Research the original use of water fluoridation and you will find that it was a technique used by the Germans in WWII to keep the concentration camp and ghetto inmates docile and lethargic. This isn't about health, it's about control and dumbing people down. Just google fluoride videos and you will see the bags of Hydrofluorosicic Acid that are provided to 'fluoridate' the water, they are VERY plainly marked as toxic and not for ingestion. And in case you are unaware of where Hydrofluorosicic Acid comes from, a main source is the soot scrapings of fossil fuel power plants. It's industrial waste being pawned off as some public health product. Just read your toothpaste tube. In case of ingestion contact your local poison control center....
Don't let the need to be right get in the way of discovering truth!
Alfred D. Carrelli This is to the decision makers in the community. Speak to the chemist's in your area. If you combine Hydrofluorosicic Acid ( the most commonly used fluoride additive) with Hydrochloric Acid ( Stomach Acid) the result is Fluoricic Acid. This is one of the strongest (most aggressive) acids known to science. This acid is going to wreak havoc on the intestinal and stomach lining. What you are wanting to do is put a phosphate waste product into your childs drinking water. Go to chemistry site's, and first year chemistry books and educate yourself on fluorine. It is the unstable atom of the fluoride ion. Unstable, meaning it takes from any other atom in the body to balance itself out. Another thing, if fluoride is so safe then why are the toothpaste manufacturers recommending on the label that if you ingest more than a pea size dose contact poison control. I'm rambling. Please study this before you commit to adding any acids to your water.
Alfred D. Carrelli
"...when fluoridated water is consumed regularly, toxic levels of fluorine, the poisonous substance from which fluoride is derived, build up in the body, causing irreparable harm to the immune system."
"No convincing scientific proof has ever been generated that fluoridated water makes for stronger bones and teeth. It is known, however, that chronic fluoride use results in numerous health problems, including osteoporosis and osteomalacia, and also damages teeth and leaves them mottled. The salts used to fluoridate (sodium floride 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. The naturally occurring form of fluoride, calcium fluoride, is not toxic-but this form is not used to fluoridate water."
"Many ailments and disorders-including Down syndrome, mottled teeth, and cancer-have been linked to fluoridated water."
[from Prescription for Nutritional Healing 3rd Ed., Balch & Balch, 2000]
S. Mercer, Sheridan
Flouride can prevent dental fluorosis, but ONLY WHEN APPLIED TOPICALLY. Adding it to the water is like drinking sun screen to prevent sunburn. Sodium Flouride is a pharmaceutical and it just like any other over the counter medicine it should be administered an individual choice, not added to the water supply to treat thousands of people sight unseen. By the way, my children are 10 and 7 and have never used flouride toothpaste. They have never had a cavity. flossing works better than chemicals.
So we pay taxes to clean the water. Then we would pay taxes to put flouride in it. (some say a poison). Then those wanting pure water can pay for filters to re-clean their water at home.
Isn't buying flouride toothpaste more cost effective and simpler?
If we don't put flouride in the water, we save money and allow each person to decide if they want to put flouride in their own mouth.
If we don't re-impose the one percent tax, each person is free to donate as much as they want to any cause they choose.
Imposing flouride and taxes, result in a loss of freedom and money to a significant segment of the population.
Let's stop imposing on each other, please.
Give me Liberty or....
Based in part on a promising WYO bumper sticker I once saw, “Love Thy Neighbor, Then Leave Him The Hell Alone”, my own now reads, “I Wasn’t Born In Wyoming, But I Came Here On Purpose”.
Please don’t mess this up. I would hate to have to find a new home, especially given that I believe Wyoming is the last, best hope for personal choice, responsibility and freedom in our great, but increasingly misguided nation.
Whatever your view on the “science” here is secondary to the main point. Putting fluoride in the water would be just another case of using public funds to instigate a policy that is neither 100% approved, nor 100% proven. We have enough of those already.
The vast majority of our municipal water does not find it way to your teeth anyway, so it seems to me to be a VERY inefficient way to apply the product. Anyone that chooses to use the product needs to use a more efficient means. -like maybe toothpaste? -or Dentist?
I'm really opposed to using our tax-funded municipal water treatment facilities for such an unnecessary purpose, especially if it not desired by the vast majority.
Benefit or not the choice to use floride should be left to the individul. The City of Sheridan by adding floride to the water is taking away my choice to use it or not. Most people, I would hope, use tooth paste every day. Most of which has floride as an ingredient, and most mouth washes contain it as well. Given the amount of people these days that drink bottled water, even in the home it seems like it would be a waste to florinate the water any way.
Why fluoridate a municipal water system? The majority of water is not used for drinking but is used in washing clothes, flushing toilets, bathing, watering lawns, ect.
What good is it to add fluoride to toilet water?
If people wish to ingest fluoride for perceived health benefits there are better ways of doing it other than putting it in public water systems where the majority of the water isn't ingested.
I agree we do not need it as the majority of water is used for other uses. Does fluoride make my washed car, clothes or dishes cleaner? my hair and skin softer? or make my plants grow better? only a small percentage is actually used for drinking.
The CDC acknowledges that fluorides benefits (if there are any) are from topical application- meaning toothpaste and mouth rinse.
People on dialysis and people with thyroid problems- especially hypothyroidism should NOT ingest fluoride. This is scientific FACT.
Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland which can cause early puberty in children.
The ADA warns against mixing infant formula with fluoridated water, or giving fluoridated water to babies to drink as it can cause overexposure.
Fluoride crosses the placental barrier and accumulates in fetuses brains. Lower IQ and behavioral problems are statistically linked to fluoride ingestion.
Fluoride has also been linked to an increase in Osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males.
Dental fluorosis is not benign. Teeth become more porous, and can be streaked with black and brown staining. You can see fluorosis on teeth, but you can't see it on bones. Fluoride actually weakens bones. Hip fractures are higher in areas with fluoridated water.
Livestock suffer as well. Fluoridated water gives horses colic and thyroid problems, as well as bone deformities. Dogs and cats are more susceptible to kidney and joint problems.
This is just a short list! If fluoride will harm even one person in our community it should NOT be added to our water. We have a fluoride rinse program in elementary schools already. People on fixed incomes would not be able to afford to buy bottled water in order to avoid fluoride.
Fluoride is a chemical, not a nutrient, and should not be forced on anyone.
I guess you missed some very obvious text on the CDC website regarding fluoridation (or you were reading some other website which 'claimed' the CDC isn't supporting it?)
Everyone can locate the CDC information at the following page:
the CDC clearly states :
" For 65 years, community water fluoridation has been a safe and healthy way to effectively prevent tooth decay. CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. "
additional quotes directly from the CDC site:
" CDC continues to strongly support community water fluoridation "
" numerous scientific studies and comprehensive reviews have recognized fluoride as an important nutrient for strong healthy teeth and as a safe, cost-effective way to prevent tooth decay. All residents of a community can enjoy its protective benefit simply by consuming foods and beverages prepared with fluoridated water. A person’s income level or ability to receive routine dental care is not a barrier to receiving its health benefits. "
Mike, I didn't miss the fact that the CDC favors fluoride. What I said is that they acknowledge that fluorides benefits are topical, not systemic: From the CDC- "Laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940).
From the National Research council (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 13. “the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic.”
The CDC can call fluoride a "nutrient" if they want to but there is no science to back that up. Strong healthy teeth are possible without the addition of fluoride. There is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency.
ALL residents of a community do NOT benefit from fluoridation. As I stated, people with low thyroid, people with kidney problems, infants, pregnant women, people with stomach problems, people with osteoporosis, can be seriously harmed by ingesting fluoride.
If you want to trust the CDC with your health and that of your children, be my guest, but don't force me to go along.
If you consider all of the processed foods that are made with fluoridated water, everything from soda and fruit juice to canned soup, then we're already getting dosed if we consume those foods.
And Mike, where do you think all that fluoride ends up? In our creeks and rivers and lakes, that's where. So it's not just the cats and dogs and horses and cows, it's the deer and elk and all the birds getting dosed too.
Graphic fact-based clue to how dumb-founded are the well funded pitches for drinking fluoride water:
19,293 DENTISTS ADVISE ... SMOKE VICEROYS!
Life Magazine Ad- Page 152 ; Oct 27 1947
source: http://graphic-design.tjs-labs.c... id=1054747811
"Sorry Doc, but fluoridated water is an extremely good idea with many studies and much science to back it up."
Baloney! Never mind the "many studies" pitch, PLEASE simply cite ONE peer-reviewed toxicological study--if one exists-- that demonstrates saf
Never mind the "many studies" pitch for fluoride.
Where's merely ONE peer-reviewed toxicological study--if one exists-- that demonstrates safety and effectiveness for any of the "approved" fluoridation products.
I simply went to Google Scholar and entered "fluoride in water toxicological studies peer reviewed". The return was 3,010 results which will provide many months of reading material for you. The specific link is at http://scholar.google.com
I don't think this is an appropriate addition to our drinking water treatment plant. Fluoride is not a dietary supplement for any other purposes other than oral health. It has detrimental health effects above the therapeutic concentration. There are numerous studies on the negative health impacts of chronic fluoride consumption available.
The cost benefit to this modification is not appropriate. For those who desire the effects of fluoride addition there are supplements available for purchase at a low cost.
Fluoridation Opposition is Scientific, Respectable & Growing
More than 3100 professionals (including over 280 dentists) urge the US Congress to stop water fluoridation citing scientific evidence that fluoridation, long promoted to fight tooth decay, is ineffective and has serious health risks. See statement: http://www.fluorideaction.org/st...
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.
Approximately, 80 US communities rejected fluoridation since 2008. The CDC reports that 225 less communities adjusted for fluoride between 2006 and 2008.
Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, Dr. Arvid Carlsson, says, “Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.”
Adverse health effects of fluoride are here: http://www.FluorideAction.Net/he...
The list could go on and on and on but who's really going to look at all of them.... Two seems reasonable. Just take a minute. Or go talk to your dentist, seems to me they know quite a bit about teeth.
Why not have pure water and allow people the freedom to choose what they put in it, at home?
The dentist can do flouride treatments to those that want flouride, as well a use flouride toothepaste and mouthwash.
If we allow water contamination, we all have to drink it.
If we maintain pure water, those wanting flouride are free to apply it on themselves.
It's a freedom issue, just like the one-percent tax.
Freedom is the better choice, always.
It's surprising to see that this is such a hot-button topic and how poorly informed some people are. Fluoride in drinking water is highly beneficial for public dental health, something that has been demonstated for many decades. I hope that some of our local dentists will share their professional knowledge and opinions on the issue.
You need to do some research beyond the brochure at your dentist's office...
USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress that he had been stationed in Great Falls, Montana during the war as a U.S.-Soviet liaison officer. Major Jordan stated that one of his tasks had been to procure "vast quantities" of sodium fluoride for shipment to Siberia via numerous Lend-Lease airplanes which we were sending to Russia from Montana, via Canada and Alaska. (7,926 airplanes were sent to Russia via this route.)
Major Jordan testified that the Russians openly admitted to "... using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient."
Calcium flouride is a naturally occuring mineral...
Sodium Flouride is a toxic waste product.
If you think flouride is beneficial, then you should buy it and use it on your teeth. But you will not force your opinion on your neighbors.
It's the same force/freedom issue as imposing building codes or taxes on everyone.
It's surprising how poorly informed some are, on our tradition of personal liberty. Is there a problem with Freedom in this town?
here is a decent wiki about the controversy:
and wiki about water fluoridation:
I would argue that almost every substance we humans consume has safe+beneficial levels, and unsafe+dangerous levels.
from salt, sugar, protein, fat, and vitamins, to fluoride etc. If you consume a safe level, then you get a benefit or at least no bad effects, yet if you consume excessive amounts then there are adverse effects.(even plain old water, H2O, can result in killing you if you drink too much within short time period)
To put out statements which make it sound as if they would essentially dump 'rat poison' into the water supply, is simply a scare tactic.There are also various parts in the world where fluoride is found naturally in their water sources (in some cases, to a level where it is necessary to filter it out to prevent adverse effects)
As far as I can see, if it is done properly and at the right concentration then the general public health benefits clearly outweigh the slight potential risks.
Risks generally only come into play if you routinely drink high quantities of water daily (such as: more water than a normal person should be drinking), or if you are under the age of 4, and by far the most common 'adverse effect' is simply some faint white streaks or specks possibly visible in teeth (specially if personal calcium intake was on the low side), known as dental fluorosis, which is not a health concern, just a visual effect.
Or should we insist that our public water not be treated in any way at all (keep that chlorine poison out of our water?) and get it as if drinking directly from the mountain lakes? Then to those who are concerned about potential substances in the water, simply say just buy home filtration systems that are somewhat expensive (inexpensive Pur and Britta ones I believe do not remove fluoride).
My suggestion would be to go about it the democratic way and have everyone vote, personally I am completely fine with either it being done, or not being done, but if I have to select a choice, I think would vote yes based on the information and evidence I've been able to locate so far, depending on what it would cost (seems that information online suggests it should be as low as $1/year per person).
Mike, why not deliver the purest water we can to the people of Sheridan? Then let them add anything they choose to it, in their own homes. That way, we don't have to spend weeks debating the merits of any additive. Just give them good water and let them add what they want.
It's a matter of individual freedom of choice (just like codes and taxes).
Why not add vitamins like C and D? Aren't they almost universally considered good?
The reason the "majority" should not be allowed to add anything to the water, is that it violates our individual right to choose. Even if 99% wanted to add "super vitamin additive" to our water, they should not be allowed to force their will on the 1%. Individaul rights are paramount in America.
Clean water and personal choice on additives. If you want flouride, them go buy it in toothpaste, but don't force the rest of us to buy filters to take out the additive.
Freedom is always better than force.
"Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not being asked for their informed consent prior to medication. This is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of western Europe has ruled against fluoridation"~ quoted in 50 reasons to oppose Fluoridation.
We should be given the freedom to decide for ourselves what is best for our bodies, not the city, not the government...
50 Reasons to oppose Fluoridation
Study Links Fluoride to Preterm Birth and Anemia in Pregnany
Fluoride has been scientifically proven to bind with enamel and make it resistant against the daily acid attacks that are created everytime we eat carbohydrates or drink sugared beverages. With the rising cost of our health and dental care... doesn't it make sense to use preventive therapies to reduce the initial stages or even entirely prevent dental decay?
That might be true if you were applying it directly to your teeth in the form of a gel or concentrated mouthwash from your dentist. Don't try to sell me on fluoride making it's way from my stomach to my tooth enamel in enough of a quantity to do them any good.
By the way, that whole "binding process" you speak of is really just a nice way of saying that fluoride de-mineralizes your teeth in such a manner so as to force your body to re-mineralize rapidly. This is why people who get fluoride whitening treatments have chalky white teeth instead of a natural translucent pearl color.
People who are conscious of what they eat and drink and adequately clean their teeth don't have any reason to use fluoride for any reason.
Fluoride does NOT demineralize teeth. The acid by-products of the bacertia in the mouth cause demineralization. You cannot whiten teeth using fluoride. Some whitening products contain fluoride, but the fluoride is added to the product to aide in decreasing sensitivity, the fluoride has NO bleaching properties. The white "chalky" appearance of some people's teeth after whitening occurs from dehydration of the enamel from high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide, which is the actual whitening agent. Fluoride actually acts to remineralize these areas and is greatly beneficial to enamel stregth.
"That might be true if you were applying it directly to your teeth in the form of a gel or concentrated mouthwash from your dentist." so.... do you think this is true? Or do you think "fluoride de-mineralizes your teeth in such a manner so as to force your body to re-mineralize rapidly." I'm confused as to where you stand.
Do you allow your hygienist to give you a fluoride treatment to help strengthen your teeth when you get your teeth cleaned or do you decline to avoid the so called "poison" that demineralizes your teeth?
Seems odd to me that fluoride treatments are standard practice at dental appointments, we have a "fluoride swish program" implemented in our schools, our pediatricians prescribe fluoride supplements, and the only ADA accepted products contain fluoride IF in fact fluoride really demineralizes our teeth.
I would agree with you that perhaps ingesting fluoride through the water I drink would not benefit the strength of my teeth greatly, I'm grown. But I would argue that my children (who are still developing their teeth) would benefit GREATLY by having fluoride in their drinking water.
It's all about optimal levels of fluoridation. Nobody is saying we need to OD on this natural occurring substance. The amount of fluoride put in water is recommended to be between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm (parts fluoride per MILLION parts of water).
Unbiased evidence based research is good and fun and more people should do it...
Please, please investigate the truth about this dangerous poison before you force it on us and our children. It's NOT the wonder cure for dental health we've been led to believe it is.
If it is so dangerous then why to OB doctors and Pediatricians prescribe fluoride supplements for pregnant women and children over 6 months of age
There is already so much junk in our water that I do not use it to drink or for cooking. I have to change my refrigerator water filter far ore often than manufacturer recommendations - and I have seen what the old filters store. Yech!
WY Vaccine Info Network
No communities should have water fluoridation.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/ is where you can learn more about the dangers of fluoride.
The one-percent poll tax question is already closed, yet other polls, dating back 4 months remain open. Could it be there are just too many good reasons for tax liberation? It is certainly obvious that tax imposers have no valid reason to re-impose forced taxation, instead of letting voluntary doantions work.
"I benefit from it, so I'll vote for it", is shameful, self-serving, circular "logic" that is invalid reasoning to continue violating your neighbors right to keep his own property and spend it at his discretion. The tax shame has been exposed for what it is: Socialist wealth re-distribution, that benefits a tiny well-connected minority at the expense of a vast majority of hard-working taxpayers.
The tax-eaters cannot and will not outnumber the tax-producers. It is un-sustainable.
As the truth about this regressive tax burden gets discussed among the voters, might the poll numbers tip in favor of liberation?
Are the "powers that be" concerned about the growing movement for smaller gov't, that adheres to the Constitution, spends less and lowers taxes.
The trend towards freedom is growing. It cannot be stopped. The spark was Obama-care and the wild-fire of Liberty is burning in the hearts and minds of Americans.
I typically don't update the poll question, but I did this week because it had not been changed as of Saturday afternoon. When I updated it I closed the poll from the previous week. I believe the correct procedure is for the old poll to be closed when a new one is published, but the people putting the new poll on have not been doing that.
So, the one-percent poll tax was just on vote from being the most voted on issue in the last six months...and it was "closed" for "procedural" reasons. The general public might buy that explaination, I'm not so sure.
Seems to me that the 20 million dollar issue should be left open until the real poll on Nov 2. Aren't we interested in getting inputs from the voters? Shouldn't open discusion continue to inform the community?
Do we prefer poll questions that get little response?
Flouride in water is a junk science.. I find it interesting to see the number of yea's vs. nay's.. I would like to know the reasons people would vote yes as opposed to no.. This "I am my brothers keeper approch" is killing America..
I have a hard time believing that anyone after taking a few minutes of time researching this subject would even consider putting this toxic chemical into our water system. Everyone please do a google search on the damages that can be caused by water flouridation. This chemical has been BANNED in Australia recently due to the negative and harmful short and long term health effects. The rat poison you get at the store is made up of 90+% sodium flouride. I recommend that folks form your own opinions after reviewing the overwhelming amount of scientific data and evidence there is on the subject. The flouridation of Sheridans water would be a very ignorant decision and a huge mistake. Here is a short video about it.
FLUORIDE TRUTH hits the TV in AUSTRALIA
flourine in the water? it is a very good idea!
Let's say the town is equally divided over putting flouride in our drinking water. It's 50/50.
Now, one person changes her mind and votes for the flouride. So it's 51 in favor and 49 not and we put flouride in the water. That makes 49% unhappy. They lose. If we impose flouride it's a Win/Lose situation.
The flouide supporters will extol the virtues and point out all the "good" that flouride does. Those not wanting flouride forced upon them will be told: "Well, you don't have to drink the water. You can get your water elsewhere or buy bottled water. No one is "forcing" you to drink our water." Or, "move if you don't like it."
Now, what if the vote goes the other way. It's 51/49 in favor of NOT putting flouride in the water. That produces a Win/Win for almost everyone. Those wanting flouride are free to buy toothpaste and mouthwash with flouide and apply it topically. We just don't have flouride pushed on everyone.
It's the same with extending building codes county-wide. Those wanting to build to code are free to do so and hire a private inspector if they wish. But the rest of us are free to build as we see fit. But only if codes are not forced on everyone.
The exact same logical arguement applies to the one-percent tax. Re-impose it and it's a 51/49 Win/Lose.
However, if we free ourselves from the tax, it's a Win/Win for almost all. Everyone is still free to donate to any good cause they choose. All we've done is eliminate forced taxation as a means of fund-raising.
Freedom triumphs of force, every time it is tried.
What do the tax-imposers have against freedom of choice?
"What do the tax-imposers have against freedom of choice?"
I think their objective on this issue is to force others to support the under privileged. The ones who can't afford tooth paste, and who take issue with forcing the under privileged to walk into a place like the salvation army and asking for tooth paste or a tooth brush.. I would seriously doubt they would be turned away.