Lawmakers make last-minute push against fluoride

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

State Rep. Bob Ballinger and State Sen. Bryan King are not giving up their fight against fluoride, which is scheduled to be added to Eureka Springs' water supply beginning Wednesday, July 15.

King told the Lovely County Citizen that he met with Arkansas Department of Health officials last week regarding Delta Dental's business contracts and is writing ADH a letter asking the department to look more closely at Delta Dental's involvement in the push for fluoridation.

"We know that each legislative session, the fluoride mandate could be repealed. Currently, Delta Dental will pay for the equipment if water districts sign a contract that requires [districts] pay the money back if the districts quit fluoridating," he said. "I don't like that water districts are forced into this kind of deal when each legislative session, the mandate could be lifted. You have a law that forces people to pay for equipment on a 10-year deal and if we change the law, they still have to pay. It's like having a gun to your head."

King said he would like to know what the fair market price for fluoridation equipment is in comparison to what Delta Dental is requiring CBWD to pay back. He said he is also working with Madison County on a similar issue.

Despite the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' recent report recommending that fluoride amounts be lowered in the public's drinking water supply for the first time in a half-century, Arkansas cities and counties with more than 5,000 people are moving forward with plans to fluoridate the water supply, because of a 2011 state law that mandates them to do so.

King, R-Green Forest, said he backed a bill that gave local control back to cities and counties. The bill made it from the House to the Senate during the last legislative session but died in the Senate Public Health Committee.

Ballinger, R-Hindsville, said he has "visited with a couple of people and suggested seeking an injunction" to stop Carroll Boone Water District from inserting fluoride in the water supply.

"I have spoken with members of Secure Arkansas but have not heard anything about them moving forward with litigation yet," he said. "The injunction should be a friendly one against the water district and against the state from enforcing the Arkansas code that requires the implementation."

Ballinger and King, along with Eureka Springs aldermen Joyce Zeller, David Mitchell and Mickey Schneider, have been working hard in the fight to stop the fluoride from being added to Eureka Springs' water supply. Over the last six months, several citizens of Eureka Springs, including activist Laura Coker, have spoken against fluoridation at city council meetings and during meetings at local churches.

"The citizens have spoken. They do not want fluoride in their water and they should not be required to have it," Schneider said during one city council meeting.

Comments
View 7 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • What a scam.

    Delta Dental --- That group gives large grants nationwide for equipment to cities to entice them to install fluoridation. Then the city must buy the toxic waste fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid, every year thereafter. What a scam.

    Those companies selling that toxic waste love the scheme.

    And where does it get all that money to give?

    Follow the money and you will see the reason for fluoridation.

    The big money is made by the industries which sell their toxic waste fluoride to communities instead of having to process and dispose of it ($ billions). It drives the promoters and all of the lobbyists hired to conceal the truth with government and national groups.

    -- Posted by jwillie6 on Wed, Jul 15, 2015, at 2:16 PM
  • The ADA and CDC Foundation are funded by special interest groups - some of which benefit from fluoride product sales

    However, the UK Cohrane Group which refuses to take corporate money and says that they could find no unbiased or valid science proving fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults and lower SES kids. They also reported that there is no evidence that cessation of water fluoridation leads to more rotten teeth.

    So Arkansas legislators passed the fluoridation law based on lies they were told which should invalidate the law, in my opinion

    -- Posted by nyscof on Wed, Jul 15, 2015, at 6:28 PM
  • Jwillie's comment is so ridiculous that it really bears no response, so, let's just look at the false statements nyscof has made here, which she knows full well are false.

    1. Nyscof is the "Media Relations Director" for the New York antifluoridationist faction, "Fluoride Action Network". She has posted these same false claims about the Cochrane report, repeatedly, and has had them corrected repeatedly. In spite of knowing the claims are false, she still keeps posting them. This is typical of this activist and her organization, "FAN". They have no compunction about making one false claim after another.

    In regard to "special interest groups", nyscof seems to forget that her "FAN" has no function other than to keep the fluoridation issue alive. Its sole existence, $150,000 annual budget....salaries for the Director, his family, and his friends....the junkets to locales such as New Zealand, Europe, Australia, and all over the US and Canada by the Director and his friends.....are all totally dependent on the ability of this group to keep the fluoridation issue alive.

    Now, with this gross conflict of interest of nyscof and her "FAN" in mind, let's look at her claims about the Cochrane report:

    1. Cochrane did not state that it "could find no unbiased or valid science proving fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults and lower SES kids.

    The Cochrane group established a narrow range of parameters for fluoridation studies it wished to review. It then culled the scientific literature and found 155 studies which fit into its parameters of inclusion. It excluded the volumes of valid studies which did not fit within its narrow range.

    In its review of these studies, Cochrane stated that the majority fit within the parameters it had established for considering them to be at high risk of bias. It did not state that the studies were biased. It stated that they fit within its parameters for being at high risk of bias. Cochrane also stated that of these studies it chose to review, it found insufficient evidence upon which it could base an opinion on the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in adults, or across SES lines.

    2. The Cochrane report did not say that there is "no evidence that cessation of water fluoridation leads to rotten teeth". It stated the same thing as it did in regard to adults and SES.....of the studies it chose to review, it found insufficient evidence on which to base an opinion on the effect of cessation of water fluoridation.

    4. What Cochrane did report was that:

    "Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. Although these results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in children's baby and permanent teeth, the applicability of the results to current lifestyles is unclear because the majority of the studies were conducted before fluoride toothpastes and the other preventative meaures were widely used in many communities around the world."

    ----http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-to-prevent-tooth-decay

    3. Obviously, the "lies" are being told by antifluoridationists such as nyscof, who have no respect for truth and accuracy.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    -- Posted by Sslott on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 3:01 PM
  • To get the story on this dentist who has very poor ratings by his patients, and who responds to every news story in the country regarding fluoridation that comes out on Google alerts, see the link below.

    http://www.dmlawfirm.com/slott-machine-backs-artificial-fluoidation

    "Dr." Slott should lose his license (if he has one) for incompetence. -- A Slott dental patient

    The man is a callous, heavy handed hack of a dentist. -- A Slott dental patient

    The Slott Machine

    Steven Slott's patients can speak for themselves. We are more concerned, and wildly impressed, with Dr. Slott's use of his 'free time.' He has used it to write hundreds and hundreds of blogs attacking anti fluoridationists and supporting artificial water fluoridation.

    Hard Working Troll

    Dr. Slott is easily one of the hardest working trolls in the world. (We mean that with all due respect.) We rarely get feedback from our blogs, but Slott dutifully responded to our April 27 salute to Israel for banning artificial fluoridation. Curious about his polished putdown of our side, we did some research and quickly found that Slott "catapults the propaganda," as George Bush once said, more prolifically than anyone we've ever seen on ANY topic. Slott's propaganda dutifully backs the position, endlessly, that poisoning our water with fluoride and its attendant tramp contaminants -- lead, mercury, aluminum, barium, chromium, etc. -- is good for us all in unregulated doses and without our informed consent.

    Cuttlefish squirting Ink

    Like cuttlefish squirting ink to hide their stink in a morass of misinterpreted research, quotes taken out of context, flat-out lies, half truths and endless diatribes against anyone defending common sense and decency, trolls work to defend their corporate benefactors. Most are paid by corporations to maintain the status quo, whether it's to encourage us to keep paying local water facilities to poison our drinking water, maintain Lee Oswald was a lone nut shooter who used a magic bullet to make JFK's head move violently backward, or champion hydraulic fracturing as a faultless panacea for all our energy needs. So many trolls, so little time to refute them. Slott, however, appears to be the exception, an outstanding troll working entirely on his own without any pay whatsoever from any corporate benefactor.

    Slott Patient Reviews

    It stuns the mind that this overworked dentist works so selflessly in his free time for such a terrible policy. He posts real time blogs attacking anti fluoridationists in so many places all over the world that it seems he invented multi tasking. He is that rare man that can be in two places at one time. He can both work as a practicing dentist and simultaneously champion the poisoning of public water supplies. The Slott machine writes hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pro fluoridation blogs, all while still working as a practicing dentist.

    -- Posted by Becky G on Fri, Jul 17, 2015, at 10:17 AM
  • So, Becky, instead of offering any valid evidence to counter anything I have posted, you make a lame attempt to discredit me with nonsense posted on some antifluoridationist lawyer's website. Truly comical.

    In actuality, I haven't been in private practice for 3 years, and the patients I now see do not write "reviews" on ridiculous little websites that allow anyone to post anything.

    Since you raised Israel, you seem to be unaware that Israel has outsted the irresponsible Minister of Health who made the unilateral decision to cease fluoridation. The Deputy Minister who took over for her has reinstated fluoridation for that country.

    So, do you have anything of intelligence to contribute to the discussion, or are you simply content to display your obvious ignorance on fluoridation? Either is fine with me.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    -- Posted by Sslott on Sat, Jul 18, 2015, at 12:21 PM
  • Diane

    1. So, governments should cease adding their "highly corrosive waste pollutants and co-contaminants" to public water systems? Well there goes chlorine. How do you propose we disinfect our water, then? Boil it?

    2. Yes, there exists an overwhelming problem with untreated dental decay in Australia, the US, Europe, and most other areas of the world. This is a reason for effective preventive measures such as water fluoridation, not a reason to oppose them.

    3. Hexafluorosilic acid and other fluorosilicates do not exist in fluoridated water at the tap. They are completely hydrolyzed long before they reach that point. They are thus not ingested, and are of no concern, whatsoever. In actuality, the "natural" fluoride which antifluoridationists erroneously proclaim to be different from the fluoride ions added through fluoridation, quite often are sourced from silicofluorides in rocks, especially in areas high in igneous rock.

    4. The only contaminants in fluoridated water at the tap, are in such barely detectable amounts, so far below US EPA maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that the ones detected aren't those that exist in water naturally. A complete list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the maxmum allowable level for each, may be found:

    http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

    5. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water is "bad for" any of the laundry list of ridiculous claims you make.

    6. As I have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated, the ones posting lies in regard to water fluoridation, are antifluoridationists such as you who are too lazy to properly research this issue from legitimate sources of accurate information, and who verify the validity of none of their constant flow of nonsense prior to posting it online . If you disagree then I challenge you to provide one single scrap of valid evidence that anything I post is a lie.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    -- Posted by Sslott on Sat, Jul 18, 2015, at 12:53 PM
  • Anyone can argue for or against fluoridation, but the need for it in public drinking water bothers me. With so much information out there, one has to wonder why Delta Dental lobbied and offered with strings attached the equipment. A chemical such as this with questionable benefits being mandated raise a red flag. No one argues the benefits of chlorine, yet it is known and accepted for the good of public health, not so with fluoride.

    So many seemed to be brainwashed to the advantages, yet if one were to read anywhere on the internet, many place have stopped using this chemical, One has to question, why? Why force the entire population to drink what they do not want, when there is so much controversy.

    -- Posted by Concerned Person on Thu, Jul 23, 2015, at 4:33 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: