We’ve frequently been told that ’14 Nobel prize winners in chemistry & medicine oppose fluoridation’, which, while superficially impressive, is really just an argument from authority. (Most of those listed are dead, so it’s difficult to gain personal confirmation of their stance.) It’s also a fairly trivial figure, as Terry Cuttress has pointed out:
“Since 1960, there have been 177 Nobel Prize winners in chemistry and medicine. Therefore, only 8% of these prize winners opposed or had reservations about fluoridation. Dr Connett does not differentiate between the number of the 14 who had reservations and those who were opposed. The only correct inference from the data from the Nobel Prize winners is that many of them supported fluoridation or had no firm viewpoint.”
(from http://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/response-50-reasons-oppose-fluoridation_1.pdf)
[…] “Nobel Prize winners and fluoridation” blog article for more […]
If you care to read Paul Connett he is actually stating that chlorine’s accepted classical actions and effects should be reviewed. Unless we disengage and also claim that fluoride could not appear in chlorinated situations -he firstly is discussing –supra-linear results coming from linear accelerator research whereby ‘transmutation of elements’- includes the chlorine atom –becoming a calcium or sodium atom -he is just following that radiation must be recognised as arising from many of the classical –or basic reactions. http://www.fluoridation.com/schatz.htm