Government forced poisoning

To the editor,

This letter is in response to “Fluoridation easy, safe dentifrice,” in a letter in the Feb. 19 Telegraph by Deborah Foote, executive director of Oral Health Colorado.

The addition of hydrofluorocilicic acid (commonly known as sodium fluoride) to the public water supply to prevent tooth decay becomes a medicine by FDA definition. If this toxic industrial waste byproduct qualifies as a medicine how can the dose be regulated? It can’t.

The hydrofluorocilicic waste byproduct is what is left over from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers and aluminum. The EPA mandates the labeling of this substance “Class 4,” the highest category of all hazardous materials. The manufacturers of fertilizers are not allowed to dispose of this byproduct in streams, lakes or the environment, but can sell it to municipalities to add to water to keep the children from getting cavities, and guess where it ends up? It ends up in the Animas River after going through the human digestive track.

If you disagree that this material is poisonous, look at the back of your toothpaste tube, it will say “Keep out of the reach of children under the age of six. If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional assistance or contact a poison control center immediately.”

Fluoride is the main ingredient in rat poison because it has no odor or taste and is an efficient killer. Please apply critical thinking. How can a dissolved poison ingested orally toughen tooth enamel without making bones more brittle? It is like swallowing sun screen to prevent a sunburn.

I toured the Durango water treatment facility five years a go and located the palletized stack of bags with a skull and bones, Class 4 poison rating on the front with the MSDS (material safety data sheet) clearly labeled.

Here’s what’s contained in the MSDS:

- “Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant, corrosive), of ingestion, of inhalation. Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (corrosive). Severe over-exposure can cause death. ­

- Mutagenic effects: Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast.

- May cause damage to the following organs: kidneys, lungs, the nervous system, heart, gastrointestinal tract, cardiovascular system, bones, teeth.”

The United States is one of the last developed countries to fluoridate public water. I have no problem with people who want to use this in the form of topical application via tooth paste (personal choice), but have a huge issue with it being added to the water supply without our consent.

Where is freedom of choice? When water fluoridation was promoted as a belief system in the 1950s throughout America, the dentists and the public never were shown where the material came from or what was contained in it and who benefits from its disposal.

Telluride, Cortez, Bayfield and Pagosa Springs have removed it from their water or never had it to begin with. Remember when doctors advocated tobacco use? Dentists are repeaters of what they learn in school, have no authority over water quality and won’t admit the science may be lacking because they will not look.

“Qui Bono? ” – Who benefits?

– Jeff Madeen, Durango

Childhood adversity needs research

To the editor,

Each year, one in five U.S. children suffers from a mental disorder. These illnesses range from depression to anxiety to alcohol abuse. Astoundingly, almost 5 percent of children are addicted to drugs.

Science may never be able to eliminate mental illness. But scientists are learning how to help those who suffer from it – especially children. Research in animals, for example, is yielding insights into how stress experienced early in life can result in behavioral and emotional problems in adulthood.

Unfortunately, that research is under attack. Some activists claim that it’s needlessly cruel. It’s not. What is cruel, however, is shutting down a line of scientific inquiry that may help scientists mitigate – or even reverse – the effects of childhood psychological adversity.

Significant levels of psychological stress are surprisingly common among children. There are more than a half million new cases of child abuse each year, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Such psychiatric stress can result in debilitating mental disorders. Children who suffer abuse and mistreatment early in life, for instance, are prone to substance abuse, domestic violence and suicidal thoughts.

These negative outcomes pose substantial costs for society – including higher rates of crime, drug addiction, homelessness, domestic abuse and incarceration. This much we know. But we don’t know why adversity in childhood often results in these harms later in life – or how we can stop them.

Scientists are beginning to answer those questions, thanks in large part to research with primates.

One line of research involves isolating young animals, such as rats and monkeys, from their mothers in a scientific setting. By introducing this stressor to an animal early in life, researchers can study the effects of difficult childhood experiences on future health and behavior.

For instance, a 2009 study published in Frontiers in Neurobiology suggested that early-life stress disrupted the “HPA axis” – a central hormonal loop in the body – and could lead to aggression and mood disorders in humans.

That discovery points the way to treatment. There are already several drugs in existence – developed with animal models – that can address this sort of hormonal malfunction. Other studies on animals suggest that therapies or approaches for treating the effects of early-life stress must be flexible and adjustable to the individual.

Critics of this type of research claim that animal models are no longer necessary, thanks to new technologies that allow for detailed human brain scans.  But technology simply cannot replicate the results of animal research – results that inform a number of scientific disciplines, from neurobiology to behavioral psychology to sociology.

That’s exactly what the scientists at the American Psychological Association told several Members of Congress in a recent letter defending childhood development research at the National Institutes of Health.

Further, animal research is transparent. Under federal regulations, a committee of scientists and private citizens must review and approve studies involving animals at each research facility.

Primate research – like the studies at the NIH – could relieve the extraordinary human suffering that early-life stress and childhood trauma all too often yield. The potential payback from this research would spread to people at all levels of society.

Given the stakes, we can’t afford to forswear established scientific research that could help children everywhere. Researchers must be allowed to face these challenges head-on.

– Paul McKellips Foundation for Biomedical Research, Washington, D.C.

Showing his true colors

To the editor,

Touche Mr. Giuliani!

By reason of the power that he holds, and the colors that he’s shown, it is obvious that Barack Hussein Obama not only does not love America, but qualifies as an antichrist.

– Michael W. Jarvis, Salt Lake City, Utah