Letter: Open your minds to the dangers of fluoride
Recent letters espouse myths and realities about fluoride. The same rhetoric continues about this and that. The pro-fluoride and anti-fluoride groups can go toe to toe about different studies.
The fact is that the U.S. government acknowledged that fluorosis (an overdose of fluoride) is being recognized in 41 percent of children. As a result, the recommendation has been made to lower the dosage of fluoride being put in the water.
“The Case Against Fluoride” (Connet 2010) raises serious questions about the science that supports fluoride. As of this date, there has not been one response that refutes any of the questions or challenges raised in this book.
Over the years, the same response that claims that there is no research or no basis behind the challenges to fluoride persists. Those of us who do challenge the institution are ridiculed. Let’s face it: There has been significant research in many areas that have given new insights into many topics. Fluoride is no different. There are more than 100 animal studies and 43 human studies that indicate that there may be some serious concerns about fluoride.
Is it really prudent to wipe these concerns under the carpet? Should we wait longer to see if there are serious implications from something that was originally added to our environment around the same time that smoking, asbestos and DDT were marketed to the public?
The overall health in this country is in a serious decline. There are reasons for this. One of the issues is environmental toxins. We are being poisoned. Who wants to argue this?
People who are arguing for fluoride still refuse to accept the basic issues and concerns that people have about fluoride.
The fluorosilic acid that is put in the water is of industrial grade. There are no studies concerning its safety and effect on health.
How do you monitor the dosages that people are getting? How do you monitor who has received what amounts? There are groups that are at risk of fluoride. These include infants, the elderly and those with kidney and thyroid conditions. It is unethical to administer a drug without monitoring those who are receiving the substance. Any doctor that prescribes a drug to a person would never blindly give a drug without monitoring it.
There has not been one answer to how fluoride should be monitored.
Using the water system is mass medication without consent. It takes away from the freedom and basic right that people have to clean water. No group or person should have the right to put anything in the water. The Environmental Protection Agency considers this polluting and goes against the Clean Water Act. It also goes against the Nuremburg Code, which was established after World War II to prevent experimenting on humans. Yet there are those who think that they are above these issues.
This issue does not mean that people cannot get fluoride. We are saying that there are other ways to deliver this substance, just as there are many ways to deliver other substances. Making claims that the water system is the only or best way is lame and lazy.
People are entitled to their opinions, but this is an issue where answers are needed for questions that have been raised. And yes, there appear to be the possibilities of ramification to the whole health of our bodies.
People should have the right to choose what they put in their bodies.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Aspen and Snowmass Village make the Aspen Times’ work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.