Saturday, September 19, 2020

NDG Readers Respond: Is Dallas water too dangerous to drink?

Photo Credit: Enid Martindale/Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

The debate is heating up over Dallas’s water fluoridation program and concerns local activists and some in the scientific community have regarding possible negative health effects associated with adding fluoride to public water. Several readers of our recent article have shared their differing points of views on this issue. We have referenced a few here but visit the original story and the recent Guest Op-Ed by Regina Imburgia to read their opinions.

Much of the criticism centers around the use of hydrofluorosilicic acid, one of the chemical agents commonly used in the fluoridation process as an alternative to the generally more expensive pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride.

“Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is the additive the City of Dallas uses in the drinking water. It is a diluted version of fluorosilicic acid not to be confused with naturally occurring calcium fluoride,” commented David Norsworthy.

“Deliberately contaminating the public water supply in Dallas with Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is a terrible idea…Its also a deadly poison,” commented Steve Madison.

Claims of the chemical’s toxicity are widely accepted and considered credible before it fully dissociates (mixes) in water; however, after it undergoes the complex treatment process, it is considered by governmental health agencies to be safe.

Despite organizations such as the Center for Disease Control, the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, and the American Dental Association touting evidence that the small concentrations water is often treated with can help prevent tooth decay (specifically in communities that often don’t receive other forms of dental health care), some are concerned that impoverished areas are the most vulnerable to possible negative health outcomes.

“Fluoride discriminates. Dallas residents who live in impoverished areas of the City have older pipes which contain lead,” J.S. Gentry commented. “The Fluorocilicic Acid the City uses in their mix to supplement the naturally-occurring fluoride in our water supply leaches lead out of the old pipes into the water the disadvantaged drink.”

Not everyone, however, is convinced the bulk of public health agencies and North Texas municipalities have it wrong on fluoride and public water fluoridation treatments.

“There is no legitimate evidence of short or long term harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water,” commented Randy Johnson. “That is the reason the scientific consensus of relevant experts that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay and related health issues in a community.”

The debate surrounding the issue extends to health concerns and contradicting studies and highlights the deep divide between public trust of government agencies, especially in light of the recent public water crisis in Flint, Michigan. With the top brass of most public health organizations in the United States publicly endorsing fluoridation and those against the practice continuing their campaign to end it, there’s no question this debate will continue as the Dallas City Council prepares to decide which side it will choose in the fluoride fight.

 

28 COMMENTS

  1. Some still mistakenly cling to the disproved belief that fluoride helps CHILDREN’S teeth as they form. That hypothesis was thoroughly disproved a quarter century ago.
    It is important to ask — exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this toxic chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life?

    Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers.

    Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.

    The whole world is aware of the fluoridation scheme. While 74% of the U.S. is forced to drink fluoridate water, only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their water. China and Japan have rejected it many years ago.

  2. I find that there’s a genuine credibility issue with the Dallas Mayor and City Council regarding many issues, what we’ve come to know as water fluoridation (the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid in our municipal water supply to deter tooth decay) is only one of them. There is a caution advisory on the back of every tube of fluoridated toothpaste recommending you call the poison control center if you ingest too much. Look at the back of the tube of fluoridated toothpaste in your medicine cabinet and see for yourself. Do you see?

    Considering the vast amounts of money the city of Dallas spends every year on what we know as water fluoridation (see above), is it too much to ask for an independent study on the health effects of adding hydrofluorosilicic acid in our municipal water supply? Can we get an independent study that isn’t “politicized?”

    Yet there is silence. I can only imagine the pressure the Mayor and the Dallas City Council must be under to remain silent and maintain the status quo. Maybe this should be discussed. Is there an NGO involved? Who or what can yield enough pressure on an elected body as to remain silent on an issue this important?

    Therefore, I issue a challenge to the Mayor and the Dallas City Council to put this issue to the voters. I agree with the idea of an “actual” debate. Additionally, I issue another challenge to the local televised media to interview Regina Imburgia extensively on the matter. Make this affair a public and televised event or series of events. At the conclusion, put the matter in the hands of the voters.

    Amen.

  3. I do not want fluoride added to Dallas’s already fluorided water. It makes no sense at all for Dallas to spend thousands of dollars each year to add this to the water.
    When in doubt = leave out…..

  4. Too many are ingesting too much fluoride. When fluoridation started, the public was assured dental fluorosis would not increase, certainly not beyond 10%-15% of the public. In 2000 NHANES reported 41% of adolescents had dental fluorosis and in 2012 NHANES reported 70%.

    Dental fluorosis is a biomarker the child before age 6 to 8 had ingested too much fluoride.

    The excess fluoride does magically just go to the teeth. All tissues are receiving too much fluoride for that child.

    The best place to reduce fluoride exposure for the population at large is cessation of water fluoridation.

  5. I had completely missed this article.
    Again, I want to commend The North Dallas Gazette for putting a spotlight on the issue, and also for its balanced reporting.

  6. Dallas Water Fluoridation is actually a race issue.
    Even the CDC admits it, although they initially tried to bury the science. Perhaps it was buried because of the CDC’s history of deliberately infecting Blacks with syphilis in the “Tuskegee Experiment”.

    When one researches water fluoridation, they will note that many courageous leaders in the Black community oppose water fluoridation, including people who were close associates/family to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    More information at http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com/

  7. “While four out of five dentists may be enough to pick a gum, all should agree before we force-medicate the public.” – Judge Peter Vallone, Jr., former Chair of the NYC Public Safety Committee (2012)

    “The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” – Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D. (2014)

    Randy Johnson is a retired database guy from Colorado who is a member of a troop of fluoride trolls who attempt to intimidate opposition on newspapers all over the country. The pro-fluoride disinformation campaigns dismiss ethics, deny science, denigrate opposition, distract focus, and disrupt civil dialogue in order to deceive politicians and public.

    The bottom line is that there are many for whom fluoride is medically contraindicated, i.e. those with inflammatory, immune system, kidney and thyroid conditions. Fluoridated water is also ill advised for pregnant women, bottle fed infants and the elderly. Fluoridation chemicals are also known to accelerate the destruction of municipal infrastructure and homeowner plumbing. Consequently, fluoridation is ethically and economically untenable.

  8. “Hundreds of research articles published over the past several decades have demonstrated potential harm to humans from fluoride at various levels of exposure, including levels currently deemed as safe. Fluoride is also known to impact the cardiovascular, central nervous, digestive, endocrine, immune, integumentary, renal, and respiratory systems, and exposure to fluoride has been linked to Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, and many other adverse health outcomes.” – International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT)

    Download Sept 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use with over 500 citations published by an association of dentists, doctors, and toxicologists from this very user-friendly webpage: https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride-facts/

  9. City of Dallas spends $1.5M a year to buy this poison and then who knows how much to inject it into the water supply. Lets be clear what we are asking. People’s livelihoods will be at stake. Nobody wants to rock the boat. The bureaucracy resists change.The bureaucracy just keeps on rolling. And so we all take our showers, wash our clothes, water our pets, and cook our food with deliberately contaminated water for our entire lives – and we are all charged for the service. This has got to stop. The thing that really needs to happen now is a little community centered righteous indignation transmitted up the political chain to the decision makers in City Hall. As a group, Dallas’ elected officials have demonstrated that they will not listen to reason. This has gone on your years. To stop this deliberate and expensive contamination, lots of people have to get in their faces. At the risk of being censored, I would say that unless the people get PISSED OFF about this and vote some of the politicians out that nothing will change. I wish it could be different. I really do… I’ll leave you with this: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has. Margaret Mead

  10. Hydrofluorosilicic acid is an arsenic laced untested waste from the fertilizer industry. The EPA has admitted there are no Chronic toxilogical studies for this drug. That means there is no studies showing it’s safe or effective. There can be over 20 metals in the drug at one time we are adding and we wouldn’t know wich ones, because it comes in untested batches. There is no debate about artificial fluoride. This is a sick joke. STOP LYING, SUCK UP YOUR PRIDE, ADMIT YOUR WRONG, and STOP POISONING OUR FAMILIES.

  11. why should I pay for water that has poison in it ? as a citizen and voter, survivor of cancer, I have to pay for my water to be cleaned and have toxic chemicals, that your company added in, that have zero value to my human body, removed. Thats not cheap

  12. This 3 minute open mic presentation discussing the Flint/Lead issue-and the City of Dallas HFS issue https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=972toqvSWgo was filmed by an outside camera because the City of Dallas decided “they do not need to turn the camera on the screen in the chambers when the Public speaks during the Dallas City Council meetings”. Previously the camera was turned, the audio was captured and there was “transparency” about what goes on during the Open Public Mic portion of the City Council meetings. Then the censorship began the archive presentations and the remote viewing no video no sound …KNOWING This we were ready April 27, 2016, the public still got silence but we had Terry videoing and we have this you tube!

    Anyone else see a problem with this?? The Dallas Morning News was alerted to this…Did a journalist look into it? NO!

    Here are other speakers that day…Bob’s video was censored. It contains a personal message directed to the Council from a government whistle-blower famous for exposing the Washington, DC water Lead crisis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3i6NTkUF6To

    Phyllis was censored. She brought a video personal message directed to the Dallas City Council from a Senior EPA Scientist, Dr Hirzy, who points out the many health liabilities to Fluoridation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RAgMeGe6Pc

    Terry speaks to the Dallas City Council bringing a personal message directed towards them from Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D, a former Scientist with NIH (National Institutes of Health). He has studied the Dallas water and has noticed how Lead levels increase when fluorosilicic acid is added the water supply. Again, Dallas censored this video for the public at large.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpM7AkEEdhs&feature=share

    Thank God the North Dallas Gazzett has given a way for the public to voice their concerns and a way for the Pro-Fluoridation people to be debated. During the OVER 4 years we have brought countless messages to the council sounding an alarm…ONLY 5 Pro-fluoride ever came forward (in the open) and they all were from the dental community!!

    WE have MDs, PHDs, Chemists, Dentist, and more! The ABC groups the Pro-Fluoride lobby hangs their hat on are the same groups that said the Tuskegee experiments were safe and smoking and drinking alcohol while pregnant was safe!!

    NINE of the Dallas City Council can vote to turn off the Fluoridation pump today! There is too much at stake! Just the chance of harm would be too much on my conscience if I was an elected official trying to decide between Possible tooth decay prevention…and ALL these other possible harm issues!!

    Please go to http://www.DogsAgainstFluoridation.com Help our Voice Get Louder so our Elected Officials will Hear and do the Right thing!!

  13. It is false to claim that lifelong drinking of fluoridated water has been harmless for all consumers. After 20 years of consumption, bone fluoride levels are typically 3,000 mg/kg or more which for some causes bone pain, and for all causes bone weakening. The process of forming bone of poor quality begins with the first sip, since half of all swallowed fluoride is assimilated into the blood and 95% of all retained fluoride remains permanently in bone. Blood levels of 0.1 ppm are typical for fluoridated water consumers where fluoride is not a blood component, but is a contaminant of the bloodstream. A blood level of 1 ppm in kidney patients dialyzed with fluoridated water causes acute poisoning and high morbidity. This is why the FDA adopted the regulation that requires only non-fluoridated water to be used in kidney dialysis wards. The FDA ruled that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, and its addition into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. The FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. in 1963, and found that fluoride in bone does not strengthen bone (disproving the hopes of fluoridationists), and ruled in 1975 that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods. For further details please see the Journal of Environmental and Public Health (2013) 439490 free online at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

  14. Sigh!

    jwillie6 – You apparently still have not read TCAF and attempted to actually count the references. I have, and there are not 1,200 unique, legitimate scientific references – Period! That said, the book is an unreviewed work of fiction which simply summarizes the standard anti-F propaganda of a few years ago. Provide some legitimate citations with author quotes that proves any of your claims of harm from fluoridation.

    David Norsworthy – Do you really believe the level of fluoride ions in a tube of toothpaste is equivalent to the level of fluoride ions in several gallons of optimally fluoridated water? Perhaps you should do the math.

    Linda Newland – There is no doubt, fluoridate to protect health.

    Bill Osmunson – Provide specific evidence (citations and author quotes) that proves children who drink optimally fluoridated water have been harmed and not protected from dental decay. Describe exactly why that “evidence” should have changed the scientific consensus instead of being evaluated and rejected. You are presumably a dentist. Can you swear that exposure to fluoride ions at optimal levels has not protected teeth from dental decay? Explain why, if the “evidence” that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective is so obvious and damning, the major science and health organizations and their members continue to publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation. Why do no reputable organizations support the anti-F propaganda?

    TomT – Fluoridatio is only a “race issue” in the minds of fluoridation opponents. Fluoridation reduces the risk of dental decay to all who drink it, and those who receive the most benefit are often those who have little access to dental care.

    KSpencer – Bottom line is that there are no known conditions for which drinking optimally fluoridated water is medically contraindicated. Looking at the ethics, I would vote for reducing the risk of dental decay and related health issues in a community over unsubstantiated paranoia over a public health measure. Which of the “Hundreds of research articles published over the past several decades have demonstrated potential harm to humans”? Provide a citation and author quotes from those “hundreds of research articles” which proves harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water, and demonstrate with credible proof (specific citations) that any alleged harm is greater than the benefits of reducing dental decay. Same questions asked of Osmunson.

    Steve Madison – Dallas’ elected officials have, in fact, demonstrated that they will listen to reason and respect legitimate science over vocal, unsupported fear-mongering.
    heath marter – There is no such thing as “artificial fluoride”, fluoridation is not a drug, and as noted elsewhere, and the fluoridation chemicals are regulated and contribute no meaningful additional contaminants to the treated water.
    ~> http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_on_Fluoridation.pdf

    clarissa mckone – To help protect your health and the health of others in Dallas. You are perfectly free to choose other alternatives.

    regina imburgia – Your comment is typical of fluoridation opponents, trying to utilize tragic events (Flint/Lead issue, Washington, DC water Lead crisis &Tuskegee experiments) that are completely unrelated to fluoridation to promote the fear-mongering agenda of anti-science activists. You would actually “turn off the Fluoridation pump today!” because of an unproven “chance of harm”??? What about the very real, proven chance of harm from an increased risk of tooth decay without fluoridation? That possibility seems not to occur to fluoridation opponents.

    Note, none of these comments have provided specific citations and author quotes from studies that conclusively prove harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. As mentioned before, All alleged “evidence” presented by fluoridation opponents and used in attempts to influence public opinion has been carefully evaluated and dismissed by mainstream scientific & health communities. When presented to the public this “evidence” will have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted/misused/misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only be suggestion of a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable &/or 6) The claim will be a complete fabrication.

  15. “Let families decide for themselves if they want to lower their IQ voluntarily.
    As for our household, we don’t appreciate the added expense of having to have it removed.
    STOP the forced medication now!
    TYVM Regina for continuing to shine the light on this injustice.

  16. I do not live in Dallas, yet often find myself socializing there. Since learning that Dallas poisons its water supply, I ALWAYS refuse tap water in a public setting. I will not poison myself, even if the water is free to drink. Not many average citizens are experts on water flouridation, and I would imagine that includes the Dallas City Council. Why not get an outside expert to speak to you and answer any questions you may have? I can recommend someone, who has no dog in the fight, so to speak. Why are you on the City Council? To serve others or yourself?

  17. The truth is simple: fluoride is a toxin. To make Dallas water safe, stop adding it.

    The misconception made by water fluoridation supporters as they justify adding a known poison to drinking water takes many more words.

    Susan Kanen
    Biochemist, whistleblower to lead in Washington, DC drinking water, her video shown to Dallas City Council.

    “I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

    – Leo Tolstoy

  18. I am a Dallas resident and I am concerned about the undiluted HFS that travels through our city streets in route to the water treatment plants. Tons of this Hazardous liquid is delivered every month! If the truck driver were to have an accident the result would be serious harm/death to humans, plants animals and infrastructure. This is a danger that can be eliminated by stopping the Fluoridation program. The risk to the workers is appalling given the program does not work. Tooth decay has not decreased in fluoridated areas any more than non-fluoridated areas. Plus the fluorosis the fluoride creates is costly to fix! The millions of dollars saved could go toward true dental care, like tooth brushes! I suggest people watch the documentary Fluoride: Poison on Tap.

  19. Considering the preponderance of information that begs for a change from floride to no floride; I fail to understand why the floride folk are so “set in stone” against trying something new. However, if this boils down (like almost everything else) to a question about somebodys money; I totally understand. I wonder how many of the floride folk stand to make a few quarters – or whatever, off the continued use of floride in public water systems. Who’s making money off the use of floride? And who will lose money if floride use is stopped?

  20. PS; In answer to the question of the article title; I (already) don’t drink the Dallas water – unless I have to. I feel that it may not be dangerous but it is not safe enough to drink on a regular basis. This is just my instinctive reaction and I don’t plan to change that as long as I have enough information to back up my action.

  21. Let’s get the artificial fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) out of the Dallas municipal water supply. Then, If anyone is so foolish as to want to purchase fluoride-laced products for own use, let them do so on their own dime. I predict fewer and fewer people will want to do that once they understand the risks involved with all fluoride products.

  22. Is Fluoride a toxin?
    Has Park Cities ever added Fluoride to their water?
    Did the “Father of Propaganda”, Edward Bernays, devise a campaign for Fluoride?
    What Dallas councilman meet in a closed session to privately negotiate and extend a new Fluoride supplier contract?

  23. JOIN Us 6 pm, in Dallas, this Saturday, January 20th as we meet to discuss Is the Dallas Fluoridation program. The College of Complexes, a local “Free Speech Forum” is hosting this event held at Roma’s Restaurant, 7033 Greenville Avenue, 75231.

    For decades, the American Dental Association (ADA) has warned that if communities end their water fluoridation programs, the rate of tooth decay will increase. In it’s “Fluoridation Facts” brochure, the ADA states:

    “Dental decay can be expected to increase if water fluoridation in a community is discontinued for one year or more, even if topical products such as fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinses are widely used.”

    The ADA was wrong. The World Health Organization revealed that there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between the minority of western nations that fluoridate water, and the majority that do not. In fact, the tooth decay rates in many non-fluoridated countries are now lower than the tooth decay rates in fluoridated ones.

    In recent years, dozens of Canadian communities, including Calgary, have stopped fluoridating water, citing concerns about safety, effectiveness, and cost. The number of Canadians drinking fluoridated water has plummeted by over 30% since 2005.

    Calgary, Alberta stopped adding fluoride to its drinking water in 2011. The results of a 2016 decay rate study revealed Calgary was consistent with neighboring cities. Including fluoridated cities like Edmonton.

    LULAC Leader Henry Rodriguez came to Dallas and challenged the Dallas City Council to provide documents showing decay rates in the poverty areas have declined as a result of the Fluoridation Program. He gave Mayor Rawlings and the Council-members this statement>

    The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is the oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States. In September 2011, LULAC passed a resolution opposing fluoridation at its annual conference. The resolution states that:

    1) Current science shows that fluoridation chemicals pose increased risk to sensitive sub-populations, including infants, the elderly, diabetics, kidney patients, and people with poor nutritional status.

    2) Minority communities are more highly impacted by fluorides as they historically experience more diabetes and kidney disease.

    3) Minorities are disproportionately harmed by fluorides as documented by increased rates of dental fluorosis (disfiguration and discoloration of the teeth). Henry Rodriguez, LULAC’s Texas Chairman“The Hispanic community is no longer going to be silent on this issue…(Fluoridation) is about forcing us to be medicated through our drinking water without our consent or full disclosure of the risks.”

    Andrew Young, former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador during the Clinton administration, wrote the following to the Georgia legislature in a March 29, 2011 letter dated March 29, 2011:
    “My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation. We originally thought people needed to swallow it, so the fluoride would be incorporated into teeth before they erupted from the gums. Our belief in the need for systemic absorption was why we began adding fluoride to drinking water. But now we know that the primary, limited cavity fighting effects of fluoride are topical, when fluorides touch teeth in the mouth. We know that fluorides do little to stop cavities where they occur most often, in the pits and fissures of the back molars where food packs down into the grooves. This is why there is a big push today to use teeth sealants in the molars of children. We also have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades…
    I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.”

    Portland NAACP Cheryl Carter: “Children growing up in communities of color already face risks from many different environmental chemicals, and they do not need more chemicals added to their drinking water.”

    Clifford Walker: If Portland voters want to help low-income children we should reject fluoridation and focus on providing equal access to dental care

    Dr. Gerald Durley, a clinical psychologist, environmentalist, and Pastor of the Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, has called upon the Georgia State Senate to repeal Georgia’s mandatory fluoridation law. In a March 9, 2011 letter to the head of Georgia’s Senate, Durley wrote: “First and foremost, water fluoridation takes away people’s choice…Second, fluoridation disproportionally harms members of the black community…Third, we cannot control the dose of fluoride people ingest when we put fluoride in drinking water…We need to focus on helping people get access to dentists. Lack of fluoride does not cause cavities. Too many sugars on the teeth, lack of access to dental care and lack of dental health education-these cause cavities.
    We also need to know why the full story about harm from fluorides is only just now coming out. I support the holdings of Fluoridegate hearings at the state and national level so we can learn why we haven’t been openly told that fluorides build up in the body over time, why our government agencies haven’t told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans, and why we’ve been told that decades of extensive research show fluoridation to be safe, when the National Research Council in 2006 listed volumes of basic research that has never been done. This is a serious issue for all Americans, of every race and in every location.”

    Rev. Bernice A. King, a pastor, attorney, and daughter of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, states: “Water fluoridation needs to end. It is good that organizations are lending their support to help push this outdated and harmful practice of fluoridation toward collapse. This is wonderful news.”

    Rev. Alveda King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote the following on her blog on June 22, 2011:“The Fluoridegate scandal continues to unravel. All water fluoridation legislation should be repealed in all states that enact fluoridation. Generally people with built-in biases in support of fluoridation have been controlling the discussion about harm from fluorides. The Centers for Disease Control has clearly been trying to preserve fluoridation at all costs, but the facts about fluoride harm are coming out anyway. This is a civil rights issue. No one should be subjected to drinking fluoride in their water, especially sensitive groups like kidney patients and diabetics, babies in their milk formula, or poor families that cannot afford to purchase un-fluoridated water. Black and Latino families are being disproportionately harmed.”

    Rev. William Owens, President of the Coalition of African American Pastors, explained his organization’s opposition to fluoridation in a March 8, 2010 letter to
    Daniel Stockin of the Lillie Center. According to the letter:

    1. African Americans are at greater risk for so many diseases today, and since the National Research Council has stated that kidney patients and diabetics are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides, and since we all know that blacks are deeply affected by kidney and diabetes ailments, supporting fluoridation that provides uncontrolled dosing of fluorides does not make sense.

    2. Fluoridation takes away people’s choice – many people can’t afford unfluoridated bottled water or a home water fluoride removal system…

    3. Research shows that black children ingest significantly more fluorides than white children, and that black Americans have more staining of their teeth that demonstrates excessive intake of fluorides as a child.

    4. Putting fluoride in water assumes a one-size-fits-all approach, that all people, regardless of body weight or medical history, can drink unlimited amounts of water with fluoride in it. As pastors we believe the Biblical truth that our bodies are the temple of God, and that we have a responsibility to take care of these temples. So we must take issue with bringing into our bodies unknown amounts this substance fluoride that comes at us from all directions in foods made with fluoridated water, beverages, water, drugs, pesticide and fumigant residues, etc.Attempting to prevent cavities by medicating us in drinking water does not resonate as being a smart thing to do. We cannot support water fluoridation, and we encourage church members to educate themselves about this issue.”
    _____________________________________________________________

    I encourage the public to LOOK at the information we have on our website http://www.DallasforSafeWater.com. In over Four years ONLY 5 Pro-Fluoride speakers came forward publicly to defend the fluoridation program. Repeating their standard line…the consensus of “the groups” support fluoridation. Well consensus is Not Science…please consider this >

    Consensus: “Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled… Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough.” – Michael Crichton, physician and author (2003)

    I am VERY thankful the North Dallas Gazette is providing unbiased reporting on the Fluoridation issue! Looking forward to Part 2 by Joe Farkus!

  24. Just one of Our Three minute presentation October 2016!!
    You judge…are we fear mongers? Or are we concerned citizens fighting Staus Quo that is enabled by Media Outlets that either remain silent or ridicule us.

    https://youtu.be/gW2DreBHNfk

    BTW “they” love to mock the DogsAgainstFluoridation.com web-site name…

    About the WEBSITE name: “Dogs Against Fluoridation” –
    Originally, “Dogs Against Fluoridation” was not slated to be the final name of a Dallas Fluoride information website, but the name “stuck” because it takes tremendous time to build another website. On a whim in the beginning, “Dogs” was chosen because there is a vast history going back more than one hundred years with many experiments on dogs which demonstrated the toxicity of fluoride.
    Example: Thyroid conditions were deliberately caused using fluoride in 1854. http://poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/thyroid_history.html
    Example: Many other adverse health conditions arise from fluoride.~1936 https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/19371402151
    Example: Fluoride has been used to kill dogs. It can be one large dose, or a series of smaller does because often 50% of the ingested fluoride can accumulate. The first symptoms which often appear from too much fluoride are gastrointestinal issues.

  25. Thank you for publishing this series of articles and bringing this important issue to the public’s attention. I wholeheartedly agree that the City Council’s silence on this matter and willingness to shut down public debate and unwillingness to have town council meetings and to put this up for a vote is disturbing.

  26. No because fluoride is contained in tooth paste at higher levels. Eleminate the cost.
    animals and lawns need no fluoride.( its a neurotoxin according to the well respected lancet journal.)also a main ingredient in prozack. Fluoride calcifies the pineal gland the gland known as the third eye of perception.

    Fluoride was split from aluminum ore at the smelting process and was an industrial waste product. What was split assunder will always have an attraction and affinity.

    Wonder about the sudden rise in dementia and its related dis eases? It parallels the rise in aluminum cookware, aluminum clorhydrate and other aluminum based products used on the body daily. Fluoride and aluminum in the brain? Huge attraction and affinity to pull across the blood brain barrier.

    Russian goulags and nazi concentration camps used fluoride compounds to keep the masses both dullards and meek.

    Ever wonder why your aluminum soda cans are unlined? Acidic solutions pull aluminum molecules into suspension.

    Why wouls i gallon of baby water advertise extra flouride when babys have no teeth?

    the most important evidence i have seen is the highly respected lancet journal lists fluoride as a neurotoxin,

    so any municipal water supply is choosing to inject and mass medicate without perscription, all who drink their water,

    With a known neurotoxin.

    Their is no requirement of aliegence without corresponding requirement of protection.

    So do you feel protected?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!