Regarding the news story “Westmoreland customers getting fluoride out of their water” (Jan. 22 and TribLIVE.com): I'll start with the narrow thinking of Dr. Bernie Dishler, Pennsylvania Dental Association president, whose “junk science” comment misses the point of the ridiculousness of fluoridating municipal water. My opposition has to do not with the efficacy of preventing dental caries — that's probably settled science — but with other issues that render water fluoridation absurd.
Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize winner in physiology in 2000, opposes fluoridation for several reasons. Most importantly, if fluoride is a medication, dosage should be tailored to the individual.
Fluoridation of water systems is tailored to concentration (0.07 milligrams per liter). Any attempt to force individuals to ingest a medication, especially if it is not dose-specific, abridges our rights.
Physicians prescribe medications using criteria such as body weight, age, metabolic abnormalities, allergies, etc. And there should be an effort to help determine if, in fact, you will achieve the desired result. Ask competent physicians if they would prescribe a medication to a random population of different individuals unknown to them. I believe the answer is obvious.
A miniscule percentage of municipal water is ingested by the target population. That alone makes fluoridation wasteful, compounded by the fact that food processors must remove fluoride before using such water.
Fluoride supplements, or dose-specific medication, should be provided by professional practitioners, not by having municipal water employees provide fluoride-treated water for ingestion.
Joseph G. Cremonese
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.