BY Katherine K. Kelly and Donna Westfall

In a recent editorial in the Del Norte Triplicate, editor Richard Wiens writes a mea culpa about the Triplicate’s failure to fact check a political ad. I say to Mr. Wiens, fact check your own reporters before wagging your finger at ad writers.

In an article dated October 15^th, Ballot Encore: Fluoride’s Back, the article is riddled with half-truths, some outright falsehoods, and repeated rhetoric that does not stand up to scrutiny by anyone looking past mere talking points.

For example, a statement presented as fact is 100% wrong. Reporter Emily Jo Cureton did not do her homework or any real research beyond reading the Center for Disease Control (CDC) website, who’s Dental Division is very biased in favor of water fluoridation. She contends that water fluoridation “began in the 1940s after researchers discovered residents had fewer cavities in communities with naturally fluoridated water, though fluorosis (discoloration of the teeth) was more common.” While it’s true that water fluoridation started in the 1940s, had Ms. Cureton looked beyond the political rhetoric she would have discovered what no fluoridationist wants to admit: that fluoridation began on fraud and lies.

Trendley Dean is the researcher that came up with the ground breaking discovery that people with fluorosis had cavity resistant teeth. But Trendley Dean also admitted that it was a complete lie and he had cherry picked certain data and left out anything that didn’t support his agenda, which was to help Alcoa find a good use for their toxic fluoride waste. So fluoridation actually began using fraudulent data and research and is based solely on a big fat lie.

It’s also telling that no one will admit that silicofluorides are more toxic than naturally occurring fluoridated water. They are 85 times more toxic, yet the article babbles on about how it’s non-cumulative, which is also not true. Half of what you consume you retain, and not just in bones. Research shows it also accumulates in the aortic artery, among other calcium rich tissues, and causes stroke and coronary artery disease. The research exists if you can get past the pro-fluoridation propaganda. 

And speaking of propaganda, once again it is stated that “The Centers for Disease Control proclaimed fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.” This was written by a public relations agent writing a news release for the CDC. No scientist or great researcher made this proclamation. But I guess if you say something enough times it becomes the truth for some, and a health hazard for others. The Portland, Oregon public recognizes this fraud for what it is.  They handed in over 43,000 signatures last week on their referendum which was filed an hour after their City Council voted 5-0 to force water fluoridation down their throats.  The public needed less than 20,000 signatures handed in, in 30 days. Kim Kaminski and her group handed in boxes and boxes of signed referendum sheets a day early. Three prior times, fluoride has been rejected  in Portland.  Calgary, Alberta, Canada (population over 1.3 million) turned off the fluoridation spiggot  February 2011. Groups all over the world are sick and tired of this 67 year old fraud and are steadily fighting back.  New Hampshire Governor signed into law August 4, 2012, a bill requiring fluoride warnings on water quality control reports regarding the harm to infants.  Our little town keeps up the charade of water fluoridation fraud through continuing to spread the propaganda via the local newspaper that this toxic industrial waste product is helpful, refusing to do some simple fact checking. 

Something else Ms. Cureton got wrong was the original vote for fluoridation. It happened in 1968, not 1970. The first vote on fluoridation in 1968 was rejected by the voters, but the city council ignored the will of the people and started fluoridating anyway. It wasn’t until two years later that another vote was held to continue fluoridation, after propagandizing the population for two years. Remember this little inconvenient fact next time the city council says they can’t stop fluoridation because the people have to vote on it. It didn’t matter in 1968 what the people wanted. If you research Davis, California, you’ll discover they rejected fluoridation 5 times, the last being in 1990.

Above all, the article did not address the true crux of measure A: doing the job the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) refuses to do. If NSF held fluoridation chemicals to the standard of all other water additives, it would not be added to the water. The suppliers did not respond to the Triplicate’s request for a statement just as they refuse to talk to anyone else or provide the information requested for certification. The licensing requirement for our water system requires all water additives must conform to NSF Standard 60, and our water fluoridation chemical does not! “The NSF standard requires that the chemicals added to drinking water, as well as any impurities in the chemicals, be supported by toxicological evaluation” according to Stan Hazan, General Manager, Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, NSF. “A toxicology evaluation of test results is required to determine if any contaminant concentrations have the potential to cause adverse human health effects” from the NSF Fact Sheet, 2008.

These required studies have never been done. But NSF has admitted through annual inspection of fluoridation chemical suppliers that the most common contaminant found is arsenic, and in some batches at cancer causing levels. Our drinking water is only tested for arsenic every 9 years. So at any time our water could contain arsenic at levels high enough to cause cancer. When you consider that 1.3 persons in our community die each week from cancer, which is a very high rate for our population size, adding a possible carcinogen to our water is not very smart. If you check the American Cancer web site you’ll see statistics showing Del Norte County 34th in the nation for cancer compared to Brooking, Oregon at 765th.  Brookings has never fluoridated.  Do you think there might be a correlation?

As recently as last  month, both the NSF and UNIVAR (formerly known as Basic Chemical Solutions, the supplier of  HFSA to the City) will not produce toxicological reports, a listing of contaminants and proof that their product is safe for all consumers.

Of course, the Triplicate stayed clear of this minor controversy in their October 15th article by  1.) Trusting the Dental Division of the CDC. 2.) NOT researching that Trendley Dean’s research was based on lies, 3.) NOT researching the fact that silicofluorides never stopped one tooth from decay and the type of fluoride we use (hydrofluosilicic acid or HFSA) is 85 times more toxic than naturally occurring fluoridated water;  4.) NOT checking on the “vote” in 1968; 5.) OFT quoting once again the biggest lie…”One of the 10 greatest achievements ….”which, mark my words, will prove that water fluoridation will be known as one of the biggest frauds in US and world history right up there with LEAD, DDT, Thaliodimide and cigarette smoking; 6.) NOT fact checking other lies and half truths parroted in past articles like $38 saved for every dollar spent; 7.) NOT admitting that with 70% cavity rate in our local children’s teeth after 40+ years of fluoride in the water just goes to prove that water fluoridation does not work. 

Endorsements by prestigious groups are not proof that water fluoridation is safe or effective.  In a recent e-mail exchange with the “prestigious” American Academy of Pediatrics out of Illinois, their spokesperson, Hollis Russinof, proved once more their ignorance by denying 41% of our nations teens have fluorosis, the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning.  Even 3 of our 5 our city council members voted last year to reduce our dose down to .7 ppm  based on that statistic.

Might look bad if the Del Norte Triplicate actually used some common sense and had a reporter do some actual research and fact checking on a subject they have historically been very biased. Emily Jo Cureton, I would say your article would get a B in high school lit class, but as an investigative piece of reporting I give you an F.  Editor Wiens, please demand more accuracy and fact checking of your reporters. Our public deserves better.