Letter: Fluoride’s ‘questionable benefit’ | AspenTimes.com

Letter: Fluoride’s ‘questionable benefit’

The Snowmass water board is to be congratulated for its courage in its recent decision to eliminate the addition of chemical fluoride from its municipal water supply. Recent letters to the local papers have condemned the board for this action, but the board needs to be defended and praised for making this progressive stand.

Various dental associations have put forth a lot of money and propaganda to garnish support for the pro-fluoride position for 65 years. These are the same people who put mercury in your teeth for the past 100 years and told you it was safe. Why should they have any credibility regarding toxic metals and safety? Natural fluoride is sodium fluoride that occurs in the water, not an industrial waste product from the aluminum and pesticide manufacturing industries. They are not the same!

Many studies, not supported by the dental-dominated groups, show that there is an extreme degree of controversy about whether fluoridated areas actually have less childhood cavities than non-fluoridated areas. Dental fluorosis is not just a discoloration of teeth. It represents a deterioration that will eventually turn the teeth brittle and subject them to breaking. It also causes a brittleness in bones and subjects them to eventual osteoporosis and skeletal fluorosis in time.

Chlorine added to water will outgas in a reasonable amount of time; fluoride will not. We have a very decent amount of natural sodium fluoride in our local water, and people receive a lot extra by consuming foods, soups, drinks, etc., that are made with fluoridated water. In addition, many fluoride treatments are available over the counter or from the dentist for anyone desiring them for their children. There is no need to add more to the water.

Most of Western Europe does not add fluoride to its water, including Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Germany, which rejected the practice because the recommended dosage of 1ppm was “too close to the dose at which long-term damage to the human body is to be expected.”

The bottom line is: Why should the public water supply be used as a compulsory mass medication of the entire population for a noncontagious issue with a questionable benefit for only a small percentage of that population?

Dr. Rob Krakovitz

Aspen


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.