WASHINGTON, D. C., May 27, 1954. Re H. R. 2341, Antifluoridation. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON, Chairman, Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SIR: We, the people, do not want fluoridation in our drinking water. I do not take medical drugs of any kind, and I do not want sodiumfluoride-rat poison-in my drinking water. They are putting it in the water, to make profits for the huge aluminum trust, the medical trust, the chemical or drug trust, and the equipment makers. From the Congressional Record of March 24, 1952: "A check of vital statistics of Grand Rapids, Mich., which is the only city of size that has had artificial fluoridation for more than 4 years, shows that the death rate has increased 50 percent in this time; from heart trouble, 50 percent; kidney trouble, 50 percent; and brain lesions, 50 percent." We only drink 5 percent of the city's water supply and the other 95 percent of fluorine is washed down the sewer. Why should we have to pay the heavy expense of wasting fluorine in the city water and make ourselves sick by drinking the poison? In Dr. Dean's report on May 27, 1954, for the American Dental Association, they say that when a tooth decays, it is never repaired again by nature, and that fluorine merely keeps the tooth from decaying more. If a tooth never repairs the decay in a tooth under a medical dentist, it is because the dentist knows nothing about nature-cure methods. Mr. Howard V. Inches, a nature-cure health lecturer, had the enamel blown off his front teeth by a buz-bomb explosion in World War II, he said, and he has now grown the enamel back onto his teeth. A lady told me she took the enamel off her teeth by using a highly advertised toothpaste, and that she grew the enamel back on through correct diet-naturecure diet. The medical doctors don't know anything about natural diet and don't want to know. There is no money in keeping people well, it seems. If people can't get fluorine taken out of the water, they certainly can move back onto the farms and be safe for awhile, and in the meantime they can vote out the people who advocate it. I don't think the big property holders would like that, because the price of real estate will go down when people leave the cities. Fluorine is injurious to people, and we are not going to have it in our water, even if we have to vote the people out who advocate it. Baltimore, Md., with a population of 859,100, had a registration list of 510 dentists. Approximate service, 1 dentist to every 1,684 people. Out of 510 dentists are listed the men performing specialized work. 1. Oral surgery, 13; 2. Orthodontia, 11-(deformity); 3. Denture work, 10; 4. Children, 3. 2. FLUORIDATION AREA Houston, Tex., with a population of only 384,514, had a registration list of 285 dentists. Approximate service, 1 dentist to every 1,350 people. Out of 285 dentists are listed the men performing specialized work. 1. Oral surgery, 12; 2. Orthodontia, 20—(deformity); 3. Denture work, 8; 4. Children, 2. These figures and facts prove the detrimental influence of the fluoridation program. Take Colorado Springs, Colo., with 75 years of background, published in May A. D. A. Bulletin of Information, with the population of 37,789 with 46 dentists; ratio approximately 1 to 800 people. Hereford, Tex., with population 2,584 with 3 dentists; ratio approximately 1 to 800 people. Bethesda, Md., nonfluoridation area, population 30,000 with 13 dentists; ratio approximately 1 to 1,684 people. COMMENTS Is the dental profession interested in saving children's teeth? If so, why does A. D. A. report in the two cities of Baltimore, Md., with 510 dentists, and Houston, Tex., with 285 dentists, a total of 795 dentists with only 5 dentists specializing on children's teeth? Total population of these 2 cities 1,243,614. A. D. A.-A. M. A. fluoridation fantasy is not the answer. Poison never made a normal, healthy cell and never will. Codliver oil, calcium medication, exercise, fresh air, sunlight and pure water reach into all the haunts of life and impart that touch of nature, when obeyed, furnishes the open sesame to the miracle of life. GEORGE J. BRETT, D. D. S., Lancaster, Pa. FLUORIDATION-FRIEND OR ENEMY-STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF H. R. 2341 PRESENTED BY ANTHONY J. ROMEO, PRESIDENT OF THE NEW YORK STATEWIDE COMMITTEE OF THE PURE WATER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA This age of modern living has set up such a terrific pace, we could conceivably lose our balance in the mad rush to keep up with the world. New ideas and schemes pop up with such frequency, we hardly have time to understand them all. Consequently, the people of our country could quite possibly commit suicide by taking a very passive attitude when they should demand complete education on new developments. This is especially true in cases where the economical structure of our country or the health of the people is concerned. Fluoridation is probably one of the greater puzzles of this modern age. Much has been said about it, and it is surprising how many people have accepted it as just another step toward easier living, without ever questioning the ultimate benefits or the dangers. Unfortunately, some of our professional men in high places have lent their titles and names to the scheme without, in many cases, making a thorough study of the proposal. Dr. A. L. Miller, Representative from Nebraska, who took part in the congressional hearing on fluoridation in 1952 feels that most of the proponents of the plan have done little if any research on their own and that they are merely parroting one anothers' opinions. I have found this to be true. Hundreds of people I have talked to seem for the most part to fit into one pattern. If they are for it, they are poorly informed or misinformed. They seem to feel that the doctor so and so is a man of integrity and could not be wrong. They do not stop to consider that possibly doctor so and so has been misinformed or as Dr. F. B. Exner has suggested, possibly certain dentists are being pressured into carrying the ball for the fluoridators. On the other hand, I find that those who are well informed on the matter are for the most part against the practice completely or want more time for sufficient study on the matter. In a recent broadcast, one of our top columnists suggested that the 99 percent assurance of safety for the new polio serum wasn't good enough. Yet a lot of people who should know better accept fluoridation wholeheartedly when the percentage of safety leans considerably toward the danger mark. Fluorine itself is an inorganic corrosive; a cumulative poison that could hardly be accepted as an inoffensive element when it is admitted that even a sound and healthy kidney can only dissipate 90 percent of the effect at its best. What will happen to those with ailing kidneys, such as people who suffer from uremic poison for example? We concede that certain tests are being conducted in Newburgh and Kingston, N. Y. We are not satisfied, however, that these tests will be conclusive. First of all, we understand these tests are supervised by proponents of fluoridation; secondly, we hear that statistics coming out of Newburgh are not telling the whole unvarnished truth of the matter. Let us consider, for instance, the statistics given us by the observers at Newburgh. It is claimed that there has been a greater reduction in tooth decay among the children in Newburgh than in the control city of Kingston. However, in the overall picture, the total defects in children of school age are 100 percent greater in Newburgh than in the control city, according to the 1952 statistics of the Department of Education. Why? Could it be that although tooth decay is reduced-other defects are induced? Only an honest study can give us the answer. One of the greatest faults the promoters of fluoridation have is they want to be heard, but refuse in a great number of cases to allow the opposition to present its side. This is, of course, a deplorable situation. If, as the promoters would have us believe, fluoridation is beyond reproach, why then deny the other side the privilege of at least asking questions? We believe that the only way to resolve a question is to have both sides present their cases. Only with all the facts can we be certain of the success of a proposition. The newspapers have in many cases been taken in by the peddlers of fluorine. This, we can say with conviction, is part of a plan set up at the fourth annual conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau, held in the Federal Security Building, Washington, D. C., June 6-8, 1951. The Parent-Teachers Association was also included in this plan along with anyone of importance that could be hoodwinked into taking up the battle cry for fluoridation. Many communities have been allowed a vote on the subject of whether or not to fluoridate their community. In many cases, success for fluoridation comes only when the public had been given but one side of the proposal. Many communities are not even consulted. The city administration puts it in after advice or harping by pressure groups. The general feeling of the opponents of fluoridation seems to be that all has not been told or learned about the plan. That not enough time has elapsed for study. That it is unconstitutional to force medication upon 100 percent of the population to partially benefit a very small percentage. That the profluoridators have not told the whole story honestly and truthfully. That they have led people to believe artifically produced inorganic sodium fluoride is exactly the same as calcium fluoride as found in its natural state in foods and water supplies. The protesters of mass participation also hold the conviction that the promoters are claiming as facts, much data that has long been proven false. Fluoridation is no different than chlorination, vaccination, or pasteurization is a claim often held by the advocates of fluoridation. This is without question a very misleading statement. First of all, you do not have to partake of pasteurized milk. You can, however, do so by choice. Vaccination is a method of preventing a communicable disease as is chlorination. Tooth decay is not a communicable disease and nothing can be gained by fluoridation that cannot be gained much more effectively by at least 10 other methods. These methods are direct treatments for those who desire them without forcing aged and infirm people to ingest a poison that cannot possibly help them, but can very readily hurt them. An amazing fact that disturbs us is why so many dentists and doctors are for fluoridation while equally qualified medical men are against it. It is inconceivable that both are right. Our explanation is as stated previously. Those for it, do not have all the facts or are being pushed into it. Those who have made a study of it are definitely opposed to the whole proposition. Many of us are beginning to look at the human race (and I use the term loosely in the light of recent events) and wonder if it realizes exactly in what direction it is headed. When a newspaper or radio station gives free time to proponents but refuses any time whatsoever to the opponents, then America had better look to its future with much concern. The emphasis on children is tremendous. No one is adverse to our children having things somewhat better than their forefathers. But is it necessary to say to them "All right son, you can eat all the candy you want now, we have fluorine in our drinking water"? Have we coddled our children to the extent that we are willing to shorten the life of our neighbor so that they can have an extra candy bar? I would like to ask the promoters this question: Would any one of you fluoridators bare your arm and allow me, a local barber, to inject into your arm a shot of penicillin, not just one of you but all of you? Reason? There is a little child up the street, who is on the verge of pneumonia and needs a shot of that drug. You'll say, "Why should I take it just because some kid has pneumonia?" Well, aren't you asking us to take fluorine because a kid does not want to brush his teeth? "But," then, you say, "you are not a doctor to go around medicating people." The answer is, neither is the man who doctors our water supply with a poison. Gentlemen, I am going to draw a little parallel here if I may. We have laws that prevent us from killing or even harming the birds of the air. We protect likewise by law the animals in the forests. They cannot be slain out of season, or at all in many instances. But if a human being is killed in the woods, we call it an unhappy accident and very seldom punish the slayer with even the loss of his license. Awhile ago many good Americans made themselves heard way to Washington when they protested the use of cats and dogs and other potential pets as victims in medical experiments. We send to jail anyone who dares to pollute the streams with anything that may destroy the fish therein. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vigorously brings to task anyone who dares abuse an animal. Gentlemen, would it be asking too much if we beg of you to treat us at least as the equal of animals of the air and the forests and the dumb brutes of the farmyard? A warning was sent out from the Department of Agriculture to farmers, concerning the dangers of using fluorine on brood sows. Still, who in this great Government of ours has sent out an alarm that possibly expectant mothers are in great danger from the same poison? A few years ago we were hard pressed to find potatoes that were not half rotted or scabby or both. I chanced to call on a farmer friend of mine. I found him cutting up some of the most beautiful potatoes I had ever seen. "Sell me some," I implored. "Do you want me to go to jail?" he answered. "These potatoes are a cent-a-bag potatoes from the Government, and I don't dare take one into my own house to eat. They are for the pigs." I couldn't help musing, "Great country we've got. The pigs eat better than we do." I've been told that it is corny to talk patriotism. We have been told not to use the slightest emotion when appearing before this committee. Gentlemen, I tell you this: Perhaps the fluoridators can stand before you begging to be allowed to proceed with a coldhearted commercial proposition, but we who spend our own money and time and effort (and some of us can ill afford to) speak to you and implore you to stay the hand of the poisoner and we cannot help displaying the emotion we feel in our hearts. Who can love or sing or watch a ball game without emotion? Can you truthfully say you could face a loaded weapon without emotion? My friends, I only wish you had the great privilege that I have had here in Washington the last few days. I wish you could be near to these good people who came from the far corners of this great country of ours to protect it. They are men and women with determination and hearts that beat with the tempo of the marching feet of the soldier who is willing to sacrifice his all that this country may survive. I don't see doctors, dentists, scientists, housewives and such in this group. No, gentlemen, I see the little group huddled together at Valley Forge who so valiantly stood up under terrific hardship and fantastic odds to shield the neighbor they loved. On the benches here I don't see Mr. Smith, Representative Brown, or Congressman Jones. I see great leaders and fearless statesmen of old, who had the courage of their convictions and feared not to speak with truth regardless of the outcome. You are the people in whom we place our faith. Please don't let us down. Today we are either surrendering or being relieved of our hardearned liberties, one at a time, day by day, year by year, until the democracy we paid so dearly for will have completely disappeared to high government. This fluoridation is just another method of taking away another liberty. That is why we are fighting, my friends, because we feel that a liberty that is not worth fighting for is not worth having. Please, sirs, we implore you, don't take away these liberties. Give them back to the people who gained them. Please, gentlemen, give us back our country. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., May 5, 1953. Re Mrs. Frieda Zwerling v. City Water Fluoridation City Hall, San Francisco, Calif. (Attention: Water Department.) GENTLEMEN: In January 1953 Mrs. Frieda Zwerling, 1865 Oak Street, San Francisco, came to my office with a very distressing dermatitis of the whole body, a badly cracked and swollen tongue, painfully inflamed inner cheeks, and deep cracks at either corner of the mouth. The source of this very painful condition was not determined at the moment. When remedies prescribed failed to relieve, she discontinued drinking the city water and in a few days the mouth conditions were healed. The natural conclusion was that perhaps discontinuing bathing in the city water might relieve the general dermatitis. This proved to be true with the exception of slight irritation which entirely disappeared when her garments were not washed in the city water. You can imagine the plight of this woman as she is deprived entirely of the use of city water, and small wonder that she objects to drinking of the poison that she finds in insect and rat poisons. The patient also informs me that she finds a great many of our citizens in a similar plight, which is to be deplored. Very truly yours, A. R. GOULD, M. D. P. S.-A brief personal report: I live in Los Altos, spend 4 days a week in my office in this city and find the frequent washing of my hands in the city water has for some time brought about a dermatitis which is also deplorable. ROGERS PARK, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA, April 19, 1954. Re H. R. 2341. Hon. CHARLES A. WOLVERTON (Chairman) AND MEMBERS, House Office Building, Washington, D. C. GENTLEMEN: A careful 3 months' study of all phases of fluoridation, particularly testimony in hearings before the Delaney committee, conference proceedings, State dental directors with the Public Health Service, Washington, D. C., June 1951, and correspondence with citizens' groups in many states, including Scotland, convinces us fluoridation was never intended for the public welfare. We find a premeditated, concerted, determined policy of deceit, evasion, concealment of facts, and coercion being used by fluoridation proponents, with spirit of contempt for democratic government, congressional action, constitutional law, and flagrant disregard for individual and public rights and welfare. We beseech, therefore, that Federal legislation be enacted to prohibit fluoridation of public water supplies; further, that complete investigation be made into the policies and people responsible for this federally initiated and federally promoted fluoridation program, including executive personnel of the United States Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, American Dental Association, and any and all other persons or organizations, who, knowing all facts, continue to pressure communities to fluoridate without revealing those facts. It is also respectfully asked that such investigation be carried through to full, just prosecution of all guilty of this unprecedented violation of the public trust, rights, and welfare, and maluse of public funds; further, that careful scrutiny of public relations policies governing the United States Public Health Service and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare be made, and action taken to restore such policies to guidance of moral, constitutional, ethical principles. Scores of citizens here join in this request, many of whom, by reason of their positions and responsibilities, are giving their utmost for the public protection, health, and security in this area. Thank you for your earnest consideration of the rights, health, welfare, and security of Alaskan citizens as well as all under the American flag. Respectfully submitted. Mrs. ROBERT H. CRANE. The CHAIRMAN. The first witness on behalf of the opponents this afternoon will be the representatives of the American Dental Association. I would be very glad if those who are present representing that association will indicate the order of their witnesses. |