"Is it truly necessary that we continue to fluoridate water in this day and age?" Giles is quoted as asking in The Tennesseean. "Times have certainly changed."
And right they have. Countless studies in recent years have called into question not only the legitimacy of adding toxic fluoride chemicals to water supplies in the name of preventing tooth decay, but also whether or not the chemical is even safe to ingest at all.
Authorities already admit that ingesting too much fluoride causes an obvious condition known as dental fluorosis, where teeth become mottled and rotten. This is why the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) back in January adjusted its recommended "optimal" water fluoridation level from 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L (http://www.naturalnews.com/030952_C...).
But even the CDC's adjusted level is questionable at best, as fluoride chemicals at much lower levels are known to deplete iodine from the body and cause thyroid and immune problems (http://www.naturalnews.com/031317_f...), as well as inhibit brain development and IQ levels in children (http://www.naturalnews.com/030819_f...).
Even a 2010 study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association found that fluoride lodges and builds up in teeth and other bodily tissues, while another study published in the journal Lancet identified fluoride as a "neurotoxic substance" (http://www.naturalnews.com/030123_f...).
Giles says she had been approached by a city employee, City Administrator Victory Lay, and Alderman Amy Wurth, about the issue of water fluoridation, within the past several months. And Administrator Lay reportedly used to work for the Tennessee town of Waynesboro, which ended its water fluoridation program several years ago.
"I believe there's a strong case to [sic] heard for terminating (fluoridation)," said Giles. "There's no supplement or medication that is tolerated by everyone the same. When you put it in there, you take away that choice."
Giles believes with proper deliberation, fluoride could be removed from Spring Hill's water supply as early as the first few months of 2012. And if it is removed, the city will save roughly $20,000 a year by not having to purchase the industrial waste product.
It is important to note that the way by which the fluoride issue even came about in Spring Hill was the direct result of concerned individuals simply asking questions and making their voices heard. It should serve as an inspirational example to thousands of other concerned citizens across the country to begin questioning their own water facilities about the legitimacy of fluoridation.
Sources for this story include: