Fluoridation Process In Greenwood Delayed

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

GREENWOOD (KFSM) - The city of Greenwood was supposed to start fluoridating the water Wednesday (Apr.1) following a state mandate from three years ago. But now, the process of adding fluoride is being pushed back.

Greenwood Mayor Doug Kinslow said it all comes down to when the equipment they need gets in, and when the building that will hold it is finally finished. "We have a pre- fabricated building coming in," said Kinslow. "It's been ordered so it will be shipped, it might take about a month to get here."

Kinslow said until the 10 by 12 building gets to Greenwood, they cannot begin fluoridating the city's water. According to Kinslow, "That is actually to house the equipment that puts the fluoride in the water."

Originally, the city projected the process could begin as early as April 1st. "That might have been the initial date that they were going to try to get everything going, but we are a good month away," said Kinslow. He said it depends when the building gets here and when they can get it all set up.

Even though many Greenwood residents have expressed concerns over the decision, the mayor said this is a good thing for the city. "They already have fluoride in the water so this is nothing completely new with the residents of Greenwood," according to Kinslow.

The mayor said he hopes to have the building in place and the fluoridation process started by the beginning of next month.

The state mandate Act 197 affects 34 water systems around the Natural State. When passing the law, state legislators said the fluoride has proven to be an extremely safe and effective method for preventing tooth decay.

 

19 comments

  • Steve Slott

    They should have announced that fluoridation had begun on schedule…….just to see how many antifluoridationists would start complaining about all their ailments that began immediately as soon as they took the first sip of the as yet unfluoridated “fluoridated water”.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • James Reeves

    It is illegal for a doctor or a dentist to force anyone to take a drug or a chemical.
    It should be illegal for the government as well. Fluoride should not be added to drinking water, which forces everyone to consume it against their will. It affects the brain (lowered IQ), the bones (brittle bones, fractured hips & bone cancer), the thyroid gland, arthritis, etc
    The world has learned the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, so only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water, more in the U.S. than the rest of the world combined. Last year Israel joined most of the world in banning fluoridation.

    • Steve Slott

      James, if you believe all of these claims you’ve made about fluoride then why do you advocate vehemently to remove the strict control over fluoride level in our drinking water, provided by fluoridation, in lieu of reverting back to uncontrolled non-fluoridated systems? The fluoride is identical in water, fluoridated or not, with the only difference being that while fluoridated systems are strictly monitored to keep the fluoride level constant and capped at a maximum concentration of 1.2 ppm, non-fluoridated systems have variable fluoride levels dependent on the fluctuating content in groundwater, and have no control or restriction on that fluoride level other than a maximum level of 4.0 ppm.

      Your proposal to go back to uncontrolled fluoride levels would result in far greater potential for adverse effects to the populace than does the tightly controlled fluoridated system employed by 74% of the US. Care to explain your “logic” in this?

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • James Reeves

        The fluoride added to our water, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is a form that does not occur in nature. It is a waste product of the metal-processing industries, and, because of its toxicity, would cost a huge amount for those companies to dispose of safely. So, they’re allowed to earn a great profit and dump this poison into our water supplies. As usual, follow the money to learn the truth.

        The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
        SIMPLE SOLUTION:
        1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
        2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
        3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
        PROBLEM SOLVED.

      • Steve Slott

        No, James, fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is not fluoride. It is a compound which contains Fluoride. Once added to water, HFA immediately and completely hydrolyzes (dissociates) into fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts fall below the EPA mandated maximum safety levels for each. After this point, HFA no longer exists in this water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested.

        So, as you can see, attempting to argue that there is a difference between fluoride in non-fluoridated systems and fluoride in fluoridated systems, has no merit. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound.

        Now, once again, if you believe all the unsubstantiated claims you have made about fluoride, why do you vehemently argue to remove the strict control over the level of fluoride in our drinking water, provided by fluoridation which is capped at 1.2 ppm, and revert back to uncontrolled, non-fluoridated systems with variable fluoride levels that can be as high as 4.0 ppm? Are you not concerned with the much greater potential for adverse effects in uncontrolled systems than in controlled ones? Why would you advocate for such reckless action?

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Peter Thomas

    Case histories and peer reviewed research shows that fluoride can cause harm even at low levels. Some people can experience toxicity symptoms from drinking fluoridated water or using fluoride tablets. Symptoms include neurological problems, headaches, skin irritation, gastrointestinal pain, and symptoms (Waldbott 1956, 1958, Feltman 1956, Feltman and Kosel 1961, Grimbergen 1974, Petraborg 1977, Spittle 2008,). Patients were often unaware that their drinking water contained fluoride. Symptoms improved with avoidance of fluoridated water and returned with consumption of fluoridated water or with experimental challenge with fluoride and confirmed by double blind testing. Doctors aren’t trained to suspect fluoride, so patients may be treated for side effects when all that is needed, is avoidance of fluoridated water. These side effects experienced by some people at low levels are the same as those that are experienced by most people at high levels of exposure indicating that the symptoms are toxicity or poisoning symptoms.(Confirmed in the Physicians’ Desk Reference) This makes sense when you consider that the fluoride ion is more toxic than lead and only slightly less lethal than arsenic (Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products, LD50 data – 1984), yet only 10 ppb (0.01 ppm) maximum is allowed for lead and arsenic in our drinking water. Now with fluoride they are adding 700 to 1000 ppb (0.7 to 1.0 ppm). There are going to be problems. Fluoride is the active ingredient in many rat poisons and insecticides.
    The Feltman and Kosel study was published in the Journal of Dental Medicine and received funding from the US Public Health Service, Department of Health Education and Welfare, Washington DC.
    “Fluorine and fluorides can act as direct cellular poisons by interfering with calcium metabolism and enzyme mechanisms.” (Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment, 11th Edition, 1983.)
    “Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide … it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses.” (James B. Patrick, Ph.D., antibiotics research scientist.)
    “Yes, fluoride is an (enzyme) inhibitor. You are right in the implication that when it comes to certain patients, it is important that they do not have fluoride in the water.” (Dr. Harold Loe, National Institute of Dental Research, to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 1989.)

    • Peter Thomas

      Some more information on my previous post. Dr George Waldbott was a renowned medical doctor and allergist who was the first to document anaphylaxis from penicillin, and the first to make the link between smoking and emphysema This at a time when doctors and dentists appeared in cigarette adverts promoting it, and said lead, asbestos and mercury were safe. He specialized in the research and treatment of allergies. In this field he published several books and more than 200 scientific articles, many in American Medical Association Journals. His Health Effects of Environmental Pollutants (2nd edition, March 1978) was used as a textbook in universities in the United States and abroad. Waldbott was a pioneer in the study of allergies, and the founder and chief of allergy clinics in four Detroit hospitals. He was president of the Michigan Branch of the American College of Chest Physicains, Chairman of the Air Pollution Committee and of the American Acadamy of Allergy. How did the fluoridationists react to the information on fluoride toxicity Waldbott provided? Not in a way you would expect. They attacked him with a vengeance instead of stopping fluoridation and doing more study. Waldbotts findings have been confirmed by dozens of further researchers and thousands of people reporting toxicity symptoms worldwide. The most startling one is the Feltman and Kosel study. They were supporters of fluoridation but were honest fluoridationists unlike today. They received government funding. As soon they became aware of Feltman and Kosel reporting side effects in some people, the government withdrew funding! Then they got the American Academy of Allergy (AAA) to issue a statement essentially endorsing fluoridation without doing any research into fluoride themselves. This statement was then used by fluoridating authorities around the world. Using this statement to negate bona fide research publications without doing careful scientific testing or trials themselves is a dereliction of duty. At the same time the AAA statement was released the PHS announced research grants to 4 of the board members worth $800,000 (worth over 4 million dollars in today). Most of the other board members had previously received funding from the PHS. Contrast this with the PHS withdrawing funding to Feltman and Kosel.

    • Steve Slott

      Peter Thomas
      The same question pertains to you as it does to James Reeves. If you truly believe all of the unsubstantiated claims you’ve made about fluoride then why do you advocate for removal of the strict control over fluoride levels in our drinking water, capped at 1.2 ppm, with reversion back to uncontrolled non-fluoridated systems which are subject to the fluoride fluctuations in groundwater and only restricted to a maximum of 4.9 ppm?

      1.2 ppm maximum in fluoridated systems. 4.0 ppm maximum in non-fluoridated systems.

      Do you care to explain why you advocate for such reckless action, which would put the populace at even greater risk of all the adverse effects you’ve claimed, than do we have with tightly controlled fluoridated systems?

      Steven D. Slott,,DDS

      • Steve Slott

        So, Peter, in other words, you can’t answer the question as to why you advocate for recklessly abandoning the tight control over fluoride level provided by fluoridation, in favor of the uncontrolled fluoride levels in non-fluoridated water, which can be as high as 4.0 ppm…….correct?

        You do realize that in advocating for the relaxation of controls, you are attempting to put the public at far greater risk for all the adverse effects which you claim occur with fluoride…..correct? You do understand that chronic consumption of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm can result in severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorisis……correct?

        So, again, why would you advocate so strongly in favor of putting the public at greater risk of adverse health effects? Do you simply not care, as long as your personal ideology is pushed onto the public? In the absence of some rational explanation from you, that’s the only possible reason that you would be so callous.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Peter Thomas

    Even the CDC backed down about 2000 and admitted that any perceived benefit from fluoride was predominantly TOPICAL, as in toothpaste – not from swallowing it.

    There are several negatives associated with drinking it that are also pretty universally agreed to:
    – Fluoride is an enzyme poison and endocrine disruptor.
    – Fluoride is a “potent adjuvant”… causes or worsens allergies
    – Fluoride is a “proliferative agent”… causes or worsens inflammations
    – Fluoride builds up in bones…. causing or worsening arthritis and brittleness
    – Fluoride impacts thyroid functioning
    – Fluoride is a “burden” to kidneys… causing increased retention and possible damage in those with renal inefficiencies or chronic kidney disease.

    Brush your teeth with it if you want, but those of us with allergies or Celiac disease; arthritis or brittle bones; and/or kidney or thyroid disease would rather not subject our entire bodies to it.

    Segments of the population are unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. They include “postmenopausal women and elderly men, pregnant woman and their foetuses, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems….Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” – USPHS Report (ATSDR TP-91/17, pg. 112, Sec.2.7, April 1993)

    and The NKF advises it may be “prudent” to monitor the fluoride intake of “patients with chronic renal impairment, children, those with excessive fluoride intake, and those with prolonged disease.” – National Kidney Foundation, Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease, April 15, 2008

  • James Reeves

    Water fluoridation tramples on the rights of those who DON’T want to be fluoridated, and denies the freedom to choose the source and dosage for those who DO want fluoride. Fluoridation is unnecessary, undemocratic, unethical, even immoral.

    Here is the list of some of the contaminants in the induatrial waste fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid: Aluminium, Manganese, Barium, Arsenic,
    Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, Nickel, Lead, Thallium, Antimony, Tin, Molybdenum, Cobalt, Beryllium, Strontium. There is also some radioactivity.

    • Steve Slott

      No, again, James. Water fluoridation “tramples the rights of no one”. What it does is responsibly maintain the fluoride level in drinking water at 1.2 ppm or lower, below the threshold for adverse effects. Your desire to eliminate the strict control provided by fluoridation, opens up the public to far greater risk of all the adverse effects which you constantly claim are caused by fluoride. Whom do you believe is more at risk….those who ingest water with a fluoride content strictly maintained at a level of 1.2 ppm or less, as advocated by the overwhelming majority of respected science and healthcare……or those who ingest water in which fluoride levels are uncontrolled, variable, and can be as high as 4.0 ppm, as advocated by antifluoridationists? Is the advancement of your personal ideology so important to you that you simply don’t care about endangering the health and well-being of the public?

      As far as the contents of fluoridated water, all water at the tap must meet strict EPA quality certification requirements, or it is not allowed, period. Fluoridated water at the tap easily meets all of these requirements. The only contaminants present at the tap are in such minuscule, barely detectable amounts that it is not even a certainty they aren’t those which already exist in water naturally. A complete list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the maximum EPA mandated amounts allowed for each may be found on the “Fluoridation Chemicals Fact Sheet” located on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Peter Thomas

    There is the question of ethics. Forget the semantics of whether or not the industrial ‘by-product’ used in water fluoridation is or is not considered medication or a supplement. We each have the right to informed consent regarding the medications or nutritional supplements we ingest. Water fluoridation strips us of that right. Once fluoride is added to the water supply, it is virtually impossible to escape. While some people can avoid some of the fluoride, some of the time, many groups can’t, for example children, low income people, invalids, boarders, hospital patients etc, can’t avoid any. According to the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights “In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.”

    • Steve Slott

      So, Peter, which do you believe to be more ethical….advocating for:

      1. Strictly monitoring and maintaining fluoride in drinking water at or below the level of 1.2 ppm, which is below the threshold of adverse effects?

      Or

      2. Eliminating the strict control over fluoride levels in drinking water employed by 74% of the United States, and reverting back to uncontrolled fluoride levels which fluctuate in accordance with groundwater which includes runoff from from chemical manufacturing plants and production of fluoride chemicals, and are restricted only to a maximum of 4.0 ppm?

      #1 is that for which is advocated by respected science and healthcare Professionals and organizations.
      #2 is that for which is advocated by antifluoridationists and antifluoridationist organizations.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Steve Slott

        James, people are going to drink fluoride in their water whether it is fluoridated or not. The only question is how much and how well controlled is the level. Under the recommendations of the proper science and healthcare professionals, that level is strictly monitored and maintained at a level well below that which may cause adverse effects. In fluoridated systems, people know exactly how much fluoride they are getting from the water right down to the milligram. Under the irresponsible recommendations of antifluoridationists such as you, the fluoride level is uncontrolled, variable, and can be as high as 4.0 ppm. Under your recommendation, people have no real idea as to how much fluoride they are getting from their water.

        The chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content exceeding 2.0 ppm can result in moderate/severe dental fluorosis costing large amounts of money to treat adequately. Chronically ingesting water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm can result in not only moderate/severe dental fluorosis, but also bone fracture and skeletal fluorosis. Fluoridation has kept these occurrences at a bare minimum in the US, where skeletal fluorosis is so rare that it is nearly non-existent.

        So, again, why would you, or anyone else, recklessly recommend subjecting our citizens to greater risk of these adverse effects? You are the ones who are so irresponsibly discarding the health and well-being of our citizenry, not fluoridation proponents.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

Comments are closed.