Protect Skagit County's drinking water : Reject the attempt to force every Skagit County residents to ingest fluoride:
1) The health risks of fluoride are significant. The most common ailment is dental and skeletal fluorosis.
"well-nourished children drinking fluoridated water experienced a dental fluorosis rate of 25%, poorly nourished children experienced a fluorosis rate of 60%" (Journal of the American Dental Association 44:156165 (1952))." Is this what we want for the Bellingham resident's teeth?
There is also the acute danger should the fluoride delivery system malfunction. When this has occurred in other cities such as Hoper Bay, Alaska serious debilitating injury has occurred as well as death. ("Deaths or poisonings linked to fluoridation or fluoride products"). Fluoride equipment malfunctions and other problems have resulted in poisonings in Poplarville, Miss (8/1991); Middletown Maryland (1994); Galesburg, Illinois (1994); Kodiak, Alaska (1993) and many others.
2) Skagit County should reject paying for the initial cost and yearly "Fluoride tax."
Should Skagit County now become like many major cities in the United States where the tap water is avoided and ridiculed and bottled water use becomes the norm?
3) Choice of Medication : The right to decide the medication one ingests is fundamental.
People certainly have different views as to whether fluoride is beneficial or detrimental. However, the right to decide what each person ingests should reside with the person, not the government.
Forcing medication on an entire populace is morally and medically unethical. Who should decide what medications and supplements you and your family take?
4) Any benefits of Fluoride occur when Fluoride is applied topically, not ingested:
When water fluoridation began 50 years ago, it was believed that fluoride needed to be ingested in order to be effective. This, however, is no longer the view of the dental establishment, which now generally concedes that fluoride's benefits are derived primarily from topical application. (2) According to the US Centers for Disease Control, "[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children."
Finally, Skagit County residents will save the extensive costs of having to undergo costly dental procedures to correct dental Fluorosis which is exclusively caused by excessive Fluoride. Flourosis damage often requires porcelain veneers to correct.
See the statement from Dentist Debra Hopkins a practicing dentists from Tacoma, Washington discussing the health risks of Fluoridating the water supply. As mengtioned above, Dr. Hopkins also discusses the fact that Fluoride is only effective when applied topically to teeth, not ingested and the health risks of hip fractures in the elderly and bone cancer in young males increase substantially in Fluoridated cities.
Debra Hopkins, a Tacoma dentist, is a member of the Pierce County Dental Society, the Washington State Dental Society, the American Dental Association and the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology.
Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association opposes Fluoridating water supplies:
"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."
We agree with Dr. Heyd and other prominent scientists, university professors and health care professionals and oppose any effort to attempt to medicate Bellingham residents with Fluoride through the cities' water supply.
We also agree with Lakewood, Washington Dentist Dr. Hopkins who opposes fluoridating the water supply because of health risks of hip fractures in the elderly , higher incidence of bone cancer in young males, and high fluorosis rates in fluoridated cities with speculative benefits.
Many prominent scientists who have studied the matter also oppose fluoridating the water supply such as Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000) winner Dr. Arvid Carlsson due to health risks and ethical concerns. In fact, 14 Nobel prize winners oppose Fluoridating water supplies. The statement of 1500 EPA scientists, engineers, lawyers make a compelling and thorough case against the fluoridation of public drinking water supplies based on the risk to public health. See also St. Lawrence University Professor Paul Connett's comprehensive article "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation." |
