Response to "Voters reject fluoride ban" headline in TGN

     I would like to comment on the article titled “Voters reject fluoride ban” by staff writer Mark Haranas found in the Wednesday May 16,2012 edition of TGN. 
     Although it may have seemed to the reader of TGN that overwhelming support for fluoride was shown at Templeton Annual Town Meeting it is my opinion that the vote was not taken in a fair manner.
      This is my take on what happened.  After the final person Ms. Crocker spoke her pro-fluoride piece it is believed by many that a reading of the article would occur to refresh people’s memories on exactly what was being voted on.  It is believed this did not happened and instead the moderator went right into asking all in favor of the article and then all against.  As there were at least three people who spoke out against fluoridation during the comment period it would seem common sense there should have been three yeas, yet no one spoke yea to this article.  After the pro-fluoride people voted no to discontinuing fluoridation most of the anti-fluoride people were in shock that we did not get to vote on the article, an adjournment vote quickly followed the no vote as the hour was getting late leaving the anti-fluoride group in awe of what had just transpired concerning how the vote was taken.
     The following night I talked to Moderator David Bergeron and explained the situation concerning the lack of any yes votes on article XIV but to no avail. I would like to say that Mr. Bergeron has done an excellent job as Moderator and the Town of Templeton is lucky to have him in that position.  I would also like to say that in my opinion article XIV was not voted on fairly.
     Realizing the position of the anti-fluoride group concerning the voting on article XIV it was believed our only option was to vote for reconsideration of the article.  During the process of reconsideration you are only allowed to speak about why you believe the article should or should not be reconsidered.  The reconsideration of the article was voted down by town meeting so in my opinion there was never a fair vote on just how the legislative body at Annual Town Meeting actually felt about the question regarding ending fluoridation in The Town of Templeton.
     Last years vote on fluoridation was 69 yea and 190 no.  It is believed that this years vote would have been similar or closer to ending fluoridation had the vote been done fairly in my opinion. 
     Also in Mr. Haranas’s article it should be noted that all health professionals do not share the comment by newly hired Health Director Phil Leger concerning no negative effects from fluoridating water at the recommended levels.  It is believed that the American Dental Association has recommended that children under 12 months should not consume fluoridated water.  Mother’s milk the gold standard relating to nutrition for baby is from 25 to 250 times lower in fluoride than infant formula constituted with fluoridated tap water.  It is estimated that nearly 32% percent of young children today have dental fluorosis due to high levels of ingested fluoride.  Fluorosis is the body’s way of telling us that we are being overdosed with a drug that has been associated with lowering of IQ, coronary heart disease, arthritis, hypothyroidism, trisomy 21,  ADHD, alzheimers, and a whole host of other problems. Fluoride is called the Devils Poison for good reason.
     It has also been shown in the book “The Case Against Fluoride” by Connett, Beck and Micklem that cancer is more prevalent in communities that fluoridate at “recommended levels” as stated by Mr. Leger. 
     In a recent vote by the New Hampshire House of Representative it was voted overwhelmingly to require warnings on water bills concerning using fluoridated water when mixing baby formula.  It is hoped that the Templeton Water Department will adopt the same warning with their water bills.  
    It should be noted that most of “specialists” and dental hygienists who were pro-fluoride speakers are required by Massachusetts General Law (MGL), Part 1, Title XVI, Chapter 111,Section 40 to promote fluoride.  Some of us feel our tax money is being spent to harm our own health with this MGL.
     There is much to learn about the toxic effects of fluoride.  Once you get beyond the hype of the pro-fluoride advertisement some of which is paid for with our own tax money, it is believed you will have a deep feeling of betrayal concerning who is recommending this toxic substance to the you and your family.