BREAKING NEWS: Fluoride project delayed (updated)

Thursday, July 19, 2012 ~ Updated 9:37 AM

EUREKA SPRINGS -- Opponents of mandatory fluoridated drinking water heard good news Thursday at the quarterly Carroll-Boone Water District meeting: CBWD attorney Dan Bowers said Delta Dental had told him that the fluoride project has been delayed considerably.

"We have withdrawn our proposal and replaced it with a similar proposal, but the funding period is changed to May 2013 to October 2014."

Under the original proposal, construction was to have begun next month and be completed in one year, although that timeline would also have to be extended.

Bowers said dental insurer Delta Dental did not give a reason for being willing to move back funding of the project until next year, but he suspects the company has been flooded with funding requests and may be reevaluating its budget.

Under Act 197, signed by Gov. Beebe last year, water systems in Arkansas that serve 5,000 or more people are required to fluoridate their water, but funding cannot come from taxes or water sales revenue. Delta Dental offered to pay startup costs for every such project in the state.

They balked, however, when consulting engineers McGoodwin, Williams & Yates (MWY) turned in an estimated price tag of $1.23 million for the Carroll-Boone project. Delta Dental countered with an offer to pay $763,000.

Several concerned citizens attended the meeting, and CBWD Chairman James Yates said he would allow 15 minutes' worth of comments.

Donna Hursay said it is frustrating there is no one who will say what is in the fluoride being used in drinking water. She was referring to reports by CBWD that of 49 manufacturers queried about the content of their product, not one replied, nor is the National Sanitation Foundation willing to release the data upon which they based their approval of fluoride products.

"I have a son with a hypothyroid condition, and we can't even touch the water once fluoride is in it," Hursay said.

Natalie Mannering said there is a packet of information at the Eureka Springs library outlining why fluoride is not a good thing. The packet was compiled by Holly Winger, who was also the meeting. She has a background in science.

"It appears the board is not paying attention to the world," commented Richard Schrum, who with his wife, Darlene, submitted a letter in May putting the CBWD on notice that the water district is legally responsible for what goes in the water and any adverse effects it may have. Santa Fé two weeks ago took fluoride out of their water. Most of Europe has taken fluoride out of their water."

"Fluorine is the worst of the halogens," said George Geier, who has a background in chemistry. "There are more thyroid problems because iodine is replaced by fluoride."

MWY engineer Brad Hammond said his company has not redone its original engineering report and estimate to Delta Dental, but he thinks the project could be redesigned in line with what the insurer is willing to pay and address the safety concerns of employees and consumers.

"But we have not done any in-depth design work and won't at this point," he said. "All we have is an estimated per-square-foot building cost. We won't know what the real costs are until we go out for bids. At this point, we aren't doing anything."

Bowers said the board does not need to make any decisions today.

CBWD Chairman James Yates, who has several times reiterated that Carroll-Boone is constrained to follow the law, reminded those attending there is an election in November and the state legislature meets in January 2013.

"Contact your legislators," he said. "They wrote the fluoridation law. Urge others to contact them and let your feelings be known."

View 10 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.
  • Toothpaste Delivers "Enough" Fluoride Without Fluoridation

    Fluoride gets absorbed into the bloodstream even when toothpaste isn't swallowed. According to the New York State Dental Journal (March 2009) "The CDC states that children should have no more than 0.25 mg/F/day for 6 months to 3 years old, and 0.50 mg F/day for 3 to 6 year olds. The above data suggests that brushing a 2 year old's teeth twice a day will expose that child to 0.46 mg F/day (0.23 F/day times 2). Clearly, brushing 2 year olds with 1,100 F toothpaste twice a day brings them over the limit of 0.25 mg F/Day. This is almost double the allowable limits for children in areas with non-fluoridated water, especially when their teeth are most susceptible to fluorosis. This does not account for all the fluoride that children in fluoridated communities imbibe on top of ingestion from brushing with fluoridated toothpaste.

    'In the United States, fluoridated toothpastes make up 95% of the market. Also, there are flavored toothpastes marketed for children that tend to increase the amount used - presumably, this increases the ingestion of fluoride." In a study by Levy et al., preschoolers used a daily average of 0.81g of toothpaste flavored for children versus 0.66g of regular flavor toothpaste."

    -- Posted by nyscof on Thu, Jul 19, 2012, at 4:45 PM
  • Only 5% of the world uses fluoridation because many large studies show fluoridation is totally ineffective in improving tooth decay and is dangerous to health (See The World Health Organization studied 16 countries and showed fluoride is of no value for teeth. Europe has rejected it and is 98% fluoride free. India, Japan, China and most countries now reject it.

    The best scientific information on fluoridation can be found in Dr. Paul Connett's book, "The Case Against Fluoride," published last year. It contains over 1200 peer reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning showing the ineffectiveness and dangers to health from fluoride.

    Also see his very informative site here (

    You will see a petition at this site signed by over 4000 professionals, including hundreds of dentists, hundreds of doctors, and other medical researchers calling on governments everywhere to stop fluoridation; also scientific evidence to show that it causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ, kidney disease, and other serious health problems.

    -- Posted by jwillie6 on Thu, Jul 19, 2012, at 4:56 PM
  • Seven decades of studies show that fluoridation is not only perfectly safe, but it reduces cavities an additional 20-40% more than what toothpaste and other sources of fluoride can do. It represents huge savings to citizens and Medicaid in dental bills. It is penny wise and pound foolish not to fluoridate.

    -- Posted by MotherVoltaire on Thu, Jul 19, 2012, at 8:47 PM
  • The bottom line is that water fluoridation acts to promote oral health.

    Readers interested in checking out community water fluoridation's (CWF) effect on oral health can read the Louisiana study which found that 2/3rds of the operations for terrible cavities in little kids are avoided with CWF. If this were the only effect, fluoridation should still be demanded by ethically motivated reasonable citizens.

    Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay -- Louisiana, 1995-1996. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 09/03/1999 / 48(34);753-757

    A subsequent study from Colorado showed if this was the only benefit, and it certainly is not, the investment in fluoridation paid back a 150% return in decreased dental bills.

    The operations fluoridation avoids are done under general anesthesia and can include extractions, root canals and stainless steel crowns. Each can cost upwards of $15,000. These are real and common cases and will happen more often in your town without CWF.

    -- Posted by Picker22 on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 3:18 AM
  • Despite requesting information from suppliers, this water company has been unable to get documentation that ingesting hydrofluosilicic acid is safe.

    -- Posted by nyscof on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 10:15 AM
  • To those of you who have posted pro-fluoridation comments, please pick up a copy of "The Case Against Fluoride" by Paul Connett, et al. The book is written by three environmental scientists, including Connett whose specialty is environmental toxicology. Crackpots and conspiracy theorists they are not. If you follow their arguments closely, you'll see that they completely shred the whole "safe and effective" propaganda made by misinformed dentists and the CDC (most dentists, by the way, know zip about toxicology), and expose the oft quoted 20-40% cavity saving benefit as a statistical shell game. I've made an offer in other forums to dozens of pro-fluoride advocates to debate this issue offline via e-mail, but none of them appear to have the cojones to do so, instead hiding behind their ADA talking points and arguments from authority. However, I'll extend it here again: Feel free to email me at if you care to have scientific discussion about the issue of water fluoridation. I promise to keep the argument on the level of pure science, if you'll do the same. Any takers?

    -- Posted by sciencejunkie1 on Fri, Jul 20, 2012, at 8:07 PM
  • FLUORIDE HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED SAFE OR EFFECTIVE, AND IS UNSAFE TO INGEST AT ANY DOSE. Is not a necessary mineral for humans or animals, and is therefore a drug, like the fluoride drug Paxil, which has been proven to cause birth defects, and many other adverse side-effects. Why WOULD YOU GIVE THIS TO A CHILD? The damage to your health isn't worth any meager benefit to your teeth, which is already achieved by brushing alone...swallowing doesn't help.

    Fluoridation proponents intentionally promote a system that poisons unknowing mothers, fetus', and babies in a scheme to make money for the Industries that profit from fluoridation. The pro-fluoridation proponents are hired to sell fluoride, and one of their tactics is to have over zealous folks like picker22, MotherVoltair, ImaDentist, and ToothTruth comment on articles like this one, from publications all over North America. You'll see the same deceptive and dangerous comments that usually have three very unscientific components to them: personal attacks at anyone who questions their scheme, and the message that fluoride benefits everyone's health and pocket book, BUT NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

    To legally shield themselves the CDC and ADA's official position is that fluoridated water is unsafe for infants (they ignore pregnant mothers and fetus') But they go out of their way to avoid mentioning this warning in their local lobbying to bully local city councils and water boards into fluoridating water. They spend millions every year to push fluoridation on communities where they know infants and fettus' will be exposed because it's almost impossible to avoid tap water, and they spend nothing to warn those mothers or local public health officials, who in turn have done almost nothing to warn this most vulnerable population of the dangers they are exposing their fetus or baby to. Any attorney general, of any state could prosecute them on that deception alone. Without the PR Spin fluoride wouldn't be in water or dentistry, because it's dangers to overall health so massively outweigh even minor benefits from topical use.

    The industries that profit from fluoridation hire PR firms to spin water fluoridation as a benefit for poor kids, when in fact they suffer disproportionately because poor folks are less likely to be able to avoid the many exposures of fluoride in water, beverages, foods and bathing, where unless you live in New Hampshire, come with no warnings for babies or mothers. Every argument for fluoride is missing sound scientific support. The Louisiana study they promote doesn't control for the amount of Baby Bottle Cavities, Ethnicity, Prevalence of Sealants, Availability of Dental Care, and concluded fluoride worked. When every real scientist sees a crude study, inconclusive at best. But as we've seen before with Asbestos, Lead, and DDT a PR firm can take this and spin it into what they call proof, but it fails to address the root cause, and even dentists will tell you fluoride has no effect on Pit/Fissure cavities which make up 85% of all children's cavities. The people in favor of fluoridation who tell you everything is fine are all somehow financially connected to the industries that want to see this unproven, unsafe, ineffective practice continue. The financial conflict makes them completely uncredible.


    FLUORIDE HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED SAFE OR EFFECTIVE, AND IS UNSAFE TO INGEST AT ANY DOSE. Is not a necessary mineral for humans or animals, and is therefore a drug, like the fluoride drug Paxil, which has been proven to cause birth defects, and many other adverse side-effects.

    Why WOULD YOU GIVE THIS TO A CHILD? The damage to your health isn't worth any meager benefit to your teeth, which is already achieved by brushing alone...swallowing doesn't help.

    -- Posted by Rachel1 on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 4:23 AM
  • I wonder why Delta Dental doesn't spend more time promoting the information that can be found on their website discussing the importance of diet and the benefit of VITAMIN D to teeth.

    Instead of paying to force citzens to consume fluoride, perhaps they should spend more money educating the public they claim they want to protect. Or perhaps this money could be spent providing dental care to those in need. What if Delta Dental covered the cost of fixing dental fluorosis?

    Where is Delta dental getting the money to pay for Arkansas to add toxic chemicals to their water supply? Premium costs? Industry?

    Notice medical insurance companies are not offering these grants. They are too busy covering the cost of thyroid conditions, arthritis, chlolesterol medicine and beyond.

    By the way, when was the last time you asked your dentist for expert advice on matters of internal medicine.

    -- Posted by Il658 on Sat, Jul 21, 2012, at 9:43 PM
  • The bottom line? We don't want fluoride added to our drinking water. For those of you who wish to keep your children's teeth healthy, I suggest you begin good dental hygiene at birth. Breast milk is the best for your child. When done feeding, gently wipe the gums with a dry clothe. Do not give your child fruit juice. Give them water. Fruit juice is loaded with sugars. When primary teeth emerge, brush them gently with a small tooth brush. As they age, model to them how to care for their teeth. Carefully watch their diet. Children under the age of 7 should never have sugary fruit juices or soda. NEVER, and if you can keep your child from ever drinking soda, kudos to you.

    I am so tired of hearing about medicaid. Dental hygiene is a parent's responsibility, not the responsibly of the tax payers.

    -- Posted by rockpilefarmer on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 4:33 PM
  • Mother Voltaire, you should take responsibility for your own dental hygiene. A tooth brush, floss, and a tube of toothpaste is a whole lot cheaper and safer that forcing the rest of society to endure the dangers of fluoridation. And if you are relying on date collected that long ago, you are living under a rock. I am sick and tired of the entitlement community, the medicaid suckers who think that everyone else should help fund their medical and dental care rather than taking care of their own bad diets and habits. Walk into WalMart in Berryville any day of the week and watch the willingly ignorant fat people and their fat children stand in line with processed foods, cases of soda, and other junk food. This is how they spend their food stamps.

    -- Posted by rockpilefarmer on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 4:40 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: