State oral health director challenged over comments about fluoridation

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

EUREKA SPRINGS -- The battle against mandated fluoridation in the State of Arkansas has again been enjoined by concerned citizens, who are challenging recent statements made by the state's oral health director.

A letter dated Feb. 19, 2009, by Hot Springs attorney Janie Evins, representing a group of concerned citizens, challenged State Oral Health Director Lynn Mouden on several statements he made while testifying before the House and Senate Interim Committee on Public Health, Welfare and Labor on Dec. 18, 2008.

A copy of the letter was forwarded to the Carroll-Boone Water District (CBWD), who provides unfluoridated water to its four member cities of Eureka Springs, Berryville, Green Forest and Harrison and their subsidiaries.

In the letter, Evins demands retraction of eight "false or misleading statements" about fluoridation made as fact, and not opinion, in Mouden's position as a dentist and public servant. It demands he either state they are his opinion, or if fact, support them with scientific proof, or retract them. He had five working days to respond or the citizens would take further action.

Evins says Mouden's use of his membership in the state and national dental associations and his public servant position to promote fluoridation is unethical and "likely to mislead or deceive because of a failure to disclose material facts" about fluoridation.

The result of unfairly influencing a positive outcome toward mandated fluoridation, she says, will place an undue burden upon the state's citizens to purchase costly devices to remove fluoride from their water if they don't want it.

Her letter challenges the truth in several of Mouden's statements, such as that fluoridation is "merely the intentional upward adjustment" of a naturally occurring fluoride ion. It omits that other toxic chemicals, such as arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury, included in the industrial waste fluoride product, would also be added to the water.

Also challenged is Mouden's statement that "tooth decay is a fluoride deficiency disease," as though fluoride were an essential vitamin.

In 2008, CBWD Office Manager and Water Operator Jim Allison and 10 other water operators at Carroll-Boone wrote a letter to Mouden asking, under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), whether new legislation was afoot in the state legislature to require fluoridation of the water supply and whether affected parties, such as water district operators, would be notified.

He and the water operators expressed their "adamant opposition" to mandated fluoridation.

The only response they received was a statement that their questions did not fall under the FOIA.

The fluoridation issue has been on the table for CBWD's member cities twice before but was defeated both times.

"All the cities wanted it except Eureka Springs," Allison said. "It was their city councils that voted for it, but in Eureka they decided it was important enough to let the people decide, and the people turned it down."

Eureka's veto was enough to defeat it.

"We told the cities they were welcome to fluoridate the water when it gets to them, but none of them wanted to do that," Allison said.

Eureka Springs is not the only Arkansas city who turned the vote over to the people. Crystal Harvey of Hot Springs is an avid opponent of mandated medication of the pubic water supply to prevent or treat disease without solid scientific data of its safety and effectiveness and citizen support. She collected petitions which forced the Hot Springs city council to put the issue to a referendum vote. Citizens voted it down.

The measure has also been defeated in other cities, such as Texarkana, where the citizens, as opposed to the city council, were allowed to vote on it.

Harvey said she is not against people choosing to use fluoride. They can get it from their dentists or from department stores and use toothpaste that contains it.

"I'm not anti-fluoride," she said. "I'm anti-water fluoridation. I am anti-medicating people without their consent."

Harvey said Evins received a response March 4 from Deputy General Counsel Reginald A. Rogers of the Arkansas Health Department.

Rogers does not respond to the demands in Evins' letter for proof of Mouden's statements but merely states, "The comments made by Dr. Lynn Mouden . . . are consistent with credible scientific evidence. Community water fluoridation has been proven in scientific research and practical experience for more than 60 years in the U.S. as being safe and effective. While your client may disagree with some statements made, we base our policy on proven science."

Harvey said that as Mouden missed the deadline, she sent a copy of Evins' letter to the governor's office.

State Representative Mike Burris has filed Bill #1804 for the state legislature this year that will require public water operators not to introduce any chemical additive for the treatment or prevention of a disease without obtaining product review data and making it available to the public.

The chemical must also meet the product classification standard of the American Water Works Association. Water operators violating this law would be liable to pay court costs for enforcement of the law.

(Editor's note: For an explanation by Crystal Harvey of why Bill #1804 is important, click here.)

View 5 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.
  • I Hope Dr. Mouden and the others who promote fluoridation take this opportunity to actually review the data themselves. I'm sure Mouden truly believes that fluoridation is safe for everyone because that's what he's been taught.

    Recently, the American Public Health Association made the same wrong assumption and took the word of another prominent fluoirdationist who wrote the APHA fluoridation position statement where APHA asserts "All of these reviews have found CWF [Community Water Fluoridation] to be safe and effective." Here's the truth about APHA's "supportive" references:

    National Research Council (2006)

    This isn't a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis. It found EPA's current fluoride maximum-contaminant-level-goal for drinking water is not protective of health and must be lowered. (2)

    Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)

    This report says "... subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds...the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein." (3)

    University of York, UK (2000)

    About this report, the Centre for Review and Dissemination writes "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide." (4)

    Lewis and Banting, Canada (1994)

    "The effectiveness of water fluoridation alone cannot now be determined," they write. (5)

    New York State Department of Health (1990)

    The authors concluded: "... some individuals may experience hypersensitivity to fluoride-containing agents." And, " is currently impossible to draw firm conclusions regarding the independent effect of fluoride in drinking water on caries prevalence using an ecologic study design." (6)

    World Health Organization (2006)

    This report, not about fluoridation, documents high levels of natural fluoride causing human bone and teeth malformation in many countries. (7)

    Medical Research Council, UK (2002)

    This report, not a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis, identifies fluoridation health uncertainties such as total exposure and bone effects. (8)

    Institute of Medicine (1999)

    Since fluoride is not a nutrient, this report set the adequate intake from all sources to avoid children's moderate dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) and, also, the upper limit to avoid crippling bone damage -- which the IOM admits "is too high for persons with certain illnesses..." (9)

    While APHA says that fluoridation reduced the incidence and severity of tooth decay, "No clear reasons for the caries decline have been identified," according to dental textbook, Dentistry, Dental Practice, and the Community (Burt and Eklund).


    -- Posted by nyscof on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, at 3:43 PM
  • ADA tested dental professionals in Indiana and discovered only 17% understood the current science that fluorides benefit is topical and posteruptive meaning ingestion is worthless. After 3 years of remedial information 25% got it right. Not exactly standing tall. Illinois only scored 14%. Yikes. How is it possible for such smart people? A blind belief system in what they were taught and belief in ADA talking points most likely.

    Poughkeepsie NY had the same questions about stated health department questions and asked. They said not unless written down and then refused to answer a single question for a year. The city commission voted to end 50 years of fluoridation. I personally have found if you give soft ball questions they answer sometimes but only policy statements and endorsements usually. I have had them admit they never read the studies so have to read to find the answers. Then I get no response. I had 5 local talk shows willing to

    -- Posted by Jim Schultz on Tue, Mar 10, 2009, at 8:47 PM
  • Not often mentioned is the product used for 90% of fluoridation is actually smokestack pollution scrubber waste from phosphate mines and processing. They had killed catle and crops downwind and just put up taller stacks at first but in 1970 the EPA made them install scrubbers to collect toxic waste. Just call it product. Fluoride airborn pollution had more lawsuits then all the other airborn contaminates combined from 1957-68. It is evil nasty stuff and at 1ppm HF acid in air can etch glass. It is many times more toxic the natural calcium fluoride that nature puts in water. It is at least 25 times more toxic for killing rats and I have seen 84 times reported also. That is the LD50 scale for killing animals. For our safety the FDA has refused to ever review or approve any ingested fluoride ever for human use. It sort of got grandfathered in as effective prior to 1938 but did not mention that is for killing rats. People ,rats sort of the same right. It is now a new unapproved drug at FDA. The EPA regulates it as a contaminate as no FDA data has ever shown it a nutrient or probable nutrient. They had listed it up until 1978 but lost 3 lawsuits as they had no data to support the claim. Most health agencies still make the claim with ZERO science to support.

    Fluorine is the most electronegative ion known to man by about 40% greater. It can react with even nobel gases which was said impossible and would make the best rocket fuel but is too risky. Even the tankers 1/4 inch steel would be eaten before delivered if not lined with rubber. It eats metal and glass and most everything and destroys plant equipment like pumps and pipes and meters etc. It also destroysa your homes pipes with corrosion if PH control is not perfect of they do not add corrosion control chemcials. Washington DC had the worst water in the US from 2000-2004 fromlead leaching when they changed disinfectants to chloramine as the EPA suggested. They did not mention it would destroy the pipes. It did and put huge amouts of lead in the water hundreds and even thousands of times over limit of 15ppb. They did what you would expect and covered it up for over two years risking everyones health. They fired the employee who told the public. They faked studies to prove no one damaged. New studies just came out last month proving that a lie. See washington post .com for the story . Marc Edwards water consultant spent years proving this fraud. So if you want cumulative toxins with no ingested benefit that damages pipes and people--Fluoridation is perfect.If you want better teeth then geet good nutrition and see a dentist early and clean your teeth with salt and baking soda or maybe very sparingly with fluoride toothpaste only when old enough to spit and not swallow. Most young kids do the opposite as they love the taste. This destroys teeth and who knows what else. Real science not group think by people sworn to promote fluoridation no mater what. Informed consent is a right you do not have with fluoridation. Trust you dentist and doctor only when the show themselves worthy. Very few do on this issue. Help them become better people. They will resist. You have some good people in Carrol county that do their research. Require proof in the form of current studies and research of both sides. Ask dentists if they care for medicaid poor kids. Most do not. ASK why not.

    -- Posted by Jim Schultz on Wed, Mar 11, 2009, at 11:08 AM
  • When I first started talking to my city 4 years ago I thought they would be interested in the science. Absolutly Not. One guy out in the water plant told me we have had people like you here before. Eventually you will go away. It took them 93 days before they made their first written rensponse which only stated policy and a page of endorsments. Not what I asked. I went to a meeting with the utility manager and water plant manager and they first said they would answer no questions. I asked what is the purpose then. So I got to state my position. My next meeting was with the City manager and Assist manager. Again they would not respond but did state the only concern was for the welfare of the citizens. the Mayor is a dentist and strongly supports fluoridation. I would make my presentation based upon government data or peer reviewed studies and he would tell the public it was only antedotal . I gave them copies of the studies before I spoke to verify source. After about a year they wished to not be annoyed by the facts so made a rule of two that no one could talk on the same topic more then twice. When I came to speak they would not allow me. The newspaper mentioned they were banning free speach and the first admendment foundation would not represent my case. They ended the policy after 3 months.

    Unknown to me the mayor at city expense had made DVD's of 13 of my times speaking to warn other dentists so they could fight what I had to say as well as other cities. I only discovered this in a records search in another city when I found transcripts of my statements but in the wrong city. I then thanked the Mayor for assisting me in teaching dentists the current fluoride science. Now in court they can not claim ignorance as they were informed by my mayor.

    I then started speaking to many of the local cities to serve them notice of the risks they are exposing water users to with Zero informed consent. Ormond Beach Fl did inform users of ADA infant formula for babies to not use fluoridated water. The first night I told the commission the mayor said I lied. He had not read the ADA egram I had given all the commissioners before the meeting. The next meeting he agreed to tell the public in the newsletter. Then a warning in the website of the city. Then after a year and not putting it in the anual water report asked the cable company to put a city warning for the entire county on 2 cable channels. Another city put a notice in a water bill. very small steps.

    The health department people were even more bone headed. When I got 5 local talk shows interested in a debate and a city building they refused to talk to me or answer emails. They had before. I challenged them this was a chance to do their job of informing the public. They wanted no part of anything other then stating policy and no answers.

    They do not serve the public but only policy right or wrong.

    On a local channel 6 fluoride damage news cast the health department was quoted as saying'No valid study has ever shown fluoridation hurt anyones teeth ,young or old. Of course all data show sharply increasing dental fluorosis rates which is only caused by excessive fluoride dose as young children. The state says dental fluoris is not a medical effect so they keep no records and will not discuss it. They keep their heads stuck in a very dark spot. Ignore reality and put all at risk. Florida also will also not put toothpast on the poison list for homes and told me it was not as it would be almost impossible to kill a child with it. The supervisor could not stop laughing when I said it was a risk. Actually it is the most common poison control call. I said ther ADA claims it is the cause of most of the moderate and severe dental fluorosis as a cumulative toxin. They said then talk to the dentists. Government is a wonderful thing. Many are worse then useless from my experience.

    -- Posted by Jim Schultz on Thu, Mar 12, 2009, at 1:59 PM
  • More dentist-fluoridation theater occurred in Del Rio, Texas, after the legislators voted to stop fluoridation. The fluoridationists' unscientific emotional appeal caused the weak-willed Del Rio legislators to reverse their sound decision.

    You can read about it here:

    -- Posted by nyscof on Mon, Mar 23, 2009, at 7:46 AM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: