Comments for Local group opposes fluoridation at http://www.theind.com , comment 1 to 5 out of 5 comments http://www.theind.com Wed, 22 May 2013 18:40:48 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.theind.com/home/4250#comment-895 Fluoridation has a sordid history of failure to improve children's teeth. Kentucky is the top state in the u.S. for the number of people on fluoridation, but is the worst state in terms of missing teeth and cavities. Dentists and newspapers in Boston, New York, and Detroit, which have long been fluoridated, all report a crisis in the number os cavities in children, particularly poor children. Even in Grand Rapids, the first city in the nation to fluoridate, dentists say it is not unusal to see children with 8 to 10 cavities. The truth is that it is the standard of living, which means a good diet, and proper dental hygiene that produces good teeth and not fluoride. Another awful truth is that research studies show that fluoride crossed the blood brain barrier and reduces IQ and increases bone cancer in chlderen. It would seem governments are swayed by big money and big influence in ignoring the current research. Think of the cost to those industries if they had to process that toxic waste instead of selling it to communities. - JIm Reeves Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:34:29 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/4250#comment-857 Part of the state's rationale last year, was that this would save on our Medicaid expenses, due to the poor oral health of impoverished children, being a problem that needed remediation. Connett presented info that reflects the lifestyle factors associated with poverty, which are verifiably more complicit in the cause, such as increased sugar consumption, poor education in oral care, etc. There are behavioural mechanisms at play here. In addition, if Fluoridation could be an acceptable treatment, then the cost benefit ratio may be out of order, as only 2% of the water supply is actually ingested, and of that, a smaller percent is absorded and integrated into the enamel structures of the teeth. Topical application would seem to be more efficacious. I also believe this to be a case of doctrinal thinking on the part of our establishment authorities. The evidence presented reflects a situation in which the cost of doing nothing is not as great a risk as the cost of doing something. The same cannot be said of global warming. Paul Connett's other main area of focus is ZeroWaste Sustainability. He gave a presentation on this at the La. Environmental Action Network last October. http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/projects.html Lafayette is certainly ahead of most of Louisiana, in our waste diversion, however, we remain behind much of the rest of the nation, and need to step up to lead our state in efficiency, by further diverting more of our solid waste into pathways that save energy and add value to what we now think of as trash. Instead of a recycle cart and a trash cart, we would begin using the following waste carts: 1.) Recycle Cart 2.) "Clean" Organic Matter (food and lawn wastes) 3.) "Dirty" Organic Matter and all other trashes. This would be rolled out to ALL residential dwellings, including apartments, and office places, restaurants, and other businesses, (including our schools, churches, etc.) Old Acadie (Nova Scotia) has passed us up with around 70% total waste diversion on the road to Zero Waste in the near future. Such a plan requires will from our leaders, and distributed enaction, to ensure that education begins with children, as well as every workplace. An effective strategy in other cities has been to charge the citizen a rate for non diverted wastes per pound. This is effected by having a scale on the automated arm that lifts the trash cart. Barcoding of the trash cart allows the system to allocate a charge to the user based on consumptive waste. This would certainly ensure complete participation in diversion efforts as a means towards minimizing our costs. Of course, this being South Louisiana, some knuckle heads would choose to dump a lawn mower near the bayou rather than make a call to have it picked up. Enforcement would be required, along with vigorous and regular clean up actions. Much as cleaning up graffiti and ticketing turnstyle jumpers have improved safety in New York subways. Expecting anyone else to take care of our problems is not realistic, the obligation is our own. Since River Ranch has it's own contract rider with Allied, and b/c the current city-parish contract does not include apartments, or composting of kitchen wastes, or these other waste streams I have mentioned, then perhaps the Ranch could be the first community in the area to employ this ZeroWaste strategy. Such an effort will also be a value added proposition as evidenced by Connett's presentations. It is not a mark of affluency to go Zero Waste. I have cited River Ranch only is as much as it is the first to have a contract that goes beyond the minimum service mandated by the city and parish. - Jason D. Faulk Fri, 24 Apr 2009 15:47:48 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/4250#comment-838 The fact that they avoided discussing the pros and cons suggests to me that they have already decided to go ahaed with adding fluoride. This is the usual method of forcing people to ingest this filthy dangerous muck. It totally useless unless you want to get rid of rats and roaches, which it kills very effectively. There should be no place for this poison in the human food chain and elected council members should not be re-elected if this vote in favour of fluoridation. for latest info on this issue contact the Fluoride Action Network web site. - Brian Jackson Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:27:42 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/4250#comment-826 Why can't we trust people to use a fluoride mouthwash if they are worried about tooth decay, rather than force LUS water-drinkers to ingest a toxic substance known to have negative health effects such as cognitive impairment in children? Something stinks. - JP Thu, 23 Apr 2009 11:32:03 +0100 http://www.theind.com/home/4250#comment-820 Over 2,400 professionals urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation until Congressional hearings are conducted, citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/statement.august.2007.html. Also, eleven Environmental Protection Agency employee unions representing over 7000 environmental and public health professionals called for a moratorium on drinking water fluoridation programs across the country, and have asked EPA management to recognize fluoride as posing a serious risk of causing cancer in people. Please join them. An Online Action Petition to Congress in support of the Professionals' Statement is available on FAN's web site, http://congress.fluorideaction.net - nyscof Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:03:10 +0100