Today’s letters include:

MVSD students need librarians
Need smart approach to growth
$14 million MV parking garage?
If fluoridation were as they say …
Few attend Memorial Day services

Read The Full Story: http://www.goskagit.com/home/article/letters_to_the_editor_june_9_2008/

Right you are, Jo Roark! Finally, the National Kidney Foundation has decided to take the risk of losing CDC funding as opposed to being sued for negligence by damaged patients! People are waking up and the rats are leaving the sinking ship! This is the real reason that Washington Dental Service Foundation is applying so much pressure in Skagit County. It knows that the time for injecting that toxic waste in our drinking water is now or never! Just wait until a kidney dialysis patient’s fluoride filtration system fails—they do quite regularly—and he or she dies! For whom is the family going to come looking? Not the so-called Citizens for a Healthy Skagit!

“Fluoride Linked to Death,” EVENING CAPITAL (Annapolis, Maryland), November 29, 1979
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/annapolis.html

“Fluoride Blamed in 3 Deaths: Traces found in Blood of U. of C. Dialysis Patients,” CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, July 31, 1993
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/accidents/chicago-1993.html

Fluoride unsafe for dialysis patients?—National Kidney Foundation admits chemical could pose serious health risks
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=66101

Attorney Robert E. Reeves’ letter to the American Water Works Association
http://fluoridealert.org/reeves.pdf

That’s enough reading for now…

This is huge news, Don. We are gaining a lot of momentum across the nation, its really sad, however, that so many people have suffered from fluoride poisoning. There needs to be some kind of compensation for victims and their families.

OMG there we go already entitlement politics!

watch dog - 10 June 2008 04:33 PM

OMG there we go already entitlement politics!

Please explain your statement, watch dog. The only connection to politics here is the deliberate manipulation of public policy by private industry. Are you suggesting that dialysis patients are entitled to be killed by these interests?

Read all about the Washington Dental Service Foundation’s “Adventures in Public Policy Grantmaking” at
http://www.skagitcleanwater.org/fluoride-101/gih-tracy-garland.html and the full document at
http://www.gih.org/usr_doc/Path_to_policy_change_no26.pdf

I would be very surprised if WD reads that Don, he just wants to complain. From what I remember he doesn’t care about fluoride, so I wonder why he is here?

Jo Roark - 10 June 2008 11:38 AM

This is huge news, Don. We are gaining a lot of momentum across the nation, its really sad, however, that so many people have suffered from fluoride poisoning. There needs to be some kind of compensation for victims and their families.

My comment is in regard to Ms. Roark’s assertion that we must compensate, compensate, compensate as if it’s an entitlement.  No, I didn’t bother reading the article due to the fact that for every anti flouride article found surfing the net there is a counter pro flouride article.  One can find whatever fits their stance if they search.  Insurance costs are sky high because we are over compensated when mistakes are made.

WD, If you take a good look at the articles for pro fluoride you will see they never include any facts, just endorsements. In order to be credible one must bring the facts to the table. If the people supporting fluoridation are so sure they are right then why are they so afraid to debate? The worst was when Munks said that no one had ever been hurt by fluoride in Anacortes and he nothing to back it up with. He thinks that just because he is an alleged county commissioner that certainly anything he says must be true and we are all just suppose to follow along like a bunch of stupid sheep. It embarrassed me just reading the article.
Where death is concerned there is no such thing as over compensation, especially when it could have been avoided.

watch dog - 12 June 2008 02:19 PM

Jo Roark - 10 June 2008 11:38 AM

This is huge news, Don. We are gaining a lot of momentum across the nation, its really sad, however, that so many people have suffered from fluoride poisoning. There needs to be some kind of compensation for victims and their families.

My comment is in regard to Ms. Roark’s assertion that we must compensate, compensate, compensate as if it’s an entitlement.  No, I didn’t bother reading the article due to the fact that for every anti flouride article found surfing the net there is a counter pro flouride article.  One can find whatever fits their stance if they search.  Insurance costs are sky high because we are over compensated when mistakes are made.

A “mistake” is one thing, watch dog. The willful disregard of warnings and common sense is quite another. It appears that you have frivolous litigation confused with that which is clearly warranted. When there is overwhelming evidence that a particular practice of long standing is in fact harmful and our public servants choose to look the other way, then they need to be held accountable for such negligence.

Why do you think that the CDC is immune from being sued and slapped with compensatory damages? Its representatives want those who are stupid enough to take their advice to pay when someone dies as a result. The National Kidney Foundation just figured this out and pulled its endorsement of water fluoridation.

watch dog, the reason you give for not reading the articles I provided is bogus. Dialysis patients are dying because of fluoridated water. That is established fact based on forensic evidence. Are you telling me that you can surf the Internet and find web pages that disagree? Okay, fork ‘em over. While you’re at it, show me the double-blind studies that prove ingested fluoride is “safe and effective.”

Ok..as I suspected after reading the article it appears on a site with an obvious agenda.  Yes, the article is true, but the reason for the death was not so much a flouride policy problem as a human error.  That could happen with any medication to include the dialysis treatment itself if not performed properly by the human.  I then went to a pro flouride article and as suspected it was an ADA site.  Here is that site http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf.  Who do I believe a site referencing scientists, doctors, dentists..or a site with another obvious agenda?  Reading the articles just verified my assertion that if you look on the internet you’ll find a site to support your agenda.  Both sites in my opinion are the farthest thing from objective on the topic.  However, at a vote I’ll put my vote behind facts and research rather than alarmist with a relatively low number of incidents to quote.

Yes, someone did make an error! If there wasn’t any fluoride to begin with then the error wouldn’t have occured! This is not the first death from fluoride, nor will it be the last. Doesn’t matter to me WD, you can believe in facts or you can believe in endorsements. The important thing is that they don’t poison the water..

The ADA just tells you what to think, I would like to see them prove their statements with scientific studies but since they don’t have any then I guess its just not possible.

Jo, my vote is definately attainable should this issue be presented again. Sway me..I’m not sold one way or the other. But, to say there is no scientific research being done to support the ADA’s claim is not true in the least bit. Just in reading the one article it was full of citations of scientific research. Now, you may not trust that research, but to say it is not there is misleading. I’ve unfortunately had to take research & statistic courses which I hated, but I still stayed awake enough to know that research can be manipulated until you get the answers you’re wanting, so no I do not take what the ADA states as gospel. As I don’t take all the research on global warming as gospel as long as scientists wanting to debuke global warming are being black balled. As devastating as even one death is due to human error in regards to flouride goes it is not enough to cause me to dismiss flouride in water any more than one accidental death due to anesthesia would prevent me from pursuing surgery if needed. (Yes, I know there have been more than one, but still a very low percentage) Convince me as to why I should be against flouride in the water systems without personal attacks against the opponent.

watch dog - 13 June 2008 02:04 PM

Ok..as I suspected after reading the article it appears on a site with an obvious agenda.  Yes, the article is true, but the reason for the death was not so much a flouride policy problem as a human error.  That could happen with any medication to include the dialysis treatment itself if not performed properly by the human.  I then went to a pro flouride article and as suspected it was an ADA site.  Here is that site http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf.  Who do I believe a site referencing scientists, doctors, dentists..or a site with another obvious agenda?  Reading the articles just verified my assertion that if you look on the internet you’ll find a site to support your agenda.  Both sites in my opinion are the farthest thing from objective on the topic.  However, at a vote I’ll put my vote behind facts and research rather than alarmist with a relatively low number of incidents to quote.

watch dog, I gave you far too much credit when I spoon-fed news items to you, which you have misrepresented as being originated by anti-fluoridation groups. Yes, the first two articles regarding dialysis patient deaths are indeed hosted at the web site for the Fluoride Action Network. I also provided the names of the newspapers in which the original items appeared and their dates of publication, which you failed to note. There is no agenda in accurately reporting the news. The former ”Evening Capital” does not have online archives going back to 1979 and the Chicago Sun-Times wants a fee for archives older than two weeks, so I used what is available.

You better believe that such deaths are the result of water fluoridation policy problems that are brought into sharp focus by human error and mechanical failure. People continue to be sickened or killed needlessly because, short of relocation, there is no way to opt out of a blanket forced fluoridation program. Tell me, watch dog, just how many fluoride-related deaths are considered “acceptable” in your eyes?

As for the ADA’s Fluoride Facts, please note the disclaimer:
This publication is designed to answer frequently asked questions about community water fluoridation, based on a summary of relevant published articles. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the extensive literature on fluoridation and fluorides. Readers must also rely on their own review of the literature, including the sources cited herein and any subsequent published, for a complete understanding of these issues.

In other words, the ADA’s Fluoride Facts is out of date, as its copyright is 2005 and the National Research Council’s findings were released the following year. You can put your vote behind that and the National Kidney Foundation’s about face on its endorsement of fluoridation.

WD,
I have alot better things to do than spend so much of my time trying to convince you, do the research yourself and come to your own conclusions, your going to do it anyway. One thing that you may want to do is attend PUD meeting at the end of the month, the place and time is on their website, Originally, it was going to be between the PUD commissioners, the county commissioners and the public to ask questions but there is no mention of the county commissioners attending the meeting, hmmm… I would not be the least bit surprised if they didn’t show because that would mean they would have to prove their own credibility and they aren’t real good at that.

Everyone has an agenda, WD. In a nutshell, it is the agenda of the ADA, the WDSF and 2 of the alleged county commissioners to poison our water. It is the agenda of the anti flluoride people to stop it from happening.

The one thing that never ceases to amaze me Don is that pro fluoride people think that all of the groups that have formed and continue to form against fluoridation are doing it for no reason? That all these people in all of the communities across the nation have nothing better than to fight a practice that is good for us? HA! The kidney foundation is no longer backing the practice of fluoridation even though they will lose funding? The ADA says its bad for babies and the AMA won’t guarantee its safely? No one has ever taken in a sample of fluoride to the FDA for approval? That it is still considered a test drug after almost 60 years? Hmmm...I wonder why that is?
I think WD is pro fluoride because every time we give him good solid information he looks for a way to reject it and defend the practice of fluoridation. I think he comes on here to simply waste our time.

Jo Roark - 14 June 2008 02:09 AM

WD,
I have alot better things to do than spend so much of my time trying to convince you, do the research yourself and come to your own conclusions, your going to do it anyway. One thing that you may want to do is attend PUD meeting at the end of the month, the place and time is on their website, Originally, it was going to be between the PUD commissioners, the county commissioners and the public to ask questions but there is no mention of the county commissioners attending the meeting, hmmm… I would not be the least bit surprised if they didn’t show because that would mean they would have to prove their own credibility and they aren’t real good at that.

Commissioners to hold fluoride meeting
Skagit PUD Commissioners want to hear from water customers regarding concerns or desire to fluoridate the Judy Reservoir water system.

To ensure that all Skagit PUD customers have had adequate opportunity to voice their opinion on this important issue, the Commissioners plan to hold a public meeting to take community comments:

Date:  Thursday, June 26, 2008

Location: Burlington-Edison High School Cafeteria/Performing Arts Center
(301 N Burlington Blvd, Burlington, WA)

PUD No. 1 of Skagit County

If the ADA has all these studies then why didn’t they bring them out for public perusal four years ago and try to convince people that way. If there are studies and they are good what more needs to be said. The studies, if they do exist, are well hidden from the public

If watch dog would do as suggested at the web site he provided (the ADA’s Fluoride Facts), he would discover that what the ADA cites as supporting references are not a whole lot of help.

Again, The ADA cautions:
This publication is designed to answer frequently asked questions about community water fluoridation, based on a summary of relevant published articles. It is not intended to be a comprehensive review of the extensive literature on fluoridation and fluorides. Readers must also rely on their own review of the literature, including the sources cited herein and any subsequent published, for a complete understanding of these issues.

For example, Question #30 on page 34 asks:
Does the ingestion of optimally fluoridated water adversely affect the thyroid gland or its function?

The ADA answers:
There is no scientific basis that shows fluoridated water has an adverse effect on the thyroid gland or its function.

An excerpt from the ADA’s expanded answer states and gives a footnote:
In an effort to determine if fluoride in drinking water affects the function, shape and size of the thyroid gland, researchers conducted a study comparing one group of people who consumed water that contained natural fluoride levels of 3.48 ppm and one group who consumed water with extremely low fluoride levels of 0.09 ppm. The researchers noted that all study participants had been residents of their respective communities for more than 10 years. The researchers concluded that prolonged ingestion of fluoride at levels above optimal to prevent dental decay had no effect on thyroid gland size or function. This conslusion was consistent with earlier animal studies. 248

248. Leone NC, Leatherwood EC, Petrie IM, Lieberman L.
Effect of fluoride on thyroid gland: clinical study.
J Am Dent Assoc 1964;69:179-80.

The closest I got to finding the actual study is at the above link. It appears that if I really want to read its contents, I would have to find a library at the nearest dental school listed in the “LinkOut” option from the “Display” pull-down menu there. There doesn’t seem to be anything online, yet the ADA and this study are cited by pro-fluoridation interests whenever they are asked about the fluoride/thyroid connection. See “Ask the Expert” from the May 2007 edition of Dimensions of Dental Hygiene. There is nothing original, just the same old claptrap.

Now, also found at the National Center for Biotechnology Information site, is a Russian study, for which the abstract is online. See
Bachinskiĭ PP, Gutsalenko OA, Naryzhniuk ND, Sidora VD, Shliakhta AI
Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system
Probl Endokrinol (Mosk). 1985 Nov-Dec;31(6):25-9.

Abstract:
Altogether 123 persons were examined: 47 healthy persons, 43 patients with thyroid hyperfunction and 33 with thyroid hypofunction. It was established that prolonged consumption of drinking water with a raised fluorine content (122 +/- 5 mumol/l with the normal value of 52 +/- 5 mumol/l) by healthy persons caused tension of function of the pituitary-thyroid system that was expressed in TSH elevated production, a decrease in the T3 concentration and more intense absorption of radioactive iodine by the thyroid as compared to healthy persons who consumed drinking water with the normal fluorine concentration. The results led to a conclusion that excess of fluorine in drinking water was a risk factor of more rapid development of thyroid pathology. Indicators of the fluorine content in daily urine provide most of the information on changes of the fluorine amount in the body.

With all of the additional sources of fluoride in the food and beverages we consume, no one in his or her right mind can claim that “optimally fluoridated” water should not be included when evaluating the total daily intake. In most cases, the subject has overdosed without the fluoridated water! That’s plain common sense!

Well Don, looks like WD knows when to quit.