This is a remarkable finding since the US, UK and other governments have been funding these studies for over 50 years! Where was the quality control? 

To make matters worse the York team found a 48% incidence of dental fluorosis in "optimally" fluoridated communities worldwide (which is nearly FIVE times the original goal of the fluoridation program) with 12.5% in a category which couldn't be dismissed as "merely" a cosmetic effect. This finding alone was enough to trigger an on-line editorial from Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal, where a summary of the York review first appeared, in which he concluded that:

"The systematic review published this week (p 855) shows that much of the evidence for fluoridation was derived from low quality studies, that its benefits may have been overstated, and that the risk to benefit ratio for the development of the commonest side effect (dental fluorosis, or mottling of the teeth) is rather high...

Professionals who propose compulsory preventive measures for a whole population have a different weight of responsibility on their shoulders than those who respond to the requests of individuals for help. Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply..." (see the appendix in http://www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm)

Even the combined forces of the British Fluoridation Society, the British Dental Association and the British Medical Society, could not sucessfully spin this report into a "green light" for fluoridation. Their attempts to do so produced an angry letter to the House of Lords from Professor Trevor Sheldon, the chairman of the advisory board to the York team ( http://fluoridealert.org/Sheldon.htm). 

When Blair's plans were leaked in a front page of the Sunday Times on May 11 (see article below), it immediately led to an editorial condemning the move (see editorial below) and a promise by the UK Green party to oppose the push every step of the way and to make it an election issue (see statement below).

Meanwhile, the National Pure Water Association continues to provide an excellent web site (http://www.npwa.freeserve.co.uk) for any citizen who wishes to be informed on the matter, and a newly formed umbrella group, the Fluoride Exposure Network (FEN) has just announced a national conference in Coventry on Saturday June 28 (contact: Sue King at <Kings1955@aol.com>) . So in the alphabet of opposition to this undefendable policy we now we have FAN, FEN and FIN , which just leaves FON and FUN!

What will make it very difficult for Blair to make fluoridation happen, is that he will find no promoter willing to defend the practice in an open public debate. There is only so much you can do with one-sided presentations. Needless to say there are pro-fluoridation MPs who will champion the cause in the House of Commons, but I predict that their confidence will whither away when they are removed from the safety of the House and challenged to debate on a public platform against any scientist who has studied the literature with an open mind. Needless to say, I and others are standing by waiting for the invitation to debate, but after the debacle in Washington DC on May 6, we are not holding our breath! Simply put, this practice is undefendable, and the promoters know it. They can only win behind closed doors. The big blunder by Blair is to open those doors and make this a public issue. 

The key issue for those outside the UK is to use this public exposure in the UK to help end fluoridation in other countries - particularly the English speaking countries ( Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand and the US). Of special importance is for folks in Australia and New Zealand to get their own Green parties to take note of the prominent role being played in this campaign by both the UK and Irish Green parties. A visible defeat for this fluoridation-push in the UK will send shock waves through the English speaking world. So with the help of Jane Jones, Sue King, the UK Greens and the British press, we will try to keep our readers informed with every delicious twist of this British saga. 

Paul Connett.


The Sunday Times - Britain, May 11, 2003 

Secret plan for fluoride in all water

David Cracknell, Political Editor

MINISTERS are planning to allow fluoride to be added to all drinking water in England and Wales despite continuing concerns about the long-term health risks, leaked cabinet papers have revealed. They have ordered the controversial move because they believe it is the best way of reducing tooth decay among children from "deprived" areas.

Only about 11% of the population receive fluoridated water and the move is certain to spark a fierce debate.

Although water fluoridation has been proved to reduce tooth decay, critics fear it may also be linked to increased risks of cancers, hip fractures, kidney trouble and even birth defects.

They see it as a form of "mass medication", leaving people no choice but to buy bottled water if they do not agree with the policy. They point out that people can look after their teeth perfectly well by using fluoride toothpaste.

The documents reveal Tony Blair is personally backing the plan to extend fluoridation.

A document signed by health and environment ministers last month concludes that opponents are in a minority and that "this minority should not be allowed to deprive health communities from opting for fluoridation by insisting on an indefinite research programme".

Ministers will introduce the change in amendments later this month to the Water Bill, allowing strategic health authorities to order fluoridation after consulting the local population.

In September the Medical Research Council, a government-funded agency, reported that more information about potential health risks, including links between fluoridation and cancer rates, was "needed by the public to make informed decisions".

The plans are so controversial that the prime minister has agreed nto allow cabinet members and other Labour MPs a rare free vote on the issue. Ministers are confident, however, the changes will be supported by a clear majority, as opinion polls have consistently shown that about two-thirds of people believe fluoridation to be beneficial.

Ministers argue the measures are justified because children in fluoridated areas have much less tooth decay.

A letter from Hazel Blears, the health minister, and Elliot Morley, the environment minister, says: "Those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water."

The letter, dated April 15, is addressed to John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, in his role chairing the domestic affairs cabinet committee.

It says: "Experience of oral health promotion projects shows that it is much harder to establish regular toothbrushing in deprived areas - because of the costs of toothpaste and, perhaps, because of the less-ordered lifestyles lived by families."

The proposed change would transfer responsibility for deciding to treat water away from the water companies and give it to regional strategic health authorities.

Manchester would be one of the first to act. Other areas where tooth decay is a problem include inner London, south Wales, Yorkshire and the East Midlands.

COMMENT Leader: Leave water alone -

For decades a debate has raged about putting fluoride into Britain's water supplies. Dentists say there are proven benefits in reducing tooth decay among children, giving them healthier teeth for the rest of their lives. Some experts warn, however, of possible links with bone cancer, stomach complaints and even birth defects. Underlying that debate has been an important civil liberties issue. Critics say fluoridation shows the nanny state at its worst. Does the government have the right to inflict what amounts to mass medication on the population just to protect children whose parents fail to ensure they care properly for their teeth?

Fluoridation is a controversial issue for the government to take on, having got its fingers burnt on genetically modified foods. At present 11% of people in Britain have fluoridated supplies, in the majority of which fluoride is artificially added. No new areas have been fluoridated since the water industry was privatised under the Thatcher government. The proposed legislation will allow the 28 strategic health authorities in England to order the fluoridation of water after local consultation. There is, however, little conclusive research either on the benefits, or the possible health costs, of such a policy. In America, the shift is in the opposite direction, more than 50 towns and cities having withdrawn fluoridated supplies since 1990. In France and Germany fluoride is added to table salt, but people have the choice of not using it, or of buying a non-fluoride product.

At a time when the government talks of modernising healthcare and transforming the 1948 model of the NHS, fluoridation is a curiously old-fashioned policy, a throwback to the days when people had neither the knowledge nor the means to make themselves healthier. Today, the shelves in every supermarket are stacked with fluoride toothpastes. Ministers talk of enhancing consumer choice but are proposing a policy that offers no choice. Evian and Malvern must be rubbing their hands. If the government goes ahead with the plan, the main beneficiaries will be the bottled water companies.
Letters-to-the-editor, if you wish to send in your congratulations to the Sunday Times is letters@thetimes.co.uk


The Green Party today signalled its readiness to play a leading role in opposing government plans to fluoridate water across the whole of Britain.

Commenting on information leaked to today's Sunday Times, Green Party health spokesperson Martyn Shrewsbury said today: "The general trend in the world is against fluoridation. It's quite incredible that Tony Blair would want to fluoridate Britain.

"Apart from the health controversy, it's against standard medical ethics.Under the European Convention on Human Rights and Medicine a patient MUST give consent to medication, and must be free to withdraw consent at any time. Fluoridation destroys that right."

He added: "Fluoridation isn't even proven to reduce tooth decay. In fact there are mass studies from New Zealand, Canada and the USA that show no difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas.

"All European countries have reduced tooth decay in recent years, with or without fluoridation, but in most cases without."

"Health inequality" is a red herring

Mr Shrewsbury, a Swansea-based therapist, continued: "Ireland is Europe's most fluoridated country, but it certainly doesn't have Europe's best teeth. Birmingham is Britain's fluoride capital, and suffers accordingly from dental fluorosis and from high levels of fluoride in blood and urine.

"The argument about health inequalities is a red herring. Fluoridated Gateshead has the same level of tooth decay as non-fluoridated Liverpool, although the two are demograhically very similar."

Manchester first on the hit list

Manchester is said to be first on the government's fluoridation hit list. Cllr Vanessa Hall, recently elected to Manchester city council in a landmark breakthrough, commented today: "If Manchester is going to be the first target, Manchester Green Party will be first to lead a major campaign against fluoridation.

"We all know that tooth decay is caused by lack of dental care and too much sugar. Fluoridation won't address either of those problems. I shall be arguing for Manchester to have a proper dental education programme for parents and children, because ultimately education is the answer."

Last year the Green Party published a comprehensive critique of the government's pro-fluoridation bias, called Truth Decay: Challenging New Labour's propaganda on water fluoridation. A party strategist commented: "The Green Party is well equipped to fight fluoridation wherever it's proposed.

"It will become a major issue in local elections, and more Greens will be elected as a result. Wherever fluoridation is proposed, there is always massive public opposition. A principled stance by the Greens will pay off electorally on this subject far more than on many issues."

The Greens' Truth Decay report is available at http://www.greenparty.org.uk/campaigns/Fluor3.doc or from Green Party press office, 020 7561 0282.

8.  Davis failed to reveal fluoride truths

Davis failed to reveal fluoride truths

Tue, May 27, 2003

As chair of the Davis County Board of Health and the pro-fluoride group, Utahns For Better Dental Health-Davis, Beth Beck was largely but not completely responsible for the fluoridation fiasco. 

A majority of the Legislature supported changing state law to accommodate fluoride"s passage in Davis County, legislation that did not provide a mechanism for revote. At the time, county commissioners buckled under pressure from the Environmental Health Director Richard Harvey, as well as board members like Montie Keller. The fluoride question should have been put on the ballot in the usual way, a citizens" initiative petition, rather than at three commissioners say-so. 

There are a lot of intelligent people on both sides of the issue. One side is not completely right while the other completely wrong. 

The Health Department illegally used over $10,000 of taxpayers" money to convince us. They used taxpayer dollars to influence my vote. Real costs weren"t revealed and toxicology wasn"t discussed. Risks to diabetics or infants wasn"t disclosed, and water districts weren"t consulted. Cities didn"t do their homework; no one was supposed to ask questions. 

In the end, millions of taxpayer dollars will be spent to fluoridate billions of gallons of water, less than 1 percent of which will wash over teeth. You got the vote you wanted, however slim the margin. But you stacked the deck on our nickel and now you want us to stop whining and be grateful you knew best. 

I wonder, what else did you neglect to tell us? 

William and Nancy Lackey

9.  Letters from Division of Water Quality on Layton’s application for Polluter’s Permit

Department of Environmental Quality

Division of Water Quality
288 North 1460 West
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870
(801) 538-6146
(801) 538-6016 Fax
(801) 536-4414 T.D.D.

Water Quality Board

K.C. Shaw, P.E., Chairman
William R. Williams, Vice-Chairman
Robert G. Adams
Nan W. Bunker
Ray M. Child, C.P.A.
Neil K. Kochenour, M.D.
Dianne R. Nielson, Ph.D.
Joseph Piccolo, Mayor
Ronald C. Sims, Ph.D.
Douglas E. Thompson, Mayor
J. Ann Wechsler
Don A. Ostler, P.E. Executive Secretary

 April 21, 2003

Mr. Lewis Garrett, Director 

Davis County Health Department
P.O. Box 618
28 East State Street
Farmington, Utah 84025

Dear Mr. Garrett:

Subject:  Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) – Fluoride Regulation

We appreciate the Health Department as well as the City of Layton’s concerns regarding the Division of Water Quality’s regulatory responsibilities as it applies to fluoridation of Public Drinking Water Systems. 

The numeric criteria for domestic, recreation and agricultural uses can be found in UAC R317-2-14.  The water quality standard with respect to fluoride has a maximum range of 1.4-2.4 mg/L.  This standard applies to the 1C beneficial use classification of a domestic drinking water source.  There is no numeric fluoride standard for recreation, agriculture or aquatic wildlife beneficial use classifications for surface waters.  We understand the optimum dosage rate in drinking water systems for beneficial uses is 0.8-1.2 mg/L, which is less than the water quality standard. 

In most cases, the Drinking Water System would not be discharging into waters of the state but would in fact be discharging to the City’s Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).  If a fluoride limit were warranted, the POTW would ultimately be responsible for the discharge of the pollutant not the Drinking Water System.  It is important to note that the POTW reserves the right to determine what can be discharged to their facility.  Moreover, none of the POTW’s in Davis County discharge to receiving surface waters having a 1C classification. 

For the purposes of fluoride regulation, the City of Layton need not apply for a UPDES permit.  If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Karin L. Tatum at (801) 538-9336.

Don A. Ostler, P.E.

cc:           Kevin Brown, Director, Division of Drinking Water
                Dave Decker, City Engineer, City of Layton

wq/permits/ktatum/wp/davis county-fluoridation

Second letter (from the same organization, so I have left out the header information that appears in the previous letter):

April 21, 2003

Dave Decker, City Engineer
City of Layton
437 N. Wasatch Drive
Layton, Utah 84041

Dear Mr. Decker: 

Subject:            Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) – Permit Application & Fluoride Regulation

This is in response to your letter dated April 15, 2003 on the above subject.  We were also presented a copy of Layton City’s letter to the Davis County Health Department (DCHD), dated March 31, 2003, describing the City’s concerns regarding the Division of Water Quality’s regulatory responsibilities as it applies to fluoridation of Public Drinking Water Systems.  I have attached a copy of our response to that letter which addresses your permitting concerns. 

However, your letter raised a concern regarding proper containment of chemicals.  Your letter states, “Under some conditions, Hydrofluosilicic Acid, in concentrated form, may flow into the storm drain, which discharges into a natural stream or creek.” We hope that you have adequate containment areas in place to prevent this from occurring, as such a release would not be authorized.  We will forward this letter on to the Division of Drinking Water for their review and follow up with this matter. 

If you have any further UPDES questions as it pertains to the Division of Water Quality, please do not hesitate to contact Karin L. Tatum at (801) 538-9336.

Don A. Ostler, P.E.


cc:        Kevin Brown, Director, Division of Drinking Water
            Lewis Garrett, Davis County Health Department

The second letter refers to the filling connection for the acid containers outside of the building. The pipes eventually corrode, and at some point it will be possible for a spill to occur when filling the tanks. Since there is no catch basin below the filling point, a spill could conceivably occur.

10.  Vote again on fluoride

Deseret News - Tuesday, May 27, 2003 

Vote again on fluoride 

      I have been very disturbed by fluoride being put into our drinking water. This is forced medication. Some have been trying to drink only bottled water, but it is so expensive. Some can't afford to not be "medicated." Don't we already have enough chemicals in the water? 
     Fluoride is not only medicating us but it is "medicating" our clothes, lawns, cars and dishes. 
     Fluoride can also cause health problems. It is made from fluorine, a deadly toxin. 
     I demand that fluoride be voted on to remove it from the water. 

Matthew Behunin 

Link:    Vote again on fluoride 
Address:   http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,505035883,00.html

11.  Fluoridation useless against childhood cavities, study shows

New York - May 29, 2003 - “It may...be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a strong protective effect against early childhood caries (ECC),” reports dentist Howard  Pollick,  University of California, and colleagues, in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry(1).

The dental profession promises steep cavity declines in populations who drink water with fluoride added, especially in poor children who risk decayed baby teeth. “Water fluoridation has been identified as the most highly recommended preventive strategy for early childhood caries," according to the American Dental Association.(8)

But, Pollick, a staunch fluoridation proponent and co-chairman of the California Fluoridation Task Force, found that poor children had the most cavities regardless of fluoridation status.

A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.

Pollick’s team  studied 2,520 California preschool children as part of the California Oral Health Needs Assessment of Children Study which convinced California legislators to mandate fluoridation statewide in 1995(1a).

Without x-rays, dentists detected cavities in 33% of Head Start (HS) children and 13% of non-Head Start (non-HS) children. To qualify for Head Start, a  program for low-income children, a family of four must earn under $18,400 a year(2).

In Head Start, Asian children  averaged of  8.9 dmfs (decayed, missing, or filled tooth surfaces); Latino children averaged  7.3 dmfs; African-American children averaged 5.1 dmfs. While non-Head Start white children averaged only 1.0 dmfs. The U.S. average is 1.4 dmfs(3)

“...the primary sampling units were selected on the basis of fluoridation status: three were fluoridated urban regions, two were rural (nonfluoridated), and five were non-fluoridated urban regions,” Pollick and colleagues write.

“Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water,” reports Pollick et al.

A study of 1,230 Head Start children aged 3-5 years in Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas found that, when the data were looked at separately in rural and non-rural children, there was no difference in cavity rates between optimally and non-fluoridated areas, reports Pollick and colleagues.

The National Maternal & Child Health Association says that in two studies of preschoolers in Head Start and other programs in Maryland and Arizona, half the children were found to have visible tooth decay. Research suggests that in some cases, the condition remained untreated in up to 92 percent of Head Start preschoolers.(7)

Low-income children consume the poorest diets, and are generally deficient in nutrients, such as tooth-essential calcium(4). Another study shows calcium, not fluoride, supplements reduce cavities(5). 

ECC is blamed on putting babies to sleep with bottle or breast; but the link between ECC and low-socio-economic status is stronger(9). “Prenatal deficiencies of calcium and vitamin D can lead to enamel defects, and enamel defects in turn predispose teeth to caries (cavities),” report Smith and Moffatt in the International Journal of Circumpolar Health. “(ECC) may be a consequence of the poor socioeconomic conditions and malnutrition,” they report.

“Fluoride is non-essential. In fact, studies show American children are fluoride over-dosed yet tooth decay is rising in the poor populations,” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation

Federal surveys identify low calcium intake as a public health concern; 53% of 2-5 year-olds consume inadequate calcium(6).

“Tooth decay is another symptom of low-income and/or poor diet, and is not a fluoride deficiency,” says Beeber. “Tooth decay is a disease of poverty. Feed these children; don’t fluoridate them,” says Beeber. “Dentists, fill their cavities; don’t just count them!”

Despite the growing evidence that fluoridation fails to deliver what it promises and wastes tens of millions of tax-dollars, several states have introduced  mandatory fluoridation bills (Pennsylvania and New Jersey) and funds for fluoridation are part of U.S. Senate bill S.1142. Tell your legislators to stop the madness.

Find your legislators here: http://www.congress.org

Contact: Paul Beeber, 516-433-8882, nyscof@aol.com

SOURCE:  NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc., PO Box 263, Old Bethpage, New York  11804

(1) “The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity among California Preschool Children,” Shiboski, Gansky, Ramos-Gomez, Ngo, Isman, Pollick, Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Winter 2003
(1a) http://www.nofluoride.com/needs_assessment.htm
(2) http://www2.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/hsb/2003poverty.htm
(3) http://drc.nidcr.nih.gov/report/1_2.htm
(4) http://www.centeronhunger.org/pubs/obesity.html
(5) http://www.fluoride.org.uk/papers/teotia.htm
(6) http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/foodreview/jan1996/frjan96c.pdf
(7) http://www.mchoralhealth.org/PDFs/HSOHFactSheet.pdf
(8) http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/2000/zappmascolatocrappo071300.htm
(9) Baby-bottle tooth decay: are we on the right track?, Smith PJ, Moffatt ME, Internatonal Journal of Circumpolar Health 1998, 57 Suppl 1:155-62

12.  Bait and Switch

Bait and Switch 

June 3, 2003

    The fluoridation in South Salt Lake City will cost homeowners $2 extra per month, about 10 times what was promoted before the initiative narrowly passed in Salt Lake County. The first question from the public in the City Council meeting May 28 was, "Having passed under false pretenses, doesn't that invalidate the vote?" 
    The second question was, "If the price went up by a factor of 10 after the vote, couldn't the completion date also be slipped back by a factor of 10?" Then we could defeat it in a coming election and avoid the expense. Of the 50 or so in the meeting, not one person spoke in favor of fluoridation, not even to say it was effective. All were personally against it but felt trapped by state law. We all felt hoodwinked. 
    Surely the health department promoters knew the cost before the vote, but quoted an estimate 10 times too low to pull the wool over our eyes. Is that not blatant voter fraud, the old bait and switch? If the price had gone up by a factor of 100, would we still be bound by that result? Shouldn't those promoters be sued for the difference? 
    I urge the Utah Legislature to allow a re-vote as early as 2004. 

   Steve Barrowes 
   Salt Lake City 

 WaterAnd Life.org / Utah