By Taylor Moore Joliet, IL
I read with interest the well-written article by Kevin Herrera, “Not all smiles for fluoride treatment” (Jan. 19, page 3).
It’s amazing to me that we are still fighting this thing in light of the surge of scientific evidence in clear indication of likely harm from fluoridation. In addition, in light of the political/historical revelations from award-winning author Christopher Bryson’s book “The Fluoride Deception,” probably the most well-researched and painstakingly documented book I’ve come across in lifetime, how could anyone continue to clamor for more fluoridation? Bryson’s work is so profound, because he basis his arguments on the many recently declassified documents he had access to. Bryson’s journalistic prowess elucidates how and why fluoridation really was started, and why it was and continues to be aggressively promoted. The central idea of Bryson’s book is that fluoride was laundered from an egregious industrial/environmental pollutant to that of a benign nutrient with miracle properties to greatly reduce tooth decay. Had fluoride’s perception not been altered, according to Bryson, liabilities for damages from fluoride to property and the health of those working for or living nearby to fluoride polluters would have been imminent. After a careful reading of Bryson’s book, I have to concur with his conclusions. Bryson’s evidence is simply too strong to casually dismiss.
I will add but one point: The argument to continue with and expand fluoridation versus discontinuing the practice is very easy to resolve. As the National Research Council’s National Academy of Science’s recent March 2006 voluminous report “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” has unanimously concluded that the existing 4 parts per million (ppm) Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and 4 ppm Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is not protective of public health, it is obvious now what needs to be done (i.e., a new MCLG and MCL for fluoride in water needs to be determined).
However, this new criterion must be done in accordance with standard toxicological principles and in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Safe Drinking Water Act legislates that an MCLG must be set for the purpose of recognizing adverse health effects that are expected to occur with reasonable certainty (not absolute, total certainty) and that the protective standard must be set to protect even the most vulnerable — not just the average water consumer — from any reasonably certain (not totally certain) adverse health effect.
In conclusion, we simply need to resolve the matter of the MCLG for fluoride in drinking water, and therein lies the dilemma! Even if the possible cancer link of fluoride in water is ignored, we now know that the existing 4 ppm MCLG is too high. So mathematically, what is “x”?
Upon honestly determining a new MCLG for fluoride in drinking water, if “x” falls too much lower from the discredited 4 ppm MCLG standard, how can we justify adding this substance to drinking water to treat all citizens where the variance of intake will be substantial?
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on January 22, 2007. Read the original PDF.