|
|
Expert Analysis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fluoridation has
long been the subject of vigorous debate. Here we present a sampling of
the most cogent and scientifically based analysis available.
Both sides of the issue are presented.
NEW: 1)
Read a position statement on
fluoridation from EPA scientists: View
the statement
2)
National Academy of Science committee member Dr. Kathleen Thiessen
expresses her reservations about fluoridation: Read
the letter
|
|
|
|
1)
|
Dr. Hirzy
Testifies before the
United States Congress:
Dr. Hirzy, a senior scientist working for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Vice-President of the EPA Headquarters
Professionals Employee Union, gave his testimony and analysis to
Congress concerning
why EPA scientists believe
water
fluoridation is a dangerous and ineffective program. Read
the Full Testimony
|
|
|
|
2)
|
Professor Paul
Connett debates Professor Howard Pollick:
1) Against Fluoridation - Dr.
Paul Connett: Read
Article 1
2) Supporting Fluoridation - Dr.
Howard Pollick: Read
Article 2
3) Against Fluoridation - Dr. Paul
Connett: Read
Article 3
|
|
|
|
3)
|
Dr. Bill Osmunson criticizes the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control
1) Against Fluoridation - Dr. Bill
Osmunson: Read
the Letter
2) Supporting Fluoridation - U.S. CDC: Read
the Report
|
|
|
|
4)
|
Dr. John Colquhoun sets off a firestorm:
1) Against Fluoridation - Dr. John
Colquhoun: Read
Article 1
2) Supporting Fluoridation - Dr. Howard
Pollick: Read
Article 2
3) Against Fluoridation - Dr. John Colquhoun: Read
Article 3
4) Against Fluoridation - Dr. Bruce Spittle: Read
Article 4
5) Supporting Fluoridation - Dr.'s Newbrun
& Horowitz: Read
Article 5
|
|
|
|
5) |
Position Paper of Dr. Isaacson
on the Neurotoxicity of Fluoride:
Dr. Robert Isaacson was one of the 12 National Research Council
committee members to complete the most comprehensive review of fluoride
toxicology to date (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of
EPA's Standards). In this position paper, he discusses the
neurotoxicity of fluoride at
length. Read
the
Paper (PDF)
|
|
|
|
6) |
Position Papers from the
Fluoride Action Network:
Dr. Paul Connett, an Oxford educated scientist, and Professor of
Chemistry Emeritus, lays out his analysis of why water fluoridation is
a dangerous and ineffective program based on weak science.
1) 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: Read
the Paper
2) Statement of Concern: Read the Statement
Excerpt:
"...the more I have read the more concerned I have become over the
dangers posed by fluoride and the very poor science underpinning its
supposed efficacy in protecting children's teeth. How we ever allowed
such a toxic substance into the drinking water is staggering. Even
though fluoride's toxicity is rated higher than lead, the US
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum contaminant level for
lead in water is 15 ppb (parts per billion) whereas the level allowed
for fluoride is 4,000 ppb. The recommended level for artificial
fluoridation of the drinking water of 1 part per million (1 ppm = 1,000
ppb) was established in 1945, and it hasn't been changed since, even
though today we (and our children) are getting fluoride from many other
additional sources, including toothpaste, other dental products,
mouthwashes, processed food, some vitamin tablets, and beverages.
The benefits to teeth are questionable. "
|
|
|
|
7)
|
Analysis
from local supporters of fluoridation:
1) Dr. John Sullivan: Read the
Statement
2) Yes on Measure B Campaign (Manila, 2008): Read the
Statement
|
|
|
Top 
|
