A letter to Rainbow Municipal Water Board

This short fact sheet gives an overview of my concerns and those of others who question the efficacy, the dangers and the “why” of adding fluoride to our water supply. It is time to re-examine that decision.

Of course, there is science on all sides of this issue that will conflict, but we must question the policy. Without getting into the arguable science, I have listed a few points that don’t require opinion. Should you like more scientific data, I am happy to provide it.

Fluoride Facts

1. Fluoride is added to the water, not for the purpose of improving water quality, but rather for the alleged purpose of preventing tooth decay. The Food and Drug Administration qualifies the use of fluoride for this purpose as a drug.

We are therefore drugging unsuspecting users without informed consent. This is not legal. Many are exposed against their will. Filtering drinking water is not the answer as showering and other uses are exposing humans to the drug.

2. The use of fluoride is not universally accepted. Most of Western Europe has refused fluoride because of the controversy surrounding it and the concept of mass drugging.

3. If in fact fluoridation was a positive influence, water is not the correct method for dosing. People consume water based on need of the water itself and without regard to the amount of the drug being consumed.

It is easy to see that the amount of fluoride taken into a body cannot be regulated via the municipal water supply. We must be able to calculate the amount of fluoride that is absorbed during showering via the skin or through crop watering which is impossible for a user. We must also consider a bottle fed infant that ingests levels of fluoride equal to those of an adult. There is no research to warn what the outcome of this might be in the future.

4. According to fluoridealert.com, fluoride is not an essential nutrient and no disease or tooth decay is caused by the lack of fluoride. They also state that fluoride interferes with many enzymes and biological processes in the body. They quote many studies that prove fluoride interferes with the body’s biochemistry in fundamental ways.

5. In 60 years of forced fluoridation there are still no studies to prove efficacy or safety and still the FDA classifies it as an “unapproved new drug.” This should make the addition of fluoride without consent a criminal act.

Although rather unscientific, I would also say that not one dentist has gone out of business because of fluoridated water. There is no apparent threat to the dental industry and no data that proves dwindling numbers of patients.

6. In 2001 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that the benefits of fluoride were topical and not systemic. With this in mind, why are we risking what could be a horrific outcome?

7. Studies of those fluoridated in comparison to those not fluoridated, show that each group has similar dental health in my research. Even the NIH has studied fluoride and determined that there is no significant relationship between tooth decay and fluoride among children.

8. Research shows that tooth decay does not increase when fluoridation is discontinued.

9. Many resources agree that the studies that brought us fluoridation were flawed. There is consistent evidence of potential harm and many resources, including the National Research Council, believe it may damage the brain.

10. Thirty-three independent studies from countries other than the USA report that exposure to fluoride will lower IQ. Other studies focus on damage to the pineal gland, thyroid function, arthritis, bone density loss, kidney damage, bone cancer and infertility with fluoride contamination.

Is this not enough to ask yourself why we continue this practice?

I am asking this Board to reconsider our use of fluoride in the water supply and to ask that we begin purchasing non-fluoridated water.

Susan Trump