OPINION: History Of Fluoridation In Salina

Posted 2 years ago

By Post Staff

Submitted by “Salina Cares”

Fluoridation?

So the question of whether or not adding fluoride to the public water supply is necessary?

Before we even ask this question, ask yourself this…

Is it the duty and or job of your local city government to oversee your personal medical treatment? Even if we assume that there are no negative side effects, the question still remains, is it even w/in the scope of our local elected leaders to decide to medicate you without your consent by adding drugs to your public water?

The simple answer to these questions are no. No it is not their job, nor is it even constitutional. On these facts alone, the city council should take the opportunity presented to them to right a LONG STANDING WRONG.

Now a little history lesson.

In the 40s and 50s all throughout the nation, there was a huge push to fluoridate the public water supplies, some studies indicated that fluoride helps strengthen the enamel of teeth. It was thought at the time that it would be an economical and safe way to treat cavities. It was “for the children.” Keep in mind that at this time, doctors would appear on commercials during cartoons like the Flintstones to tell kids that smoking a camel cigarette everyday would help w/ respiration and circulation. And that cigarettes were “good for you.” Don’t believe me, go look it up.

At this same time, many groups were promoting fluoridation. In Salina, in 1956, our city council took up the issue. It was hotly debated at the time. Articles from the front page of the journal that year tell the story. One member of the CC stated that it was such a hot issue, that it MUST BE PUT TO A VOTE. He realized the larger implications on personal FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. He also said that it would be foolish for the city to move forward only to have citizens stop it. Thereby causing a huge waste of resources, considering the costs involved. He was wise. However another council member stated and was quoted in the Journal as saying something to the effect of, “we don’t need the citizens permission, we can do whatever we want…” how telling that would be…

So in 1956 Salina had one of the highest voter turn outs on record period. Naturally Ike was running for president, and what do you know…THE PEOPLE OF SALINA VOTED 80% AGAINST ADDING CHEMICAL FLUORIDE TO THE WATER….80%. Apparently at that time, folks did not believe that their local city government had ANY business force medicating the entire population through the public water supply. And they were correct.

Fast forward 12 years..In 1968. Out of the blue, the Salina Journal reports that a council member put forward a proposal to add fluoride to the public water supply in a city council meeting. The CC voted and passed the resolution. There was no public debate or input. Obliviously the city felt that the stupid people of Salina did not vote “the right way”. And technically as I understand it, it was perfectly legal. By this time, apparently the citizens of Salina had fallen asleep. While what the CC did was not “illegal”, it was not right. I wasn’t around to vote back then, but I promise if I was, and then the city decided later to ignore that vote, it would not have went over very well with me. If the citizens of Salina voted OVERWHELMINGLY BY 80% AGAINST THIS, why would a CC decide on their own after that to do it anyway? They must have really been worried about teeth.

I will follow up in the future with more information on this issue. It is a serious issue. It effects every single man woman and child in this city. Your current CC is fully aware of the issue and has to date chose to do nothing. They were actually presented with very specific information regarding the potential long term dangers of fluoridation, obviously they understand the principles involved as well, and OBVIOUSLY none of them seem to see any issue w/ the city of Salina not only telling you what to put in your body, they are without consent medicating you w/ a dangerous, environmental contaminant, (as per the EPA) and an unapproved drug for human use (as per the FDA). Even the ADA has stated that under no conditions, should anyone use fluoridated water to mix baby formula, because it is now known that fluoride CAUSES BRAIN DAMAGE, and that VERY YOUNG CHILDREN ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE TO THIS. This is a MATTER OF FACT. It’s not debatable. This is not my “opinion” this is information provided by your own FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, (Environmental Protection Agency EPA) and the (Food & Drug Administration FDA). Not to mention the American Dental Association ADA.

This should be very simple. The CC should simply hold a vote the same way they did in 1968. They can show the people of Salina that they respect the constitution and moreover all of our personal freedom and liberty that is given to us by our creator. Or they can stand behind the idea that the City of Salina knows whats best for you, and will medically treat you whether you want them to or not.

At the last CC meeting, the mayor stated that somewhat regularly people bring this issue up, and that they simply do nothing and then a few months later someone else brings it up…well Mr. Mayor, do you suppose that there may be a reason people keep bringing this up? Is our city government not there to serve the people of Salina? Is it not the responsibility of the city of Salina to provide SAFE AND CLEAN DRINKING WATER? Do you suppose that people keep bringing it up because THERE IS A REAL CONCERN? People, if you cherish liberty, if you want a choice of whether or not you consume a highly toxic and dangerous drug, you need to go to your CC and express those concerns.

 

The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the author. These views and opinions do not represent those of SalinaPost.com, and/or any/all contributors to this site.



Commenting Disclaimer
  • Be respectful. 
  • Do not use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Do not make accusations or personal attacks
  • Comments considered to be 'trolling' or for the sole purpose of angering others will be removed.

  • Anonymous

    There is also a Salina Cares facebook page. You can follow there and keep up to date w/ upcoming public meetings and actions to be taken to end this ridiculous NOT SAFE AND NOT EFFECTIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT.

    • Picker22

      Amazing to have three mistakes in just one sentence. I’d like to address two (safe and effective).

      Water fluoridation is important to a community’s better oral health, especially the children’s.

      The single most compelling positive effect is the avoidance of operations for severe cavities in young kids. The huge Louisiana study showed that 2/3rd of the operations for terrible cavities and 50% of the dental bills were avoided with fluoridation.

      see: Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay — Louisiana, 1995-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention September 03, 1999 / 48(34);753-757 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4834a2.htm

      The Texas legislature commissioned a study of the dental bills saved with fluoridation with similar findings as did a study of Medicaid cases in New York State.

      In 2010 it was shown that kids who drink fluoridated water in childhood become adults with more teeth.

      see: Am J Public Health. 2010 Oct;100(10):1980-5. The association between community water fluoridation and adult tooth loss. Neidell M, Herzog K, Glied S. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20724674

      Water fluoridation prevents cavities in adults and children, in permanent teeth and baby teeth, and on the exposed root surfaces common in older people.

      Because of the volume of scientific research – as of this evening there are 5931 articles in the National Library of Medicine’s database found by searching on fluoridation; 44478 by searching on fluoride, most reasonable people will look to expert scientific opinion. The overwhelming expert consensus is the reason that fluoridation reaches about 74% of Americans on public water systems.

      Professional organizations and expert committees have, based on this literature, come to the uniform conclusion that community water fluoridation is safe, effective and inexpensive..

      What the many respected dental, medical, public health and disease prevention organizations say in their own words can be conveniently read at:

      http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/respected-organizations/

      • jwilli6

        Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. No adult has ever walked out of their doctor’s office with a prescription for the fluoride drug because it is deadly poison and the body has no known use for it. Drinking it to prevent tooth decay is as foolish as drinking sunscreen to prevent sunburn. Every fluoride toothpaste tube carries the warning “if swallowed, call a poison control center.”

        Read the best scientific information on fluoridation in Dr. Paul Connett’s book, “The Case Against Fluoride,” published last year. It contains over 1200 peer reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning showing the ineffectiveness and dangers to health from fluoride.
        Also see his very informative site here (www.fluoridealert.org).

        You will see a petition at this site signed by over 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation; also scientific evidence to show that it causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, and other serious health problems.

  • Anonymous

    There will be a public meeting in the Prescott Room of the Public Library June 18th at 7:30. Everyone is invited. Hope to see many there, hope to see some of our CC members as well..

  • about time

    About time someone steps up and stops this! No reason at all that the government has the right to tell us what to put in our body! I’m a grown up and can make my own decisions

  • Gee Whiz

    This is not the only issue the city commissions ignore the electorate’ vote. Remember that the new water park was voted down so they just quit maintaining the old pool in order to force it through. Same with the Riverwalk – voted down but they spent all that money on the studies. New expo center was voted down but they are moving forward with plans for it. These people for the last several years are mini-obamas. The heck with what the taxpayers and voters decide; we’ll do what we darn well please! I’m sick of it. We need to get some real people on the councils and commissions who have an understanding of constitutional rights and limitations.

    • William R. DeSilvey

      Hey Gee……I haven’t seen the updates. Where is it that the Superior Ones are going through with the Horse Barn thing?

      • Gee Whiz

        I haven’t seen any recent updates either, William, but I know the last one said that they we still considering the move to the new site. I probably should attend the meetings or consider running for the commission myself but i’m just flat getting too old to handle the stress of dealing with so-called do-gooders who do their own thing instead of what the constituency has directed them to do. I’m afraid I would get thrown out of the first meeting for telling them what I really think! LOL!

        • earl

          Sounds about right from someone that makes a “mini-obamas” comment. Totally misinformed! Imagine that.

        • Anonymous

          NO YOU NEED TO GO..It is YOUR government.

  • IamMe

    Gee Whiz, you bring up some interesting points. Which is why I have always asked the question why does Salina vote mostly a straight line republican ticket but yet they always want to control people’s lives. I agree we should stop putting this in our water. But it seems so petty when everyone wants to climb into a woman’s womb or control who is sleeping in someone’s bed.

    • Gee Whiz

      You got that rightm Me! OMG, here we go agreeing again. I love the discourse with you as you always give me something to think about :-)

    • Anonymous

      They are phony republicans. They do not understand politics for the most part nor do they care, IMO.

  • Anonymous

    This is a simple thing. They should stop this and should never have started it to begin with. Simply from a management standpoint how much of a wsste is that? Considering the realistic minuscule amount that actually reached the target the money spent year after year for 40 plus years…and the additional cost of maintenance …we know that fluoride is extremely corrosive …hows the pipes ? The city admits a significant % of waste that simply seeps out of pipes directly into the ground. Contaminating the soil and ground water. BRILLANT! Isn’t the city suing over that exact issue now? And they have been doing the same thing now for how many decades? And all the CC has to do is bring it to a vote ib a city meeting a they can just fix it? Why not? If you want fluoride treatment medically THEN GO TO THE DENTIST. THE CITY GOV IS NOT YOUR DOCTOR OR DENTIST .

    • country grandma

      some folks can’t afford to go to the Dentist. The Kansas Health Institute says 65-percent of Kansans drink flouridated water.

      The City of Salina has been putting fluoride in its water supply for more than 40 years. The Kansas Health Institute says that “scientific evidence over the past 60 years supports community water fluoridation as both safe and effective in preventing cavities in children and adults.”

  • Anonymous

    Liberty and freedom are popular here it looks like so if that translates to citizens individually taking it upon themselves to go to the Monday meetings and use their voice it will happen. Its not bad to want your government to not put dangerous drugs in your water …it’s also not bad to demand your city government act accordingly in light of all available information .

  • tell me

    Are you an expert or just someone with a fear?
    I don’t see anything in your argument that argues for its use. A good argument presents both sides of the issue.
    In order to prove your point, you need a little more than freedom of liberty.
    I wonder also, do you oppose vaccination?
    I have had not one but two dentists totally unrelated tell me that I must have grown up in a community with a fluoridated water supply as my teeth are strong and healthy.

    I understand where you are coming from. But sometimes people need to pushed toward something that leads to the most effective outcome for the most.

    Do I think some people can suffer? Yes, of course I am no fool. However, some people suffer from pollen and elm trees and we aren’t demanding their removal so a few people can have freedom and liberty from sneezing a few months of the year.

    I will provide a link from the National Cancer Society- an organization I trust. They debunk your fear by years of research.
    http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water

    Here is a link from the CDC- another organization I trust.
    http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics.htm

    Here is a link from ADA that approves and advocates for fluoride
    http://www.ada.org/fluoride.aspx

    Here is a link from the EPA talking about fluoride levels and safety
    http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm

    I am not sure what government agencies you are talking about coming out against fluoride. Against fluoride in high levels? Yes – but in no way against the recommended levels.

    Who are your scientists?

    • Anonymous

      The city doesn’t add pollen to the air. Thats not really a good comparison. Good bad doesn’t matter, its an unapproved drug for human use so says the FDA . You can simply do some research bit in 8th grade social studies they went over the constitution and bill of rights. I don’t advocate against fluoridation i believe you should have a choice. Aside from that the government is not allowed to drug the water supply. If you want to use fluoride why must it be put in the public water supply? Is it your city governments job to care for your teeth? Has our society really gotten to that point. There is plenty of data suggesting the harmful effects and again I will say the ADA itself says not to use it for infants. You can pretend you don’t know who the FDA EPA OR ADA are…but its kinda silly. So you would be in favor of the city dosing the water with prozac too right? Why not? Studies have shown no advantage to fluoridated cities. It is banned across Europe. 1/3 of the U.S. does not. Btw, I would love to hear ANYONE explain how consuming fluoride internally strengthens your tooth enamel. While you are at it how do you control the dose? I can think of plenty of reasons aside from the negative effects. So you believe its a good idea that 5 people completely unqualified in 1968 decided you needed to consume this drug whether you like it or not because the city knows better than you what should go into your body. I swear some people do not deserve the republic our founders paid for with blood.

      • Someoldlady

        You say, “has our society really gotten to that point”
        This is an incorrect argument, since the water has been fluoridated for many years. It isn’t like this is a new thing, and we are letting the city handle our medical care all of a sudden. If you are going to argue one way or the other, it is your responsibility to show your argument. Your POV becomes moot, if your answer to “where is your proof” is “do some research”
        Either link us up or shut up. Prove your point. Fluoridation doesn’t seem to have killed off the people of the city yet.

        • Anonymous

          Perfect. So 15 minutes before you posted this i posted just 1 example with a link. But naturally you missed it. Come to the meeting The information presnted to the CC IS CITED AND REFERENCED. NO I DO NOT HAVE ALL OF IT COMMITTED TO MEMORY. BUT ITS THERE . IF YOU REFUSE TO LOOK AT IT THATS YOUR PROBLEM. HELL I POSTED EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASKED FOR AND MORE FROM A 3 second google search. I am telling you that there is going to be a public meeting where you can get the information anf or access to it. You OBVIOUSLY HAVE A COMPUTER WITH INTERNET. HELLO?

    • Anonymous

      I see the links, however it’s very easy to IGNORE information, I find it difficult to believe that you found no information regarding the ADA revising it’s own position of the use of fluoridated water for infants, AS WELL AS THE CDC. Again if you would like to pretend you can’t find that information then ok. But I believe that the argument against it in this letter is ideological. IT IS NOT IN THE SCOPE OF THE CITY GOVERNMENT TO TREAT MEDICAL CONDITIONS PERIOD. That’s a matter of fact pal, it’s not an opinion, it’s the supreme law of the land.

      BTW, maybe we should add MERCURY to the water, I mean after all, the ADA hasn’t come out against it..so it must be really good for you right? Again, IF YOU WANT TO USE FLUORIDE PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY IT’S NECESSARY TO SPIKE THE PUBLIC WATER WITH IT? Last I checked, the government putting in your water is not the sole means of getting this. But I do understand that many many people simply rely on the government to micro manage every little facet of their lives, and that is very very sad. I know if I needed to take say, lithium, I would not expect the City of Salina to begin adding it to the water, so why should they add this UN-APPROVED DRUG AS STATED BY THE FDA, DESPITE THE FACT YOU PRETEND TO NOT BE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT. IT’S NOT DEBATABLE.

      I don’t need anything more than freedom and liberty, the constitution is the supreme law of the land. It protects me from the government doing any number of things, up to and including forcing me to undergo medical treatment w/out my providing informed consent. This is the kind of thing they do in China. If you want to use fluoride I think YOU SHOULD, PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU FEEL THE NEED TO GET IT PUT IN THE PUBLIC WATER AS OPPOSED TO SEEKING MEDICAL TREATMENT FROM A HIGHLY TRAINED PROFESSIONAL?

    • Anonymous

      Since it was apparently extremely difficult to find this information I’ll make it really easy, exactly what you asked for…GOVERNMENT STUDIES, REPORTS, REFERENCES… TOOK ALL OF 5 SECONDS, GOOGLE IS REAL TOUGH SOMETIMES… This was just the page, there are actual links, go to the actual site, but I would like EVERYONE to get an idea of whom conducted the studies reports etc….here’s the link to the site, the text from the page is below

      http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/index.cfm

      (Shamelessly cut and paste)

      The following is a compilation of some of the most compelling information against fluoridation. The materials are grouped into six categories: Government Reports, Scientist’s Position Papers, Medical Journals, Government Agency Documents, National Organizations – Environmental, Political and Media and Miscellaneous.
      Pick and choose which ones are most appropriate based on the audience and the time you have to present. Each document is downloadable as a .PDF file.
      Government Reports
      These are specific studies on fluoridation analyzing a variety of issues. Findings of individual facts by Government Agencies can be found in the Government Agency section.
      A partial list includes the following: Natick, York, Ontario, Wilmington Board of Health, Human Rights and Fluoridation, Calif Needs Assessment and others.
      Government and Industry Reports
      Scientist’s Position Papers
      14 Nobel Prize winners opposing fluoridation
      EPA professionals discuss why they oppose fluoridation.
      Dr. Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland New Zealand and former advocate of fluoridation documents why he changed his mind.
      Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of the University of Toronto’s School of Preventive Dentistry and former fluoridation advocate documents his reasoning for now opposing fluoridation.
      Dr. Mullinix – discusses research she’s done demonstrating the negative health impact of fluoridation
      List of Top Medical Professionals and Scientists Warning of Fluoridation Dangers
      List of Doctors and Dentists objecting to water fluoridation
      From Medical Journals
      AMA Letter – AMA states “not prepared to state fluoride is safe”
      Journal American Medical Assoc. – “Hip Fractures increased in areas with fluoridated water”
      Journal American Dental Assoc (JADA) – “optimal intake has yet to be determined”
      Amer. Journal of Epidemiology – “fluoride damages bones at levels added to public drinking water”
      Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health – “five major epidemiological studies show a high rate of hip fractures in fluoridated regions.
      Dartmouth College -”fluoridation is associated with an increase of lead levels in children” – 280,000 children in the study.
      Canadian Dental Association warning that 35-60% of people in fluoridated communities will get fluorosis.
      Susceptible Populations who are sensitive to the effects of fluoride
      Annals of Allergy – study showing allergies to fluoride.
      Delta Dental, a large California insurance company promotes and funds fluoridation but refuses to pay for dental work due to fluoridation damage.
      From Government Agencies
      World Health Organization (WHO) – “Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure before introducing any additional fluoride”
      US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) – letter stating there are no federal fluoridation safety standards
      US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) – “FDA calls fluoride an unapproved drug” – “no research done on fluoride safety”
      US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – call fluoride “a drinking water contaminant”
      US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – “no federal safety standards for fluoride”
      US Environmental Protection Agency Toxicologist call for moratorium on fluoridation.
      NDRC (National Resource Defense Council) reveals EPA data linking arsenic in drinking water to specific cancer risks.
      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (NOAA) Report fluoride’s negative effects on Salmon
      State of Nevada law regulating Sodium Fluoride, calling it a pesticide.
      State of California law regulating fluorides, classifying them as “hazardous waste”
      California Board of Dental Examiners – “Dentists cannot provide a medical opinion regarding the safety of ingested fluoride”
      Surgeon General Report – Oral Health in America – “..80 percent of Medicaid eligible kids don’t receive dental care because few dentists take Medicaid.”
      California Law mandating optional topical fluoride treatments in schools
      Court Opinions – summaries of the 3 trial Judges opinion of fluoridation after evidence was introduced at trial.
      Pace Environmental Law Review – Fluoridation of Public Water Systems: Valid Exercise of State Police Power or Constitutional Violation? – Douglas Balog 1997
      National Organizations – Environmental, Political and Media
      Newsweek Article – “fluoride may be linked to cancer”
      Wall St. Journal – article citing Center for Disesase Control – “Children may already have too much fluoride..”
      Sierra Club National Position on fluoridation
      Sierra Club letter to the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) opposing fluoridation
      Sierra Club, Pennsylvania Chapter, official position opposing fluoridation
      Bay Area Action SFPUC letter, a San Francisco Bay environmental group letter to the SFPUC opposing fluoridation
      Bay Area Action letter – Official position opposing fluoridation
      National PTA (Parents Teachers Assoc) position on fluoridation including concerns about total exposure
      Ralph Nader, Green Party Presidential Candidate opposes fluoridation
      Green Party Chapters explain opposition to fluoridation
      Ireland’s second largest political party, Fine Gael promises to ban fluoride in drinking water.
      Actual stories of how children were hurt due to fluoridation. Pictures of fluorosis.
      Fluoridation Chemical Analysis
      Cominco – a manufacturer of fluoride identifies heavy metal content of hydrofluosilicic acid
      NSF International, a water standards organization, discusses the amounts of lead and arsenic in water.
      Toxicity comparison of fluoride, arsenic & lead
      Laboratory analysis of fluoride content in foods and beverages
      Water Chemical Codex – identifies fluoridation chemicals as containing lead and arsenic.
      Sodium fluoride manufacturer’s data sheet
      Miscellaneous
      Smoking was once recommended by dentists – DDT was also consider safe – both in the 1950′s
      Fluoride Overdose – Graphic example of Coke, Wheaties & milk showing a 136% overdose of the recommended daily fluoride intake amount
      Protest photos from a demonstration in downtown Palo Alto California
      List of Cities Rejecting Fluoridation

      • Anonymous

        But surely ALL OF THOSE STUDIES must not be real right? After all you had 2 dentists personally tell you otherwise…One of the most famous studies actually concludes there is little benefit to fluoridation, despite what your dentists told you…did they do any studies? Because these folks actually did.

        • tell me

          Here is your argument, in case you needed help pointing it out.

          There is benefit to fluoridated water. However, there are risks and that is what I would like to the panel to consider.
          Then present your theory without your caps lock on and we might be able to consider your point as something more than an accusation born from fear.

          I am sorry that I cannot jump on board with your theory but the evidence, the stuff I believe, tells me otherwise. It’s no coincidence that the people largely against fluoridated water are also those against vaccination and that is something I simply cannot support. We have seen too much good because of those medical advances.

          Is there side effects? Yes. Will some people suffer? Yes.
          But there are the same risks associated with everything we do and saving the masses despite a few reactions or losses is simply, how we roll.

          • Anonymous

            regardless of risk or benefits its unlawful and a violation of personal liberty PERIOD. THAT’S my point. But thanks for pretending to re-frame my argument . i understand why you did it. its a common tactic when someone has an indefensible position.

      • tell me

        I did not read all of those studies but several lead me back to my original statement. It’s the level of fluoride that is at question. Not the Fluoride itself.
        While I love the Green Party- they are running Rosanne Barr for president, that argument is trash.
        You also mention the availability of dentists to children in your references. That is a real problem and wouldn’t that argument support fluoride or would you rather have the city/county/state start paying for dental visits?

        I would love to see a big conspiracy of the government poisoning her people through the water supply but it’s simply not here.

        • Anonymous

          so its “the level” NEAT! HOW DO YOU CONTROL THAT GENIUS? the more water you drink thr more you get and that doesn’t count all that you consume elsewhere. thanks for pointing out that ot is dangerous . you realize children babies adults teens diabetics all drink different amounts thereby THERE IS NO WAY TO CONTROL THE LEVEL BEING CONSUMED! Another good reason to stop.

          • igotmine

            Salina post needs a “thumbs down” button for your posts.

    • Anonymous

      Oh and I know you mentioned you had 2 dentists make statements that implying that it’s worthwhile, so here are a few dental professionals, just here in KS that disagree, there are THOUSANDS across the nation…as well as many many other people that have taken the time to simply educate themselves on the topic.

      * Patty Aguilera, RN, Garden City, KS
      Phillip M. Allen, MD, PhD, pathologist (retired), Wichita, KS
      American Academy of Environmental Medicine, KS
      * Liliane Baraban, MD, Pediatrician, Overland Park, KS
      * Paul Baraban, DDS, Overland Park, KS
      Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Co-author with George L. Waldbott, MD, and H. Lewis McKinney, PhD, of Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma (Coronado Press, 1978) and editor since 1998 of the international quarterly journal Fluoride, published by the International Society for Fluoride Research, Lawrence, KS
      * Rodney Clements, DC, DABCI, El Dorado, KS
      * Ernest Cowden, DC,Lawrence, KS
      * Stacey Estes, BSN, MSN, Olathe, KS
      * Paul Peter Finney, DC, BSc, Humboldt, KS
      * Marta Granberry, MA Education, Topeka, KS
      * Mark Green, ND, Roeland Park, KS
      * Roy Hart, MD, Olathe, KS
      * Lynnette Hendrickson, DC, FICPA, North Newton, KS
      * Todd Hendrickson, DC, North Newton, KS
      W. Robert Hetrick, PhD, Research Coordinator, Fluoride Team of Kansas, Wichita, KS
      Robin Jackson, MS, ACS, AOCS, Professor of Chemistry, Central Christian College, McPherson, KS
      * Tim Kistner, RN, Shawnee, KS
      * Jason Konrade, MA (Physical Therapy), Emporia, KS
      * Marion Lyons, RN, Haddam, KS
      * Molly Mahoney, BSN, RN, BA, IBCLC, Olathe, KS
      * Kevin McCurdy, PE, (Project Engineer, Drinking Water and Wastewater Engineering), Lenexa, KS
      Gerald Natzke, DO, President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Wichita, KS
      * Mary Oberg, MN, RN, ARNP, CHTP, Olathe, KS
      * Debra Pennick, RN, BSN, Lenexa, KS
      * Mary Petrones, MA Education, Teacher for 35 years, Overland Park, KS
      * Megan Pribyl, MSPT, BS, Olathe, KS
      * Dalton Rorabaugh, PhD, Hays, KS
      * Teresa Smith, RN, Wichita, KS
      * Bruce Swickard, DC, Overland Park, KS
      * Mark Wallace, DC, Overland Park, KS
      * Kelli White, RN, Lawrence, KS

      But I probably made all that up, you’ll never be able to verify that huh? LOL Some people..

    • Anonymous

      the only argument “for” that i know of is ” its safe and effective” but thats it. as i posted below there is PLENTY of evidence to the contrary…but thats all really irrelevant . even if it was 100% safe. the city cannot put a drug in the water with the intent to affect the person drinking it. the potential risks FAR OUT WEIGH the debated intended effect. Wichita Mac and Hutch all agree. Again can you simply be responsible for your own mefical treatment ? Why should i pay for your dental treatment let alone be forced to take it against mu will? I am not asking for a ban. You can still fluoridate your own water if you choose to. Whats wrong with that?

      • tell me

        What about chlorine? Are you whining about that too?

        What you have misrepresented in your argument in the level in which the prescription drug is used as this is where the real problems arise.

        When my children were little, I used filtered or bottled water. Problem solved. Save yourself; leave everyone else alone and move to Europe where it’s outlawed. I also believe Americans in general have better teeth than Europeans.

        My current dentist #3 now gives us fluoride treatments, recommends toothpaste with fluoride and encourages us to drink the water.

        60% of the US follows this practice. I looked for the FDA’s stamp of disapproval and did not find it. I did see their recommendation telling people to mix baby formula with bottled water. Or better yet BREAST FEED.

        I of course did find your many references regarding the argument. I wouldn’t not consider half of them credible and won’t be attending your meeting.

        Did you answer my question about vaccination?
        Are you a Ron Paul supporter?

        • Anonymous

          chlorine is used to treat the water not the people drinking it. BIG DIFFERENCE .

        • G.

          Tell me… what percent of children living in fluoridated areas of the USA now have dental fluorosis aka dental damage? What causes dental fluorosis? Dental fluorosis causes mottled, pitted, and brittle teeth. The cost of dental veneers to cover this damage is quite expensive. Have you ever noticed how often toxic mercury/silver dental fillings need to be replaced? Brittle teeth don’t hold fillings well so dental patients will often need an expensive dental crown. Since fluoride bio-accumulates over your lifetime (in the bones, teeth, etc,) your teeth get more and more brittle until they begin to chip and break off. More business for the dental industry. I also recently read an article showing fluoride actually causes cavities from the inside out. Why don’t we let the fox guard the hen house? Apparently you don’t keep up with current events either.

          Does the municipal water district carry insurance to cover the dental damage being induce in the population? Do they put warnings on water bills warning new mothers to avoid using fluoridated tap water for infant formula?

    • Water Protector

      Tell us, who is your employer?
      Do you have ties to the American Dental Association or one of its affiliates who have staked their reputations on the big lie that fluoride is safe and effective when in fact the scientific evidence referenced in The Case Against Fluoride says it is neither. Subsets of the population are being permanently harmed by water fluoridation which you advocate for and you know it to be true in the case of infants and those with impared kidney function. When there is doubt, and there is plenty, take it out. It is called the precautionary principle. Tell me needs to peddle the lies but people are no longer as gullible and trusting of the cabal of dental societies who push mass medication via the water supply without informed consent, nor any control over individual dosage. .

      • tell me

        I have no ties with the dental association.
        I am simply annoyed with people who are mad because they see this as a hit a liberty as opposed to what it really is. A precautionary measure. You can use your precautionary principle leaning toward the other direction as well.

        • Anonymous

          yeah its bad to demand the city obey the constitution i know…wow. becsuse people lime you simply aren’t capable of taking care of themselves or their kids for that matter. i understand you NEED the city to do that for you…but you arent entitled to that and frankly its a violation of personal freedoms. So AGAIN I ASK WHY CAN YOU NOT GET DENTAL TREATMENT ON YOUR OWN. WHY MUST THE CITY DO THIS. ARE YOU SO WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO CARE FOR YOURSELF THAT YOU FEAR WITHOUT THIS THERE WILL BE 1000s of toothless kids in salina? that’s sad that you have been conditioned to believe you must have your government dictate and force medical treatment on you without consent…wow

    • Gee Whiz

      The pros and cons of fluoridated water can be debated all day but my concern is any government entity adding ANYTHING to the water supply. Their only concern should be providing clean water. The government has stuck it’s nose into way too many areas of our private business. If you want fluoride on your teeth you buy fluoridated toothpaste [is there any other kind?] or have your dentist do the deed. The government has way outgrown it’s bounds and we have seen so many examples in the past of experiments on innocent and unaware people [think sterilization of mentally ill people] that I don’t trust the government to do much of anything good anymore. I believe it is because we don’t have statesmen in office put politicians seeking power.

  • Water Protector

    For those who are open-minded and want to read how water fluoridation got started in the U.S. during WWII read excerpts on Amazon’s website of “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson. It is appalling and explains the need for the big lie that the ADA is still pushing today – to protect their long held misguided position.

  • jwilli6

    Topical application may help, but drinking fluoride to prevent tooth decay is as foolish as drinking sunscreen to prevent sunburn. People should not be forced to consume a drug against their will.

    Read the best scientific information on fluoridation in Dr. Paul Connett’s book “The Case Against Fluoride,” published last year. It contains over 1000 peer reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning showing the ineffectiveness and dangers to health from fluoride.
    Also see his very informative site here (www.fluoridealert.org).

    You will see a petition at this site signed by over 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation.

    There are many large scientific studies referenced there to show that drinking fluoridated water has no positive effect on cavity reduction and to show that it causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, and other serious health problems.

  • G.

    Bucket medication is unscientific as you can’t control the dose. Fluoride is absorbed through the skin when bathing & showering. Your skin is the largest organ of the body. You don’t have to drink the fluoridated water to ingest it. This was never taken into account in any of the studies previously done. No one is monitoring the levels of fluoride within the human body. When was the first time, or last time, any doctor or dentist ever checked the fluoride levels in your body (i.e. hair, blood, urine, nails)? Does the municipal water district check your individual fluoride levels? How scientific is that? You can’t check a person’s fluoride levels by counting cavities. Too much fluoride is clearly toxic to the body. It is a general protoplasmic poison used in roach & rat poison. It is now in most all processed foods, beverages, fresh produce (from pesticide residue), air pollution, pharmaceuticals (Prozac is 95% fluoride), toothpaste, pesticides, tap water, soft drinks, beer, etc. …everything but distilled water. It isn’t required to be labeled on foods & beverages. Now calculate your daily dose. Fluoride is a halogen that competes with the necessary halogen, iodine, in the body. But fluoride always wins. It takes the place of iodine within the iodine receptors in the thyroid gland and the body. This leads to hypothyroidism. Hypothyroidism causes elevated cholesterol levels. (HYPERthyroidism causes low cholesterol levels). When iodine used to be added to drinking water, it often resulted in HYPERthyroidism. The doctors had patients drink fluoridated water and/or bathe in fluoridated water to treat it. Later they learned it resulted in hypothyroidism and would actually destroy the thyroid gland so this treatment was discontinued. Apparently the USA never got that memo. I also find it odd the the Oral Health Division of the CDC doesn’t even employ a toxicologist. That alone speaks volumes in this matter. We are stuck with plausible deniability versus the precautionary principle in this regard. Most countries have banned the use of fluoridated water. Less than 5% of the world countries fluoridate their water. China doesn’t even fluoridate their water. They ship their toxic waste (called “fluoride”) to America and sell it at a 20,000% mark-up to American municipal water districts to be consumed by us.

  • Anonymous

    maybe the city can put asprin in the watet too. after all lots of people have headaches . its safe. you see…its not about whether you should or shouldn’t use fluoride . YOU SHOULD BE FREE TO DECIDE FOR YOURSELF. YOU ARE ACTUALLY BUT FOR THE FACT THAT YOU VOLUNTARILY GIVE UP THAT RIGHT. ITS NOT THE CITY OF SALINA RESPONSIBILITY TO PREVENT YOU FROM GETTING CAVITIES IF YOU EVEN BELIEVE IT DOES THAT. At this point its simply just is just because despite all evidence to the contrary. its like a superstition “if they don’t add fluoride their will ve an EPIDEMIC of rotten teeth”…yeah ok and the easter bunny and Santa are on their way to mars to meet elvis. good god people . stop waiting to be told what to think by your government …they dont have a very good record. READ.

  • M

    Putting fluoride in water is the equivalent of eating toothpaste. Last I checked, that is HARMFUL to your body.

  • FYI

    Flouride isn’t the only chemical added to drinking water. I have worked at the water plant and know first hand what is put in. With all the research that is done, have you asked the city how much flouride (ppm parts per million gallons) is introduced into the water? Find out how much they introduce and using your research, determine if it is a safe level. I don’t subscribe to the “government taking care of my health” fight as most of the replies on here. You should really look into the EPA and all of the restrictions they place on industry, to include our own water department. I don’t personally mind that the city uses flouride, within safe guidlines. As far as the council goes, we don’t know how much research they did on the subject, but when you tell the majority of people that your going to be introducing a chemical in the water supply….you probably won’t get much support. I’m not a fan of a council doing things with the idea…”we are the council and don’t need the citizens opinion”. That part is disturbing, and they forget how they got to the council seat in the first place. If your issue is with the flouride introduction, show me where Salina has a higher number of flouride related health problems. Then show me how many less cavities we have per capita against the same size city without a flouridation system. Then and only then can we as citizens make a concious decision on where we stand on the issue. Don’t believe everything you see on the internet. Remember, it takes a person to enter all that data…..it can get skewed. Thanks!

    • Anonymous

      i would think someone as knowledgeable as you being a former employee would know that your previous employer makes the contamination level publicly available on line . which is irrelevant . the issue is the fact they are have and intend to continue despite the will of the people not much changes last 40 or so years huh. ?

  • William R. DeSilvey

    Well, maybe the Powers that Be in Salina will start adding Xanax to the supply soon. Then, everyone will calm done about water additives.

    • Gee Whiz

      Don’t rule it out, William. If everyone is chilling on Xanax they can probably slip through the Riverwalk.

  • common sense

    We can argue both sides good and bad, but what it really comes down to is this. Is fluoride added to the water because it makes it safer to drink? Ect..( chlorine to kill Bactria?) or is it just added because it helps to prevent tooth decay?
    If added just to help tooth decay? I have a toothbrush and toothpaste. I learned how to brush my teeth when I was 3yrs old, don’t need anyone holding my hand or telling me what I should or shouldn’t do

  • Lucy Taylor

    First of all, fluoride is not a medication. It is a mineral, and when present at the right level, fluoride in drinking water has two beneficial effects: preventing tooth decay and contributing to healthy bones. There are several examples of how everyday products are fortified to enhance the health of Americans — iodine is added to salt, folic acid is added to breads and cereals, and Vitamin D is added to milk.

    Second of all fluoridation is not an issue of free choice. Fluoridation is a public health measure where a modest community-wide investment benefits everyone. Fluoride exists naturally in virtually all water supplies, so it isn’t a question of choosing to get fluoride. The only question is whether people receive the optimal level that’s documented to prevent tooth decay.

    Anti-fluoride activists have no evidence proving that fluoride is harmful at the level used for fluoridating water. They will make all kinds of claims, but the science doesn’t back them up. If you want to know what the evidence shows about fluoridation, visit this site:
    http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/initiatives_detail.aspx?initiativeID=85899367159

    • Anonymous

      First of all, IT IS A MEDICATION, IT IS AVAILABLE BY PRESCRIPTION. CALCIUM FLUORIDE IS NOT WHAT IS BEING ADDED TO THE WATER, THAT IS WHAT IS “NATURALLY” FOUND.

      Second of all, IT IS AN ISSUE OF REFUSING MEDICAL TREATMENT AND INFORMED CONSENT. The state has police powers to mass medicate, but according to the SCOTUS that is only in the event of CONTAGIOUS DISEASE OR POTENTIAL LARGE SCALE OUTBREAKS OF COMMUNICABLE DISEASES. i.e. Vaccinations for school children. Last I checked, YOU CAN’T “CATCH A CAVITY”. Last I checked there are no risks of large “OUTBREAKS” of cavities.
      People that support fluoridation like to tout a study that shows a huge decrease in cavities in children in fluoridated communities over the last 60 years…
      WHAT THEY DON’T TELL YOU IS THAT THE SAME RATE OF DECLINE IS SEEN IN ALL WESTERN DEVELOPED NATIONS, EVEN THE BAD ONES THAT DON’T ADD POISON TO THE WATER…So how can that be, England, Germany, Poland, and on and on ALL SHOW THE SAME DRAMATIC RATE OF DECLINE DESPITE BANNING FLUORIDATION OVER THE SAME TIME PERIOD. NEAT HUH?

      I know, you won’t believe me, and you also some how just won’t be able to locate that information, probably due to consuming fluoride your entire life so I don’t blame you…I’ll make it easy first, a link where you can look at pictures and graphs, but here is a sample of the text as well…BTW, studies were done by the World Health Organization as well as other independent studies from individual countries. For someone to claim that there is no evidence that fluoride is harmful is intellectually dishonest. Long gone are the days where one can use plausible deniability, there is something called the internet, people can verify and source information. 60 years ago you could have gotten away w/ saying all this, but now there are 1000S OF PEER REVIEWED AND PUBLISHED SCIENTIFIC PAPERS FROM ALL OVER THE WORLD THAT CONTRADICT EVERYTHING YOU HAVE SAID.

      As for “everyday products” being fortified, that’s fine, BUT THE CITY OF SALINA IS NOT A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY AND NEITHER IS THE WATER DEPARTMENT. IT IS PUBLIC. YOU AS AN ADULT HAVE THE RIGHT GIVEN BY GOD TO REFUSE ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT THAT RIGHT IS PROTECTED WISELY BY OUR FOUNDING DOCUMENTS. IF YOU BELIEVE FLUORIDE IS BENEFICIAL GO GET IT ON YOUR OWN DIME AND TAKE AS MUCH AS YOU WANT. I WANT TO KNOW THE CITY I LIVE IN RESPECTS THE CONSTITUTION AND PERSONAL FREEDOM AND LIBERTY.

      http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/who-dmft.aspx

      Excerpts from the Scientific Literature –
      “Universal Decline in Tooth Decay” in Western World Irrespective of Water Fluoridation: (back to top)
      “Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.”
      SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.

      “In most European countries, where community water fluoridation has never been adopted, a substantial decline in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades, with reductions in lifetime caries experience exceeding 75%.”
      SOURCE: Pizzo G, et al. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.

      “Graphs of tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in 24 countries, prepared using the most recent World Health Organization data, show that the decline in dental decay in recent decades has been comparable in 16 nonfluoridated countries and 8 fluoridated countries which met the inclusion criteria of having (i) a mean annual per capita income in the year 2000 of US$10,000 or more, (ii) a population in the year 2000 of greater than 3 million, and (iii) suitable WHO caries data available. The WHO data do not support fluoridation as being a reason for the decline in dental decay in 12 year olds that has been occurring in recent decades.”
      SOURCE: Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.

      “It is remarkable… that the dramatic decline in dental caries which we have witnessed in many different parts of the world has occurred without the dental profession being fully able to explain the relative role of fluoride in this intriguing process. It is a common belief that the wide distribution of fluoride from toothpastes may be a major explanation, but serious attempts to assess the role of fluoridated toothpastes have been able to attribute, at best, about 40-50% of the caries reduction to these fluoride products. This is not surprising, if one takes into account the fact that dental caries is not the result of fluoride deficiency.”
      SOURCE: Aoba T, Fejerskov O. (2002). Dental fluorosis: chemistry and biology. Critical Review of Oral Biology and Medicine 13: 155-70.

      “A very marked decline in caries prevalence [in Europe] was seen in children and adolescents…The number of edentulous adults in Europe has also been declining considerably.”
      SOURCE: Reich E. (2001). Trends in caries and periodontal health epidemiology in Europe. International Dentistry Journal 51(6 Suppl 1):392-8.

      “The caries attack rate in industrialized countries, including the United States and Canada, has decreased dramatically over the past 40 years.”
      SOURCE: Fomon SJ, Ekstrand J, Ziegler EE. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.

      “Since the 1960s and 70s, however, a continuous reduction (in tooth decay) has taken place in most ‘westernized’ countries, it is no longer unusual to be caries-free… During the decades of caries decline, a number of actions have been taken to control the disease, and the literature describes numerous studies where one or several factors have been evaluated for their impact. Still, it is difficult to get a full picture of what has happened, as the background is so complex and because so many factors may have been involved both directly and indirectly. In fact, no single experimental study has addressed the issue of the relative impact of all possible factors, and it is unlikely that such a study can ever be performed.”
      SOURCE: Bratthall D, Hansel-Petersson G, Sundberg H. (1996). Reasons for the caries decline: what do the experts believe? European Journal of Oral Science 104:416-22.

      “Caries prevalence data from recent studies in all European countries showed a general trend towards a further decline for children and adolescents…The available data on the use of toothbrushes, fluorides and other pertinent items provided few clues as to the causes of the decline in caries prevalence.”
      SOURCE: Marthaler TM, O’Mullane DM, Vrbic V. (1996). The prevalence of dental caries in Europe 1990-1995. ORCA Saturday afternoon symposium 1995. Caries Research 30: 237-55

      “The aim of this paper is to review publications discussing the declining prevalence of dental caries in the industrialized countries during the past decades…[T]here is a general agreement that a marked reduction in caries prevalence has occurred among children in most of the developed countries in recent decades.”
      SOURCE: Petersson GH, Bratthall D. (1996). The caries decline: a review of reviews. European Journal of Oral Science 104: 436-43.

      “The regular use of fluoridated toothpastes has been ascribed a major role in the observed decline in caries prevalence in industrialized countries during the last 20 to 25 years, but only indirect evidence supports this claim.”
      SOURCE: Haugejorden O. (1996). Using the DMF gender difference to assess the “major” role of fluoride toothpastes in the caries decline in industrialized countries: a meta-analysis. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 24: 369-75.

      “The marked caries reduction in many countries over the last two decades is thought to be mainly the result of the widespread and frequent use of fluoride-containing toothpaste… There seem to be no other factors which can explain the decline in dental caries, which has occurred worldwide during the same period, in geographic regions as far apart as the Scandinavian countries and Australia/New Zealand.”
      SOURCE: Rolla G, Ekstrand J. (1996). Fluoride in Oral Fluids and Dental Plaque. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 215.

      “Although difficult to prove, it is reasonable to assume that a good part of the decline in dental caries over recent years in most industrialized countries, notably those Northern European countries without water fluoridation, can be explained by the widespread use of fluoride toothpastes. This reduction in caries has not been paralleled by a reduction in sugar intake…”
      SOURCE: Clarkson BH, Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt BA. (1996). Rational Use of Fluoride in Caries Control. In: Fejerskov O, Ekstrand J, Burt B, Eds. Fluoride in Dentistry, 2nd Edition. Munksgaard, Denmark. p 354.

      “During the past 40 years dental caries h as been declining in the US, as well as in most other developed nations of the world… The decline in dental caries has occurred both in fluoride and in fluoride-deficient communities, lending further credence to the notion that modes other than water fluoridation, especially dentrifices, have made a major contribution.”
      SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1991). Appropriate uses of systemic fluoride: considerations for the ’90s. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 51: 42-7.

      “In most European countries, the 12-year-old DMFT index is now relatively low as compared with figures from 1970-1974. WHO (World Health Organization) data relating to availability of fluoride in water and toothpaste appear reliable. However, these data did not explain differences between countries with respect to the DMFT index of 12-year-olds.”
      SOURCE: Kalsbeek H, Verrips GH. (1990). Dental caries prevalence and the use of fluorides in different European countries. Journal of Dental Research 69(Spec Iss): 728-32.

      “The most striking feature of some industrialized countries is a dramatic reduction of the prevalence of dental caries among school-aged children.”
      SOURCE: Binus W, Lowinger K, Walther G. (1989). [Caries decline and changing pattern of dental therapy] [Article in German] Stomatol DDR 39: 322-6.

      “The current reported decline in caries tooth decay in the US and other Western industrialized countries has been observed in both fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, with percentage reductions in each community apparently about the same.”
      SOURCE: Heifetz SB, et al. (1988). Prevalence of dental caries and dental fluorosis in areas with optimal and above-optimal water-fluoride concentrations: a 5-year follow-up survey. Journal of the American Dental Association 116: 490-5.

      “[D]uring the period 1979-81, especially in western Europe where there is little fluoridation, a number of dental examinations were made and compared with surveys carried out a decade or so before. It soon became clear that large reductions in caries had been occurring in unfluoridated areas. The magnitudes of these reductions are generally comparable with those observed in fluoridated areas over similar periods of time.”
      SOURCE: Diesendorf, D. (1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature 322: 125-129.

      “Even the most cursory review of the dental literature since 1978 reveals a wealth of data documenting a secular, or long term, generalized decline in dental caries throughout the Western, industrialized world. Reports indicate that this decline has occurred in both fluoridated and fluoride-deficient areas, and in the presence and absence of organized preventive programs.”
      SOURCE: Bohannan HM, et al. (1985). Effect of secular decline on the evaluation of preventive dentistry demonstrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 45: 83-89.

      “The decline in caries prevalence in communities without fluoridated water in various countries is well documented. The cause or causes are, at this time, a matter of speculation.”
      SOURCE: Leverett DH. (1982). Fluorides and the changing prevalence of dental caries. Science 217: 26-30.

      • Anonymous

        btw, all that information is cited and referenced, which is a far cry from your “well I say there’s no scientific evidence against fluoridation…”
        I say there is, and here are the studies to back it up.

        • Lucy Taylor

          Millions of people living in Europe are receiving the benefits of fluoride. Salt fluoridation is the most widely used approach in Europe. In fact, at least 70 million Europeans consume fluoridated salt, and this method of fluoridation reaches most of the population in Germany and Switzerland. Fluoridated water reaches 12 million Europeans, mostly residents of Great Britain, Ireland and Spain. Fluoridated milk programs reach millions of additional Europeans, mostly in Eastern Europe.

          And if you’d like to provide peer reviewed, published, scientific papers from some place other than the Fluoride Action Network, I’d love to take a look. For now, I’ll stick to getting my information from the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental Association, the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

          • Anonymous

            You are an idiot, simply because the information is all on one specific site, DOES NOT MEAN THAT SITE MADE UP THE INFORMATION. THE FACT YOU IMPLY THIS TELLS ME YOU COULD NOT STAND TO EVEN READ THE INFORMATION POSTED..
            YUP THAT WEBSITE HAS ALL OF IT THERE, NOPE THEY DID NOT MAKE IT UP, IT IS PEER REVIEWED AND THE SOURCES ARE LISTED RIGHT THERE IN MY POST. SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT WEBSITE COLLECTED ALL OF IT AND PUT IT IN ONE PLACE DOES NOT MEAN THEY ARE THE ACTUAL SOURCE. READ THE DAMN POST. THE SOURCES ARE RIGHT THERE, NONE OF THE STUDIES LISTED WERE DONE BY “THIS EVIL WEBSITE” ONCE AGAIN A FINE EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE THAT CANNOT STAND TO LOOK AT ANY INFORMATION THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT THEY HAVE BOUGHT INTO.

            To say, “this information is invalid because it came from this website” as a knee jerk reaction, w/out even looking at it is idiocy at it’s finest. Nevermind the information IS SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWED AND SOURCES ARE LISTED.

            FOR EXAMPLE

            “Although the prevalence of caries varies between countries, levels everywhere have fallen greatly in the past three decades, and national rates of caries are now universally low. This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, including perhaps aspects of nutrition.”

            NOTICE THE SOURCE, WHILE “I” TOOK THE INFORMATION FROM THAT WEBSITE, THE ACTUAL SOURCE IS…

            SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.

            THE FREAKING BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL AND THE NAME OF THE GUY THAT DID THE STUDY.

            That’s just one. Again, you are pretending and being intellectually dishonest. I cut and pasted the information to make it as easy as possible for you and others that are apparently suffering the effects of brain damage from fluoride, yet and still despite that, despite having the sources listed, you are going to come on here and say that information comes from some fringe group and is not scientific.? OK.

            Sources

            SOURCE: Cheng KK, et al. (2007). Adding fluoride to water supplies. British Medical Journal 335(7622):699-702.

            SOURCE: Pizzo G, et al. (2007). Community water fluoridation and caries prevention: a critical review. Clinical Oral Investigations 11(3):189-93.

            SOURCE: Neurath C. (2005). Tooth decay trends for 12 year olds in nonfluoridated and fluoridated countries. Fluoride 38:324-325.

            There’s a few, those are SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHED, PEER REVIEWED. But again, I understand in your arrested development, childlike state, you can’t even allow yourself to accept or understand this. I get that.

            BTW, you do realize that private companies put fluoride in many many soft drinks, salt, foods, etc..? Just like you mentioned in Europe. So why must OUR CITY GOVERNMENT ADD IT TO THE PUBLIC WATER WASTING THE PUBLIC MONEY AND MISMANAGING THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY THEY ARE ENTRUSTED TO PROTECT?

            I love it when you give someone exactly what they ask for, and then they respond by stating, “well ho hum golly gee I won’t read that, you got it from “x” website.”

            “Yeah but they are just reporting the information, they ALSO LISTED THE SOURCE, AND THAT WEBSITE ISN’T THE SOURCE DUMMY! DO YOU READ MUCH?”

            “You are a bad person, if they stop fluoridation then all my teeth will fall out just like all those people in Europe. Oh and you must be a Ron Paul supporter too..”

            “Yes fluoride head, go have some more. Maybe you can start shooting it up.”

          • Anonymous

            And the countries that ban fluoride in water and DO NOT FLUORIDATE THEIR SALT….MUST JUST BE AN ACT OF GOD THAT THEIR RATES DECLINED AS WELL HUH?

            SO IN SHORT YOU ONLY ACCEPT INFORMATION SO LONG AS IT AGREES W/ YOUR POSITION…OK THAT’S TYPICAL SALINA FLUORIDE ZOMBIE FOR YOU. Go get a dose and tune into American Idol…OMG we are all doomed.

  • Lucy Taylor

    You haven’t read these studies or critically evaluated them. They are just references and quotes pulled from a website against fluoridation. And that’s fine, they back up what you believe. You state that these are scientific researched, peer reviewed articles, but they’ve been debunked for looking at too small a sample size, not showing scientifically important differences, and being scientifically weak.

    For example, in Cheng KK, et al. (2007). The researchers themselves urged caution when interpreting the results. It’s hard to cite a study that the researchers who worked on didn’t even believe in.

    Again, I’ll get my facts from established, trustworthy sources like the ADA and the CDC, not the website of “some fringe group” as you fully agreed Fluoride Alert Network is.

    • Anonymous

      the ADA STATES NOT USE USE FLUORIDATED WATER FOR INFANTS SO YOU SUPPORT REMOVING IT? THE FDA STATES IT IS A MEDICAL TREATMENT WHICH YOU STATE THAT IT IS NOT. So do you only belive “some” information from them? There are literally THOUSANDS OF HUMAN AND ANIMAL STUDIES BUT THAT ASIDE I AM GRANTED BY GOD THE RIGHT TO REFUSE MEDICAL TREATMENT AND THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTED. NO STUDY NEEDED FOR THAT

      • Lucy Taylor

        The ADA says that “it is safe to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula” Check it out: http://www.ada.org/4052.aspx#reconstitute.

        The FDA does not have regulatory authority over fluoride in drinking water. U.S. court decisions have rejected the argument that fluoride is a “medication” that should not be allowed in water. The American Journal of Public Health summarized one of these rulings, noting that “fluoride is not a medication, but rather a nutrient found naturally in some areas but deficient in others.”

        The truth is Americans have been drinking fluoridated water for over 65 years, and there is overwhelming evidence showing it is both safe and effective.

        • common sense

          Same with you lucy, answer this question. If fluoride was not added to the water supply, would you still go out and buy it and add it to the water you drink?
          And please answer this question, I just would like to know why you think people are so unable to do things for themselfs.Do we need the government to hold our hands for everything?

  • tell me

    You never did respond to my question about vaccination.

    Why is it important?

    I am attempting to discover your intentions. You keep jumping from fluoride is bad for you to even if it’s not bad, it’s against my freedom rights.

    It’s clear from your argument you have not been taught how to evaluate information critically. It’s also clear that you have no intention of accepting an opposing view as anything more than “idiotic” or brain rot.

    Most people would support your agenda if they saw it as a real threat. The Department of Public Health generally doesn’t stick with the promotion of killer additives. If science discovers something is bad, they hang their head in shame and change their opinion. That is what science does and what they set out to do. Science always seeks a better answer, they don’t stick with outdated information if they discover something greater.

    My end note as arguing with you is a complete waste of my time; fluoridation is expensive. If it wasn’t seen as having a positive impact, they would cut it out of tight budgets immediately and without question.

    • common sense

      So “Tell Me”, answer this question. If fluoride was not added to the water supply, would you still go out and buy it and add it to the water you drink?
      And please answer this question, I believe this will help with your argument

      • tell me

        No, I would not. My reasons are this:
        I am not comfortable adding a chemical to my own water supply and expect a decent outcome. I don’t suggest other people do this either. The fact that you say if you want it, add your own is irresponsible.
        The problems with fluoridation that are real and should be what this argument is about is- are they convinced they are able to control the proper amount of the additive. Do they monitor how much natural fluoride is occurring at the same time and how often do they consider that as it changes as the natural environment changes over time.
        How complex is the water system and how well are the additives distributed. If they provide answers to these questions- and they do. I am okay with fluoridation.

        I am also concerned about the additives they use to treat the water as they too can cause harm to the human body over time if exposure is great enough. Where is your concern about that?
        Your argument is chemical specific when there are a thousand things we should be concerned about. Earlier someone went on and on about all the things that can go wrong with fluoride exposure. Some, if not all of those conditions can occur due to other environmental toxins. So taking out the fluoride, while it may save someone (never met anyone with this problem) but if it saves 1 person who is hyper sensitive, another so called toxin will get them anyway as that is simply how they were made.

        Life is never fair. We can’t protect everyone from every potential harm. reference- parenting 101

        I also read a study, available on a google search that offered the explanation of why people are mad about this additive. The answer- you are making a few authors a whole lot of money.

  • common sense

    Good point, but now go look up why they add the other chemicals to the water(sur you already know) and why they add fluoride to the water.( To total different reasons) I do understand that anything added to a product could have side effects that are unwanted. But a chemical added to make the product safer for me and my family, is different then a chemical added just because someone “THINKS” it could possibly help with cavities. So with so many things added to our water supply, why don’t we just add the things that really help with Bactrias like coildorm, giarida lambia, leave out the chemicals that are unnecessary. I can buy fluoride

  • Jinn

    Let’s keep in mind a few other good ideas that came from the 1950′s.

    Asbestos was a wonderful building material.
    Lead was a fantastic additive to fuel, paint and anything else we could think of.
    CFC’s were an excellent way to propel aerosols.
    Dioxin was freely dumped into rivers and streams.
    Thalidomide was a miracle cure

    The list goes on and on

    It turns out we were not so smart in the 1950′s. Fluoride is one of the few surviving “great ideas” from that era.

  • Really??

    Oh my! Extremists at it again. How many of you know anyone who has suffered brain damage directly attributed to flouridated water supplies? Have you not seen the teeth of the children and adults in those communities who ‘knew better’ decades ago? I travel a lot for work and when I am in communities where the water is not flouridated, it is EXTREMELY obvious…and it’s not because the people have ultra-high IQs or because they seem super healthy and enlightened. It’s because their darned teeth are rotting out of their faces? Look at how many of our grandparents had dentures. Now ask yourself whether you think tooth decay is resulting in more or less dentures today than were evident 40 years ago.

    • Anonymous

      really? lmfao like Hutch Mac and Wichita …yeah everyone’s teeth are rotting out you heard it here first …if it wasn’t so sad it would be comical. and your right to refuse medical treatment? nevermind that…you couldn’t possibly be capable of taking care of your teeth without the city dosing the water right? and if they stopped i could start selling fluoride to all these people that will be buying it to add to their water right ? maybe you could just swallow your toothpaste from now on and save the taxpayers between 30-40K a year not counting the cost of maintenance and repairs from the fluoride damaging the pipes. just slip some colgate into your kids food. if thats what you believe fine but its not a critical public health threat and children do not constitute a majority of the population . you have the right to choose to do that however every human has the right to refuse medical treatment. They would be better off purchasing fluoride tablets and directly giving them to whoever wants them i guess. but apparently in Salina KS we know a better way than what our forefathers sought. Apparently in this city its really trendy to violate every citizens rights just right out in the open. And if anyome dare point this out why that is just about intolerable !

      if you really believe it is so important to eat fluoride then do it on your own dime and st your own risk. its arrogant and flat wrong and the current city commission should be happy to rectify the issue . it says they support liberty and freedom. they value the founding documents. this policy is way out of line and its high time it be stopped. i know this upsets alot of people but its not the rile of our city government it was wrongly presumed to be and i want to know the city i live in respects the fundamental concepts of freedom and liberty. this is 1 very simple thing that frankly must be done one way or the other. its a simple issue do you support the citizens GOD GIVEN RIGHTS protected by our founding documents paid for with blood. or i guess do you support apathy and ignorance . maybe you don’t believe or want your rights but i want mine and i want my son to have his. doing and saying nothing even after its brought to light simply means you believe the government knoww best those silly people just couldn’t possibly take care of their teeth. they would just rot and fall out. oh my just look at all the rotten toothed toothless kids of hutch mac and wichita….those poor silly people thought the people knew best and the people were supposed to take care of their own teeth. but apparently they can’t what with all those toothless kids and adults…if only the government forced them to eat it in the water..

  • twilight

    thats because they didnt stay healthy

  • boo

    who cares

  • country grandma

    some folks can’t afford to go to the Dentist. The Kansas Health Institute says 65-percent of Kansans drink flouridated water.

    The City of Salina has been putting fluoride in its water supply for more than 40 years. The Kansas Health Institute says that “scientific evidence over the past 60 years supports community water fluoridation as both safe and effective in preventing cavities in children and adults.”

    • Anonymous

      Wrong.
      Fluoride does nothing for anyone over the age of about 12. That’s a fact. The rate of cavities has declined at the same rate in NON FLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES FOR THE LAST 60 YEARS. I have a CONGRESSIONAL REPORT PREPARED FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN 2011 JAN. THE REPORT IS FAR FROM A GLARING ENDORSEMENT OF THE PRACTICE.

      It points out that today, we all get plenty of fluoride through FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE, foods, soft drinks, and juices. If anything, we all probably get too much, if anything, our PUBLIC WATER should be free from contamination and we should be able to trust that is the one thing that is free from unnecessary substances. You can simply swallow your toothpaste is you really believe that “Eating fluoride keeps adults from getting cavities…”, that saves the city of Salina between 30-40 THOUSAND DOLLARS EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Not to mention that a VERY SMALL FRACTION of all that fluoride that we all buy, even makes it to the teeth of children. If you are really concerned about “the kids” then it would be more reasonable to set aside that money and use it to pay for the cost of fluoride treatments administered by a trained professional, as opposed to dosing the entire public water supply in hopes that 10% of the total cost actually reaches the target. THE CITY OF SALINA IS NOT YOUR DENTIST, THEY ARE NOT QUALIFIED TO PRESCRIBE ANY MEDICAL TREATMENT PERIOD. THEY WEREN’T IN 1968 AND THEY AREN’T NOW.

      STOP VIOLATING THE 14TH AMENDMENT SALINA KANSAS. THIS SHOULD BE AN EMBARRASSMENT FOR ANYONE THAT BELIEVES IN THE CONSTITUTION/BILL OF RIGHTS, THAT CLAIMS TO BE A CONSERVATIVE, THAT CLAIMS TO LOVE THEIR NATION. FLUORIDATION WILL END ONCE THE SCOTUS USES “STRICT SCRUTINY”. Google it if you don’t know what I am talking about.

      Simply because its been done for 40 plus years, is not reason enough to simply continue. That’s like saying, “well we caught this guy molesting kids, but he’s 70 and he’s been doing it for 40 years, so what’s the big deal.?”

      It was a constitutional violation then, always has been, and always will be. If I was alive when the 3/5 law was passed, I would not have needed to wait for the SCOTUS to tell me that was illegal and unconstitutional.

      Every human has the right to refuse medical treatment, the right to informed consent, the right not to be experimented on medically, this WAS at one time the only nation that actually was set up to protect those god given rights, and much like in 1968, today we have local government leaders that feel they know better, and are above the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND THE CONSTITUTION.
      You can hide behind “state police powers” but again under SCRICT SCRUTINY THAT WILL NOT HOLD UP. Fluoride is targeted at a MINORITY of the population, not the MAJORITY. It fails on that standard alone. Your local elected officials are being intellectually dishonest w/ you, and or they are ignorant. Either way it’s 100% unacceptable and we as citizens are not bad for expecting that our leaders respect us, our rights, and the basic ideas that this nation was founded on and that many many many people died for. The fact it ever got started and continues to this day is an embarrassment and shameful.

  • White Jesus

    The city needs to put some Valium in the water supply because you’re giving me an anxiety attack!!!