The Oakes judges did not award a prize in the magazine category, however—a first since the prize moved to Columbia from the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2005. Next year, Morgan said, the school will begin accepting entries from online-only publications.
- 1
- 2
This is great; I'm glad there are papers supporting this sort of work by science journalists, which truly serves the public. I'll never forget the weeks in 2001 when I was allowed to hole up in the library, digging into scientific studies for my stories about a water fluoridation controversy in Flagstaff, Arizona. In that case, my efforts revealed that fluoridation fears were overblown based on the peer-reviewed scientific literature, a fact which -- when I revealed it in the Arizona Daily Sun -- did not make me popular with some readers! Still, I remain grateful that the paper (a small daily) saw fit to let me do my homework, rather than churn out the he said/she said party lines. Good for these reporters who dug in, and good for their papers who allowed them the time and freedom to do it.
Posted by Anne Minard on Sun 8 Mar 2009 at 01:51 PM
Some day the fluoridation story will also win an investigative award too. But I believe, complications arise because the corporations who profit from selling fluoridated products and who subsidize organized dentistry (who promote fluoride use) are the same corporations media depends upon for advertising, such as Proctor & Gamble, etc.
If P&G is miffed at a newspaper story about one of their products, they have been known to pull out all of their product advertising which would be suicide for some outlets.
So here we are with the internet getting our information directly to the people who have to take action in their own hometowns.
We applaud Anne Minard for taking on this unpopular story, fluoridation, and her newspaper for having the courage to tell the truth. Someday she'll be on 60 minutes.
The belief is so deep that fluoridation is a safe and effective method to reduce tooth decay, that officials themselves aren't fact-checking their own information.
Case in point, the American Public Health Association re-stated its support of water fluoridation, citing many studies that prove fluoridation is safe and effective. However, a cursory look at those studies shows that many of them don't even address the safety and efficacy of fluoridation and, in fact, show that fluoridation is NOT safe for everyone.
See our news release at:
http://tinyurl.com/APHAdeception
Posted by nyscof on Tue 10 Mar 2009 at 12:39 PM
For Anne Minard's edification and others interested, I list here 2 government reports and an entire journal's report;
1. Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F), 1993, US Dept. Health & Human Services/ATSDR. This book notes the problems with some of the studies that have been touted by dentists. See pages 112; Subsets of the population unusually susceptable to toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds are the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems. Page 125: Neurotoxicity. Because fluorides interact with calcium ions needed for effective neurotransmission, fluoride can affect the nervous system.
2. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, NAS report for Congress, 1993. see pages 11, 16, 34, 44-45, 128, and 129.
3. Journal of Dental Research, Special Issue, Vol.69, Feb. 1990, Worldwide Symposium on Fluorides. Entire book is important, especially article by Drs. Pendrys and Stamm. And Poster No. 7, page 826-827 (notes combinations of caffeine and fluorides resulted in two-fold increase in blood plasma)
Posted by Anita on Sun 15 Mar 2009 at 12:35 AM