Skagit Clean Water - Letter to all Skagitonians from Dr. Avery Martin

Letter to all Skagitonians from Dr. Avery Martin

This page last updated 2007-04-28

Dear Skagitonians,

With elections around the corner and ballots already delivered to our homes, I would like to devote this e-mail to the topic of fluoridation.

On our Skagit County ballots, there is a Fluoride Advisory Measure, Proposition 2, by the Skagit County Board of Commissioners. This vote will tell our commissioners how the public feels about adding fluoride into our public water supply, specifically the Judy Reservoir water supply.

I have been asked to give a presentation on this very subject on the KSVR FM 91.7 radio station. It will be broadcast on Thursday, November 2nd, at 5pm. There will also be representation by those who want to have fluoride added to the water. Before you fill out your ballot, please listen to this program called “Skagit Talks”, read the following information, and do your own research. Be an informed voter!

It is ironic that Skagit County is looking at adding fluoride to the public water supply. There are countries all over the world that have either had fluoridation and are now banning it, or, have done extensive research and are not allowing it. Some of these countries are: China, Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, The Netherlands, Hungary, France, Luxembourg, Northern Ireland, Czech Republic, and Japan. And just this past June of 2006, Israel stopped their fluoridation process.

In 2005, cities in nine states — California, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Washington (including Bellingham) — voted to reject, abandon, or prohibit water fluoridation.

Groups that have spoken out against fluoridation within the past couple of years are California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG), Washington Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG), Oregon State Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG), NTEU Chapter 280 — an organization that represents and consists of all scientists and other professionals at EPA headquarters in Washington DC; Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, American Preventive Medical Association, Citizens for Health, and International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology. Individuals within these groups — Waste Action Project, the Willamette Riverkeepers, the Columbia Riverkeepers, Science and Environmental Health Network, and Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, have spoken out against fluoridation also.

According to the Journal of the American Dental Association, fluoride’s benefit comes from its direct, topical action on teeth, not from ingesting (swallowing) it systemically, as previously believed.

Ethically speaking, the issue of water fluoridation is simple — we shouldn’t be forcing medication on people without their “informed consent”. The dose cannot be controlled, each person’s response cannot be tracked, and some people are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effect than others — some will suffer while others may benefit. It also violates the Nuremberg Code for human experimentation.

On March 22, 2006, the National Research Council released its long-awaited review of the EPA’s safe water standard for fluoride. This was a prestigious 12-member panel that completed a 3-year review of the appropriateness of the EPA’s safe drinking water standard for fluoride, at 4 ppm. This is one of the most thorough and objective reviews of the literature in 60 years. The NRC panel unanimously found that the MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) was too high and asked EPA to lower the standard in order to protect children against severe dental flourosis and to protect all groups from bone fracture.

Here, for example, are what two of the NRC panel members had to say about the relevance of NRC’s report to the water fluoridation program:

NAS panel member Kathy Thiessen, a former senior scientist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory who has studied fluoride for the EPA, said the report showed “the potential is there” that water fluoridation is unhealthy. As for the studies finding that higher levels damage children’s IQ, she said it’s possible water fluoridation levels may have a similar, albeit reduced effect. She said in her personal opinion the research suggests “most people should minimize their fluoride intake” — which includes avoiding fluoridated water. “I think you can look at most chapters of this report and say, ‘Whoa,’ ” she said. “We have made major strides from previous (looks) at this topic.”

NAS panel member Robert Isaacson, a distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York in Binghamton, agreed, saying that the possible effects on endocrines and hormones from water-fluoridation are “something that I wouldn’t want to happen to me if I had any say in the matter.” He went on to say, “This report should be a wake-up call.”

Dr. Avery N. Martin has practiced Chiropractic since 1977. He is a Palmer Chiropractic College graduate and a certified Toftness practitioner. Dr. Martin is a founding member of the Washington State Chiropractic Association and a member of the Christian Chiropractic Association. His practice is at the Country Clinic, 13103 Sunday Lane, Mount Vernon, WA 98273-8025. Phone: 360-856-5562 / Fax: 360-856-4923