If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.
Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.
The remainder of the Newsweek article, showing a refreshing departure from the usual echoing of the mainstream media party line, can be seen here.
In the last election for Grand Rapids mayor there was a candidate who got in the race with the hope of removing fluoride to better the health of the people, especially the children, of the city. He campaigned on a platform for removal of the poisonous substance originally put into the water supply in the dark ages of 1945. Each mayor since then has marched in lockstep with the outmoded concept, afraid to rock the boat and be seen as “radical”, or just too uninformed to understand the criminality of what they were helping to perpetuate.
Hopefully someone will step forth to try again, and this time the people will have the wisdom to do what’s in their own best interest. Because when it comes to fluoridated water, Grand Rapids needs a leader that’s more interested in the welfare of the people than his own political career.
In that election for the Grand Rapids mayor, did that candidate get on the ballot? If they did, how many votes did they get?