An Open Letter to The Templeton Board of Health

            Open Letter to Templeton Board of Health

      Templeton members of the Board of Health may be surprised to learn that fluoridation of the public water system remains an experimental procedure, even though the practice has been in effect for over sixty years.  However, the facts speak for themselves.

1.   When the fluoridation trials began in 1945, practically no health studies had been undertaken or published.

2.   When the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) endorsed fluoridation in 1950, none of the trials had been completed and still no comprehensive health studies had been published.

3.   When a whole series of professional organizations followed the PHS and endorsed fluoridation in 1950, and in subsequent years, those organizations still had no comprehensive health studies to refer to and no trials had been completed.

4.   Since 1950 no rigorous scientific studies have established safety or effectiveness. Many health questions remain unasked and unanswered.

5.   Since 1950 the fluoridation program has not been monitored in a scientific or comprehensive fashion. Many basic health studies have still not been performed, and no effort has been made to monitor exposure in a scientific fashion—that is, there has been no systematic collection of measurements of fluoride levels in the urine, blood, or bones of people living in communities with fluoridated water.

6.   Fluoridated countries have made little or no effort to replicate studies performed elsewhere that have shown associations between fluoride exposure and increased bone fractures in children; arthritic-like symptoms in adults; lowered IQ in children; lowered thyroid function; and the accumulation of fluoride in the human pineal gland, as well as lowered melatonin production and earlier onset of puberty in animals.

7.   Fluoridated countries have made little or no attempt to use dental fluorosis, clearly visible manifestation of early childhood overexposure to fluoride as a biomarker to investigate health concerns in children that may be related to fluoride exposure.

8.   No government that has promoted fluoridation has made any effort to investigate the many anecdotal reports that a subsection of the population is highly sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity and is experiencing a range of common symptoms that, they claim, clear up when the source of fluoride is removed.

9.   Even when independent bodies have recommended key basic research, governments practicing fluoridation have ignored the recommendations.  For example, in 1991 the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia recommended that the government investigate the claims by a number of people that they were particularly sensitive to fluoride.  The NHMRC also recommended the collection of data on fluoride levels in bone, so that health agencies would be in a better position to judge whether long-term exposure to fluoride might cause bone damage.  Neither federal nor state health authorities in Australia have responded to either recommendation in the nineteen years since the recommendations were made.

     It is hoped that Templeton residents and Board of Health members find this information helpful.  As more and more of us seem to be getting all types of illnesses perhaps ending fluoridation will help all of us on our road to better health.

    Special thanks goes out to the book The Case Against Fluoride by Connett, Micklem and Beck for information regarding fluoride.