RE: Water Fluoridation

Dear Editor or Council Members,

I am opposed to the use of the public drinking water to provide medication to a small segment of the population. There are several strong reasons for this.

First and foremost, fluoridation chemicals have never been approved by the FDA. We have government approval for every other drug, why not this one, especially one targeted at young children?

Second there are a number of serious issues concerning the medical ethics of
providing medication via drinking water. These include:

Medicating non-target populations:
The elderly clearly do not require fluoride. Four JAMA articles in the 1990's show an increased rate of hip fractures in fluoridated communities. 25% of the elderly who fracture a hip die from complications/secondary effects of the fracture.

The ADA and JADA recommend no fluoride for children under 6 months and no
additional fluoride for children under 3. How will you protect the vulnerable infants and children from fluoride in their drinking water?

Providing medications in unregulated doses:
The Dental Association's recommended daily dose is 1 mg/L. However,
ingestion from other foods and beverages usually already exceed the total daily dose without fluoridated water. Ask yourself what other medications are prescribed in unregulated doses?

Providing medication via the wrong route of administration:
Most experts agree that the effect, if any, fluoride is via topical
application and not from oral ingestion. Numerous cost-effective
alternatives exist for providing topical fluoride (toothpaste, mouth rinses,
tablets/drops).

Fluoridation currently uses a fertilizer waste byproduct containing arsenic and heavy metals. Even proponents should agree that our children deserve pharmaceutical quality products, not waste products.

"Above all DO NO HARM": The most fundamental principle in medicine is to
do no harm, modern scientific evidence shows that fluoride is linked to
increased rates of cancer, hip fractures, neurologic impairment, learning
disabilities, hyperactivity, substance abuse, crime and lowered IQ in
children. It is indisputable that harm is done to some people in fluoridated
communities. Is that acceptable?

The only ethical thing to do is find other ways to treat the target populations with the proper dose, via the correct route of administration, with medical products that are pure, and properly monitored by qualified health personnel.

You have better access to credible information than at any time since the fluoride debate started over 50 years ago. I also believe you have the wisdom to seek medically-credible, ethical methods for protecting the teeth of Menlo Park's children.

I also consider it an unconstitutional infringement on an individual's right to make an informed choice. Please keep medication a choice between doctor and patient.

Respectfully,