Bulletin #745

January 13, 2006

Dear All,

As we found out to our cost in Del Rio, Texas, when a community makes the rational and responsible decision to halt or reject fluoridation, the promoters pull out all the stops to bully the decision makers to change their minds. They do this in two ways: 1) bring out the white coat brigade - ill-informed but impressive, if you haven’t studied the issue – and 2) other local groups (housing associations, PTAs, taxpayers associations) whose spokespersons claim that all their members are shocked by this “unscientific” attack on their ‘poor kids” etc. Whether or not these spokespersons actually reflect the view of their members is an open question, but to the decision maker they represent votes. Both tactics are very intimidating.

We are seeing similar tactics being used in Martin County, Florida. In yesterday’s paper (see article below) one of the Martin County Commissioners  (who is also a dentist!) warned the county that their decision would keep research scientists from coming to the county because in his view, an anti-fluoridation vote is essentially “anti-science.” As Shirley Jacobson (who sent me the article) said, “What a stretch!” I agree. If this dentist was to take the time to read the 500 page report from the National Research Council, published last year, he would quickly find out where the real science lies on this issue. Unfortunately, he probably will not read that report, and instead rely on the PR material sent to him by one of the least scientific associations in this country – the American Dental Association!

An article in today’s paper (see below) comes from the Martin County Taxpayers Association, which claims not to have taken a position on fluoride (give me a break!) and asks students to take a little exam on fluoride. The exam consists of totally loaded and self-serving questions but it does give us an opportunity to educate the “teacher” in this case. Contact details for your correspondence are given below the article.

Paul Connett

PS We now have 2315 people signed onto our online petition to Wal-Mart, but the rate is slowing down. Please contact anyone you know who hasn’t signed yet to add their name at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/walmart/  Our subscription list has risen to 1577, but again new subscriptions are coming in painfully slowly. We need a boost. Subscriptions are FREE, simply ask people to send me an email with SUBSCRIBE in the subject line, or SUBSCRIBE B if they only want to receive a monthly summary and really important bulletins. Our Fluoride Fighting Fund for 2007 now stands at $17,875. New donations of $25 or more receive a free DVD (containing four 30 minute programs on fluoride’s history and dangers).
—————————-

DiTerlizzi: Fluoridation decision may hurt Martin’s biotech efforts

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,2545,TCP_16736_5267129,00.html
 
By GEORGE ANDREASSI
  
 george.andreassi@scripps.com
 
Updated at 12:26 p.m.
  
January 9, 2007
  
STUART ˜ Martin County’s decision not to add therapeutic amounts of fluoride to the drinking water could hurt the county’s efforts to attract biotech companies, a dentist and a county commissioner said Tuesday.
  
Research scientists may be turned off by the county’s decision to abandon its fluoridation program, which is supported by the nation’s top dental and medical association, said Dr. David Boden.
  
Commissioner Michael DiTerlizzi said the Dec. 19 decision could send out a message that Martin County doesn’t value scientific research, particularly the decades of research supporting the addition of fluoride to drinking water to prevent tooth decay.
  
But the three commissioners who voted against fluoridation said they think they made the right decision based on concerns that it may harm infants and the elderly.
  
Commissioner Doug Smith said the County Commission may have a chance to rethink the decision if the Stuart City Commission decides to go forward with the fluoridation of the city’s drinking water.
———————————————————————


Martin County Taxpayers: Students, take out your pencils for this essay exam on fluoride

http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/opinion_columnists/article/0,,TCP_24463_5275542,00.html
 
January 13, 2007
 
It appears that the Stuart City Commission is now proceeding along the same path as the Martin County Commission in revisiting its earlier decision to add fluoride to the city’s drinking water.

While we are not taking a position on whether to add fluoride or not, we do believe we have a mandate to discuss the management and leadership evident in the decision-making process being displayed. The immediate fiscal cost to taxpayers as well as the follow-on medical costs and suffering that could be avoided also seems in our purview.
 
Rather than judge the performance that has been demonstrated, let’s perform a little exercise. Follow along with this summary version in the same manner many of you have probably done as students in some leadership, management or logic course:

TAXPAYER EXERCISE NO. 1: A decision is made by County M to fluoridate its water based on the recommendations of virtually the entire list of international, national and state government institutions. Almost all of the counties and cities surrounding County M have done so with excellent results. There are many years of positive experience with both natural and controlled fluoridation locally, nationally and throughout the world. All doctors’ and dentists’ professional associations and almost all reputable groups concerned with health issues actively support it.
 
City S, located within County M, cites the same sources and also considering compatibility issues, makes a similar decision. Both governments then appropriate money, and grants are actively sought to help modify their relevant infrastructures to accommodate adding and controlling the levels of fluoride.
 
Much staff time and energy are spent in coordinating the effort between County M and City S to make sure both systems will accept the new process and be compatible with each other. During a period of several years after the original decision some $200,000 in grant money is offered and accepted by County M. City S is offered and accepts about $60,000 in grants. This money, along with a large amount of local tax revenue, is spent procuring the appropriate fluoridation equipment and installing it in both water systems. Both systems are both now ready to be turned on.
 
At this point a group of local “experts” step in, citing numerous Internet sources, a slightly onerous study by a graduate student and qualifiers printed on product labels offered by litigious-conscious companies. The group writes many letters to the editors and is vocally present at government meetings. Its members discuss many theoretical problems with fluoridation and even offers a few conspiracy theories.
 
County M’s Commission takes strong and immediate leadership actions by stopping implementation and appointing a prestigious select committee of local experts and scholars in the medical and dental fields to provide guidance. These volunteers spend much time and energy researching and providing a report on the subject of fluoridation. They cite the numerous benefits to large segments of County M’s population and discuss the negligible side effects and safeguards. The members of the committee vote unanimously to recommend that County M go ahead with fluoridating their water supply.
 
ESSAY QUESTION 1: As a County Commissioner in County M, how would you vote and why?
 
ESSAY QUESTION 2: County M’s commission votes 3 to 2 not to fluoridate, returns its grant money using taxpayer funds and spends more staff time removing and trying to sell the previously installed fluoridation equipment. As a City S Commissioner, how would you respond to a call for a revote on your previous decision to fluoridate?
 
ESSAY QUESTION 3: Assume a revote is called and you are still a City S Commissioner, how would you vote and why?
 
Here’s hoping voters will offer their elected representatives sensible answers to these hypothetical questions.
 
admin@mctaxpayers.org

Comments (3) »
Martin County Taxpayers Association columns
Martin County Taxpayers: Students, take out your pencils for this essay exam on fluoride (January 13, 2007) (3 comments)

 Martin County Taxpayers: In your corner: Some holiday advice for our elected officials (December 30, 2006)

 Martin County Taxpayers: The numbers are forthcoming, making it time to demand action (December 16, 2006)

 Martin County Taxpayers: In your corner (December 2, 2006)

 
About Martin County Taxpayers Association
These articles, which are prepared by Taxpayers Association members working together, appear on alternate Saturdays. Your comments, ideas or questions are welcome. Call or fax 288-0474 or write to P.O. Box 741, Stuart 34995. E-mail admin@mctaxpayers.org or visit the Web site mctaxpayers.org.