Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re:America�s Largest Water Fluoridation Fight

Expand Messages
  • Doug Cragoe
    This looks like a newspaper or magazine article. To whoever posted this, it would be helpful to know where this article was published. A quote from the
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 1, 2010
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      This looks like a newspaper or magazine article. To whoever posted this, it
      would be helpful to know where this article was published. A quote from the
      article:

      "Kiel suggested to others after the meeting that, with the issue being so
      contentious, they may want to first focus on the points of agreement between
      themselves and the mainstream medical community. One example he gave was
      that the CDC website states: "It now appears that the amount of the fluoride
      contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a
      child's risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child's
      sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula." He
      recommended they first focus on fighting for public health warnings, so that
      people are, at the very least, aware that fluoridated water poses a risk for
      infants."

      Actually there are very few "points of agreement" regarding current fluoride
      regulations and recommendations. Infant formula preparation is one example
      where there is no "point of agreement."

      Public health dentists in many states recommend fluoridated water be used
      for the preparation of infant formula. Some of these public health dentists
      say that parents should NOT be informed about the risk of fluorosis from
      infant formula. I found a Texas public health document that recommended
      fluoridated water be used for the preparation of infant formula. The same
      document contained the fluoride supplement schedule, which says give no
      fluoride supplements to infants 0 to 6 months of age regardless of how
      little fluoride is in their tap water. This contradiction in policy has
      never been explained to me by anyone in public health. There are more
      contradictions raising questions that remain unanswered.

      In Texas there are areas with very high fluoride levels in the tap water -
      far above the "optimum" level. The WIC (women, infants, children) program
      gives out free infant formula to poor parents. But in Texas the WIC
      advisors are not trained to give any advice on what fluoride level is
      recommended or safe for infant formula preparation. Thus, in Texas, infant
      formula is prepared by unknowing parents with fluoride levels far higher
      than what is considered "optimum."

      You might think that the public health establishment would be concerned with
      infant formula prepared with water that has a higher than "optimum" fluoride
      content. Evidence of this concern is very difficult to find, if it exists
      at all.

      The thinking still seems to exists in some dental researchers and public
      health professionals that evidence of fluorosis is a good thing, because it
      means less tooth decay.

      There is no good way for members of the public to be "fighting for public
      health warnings" on a national level. Public health warnings would likely
      have more people avoiding fluoridated tap water, which is the opposite of
      what the public health establishment wants. If you live in a small town you
      could have such warnings made by the town government. But if you have
      enough political support to get such warnings, you likely have enough
      support to discontinue or not start fluoridation in the first place. This
      is what happened in Kiel's city of Alamo Heights Texas.

      After many years of prevailing dental research that showed infant formula
      prepared with fluoridated water was a risk factor for fluorosis, the CDC
      finally admitted it in 2006. They said parents could consider using
      non-fluoridated water for formula preparation. In 2008 the CDC & ADA formed
      a panel of experts to come up with new fluoride recommendations for infants.
      Quote: "The panel hopes to have evidence-based recommendations on the use of
      fluoridated water in the reconstitution of infant formula released in spring
      2010. Recognizing WIC as a key stakeholder in the oral health of infants,
      ADA will provide the recommendations to WIC as soon as they are available."

      It will be interesting to see what evidence, if any, is presented by the ADA
      as showing a fluoride benefit for infants 0 to 6 months of age. It's
      possible that no fluoride studies for this age group have ever been done.
    • FluoridePoisoning-owner@yahoogroups.com
      Doug, This was posted by Ron Eheman, (owner/founder of the group) It came from :
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 3, 2010
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Doug,
        This was posted by Ron Eheman, (owner/founder of the group)
        It came from :

        http://dcbureau.org/20100521434/Bulldog-Blog/austin-tx-americas-largest-water-fluoridation-fight.html

        DC Bureau is staffed by award-winning journalists dedicated to bringing you in-depth stories covering the Environment and National Security

        Niamh Marnell earned a master's degree in social sciences from the University of Chicago where she examined organizations and power from the perspective of political science and sociology. She moved to DC to pursue a career in journalism.





        --- In FluoridePoisoning@yahoogroups.com, Doug Cragoe <cragoe@...> wrote:
        >
        > This looks like a newspaper or magazine article. To whoever posted this, it
        > would be helpful to know where this article was published. A quote from the
        > article:
        >
        > "Kiel suggested to others after the meeting that, with the issue being so
        > contentious, they may want to first focus on the points of agreement between
        > themselves and the mainstream medical community. One example he gave was
        > that the CDC website states: "It now appears that the amount of the fluoride
        > contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a
        > child's risk for developing enamel fluorosis, particularly if the child's
        > sole source of nutrition is from reconstituted infant formula." He
        > recommended they first focus on fighting for public health warnings, so that
        > people are, at the very least, aware that fluoridated water poses a risk for
        > infants."
        >
        > Actually there are very few "points of agreement" regarding current fluoride
        > regulations and recommendations. Infant formula preparation is one example
        > where there is no "point of agreement."
        >
        > Public health dentists in many states recommend fluoridated water be used
        > for the preparation of infant formula. Some of these public health dentists
        > say that parents should NOT be informed about the risk of fluorosis from
        > infant formula. I found a Texas public health document that recommended
        > fluoridated water be used for the preparation of infant formula. The same
        > document contained the fluoride supplement schedule, which says give no
        > fluoride supplements to infants 0 to 6 months of age regardless of how
        > little fluoride is in their tap water. This contradiction in policy has
        > never been explained to me by anyone in public health. There are more
        > contradictions raising questions that remain unanswered.
        >
        > In Texas there are areas with very high fluoride levels in the tap water -
        > far above the "optimum" level. The WIC (women, infants, children) program
        > gives out free infant formula to poor parents. But in Texas the WIC
        > advisors are not trained to give any advice on what fluoride level is
        > recommended or safe for infant formula preparation. Thus, in Texas, infant
        > formula is prepared by unknowing parents with fluoride levels far higher
        > than what is considered "optimum."
        >
        > You might think that the public health establishment would be concerned with
        > infant formula prepared with water that has a higher than "optimum" fluoride
        > content. Evidence of this concern is very difficult to find, if it exists
        > at all.
        >
        > The thinking still seems to exists in some dental researchers and public
        > health professionals that evidence of fluorosis is a good thing, because it
        > means less tooth decay.
        >
        > There is no good way for members of the public to be "fighting for public
        > health warnings" on a national level. Public health warnings would likely
        > have more people avoiding fluoridated tap water, which is the opposite of
        > what the public health establishment wants. If you live in a small town you
        > could have such warnings made by the town government. But if you have
        > enough political support to get such warnings, you likely have enough
        > support to discontinue or not start fluoridation in the first place. This
        > is what happened in Kiel's city of Alamo Heights Texas.
        >
        > After many years of prevailing dental research that showed infant formula
        > prepared with fluoridated water was a risk factor for fluorosis, the CDC
        > finally admitted it in 2006. They said parents could consider using
        > non-fluoridated water for formula preparation. In 2008 the CDC & ADA formed
        > a panel of experts to come up with new fluoride recommendations for infants.
        > Quote: "The panel hopes to have evidence-based recommendations on the use of
        > fluoridated water in the reconstitution of infant formula released in spring
        > 2010. Recognizing WIC as a key stakeholder in the oral health of infants,
        > ADA will provide the recommendations to WIC as soon as they are available."
        >
        > It will be interesting to see what evidence, if any, is presented by the ADA
        > as showing a fluoride benefit for infants 0 to 6 months of age. It's
        > possible that no fluoride studies for this age group have ever been done.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.