City of Dallas Votes to Discontinue Adding Toxic
Waste to Municipal Water
Led by the courageous District 9 councilman, Sheffie Kadane, Dallas City Council has voted to discontinue the policy of spending more than $1,000,000. 00 a year to increase fluoridation of the city’s already naturally fluoridated water supply. Although many other cities around the world have decided to stop “fluoridation”, this historic event makes Dallas the largest city in the U.S. to discontinue the use of fluorosilicic acid (FSA) and similar industrial sources of fluoride.
Local activist Regina Imburgia and her colleagues have successfully encouraged many local, regional, state and international experts to weigh in on the side of the change. Many in favor of the change praised the open-mindedness of the council to listen to the opinions and science from both sides before making this landmark decision.
The above headline could actually be running in the Dallas Morning News, Fort Worth Star Telegram and other papers, magazines, and blogs next week, January 29, after the big vote the day before. Yes, next Wednesday the 28th is when something very important might happen to the quality of the water in Dallas.
For those of you who have missed the debate, here are some links to help you catch up and my official potion on the debate.
Here’s Steve Blow’s original swipe at me and the anti-toxin folks:
Here’s Dallas Observer writer Jim Schutze’s swipe at Steve Blow’s swipe at me:
And here’s Tim Rogers’ weigh in from D Magazine – again at Blow:
And finally, here's my official position on the matter:
I am opposed to adding additional levels of fluoride to city water for three basic reasons.
1. Natural fluoride is not what we are concerned about. The fluoride used to treat municipal water is a toxic chemical. Despite the critics saying otherwise, fluoride has proven links to several diseases and other ill-effects in animals and humans. Water is fluoridated by means of the chemicals sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid (FSA). These chemicals are waste byproducts of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers and other industrial products. Contaminants - including antimony, barium, beryllium and arsenic - remain in these fluoridation chemicals. The acid product is what the city of Dallas uses.
2. The numbers don’t make sense. In the Dallas case currently being debated, natural fluoride exists in the drinking water at around .5 parts per million. The city has been spending more than a $1,000,000 a year adding .2 ppm toxic waste to raise the level to .7 ppm. If fluoride worked like the proponents suggest, the .5 ppm would be plenty. Some ague the point that tooth decay is down because of fluoridation. The truth is that there is no significant difference in the incidence of tooth decay between cities that fluoridate and those that do not.
3. There’s a better way to apply fluoride. For those who approve of fluoride use, treating teeth topically is far more effective than ingesting it. Treating water offers no dose control – small children get the same dose as adults whether it’s wanted or not. 95% of the toothpastes on the market contain fluoride so people can use all they want. However, even the organizations that promote the use of fluoride warn strongly against children less than 2 years old using fluoridated toothpaste and also warn against anyone swallowing the products. They also warn strongly against fluoride being in infant formulas or mother’s milk.
On January 28th the Dallas City Council should vote to end the use of toxic industrial waste fluoride.
Here are links to Dr. Paul Connett explaining fluoride problems in detail, a copy of the summary from The Lancet with warnings about fluoride and a link to a site listing the cities that currently refuse to fluoridate their water:
Speech by Dr. Paul Connett (chemist, author and retired professor) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zo6SnvmMP9k
THE LANCET (peer-reviewed medical journal)
Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity
Dr Philippe Grandjean, MD, Philip J Landrigan, MD
Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.
Cities that stopped fluoridating water: http://fluoridealert.org/content/communities/