The Board of Directors for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority voted to continue the policy of adding fluoride to the drinking water.
The OWASA board held a meeting with public comments March 9, in order to help make a decision: whether to add fluoride, or to review the practice of fluoridating the water.
“Undertaking such a review would not change the widely accepted and scientifically supported view that community water fluoridation is safe and effective,” said Alex White, Assistant Professor at the UNC School of Dentistry. “Spending taxpayer resources on a new review may not be advisable, given the high likelihood that the recommendation would not change.”
White and others at the meeting said the health benefits of fluoride should be enough evidence to keep it.
But after the water treatment plant shut down in February because of an accidental release of too much fluoride, OWASA hasn’t added it since.
Sharon Reese is a resident of Chapel Hill. She said she hasn’t been in the area long, and has lived in five states without fluoride in the water, and she said she prefers it that way.
“I think it is mass-medicating a whole group of people,” she said. “And we all drink different amounts of water—I by choice drink 32 ounces of water a day. I’m not very big. That means I’m getting a whole lot of fluoride that I don’t think I need. And people who don’t drink or hardly drink any water at all are getting almost no fluoride.”
The recommended amount of fluoride for water is 0.7 parts per million. However, Chapel Hill resident Parker Emmerson said even that is too much.
“It is a very strange situation we have ourselves in,” he said. “Where a quasi-governmental agency controlled by an unelected board is determining whether or not to dose the population with a known neurotoxin that is a level eight corrosive material. So, people will naturally resist.”
But Rebecca King is the retired North Carolina State Dental Director. She said the recommended level of fluoride in water is good for you and protects everyone from tooth decay.
She said those who say otherwise can be split into two groups: one is people who have received bad information.
“The second group of fluoridation opponents include those who claim to use science and interpret literature,” she said. “They take credible research and misrepresent the facts, cite poorly done studies, provide research that’s not relevant to fluoridation in the United States, and make statements that are simply inaccurate and misleading.”
Board member Terri Buckner said she’s content with the level of fluoride and thinks OWASA should continue supplying it, but the board should continue to research new studies and findings from both sides of the argument.
“As somebody who grew up without fluoride and continues to pay the price, my preference is to not do any further study, to stick with our current practice at the lower level of use that we are currently using it at, and continue with our request to staff to when anything about the science changes,” Buckner said.
The board heard over 40 public comments before making the decision, according to a news release.
Staff will return to the next meeting with recommended improvements to the fluoride feed system and will propose a date for resuming fluoridation.
The meeting will take place March 23, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chamber in the Chapel Hill Town Hall.
The truth is spreading and people everywhere are learning that fluoride in drinking water is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. With any drug, we all deserve freedom of choice.
Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:
In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
In Europe, only 3%.
In the world, only 5%.
In Canada, now 30% — down from 45% in seven years.
China and Japan have rejected it years ago.
Over 217 communities have voted it out in the last six years (over 450 in 25 years).
jwillie6 – The only thing that is spreading is the disingenuous disinformation contained in your copy/paste responses to almost any article that mentions fluoride or fluoridation – it is certainly not truth. What other countries do or don’t do regarding fluoridation has nothing to do with the 70-year scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.
The Board of Directors for the Orange Water and Sewer Authority acted on the scientific consensus – The scientific consensus is also the reason over 100 scientific and health organizations continue to publically recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation for preventing dental decay. These organizations include The World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, U.S. Public Health Service, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Council on Science and Health and the American Society for Nutritional Sciences.
ada(dot)org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium
Ilikemyteeth(dot)org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
Fluoridation is based on 70 year old science.
Everyone should read the CURRENT science for themselves.
Read the excellent book , “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride results in slow poisoning over a lifetime, is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.
Read chapter 15 “Fluoride and the Brain,” to learn the awful truth for everyone, particularly children.
James, seriously, can’t you come up with some new fabricated nonsense? This old stuff you keep mindlessly plastering all over the internet is getting very boring.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
A 2015 study from England’s University of Kent found that drinking water with added fluoride can wreck your thyroid, and lead to weight gain and depression.
Fluoridation is now reported to cause diabetes.
The CDC reports that diabetes a growing epidemic in the United States (74% fluoridated). Incidence rates have nearly quadrupled in the past 32 years and show no signs of stopping.
Read this recent article, “Fluoride consumption linked to diabetes,” from Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, published in the “Journal of Water and Health” and also “Endocrine Today.”
It is absolutely amazing that you continue to use this argument, but I am glad to see that you have seen the light!!!!
It is good to know that you accept as valid a study that shows most fluoridation practices are protective of diabetes!!!! .
You completely misrepresented the study by Kyle Fluegge. Instead of reading and understanding the actual paper, you apparently copy/pasted an anti-F interpretation from a news release from Case Western Reserve University, and completely ignored two significant findings of the study:
1) Natural fluoride in drinking water “is significantly protective” of diabetes
2) “Among the three fluoridation chemicals used in this data set (sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate), only fluorosilicic acid was significantly and robustly associated with decreases in incidence and prevalence of diabetes.” and “Sodium fluoride produced significantly positive associations with incidence (β= 0.93, P< 0.001) and prevalence (β= 0.76, P< 0.001), whereas fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate produced significantly negative associations respectively (fluorosilicic acid: β= –0.72, P< 0.001 and β= –0.54, P= 0.002; sodium fluorosilicate: β= – 0.55, P= 0.05 and β= –0.49, P= 0.02)."
So, the actual conclusions of Fluegge’s study, would appear to be that the most commonly added fluoridation chemical, fluorosilicic acid (used in 75% of water treatment plants), actually seems to significantly protect against diabetes. Only 7% of treatment plants use sodium fluoride (the only additive linked to an increase in diabetes). NaF is generally only used in smaller treatment plants, so most individuals will drink water protected with fluorosilicic acid.
Actually, there are so many flaws with the study (which you obviously don’t recognize) that it really proves nothing.
There are many flaws with the study and fluoridation supporters are not likely to reference it.
Keep copying/pasting your fabrications – you are helping the cause of fluoridation supporters by perfectly demonstrating the fact that fluoridation opponents don’t read the articles they reference and have absolutely no understanding of science
No, James.
1. There is no study anywhere which “found that drinking water with added fluoride can wreck your thyroid, and lead to weight gain and depression”. That you feel the need to resort to such ridiculous fabrications to support your position should speak volumes for intelligent readers. The hypothyroidism study to which you refer was one performed by Stephen Peckham, a long-time antifluoridationists who is the former co-chair of the British antifluoridationist faction, “Hampshire Against Fluoride”. This clear conflict of interest aside, his study has been widely criticized for having poor methodology, inadequate controls for variables, and reaching a conclusion that is not supported by his data or the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I will gladly provide more if you wish.
The following is but one of numerous peer-reviewed debunks of Peckham’s study:
“In summary, this study is an ecologic one that has several significant flaws, making it almost meaningless with regard to assessing any possible association between water fluoridation and hypothyroidism. As such, this study provides no evidence of a causal relationship between water fluoride concentration and hypothyroidism.”
—No Evidence Supports the Claim That Water Fluoridation Causes Hypothyroidism
J Evid Base Dent Pract 2015;15:137-139
1532-3382
J.J. Warren, Maria C.P. Saraiva
2. What the Case University study reported was that in communities with water fluoridated by the compound, fluorosilic acid the incidence and prevalence of diabetes is lower than in non-fluoridated communities. As the overwhelming number of fluoridated communities, including Orange County, utilize FA, this means that should any credence be accorded this study, then fluoridation is actually protective against diabetes, not a causative factor.
Additionally, the study found that areas relying on “naturally occurring” fluoride in their water also had lower rates of diabetes. As the fluoride ions added through fluoridation are identical to that “naturally occurring” fluoride, with the only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation being those fluoride ions and barely detectable trace contaminants in amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels for each, this means that fluoride was obviously not the cause for any increased diabetes rates Fluegge reported.
Additionally, as Fluegge clearly does not understand the elementary fact that there is no difference between “naturally occurring” fluoride and that added through fluoridation, this completely discredits this entire pile of nonsense to which Case Western inexplicably allowed its name to be attached.
“Fluorosilicic acid seemed to have an opposing effect and was associated with decreases in diabetes incidence and prevalence. Counties that relied on naturally occurring fluoride in their water and did not supplement with fluoride additives also had lower diabetes rates”.
J Water Health. 2016 Oct;14(5):864-877.
Community water fluoridation predicts increase in age-adjusted incidence and prevalence of diabetes in 22 states from 2005 and 2010.
Fluegge K.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
Impact of fluoride on neurological development in children.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
Michael, regarding the deceptive implication of your link. From the Harvard scientists in your article: “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.,” http://www.kansas.com/news/article1098857.html