Advertisement

Archive for Sunday, November 11, 2012

Wichita advocates to take anti-fluoride movement across state, nation

November 11, 2012

Advertisement

— Advocates who led the successful fight against adding fluoride to Wichita’s water say they will work to get their message out across the state and the nation.

Wichita voters on Tuesday rejected a proposal to add fluoride to the city’s water by a 60 percent to 40 percent margin. Although three-fourths of the country fluoridates its water, the anti-fluoride movement is gaining traction across the nation, Jonathan Hall, of Wichitans Against Fluoridation, said after the vote.

“We’re part of the upcoming wave of change,” he said.

Wichita pediatrician Larry Hund, one of the leading proponents of fluoridation, told The Wichita Eagle that he thought the vote would be closer. But he said the claim that fluoride is toxic played to people’s emotions rather than scientific reasoning.

“It’s easier to scare people than to teach them about the science involved,” he said.

Both Mark Gietzen, president of the Kansas Republican Assembly, and Hall said that the anti-fluoride forces plan to continue their efforts.

“We’re definitely going to take this statewide; we’re not going to quit,” Gietzen said.

The effort might include working for a state recommendation against fluoridation while still allowing communities to decide the issue locally.

“Since I am connected to the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. I’m going to try to make fluoride one of our core issues,” said Gietzen, who likened fluoride to lead and asbestos. “Things that we thought were right back then maybe were not such a good idea after all. That’s where we are with fluoride.”

Hund said the anti-fluoride advocates don’t realize what will happen because of the vote.

“We see a lot of children with really bad teeth and parents who don’t have insurance,” Hund said. “This will affect this generation and the next generations until we finally have the benefits” of fluoridation.

Comments

riverdrifter 1 year, 5 months ago

It was mighty windy over the weekend and the tinfoil hats no doubt flew away.

1

Bob Forer 1 year, 5 months ago

Fluoridated water is, and has always been, a communist conspiracy.

0

blue73harley 1 year, 5 months ago

Is Wichita trying to be the location for the next Austin Powers sequel?

2

Trumbull 1 year, 5 months ago

I don't consider myself a conspiracy person, but a while ago, I clicked on the advertising link "5 signs you will get Alzheimers disease" right here on the LJW. According to the link, fluoride can creat free radical toxicity in the brain.

Do I believe this? Probably not. But I will not entirely dismiss the possibilty. I definitely do make a point of rinsing better after using fluoride toothpaste though,

0

raw_sunflower 1 year, 5 months ago

Stop eating processed foods that stick to the teeth, and may you see your health dramatically improve on all fronts.

0

Liberal 1 year, 5 months ago

I prefer to drug myself. Rather, then have my government do it for me, against my will.

1

rockchalker52 1 year, 5 months ago

Wichita Fails, Kansas.

New city name or declarative sentence?

1

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 5 months ago

Here's a review of research done by the EU (where water fluoridation has largely been discontinued.)

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/fluoridation/en/l-3/5.htm

"Conclusion Water fluoridation as well as topical fluoride applications (e.g. fluoridated toothpaste or varnish) appears to prevent caries, primarily on permanent dentition. No obvious advantage appears in favour of water fluoridation compared with topical prevention. The effect of continued systemic exposure of fluoride from whatever source is questionable once the permanent teeth have erupted. SCHER agrees that topical application of fluoride is most effective in preventing tooth decay. Topical fluoride sustains the fluoride levels in the oral cavity and helps to prevent caries, with reduced systemic availability. The efficacy of population-based policies, e.g. drinking water, milk or salt fluoridation, as regards the reduction of oral-health social disparities, remains insufficiently substantiated."

In other words, water fluoridation has no particular value for anyone who has their permanent teeth. So what's really needed is two water systems-- one for kids, and one for everyone else.

Here's a link to EPA's overview of fluoridation.

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm

1

kef104 1 year, 5 months ago

And in further news, just wait until these same people see the evidence that drinking too much water leads to water poisoning and death. The sad thing is that intelligent folks in Wichita will move away. The sadder thing is that it will leave the crack pots behind with even more influence. I just realized where the term crack pot came from. I can imagine a time when pots were quite necessary, before running water. If one cracked, it was basically deemed worthless and no longer useful to anyone. My god, I sound like Sheldon this morning.

1

Paul R Getto 1 year, 5 months ago

The inmates run the asylum, but this is Wichita, folks.

2

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 1 year, 5 months ago

Seems that there is no consensus among various professional organizations on the use of fluoride in drinking water. The view generally seems dependent on the professional focus. Dental associations approve of it because their concern is dental health. Those with other focuses, such as kidney disease, are less than enamored of it.

1

chootspa 1 year, 5 months ago

“It’s easier to scare people than to teach them about the science involved,” he said.

That pretty much sums up everything, now doesn't it?

4

Ken Lassman 1 year, 5 months ago

Actually, if you look at the research, fluoride can have a neurotoxic effect that has been documented to drop children's IQs in areas of high natural fluoride in the water, primarily documented in China. While these levels are typically way above the EPA limit of 4ppm, the research has spurred the EPA to review the upper limits and consider lowering the upper limits so that the benefits of lower caries will not risk exposing children to high enough levels that a neurotoxic side effect is likely. A secondary limit (i.e. recommended but not strictly enforceable) of 2ppm has been set for fluoride, but in the standards review put out by HHS and the EPA, they say say that the current recommendations are .7 to 1.2 ppm should be considered on the high side, and are considering looking at .7 as the upper limit: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/86964af577c37ab285257811005a8417!OpenDocument

So it seems that there are some legitimate concerns about excessive fluoride in the water supply, tho it also seems that there is a middle ground where a town can accrue the benefits of fluoridation (reduced cavities) without the drawbacks (neurotoxicity in children)

The most recent posted water quality report for Lawrence http://www.lawrenceks.org/utilities/files/CCR_2012_Legal%20%282%29_0.pdf

shows that our fluoride levels are 0,2-,0,97, which is at a level that falls within the lower range recommendations of the EPA/HHS (.7 to 1.2ppm) and mostly would fall below even the newer levels (below 0.7ppm) being considered. My guess is that if the recommendations are to drop it below 0.7, the current system could be tweaked to do that without too much trouble.

It would be interesting to see what the naturally occurring levels of fluoride are in Wichita.

1

DennisReynolds 1 year, 5 months ago

Wow! As a dentist I am appalled! There is so much misinformation in that post I don't even know where to start. It has been proven over and over by real scientific studies that children that are given the correct amount of systemic fluoride(fluoride in water) have a dramatically reduced rate of cavities. Topical fluoride (fluoride treatments) is helpful once teeth have come in, but does nothing for developing teeth that have not fully formed.

4

CHKNLTL 1 year, 5 months ago

Fluoridation of water came about when the nuclear and atomic weapons project needed somewhere to dump all of the by product fluoride leftover from production. It is not pure fluoride that is used in water. It is not necessary for your health. With a little research, one can find that areas of this country that had high naturally occurring levels of fluoride in the water, were areas where people suffered severe tooth decay, where the bones were literally eaten away in their mouth. There is so much research that proves it is harmful and still they tell us all lies. Did you know that if a young child consumes too much fluoride, it will build up in the teeth and bones, causing visible changes to the skeletal structure that are permanent including bone cancer? See link http://fluoridation.com/bones.htm And dental care for the poor? Not buying that excuse. Health departments offer fluoride treatments at cheap prices or even free for poor children and adults. I want to know how much money our city spends to fluoridate the water, where they are buying it from, and which rich republican is this state is lining their pockets while we fill our bellies with their poison.

3

Boston_Corbett 1 year, 5 months ago

Gietzen is a Wichita anti-abortion wacko who has run for public office several times unsuccessfully. I would not be surprised if he was among the anti-evolution crowd. And I shudder to think about his views on vaccines.

3

Steven Gaudreau 1 year, 5 months ago

If you ever travel outside the U.S., you will see fluoridation of our water is a good thing. Healthy teeth and gums are important for a series of reasons other then cosmetic. These people are whackos.

3

Amy Heeter 1 year, 5 months ago

In other news . The tools are busy chasing floride while the government.. oh Nevermind you're too confused.

2

toe 1 year, 5 months ago

The people are in charge now.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.