Q & A Opinion with Fluoride-Free San Marcos Coalition’s Sam Brannon

By:  Will Taff

 

Q:  What is the concern with fluoridation?

 

A:  Let’s start with some points where there’s no argument. First, the product they use to fluoridate with is called Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (the City and dentists will acknowledge this).  It’s a waste product/bi-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry (the City and dentists will acknowledge this).  It contains lead, arsenic, and other dangerous elements for which the EPA says there are no safe levels (the City and dentists will acknowledge this).  The EPA will not allow it to be dumped into landfills, rivers, lakes or oceans, and they refer to it as a “hazardous waste” (the City and dentists will acknowledge this, too). 

Given the universal agreement on these points, under what circumstance would we knowingly add hazardous waste to our drinking water?  I can’t think of any, and common sense says we should not.

 

Q:  What are the specific health concerns?

 

A:  There are numerous human health concerns, including: The Lancet Neurology, the world’s oldest and arguably most prestigious medical journal has classified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin, and modern research demonstrates that it harms brain development beginning in the uterus.  44 different studies indicate lower IQ among children in fluoridated communities versus non-fluoridated communities.

The former head of the National Cancer Institute testified before the U.S. Congress that “Fluoride causes more human cancer death, and does so faster, than any other chemical. “ 

 

There are hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in medical and scientific journals that indicate that fluoride is dangerous to human, animal and plant life.  I’m sure fluoride has its proper place on this planet because our Creator put it here, but science has documented that its effects are counter to Life, and therefore it does not belong in or around the human body.

 

Q:  The ADA, AMA and CDC all extol fluoridation as a great achievement for dental health.  What does that mean to you?

 

A:  I always ask, “Where is the randomized controlled trial that shows its safe and effective?”.  There isn’t one.  A randomized controlled trial (RCT) is the gold standard for the approval of drugs and other medical treatments.  And after 70 years of fluoridation, no RCT, and fluoride is still considered an “unapproved drug” according to the FDA.  In light of the health risks I just mentioned, why would we wait another day to stop this practice, at least until its proven safe and effective?  To date, by the standards of modern science, it has not been proven either safe or effective.

 

Q:  But what about the studies these institutions publish?  They quote science and statistics, too.

 

A:  I’ll give you two examples.  The World Health Organization (WHO) published an article that looked at a number of countries that have been fluoridating over the past several decades, noting that cavity rates had fallen significantly in those countries, and therefore, the WHO touts fluoridation is a great health achievement.  What wasn’t mentioned in their article is that non-fluoridating countries that showed their cavity rates declining at the same pace as in fluoridated countries, so the WHO only told part of the story.  That’s not honest science.

 

Another:  The original Grand Rapids Study was scheduled to run for 15 years, from 1945 to 1960, performed by the Public Health Service (PHS (now HHS)).  The plan was to fluoridate school children in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with Muskegon, a neighboring city 45 miles away as the control city and remaining non-fluoridated.  Halfway through the study, the PHS declared victory, announcing that cavity rates were down noticeably, with headlines across the country touting the announcement.  What the PHS never revealed was that the cavity rates were also down at a similar pace in non-fluoridated Muskegon.  Again, half of the story, and again, less than honest science.

 

These are among the reasons that Dr. Robert Carton, former Risk Assessment Manager in the Office of Toxicology at the Environmental Protection Agency called fluoridation “the greatest scientific fraud of the 20th Century, if not all time.”

 

Q:  What are the affects on the environment?

 

A:  There was a great study done in 1994 titled “Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada”, that documented loss of salmon due to fluoride levels in the rivers.  Other studies found losses in number of rainbow trout, mussels and smaller aquatic life at levels below that of current fluoridation recommendations.  Right now Sonoma and Mendocino Counties in California are wrestling with fluoridation and the impacts on local rivers and wildlife.  It’s a serious concern among environmental scientists and activists.

Keep in mind that only about 1% of fluoridated water goes into our bodies.  The rest goes either directly into our environment, or down our drains and through the sewage treatment plant to be released into the San Marcos River.  We need to be very cautious about dismissing the idea of any environmental impacts.

 

Q:  I’ve read that there are more Americans being fluoridated than in the rest of the world combined.  What’s behind that?

 

A:  That’s true.  Most countries do not fluoridate.  In fact, in Europe fluoridation is illegal and referred to as a Human Rights violation because its “forced medication” and considered experimental testing of an unapproved drug.  But there is some positive change in the U.S., too. 

In the last 5 years, more than 150 communities in N. America have stopped fluoridating, including Wichita, Kansas; Albuquerque, New Mexico; Calgary, Alberta; and Pinellas County, Florida, among others.  The trend is toward ending fluoridation as new science continues to stack up against the practice.  

 

Q:  And I’ve heard you speak of the medical ethics of fluoridation.  What does that mean?

 

A:  Medical ethics requires that before I am given any medical treatment, a doctor must review my individual condition, and make recommendations to me for my specific needs, and allow me to make the decision whether or not to accept the treatment.  This is referred to as “informed consent”.  There is no informed consent with mass delivery of medications through our water system. 

Medical ethics also requires specific doses for patients.  A doctor would never toss someone a bottle of pills and say “take one with every drink of water”, because they don’t know whether you’ll have 5 or 20 drinks of water during the day.  That’s not dosage control, but that’s essentially what’s happening with fluoridation. 

 

Another principle of medical ethics is to do no harm.   As I mentioned, the Hydrofluorosilicic Acid that’s used contains lead, arsenic and other elements for which there are no safe levels.  How a doctor or a dentist can support adding known toxins to everyone’s drinking water is beyond me.  The American Dental Association and American Medical Association are violating their own ethical codes by supporting fluoridation.

 

Q:  And what should we know about Prop 2?

 

A:  Prop 1 is on the ballot as a result of our petitioning efforts.  State law governs city Charter Amendments, but with Prop 2 the City of San Marcos is attempting to impose additional requirements on top of the state law.  The Texas Supreme Court has already ruled that such additional requirements may not be imposed on Charter Amendments, so we can beat this in court if it passes.  We would just rather have it voted down and avoid the courtroom.

 

Q:  How is the campaign going?

 

A:  Very well, we believe.  We’re still knocking doors and making phone calls to voters.  Turnout is pretty low at the polls so far, but we’re working hard to get our share of the votes.

 

Q:  Any final words?

 

A:  San Marcos has an opportunity to be a “Clean Water Leader” by voting FOR Prop 1, and I think it will put the city in a very positive light.  In the Dallas area, University Park and Highland Park are non-fluoridated.  In San Antonio, Alamo Heights is non-fluoridated.  In the Austin area, Lago Vista is non-fluoridated.  These are upper income cities with higher than average education levels.  They understand the dangers of fluoridation and want no part of it.  In the last several years, the cities of College Station and Elgin have also rejected the practice.

We believe that San Marcos will be a more desirable city to live in by voting FOR Prop 1 and AGAINST Prop 2 in the City Charter Election at the very bottom of the ballot.