Print

Email story

Comment

Letter to the editor

Fluoridation opponent rebuts 'common sense'

Re: Look around; millions have shown fluoride is okay, column by North Pinellas Editor of Editorials Diane Steinle, July 11.

Unless Ms. Steinle subscribes to the philosophy that "might makes right," it is a pity she didn't do a better job conveying the arguments Dr. Bill Hirzy and I made about fluoridation before she rushed to defend the practice in her column.

Steinle makes a big thing about "common sense," but has she used hers? For example, my "common sense" tells me that the reason that no health official came forward to defend this practice last week is because they have no case that can be defended scientifically.

When Steinle, in response to my criticism that Pinellas County officials are relying on "secondhand information," says that we did the same thing, she misconstrues what I meant by secondhand information. I meant relying on other people's review of the primary literature instead of reading it for oneself - a particularly disastrous thing to do in the case of the Centers for Disease Control since the latest literature that they cite in their publications on health safety is now more than 11 years out of date.

Steinle managed to minimize much of what I actually said. Where I contrasted a figure from the CDC, which claimed the drop in tooth decay (from the 1960s to the 1990s) was related to the percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water, with World Health Organization figures that showed these same or greater declines were occurring in most nonfluoridated countries, thus suggesting that the CDC authors were either incompetent or fraudulent, this was laundered to read, "Connett said tooth decay is declining in countries that don't fluoridate, so it is clearly unnecessary."

Steinle says, "A small amount of many substances can be beneficial, while large amounts are harmful. Prescription drugs, for example." Indeed, but what does Steinle consider a large dose when it comes to fluoride?

Steinle, in this respect, failed to acknowledge the key argument I made about the importance of "margin of safety" between the therapeutic dose of a drug and the dose at which it has a toxic effect. Normally, we want a margin of safety of at least a factor of 100. So when she cites the level of fluoride in Pinellas County water of 0.8 parts per million, as if there were adequate protection, she misses the point - or at least the point I was making.

Many of the effects Bill Hirzy and I discussed occur at levels very close to 0.8 ppm, e.g. the accumulation of fluoride in the human pineal gland even in nonfluoridated communities; the increased uptake of aluminum into rats' brains at 1 ppm in their drinking water; the lowering of IQ in Chinese children at 1.8 ppm; the lowering of thyroid gland activity in Russia at 2.3 ppm and the doubling of hip fractures in the elderly at 1.5 ppm. None of these doses represents an adequate margin of safety for addition at the 0.8 ppm level, especially in situations like water fluoridation where one cannot control the dose.

Instead of waiting for the National Research Council to report on its latest review of this literature, as recommended by Pinellas County Utilities Director Pick Talley, the county rushed ahead based upon out-of-date reviews.

Steinle argues that she "won't drop dead from drinking fluoridated water" because she "drank it for more than 30 years" in other places. Such common sense stuff would be far more reassuring if U.S. health authorities had gone about studying the matter in a scientific and comprehensive manner, but they haven't.

For example, the U.S. Public Health Service is not tracking the levels of fluoride in our bones even though it has been known for years that 50 percent of the fluoride we ingest each day accumulates there and the first symptom of fluoride poisoning of the bones is identical to arthritis and 1 in 3 Americans now suffers from arthritis. Nor are they using dental fluorosis - a well-established biomarker for fluoride exposure in children - to track concerns about lowering of IQ, early onset of puberty or bone fractures. Could it be that health authorities are more concerned about protecting their reputation than protecting our health?

Practicing medicine without our consent

Re: Look around; millions have shown fluoride is okay, column by North Pinellas Editor of Editorials Diane Steinle, July 11.

Did you give your consent?

As of early June, the people of Pinellas County are receiving medication in their drinking water. This after six of the county commissioners decided to fluoridate our drinking water.

Have you been fully informed what the risks are of the known adverse effects of fluoridation? Did you give the commissioners your consent to be so medicated? It is being added, after all, to prevent tooth decay and to improve community dental health, hence it is a medication.

It isn't like we have another choice. We cannot call a different water company and arrange to have nonfluoridated water coming out of our faucets. I wish we could, but in this free country of ours, we are not allowed to make that choice.

It's rather ironic to me that in the European Union, which includes Germany, a country not particularly known for its support of human rights, they banned water fluoridation as part of their human rights legislation. They decided that fluoridation is subject to the consent of the individual.

So the people get a choice. If they feel that they want to use fluoride, they can avail themselves of it without all of the people being subjected to this medication.

How it is that the county commissioners can decide to practice medicine on us, without our consent? I do not understand.

Commissioners sought best advice on fluoride

Re: Coverage of fluoride issue given praise, letter, July 14.

Letter writer Eiren Smith is correct that we should rely on the proof of the safety of fluoride from government officials bestowed with the public trust.

Before making the decision to fluoridate the county water system, the County Commission sought out the recommendations of those government agencies assigned the responsibility and best equipped to advise on the safety of fluoride. They are the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Sanitation Foundation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. surgeon general and state and county health departments.

These agencies are 100 percent in agreement on the safety of fluoridation. The County Commission acted in the best interest of its citizens.

A little empathy goes a long way

Re: Tough time at the ballpark, photograph, July 14.

My heart went out to baseball player Stern Harrison when I saw the half-page photo of him under the caption Tough time at the ballpark.

It might seem to be good reporting to show the "agony of defeat" in the face of a young ball player, but could your photographer Kinfay Moroti perhaps have forgotten what it's like to have such a disappointing at-bat in a big game? A little empathy goes a long way.

I trust that Stern felt bad enough about striking out, but to have him portrayed visually in this way is rubbing salt in the wound. Most ballplayers I know give their all during a game, win or lose.

Maybe next time your photographer attends a game, he'll use better judgment in deciding which photos to publish and consider the feelings of the young people he portrays.

Why paint the new Memorial Causeway?

Re: New Memorial Causeway Bridge.

Who's in charge? Does anyone know?

The last article I read seems to indicate that we cannot expect to cross the new bridge for about two more years. Deadlines seem to come and go with more extensions. What is the drop-dead date? And who is paying the monthly bills right now?

Until I saw the comment in the paper about the bridge being painted and then saw the bridge, I never thought of a bridge as having any color at all. I guess I just thought of bridges being gray, either because of the stone used or the fact that they were made mostly of concrete. Why do you paint a concrete bridge?

And why are we painting it now? The western section of the bridge and the ramp leading down is being painted (I assume that is not the portion of the bridge where the state has found problems ... yet). Why would someone spend all that money on paint when it might be two years before the rest of it is finished and painted? Won't the current paint job fade or get dirty and have to be done again? Doesn't paint just help to cover up flaws?

And why paint it only to have to keep repainting it as the years go by? And who has to pay the bill to repaint it 10 years from now (assuming it is completed then)? Sure, it might look pretty, but as a taxpayer I can only imagine the cost to paint and repaint as the years go by.

The color "concrete" is all right with me. I just want to cross over it, not paint its portrait.

- Editor's note: The Florida Department of Transportation is in charge of construction of the new bridge, which is on a state road.

[Last modified July 19, 2004, 11:51:47]