On fluoridation: Considering that a small amount is beneficial to developing teeth (I personally think it isn't, but for the sake of argument, say that it was) what measures would be in place that only the proper amount is added to the public water supply? Fluoride is a poison: too much, and it kills. What would prevent Joe Newguy down at the water plant from goofing up and putting too much in? Or consider the risk of terrorism. What would prevent someone from breaking into a water treatment plant and increasing the fluoride dose to lethal levels?

Anyway, if fluoride is beneficial (and no one seems to give out any specifics on the studies that prove this, such as who conducted the study, how many test subjects were involved, when it was conducted, for what length of time, is it on-going, do subjects continue to be monitored, what was the control group, whether or not any testing was done on effects to soft tissue organs, etc.) Š anyway, if fluoride is beneficial, wouldn't it stand to reason that a direct application to tooth enamel in the form of brushing and mouth rinse would be of more benefit than a brief passing through the mouth on the way to the stomach? I don't know anyone who swishes tap water around in his or her mouth for 30 seconds or a minute before swallowing to get the benefits of fluoride.

And the nerve of asking people to fund this through tax dollars, and then to tell them that to keep it out, they have to pay $200 for a filtering device..

This subject always gets me worked up. It is lunacy, and I do wonder where it will all end.

John Ford, Associate Editor, Neosho Daily News

For his thought-provoking editorial, click here.

Go Back