Fluoride debate heats up


Ted Noftall

1:15 PM

to pat.rice, chris.grahm, Greg, Bob, Dennis, don, Drew, Mayor
 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

[gview file=””]

One thought on “Fluoride debate heats up

  • February 23, 2014 at 8:03 am

    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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.