Given the composition of the WAC, the 6-1-1 vote in support of fluoridation was hardly surprising. Still, for reasons I have laid out in previous columns, I simply do not believe that the Davis City Council is likely to want to touch this one.
After watching the Thursday discussion on streaming video after the fact, I tend to side with Mark Siegler, who abstained from the vote, wondering what the WAC’s qualifications were to render a decision.
“We were placed on this Water Advisory Committee to look at the surface water project,” Mr. Siegler argued. “People have different special expertise that may have provided some insight, whether it was financial, or legal, or operating water plants or what have you, where we could provide advice better than the general public.”
He added, “Personally, I don’t see anyone around this table with any particular insight in terms of recommending fluoridated water or not.”
However, past councils have punted on this issue, either turning it over to the voters or voting it down altogether due to huge cost considerations.
This became apparent once again as the city’s principal civil engineer, Dianna Jensen, argued it would cost between $1 million and $2.4 million to configure the wells and supply for fluoridation, plus there would be the ongoing cost of $230,000.
As previously noted, the staff report estimates, “The cost to add fluoride to our deep wells is estimated to be between $92,000 and $454,900 per well site. So to equip all six deep wells, the total cost would be between $837,000 and $2,067,400.”
It continues, “The cost to add fluoride at the Woodland Davis Water Treatment Plant (WTP) is estimated to be $602,000. Davis’ portion of this would be 40%, or approximately $240,800. If Davis decides to fluoridate but Woodland does not, then the cost would be closer to ½ of the total for both, or $301,000.”
But there is more – there is also an added Water Treatment Plant to get the fluoride out of the wastewater supply which would be another $1 to $2.4 million.
Given the city’s huge deficits and the costs of fluoridation, the council is unlikely to act on this recommendation. The city, Ms. Jensen acknowledged, does not know whether the current rates were increased sufficiently to cover the cost of fluoridation.
There is a possibility that the city would have to raise the rates to cover those costs. That would trigger a Prop 218 battle.
And a Prop 218 battle is probably not the only battle the city would have to face here.
The issue of fluoridation has been a divisive topic for the last fifty years and, while the actors and even the ideologies have shifted from the 1960 debate, I see no evidence that the populace is less polarized on this issue.
If the council decides to move forward on this issue, they will either have to put it on the ballot themselves or likely face a community-based effort to do so. An election would be contentious, polarizing and costly.
Given this considerable cost, it might be money better spent elsewhere. But the amount of time and energy and money spent on a ballot measure that is likely to lose would suggest that we at least hit the pause button to see if the issue is even viable.
Right now, as I have argued previously, I don’t believe that there is the same enthusiasm on the part of the pro-fluoridation segment of the population to offset what looks like a formidable coalition on the dominant far left in Davis, along with the portion on the far right.
The mushy-middle probably leans towards the yes side, but will have they have the incentive to come out and vote in numbers in an off-election?
Bottom line here is that the WAC proved to be an invaluable resource for the council in looking into the surface water project. The work of that body helped to scale back on the proposal, improve it and pressure the council into seeking cost-sharing options with Woodland and, perhaps most vitally, helped to devise an innovative water rate structure.
That all being said, there was nothing that the WAC could do here that the council will not have to do in the future when it deliberates on the issue. The WAC, as Mr. Siegler pointed out correctly, had no particular expertise.
The proponents and opponents are not going to be satisfied with this discussion. The same discussion with the same stakeholders will reoccur for the council.
So, why did the city council insist that the WAC hear this first, when ultimately this is their call and nothing the WAC did is really going to influence the process?
As we have stated before, we doubt very much that the council will implement fluoridation without an election, and we believe they may seek a way to avoid a contentious and drawn-out election anyway, finding a more pleasant way to kill the proposal.
In the end, there may be compromises, but we see no realistic path to victory for fluoridation.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Agreed David, flouridation is dead in the water, pardon the pun.
What if outside money is found to fund the project? For example, there’s federal money brought in that finances (in part) those modern double-decker buses that Unitrans uses.
Or maybe money from a philanthropic source.
If outside money is brought in I feel it should be used to help finance the original project, not add ons.
The WAC meeting was a sham. This was advertised as and supposed to be a debate only amongst the WAC members with no additional presentations by pro- or anti-fluoridation supporters.
As it turned out, however, all the discussion was dominated by super-fluoridation supporter Helen Thompson. She repeatedly lobbed softball question after softball question to a new attendee, Dr. Howard Pollick, who is a shill of the American and California Dental Associations paid to run around the country and spread misinformation about the supposed benefits of fluoridation.
As a result, the meeting turned out to be thinly-veiled propaganda event. Further, Chairperson Elaine Roberts-Musser saw this going on yet made no attempt to shorten Dr. Pollick’s “speech”. Further she did not allow fluoridation opponents to respond to the same questions tossed to Dr. Pollick.
In fact, to further squelch open input and public discussion, Ms Roberts-Musser enforced a new 1-minute public comment limitation on public speakers. This has never been done before at the WAC yet she let Dr. Pollick drone on and on. Like I said, these proceedings were biased and unfair and Ms. Roberts-Musser, a long-time self-avowed fluoridation supporter, bears the responsibility of setting this up and letting the meeting happen this way.
As an example of the misinformation spewed by Dr. Pollick, he talked about the social tragedy of poor dental health and pointed to the widely publicized sad incident several years ago when a young boy in the Washington DA area died because a dental abscess turned into a brain infection.
It was heart-wrenching story. Dr. Pollick took full advantage of the tragedy and implied this is an example of why we need universal community fluoridation. But it would have been far more truthful and informative if Dr. Pollick had also told the audience the fact that this boy had been living in areas that delivered fluoridated water his whole life!
Not only that, it would have been useful to know that the boy’s mother had repeatedly sought, and was denied dental treatment for him from a number of local dentists in the DC-Maryland area. They turned him away again and again because they did not treat low-income kids and the poor boy’s homeless mother had mismanaged the paperwork to get free clinic dental care access.
So the point that Dr. Pollick made, that being that fluoridation could have helped the boy, was completely wrong and intentionally misleading. What the boy desperately needed instead and what was not provided by the local dental community was a simple $80 tooth extraction. For lack of money, however, this was denied by dentist after dentist. As a result of the complete failure of the dental industry to respond to and accept their social responsibilities in this instance, the poor boy suffered an unimaginably painful death.
This is sadly the same situation we face in Yolo County. We don’t need a “feel-good because we are doing something” poison put in our potable water to cure low-income dental health problems. We need the dental community in Yolo Co to step up and provide true dental care access to the disadvantaged and low-income population who are continually denied this basic service.
And why is this not provided?…for the simple reason that the dental industry does not make enough money with Denti-Cal patients so they are turned away again and again. That is a true shame.
Still have to get the council members not to punt.
They have no upside on sticking their necks out on a controversial issue with weak support on the pro side, and strong interest on the anti.
Council will find a way to punt.
Yeah Alan,
Don’t you just hate it when the opposition uses some isolated example to garner backing for their pet agenda?
Like showing a picture of a plastic bag in a tree?
[quote]Don’t you just hate it when the opposition uses some isolated example to garner backing for their pet agenda?
Like showing a picture of a plastic bag in a tree?[/quote]
Actually, the only pictures of plastic bags I have ever posted was last year when I sent in several shots of thousands and thousands of plastic bags strewn in the wildlife slough on the south side of the county road beside the landfill. I and other Davis volunteers spent days and days cleaning up the mess and freeing a number of birds caught in the bags. Hmm…I don’t recall meeting you out there
[quote]plastic bags strewn in the wildlife slough on the south side of the county road beside the landfill. I and other Davis volunteers spent days and days cleaning up the mess and freeing a number of birds caught in the bags[/quote]
Just birds? I thought I heard somewhere that a few dolphins that had swam into Davis all the way from the Pacific Ocean were freed too. I could be wrong though.
“…..The issue of fluoridation has been a divisive topic for the last fifty years and, while the actors and even the ideologies have shifted from the 1960 debate, I see no evidence that the populace is less polarized on this issue….”
The average citizen today lacks trust in the Government to act in his or her best interest far more now than earlier (1960). Even the WDSWP proponents themselves didn’t trust including the fluoride component in their SWP package prior to the recent Measure I vote. The fluoride component could have made the whole WDSWP DOA!
@alanpryor… What are you saying, Alan, that the WAC did not properly follow its bylaws or Robert’s Rules? If not, then which bylaw or procedural rule did they violate? If you can’t name it, then your criticism is probably not going to stick.
[quote]…which bylaw or procedural rule did they violate?[/quote]
There were NO violations of any procedural rules at the WAC. But that does not mean the meeting was organized as advertised nor to give both sides an adequate opportunity to present views. We all know Robert’s Rules of Order can be managed to successfully exclude full and open debate of an issue and to favor one side or another. We only have to go back to the old glory days of the “Gang of Three” in Davis when Saylor and Co. ran roughshod over Sue Greenwald at Council meetings to know how that game is played. What I am saying is that this WAC meeting was similarly organized and ran to give maximum exposure and voice to pro-fluoridationists and to minimize opportunity for rebuttal evidence against fluoridation to be presented.
@alanpryor… I think you need to do some reading up on the theory of parliamentary procedure. You seem to harbor a common misconception that the “rules” are mainly instruments of hindrance, when actually that’s far, far from the case and is a common misconception.
I recommend you read:
“Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules” by Jon L. Ericson (2004)
You can’t have it both ways and say that no bylaws or rules or violated, but that the meeting was conducted improperly. That dog don’t hunt.
alanpryor said:
[quote]In fact, to further squelch open input and public discussion, Ms Roberts-Musser enforced a new 1-minute public comment limitation on public speakers. This has never been done before at the WAC yet she let Dr. Pollick drone on and on[/quote]
I was unable to attend the meeting but earlier today watched the nearly 3 hour video and was quite shocked to see this. Why were you and others on the opposition side not permitted to respond to Dr. Pollick’s lengthy (over 35 minutes) and often inaccurate remarks? It looked to me like this event had been carefully planned by some members of the WAC for the purpose of shutting down the opposition. This is NOT how city business should be conducted in Davis!
[quote]As it turned out, however, all the discussion was dominated by super-fluoridation supporter Helen Thompson. She repeatedly lobbed softball question after softball question to a new attendee, Dr. Howard Pollick, who is a shill of the American and California Dental Associations paid to run around the country and spread misinformation about the supposed benefits of fluoridation.
As a result, the meeting turned out to be thinly-veiled propaganda event. Further, Chairperson Elaine Roberts-Musser saw this going on yet made no attempt to shorten Dr. Pollick’s “speech”. Further she did not allow fluoridation opponents to respond to the same questions tossed to Dr. Pollick.
In fact, to further squelch open input and public discussion, Ms Roberts-Musser enforced a new 1-minute public comment limitation on public speakers. This has never been done before at the WAC yet she let Dr. Pollick drone on and on. Like I said, these proceedings were biased and unfair and Ms. Roberts-Musser, a long-time self-avowed fluoridation supporter, bears the responsibility of setting this up and letting the meeting happen this way. [/quote]
Any WAC member who had questions for either Dr. Pollick or other experts from the pro-fluoridation side or for Alan Pryor or any of his anti-fluoridation compatriots was free to ask them at all times during the public comment portion of the WAC meeting. Not a single WAC member had any questions for the anti-fluoridation side, including those WAC members who voted against fluoridation or abstained from the vote. However, Helen Thompson did have a number of questions she wished to ask, as did some other WAC members. Is Mr. Pryor suggesting I should not have allowed Helen to ask her questions because they were eliciting responses that made Mr. Pryor uncomfortable? In fact Mr. Pryor concedes “[i]There were NO violations of any procedural rules at the WAC[/i].” I’m not following his logic in criticizing the process here…
Each speaker was given only one minute during public comment because there were so many speakers (about 40 or so) (shortening speaker time is done at City Council meetings all the time and is perfectly permissible). Had I given every speaker the usual three minutes, the WAC would never have been able to have had time enough to deliberate or take a vote. And is Mr. Pryor suggesting the vote would have been any different had I given each speaker 3 minutes instead of 1 minute? I’m not following the logic of this criticism either.
Mr. Pryor neglects to mention the anti-fluoridation side had an equal number of speakers as the pro-fluoridation side that night, so he and his compatriots had plenty of opportunity to get their message across. Furthermore, each side of the fluoridation issue had an entire meeting prior to that night to present evidence of their viewpoint without interruption, and with ample opportunity for questions to be asked. Each speaker during public comment had a full three minutes to say whatever they had to say.
I appreciate the strong feelings both sides have on the issue of fluoridation. In general, the debate was vigorous but civil, for which I am very grateful to each side. I would urge Mr. Pryor to take his arguments against fluoridation to the City Council, which is the ultimate deciding body on this matter. The WAC made its decision transparently and fairly.
[quote]You can’t have it both ways and say that no bylaws or rules or violated, but that the meeting was conducted improperly. That dog don’t hunt. [/quote]
Precisely…
Just as an aside, the cost to fluoridate per customer was omitted from this article, and will be no more than approximately $2 per customer per month.
[quote]He added, “Personally, I don’t see anyone around this table with any particular insight in terms of recommending fluoridated water or not.”[/quote]
Mr. Seigler is certainly entitled to his opinion. However, it should be noted Mr. Seigler also was of the opinion the WAC should disband, even though there are still two very important issues left for the WAC to weigh in on: 1) the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan; and 2) the NRC’s water conservation recommendations. I personally feel the WAC still has some important business to conduct, is quite capable of rendering well reasoned decisions, and plan to continue WAC meetings as scheduled and as directed by City Council…
[quote]Just as an aside, the cost to fluoridate per customer was omitted from this article, and will be no more than approximately $2 per customer per month. [/quote]
Another $24/year per customer on TOP of the TRIPLING WATER RATES.
Alan Pryor properly highlights the extremely and I would say unethical and misleading statements by Dr. Pollick on the case of the young boy of the D.C./Maryland area whose untreated dental abscess turned into a brain infection from which he died. Pryor corrects Pollick’s statement to show that denial of proper dental care was the cause and, moreover, that the boy had been living in areas where the water WAS fluoridated.
So much for objective evidence from a so-called unbiased, objective “scientist” vs. someone labelled as an “advocate” for one side or the other.
Helen Thomson, in particular, repeatedly dismissed statements and evidence provided by those speaking against fluoridation as “emotional” and un-scientific…sadly, an old tiresome tactic to discredit your opposition.
Here in Davis, we are having a debate about introducing fluoridation at the same time other cities in the U.S., Portland, OR in a most recent vote, are rejecting or discontinuing it: see also that the same debate is taking place Marin County
At the same time, citizens in several major New Zealand cities have launched a national campaign to stop the pollution of public water supplies. Read their information at: Fluoride Action Network (NZ) http://www.fannz.org.nz and watch a 30-minute video of science and medical professionals explaining why fluoridation is ethically and morally unsound and should cease immediately.
Finally, as to the city cost of implementing fluoridation: the cost must include funding for studies that if implemented or not – short and long-term data must be collected to demonstrate the efficacy of fluoridation or of alternative in-school programs or other alternative means of delivering treatment to affected populations; including
better access to dental care for low-income communities, improved school nutrition and better vender choice of snack food and drinks in schools as now government mandated, etc.
It is not enough for the City Council or the community to vote for or reject fluoridation, but good data must continually be gathered to make the case pro or con.
E Roberts Musser said:
[quote]Mr. Pryor neglects to mention the anti-fluoridation side had an equal number of speakers as the pro-fluoridation side that night, so (Alan Pryor) and his compatriots had plenty of opportunity to get their message across.[/quote]
With a 1 minute limit per speaker, surely you do not seriously believe that there was ample opportunity for speakers to get their message across. The meeting might have at least had the appearance of fairness if the fluoride opponents had also been asked to give a 30-40 minute presentation summarizing their concerns about fluoride in conjunction with the scientific literature that supports those concerns. As it was, with only the pro-fluoride side being allowed to make such a presentation, Alan Pryor’s observation that the meeting was a “thinly-veiled propaganda event” is, sadly, 100% accurate.
Mark Siegler properly questioned whether appointees to the WAC had the scientific background and expertise to grapple with the issue of fluoridation as they were appointed, supposedly, for their expertise/experience in matters directly related to the surface water project.
It is entirely logical that had fluoridation been part of the WAC’s initial mandate that different individuals might have been interested in serving and appointed.
“With a 1 minute limit per speaker, surely you do not seriously believe that there was ample opportunity for speakers to get their message across. The meeting might have at least had the appearance of fairness if the fluoride opponents had also been asked to give a 30-40 minute presentation summarizing their concerns about fluoride in conjunction with the scientific literature that supports those concerns. As it was, with only the pro-fluoride side being allowed to make such a presentation, Alan Pryor’s observation that the meeting was a “thinly-veiled propaganda event” is, sadly, 100% accurate.”
There was ample opportunity for the anti-fluoride folks to get their point across on April 25th (pro fluoride presentation) and May 23rd (anti-fluoride presentation) in which speakers during public comment were given 3 minutes each, and again on June 27th where each speaker had 1 minute to speak. Both sides were amply represented on each occasion, had opportunities to speak, and were questioned at length. The process was above board, transparent and very fair to all sides concerned. It should also be noted each side sent voluminous amounts of material for WAC members to read before each meeting. Some materials were handed out at each meeting for WAC members to peruse.
This ongoing “debate” is an embarrassment that serves little purpose. It reminds me of the nightly Fox/MSNBC shenanigans, where neither side even tries to come to agreement on the facts, but both sides fling around insults and unverifiable charges/claims.
I expect we’ll get to any fluoridation votes still fact-challenged (either the council’s or the citizens’) and David’s prediction of the no-action alternative will come true.
“It is entirely logical that had fluoridation been part of the WAC’s initial mandate that different individuals might have been interested in serving and appointed”.
Fluoridation was always a part of the long range calendar from the WAC’s inception…
E Roberts Musser said:
[quote]Both sides were amply represented on each occasion, had opportunities to speak, and were questioned at length.[/quote]
I’m sorry but that was simply not the case on June 27th. There were NO questions to the fluoride opponents at that meeting, only the aforementioned softball questions (as referenced by Alan Pryor) to Dr. Pollick that provided him the opportunity to embark on his 30-40 minute pro-fluoride presentation without opposition.
Welcome back, Elaine. The Vanguard has been lacking your feisty commentary for too long.
Is the WAC meeting available for viewing online? I’m unable to determine whether there was one or two meetings or whether some participants were locked in a separate room and gagged during the proceedings.
First, let’s get off the train and reanalyze that the targeted destination should be. What is the actual problem and what improvement outcomes should we consider achievable? Then what are the options for acheiving the outcomes?
My sense is that today there are feasible options for achieving the desired outcomes without continuing to dump drugs into our water system.
Frankly
[quote]My sense is that today there are feasible options for achieving the desired outcomes without continuing to dump drugs into our water system.[/quote]
That may well be your sense. I have a couple of questions since you believe this is the case.
1) How else do you propose providing the preventive capability of fluoride at 0.7ppm to the target population
for the cost of approximately $2.00 per customer ( or hook up) per month ? Do you believe that we can
subsidize dental care for our underserved population for this amount of money ?
2) I absolutely agree with you that the desired outcome ( prevention of dental decay) should be pursued and I
am waiting to here back from all of the anti fluoridation folks, not just Alan, that they would support and
publicly work for a tax to provide this care.
3) “continuing to dump drugs into our water system”…. Curious choice of words. What drugs do you believe are
being “dumped” their now, and what harm do you see those current, or for that matter fluoride at the
amounts proposed as doing ?
Alan Pryor
[quote]In fact, to further squelch open input and public discussion[/quote]
I find this a curious comment coming from one of the three people who was most vociferous in “squelching open input and public discussion”.
Alan has made this claim previously with regard to the pro fluoridation speakers. And yet the only “squelching of open input and public discussion” of which I am aware came from Alan and two of his supporters at the first meeting in which the WAC considered the issue of fluoride. My name had erroneously been omitted from the
formal list of speakers in the final form submitted. It was present on the previous list, also available to the WAC.
I received the same three minutes as all the other public commenters. However, when several of the WAC members wanted to ask me questions, Alan and his group chose to shout me down, literally, and not allow my responses. Was this technically within the rules ? Yes. Was it a plea for open full discussion of the issues ?
Hardly. So it would seem that Alan and company only consider it unethical and a farce if the rules are applied in a manner favorable to them. So much for full and open discussion !
Why not just let the liberal’s saviour of our civilization Obamacare take care of making sure that those that can’t afford topical flouride get it through their ACA benefits? I would think that most of the “underserved” part of the population will be getting Obamacare health benefits for free.
medwoman said:
[quote]I absolutely agree with you that the desired outcome ( prevention of dental decay) should be pursued and I am waiting to here (sic) back from all of the anti fluoridation folks, not just Alan, that they would support and publicly work for a tax to provide this care[/quote]
Since I believe that we need to address the CAUSE of dental caries (which just happens to be the same thing that causes obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease and much more), which is the SAD Standard America Diet, and I do not feel that providing more visits to dentists will do anything to address this, I do not and would not support such a proposal. I would, however, enthusiastically support nutrition programs and education and I will continue to work to educate and advocate for nutrient dense healthy diets for all but especially for children, as this is the primary means to improve health and prevent disease, including dental disease.
There’s one thing that continues to trouble me though. If fluoride is so effective at preventing dental caries in vulnerable populations, how do fluoride advocates explain the Kentucky statistics? Kentucky, the most highly fluoridated state in the country at 99.8% according to most recent stats I have seen, has one of the country’s highest rates of untreated dental caries in children, currently somewhere over 50%. How can this be in a state where nearly every child is exposed to fluoridated municipal water? I believe that this proves my point, which is that if the CAUSE of the problem is not addressed, the problem cannot and will not be fixed.
ebowler
I agree with you enthusiastically that root causes should be addressed. I do not see these approaches as contradictory, but rather as complimentary. I fully support such actions as taking sugary beverages such as sodas, “juices”, and fruit flavored drinks out of our schools, county and city buildings, and any other public buildings. In my office, as part of every health maintenance and preventive visit, a discussion of exercise and dietary choices and portion control is part of the conversation. No one is suggesting that fluoridating the water will “fix the problem” of dental caries. It is being suggested that this is part of a comprehensive approach to improve dental care in our community.
“Welcome back, Elaine. The Vanguard has been lacking your feisty commentary for too long.
Is the WAC meeting available for viewing online? I’m unable to determine whether there was one or two meetings or whether some participants were locked in a separate room and gagged during the proceedings.”
All three WAC meetings on fluoridation are available for viewing on the city’s website…
medwoman said:
[quote]I agree with you enthusiastically that root causes should be addressed. I do not see these approaches as contradictory, but rather as complimentary.[/quote]
We are in agreement on this then. What the Kentucky experience shows us, however, is that the nutrition piece must come FIRST or the fluoride will not work, and I see no movement in that direction by the city (or the state for that matter). All I hear about is fluoride, and that is simply not an acceptable solution for me or my patients. I applaud you for addressing nutrition in your practice, too few physicians do so, and even fewer have sufficient knowledge in nutrition to do so even if they wanted to. There urgently needs to be public policy in nutrition that addresses the appalling SAD and attempts to change our current course.
ebowler
[quote]is that the nutrition piece must come FIRST or the fluoride will not work, and I see no movement in that direction by the city (or the state for that matter)[/quote]
Here, we are not in agreement. I believe that changes can be made simultaneously and still be beneficial. Optimally of course, everyone would have an ideal diet, exercise regularly, and have the optimal amount of fluoride. However, each improvement that one makes over time is still just that, an improvement.
While I would agree that there is not much direction in terms of nutrition on the part of the city or state my response would be that this is largely because most public health issues are handled at the level of the county.
On the Health Council, and the MCAH, and within the operations of the County Health Department nutrition is certainly a major issue. On the national level, this is a signature issue of Michelle Obama with her “Let’s Move” Campaign and her White House garden emphasizing fresh fruits and vegetables.
On the level of Yolo County, we have the “Potter the Otter drinks water ” campaign to steer children to water over sugary beverages. The soda vending machines have been removed from county buildings. Many school cafeterias have either altered their selections or the placement of their selections to promote the selection of more healthful choices. At the local level, our Farmers Market and celebrate Davis events do much to promote healthy eating. I have several times manned the Kaiser Booth which
emphasizes nutrition with a spin the wheel question and answer game about nutritional choices and the benefits of exercise with seed packets as prizes. There is actually a lot going on locally and at the county and national level in terms of health promotion and preventable disease prevention. This is just a sampling that came immediately to my pre coffee brain.
As you can see however, from the fluoride debate, whenever there is an issue of the government doing something active to promote public health there is likely to always be a hue and cry about restriction of personal choice and freedom. Even when this is clearly not the case as when there are other options available but the claim is still made.
“Alan Pryor properly highlights the extremely and I would say unethical and misleading statements by Dr. Pollick on the case of the young boy of the D.C./Maryland area whose untreated dental abscess turned into a brain infection from which he died”
Had Dr. Pollick made the claim that fluoridation alone would prevent death from fluoride related dental caries, I would agree that this would be a misleading and unethical statement. However, neither Dr. Pollick, nor any other proponent that I have heard has made the claim that fluoride should be anything other than part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce what is a serious public health problem. I believe that there is still much room for education about the potential serious consequences of tooth decay. This was pointed out dramatically in one of the comments on a previous thread in which the poster made a comment implying that it does not matter if “baby teeth” rot because they are just going to fall out anyway. The implication is that dental decay is not really a serious issue. I believe that Dr. Pollick’s statement merely points out the potential seriousness of the issue and in no way was meant to imply that fluoridation is a panacea.
The ADA , and most dentists, still claim mercury amalgam is perfectly safe.
I’d be curious to know how many of the medical professionals on the pro-fluoridation side choose mercury amalgam fillings for themselves and their children. Not many I’d guess.
When it comes to mercury amalgam, convenience, tradition, and pride top good and prudent science for the ADA.
If the ADA gets it so wrong on mercury almagam, can you trust them on fluoridation?
As the tides of the world increasingly turn against the harmful and misguided policy of water fluoridation American medical professionals must start to consider how much of their credibility they will sacrifice in advocacy of this harmful, outdated, and unethical treatment mode.
E Roberts Musser 06/30/13 – 02:09 PM (Elaine, thank you for your ongoing sacrifice and hard work!, Steve Hayes))
[u]Your Quote[/u]
“…Fluoridation was always a part of the long range calendar from the WAC’s inception…”
[u](My respectful response)[/u]
Unfortunately, the use of fluoride was not part of the SWP Measure I Package put before the voters! From my perspective, this was the latest example of “gotcha politics” being practiced by SWP proponents.