Water systems serving about 30 percent of Americans are not giving them fluoridated water, six decades after fluoridation was started as a public health measure to prevent tooth decay, officials said on Thursday.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention hails the reduction in dental cavities due to adding fluoride to public water supplies as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.
Most Americans get their water from municipal or regional community water systems. A new CDC report showed that as of 2006, 69 percent of people in the United States who get water from these systems received fluoridated water, up from 65 percent in 2000 and 62 percent in 1992.
That means that while 184 million Americans get fluoridated water from community water systems, 82 million do not.
"This is one of the dirty little secrets -- that the whole nation has not yet embraced fluoridation of water, which has enormous public health benefits," Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said in a telephone interview.
Fluoridation of public water supplies was introduced in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
"It's still an under-utilized, very effective public health measure," Dr. William Bailey of the CDC's Division of Oral Health, who led the report, said in a telephone interview.
Some major cities still do not fluoridate their water supplies, including: San Diego; Portland, Oregon; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Wichita, Kansas. San Diego has committed to begin fluoridating its water by May 2010.
In California, the most populous of the 50 U.S. states, only 27 percent of people served by community systems were getting fluoridated water as of 2006, the CDC said. Only Hawaii (8 percent) and New Jersey (23 percent) were lower.
Fluoridation has remained controversial among some people. In fact, some opponents in the 1950s denounced it as a communist plot, which was lampooned in director Stanley Kubrick's 1964 Cold War satire "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb."
Current opponents argue the fluoride being added to water may cause a health problems such as weak bones and bone cancer, an assertion the CDC rejects.
Asked if there is any responsible evidence showing negative health effects due to fluoridated water, Bailey said, "No, not at the levels that we use in community water systems."
The CDC report showed other states with low percentages of people served by community systems getting fluoridated water included: Oregon (27 percent), Montana (31), Idaho (31), Wyoming (36), Louisiana (40) and New Hampshire (43). Fourteen states topped 90 percent. Washington D.C., was at 100 percent.
"Most people are complacent about the issue because they just naturally assume they live in a city that's fluoridated," Bailey said.
Fluoride is added to water -- either in powder or liquid form -- at water treatment plants, normally at levels of about one part per million, Bailey said.
Roughly 10 percent of Americans, mostly in rural areas, get water from wells, and this typically is not fluoridated. Also, many Americans drink bottled water that is not fluoridated.
The government's goal is for 75 percent of U.S. residents on community systems to be getting fluoridated water by 2010.
(Editing by David Wiessler)
Comment: As Dr. Paul Connett of St. Lawrence U. has
stated:
Fluoridation is unethical because:
1) It violates the individual's right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual's response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.
...
As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):
"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: 'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ' It is a preposterous notion."
...
Fluoridation is ineffective because:
1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride's benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85 percent of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the U.S. showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the U.S. occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).
Given all this, one has to wonder what the real agenda is here. Perhaps it's part of the
population control agenda as it
reduces fertility in males when added to drinking water. As Henry Kissinger's
National Security Study Memorandum 200 states explicitely about population reduction strategies, "In these sensitive relationships, however, it is important in style as well as substance to avoid the appearance of coercion"
Good connection
-------wikipedia entry for National Security Study Memorandum 200 ---------
13 countries are named in the report as particularly problematic with respect to U.S. security interests: India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, Turkey, Nigeria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil. These countries are projected to create 47 percent of all world population growth.
---------
In the name of nuclear deal , indian govt. allowed ( what they allowed is still a secret even to the parliament ) companies like Monsanto and Wal-mark to invest in the educational research institutions , which automatically allow these companies to enter the distribution market of 20 food crops, which India is holding very dearly for a long time. This is background entry of Food control of India which has more than 17% 's world population.
PTB is ready to implement their strategy of population control.