Sheridan City Council to Move Forward With Fluoridation of Public Water

Wyoming Department of Health Director Dr. Brent Sherard (Courtesy Photo)
Wyoming Department of Health Director Dr. Brent Sherard (Courtesy Photo)

The Sheridan City Council Monday night listened to a room full of people give their opinion on fluoridating the public water system. The debate started with local dentists and physicians offering their support for the idea with an array of statistics showing the benefit of fluoridation.

After hearing from the proponents of the idea, the Council listened to a handful of those against fluoridation, who cited that fluoride is a toxin and that the government shouldn't be making that type of decision for the people it governs.

One of those who showed up to offer their support was Wyoming Department of Health Director Dr. Brent Sherard.

Sherard says that the Council's decision will aid in making Wyoming a healthier state in the long run.

Sheridan Mayor Dave Kinskey pointed out that this isn't something that is going to happen overnight, stating that the fluoride feed system wouldn't be installed until the cryptosporidium upgrades are done to the Big Goose Water Treatment and the Sheridan Water Treatment Plants. Those upgrades are federally mandated and need to be completed by 2013.

The current level of fluoride found in Sheridan's water supply is 0.3, which is far less than the CDC recommended level of 1 milligram per liter that is suitable for public consumption.

uBlaze Vapor
view counter

Silly people!

Why are you crying out against the fluoride? Don't you realize the (not our) elected officials are considered most knowledgeable and have a most holy (Kinskey) leader that, just like Nancy Pelosi, know what you want? Like Pelosi said, you will like it once you get it. Seems a bit similar, although not as lethal, to what Jim Jones said to his followers in Guyana (sp) regarding the harmless KoolAid. All this time I thought the city was having a bit of a shortfall of revenue but apparently have just enough left over to provide the citizens with an unnecessary drug.

Complete disregard towards the citizens who spoke out against

As always, the City Council and the Mayor disregards the voices of the citizens who demand the right to choose whether or not to ingest fluoride. If one wants to ingest what is listed as not only a drug but a potentially toxic substance all they have to do is obtain a prescription from their Doctor. Fluoride is much more toxic systemically(ingesting it) than using it topically in toothpaste.

So the rights of those who choose not to ingest flouride have now been ignored and completely tossed to the side.

What about those who have thyroid conditions that may be affected by the ingestion of fluoride? Studies have proven fluoride can disrupt those with weakened thyroids even further...

What about those who have infants who have to use the water to make formula??? The ADA and CDC both say fluoride for infants is dangerous.

What about those who have already suffered from Fluoride damage such as myself who has to use Fluoride Free toothpaste in order to prevent further damage to my teeth????

I guess our only option is to pay for expensive filters that filter out fluoride, move to the country and get a well or move out of town altogether????

Now how is that fair?

Nonsense

Regardless of your position on the toxicity versus health benefits, I have to ask why would our water purveyor choose to add a chemical to our water supply that is not required to meet the requirments of the Safe Drinking Water Act? That is just nonsense.

There are capital costs to construct the capability to add fluoride (at two water treatment plants) and then the ongoing cost for operations. These costs, granted, are not large, but why increase water treatment costs by any amount if it isn't necessary?

City Council bemoans the crytosporidium improvements necessary at the plants as unjust mandates, but then chooses to further increase costs and treatment process complexity by adding something to our water that we do not even need. That, also, is nonsense.

Our government's obligation is to provide us with water that is safe to drink. Nothing further.

Fluoridation: Ineffective, Dangerous & Uneconomical

Isn't it strange, doctors cannot force one person to take a drug, yet the government wants to force everyone to be drugged with fluoride, a prescription drug, against their will and with no medical supervision, no control over how much you consume and no treatment for side effects.
Fluoridation not only causes cancer, brittle bones, etc., (see www.fluoridealert.org) but is an absolute waste of tax money. People only drink 1/2% of the water they use.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 would be consumed by children. Can you think of a more wasteful government program?
Would anyone purchase a bottle of 100 EXPENSIVE ‘medicant’ pills, take just one and throw the rest away into our habitats only to pollute our environments? Of course NOT!

If you want flouride in your water, put it in your own glass of water, leave the rest of us out of it.
If fluoride were "proven," there should be evidence of its glory in Kentucky, which has been 100% fluoridated for over 40 years. Kentucky, however, le

Flouride is a naturally

Flouride is a naturally occurring element, not a prescription drug. Flourosis, the medical condition you are attempting to describe (and cancer is not a symptom), can only be caused by chronic and excessive high-level exposure to flouride over time. Your argument is completely specious.

Down syndrom, mottled teeth and cancer

More information from Balch & Balch's Prescription for Nutritional Healing:

"Many ailments and disorders-including Down syndrome, mottled teeth, and cancer-have been linked to fluoridated water."

S. Mercer, Sheridan

S. Mercer, Sheridan

Completely specious?

Not quite. Although it is true that flouride is a naturally occurring element, "the salts used to fluoridate our nation's water supply, sodium fluoride and fluorosalicic acid, are industrial byproducts that are never found in nature. They are also notoriously toxic compounds, so much so that they are used in rat poison and insecticides." from Prescription for Nutritional Healing, 3rd ed. Balch & Balch.

S. Mercer, Sheridan

S. Mercer, Sheridan

Fluoride is indeed considered a drug...

Read the back of your bottle of toothpaste, it says "Warning: if this is ingested call the poison control center or consult with a medical professional"

Read a non fluoride bottle of toothpaste and there are absolutely no warnings.

You cannot buy bottles of fluoride tables that you ingest systemically over the counter, no you must obtain a prescription because it is classified as a drug.

So yes, what they are adding to the water supply is no different than fluoride tablets given by your Dr. Same thing in two different forms, one is a tablet one is added to the water.

It would seem that the well

It would seem that the well known quote from Mark Twain is an accurate assessment of the arguments from opponents of water fluoridation:

"Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please."

Fluoridation is mass medication without parallel

The Delaney Congressional Investigation Committee, the government body charged with monitoring additives and other substances in the food supply, has stated that "fluoridation is mass medication without parallel in the history of medicine."

S. Mercer, Sheridan

S. Mercer, Sheridan

I see that your statement is

I see that your statement is taken verbatim from page 137 of a book entitled "Prescription for Dietary Wellness" by Phyllis A. Balch originally published in 1992. Although promoting herself as a Certified Nutritional Consultant who received her certification from the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, Ms. Balch actually runs a health food store in Greenfield, Indiana. According to the website Quackwatch, "AANC is a thoroughly disreputable organization whose only membership requirement has been payment of a $50 fee and whose CNC designation is based on passage of an open-book examination..." See http://www.quackwatch.com/02Cons... for the full article.

To be clear, there are numerous committees formed in each congress for any number of reasons. The congressional investigative committees are named after their chairperson. The Food and Drug Administration is the governmental body "charged with monitoring additives and other substances in the food supply", not a congressional committee. According to the FDA website, in 1950 the Delaney Committee conducted a congressional investigation of the safety of chemicals in foods and cosmetics, laying the foundation for the 1954 Miller Pesticide Amendment, the 1958 Food Additives Amendment, and the 1960 Color Additive Amendment. Congressman Delaney died in 1987.

I agree with the statement that "fluoridation is mass medication without parallel in the history of medicine". Since first commencing 60 years ago, water fluoridation is without doubt the most successful public health program that has ever existed. Millions upon millions of people, especially children, have been able to enjoy the benefits, which is why the Delaney Commission so highly praised it. I am glad you mentioned this somewhat out of context quote, S. Mercer, and pleased to see that you actually do support better public health through the fluoridation of our drinking water.

Flouride

The CDC and ADA Now Advise to Avoid Using Flouride. http://articles.mercola.com/site...

I have been so busy w/the holidays that I didn't realize this issue was being dealt w/last night; otherwise, I most certainly would have attended. It sounds to me that the council voted for this despite what The Majority of the People wanted.

I would like to see this go to council one more time, please.

S. Mercer, Sheridan

S. Mercer, Sheridan

Mercola's Sources

Forget doing a "simple Google search." Dr. Mercola cites his legitimate, non-specious sources:
Journal of the American Dental Association October 14, 2010; 141(10):1190-1201
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm...
CDC May 28, 2010
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/...

S. Mercer, Sheridan

S. Mercer, Sheridan

I've been following this

I've been following this discussion with interest, but I'm afraid those sources do not specifically back up your claim. In the 4th paragraph the CDC article states, "CDC believes that community water fluoridation is safe and healthy and promotes its use for people of all ages." Later on, they reiterate their stance, "Water fluoridation is safe, effective, and healthy. Water fluoridated at a level optimal for oral health poses no known health risks for infants."

If Dr. Mercola is using the CDC as a source for a position against fluoridation for the general public then he is obviously taking their statements out of context. I wouldn't put too much stock in anything he has to say.

Don't believe everything you

Don't believe everything you read. Your information comes from an article and website by Dr. Joseph Mercola. Please take the time to do a quick Google search for his name. You will find that "fraud" and "quack" are some of the more polite terms by which he is described.

Dr. Joseph Mercola

I had never heard that so I did a quick Google search and found nothing of the sort.

S. Mercer, Sheridan

S. Mercer, Sheridan

I just looked up this Dr.

I just looked up this Dr. Joseph Mercola and it stated that he has had 2 written warnings from the FDA for his marketing. He apparently uses scare tactics to pursuade people. He is also on quackwatch.com.....which should say something.

CDC & ADA both fully support water fluoridation.

The truth is that the CDC and ADA both are still clearly fully supporting water fluoridation.
That information is readily available on the actual websites of the CDC and ADA.

If you want to know where the CDC and ADA stand on the topic, I suggest you go directly to the actual CDC and ADA websites not this other mercola website (which also apparently says calcium is bad for womens bones, their angle being to give additional reason for you to buy their organic products).

well if we're using the same

well if we're using the same google...check pretty much every article after the first three which are his personal website