Letter: Fluoride fear-mongering
November 16, 2015
In response to Tom Lankering's Nov. 13 letter, "Stop the fluoride nonsense" (The Aspen Times): Let's look closely at your comment, "We are not using fear."
You follow that with the statement that with fluoridation, "We are questioning what appears to be a crazy and dangerous practice." That seems to be a fear-invoking statement to me!
You start your comments with, "The Pitkin County Health Department continues to promote putting a developmental neurotoxin, as classified by the Environmental Protection Agency, into drinking water." That seems to be a fear-invoking statement to me!
Another statement: "Newsweek reported about serious health issues associated from fluoride, such as lowered IQ, cancers, thyroid, bone fractures and other health issues." That seems to be a fear-invoking statement to me!
And, "Even a research study by Harvard University … has demonstrated a high correlation with a lowered IQ in children." That seems to be a fear-invoking statement to me!
And, "An unapproved drug is mass medicating our communities." That seems to be a fear-invoking statement to me!
Recommended Stories For You
What, precisely, is your reason to make these completely unsupported statements if not to cause people to become fearful about the practice of fluoridation and join your crusade to end the practice? Your reasons are certainly not to encourage people to impartially examine the evidence and make their own decisions.
The problem with your rants is that they are, in fact, unsupported fear-mongering. Anyone who takes the time to examine the evidence (those who recently voted for fluoridation, for example) can quickly discover how fluoridation opponents misrepresent the scientific evidence to justify their passionately held beliefs.
Your assertion that "the whole campaign for fluoride is about striking fear into people that it must be kept in the water or else there will be terrible consequences to our health due to horrendous consequences of poor oral health" is even distorted. Those who support fluoridation simply claim that evidence clearly demonstrates that fluoridation helps reduce the incidence of dental decay and associated health problems in a community and that stopping the practice may increase dental-health problems, particularly among those who do not have access to preventive dental care. Those claims are not nearly as apocalyptic as your exaggerated statement would suggest.
The evidence in support of fluoridation is not "purely anecdotal" as you claim; there are hundreds of studies that support that conclusion, as you would discover if you researched beyond the confines of anti-fluoridation propaganda.
For those who are concerned about fluoridation because of all the complete falsehoods and twisted truths spread by fluoridation opponents, I put together a Web page, http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationreferences.htm, to provide evidence in support of the safety and effectiveness of drinking-water fluoridation that is conveniently missing from the fluoridation opponents' propaganda.
If there are not enough convincing references that fluoridation opponents are distorting the evidence, simply go to the entire body of published evidence at http://www.pubmed.gov and examine the research. Other helpful sites that provide evidence to refute specific claims of fluoridation opponents are http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation and http://fluorideinfo.org/index.html.
Lankering's Nov. 1 letter ("More fluoride talk," The Aspen Times) also contains a torrent of unanswered and false claims.