The following items are from Prevention magazine of March, 1962, reprinted here with the kind permission of the publishers.
The year behind us was a significant one in the continuing fluoridation battle. Despite an accelerated, high-pressure campaign by the U.S. Public Health Service (paid for out of your tax dollars, incidentally) to push artificially fluoridated water down the throats of citizens across the width and breadth of the country, 43 out of 56 cities given the opportunity to vote on the question in 1961 turned it down. In this one year alone, voters representing some 2,500,000 water users rejected the mass-medicating proposal, while, those of only about 50,000 approved. (One of the more resounding blows was struck in Salt Lake City, where the vote was 35,864 to 10,389. — a ratio of nearly 3½ to 1 in favor of pure water). In all, 5 Utah cities said an emphatic "no" to Fluoridation in November elections — even after the vigorous, high-financed propaganda program of proponents. Other large cities defeating the water-tampering bill, Cincinatti - for the second time, Sacramento, Calif. and. Saginaw, Michigan.
On the legislative scene, Congressman Walter S. Baring (D., Nevada) attacked the role of the Federal government in promotion of fluoridation. A man who has earned a reputation as a crusading legislator in vital matters affecting the national security and health, Congressman Baring addressed the House of Representatives on September 17, 1961, calling attention to the increasing public rejection of the fluoridation program. He cited attempts by the United States Public Health Service to counter public reaction by "a new accelerated high-pressure program of the U.S. Dental Public Health Division that will be conducted through funds requested under pending House bill 4,742 and Senate bill 917. This legislation he condemned as fostering continued harassment of the public."
Congressman Baring cited examples of "past errors that should have taught official agencies that they should not assume an air of infallibility and indifference to public wishes".
"Our citizens have certain fundamental and constitutional rights", continued the Congressman. "The sooner they are recognized, the sooner we shall resolve the "fluoridation controversy."
"Certainly", concluded Congressman Baring, "when citizens have demonstrated unmistably their rejection of fluoridation, and when there exists substantial disagreement within the scientific and medical professions as to the safety and efficacy in the fluoridation, it should not, it must not be supported at Federal-level.".
Dr. Edward A. McLaughlin, Director of Health for Rhode Island from 1935 to 1959, at one time endorsed the addition of sodium fluoride to public water supplies. On further reflection, he swung around to a completely opposite point of view. Several months ago a resident of West Warwick, R.1., wrote to ask him for a statement of his position. Dr. McLaughlin's reply follows:
Dear Mr. Lefoley,
The following are the reasons for my opposition to putting fluoride in our drinking water. I believe that fluoride in the drinking water will produce a chronic fluoride poisoning similar to lead poisoning which painters suffered from in former days. There are small amounts of arsenic in the fluoride that is placed in drinking water supplies. In the past several years I have seen so many cases of gastro-enteritis and other physicians must have seen similar disorders. I am convinced that this disorder is not due to a virus as we previously thought but due to some toxicity in our water supply. Regardless of how the fluoride is put in the water, there is always the possibility of human error or mechanical error where too much fluoride may be placed at different times in our drinking water supply.
In the past year I have become very much interested in checking the teeth of my younger patients and find that they have just as many cavities as other children have had in the years prior to fluoridation...
My opinion is that adults should not be exposed to the danger of fluoride in their drinking water when other methods can be used in treating children. It is my firm conviction that acute fluoride poisoning does result at times due to human or mechanical failure in operating the system by which fluoride is put into drinking water. I firmly believe that there is danger of chronic fluoride poisoning resulting in osteomadacia (softening of the bones) and osteoporosis (abnormal porous and spaced bone structure), not only in adults but in children. Time alone will tell. When other means are available such as topical application to childrens' teeth and the tablets which mothers can use at home, I do not believe that the whole population of our State should be subject to the inherent dangers which putting fluoride in the water entails. I regret very much that in 1952 I approved of having fluoride in our drinking water system.
Very truly yours,
Edward A. McLaughlin, M.D.
Aug. 11, 1961
The $250,000 bill for the February 6th, 1961, one-hour television show over CBS was picked up by Proctor and Gamble who turned all commercial time'over to the American Dental Association for Dental Health Week. Odd that this firm produces Crest toothpaste (which Proctor and Gamble says contains a Stanisfluoride formula which will do the same as fluoridated water). Which, gained so neatly in sales after The AD.A.'s "endorsement" (later rvised to a mere "recognition" after severe criticism by the Association's own members — including 6 former presidents).
No takers - Reverend Lyle Sheen of Sheffield, Illinois, has had a standing offer for 6 years of $1,000 to anyone who could show that sodium fluoride has anything but a bad effect on the teeth. No takers – naturally.