City of Del Rio ceases fluoridation of water supply
By Alejandra Valdez
Special to LIVE!
The fluoridation of Del Rio’s drinking water has come to an end. City council Tuesday night voted to discontinue the fluoridation after viewing a presentation by retired college biology instructor John Morony.In a letter addressed to Mayor Efrain Valdez and city council, Morony stated, “currently, we are using an industrial grade of silicoflouride, a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry, to increase the fluoride content of our drinking water.” Based upon information he had gathered, Morony’s letter was then a “recommendation that Del Rio cease fluoridating its water supply.”Morony, assisted by Ronald Burton, conducted a Powerpoint presentation at Tuesday night’s city council meeting providing detailed accounts of governments and municipalities throughout the world moving away from the fluoridation of drinking water. (The information Morony provided is mentioned at the end of this article.)“I’m just trying to get the fluoride out of our water,” Morony told the council.Valdez mentioned that the city spends about $20,000 a year buying the fluoride needed to add to the city water. Cole asked Morony, “So let me clarify: if we continue adding fluoride, we are putting in our water a byproduct of the fertilizer industry?” Morony confirmed Cole’s concern, which led Councilman Mike Wrob to ask, “At what point did we start putting fluoride in our water?” City staff then asked Mitch Lomas, manager of the city’s water treatment plant, to address the question.“We started fluoridating in 1990 as a result of a decision by the city council,” answered Lomas. He further explained that “at the time we [the city] did not have all the information about fluoride that we do now.”Cole admitted that she and Lomas had previously discussed the upcoming question, but she wanted Lomas to address the issue again, now before city council and the public. “How do employees at the water plant feel about handling fluoride?” Cole asked.Lomas gave an explanation of why workers felt as they did. “It’s a very corrosive chemical. It eats through concrete and metal. When they handle it, they have to wear respirators and chemical-proof suits,” Lomas explained.“But how do they feel about handling it?” Cole again prompted. “They really would rather not handle it, let’s put it that way,” Lomas responded.A member of the audience commented that society has at one time or another consider some things medically fit and safe, and they may later turn out to be not so safe.”There was a time when we were told not to breast feed our babies, and now we know that it is best. So, let’s breast feed our babies and get rid of the fluoride,” the woman urged, as others in the audience cheered and agreed.Cole took advantage of the momentum and declared, “I make the motion that we cease immediately adding fluoride to our beautiful San Felipe Springs water,” and Wrob seconded.At that, the Del Rio City Council voted unanimously to end the fluoridation of Del Rio’s drinking water.Lomas admitted that there may be charges entailed in the disposal of the already purchased fluoride. “Can it be returned” someone asked, to which Lomas answered that that was probably not likely. “They don’t want it back?,” someone jeered, and nods of approval on council’s vote were again seen throughout the audience.Opposing sides still continue to churn out proof that is favorable to their own views. According to Morony’s letter, more than 70 communities in the United States have stopped adding fluoride to their water, and in Europe, only Ireland continues with the fluoridation of drinking water. China and Japan have also done away with the process.“Why?” reads the letter, “Basically for two reasons: fluoridated water cannot be shown to significantly reduce dental cavities [tooth decay] and it has proved to be far more toxic than previously thought.”“Scientific Facts on the Biological Effects of Fluorides,” an article found in the Natural Health and Longevity Resource Center’s Web site (http://www.all-natural.com/fleffect.html was provided for city council by Morony. Among its claims are:
- 1. Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.
- 2. Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood. It also depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents.
- 3. Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body's own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals.
- 4. Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood and depresses thyroid activity.
- 5. Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer and can cause premature aging of the human body.
The website also claimed “fluorides are medically categorized as protoplasmic poisons, which is why they are used to kill rodents,” and that “fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate. In addition, the web site claimed that fluorides had been “used to modify behavior and mood of human beings,” as was the intended use of the fluoride when Nazis and Soviets both added the fluoride to prisoners’ drinking water supply. Countering scientific research supporting the discontinuation of fluoridation of water, the American dental Association (ADA) Reaffirms Support of Water Fluoridation, as late as April 7, 2006. After reviewing a recently published paper on a possible association between fluoride in water and osteosarcoma (a rare form of bone cancer), the ADA remains confident that community water fluoridation is a safe, effective public health measure for preventing tooth decay.According to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) Statement on the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water: The findings of the NRC report are consistent with CDC’s assessment that water is safe and healthy at the levels used for water fluoridation (0.7–1.2 mg/L). CDC reviews the latest scientific literature on an ongoing basis and maintains an active national community water fluoridation quality assurance program. CDC promotes research on the topic of fluoride and its effect on the public’s health. CDC’s recommendation remains the same—that community water fluoridation is safe and effective for preventing tooth decay. Water fluoridation should be continued in communities currently fluoridating and extended to those without fluoridation.
You must be registered and logged in to post comments
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
Do you like or dislike this story? Please take a quick survey to help us improve. Click here.
I am just so happy to hear
I am just so happy to hear that one more municipality has the courage to stand up to the pro-fluoridation dentists and Cargill/Monsanto waste product lobbyists.
Mr. Morony needs to go on tour throughout the world and relay the same facts to cities, counties, and in Illinois & Minnesota's case, state boards.
There are 2 sides to the fluoridation story; only one of them is supported by science.
I found it particularly humorous when asked “Can it be returned," to which Lomas answered that that was probably not likely. “They don’t want it back?,” someone jeered, and nods of approval on council’s vote were again seen throughout the audience.
Way to go Del Rio!!
Blue-Ribbon Scientific Panel
Blue-Ribbon Scientific Panel Exposes Fluoridation's Serious Health Risks
New York - September 2006 -- Fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in a recent National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. (1) At least three panel members advise avoiding fluoridated water.
Panel members took several years to read, understand and discuss hundreds of studies about fluoride's adverse health effects. "Unfortunately, many fluoridationists are dismissing this voluminous report as "only one study." It isn't. Many fluoridation promoters also mistakenly believe this report has nothing to do with water fluoridation at 1 ppm. However, it does according to several panel members," says Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).
An Oregon newspaper reports, "NAS panel member Kathy Thiessen, PhD a former scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who has studied fluoride for the EPA, said the report showed 'the potential is there' that water fluoridation is unhealthy. As for the studies finding that higher levels damage children's IQ, she said it's possible water fluoridation levels may have a similar, albeit reduced effect… the research suggests 'most people should minimize their fluoride intake' — which includes avoiding fluoridated water."
"NAS panel member Robert Isaacson, PhD a distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York in Binghamton, agreed, saying that the possible effects on endocrines and hormones from water-fluoridation are 'something that I wouldn't want to happen to me…,'" reports the Portland Tribune.
NAS panel member Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD associate professor of dentistry and head of the preventive dentistry program at the University of Toronto writes, "In my opinion, the evidence that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming and policy makers who avoid thoroughly reviewing recent data before introducing new fluoridation schemes do so at risk of future litigation."
Drs. Isaacson & Limeback advocate a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero. Dr. Theissen says the MCLG should be well below 1 ppm. (7)
The 12-member NRC fluoride committee unanimously decided that fluoride's 4 milligrams per liter (4 mg/L) maximum-contaminant-level (MCL) must be lowered. They concluded that healthy average adults consuming 8 milligrams fluoride daily, via two liters of 4mg/L fluoridated water, risk weakened bones, fractures, and stage II skeletal fluorosis (pain, joint stiffness, pelvis and spine osteosclerosis).
However, some high-water drinkers consume 8 milligrams fluoride daily when only 1 mg/L is added to their water supplies, according to the report.
"The adult daily dosage is equivalent to a 2.28 mg a day dose for a child," says Chemistry Professor Emeritus, Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network.
Fluoride is also in food, beverages, pharmaceuticals, dental products, pesticide residues, cigarette smoke and air emissions. The EPA is allowing additional fluoride in foods via sulfuryl fluoride pesticide residues. New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer wrote the EPA that, ""...the tolerances established by EPA are not sufficiently protective against adverse health effects," (5)
About 2/3 of U.S. water suppliers deliberately add fluoride chemicals (mostly industrial waste silicofluorides) to reach 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L, so-called optimal, in a failed effort to prevent tooth decay (6). But, "fluoride is a water contaminant over 1.3 mg/L," the NRC reports.
"This report is misleading by suggesting that the problem has to be studied to death before decisions can be made," says retired EPA scientist, Robert Carton, PhD. "The safe drinking water act requires the federal government to act if there is any indication of possible or anticipated adverse health effects in order to protect the most vulnerable subsets of the population," says Carton
"Fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day.With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male, according to the report," says Carton.
Furthermore, studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible, reports the NRC.
Eleven unions representing over 7,000 EPA scientists, engineers, lawyers and others ask for a moratorium on fluoridation.(8)
The Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of any substance in the water
supply is the unenforceable level by which no one is harmed. The MCLG is purely based on science; while the MCL is a political number based on ability to reduce fluoride levels.
"Based on the science reported by the NRC, the MCLG for fluoride should be closed to zero," says Carton.
This is why the MCLG for fluoride should be set near zero and/or fluoridation stopped. According to the NRC report:
A) Babies under one year consume over their adequate intake (to avoid
moderate fluorosis) from the water supply alone at the so-called
optimal concentrations (0.7 - 1.2 mg/L).
B) Some athletes, workers and/or military personnel already consume up
to 10 milligrams fluoride from optimally fluoridated water, alone.
C) "...severe renal insufficiency appears to increase bone fluoride
concentrations, perhaps as much as twofold."
D) "The elderly are at increased risk of high bone fluoride
concentrations due to accumulation over time..."
E) "There are medical conditions that can make people more susceptible
to the effects of fluoride."
F) "...several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride
exposure on thyroid function...it is difficult to predict exactly what
effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of
fluoride exposure and under what circumstances."
G) "...all children through 12 who take fluoride supplements (assuming
low water fluoride) will reach or exceed [optimal]."
"There is no evidence that any US child is fluoride-deficient; however The Centers for Disease Control reports that American schoolchildren are fluoride-overdosed with from 1/3 to 1/2 displaying dental fluorosis while tooth decay rates are climbing also. (5)," says Beeber
A Texarkana Gazette editorial reports, "While dentists still largely believe the benefits outweigh the risks, fluoridation is no longer beyond dispute. At the very least, the report indicates a need for caution....Virtues and vices sometimes come in the same package. What's good for the teeth looks more and more like it's bad for other body parts. That's not a slam dunk, that's a trade off." (3)
References:
1) "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards," Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. March 2006
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html?onpi_newsdoc03222006
2) "Fluoride foes get validation - Scientists: Substance less safe than presumed: more research needed," by Nick Budnick, March 24, 2005, Portland Tribune
http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=34527
3) http://www.texarkanagazette.com/articles/2006/04/09/local_news/opinion/opinions02.txt
4) "GUEST VIEW: The evidence that fluoride is harmful is overwhelming," http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/05-06/05-14-06/02opinion.htm
5) http://www.fluoridealert.org/nyag-sf.pdf
6) http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com
7) The 2nd Citizens’ Conference on Fluoride: A Summary, Fluoride Action Network
http://www.fluoridealert.org/conference/about.htm
8) "EPA Unions Call for Nationwide Moratorium on Fluoridation, Congressional Hearing on Adverse Effects, Youth Cancer Cover Up ," August 2005
http://nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/Press%20Release.%20Fluoride.htm
SOURCE:
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
Paul Beeber, President and General Counsel
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Fluoridation News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/
Fluoride Action Network
http://www.FluorideAction.Net