Fluoride debate heats up
|
1:15 PM
|
|||
|
||||
Letters to the Editor
News Journal
The issue of water fluoridation is far from settled science unless you reject the simple premise that scientific knowledge is constantly expanding, and the commonsense observation that few issues in life, as with the thinnest of pancakes, do not have two sides. But that is exactly the premise dentists in attendance at a fluoridation workshop would have the Port Orange Council believe. Dentists are experts in one in narrow subset of human physiology and notwithstanding the enthusiastic endorsement some attribute to fluoridation, valid health concerns with long term ingestion of fluoride are held by experts in other specialties
Health care provides do not dispense any medication to their patients without careful consideration of their individual physiology, and their informed consent. Neither should elected municipal leaders be medicating an entire population blindly with a contaminant that is a waste by-product of the fertilizer production industry, the manufacturers of which will not warrant as safe for human consumption, and that can only be legally disposed in class one landfills, pesticide production and municipal drinking systems.
Fluoride is not added to our water supply to improve its safety or quality, but for its health benefit to the teeth of those drinking it, AND in that regard it is different from other contaminants such as chlorine that is added to improve water quality by killing harmful bacteria.
The decision to fluoridate publically funded drinking supplies boils down to the simple premise that either: individuals have the right to determine what medications they will ingest or they do not; And if they do not then it follows that the government may make that decision for them, AND that the government may be guided in their decision by a referendum, where 51% may decide to dictate to the remaining 49% or 70% to the remaining 30% – is of little import.
The purpose of government is not to run our lives even by doing what it thinks is best for us. Rather it is to protect our individual rights and I would prefer to reserve the right to decide for myself those medications I ingest into my body.
Ted Noftall
Port Orange
(386)566-1424
The issue of water fluoridation is far from settled science unless you reject the simple premise that scientific knowledge is constantly expanding, and the commonsense observation that few issues in life, as with the thinnest of pancakes, do not have two sides. But that is exactly the premise dentists in attendance at a fluoridation workshop would have the Port Orange Council believe. Dentists are experts in one in narrow subset of human physiology and notwithstanding the enthusiastic endorsement some attribute to fluoridation, valid health concerns with long term ingestion of fluoride are held by experts in other specialties
Health care provides do not dispense any medication to their patients without careful consideration of their individual physiology, and their informed consent. Neither should elected municipal leaders be medicating an entire population blindly with a contaminant that is a waste by-product of the fertilizer production industry, the manufacturers of which will not warrant as safe for human consumption, and that can only be legally disposed in class one landfills, pesticide production and municipal drinking systems.
Fluoride is not added to our water supply to improve its safety or quality, but for its health benefit to the teeth of those drinking it, AND in that regard it is different from other contaminants such as chlorine that is added to improve water quality by killing harmful bacteria.
The decision to fluoridate publically funded drinking supplies boils down to the simple premise that either: individuals have the right to determine what medications they will ingest or they do not; And if they do not then it follows that the government may make that decision for them, AND that the government may be guided in their decision by a referendum, where 51% may decide to dictate to the remaining 49% or 70% to the remaining 30% – is of little import.
The purpose of government is not to run our lives even by doing what it thinks is best for us. Rather it is to protect our individual rights and I would prefer to reserve the right to decide for myself those medications I ingest into my body.
Ted Noftall
Port Orange
(386)566-1424
[gview file=”http://52.11.120.211/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/In-Fluoride-debate-Port-Orange-at-loss-to-pick-winner-001.tif”]
As far as Fluoride is concerned I don’t think it matters that much to utilities employees if it is added to the water or not. They just do what they are told to do. I do feel that it is good for your teeth. New research may show that adverse health problems can occur from it’s use in drinking water. There are other ways to get benefits from it i.e. toothpaste and mouthwash. That should be a personal choice.
The city did do a fairly one sided pro fluoride presentation on it however there has been a lot of anti fluoride info put out there by others also. I think that we have seen enough from both sides of the debate.
The use of fluoride should be a personal choice. people should not be forced to ingest substances that they feel can harm them by their local government that has little to no idea of the health effects.
When in doubt leave it out.