Dr. Stephen C. L'Hommedieu
Fluoridation battle engulfs Wichita, Kansas, Part I
By Dr. Stephen C. L'Hommedieu
There's a major storm brewing throughout the Wichita, Kansas area. Although this storm won't produce the obvious immediate destruction of an F5 tornado, many experts argue it has the long-term potential to be just as destructive to our health and environment — it's water fluoridation.
Once again, Wichita's municipal water system is the targeted kingpin to topple as it continues to stand among the largest cities in the U.S. remaining fluoridation-free. This time formidable allies of water fluoridation mounted pressure to ram their fluoridation measure through the Wichita City Council meeting on August 22. Despite the $250,000 pledge by the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and a commitment for $800,000 more from other donors to assist with start-up costs, the measure still failed to gain a majority of Council votes. Strong public opposition to the water fluoridation measure was clear — this is for the public to decide. The measure will appear on the November 6th ballot.
Political momentum behind the strong media push to fluoridate Wichita's water supply was largely initiated by the not-for-profit Kansas Health Foundation (KHF) and the American Dental Association (ADA). There's also a long list of medical endorsements including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Medical Association (AMA), Kansas Academy of Family Physicians (KAFP), Kansas Health Institute (KHI), state and federal health agencies, and many spin-off dental and medical associations, foundations, clinics and care units, and the United Methodist Church and its health ministries (strong promoters of water fluoridation).
In addition to the full and half page ads and news articles featured in The Wichita Eagle during the initial surge, KHF financial resources helped to aggressively promote the pro-fluoridation message through television, radio, billboard ads, social media and websites. Two of these websites are designed to spoof the opposition, creating pro-fluoridation websites FluorideFreeKansas.COM and WichitansForPureWater.com to counter the opposing independent scientific research and information presented on FluorideFreeKansas.ORG and WichitaPureWater.com.
The pro-fluoridation initiative also included door-to-door solicitations. The 11,000 plus signatures exceeded the requirement for introducing the fluoridation referendum to the Wichita City Council to force immediate compliance or a public vote.
Everyday Wichitans are exposed to the pro-fluoridation message: Fighting tooth decay through water fluoridation is "beyond dispute" as an effective way to help protect our children's teeth. Adding to the incentive is the theoretical $4.5 million savings in dental care every year. Let's face it, how could anyone disagree when every major dental and medical association and public health agency glorifies water fluoridation as one of the great health achievements of our time?
Despite the fanfare, the history and science behind water fluoridation is extremely controversial and far from being beyond dispute. There are numerous leading health and independent research experts throughout the world who are alarmed by the influence of this corporate brand of science dominating the water fluoridation paradigm. Immersed in conflicts of interest, fluoridation science has been heavily criticized for its poorly conducted research studies. Independent experts, including the EPA's own scientists, [1] stand strongly opposed to water fluoridation and warn that the advertised health and financial benefits being sold to Wichitans don't add up.
During the initial pro-fluoridation rally at GraceMed Clinic on July 12th, pediatrician and water fluoridation advocate Dr. Larry Hund stated, "We have the science on our side...It's a no-brainer." The science behind water fluoridation may be a "no-brainer" for some like Dr. Hund, but the science on their side is a corporate-driven science that strives to defy, ignore, redefine and reinterpret objective findings and conclusions of legitimate independent scientific research. Thus, the scientific reliability of studies that "prove" the benefits and safety of water fluoridation have been called into question since the beginning.
Those benefiting most from the science supporting water fluoridation just may be the extractive industries that manufacture super phosphate fertilizer and aluminum. For these industries, the water fluoridation program is certainly "beyond dispute" as the greatest achievement for disposing of the tens of thousands of metric tons produced every year of the highly toxic industrial waste — fluorosilicic acid.
Similar to other highly questionable practices that plague the medical establishment, the science behind water fluoridation is far more political than scientific. Although many fluoride advocates have sincere intentions of helping children's teeth, they're completely unaware of the strong political influences underpinning fluoridation science. The real threat to our community's health isn't fluoridation opponents and their "junk science," it's the water fluoridation paradigm reducing legitimate science to junk.
The studies and references presented throughout this review are by no means all-inclusive. Those selected are among the volumes of studies, research and information available to provide insight and, for the most part, understandable points of interest. This article series considered a number of critical arguments and statements used by fluoridation advocates to support their views.
Have Wichitans Been Longing for Water Fluoridation?
Advocates for water fluoridation claim: "The citizens of Wichita have been waiting a long, long time for their city government and their community leaders to provide them with a proven form of health prevention." — Sara Meng, DDS, The Wichita Eagle, July 12, 2012.
Think About This: Dr. Meng shares a common belief held by many of those within her profession, but there are many more who don't share her fluoridation belief system. Having practiced chiropractic and natural medicine in Wichita, KS for sixteen years, I have never heard anyone complain about the lack of fluoridation in our city water. In fact, the water fluoridation issue has been soundly rejected in the 1950s, 1964, 1978 and 2000. Apparently, no one explained to Dr. Meng or her patients that there was no need to wait — they could use sodium fluoride tablets.
The idea that Wichitans have been waiting for this "great health achievement" to come pouring out of our faucets just isn't reality. Allies of fluoridation, however, are working hard to create this public perception. Dr. Meng, who chairs Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, posted the KWCH Channel 12 "scientific" survey on their website to display the results: 53% of the surveyed audience was in favor for fluoridation, 33% opposed fluoridation and 13% were not sure. How scientific was the survey? It doesn't matter; the impact on public perception was the goal. The intent is to build the perception of how water fluoridation must be a really good thing because everyone who knows the science wants it, except for, you know, those crazy people with their "junk science" claiming it's poison.
Knowing the importance of public perception, Dr. Meng quickly "updated" her website to remove the word "fluorosis" from her services page. Fluorosis is a discoloring of the teeth caused by fluoride toxicity that can occur even at levels less than 1 part per million (ppm) in our water. The retraction was to avoid an obvious question: If you are promoting water fluoridation, and fluoride causes fluorosis, are you promoting water fluoridation to increase your business? This notable change was brought to public attention in an open letter that included before and after images of the website page. [2] Attempts to deliberately mislead the public and obscure the facts are the mainstay for the success of the water fluoridation movement.
Dr. Meng and others believe that Wichita is far overdue for fluoridating its water. According to Vice Mayor Janet Miller, Wichita needs to "join the 21st century." But even if the City Council did vote to immediately climb on board the "F" Train, ironically, they would have found themselves still out of step with the times — more and more cities have abandon or are fighting to end this out-dated mode of health care. Hundreds of cities have continued to reject, have ended, or are presently pushing for legislation to end fluoridation programs because of numerous health concerns, freedom and informed consent issues, and simply because it doesn't work. Here are some recent developments over the past year:
1. Fairbanks, Alaska voted 5 to 1 to stop their fluoridation program on June 6, 2011 (population 80,000). Fairbanks required fluoridation since 1959.
2. Albuquerque, NM stopped fluoridating their water last year (population 500,000). This year Santa Fe, NM was fighting to end their fluoridation program, but eventually lost with a reversal of the initial vote to end fluoridation.
3. College Station, Texas voted 6 to 1 to stop fluoridating their water in September of 2011 (population 100,000). College Station had been fluoridating their water since 1989.
4. Pinellas County, FL stopped fluoridating their water supply last year that serves nearly a million residents.
5. Alderman Jim Bohl of the City of Milwaukee, WI proposed legislation calling for the immediate cessation of any fluoride products introduced into the water. [3] This is another clear sign of how water fluoridation is losing credibility among decision-makers in public office.
6. Phoenix, AZ is one of the largest cities in the nation and the latest Valley city to reassess its controversial water fluoridation policy that affects 1.4 million people. This follows the cities of Page in 2006 and Flagstaff in 2001, both of which rejected fluoridation three times.
7. New York City Councilman Peter Vallone has been pushing legislation since 2010 to remove water fluoridation that supplies 8.2 million residents.
8. The cities of Lawrence and Salina, KS are fighting to end their water fluoridation programs.
9. Georgia fluoridates 96% of their water supplies and ranks 25th in the nation in dental health. Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, have been urging Georgia legislators to end the mandatory water fluoridation program. Statistics show "61% of low-income Georgia third graders have tooth decay compared to 51% from higher-income families — and 33% and 20%, respectively, have untreated cavities..." Ambassador Young wrote, "We also have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades." [4]
The state of Tennessee also fluoridates 96% of their water supplies, yet ranks far behind Georgia placing 47th in dental health.
10. According to Fluoride Action Network, more than 300 hundred communities in the U.S. and Canada have stopped or rejected the practice of water fluoridation since 1990. [5]
If fluoridation is a "proven form of health prevention" that Dr. Meng claims, why are rates of tooth decay at epidemic levels in cities fluoridated for decades? And why are more and more communities fighting to stop the "benefits?" The examples of Georgia and Tennessee are among many others that demonstrate the dichotomy between fluoridation presented as a "proven form of health prevention" and the statistical realities. The public is quickly learning that there are far more effective and safer options for preventing tooth decay. They emphasize the importance of a nutritious diet absent of junk food and excessive carbohydrates, nutritional supplements and better dental oral care and education.
Rather than being pro-fluoridation activists, dentists and medical physicians may want to consider becoming teeth brushing activists and promote Teeth Brushing Awareness campaigns. Educate children and parents to the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth after meals. Better yet, become nutritious food activists and teach children how sugar, soda and processed foods contribute to tooth decay. Practicing real health care may not be as profitable or politically correct, but it would serve to produce overall healthier children with decay resistant teeth.
NOTES:
© Dr. Stephen C. L'Hommedieu
September 6, 2012
There's a major storm brewing throughout the Wichita, Kansas area. Although this storm won't produce the obvious immediate destruction of an F5 tornado, many experts argue it has the long-term potential to be just as destructive to our health and environment — it's water fluoridation.
Once again, Wichita's municipal water system is the targeted kingpin to topple as it continues to stand among the largest cities in the U.S. remaining fluoridation-free. This time formidable allies of water fluoridation mounted pressure to ram their fluoridation measure through the Wichita City Council meeting on August 22. Despite the $250,000 pledge by the United Methodist Health Ministry Fund and a commitment for $800,000 more from other donors to assist with start-up costs, the measure still failed to gain a majority of Council votes. Strong public opposition to the water fluoridation measure was clear — this is for the public to decide. The measure will appear on the November 6th ballot.
Political momentum behind the strong media push to fluoridate Wichita's water supply was largely initiated by the not-for-profit Kansas Health Foundation (KHF) and the American Dental Association (ADA). There's also a long list of medical endorsements including the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Medical Association (AMA), Kansas Academy of Family Physicians (KAFP), Kansas Health Institute (KHI), state and federal health agencies, and many spin-off dental and medical associations, foundations, clinics and care units, and the United Methodist Church and its health ministries (strong promoters of water fluoridation).
In addition to the full and half page ads and news articles featured in The Wichita Eagle during the initial surge, KHF financial resources helped to aggressively promote the pro-fluoridation message through television, radio, billboard ads, social media and websites. Two of these websites are designed to spoof the opposition, creating pro-fluoridation websites FluorideFreeKansas.COM and WichitansForPureWater.com to counter the opposing independent scientific research and information presented on FluorideFreeKansas.ORG and WichitaPureWater.com.
The pro-fluoridation initiative also included door-to-door solicitations. The 11,000 plus signatures exceeded the requirement for introducing the fluoridation referendum to the Wichita City Council to force immediate compliance or a public vote.
Everyday Wichitans are exposed to the pro-fluoridation message: Fighting tooth decay through water fluoridation is "beyond dispute" as an effective way to help protect our children's teeth. Adding to the incentive is the theoretical $4.5 million savings in dental care every year. Let's face it, how could anyone disagree when every major dental and medical association and public health agency glorifies water fluoridation as one of the great health achievements of our time?
Despite the fanfare, the history and science behind water fluoridation is extremely controversial and far from being beyond dispute. There are numerous leading health and independent research experts throughout the world who are alarmed by the influence of this corporate brand of science dominating the water fluoridation paradigm. Immersed in conflicts of interest, fluoridation science has been heavily criticized for its poorly conducted research studies. Independent experts, including the EPA's own scientists, [1] stand strongly opposed to water fluoridation and warn that the advertised health and financial benefits being sold to Wichitans don't add up.
During the initial pro-fluoridation rally at GraceMed Clinic on July 12th, pediatrician and water fluoridation advocate Dr. Larry Hund stated, "We have the science on our side...It's a no-brainer." The science behind water fluoridation may be a "no-brainer" for some like Dr. Hund, but the science on their side is a corporate-driven science that strives to defy, ignore, redefine and reinterpret objective findings and conclusions of legitimate independent scientific research. Thus, the scientific reliability of studies that "prove" the benefits and safety of water fluoridation have been called into question since the beginning.
Those benefiting most from the science supporting water fluoridation just may be the extractive industries that manufacture super phosphate fertilizer and aluminum. For these industries, the water fluoridation program is certainly "beyond dispute" as the greatest achievement for disposing of the tens of thousands of metric tons produced every year of the highly toxic industrial waste — fluorosilicic acid.
Similar to other highly questionable practices that plague the medical establishment, the science behind water fluoridation is far more political than scientific. Although many fluoride advocates have sincere intentions of helping children's teeth, they're completely unaware of the strong political influences underpinning fluoridation science. The real threat to our community's health isn't fluoridation opponents and their "junk science," it's the water fluoridation paradigm reducing legitimate science to junk.
The studies and references presented throughout this review are by no means all-inclusive. Those selected are among the volumes of studies, research and information available to provide insight and, for the most part, understandable points of interest. This article series considered a number of critical arguments and statements used by fluoridation advocates to support their views.
Have Wichitans Been Longing for Water Fluoridation?
Advocates for water fluoridation claim: "The citizens of Wichita have been waiting a long, long time for their city government and their community leaders to provide them with a proven form of health prevention." — Sara Meng, DDS, The Wichita Eagle, July 12, 2012.
Think About This: Dr. Meng shares a common belief held by many of those within her profession, but there are many more who don't share her fluoridation belief system. Having practiced chiropractic and natural medicine in Wichita, KS for sixteen years, I have never heard anyone complain about the lack of fluoridation in our city water. In fact, the water fluoridation issue has been soundly rejected in the 1950s, 1964, 1978 and 2000. Apparently, no one explained to Dr. Meng or her patients that there was no need to wait — they could use sodium fluoride tablets.
The idea that Wichitans have been waiting for this "great health achievement" to come pouring out of our faucets just isn't reality. Allies of fluoridation, however, are working hard to create this public perception. Dr. Meng, who chairs Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, posted the KWCH Channel 12 "scientific" survey on their website to display the results: 53% of the surveyed audience was in favor for fluoridation, 33% opposed fluoridation and 13% were not sure. How scientific was the survey? It doesn't matter; the impact on public perception was the goal. The intent is to build the perception of how water fluoridation must be a really good thing because everyone who knows the science wants it, except for, you know, those crazy people with their "junk science" claiming it's poison.
Knowing the importance of public perception, Dr. Meng quickly "updated" her website to remove the word "fluorosis" from her services page. Fluorosis is a discoloring of the teeth caused by fluoride toxicity that can occur even at levels less than 1 part per million (ppm) in our water. The retraction was to avoid an obvious question: If you are promoting water fluoridation, and fluoride causes fluorosis, are you promoting water fluoridation to increase your business? This notable change was brought to public attention in an open letter that included before and after images of the website page. [2] Attempts to deliberately mislead the public and obscure the facts are the mainstay for the success of the water fluoridation movement.
Dr. Meng and others believe that Wichita is far overdue for fluoridating its water. According to Vice Mayor Janet Miller, Wichita needs to "join the 21st century." But even if the City Council did vote to immediately climb on board the "F" Train, ironically, they would have found themselves still out of step with the times — more and more cities have abandon or are fighting to end this out-dated mode of health care. Hundreds of cities have continued to reject, have ended, or are presently pushing for legislation to end fluoridation programs because of numerous health concerns, freedom and informed consent issues, and simply because it doesn't work. Here are some recent developments over the past year:
1. Fairbanks, Alaska voted 5 to 1 to stop their fluoridation program on June 6, 2011 (population 80,000). Fairbanks required fluoridation since 1959.
2. Albuquerque, NM stopped fluoridating their water last year (population 500,000). This year Santa Fe, NM was fighting to end their fluoridation program, but eventually lost with a reversal of the initial vote to end fluoridation.
3. College Station, Texas voted 6 to 1 to stop fluoridating their water in September of 2011 (population 100,000). College Station had been fluoridating their water since 1989.
4. Pinellas County, FL stopped fluoridating their water supply last year that serves nearly a million residents.
5. Alderman Jim Bohl of the City of Milwaukee, WI proposed legislation calling for the immediate cessation of any fluoride products introduced into the water. [3] This is another clear sign of how water fluoridation is losing credibility among decision-makers in public office.
6. Phoenix, AZ is one of the largest cities in the nation and the latest Valley city to reassess its controversial water fluoridation policy that affects 1.4 million people. This follows the cities of Page in 2006 and Flagstaff in 2001, both of which rejected fluoridation three times.
7. New York City Councilman Peter Vallone has been pushing legislation since 2010 to remove water fluoridation that supplies 8.2 million residents.
8. The cities of Lawrence and Salina, KS are fighting to end their water fluoridation programs.
9. Georgia fluoridates 96% of their water supplies and ranks 25th in the nation in dental health. Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, have been urging Georgia legislators to end the mandatory water fluoridation program. Statistics show "61% of low-income Georgia third graders have tooth decay compared to 51% from higher-income families — and 33% and 20%, respectively, have untreated cavities..." Ambassador Young wrote, "We also have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades." [4]
The state of Tennessee also fluoridates 96% of their water supplies, yet ranks far behind Georgia placing 47th in dental health.
10. According to Fluoride Action Network, more than 300 hundred communities in the U.S. and Canada have stopped or rejected the practice of water fluoridation since 1990. [5]
If fluoridation is a "proven form of health prevention" that Dr. Meng claims, why are rates of tooth decay at epidemic levels in cities fluoridated for decades? And why are more and more communities fighting to stop the "benefits?" The examples of Georgia and Tennessee are among many others that demonstrate the dichotomy between fluoridation presented as a "proven form of health prevention" and the statistical realities. The public is quickly learning that there are far more effective and safer options for preventing tooth decay. They emphasize the importance of a nutritious diet absent of junk food and excessive carbohydrates, nutritional supplements and better dental oral care and education.
Rather than being pro-fluoridation activists, dentists and medical physicians may want to consider becoming teeth brushing activists and promote Teeth Brushing Awareness campaigns. Educate children and parents to the importance of brushing and flossing their teeth after meals. Better yet, become nutritious food activists and teach children how sugar, soda and processed foods contribute to tooth decay. Practicing real health care may not be as profitable or politically correct, but it would serve to produce overall healthier children with decay resistant teeth.
NOTES:
[1] "Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Oppose Fluoridation;" NTEU Chapter 280, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Headquarters.
[3] Fluoride in Milwaukee's Water Unsafe, Unnecessary, and Unhealthy: Alderman Jim Bohl Proposes Legislation to stop Milwaukee's Fluoridation Program. Statement from Alderman Jim Bohl May 22, 2012.
[5] Communities Which Have Rejected Fluoridation Since 1990. Fluoride Action Network
© Dr. Stephen C. L'Hommedieu
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
