(NaturalNews) As with many cities, water fluoridation has become an emotionally charged topic in Austin, Texas, as doctors, scientists, activists and members of the community continue to push back against the city's long-time practice of medicating the public against their will.Hydrofluorosilicic acid, industrial waste that is a byproduct of the phosphate industry, is routinely added to the city's water. Taxpayers cough up more than $300K each year for the measure.As I reported earlier on, last week, Austin's Public Utilities Committee, which is authorized to review matters related to the city's water utility, met to consider a resolution to stop water fluoridation.A host of well-qualified experts spoke against the measure, highlighting the dangers posed by the industrial chemical.Speaking against the practice was local dentist Dr. Griffin Cole, Environmental Scientist Dr. Neil Carman, former candidate for Austin City Council Dr. Laura Pressley, Executive Director of Texans for Accountable Government (TAG) Justin Arman, Fluoride-Free Austin Founder Rae Nadler-Olenick and her colleague Linda Green.More than 50 pages of scientific reviews and studies detailing the adverse health impacts of water fluoridation were presented at Wednesday's meeting, leaving committee members visibly confused and questioning their moral compass as several of them seemed to reconsider their stance on fluoride.Sent to defend the city's fluoridation practices, Ruth Burazer, Assistant Director of Austin Water Utility, and Janet Pichette, Chief Epidemiologist for Austin's Health and Human Services Department said that water fluoridation has no adverse health effects as long as the fluoride levels are "optimal."Pitchette's testimony was somewhat painful to watch as she struggled to relay her thoughts, with her face twisting in fear and confusion as she tried to address the committee's concerns. Click here and select "Item 4" to view her testimony.Pitchette and Burazer maintained that Austin's fluoride levels are in "full compliance" with the Public Health Department, which were recently lowered from 1.2 parts per million to a maximum of 0.7 ppm, a level that's still been proven to cause health problems, particularly in infants and young children.Pitchette insisted that there are no health problems associated with fluoridation and that it's necessary to prevent tooth decay in children. However, Griffin Cole, DDS, a local celebrity dentist, disagrees.Tooth decay has declined around the world, and not just in places with water fluoridation, said Dr. Cole during his presentation."There has never been a single randomized controlled study that demonstrates the effectiveness of water fluoridation," he said. Even the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) admits , "[F]luoride's predominant effect is posteruptive and topical.""We are unaware of data... about the additional protection from tooth decay that could result [from consumption of fluoridated drinking water]," wrote the CDC in 2012 Both Dr. Cole and Dr. Carman warned that infants are the most at risk for developing health problems caused by water fluoridation, which impacts the thyroid gland, causing neurological impairment. Lower IQs, dental and skeletal fluorosis, and discoloration of the teeth are also caused by water fluoridation.One of the biggest backers of fluoride, the American Dental Association (ADA), said in 2006, "If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it should be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis."Why is it that the entire city of Austin is being treated with what Austin considers to be a drug, without ever being seen by a physician? How can they possibly get the dose correct for everyone?"Due to their small size, infants receive up to 400% more fluoride (per pound of body weight) than adults consuming the same level of fluoride in water," according to Fluoridealert.org "Not only do infants receive a larger dose, they have an impaired ability to excrete fluoride through their kidneys."Mass-medicating an involuntary public is also against the American Medical Association'sregarding informed consent, which states