Jan 18 2008

This article really hit me the wrong way ((link...)).

No matter what your position on the fluoridation of water is, I doubt you will agree that such an important decision should be made based purely on decree of the Mayor and professional fatigue:

“After the careful consideration of a request from the Blount County Mayor’s Office to reconsider fluoridating the county’s water system, SBCUD felt it was no longer in our best interest to exhaust the time and efforts of our executive staff in another public fight over such a divisive issue.

“We understand that our decision will be disappointing to many of our customers and for that we are very sorry. We regret that we are not able to meet the individual desires of each of customers on both sides of the issue.”

Lemme guess: the Mayor is the one who appoints members of the Utility Board and he made it clear he could replace folks who didn't go his way. Is there a copy of the "request from the Blount County Mayor's office"?

While undeniably controversial, the South Blount Utility Board's decision NOT to fluoridate was entirely defensible. There is plenty of evidence to the potential dangers. Not to mention that years of committee/community work had gone into making and evaluating the decision. Then all efforts were undone by a single megalomaniac who can't leave anything up to the people responsible for it?

Perhaps the Mayor never saw this video, from a state legislator who has such items as these on his curriculum vitae:

Fellow, American Academy of Family Physicians
Tennessee Academy of Family Physicians
American Medical Association
Tennessee Medical Association
Lewis County Medical Examiner
Lewis County Health Council

While the Mayor is out and about making decrees, perhaps he will also decree that all families in the South Blount Utility District receive the warning that baby formula should NOT be prepared with the new fluoridated water and that these families must now invest in bottled water or ready-to-eat formula? This is according to the American Dental Association: ((link...)). Oh, and while they still promote fluoride in the water the CDC agrees with this assertion that infants are receiving too much and goes on to say that 33% of children in the U.S. have very mild to mild fluorosis and that they've recently discovered this effect is on the permanent teeth as well: ((link...))

It now appears that the amount of the fluoride contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a child’s risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child’s sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula.

Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but it seems to me it is far easier to provide annual fluoride treatments (and virtually all toothpastes on the market are fluoridated) to the underprivileged than it is to provide bottled water or ready-mix formula to the underprivileged.

When I was a kid, a hundred years ago, they actually gave out fluoride treatments to kids who qualified at school. Don't they still do that?



Nice links. I didn't know federal and state governments, CDC and ADA all had changed some of their views of fluoride. It would be nice to see the content of that request the mayor sent to see if any of these issues were considered.

Fluoride water

Concerned Citizen
Tonights 4:30PM edition of the news on WVLT-TV stated that coming up on their 5:30 edition they were going to do a segment on fluoride in our drinking water & they stated that there was several hundred doctors who were trying to get flouride banned from our water at the national level.
When this issue came up on the 5:30 edition, they did a great disservice to this issue by only airing one Knoxville dentist opinion of why he thought that we should have fluoride placed into our water supply. Therefore only addressing one mans opinion, without any supporting facts.
I e-mailed WVLT with my concerns about their coverage of this issue.


Concerned Citizen
I believe that South Blount Utilities sent out a survey question to all of its customers about this issue, about a year ago, and the majority stated that they did not want it in our water supply.
So much for what the citizens want.

What's his motive?

Whenever the Mayor's Office asks a utility to "reconsider" its policy, you have to wonder about his motive. Why on God's green earth is Cunningham getting into the fluoride debate? Actually, there appears no debate occurred. He wanted it done and the water board approved it. Why? Why is Cunningham in this issue? Does he hold stock in the fluoride company that will win this business? What's the real story here? One thing is certain, there IS more than meets the eye on this one.

Professionals Urge End to Fluoridation & Congressional Hearings

In a statement released August 9, 2007, over 600 (now 1,300) professionals urge Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted. They cite new scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. ((link...))

Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the prestigious 2006 National Research Council (NRC) panel that reported on fluoride’s toxicology, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.

Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”

An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, (link...).

“The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,” he added.

An Assistant NY State Attorney General calls the report “the most up-to-date expert authority on the health effects of fluoride exposure.”

The Professionals’ Statement also references:

-- The new American Dental Association policy recommending infant formula NOT be prepared with fluoridated water.
-- The CDC’s concession that the predominant benefit of fluoride is topical not systemic.
-- CDC data showing that dental fluorosis, caused by fluoride over-exposure, now impacts one third of American children.
-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
-- A Harvard study indicating a possible link between fluoridation and bone cancer.
-- The silicofluoride chemicals used for fluoridation are contaminated industrial waste and have never been FDA- approved for human ingestion.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a DC watchdog, revealed that a Harvard professor concealed the fluoridation/bone cancer connection for three years. EWG President Ken Cook states, “It is time for the US to recognize that fluoridation has serious risks that far outweigh any minor benefits, and unlike many other environmental issues, it's as easy to end as turning off a valve at the water plant.”

Further, researchers reporting in the Oct 6 2007 British Medical Journal indicate that fluoridation, touted as a safe cavity preventive, never was proven safe or effective and may be unethical. (1)

Partially, as a result of the professionals' statement, at least one city, Cobleskill NY, stopped 54 years of water fluoridation. See: (link...)

Many communities rejected or stopped fluoridation over the years. See: (link...)

On October 2, Juneau Alaska voters rejected fluoridation despite the American Dental Association's $150,000 political campaign to return fluoride into the water supply after the legislative body voted it out.

SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network (link...)


(1) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007

Content Written by Someone Else is.....

Is there a term for the massive posting of content written by someone else?

I really must protest this un-attributed posting of anti fluoridation content. nuscof has offered this material with out an up front warning to the reader that it is a quotation (copy and past) or providing a link to source or citing the source.

To pose someone else’s writing, with out attribution is an insult to those of us here at who compose our own messages and it is theft of the real author's work (property).

Plagiarism is the word for such theft.
From at: (link...)

Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.

nyscof has is largely plagiarized this material. See for example this post from



nyscof has also posted the same material on another blog:

Can nyscof explain to us why this happened?

Forrest Erickson

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine, Age of Reason.

Not sure about propriety of posting released statements

I think he/she said it was from a "released statement" in the first line, Forrest. Isn't that like a press release, where you send it out and hope it gets picked up as much as possible?

News Releases Are Not Plagiarism

I posted a news release from the Fluoride Action Network. A news release is meant to be used by the media. Almost every science story you read in the mainstream media began with a news release. In fact, most of them are just reproduced without you even knowing a special interest group wrote the "news story."

The Fluoride Action Network put that release out and I posted it here. A lot of time and thought went into it, I was part of that, so it's better to post a well-thought out piece that explains it all than a quick hastily written piece that hasn't been vetted. News releases aren't plagiarism.

If you want to see all the news releases we have written. NYSCOF ( the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation)
posts them here:

Fluoridation News Releases

This link will show you how fluoridation is failing in most of our fluoridated communities, cities and states

Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas

This is a link to the online petition calling for an end to water fluoridation

Fluoride Action Network

...least added one sentence indicating....

nyscof, you could have at least added one sentence indicating you were not the author or you were re posting something in its entirety.
Perhaps I misunderstand the etiquette.

Regardless, the release contains much that is disinformation. It uses the CDC advisory on infant formula as a scare tactic.

I notice that you (and the Fluoride Action Network) did not quote this part of the CDC advisory.

"...may increase the chance of a child developing the faint white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis.....
... Typically, very mild or mild fluorosis is barely noticeable, if noticed at all. Studies have not shown that teeth are likely to develop more esthetically noticeable forms of fluorosis, even with regular mixing of formula with fluoridated water."

Everyone should read the entire CDC article, not just the "toxic release" stuff posting by nyscof .

Forrest Erickson


I don't understand - nyscof was clearly quoting, and even gave links. What was wrong with that? It looked like the source was clearly and appropriately attributed to me.

From R. Neal's Blogging 101 course ( ? )

'tis fine to cite and quote from within an article but to simply cross post a full article is um... not quite a no-no, but best not done.

whats the difference then your garbage?

Forrest, you post more bull..oney and add your links and without the ok from the publishers. as to why you would go after someone with using the same ability to post links, is a better question.

Regarding references

And he/she had this at the end...Isn't this sufficient?

"SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network Link...


(1) “Adding fluoride to water supplies,” British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, Iain Chalmers, Trevor A. Sheldon, October 6, 2007"

DT endorses mayoral bullying

Dean Stone endorses bullying by Mayor - to heck with the Customer Surveys and years of committee work: ((link...))

After strong encouragement by Mayor Cunningham, South Blount Utility District announced it has reversed its stand on fluoridation of its water.

Strong encouragement? I guess telling the members of the utility board they will be replaced if they don't diss the majority of their customers and reverse their decision on fluoridation could be considered "strong encouragement." [Do members of that utility board receive any pay for their service?]

I think Mr. Stone should print a copy of the letter encouraging this change in his paper. Along with an advisory to parents of infants that they should no longer use their tap water to mix formula. But then that would be to report both sides of the matter, wouldn't it?

Question: How long has Dean Stone worked at the Daily Times and has that been the same period of time in which any member of the Republican Central Committee could do no wrong?

Don't count on it

I think Mr. Stone should print a copy of the letter encouraging this change in his paper. Along with an advisory to parents of infants that they should no longer use their tap water to mix formula. But then that would be to report both sides of the matter, wouldn't it?

As many of you know a young mother is lucky to have an adult conversation and many do not have time to read commentary and opinions in the Daily Times or online.

If anyone who reads these blogs works for, or has a connection with the Dept of Public Health, please see that mothers of young children get this info.

Labeling about fluoride required for bottled water in Europe

From a footnote on page 27 of "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (2006)" found at the National Academy site ((link...)):

The European Commission has set a maximum limit of 5.0 mg/L for fluoride in natural mineral waters, effective January 1, 2008 (EC 2003). In addition, natural mineral waters with a fluoride concentration exceeding 1.5 mg/L must be labeled with the words “contains more than 1.5 mg/L of fluoride: not suitable for regular consumption by infants and children under 7 years of age,” and for all natural mineral waters, the actual fluoride content is to be listed on the label. England has essentially the same requirements (TSO 2004), applicable to all bottled waters (natural mineral waters, spring water, and bottled drinking water).

Note: In the US, we don't allow as much as the EC's maximum limit does - naturally or added. However, fluoride concentrations are only required here on labels if fluoride is added. So if you are trying to avoid fluoride, as we are, regular bottled water may not be the way to go. Reverse osmosis or distilling gets most, but not all fluoride out, and is probably the best option.

Legal liability for the county?

Hmm, this is a good point:

an advisory to parents of infants that they should no longer use their tap water to mix formula

From this site: (link...)
you get the information that "Between 1999 and 2004, approximately 41% of adolescents aged 12 to 15 and 36% aged 16 to 19 years had enamel fluorosis." Seems like a lot of kids.

If you go here: (link...)

then you can see the visible effect of fluorosis (which is caused by excess fluoride at a young age). So now I'm wondering if there's a legal liability. Could someone whose child developed disfiguring fluorosis sue the county for damages? It really seems like the only ethical thing to do is to send a notice to customers, advising them to discuss whether or not they should use the fluoridated water to mix infant formula. People should be aware of this risk, so they can decide whether or not to buy bottled water for their small children to use instead.


I gurantee you if my kids teeth looked like this, I would be suing.

No more lawsuits - please!

Legal liability for the county?

I hope not. Between this (link...) and this (link...), I may have been wrong about this thread; (link...) With a couple of broken arms and possibility of fluoride stricken babies, we may need more than $9 million.

At any rate, it appears another lawsuit, like our mayor and the machine, is something we can't afford.

Scheib claims Boderk threw

Scheib claims Boderk threw him to the ground, causing him to hit his elbow with great force. He also states Boderk handcuffed in a way that compressed the nerves at the level of his wrists.
Scheib also claims that when he was later pulled out of a squad car, his elbow was again struck with great force. He states that he was never allowed “the opportunity to lock up his house, secure his dog or retrieve his keys and wallet.”
The plaintiff states in the lawsuit that he had a “splinter lacerate and embed in his forefoot” earlier that evening, and while at the Blount County Jail he was “put in dirty cells with dried blood and urine on the floor.” He claims he was forced to walk barefoot with the open wound in his foot.


Welcome to the real world, buddy.

My son was arrested after a traffic violation in Knox County. He is weightlifter and bodybuilder so Knox County used two sets of cuffs to cuff him, as his upper torso is so wide. It was discovered he also had some unpaid traffic tickets in Blount County, so they sent him here. Knox County officers told the Blount officers that he was causing no problem, was submissive and non-combative. Blount officers proceeded to force his shoulders back to cuff him with one set of cuffs while asking him if he was going to cause a problem. ("Gonna cause us a problem big guy? Huh? Huh?)

His father came to the rescue, paid his fines and got him out of jail. Due to the injured shoulder, he missed 3 days of work and had to take pain killers until the shoulder healed.

So goes another day at Blount County jail.

I hope the doctor wins his lawsuit..

Doctor's chances better because . . .


This doctor's chances should be greatly enhanced since the venue for the litigation is the United States District Court, per the article.

As to the real world, well, again, per the article, the number of officers that attended to whatever disturbance was initiated took me aback. Of course, as I say, more will be revealed.

As to the "backwaters" comment, well, finally, I thought that issue had been resolved by this forum for persons who now can speak their mind, and I think of previous comments made by elected officials in BC and elsewhere . . .

My best.


Thomas F. Mabry
P. O. Box 52385
Knoxville, TN 37950

Fax 1-888-215-3119
Phone 1-865-271-9224

TV News

I just saw this issue covered on WVLT News (link...)

Most of the story was about a woman with kidney trouble named Janet Lail. There was a photo of the plant and it had the name Lail on it too. My friend Google revealed another article about the same woman in this artle from Maryville Alcoa Daily Times (link...) .Iwonder why they did not introduce her as the wife of the district manager?

*Former* District Manager

I saw that too!

Her husband was Isom Lail, the district manager until he passed away some time ago. They actually named the plant after him.

Kind of sad and ironic now that it bears his name, since he worked so hard to keep fluoride out.

His brother is Holden Lail of the County Commission. According to this article, he didn't agree with his brother about fluoride: (link...).

The letter

Cunningham believes there's no conclusive proof that fluoridated water can be a problem for people who drink it and sent a letter to board members he would not appoint them if they were not for fluoridation.

McLamb of WVLT (link...) stated he had the text of the letter on his site. I'm I missing it somewhere?

Letter: Link...



Oh, now it makes sense

So we're worried about some company who MIGHT move here?

Never mind the preferences of EXISTING customers.

What a joke

"...system makes us look like a back-water County"

If the emperor only had the glasses he doesn't have to match the clothes he doesn't have, he could see, the only thing "backwater" in this county is its leadership.

Bloggers, please forward this thread to five people you know would not otherwise see this. Folks have to be made aware.


You beat me to it DG. I started to post the same thing.

The most "backwater" thing about this county are our leaders and some judges who seem to think they make all rules and we better sit down and shut up if we know what's good for us.

can't stop laughing

The man with no love for Russians who went public to support the man who would not grant legal rights to a legal immigrant thinks this makes us look backwater?

How much does this additive cost and who is related to the guy that will be selling the product to the utility?

"If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death."

- George Orwell, 1984

More coverage of this story

More on WVLT about fluoride tonight: ((link...))

Help me recall

I think Alcoa used Calloway Oil for their Flouride source, but I'm not sure. Does anyone know?

Who is providing the chemicals to South Blount Utility?

Good question!

I think Tommy Hunt owns Calloway Oil, right?

Wonder if they'll put it out for bid?

Did you know one of the by-products of aluminum production is fluoride? By some accounts, the history of fluoridation can be traced back to a man who once served as legal counsel for the Aluminum Company of America.


Based on the yucky pictures of the Flourosis victims, wouldn't regular visits to the Dentist allow him/her to have the crud scraped off their teeth, to make them look more aboriginal? If so, then maybe flourodating water is good for the Dentistry business. I know my wife and kids keep the doors spinning off their hinges at our Dentist, maybe it's just good for business to nasty up our teeth a bit.

viva Evo Morales

Regarding: have the crud scraped off their teeth.

Dear BeyoundLeft,

Regarding: have the crud scraped off their teeth.

I am not a Dentist, but as I understand it, Flourisis is a problem of too much fluoride incorporated into the enamel of the teeth. It is not a only surface problem. However, I believe the anti fluoride community distorts the connection between fluoride in our water at 1 ppm, or less, with the kind of Flourisis in the photo.

When I visited the South Blount Utility District office after I learned that they stopped providing fluoridated water to their customers. I asked to see their "Scientific evidence", I was give hysterical information from anti fluoride web sites. Much of the anti fluoridation claims here on this thread and past letters to the Daily Times usually quote from a laundry list of irrelevant to misleading claims often come directly off of these web sites.

After reading some if it I found no reason to believe the "evidence" and the claims made on the basis of the "evidence" was ever peer reviewed. It was certainly not dispassionate science.

So I asked a Blount County Dentist. Have you ever seen dental Flourisis in your practice? I was expecting the answer would be no. I was wrong. There are cases here in Blount County. With out my prompting, the Dentist was quick to say that it was probably due to swallowing tooth paste. Tooth past has much much higher concentrations of fluoride. For youngsters, fluoridated tooth past presents the danger to overdose on fluoride. The danger is not from a 1 ppm water supply. (Note I am only reporting anticdotally evidence. I am not claiming the dentist was in a position to make a iron clan scientific claim.)

Despite the nuances regarding fluoridated water for infant formula, it remains the recommendation of the CDC and the NIH that fluoridation of our water is a good public health measure.

From: (link...)
"Community water fluoridation is safe and effective in preventing tooth decay, and has been identified by CDC as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."

From: (link...)
" water fluoridation continues to be the most cost-effective, equitable and safe means to provide protection from tooth decay in a community."

The Mayor got this right this time.

Forrest Erickson

Show me the evidence

Forrest, I would welcome you pointing to some scientific studies, peer-reviewed, that show it is fluoride in the water that is resulting in overall reduction of dental caries - as opposed to widespread use of fluoride toothpaste and fluoride treatments. Then show how the myriad European countries who have elected not to mass medicate their populations via public water supply have suffered increased dental decay.

I would think fluorosis of the teeth may well be an indicator of something like fluorosis of the skeletal structure. Why should we think it only affects the teeth?

And not to be personal, but why is it that you accept the anecdotal "evidence" of a dentist or two in favor of water fluoridation so easily, while assuming every detractor is a whacko? Do you also think people who eschew traditional food in favor of organic food whackos? Some folks would just rather eat and drink what nature has to offer.

I imagine that professional dentists aligned with the ADA don't have the luxury of actually preaching against fluoridation. However, one well-known local dentist told a member of my family several years ago that fluoride may be responsible for weakening the bones - contributing to fractures in older folk. If you ask him on the record, though, I'm certain he would say he was FOR fluoridation.

To say 1 ppm is safe for me personally without knowing how much I weigh, how old I am, what other drugs I take, what medical conditions I suffer and whether I drink a quart of water per day or 5 gallons seems a little devil-may-care. Not to mention, the recommendation doesn't take into account how many foods I eat or how many cups of green tea I drink that ALSO contain fluoride. Thankfully, not all medication is served up as one-size-fits-all.

While it may be somewhat debatable that fluoride adversely affects people when taken in the recommended dose, it is not at ALL debatable that fluoride is unhealthy at a slightly higher dose. How do I know whether I'm getting too much or not?

And truly, Forrest, if you noticed, the CDC also acknowleges a Harvard Study that shows an "observed association" between fluoride exposure and a certain type of bone cancer (for boys only). They caution not to overreact, of course, say more studies need to be completed, and still tout the benefits of fluoridated water: ((link...)) But pardon me while I do NOT feel enthused about encouraging my kids to suck down water that may or may not increase their chances of getting osteosarcoma. Makes more sense to avoid it until the effects are truly known. Noone wants to gamble with their kids' health.

The American Dental Association seems to rely on the work of the National Research Council. Check what they have to say about the various associated issues ((link...)). You may find youself more inclined to err on the side of caution, too.

pointing to some scientific studies, peer-reviewed

Dear local_yokel,

The very Osteocarcoma link you included regarding "an "observed association" between fluoride exposure and a certain type of bone cancer (for boys only)." also said that in addition to not finding an association in girls,

The principal investigator for the overall study cautions against over interpreting or generalizing the results of the Bassin analysis, stressing that preliminary analysis of a second set of cases does not appear to replicate the findings (Douglass et al., 2006).

Emphasis mine.

Further down within in the Osteocarcoma page the CDC offers this link which I think should meet your request for "pointing to some scientific studies, peer-reviewed"
While I have not read the entire article at the link I just provided, I think it safe to conclude that elements from it show that fluoride in the water and other fluoride treatments all contribute.

Please also note that where I sited antidotal evidence, I warned that it was such.
Now for some more antidotes:
I have to paraphrase another Blount county dentist, to whom I spoke, and who said that after the successful reduction in cavities brought on by fluoridation there has been some backsliding and then speculated it is due to the increase in consumption of sugared beverages. Although the sugared beverages probably contain the 1-ppm fluoride, the speculation is that additional sugar overwhelms the protection which fluoride provides.

Working from my imperfect memory, Archeologist say that the can see the agricultural revolution in the simultaneous emergence of tooth decay in human remains. The pasty starch from eating grains gets on the teeth and feeds and harbors bacteria, which secrete acids causing tooth decay. Walk through the grocery store and marvel at all the product we now eat which are starchy and many of which did not exist even 30 years ago. Think also, about how so many people now get so much food from McDonalds. I read somewhere that McDonalds consumes ¼ of all the beef in the USA. Most meals at McDonalds feature large amounts of starch. I think you could only get starch free meal if you order eggs and bacon or sausage and water or sugar free soda at McDonalds.

Again I feel that the arguments against fluoridation are non scientific and that the peer reviewed science which drives the CDC and NIH recommendations are likely the best course of action.

Forrest Erickson

Re: Osteosarcoma - all my

Re: Osteosarcoma - all my children are boys, by the way. Thus my concern. Not to mention you are quoting the same disclaimer I paraphrased, as though I somehow failed to acknowlege it. (Sorry, I'm feeling prickly.)

You did not find a published report that rules out the connection to osteosarcoma. So you quote a "preliminary analysis of a second set of cases." And then call MY argument unscientific!

What is more unscientific than a preliminary analysis of an unfinished study for heaven's sake? Oh yes, on that basis, let's keep loading the boys up with fluoride and forget previous observed associations with rare bone cancer while the CDC gets its crap together.

Also, how IS what I posted unscientific? It's the National Research Council - National Academies! "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards (2006)." Didn't you check out the footnotes?

Your report, from a bunch of dentists - some glorified - only examined the benefit for teeth, with no mention of any consideration of overall health. It is also outdated (2001). Whereas, my report examines health effects of fluoride and does NOT make recommendations about fluoridating water to reduce dental caries, because that was not part of its mission.

My report also recommends reduction of maximum allowable fluoride by the EPA because, in its conclusion, the current max does not protect from various health problems - which it documents.

I didn't think we were arguing whether fluoride is good for teeth. I thought we were arguing whether the potential risks of mass medication, blindly prescribed, for the benefit of a few was good public policy.

The problem, again, is that the exact threshold in which thyroid function is suppressed, bone fractures become a problem, and a number of other problems (including lower IQ from myriad studies in China, the consistency of which was acknowledged by the NRC), is unknown. Equally unknown is the dosage each individual person is receiving. Dosage is influenced by far too many factors to even speculate on.

Tell me - how would you feel if the Mayor decreed that our public water supply would be used to transport birth control medication? Or flu vaccine? Or valium? A few people would benefit from each of these scenarios, right? Just like a few people in a specific target group will benefit from fluoride. But, this is America -- and people still like to have the choice about what medications they take.

Fluoride is darn hard to remove from the water. Just any filter won't do it. A special expensive filter is required. Whereas, most anyone can afford fluoride toothpaste and a toothbrush.

Encroaching Communism

Michael H. Thompson has an interesting take on the subject of floride at his blog "Red Necks and White Socks".

Here's the link


Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Martin Luther King, Jr.

spelling on to the 2006 National ....

Dear local_yokel,

First, sorry for my spelling on antidotal which should have been anecdotal.

And sorry I have gone quite for so long, but after composing and losing a long reply due to computer operator error, I just did not have time. (Hint, don’t press reload on the browser window when you really wanted a save button.)

Thanks for pointing out your link to the 2006 National Research Council Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology. You were right I had missed it. I spend over an hour reading from it back on 1/29/2006. While I find it interesting, I doubt I will read all of it. It is over 500 web pages long. Can you please be more specific?

Regarding where I said, “Again I feel that the arguments against fluoridation are non scientific” and to which you replied, “So you quote a "preliminary analysis of a second set of cases." And then call MY argument unscientific!”
Sorry, I was aiming my comment more widely than at just the material you have written on this thread. Now that I more carefully reread your arguments, they show that you have done more than the superficial reading which most of the anti fluoridation advocates demonstrate. However, I was still surprised when you said, “I didn't think we were arguing whether fluoride is good for teeth. I thought we were arguing whether the potential risks of mass medication, blindly prescribed, for the benefit of a few was good public policy.” I felt your statement, “Then show how the myriad European countries who have elected not to mass medicate their populations via public water supply have suffered increased dental decay.” Was an indication that you were denying efficacy of fluoride.

Could you be more even more clear and denounce what I believe to be the misleading statement from FAN posted by nyscof “-- Major research indicating little difference in decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.”

My take on this is that this statement misleads the reader into thinking that fluoride is not effective at reducing tooth decay. Once again, perhaps I am missing the point or I am reading into it something that is not there. Perhaps every anti-fluoridation advocate (or most) accepts that fluoride is effective.

How about a clear statement something to the effect that:
Fluoridated water was proven effective at reducing cavities back when there were no other methods of delivering fluoride. Now that there exist other delivery methods, we should reevaluate if it is still need and if it is the optimal method of fluoride deliver.

Safety is a separate, and of course a very important mater. A discussion of safety should not be confused by unrelated issues.

Time permitting, I have more issues to address but they are largely on the material from FAN posted by nyscof.

Forrest Erickson

Forrest, I like how you

Forrest, I like how you summed it up:

How about a clear statement something to the effect that:
Fluoridated water was proven effective at reducing cavities back when there were no other methods of delivering fluoride. Now that there exist other delivery methods, we should reevaluate if it is still need and if it is the optimal method of fluoride deliver.

I honestly didn't set out to be an opponent of fluoride at all. I sure can't speak for FAN or NYSCOF and did not establish my position on fluoride from reading the websites of opponents. I think people who do regurgitate that stuff and can't produce mental footnotes really do damage to the seriousness of the issue.

Just think about the enormity of this: by all accounts, something approaching 66% of US public water is fluoridated. Not 100%. Yet according to the CDC, fully one-third of children ages 6-19 have some degree of enamel fluorosis. That shouldn't happen at the low levels considered optimal by the dental industry, should it? At least, that's their defense against all the other well-documented bad things that can happen to a person exposed to too much fluoride. These "bad things" are outlined thoroughly in the NRC report and in many other studies. So how are these kids getting overdosed, then? Check out this list of fluoride content of just about everything at the USDA website: ((link...)). The table starts on page 12 of the .pdf. You can see that people who drink tea have no problem getting their "optimum" fluoride intake.

I'm guessing that 70 years ago when the "optimal" amount of fluoride to be placed in water was adopted, people didn't have exposures to so many other sources. The food they ate wasn't canned or processed elsewhere with varying fluoride amounts. And 70 years ago, most infants probably didn't drink formula.

And since the big topic of today is conflict of interest, here's more about that controversy within Harvard about that doctoral dissertation by Elise Bassin and Douglass: (link...)

Harvard investigated, and eventually declared Douglass innocent, but stubbornly refused to say why. It was, however, revealed that Chester Douglass (a consultant for Colgate and editor of their newsletter) had donated $1 million to the dental school back in 2001 when this study originally came out. Elise Bassin went on to publish her report and stands by her work. The CDC and ADA continue to say everyone should be cautious in putting too much stock in her study -- which revealed that boys who live in areas with fluoridated water are 5.4 times more likely to get osteosarcoma, a bone cancer more prolific in boys to begin with.

T. Hunt-Calloway Oil

Regarding Tommy Hunt, he married into the Calloway family. The Calloway's own the Oil company and local convenience stores that pump gas. Haven't heard whether Calloway also sells fluoride. Seems as odd mix: fluoride and petroleum.

Article from Blount Today on the topic of fluoridating the water

Not one of these fine dentists mentioned the interim advice to parents to find an alternative, unfluoridated water supply to mix their infant formula with or the expense involved in purchasing ready-to-eat (and there are other problems with ready-to-eat ((link...)):


Tomorrow at 9 a.m. is the next meeting of the South Blount Utility District Board in their office on Lamar Alexander Parkway.

First of all, let me say I

First of all, let me say I know beans about Alzheimers. Don't know much about fluoride, either.

However, I don't find this dentist's comments particularly scholarly: (link...)

"I don't think there's anything that proves or points out or comes close to establishing a link to Alzheimer's or any of the other diseases that have been placed out there," Keeton explains.

So now every dentist's "thoughts" are proof enough of the safety of fluoride in the water? And is the fact that he hasn't read any recent studies on potential problems with fluoride evidence enough to make him a stimulating expert for WATE to interview? For all we know from this piece, there could be 10 articles connecting fluoride and Alzheimers, but hey, don't worry! Dr. Keeton didn't read them, so it is all good.

Must have been a slow news day over at WATE.

"I think it would be a good idea."
-Mahatma Gandhi, when asked what he thought of Western civilization

I hadn't really thought

I hadn't really thought about the environmental impact of fluoridating water...


Just in the interest of...

...keeping all the info in the same place, I'll post this video here.

An interesting point highlighted in here, by risk management folk, is that children under 12 months of age are not recommended to have fluoride at all, so any level of public water fluoridation creates a level of intake that would amount to malpractice if a doctor prescribed it. So just think it through: A formula-fed infant gets the most fluoride per unit of weight of anyone in any age group and they aren't supposed to be getting it at all.


I would really like to conduct a study on whether any citizen of Blount County has been counseled by their dentist not to give their infant fluoridated water yet. Does anyone have any suggestions on how I might gather that information?

My gut instinct is that most infants don't have teeth, and therefore don't see the dentist until they are past this age of maximum exposure.

Instead of dentists...

Perhaps this is something pediatricians or the hospital/midwives should advise parents about as it potentially impacts more than just their teeth.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

State News

Local .GOV

Wire Reports