One effective approach to protecting people is the Precautionary Principle, used all across the European Union. Basically it states that if an action or policy is suspected of causing harm to the public, the burden of proof that it is NOT harmful falls on those taking the action.
In terms of the water fluoridation issue, the Precautionary Principle goes like this: All those that promote fluoridated drinking water must first PROVE that it is not capable of causing harm to the public and that other, safer actions are not possible.
The precautionary principle means: if in doubt, leave it out. Simple. To the point. Why do anything else?
We know what happened when we ignored research information on asbestos.
We know what happened when we ignored research information on lead.
What we learned was: Heed early warnings. If in doubt, leave it out.
At this time we’re not using the Precautionary Principle in Everett. At this time the Burden of Proof rests on the consumers of fluoridated water to prove that it’s unnecessary and unhealthy.
Is that the right way to do it?
Shouldn’t the Burden of Proof be the responsibility of those adding the chemical to the water? Shouldn’t they FIRST prove beyond doubt that it won’t be harmful to us? Isn’t it the government’s job to PROTECT citizens?
Fluoride is known to be bad for adult’s kidneys and for children’s kidneys. Check out the sheer number of pediatric nephrologists in the Seattle area. Ask yourself: Could fluoride have ANYTHING to do with the spike in kidney problems in children?
Ask yourself: Why are we taking these chances with the health of our children – when we could simply teach them good oral hygiene habits and accomplish the same or better results?
Comments are closed.