Flouride debate should utilize all mediums

In February 1999, I publicly presented a memo to then City Commissioners Cynthia Bradley, Gerald Cassel, Al Kaufmann, Mike Pittsley, Mike Ross, John Scalise and Sharon Tilmann, regarding their “duty to warn vulnerable populations” of a toxic substance the city adds to our water supply.

Public Works Supervisor Duane Ellis and City Attorney Jeffers were also informed.

The scientific evidence suggesting fluoride causes a multitude of health problems, such as lower IQ scores, Alzheimer’s-like symptoms, increased hip fracture rates, etc., has vastly increased (see Web sites fluoridation.com, fluoridealert.org, nofluoride.com).

The memo stated that those city officials had constructive knowledge of risks posed by hydrofluosilic acid, considered by the Food and Drug Administration to be an unapproved drug. Further, they had no license to prescribe such a drug.

The memo also noted certain populations may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride (elderly; diabetics; people deficient in calcium, magnesium, and vitamin C; people with cardiovascular and kidney problems).

I reminded our elected officials they were held to the “expert standard” and needed to warn the public of ALL RISKS which toxicologists, medical doctors and chemists in the field acknowledge. Since fluoridating a community’s water without adequately warning vulnerable subsets of Mount Pleasant’s population could be interpreted as intending to harm those select populations, I urged the city to document how they “prominently and frequently warn residents” of possible harm.

Consequently, I followed through on the memo/presentation with a personal letter sent to each commissioner in March 1999, asking them to investigate this issue on their own.

I suggested a warning could be posted on water bills and Mount Pleasant’s Web site, with a link to a variety of articles advocating both for and against fluoridation. Just one commissioner replied, stating the annual drinking water quality report may be an effective way to “get the word out about fluoridation.”

However, that report currently describes fluoride as an “additive which promotes strong teeth.” Thus, fluoride deceptively is being treated as if it were a nutrient, akin to calcium or vitamin D needed to promote strong bones.

In contrast, the Union Twp. water quality report lists fluoride as a contaminant “discharge from fertilizer factories.” It is shocking to learn fluoride is more toxic than lead! Therefore, isn’t it ironic that lead has clear warnings while fluoride does not?

The drive to make superphosphate fertilizer, aluminum and hydrogen bombs seems to have caused those with non-health agendas to conduct fraudulent studies. The public was misled into believing fluoride’s health effects were only positive and limited to teeth.

Last month (February 2002), I again spoke before the city commission. I shared an Environmental Protection Agency statement and reminded members of their duty to warn susceptible people. I asked what their response would be when a direct link is proven between fluoride and IQ loss or hip fractures, as it has for dental fluorosis.

Mayor Pittsley suggested citizens like myself use public access TV to inform people. On impulse I agreed, but later rethought.

I strongly believe such an obligation is primarily the city’s (manager, commissioners, public works) responsibility, and has become an issue of perpetual denial or avoidance.

At today’s 7 p.m. city commission meeting, I will demand that the administration stop ignoring this issue, and regularly use appropriate media (e.g., their TV channel, water quality report) to inform residents. I invite you to be part of this debate.