Thursday, Dec. 8, 2016    Login | Register        

Emergence of Fluoridegate (Part I)

Ben Nelms's picture

“The illiterates of the 21st century will not be those who can’t read or write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn and relearn.” — Alvin Toffler

As Americans, we have been taught from birth to love and respect our country. This is good. In America, many people have long believed that the federal government was on their side. That view has eroded somewhat in previous decades and even more lately.

What continues to amaze me is that so many citizens, while appropriately castigating a President and Congress, don’t seem to think the federal government itself (and its agencies that formulate, implement and enforce policy after Congress passes laws and the President signs them) plays any role in their discontent.

Also in America, as elsewhere, we tend to put out of our minds the things we believe we cannot change, the things over which we believe or are told we have no control. And like obedient little children we dutifully shrug our shoulders and go on to the next order of business as we live out our days.

If all you know and believe about matters directly affecting your life and that of your family is contained in what the government agencies, corporate spokespersons, politicians, establishment academics and the mass media tell you, then you know precious little.

An issue facing us all is the long-time problem with the two sides of the coin called healthcare. On one side is the provision of healthcare bolstered by doctors, hospitals, insurance plans (public or private), pharma/chemical companies and medical device manufacturers.

On the other side there is a question that few ask: while proficient at treating (not curing) disease, why are we seeing a rise in so many diseases and medical conditions that now contribute to, for example, more than 25 percent of the children in this country being prescribed medications on a regular basis (Wall Street Journal 12/28/10)?

There are many reasons why a number of diseases and conditions continue to increase, and many of those deal with the more than 80,000 industrial chemicals we drink, eat, breathe and absorb into our bodies every day (President’s Cancer Panel report, April 2010). We wouldn’t need as much healthcare if we could keep the poisons out of our bodies.

Yet there is one chemical element that is exceedingly toxic that also ends up in hundreds of other health-compromising compounds. That element is fluorine, and it has a special significance.

And while it has been the darling of industry since the 1940s and is a killer whose nature has been denied by industry and government for six decades, it is also added to your drinking water. The reason is no mystery. This is the foundation of Fluoridegate.

As a matter of disclosure, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control have, and continue to be, the main proponents of water fluoridation (to date 70 percent of the U.S. population is fluoridated, as is 98.5 percent of Georgia, according to CDC). And CDC has called water fluoridation one of the 10 great public health achievement of the 20th century.

Yet for some unknown reason CDC will not provide me with the names and job titles of its employees responsible for informing the public on matters pertaining to water fluoridation. You would think they would be proud of their claim.

The fluoride used in U.S. drinking water comes in forms such as fluorosilicic acid that comes directly from the phosphate fertilizer industry (as a toxic waste byproduct) to your tap.

I think the reality is that CDC (along with growing number of government agencies, professional organizations and corporations) knows the days are numbered for dumping a neurotoxin in our drinking water (Mullenix in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 1995, Murphy, 2008 and another 80 animal and biochemical studies cited in Connett, Beck and Micklem, 2010).

It would take a dozen columns like this one to begin to scratch the surface of the multiple problems with fluorine. The second installment of this column will give those interested with a potent list of research-laden resources. Meantime, the following, from about a decade ago, is from the Union of Scientists at the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

This group of 1,500 scientists, engineers and lawyers came out in opposition to water fluoridation after they refused to parrot EPA’s official position (similar to that of CDC and ADA) brought on by what they called “external political pressure” that EPA was “unable or unwilling to resist.” The scientists decided not to keep the issue “within the family.” Here’s what they said after several years of opposing EPA’s position ( I hope you read this carefully:

“Since then our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposure to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic (low doses of fluoride ingested over a period of years, like with drinking water) toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”

“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear,” the scientists concluded. “Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method of controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”

Bottom line, you have been lied to for 60 years about a product said to be safe yet is insidious in its ability to cripple, maim and kill. Fluoridegate in years to come will be known not only for the cover-up that continued for decades, but for the disease, suffering and death that could have been prevented.

The handwriting is on the wall. The unwillingness of government, corporations and elected officials to stand with and for the people is legion. Juxtaposed to that unwillingness are 215 million plaintiffs (70 percent of the U.S. population) and counting.

[Reporter Ben Nelms may be contacted via email:]


CDC representatives have been known to fudge the truth. For example:

The CDC's fluoridation spokesperson, dentist Dr. William Bailey, told the Fairbanks Alaska City Council that the CDC doesn't do original fluoride/fluoridation safety research. Instead the CDC relies on many reviews and reports from the US and other countries. Some of the studies Bailey mentions actually do not support fluoridation's safety and/or efficacy as Bailey claimed. Transcript:

Bailey said, "Of all the expert committees and all the systematic reviews that have been done, they have all said that water fluoridation is safe and effective and healthy. So that’s the basis of our decision to promote it...The systematic reviews which I am talking about – the National Health and Medical Research Council – the National Research Council in 2006 – the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry in 2003 – the Forum on Fluoridation in 2002 in Ireland – the University of York in 2000 and so forth."

Here’s the truth:

National Research Council (2006)

This isn’t a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis. It found EPA’s current fluoride maximum-contaminant-level-goal (MCLG) for drinking water is not protective of health and must be lowered. EPA has yet to act upon this recommendation. Several members of the NRC panel believe fluoride's MCLG should be as close to zero as possible.(1)

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)

This report says "… subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds…the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein." (2)

University of York, UK (2000)

About this report, the Centre for Review and Dissemination writes “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.”(3)

Lewis and Banting, Canada (1994)

“The effectiveness of water fluoridation alone cannot now be determined,” they write.(4)

New York State Department of Health (1990)

The authors concluded:“… some individuals may experience hypersensitivity to fluoride-containing agents.” And,“…it is currently impossible to draw firm conclusions regarding the independent effect of fluoride in drinking water on caries prevalence using an ecologic study design.”(5)

World Health Organization (2006)

This report, not about fluoridation, documents high levels of natural fluoride causing human bone and teeth malformation in many countries.(6)

Medical Research Council, UK (2002)

This report, not a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis, identifies fluoridation health uncertainties such as total exposure and bone effects.(7)

Institute of Medicine (1999)

Since fluoride is not a nutrient, this report set the adequate intake from all sources to avoid children’s moderate dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) and, also, the upper limit to avoid crippling bone damage -- which the IOM admits “is too high for persons with certain illnesses…”(8)


1) “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of

EPA's Standards,”

Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National

Research Council, Executive Summary, 2006 ... pe=pdfxsum

2) US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluordie, and Fluorine, (2003)

3) “What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found,” October 28 2003,A statement from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

4) Lewis DW, Banting DW. Water fluoridation: current effectiveness and dental fluorosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:153–158

5) Kaminsky LS, Mahoney MC, Leach J, Melius J, Miller MJ. Fluoride: benefits and risks of exposure. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1990;1:261–281

6) World Health Organization, “New WHO report tackles fluoride in drinking-water,” November 2006 ... index.html
7) Medical Research Council. Medical Research Council Working Group Report: Water Fluoridation and Health. September 2002. ... =MRC002482

8) Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Fluoride: Background Information. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Report of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC:

Tinfoil Hat affecionado Ben Nelms dusts off one of the cherished conspiracy theories of the 1960s John Birch Society: fluoridation in American water supply.

Despite Mr. Nelms apparant angst, one simple fact remains: if fluoridation is so freakin' dangerous, exactly HOW MANY lawsuits have prevailed against water fluoridation in our litigation-friendly society? Hmmmmmmm?


Here's a Bircher flyer from way back in 1955, demonizin' the Commie Plot to fluoridate our water <a href="">(LINK)</a>

2011 promises to be an interesting "race to the bottom" for Citizen columnists....just one week into the new year and we already have Terry Garlock's "Me hate homo soljers" column neck-and-neck against Nelms' neo-Bircherism.

PTC Observer's picture

But we will have you to keep us informed with well researched information, unlike Mr. Nelms, right?

Let's see the entire column in part 2 and see what you can come up with to refute it. Then we can make up our own mind with facts as opposed to rhetoric.

Or don't you believe in the free exchange of information?

With regard to "free exchange of information", I'd like to point out that the socialist Chick-fil-a restaurant at Kedron Village has less than 500 reservations remaining for free spicy chicken biscuits between now and Saturday morning.
<a href="">LINK</a>. Or you could go to to find another Chick-fil-a restaurant offering free food, should you not be fortunate enough to reside within Peachtree City.

NUK_1's picture

That's what I call a good exchange of information!

Cyclist's picture

I picked the wrong week to start weight watchers!!!!

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

PTC Observer's picture

Thanks for this information.

I got my freebie spicy chicken biscuit this morning. It's not very good, although I like the chic-fil-a spicy chicken sandwich. not influenced too much by the Bircher's as well as the TEAS! We won't mention right-wing talk radio and TV here!

It just happens that as a member of the Jaycees in the 1960s, I helped work to solve the horrible problem in this country with rotten teeth from eating too much sweets.
Dentists prior to that time usually just filled and yankedem!
Children had rotten teeth by the score.

It turned out to be a horrendous battle to get municipalities to add just minute quantities of fluoride to the water supply to fight tooth decay.

Withing 10-15 years of the addition of fluoride being widespread, dentists had to invent other ways to make a living other than fill and yankem!
Invent they did and now a bridge and straightening can run several thousand dollars.

I can't believe such an editorial as above is here again! There is no proof, no complaints, and a lot of kids healthy teeth!

We are now seeing cases of fluoride overdosing in this country. Like anything else there are acceptable levels. The problem is so many products now have fluoride.

(FYI: The University of Maryland is not a communist organization)

[quote=Doug]We are now seeing cases of fluoride overdosing in this country. [/quote]

We are?

I find that interesting.

Perhaps you could share some links to overdosing due to fluoride in public water supplies?

I'm aware of the 1979 fluoride contamination in Annapolis MD, but that was an operator error (left valve on fluoride tank open 11 hours, not 1 hour). That killed one patient on dialysis.

I also read about the one poor kid who died after eating copious amounts of fluoridated toothpaste, but that's a bit tangental.

I'm not say it doesn't exist, but I'm having a hard time tracking down documented evidence of fluoride overdosing from fluoride in water supplies.

NUK_1's picture

He still thinks Logsdon approved all the Big Boxes in PTC so don't hold your breath waiting for any kind of verification or source material from him.

ginga1414's picture

After reading the comments, I really wonder if some of these folks took the time to follow Mr. Nelms' link and read for themselves the information it provides. Anyone who is interested in the future well being of their children and generations to come will find the information very sobering.

Fluoride has been of great concern from the beginning, as well it should be. Our water supply is a chemical cocktail. In the Huffington Post there was an article describing other chemicals/drugs that are found on a regular basis in our drinking water.

A 2008 article said, "A vast array of pharmaceuticals _ including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and hormones _ have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans, an Associated Press investigation shows." That information can be found at ( /2008/03/10/sex-hormones-mood-stabili_n_90714.html).

Ben Nelms is providing a wealth of research for those of us who have the intelligence to be concerned.

You're confusing two separate and distinct issues here: wastewater treatment (which theoretically should remove things such as antibiotics, hormones, etc from the water supply) and water additives such as fluoridation.

Fluoridation of water has been studied for over seventy years, and is generally considered to be one of the safest and most benign processes known to the general public.

The John Birch society adopted public water fluoridation as one of its prime scare tactics early on, but as the years went on and no noticeable adverse effects on the population occured, most people came to realize that concerns about water fluoridation were (and are) merely propaganda.

Nonetheless, there remains a <a href="">small cadre of "true believers" such as Ben Nelms</a> and the scruffy little websites he endorses that refuse to accept the reality of a safe public drinking water supply.

I think this statement sums it up best:
<cite>Fluoridation was a Commie plot in the 1950's, even though the Ruskies also fluoridated their water. Our "rights" to pure water were being violated by adding fluoride, even though fluoride occurs naturally in much of the country. And, since fluoride is a by-product of certain industrial processes, and is used in rat poison, "therefore" there is a massive conspiracy to poison us.</cite>

<a href="">LINK</a>

ginga1414's picture

The addition of fluoride to our water and the chemical/drug residuals in our water, in one manner of speaking, are two different issues. However, in another manner of speaking, they are the same in that they are chemicals/drugs in our water with the potential for causing bodily harm.

In other words, it is stuff that is mucking up our water supply.

I suppose the peanut gallery here qualifies as a body of pharmaceutical experts who are speaking with authority concerning this matter.

I certainly don't qualify as an expert, but I most certainly don't want to be ingesting antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers, hormones, insecticides, pesticides, fertilizers, and/or chemo-therapy drugs with my next glass of ice water.

It seems to me that if we add fluoride to water, toothpaste, mouthwash, and we get fluoride treatments at the dentist's office, that's a whole lot of fluoride. Then when you take into account that our filtering systems can't filter out all of that fluoride along with other chemicals/drugs that pass through other folks' bodies, we are talking about a whopping dose of chemicals/drugs on a daily basis.

In addition, I can't see that the John Birch Society has anything to do with whether or not we are all drinking nasty water.

suggarfoot's picture

There is way too much allowed in our drinking water. I'm in my 60s, but when I was a small child, people quit eating the fish out of the rivers back home, some even had a stinch when cooked. People who live along the Mississippi are known to have the highest rate of stomach cancer anywhere.

While some think fluoride is ok, they may want to think about how much is ok. The answer would seem to be very little.

It always gets down to the same things over and over. Big business with big bucks and corrupt officals that would, and do, sell your children's future for a price.

911inside's picture

I am so glad Mr. Nelms took the time to expose this under-handed method our government has been using for years to not only dumb us down but this effort has been coordinated (in my opinion) with the pharmaceutical companies. It's all about the money. Another way to cause numerous diseases while Americans are complacent enough to believe it helps us.

I have a personal friend who had hypothyroidism right here in Fayette County and she came across the truth about the harm of flouride in our water so she had a reverse-osmosis system installed on her faucet. 7 months later, she felt so good she stopped taking her synthroid and when she went for her annual checkup, her doctor could not believe her thryroid was completely normal. Her gray hair is even turning dark again and she has energy again.

People PLEASE do your research on Flouride in our water because it can cause a lot more than just hyprothyroidism. Cancer anyone? Rheumatoid arthritis, lupus. The likelihood of normal cell duplication is non-existent.

Contact your State Rep Matt Ramsey or Ronnie Chance or even Governor Deal. We have to make officials listen. We are stuck here in Georgia and they are too and I believe if enough of us make this an issue with them, they will listen and be glad they did.

Thank you Ben Nelms for taking a chance a putting the truth on this issue out there.


Yeah, and what about that iodine added to our salt without our consent. And, how about all those vitamins added to our breakfast cereals? I counted no less than 14, count em, 14, vitamins added to my morning bowl of Coco Puffs! And, I am not even sure that the people that added this stuff to my salt and cereal are even natural born US citizens. Can't we require additive-putter-in-ers to provide copies of their original birth certificates with each box of cereal and box of salt? Is that too much to ask? Don't we have the right to know? Don't we, don't we?

I know I swore off blogging with the likes of GPAT and PTO, but the Falcons have a bye in the first round of the play-offs, so I have some free time away from the sports blogs to comment on pure idiocy.

Go Falcons!

911inside's picture

Ninja Guy, according to the FDA we actually DO NOT have the right to know not only what is in your cocoa puffs but it was just decided by the new Food Safety and Modernization Act that we will not know whether we are eating genetically altered fish or real fish. That is of course, if there are any fish worth eating that haven't washed up on another shore dead.

Now run along and watch football. I think the flouride has definitely had a negative effect on your brain.


I might have holes in my brain but at least none in my teeth! Also, that is the beauty of the free market as espoused by some in this forum--the free market will provide us with cheap store-bought tests to determine if the fish we are eating are Franken-fish or real fish! The Free Hand solves all!

Go Falcons!

PTC Observer's picture

You might? You should have that checked, have you eaten a lot of beef in England lately? ;-)

Did you get a sense of humor for Christmas? 2011 might just be a great year! At least I hope so, with the end of the world coming in 2012 and all.

Go Falcons!

PTC Observer's picture

have my Mayan calendar out right now! AND I had a come to Quetzacotal meeting last night.

.......most of them rabbits, Shirley Temple sang!

At my last count we have discovered 118 basic elements on earth and a bunch of isotopes.
We as humans are mostly H2O and Carbon and rotted hops.

However the food we eat has glutens in it. Also traces of most of those 118 elements.

When the big bang occurred, 17 billion years ago, various elements made us what we are over billions of years. But humans are Born stupid and don't know by instinct like a turtle to swim like crazy for the ocean before a crow eats us.

In order not to have rotten teeth, after we discovered factory made sugar, we needed some fluoride.
Personally, I think that the 2 parts Hydrogen and one part oxygen should be one part of each.
It is that second hydrogen that causes cancer and heart attacks!

The government said we should cook pork until the interior of the meat got to 160 degrees F or so.
It was either do that or stop eating pork altogether due to cloven hoofs!

The fact that we used to not eat meat on Friday also saved the fishmongers livelihood and taught us to like such creatures as octopus fingers. Slimy oysters too.

So maybe all these groups who spread fear to gain stupid members know of what they speak?

911inside's picture

Check out this new release from A.P.


The standard for public water fluoridation was set a 1ppm (1 part per million) in 1947.

The standard was revised to a range of 0.7ppm to 1.2ppm in 1962.

With the benefit of over 50+ years of longitudinal studies, the new proposed standard is 0.7ppm.

I'm okay with that.

cogitoergofay's picture

Ben Nelms seems to have been vindicated by yesterday's federal HHS report reducing the maximum of fluoride from 1.2 ppm to .7 ppm. That is indeed a huge drop. Why should we not, instead, drop the use of it entirely until these new studies are completed? We found out (after extensive usage and bad health results) that arsenic in deck lumber and asbestos in building material were highly carcinogenic.

A result from HHS coming on the heels of Nelms' article so recent in time is interesting. I suspect that this will quell the "conspiracy" nay sayers.

Vindicated? I think not.

Scaremongers like Nelms will no doubt use the government's new proposal to further their tinfoil hat agenda.

If you actually read the article, you'd have seen that the reason for lowering the levels is...*drumroll*.....some kids teeth get mildly discolored. Horrors!

We've had 50+ years of much greater dental health, primarily due to fluoridated public water. There have been NO documented deaths from properly maintained public water systems due to fluoride treatment.

<strong>Still waiting here: I challenge people to show me data (random anecdotes don't count) showing any sort of contraindications to treating public water with fluoride.</strong>

ptctaxpayer's picture

Of all people, Basmati...I can't believe you are defending this....It's like saying well drinking and driving only occasionally is ok...Give it up, pal. My young son has what you call "discolored" teeth and the we have been told that (a) it is due to fluoride and (b) it's gonna ultimately cost me in huge dental co-pays.

PTC Observer's picture

When private companies put things into things that you use it is negligence and you can sue them and recover big awards. When government puts bad things into the things that you use, it's ok, and nothing happens. That's because it's the government and the beaurcrats that make the rules.

See the difference?

ginga1414's picture

Bacon, do you eat bacon? The FDA allows Sodium Nitrite in our bacon, hot dogs, lunch meats, etc.

Among other things, Sodium Nitrite causes cancer. Go to Would you knowingly feed your children something that causes cancer?

It is a well established fact that smoking causes cancer. Would you encourage your children to smoke?

If we wouldn't encourage our children to smoke, if we would not knowingly feed our children cancer causing agents, why would we want our children to swallow fluoride?

[quote=ginga1414]Bacon, do you eat bacon? The FDA allows Sodium Nitrite in our bacon, hot dogs, lunch meats, etc.

Among other things, Sodium Nitrite causes cancer. Go to Would you knowingly feed your children something that causes cancer?

It is a well established fact that smoking causes cancer. Would you encourage your children to smoke?

If we wouldn't encourage our children to smoke, if we would not knowingly feed our children cancer causing agents, why would we want our children to swallow fluoride?[/quote]

You're confusing the issue here. Many substances are toxic when taken in large quantities. The FDA allows one ounce of nitrites to be used to cure 100 pounds of meat. This has shown to be safe for humans. <a href="">LINK</a>

Likewise, a fluoride concentration of 1 ppm in the public water supply has been shown to be safe for humans as well.

The active ingredients in hair shampoo and anti-perspirants are toxic in large doses to humans as well, yet these ingredients are completely safe in microscopic amounts.

(one interesting factoid about nitrites: fresh vegetables are responsible for 90% of ingested nitrites).

Smoking is another category altogether: it is a known cancer agent.

Perhaps you could find some evidence of either fluoride poisoning in humans that occurred as a result of drinking fluoridated drinking water? I don't believe such evidence exists, but I'll keep an open mind nonetheless.

Same deal with meat nitrites....I'd like to see percentages of nitrite poisoning too.

I can tell you why Fluoride is scary to many people.
1. It was highly publicized by fringe elements in the 1950s.
2. It is put into our drinking water by the government, not corporations.

We have been led to believe that the government wants to kill us at some point. Fringe groups (Birch, Teas, radical right, talk radio, entertainers on radio and in speeches) who use such scare tactics to attract listeners who believe in black helicopters and crop circles and UFOs, and 2012 prophecy, and Nostradamus, and hate all people except USAans like them.

Principles have been sacrificed in recent years for polarization and what is necessary to make a living.

PTC Observer's picture

The difference is you can choose to use other products. I suppose that you could use filtered water in your home too if you have the money. But most folks are simply stuck with a decision that is made for us. The real question deals more with how much authority do you want the government to have over your drinking water? Remember that fluoride is put in our water for the "common good", someone much brighter than us gets to decide what we drink.

What if for example, they had a drug that could be delivered through the water system that could cause people to have better skin? Do we pay taxes for our government to delivery water to to drug us? What about those people who feel that they already have better skin? What of those that don't want an additive in their drinking water. Do they have the freedom to choose? No, they can't get their water from somewhere else but they are forced like animals to take their "feed".

This is the fundamental issue as I see it.

[quote=PTC Observer]The difference is you can choose to use other products. I suppose that you could use filtered water in your home too if you have the money. But most folks are simply stuck with a decision that is made for us. The real question deals more with how much authority do you want the government to have over your drinking water?

This is the fundamental issue as I see it.[/quote]

This is THE fundamental issue, and in my mind the ONLY issue. You've raised the salient point here, Petey. Let's disregard all of Nelms' specious scaremongering.

You're absolutely right, you can choose other products. I was planning to use a vaccine metaphor in a response to another post, but ultimately, you have a right to NOT innoculate your children (even if it means putting other children at risk, as happened earlier this year in California).

It's a fundamental question for us: are we a society of people or just a random aggregate of individuals. My gut feel is, to quote the philosopher Spock, that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", but truthfully, I'm not entirely comfortable embracing that as an absolute.

(Some people say Spock was paraphrasing the old German saying "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz"..."the welfare of the nation takes precedence over the selfishness of the individuals").

The ultimate question then becomes "where do we draw the line"? Public water supply is, in my mind, a thorny issue, as most people regard access to drinking water as an inalienable right.

I'll stake out the position that 50+ years of incident-free water fluoridation has established quite a track record of safety, but I'm willing to remain open-minded that if legitimate scientific research shows significant adverse effects on the general populace, I'll amend my position.

What say you?

PTC Observer's picture

I say that 50+ years of incident-free water fluoridation doesn't change the issue. The question is freedom to choose. We are not pawns of the state we are free citizens, at least we use to be.

I would suggest that you not think too hard on the "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz" saying. It was part of the socialization of the German people by the Nazis.

Here's a link you may find interesting in making your decision in keeping it a non-absolute in your thinking.

ginga1414's picture

Exactly! Our local, State and Federal Governments decide what they think is best for us all the time. And, like the good obedient children we are supposed to be, we just go along with whatever.

Our government takes our homes and land to build roads they can't justify. They try to justify it by saying "it's for the common good because we say it's for the common good."

911inside's picture

Some of the folks who won't even bother to do a five minute search on their computer are most likely dumbed down from the flouride. The Associated Press released an alert. I just watched a segment on 11Alive news --short but the truth is finally coming out from the lamestream media.

I am thankful HHS is recommending the drastic drop in our water though I do believe it should be eliminated -- brush your teeth!

When Flouidegate ends, I hope Mr. Nelms will go for an illegal aliengate. Oh yeah, they'll just climb right over that.


Ad space area 4 internal