I would like to respond to the 'My view" article written by Wayne W. Cottam, DMD, in the March 19 edition of the Deseret News.
Dr. Cottam implied that Julia A. Baker's comments suggested that she attributed the sole cause of tooth decay to the consumption of sugar. He then discussed in detail her common "misconception" as sugar being the single definable cause of cavities. However, in rereading Baker's article, I discovered that Baker believes that sugar is a "major player," which suggests that she is well aware that other factors are involved in tooth decay.Baker states that our efforts should be on prevention, to which Dr. Cottam responded by saying, "Who is going to be the enforcer of the reduced sugar mandate? . . . Talk about government intrusion." From what she wrote, it is apparent that Baker never envisioned the need for sugar enforcers or government intrusion. However, Dr. Cottam's solution is to involve government in the business of dumping a toxic waste into the public water system.
No one would dare consider dumping arsenic or lead into the public water system. However, in consulting a well respected toxicology manual (Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products), we find that fluoride is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic.
It is true that educating people in hopes that they will change their behavior is a slow process. But isn't educating the people far better than turning to government to solve every problem? Many, if not most, medical treatments involve some risk. Shouldn't a person's decision to use fluoride be an individual decision in consultation with one's doctor or dentist rather than mass medicating society through the public water system?
Finally, Dr. Cottam concludes by informing us that adjusting the fluoride concentration is harmless. However, it is important to realize that not all health professionals are in agreement with this statement. For instance, Dr. Hardy Limeback, a biochemist, professor of dentistry at Toronto University and leading Canadian fluoride authority, now concedes that fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and our overall health. Furthermore, because of the health concerns of fluoridation, more than 1,100 scientists and other professionals who work for the EPA have gone on record as opposing the practice of adding fluoride to the drinking water. In reviewing the evidence over the past 11 years, they indicate that there is a cause and effect relationship between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiology studies linking fluoride exposure to lowered IQ in children. As the professionals who are charged with assessing the safety of drinking water, J. William Hirzy, Ph.D., and other EPA scientists conclude that the health and welfare of the public is not served by the addition of this substance to the public water supply. They have also stated that "there is substantial evidence of adverse health effects and contrary to public perception, virtually no evidence of significant benefits."
Fluoridation is not a solution for two main reasons. First, the use of fluoride should be an individual decision. Fluoride is readily available for those who desire it. Finally, fluoridation is unwise in view of several recent studies suggesting possible adverse health effects.
Neil Newbold of West Jordan is the father of four children. He earned a bachelor of science degree in microbiology from Brigham Young University and a master's degree in electrical engineering from the University of Utah. He has worked in medical and industrial research throughout his professional career.