Fluorida dentists unscientific?

"Over 80 cities have rejected fluoride since 1996, including Santa Clara,
Santa Cruz and Mtn. View California in 1985. This includes a number of towns
which already were fluoridated."
[email hidden] quoted at
health.groups.yahoo.com2601Open ↗

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access; see below)

ATTENTION: PINELLAS COUNTY (FL) COMMISSIONERS (emails
listed below):

An incredible opportunity!!!

A DEBATE!

New York professor of chemistry Dr. Paul Connett will fly to
Florida to debate Pick Talley, director of the Pinellas
County Water System Utilities!

All you have to do is pay his airfare and accomodations.
He's on a sabbatical until late August 2005.

Check out Prof. Connett's GREAT response to Pick's June
10, 2004 letter published in the St. Petersburg Times
(see below).

JUST THINK: You guys could VIDEOTAPE Prof. Connett's
debate with Pick Talley - just like you videotape your
Commission meetings!

A *whole nation* of county commissioners would then have
access to the debate for use in their
deliberations/reconsiderations of fluoridation!

Do NOT miss this extraordinary opportunity!

I think it is SO cool that one of you - Commissioner Barbara
Sheen Todd - has already voted against fluoridation.

I think you will all agree with Commissioner Todd after you
see Prof. Connett debate Pick!

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo [email hidden]

Copied to: Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St.
Lawrence University, Canton, NY 13617 315-379-9200
[email hidden]

THE FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK fluoridealert.orgfluoridealert.orgOpen ↗

FAN CAMPAIGN Bulletin #47: Throwing Down the Gauntlet.

June 11, 2004

Dear All,

Throwing down the gauntlet is a medieval term and it seems
to me that it is highly appropriate to use when challenging
a medieval practice like water fluoridation, especially when
dealing with proponents who defend the practice in a
medieval way, i.e. citing second hand authorities to support
their case rather than doing their own first hand research
of the scientific literature.

So today I threw down the gauntlet in two more communities
which are confronted with attempts to impose fluoridation on
citizens: Pinellas County, Florida and rural areas in the
state of Victoria, Australia. In both cases I have
challenged local officials who have enthusiastically
endorsed and promoted fluoridation to debate the issue with
me in public. I have printed my letters below, and the
letters to which I was responding. [Australia correspondence
not included here]

I hope other communities confronted with vocal and
enthusiastic promoters of fluoridation will throw down the
gauntlet in a similar fashion.

Remember I am on sabbatical until late August 2005 and am
more than happy to come to any community anywhere in the
world to debate this issue, providing the fare and
accomodation can be found to make this possible. If you are
interested please send me the newspaper article or letter
from a key official and the email address of the local paper
and I will take it from there. In some countries it might be
more cost effective to use a local expert, but either way
the tactic is a very powerful one. This is because in
fluoridated countries local health officials and local
dentists have been persuaded that they can comfortably and
confidently promote this practice without reading the
literature! They are persuaded to do this a) because of
those important "authorities" that they can cite second hand
and b) because they don't think the citizens will be able to
counteract their "white coat" authority.

The American Dental Association revealed this strategy in
the 1970's, and little has changed since. Here is a
statement from a white paper of theirs circulated in 1979:

"Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be
familiar with scientific reports of laboratory and field
investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants
in the promotion program and that nonparticipation is overt
neglect of professional responsibility."

The same attitude is equally true of the dental directors of
most state departments of health and officials on local
health boards who blindly follow the directives of the US
Public Health Service, and particularly the clockwork
platitudes of the CDC.

Paul Connett

PS It is too soon to know whether my letters will be
published or not, but I will keep you posted.
______________________________________________________-
__________
1) PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA.

Letters to the Editor [from Pick Talley) Published
June 10, 2004

This is to address the letters appearing in your paper
questioning the County Commission's decision to fluoridate
Pinellas County's public water supply.

To my knowledge, Pinellas County Utilities is the largest
water utility in the southeastern United States that was not
fluoridating its water supply. Approximately 163-million
U.S. residents receive fluoridated water in the public water
supply of their community.

Fluoridation began in public water supplies in the United
States in 1945. Since that time, there has been an enormous
amount of research on the health effects and benefits of
fluoridation. Fluoridation has been found to benefit the
general public by the reduction of size and number of dental
cavities, particularly in children. There has been an
enormous amount of research on the potential health effects
of adding fluoride to the public water supply. These studies
recognized by the mainstream medical and regulatory
authorities have not identified deleterious health effects
for the general population.

The following organizations either recommend or support the
addition of fluoride to public water supplies for the
benefit of public health: World Health Organization, Centers
for Disease Control, American Medical Association, National
Science Foundation, Florida Department of Health, American
Cancer Society, U.S. surgeon general, American Heart
Association, American Association of Public Health
Dentistry, American Academy of Pediatrics, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection
Agency, American Public Health Association, American Dental
Hygienists Association, International Association for Dental
Research and the Pinellas County Health Department.

In August 2003, the County Commission reviewed a request
from the state and county health departments to fluoridate
the water supply for the beneficial health of its residents.
The commission reviewed the reports and recommendations of
many of the organizations listed above. The commission held
a public hearing at which residents for and against
fluoridation gave testimony.

The commission also reviewed a survey of 737 customers of
the county water system. Fifty-one percent of the customers
surveyed supported fluoridation, 12 percent opposed and 37
percent did not know or had no opinion. The commission
decided, based on the overwhelming preponderance of
information provided, that Pinellas County's public water
supply should be fluoridated for the benefit of its
residents.

There are a number of misunderstandings among those who have
written in opposition. Additional information that may be
helpful in reviewing this issue:

We cannot find any record of a referendum for Pinellas
County Utilities on the issue of fluoridation of the county
water supply.

The toxicity of fluoride is no more of a threat to humans in
the concentrations included in a public water supply than
other chemicals that are added to the water supply for the
protection of public health.

There have been no reports of the alleged health concerns
(mentioned by) those who oppose fluoridation in the
communities around us or across the United States, where
fluoridation has been a common practice for many years.

The county does no original research on the materials it
uses to treat its water to improve the public health
reliability of its supply. It relies on the advice of those
agencies that have the best expertise and resources in the
world to make these determinations. Only those materials
meeting the most stringent scientific analysis are used, as
recommended by those agencies.

Reports and studies that allege public health risks from
fluoridation should go through the same level of scrutiny by
agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and the
National Academy of Sciences to prove the validity of their
results. Should these studies stand up to strict scientific
protocols, then those agencies would notify the public and
the public utilities of potential concerns.

Readers who may have concern about fluoridation should
direct their questions to the agencies listed above for
specific health information.

-- Pick Talley, director, Pinellas County Water System
Utilities
___________________________________________________________-
_________________
___

CONNETT'S RESPONSE.

Letters-to-the-Editor, St. Petersburg Times, June 11, 2004.

Dear Editor,

I would like to respond to Pick Talley's letter to the
editor of June 10. In this letter Mr. Talley, the director
of the Pinellas County Water System Utilities, defends the
the County Commission's decision to fluoridate Pinellas
County's public water supply.

Ds. Talley begins by pointing out that "Approximately 163-
million U.S. residents receive fluoridated water" but
fails to point out that this represents over half of
those drinking artificially fluoridated water worldwide.
The vast majority of countries do not fluoridate their
water, and yet according to figures readily available on
the web site of the World Health Organization,
children's teeth in non-fluoridated industrialized
countries are just as good, if not better, than American
children's teeth. As far as America is concerned the
largest survey conducted in the US indictated a saving
of less than one tooth surface out of 128 tooth surfaces
in a child's mouth for children living in fluoridated
communities compared to non-fluoridated ones and even
this miniscule difference was not shown to be
statistically significant (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990).

Dt. Talley continues by stating that since 1945 there have
been enormous number of studies which have demonstrated
the safety of the practice, and yet the largest review
of these studies todate found not one could be given a
grade A quality rating (McDonagh et al., 2000). To point
out just one of many concerns with the research
conducted todate is the almost total absence of data of
fluoride bone levels of the American people. This
despite the fact that we know that 50% of each speck of
fluoride consumed each day from water and other sources
concentrates there and that the first symptoms of
fluoride's well documented damage to bone and ligaments
is identical to arthritis (DHHS, 1991). According to the
CDC(2002) 1 in 3 Americans are now suffering from
arthritis. We are flying blind on a possible connection
to lifelong exposure to fluoride with this and several
other key ailments, including a possible connection to
Alzheimers Disaease (Varner et al, 1998) and the
lowering of IQ in children (Xiang et al, 2003).

Du. Talley cites a long list of organizations which support
fluoridation, but fails to point out that this list was
highly predictable once the US Public Health Service
gave its premature but enthusiastic support to
fluoridation in 1950, before one trial had been
completed. Nor does Mr. Talley acknowledge that not one
of these organizations is prepared to field someone to
defend their position in an open public debate on the
matter even when invited to do so by organizations such
as the American College of Toxicology and the US EPA.

If Mr. Talley doubts this assertion let him find someone to
debate the issue with me. I would be happy to come down to
Pinellas County and present my concerns; concerns, which are
based on a careful eight year review of the scientific
literature. Meanwhile, those who are interested in checking
some of the details can review my arguments at
fluoridealert.org50reasons.htmOpen ↗

Water fluoridation started in a different age. It is time
to follow the lead of most European countries and put an
end to the absurd notion of using the public water supply
to deliver medication, whether individuals agree to the
practice or not. Forcing such a practice on people takes
governmental arrogance to a whole new level, especially
when those who support the measure most vocally are totally
incapable of defending the measure on a public platform.
How about it Mr. Talley, can you find someone to debate
with me on this?

Dv. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence
University, Canton, NY 13617 315-379-9200
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

END Dr. Paul Connett's letter

To keep touch with what is happening in Pinellas County,
Fluorida, subscribe to the Citizens For Safe Water
Announcement List at safewater.commercesite.comsafewater.commercesite.comOpen ↗

NOTE: I am in OREGON. I hope I haven't embarrassed the
Pinellas County Citizens For Safe Water - or
Prof. Connett.

Check out the FUNNY STORY about fluoridation in Fluorida...

See Fluorida Dentists unscientific? health.groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2601

I am SO glad Prof. Connett is making himself available.

I hope the Pinellas County Commissioners bring him in to
debate Pick.

The video of that debate could save a LOT of county
commissioners nationwide a LOT of time.

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dw. Gastaldo [email hidden]

Copied also to: RAED AL KASEM, DDS who reportedly told
Pinellas County commissioners that fluoridation is opposed
by "uneducated people using illegitimate data."

Raed Al Kasem, DDS 3165 N McMullen Booth Rd Ste A2
Clearwater, FL 33761-2020 Phone: (727)796-2183 via
[email hidden]

Copied to: Attorney Paul Beeber, President, New York State
Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc., PO Box 263,Old
Bethpage, NY 11804 [email hidden]

Copied also to:

Pinellas County Commissioners...

[email hidden];[email hidden]
;[email hidden] ; [email hidden]
;[email hidden] ;[email hidden]
;[email hidden]

AS INDICATED ABOVE: ONE Pinellas Commissioner (roughly 15%
of the commission) voted AGAINST fluoridating: Barbara
Sheen Todd.

Finally, my usual public service announcement - it doesn't
have a thing to do with fluoride - except that it also
involves health care professionals doing something very
bizarre to children...

PREGNANT WOMEN: Obstetricians and CNMwives are knowingly
closing birth canals up to 30%...

For simple PROOF - and simple instructions on how to allow
your birth canal to OPEN the "extra" up to 30%...

See: I ain't no Semmelweis, but... health.groups.yahoo.comchiroOpen ↗
list/message/2591

This post will be archived for global access within 24 hours
in the Google usenet groups archive. Search
groups.google.comgroups.google.comOpen ↗ for "80 cities have rejected
fluoride since 1996: Pinellas County Commissioners - a
golden opportunity!"