The practice of forced medication in municipalities who add fluoride to their town water supply is highly questionable. Here are some of the questions which come to mind when I think about it:
- How can “forced medication” be medically or legally justified in a society that normally follows the principle of “informed consent”?
- Even if Hydrofluorosilic Acid provided the claimed benefits, wouldn’t there be much more cost effective, and accurate methods of delivering the correct dose to each individual who needed it? After all, putting it in the water doesn’t account for : the proportional body weight of each person to the dose they need relative to the amount of water each person drinks in a day (ie almost everyone will be overdosing or underdosing).
- Studies have shown that the benefits of fluoride treatment only occur from topical application, and not from ingestion. Why, then, would this ingestion method be selected?
- The ingestion of hydrofluorosilic acid has been linked to numerous health issues, including cancer of the bones and of the thyroid gland. Why are entire populations being exposed to this known toxin without their informed consent?
- The use of fluoride in children under 3 is contra-indicated. How can we keep it away from this age group, if it’s in the tap water?
- Why is the disposal of an industrial waste by-product being dumped into our water supply, instead of being disposed of properly?
- With the rates of cancer so high, why is a known carcinogen being added to the water?
- If a pea-sized quantity of fluoridated toothpaste is swallowed, it is recommended that the poison control centre is contacted immediately. What about the person who drinks large amounts of tap water every day? Why would it be assumed that that was OK?
These questions are just a small sample, but the key point here is to begin to really examine the so-called logic of the practice of water fluoridation.
Have you had to bring any of these issues up with your city council, and what sort of response did you receive?