Thank you, Mayor Wynn and Councilmembers.  Let’s talk about dental fluorosis, a lifelong structural deficiency of the teeth now afflicting approximately a third of America’s schoolchildren.  It’s caused, overwhelmingly, by artificially fluoridated water.  The American Dental Society doesn’t deny this.  In fact, they openly admit it.  Their attitude is, “So what?”

I hope you’ll read your handout carefully.  The information it contains is very important. 

Suppose your dentist said to you, “I want to try out a new cavity-fighting miracle drug on your family.  We’ll mix it into your water.  There’s a one-in-three chance that your child’s teeth will look like this, but if it happens, no problem--it's only a cosmetic effect."
 

                                                        


Would you consider this a good tradeoff, even if the product did perform as promised?  That is, if it actually delivered some theoretical, statistically tiny reduction in cavities over a lifetime along with the unsightly discoloration—would you think it in your child’s best interests?

 That’s exactly what the ADA wants you to think.  “Don’t worry, be happy,” they tell you.  “Those stained, pitted teeth are outstandingly healthy.”  Do you believe them?

Now look at the underlined sentence in your handout.  I quote:  “Enamel fluorosis is not a disease but rather affects the way the teeth look.”  Unquote.  Well, they got it partly right.  Fluorosis is not a disease.  It’s the symptom of a disease:  damage that occurred to the teeth when essential calcium carbonate was replaced by far more brittle calcium fluoride at an early stage, damage that will continue internally—manifesting in the bones—as long as the individual continues to ingest too much fluoride.  To say fluorosis is just cosmetic is like saying that the pallor of leukemia or the ruddy complexion of tuberculosis is “just cosmetic.”  Fluorosis is the outward sign of much deeper health problems.  In the case of Austin’s 0.8 ppm fluoridation, the visible symptoms will more often manifest as white flecks than as deep brown stains.  In other words, the symptoms will be less visually objectionable, but the problem is still there, and still ongoing.  Austinites age 35 and younger have been drinking fluoridated water all their lives. And, over the past decade, the demand for teeth bleaching and veneers, here and elsewhere, has exploded.  Could there be a connection between widespread fluorosis and the burgeoning interest in cosmetic techniques?  Dental cosmetic practitioners will tell you yes.

Meanwhile, the ADA clings to their blanket endorsement of fluoride while simultaneously advising concerned parents to feed infants on breast milk or buy unfluoridated bottled water to mix with baby formula.  The federal Center for Disease Control takes an identical position.  Neither organization has the true public interest at heart.  It’s a real shame.  Thank you.  

http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/fluoride_infants.asp

http://www.bdbs.co.uk/downloads/research_links/aug978.doc

http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm