It had to happen eventually.  The Austin American-Statesman, after two and a half years of adamant non-coverage while the anti-fluoridation movement quietly gathered steam, finally took notice of us in the person of W. Gardner Selby. 

I had never heard of Selby:  not surprising, since I haven’t read the Statesman in years.  Like many other Austinites who no longer find the local daily relevant, I long ago turned away from that content-starved venue to other sources for my information.  But apparently he's the Statesman's chief political writer.  
 
He's also editor of Politifact Texas, described on its website as “ a partnership of the Austin American-Statesman and PolitiFact.com, a Pulitzer Prize-winning Web site of the St. Petersburg Times, to help you find the truth in politics.”   There, he presides over a so-called "Truth Meter."  How original. 

It all began on or around April 4, when he suddenly took umbrage to a short, conservatively-worded letter by Mike Ford, one of our members, which appeared in the Austin Chronicle’s March 23 “Post Marks” section.

Selby didn't contest Ford’s claim that 25 studies worldwide directly link fluoride to children’s lowered IQ’s, nor did he challenge the accompanying assertion that fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries have shown an identical decrease in tooth decay over the years.  No, what he pounced on like a dog on a bone was a semantic matter:  he questioned the use of the phrase “toxic waste,” calling it bad journalism.  (What journalism?  A letter to the editor isn't journalism).  And although Ford had not claimed to speak on behalf of Fluoride Free Austin, Selby seemed eager to make that connection and paint the organization with the same black brush.

He broached his reservations to Mike, who at first attempted to explain his choice of words but, once  it became obvious that Selby wasn’t really listening, wisely turned the matter over to Neil Carman, our group’s environmental expert.  Carman, who possesses a Ph.D. in botany, decades of experience in waste management issues, and an impeccable reputation for scientific accuracy and personal integrity, sent Selby a wealth of information in a good faith effort to educate him.   These documents included a product MSDS sheet designating fluorosilicic acid a hazardous waste, a RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) citation to the same effect, affidavits of  distinguished (and disinterested) scientists using the same terminology, and several municipal reports which refer to fluorosilicic acid as waste. 

Carman did concede that the distinction between “hazardous” and “toxic” was a fine one, perhaps of academic interest, and worthy of discussion with an EPA scholar. 

But Selby, bent on asserting that the fluorosilicic acid that Austin uses is neither toxic (poisonous, in common parlance) nor waste, would have none of it.  He preferred to confabulate with PR flacks at the EPA, CDC and Mosaic, the producer of the chemical—all of whom are well paid to support water fluoridation programs—and with the City of Austin's CDC-parroting bureaucrats.   

After two weeks of back-and-forth between him and Neil—on April 18, a day when I was both under the weather and on my way out of town—I received the following terse missive: 

Hello.

For a PolitiFact Texas article, I was wondering if FFA has called the FL
compound put into Austin's water supply "toxic waste."

If so, could you point out where?

wgs

It was a laugh out loud moment for me.  Here was Selby, clearly keen to attack “FFA” for language he wasn’t certain we’d used, asking us to find it for him!   Accustomed to taking my time over such matters, I set off on my trip without replying.  By the time I got to a wireless Internet connection on April 20, his piece had appeared.  Its spin—a foregone conclusion—surprised no one. 

A bright Texas State University student who had just finished doing an 18-page research paper on fluoridation for his health geography course, spotted some misinformation in the “Truth Meter” piece.  Tim Hayes wrote a thoughtful, thoroughly-documented 1200-word analysis of Selby’s story and submitted it, along with a copy of his own report. 

Selby’s one-line response:  “Do you consider the compound added to Austin's water to be toxic waste?”

Carol Vander Stoep, author of Mouth Matters, a popular book on oral health with a section devoted to fluoride, also tried to set Selby straight.  Vander Stoep is a registered dental hygenist with 30 years’ professional experience.  She provided detailed information, for which he condescendingly thanked her, explaining he would not have time to look at most of it.  He added: 

“. . .Side note:  I asked an activist with Fluoride Free Austin if it had called the additive toxic waste and if so, where and when.  Unless I missed something, that question went unanswered.” 

No, Mr. Selby, you didn’t miss anything.  Guilty as charged.  I declined your last-minute invitation to do your homework for you.  Sorry about that. 

Whether or not Fluoride Free Austin ever used the dread T-word, the classic desk reference Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products by R.E. Gosselin et al doesn't hesitate to apply it to fluoride, even providing a comparison chart between lead, fluoride and arsenic.  Fluoride is revealed as substantially more toxic than lead.

                               
 

By  carefully parsing words here, one might—if sufficiently determined—conclude  that since the chart refers to the fluoride ion and not, specifically fluosilicic acid, the latter's toxicity can be wished away.  Yet one of Selby's own sources, EPA spokesman Richard Yost, admits that in "water at levels used for fluoridation, hexafluorosilicic acid hydrolyzes essentially completely to fluoride ions and various forms of silica... "

Those are the same fluoride ions that Gosselin's reference book categorizes as more toxic than lead! 

About Selby's last gasp claim that fluorosilicic acid or whatever he cares to call it (the chemical has about 20 accepted names) is "not poisonous at its concentration in the water," the less said the better.  Unlike vitamins, to which he enjoys comparing it, F doesn't quickly leave the body.  In fact, about half of it sticks around for a lifetime.  What part of "cumulative" doesn't he understand? 

Enough of trying to convince him, however.  The question is, how much harm has his article done?

In my opinion, not much. Based on my admittedly tiny sampling of feedback, five people I've heard from have seen straight through the story's bias while one has agreed with it.  At such a ratio, it's tempting to modify an old adage and say, with enemies like that, who needs friends?  But of course we need and value all our friends, including any Gardner Selby may unwittingly have brought us. 

Meanwhile, on April 21, the Statesman's Op-Ed page published a superb essay, "When It Comes to Tap Water, Austinites Must Have a Choice" by Natica Smith.  In clear,well-reasoned language, the author, a master's degree candidate at UT's LBJ School of Public Affairs, dwells on the personal freedom aspects of the fluoridation debate.  It's an angle we've sometimes downplayed in our greater focus on the chemical additive's biotoxicity and failure to deliver any dental benefits.  Smith also reminds the City Council members that each took an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States. 

The timing of Selby's and Smith's published pieces - within a day of one another - seems beyond coincidental.  Yet a Google search on "Gardner Selby" + "Natica Smith" brings up nothing.   Is it possible that the right hand and the left hand operate independently?  Perhaps.  I wonder what Selby's take on Smith's essay would be. 

Is it possible the Statesman is inching the door open -- at least in its editorial sections -- to some level of balanced (if sparse) coverage, as the Austin Chronicle has already done?  Only time will tell. 

Meanwhile, a reminder to Statesman staffers:  your children are drinking the fluoride too.  It cannot be completely dodged even if you filter at home.  They're at risk, not only for dental fluorosis but for a plethora of health problems down the line.  Don't you think you owe it to them - if not yourselves - to seriously investigate?  Whether you call Austin's fluoridation chemical toxic, hazardous or poisonous,  it's the same stuff.  It's just plain bad for you. And that's what really matters.