Solved: AARP Online Community and Discussion Forums - Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action - Page 50

CarryAnne · ‎02-02-2015

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.

SCIENCE REFERENCES

2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞

2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);

2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.

1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf

EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008

Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf

Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”

PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:

a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!

CarryAnne · ‎10-14-2024

“Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)

Well, it as been a busy few weeks!

Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real."

In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers.

UNSAFE: p. 2: the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.

HAZARD: p 5: The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people.

View solution in original post

CarryAnne · ‎10-01-2016

“The government hires scientists to support its policies; industry hires them to support its business; and universities hire them to bring in grants that are handed out to support government policies and industry practices.” - David L. Lewis, PhD, microbiologist (2014)

Have you seen the latest two exposes on fluoridation?

Out of Israel, a social science team documents the misrepresentation of scientific and historical fact by lobbyists and politicians in order to deceive the public and mandate a policy that benefits vested interests, but harms public health. They call it "uncertainty bias" but I call it lies and bullying. August 2016 in Journal of Risk Research: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305985332

Out of Scandinavia, team determines that incidence of Crohn's disease and other irritable bowel disease (IBD) experiences a sharp and significant uptick in communities that fluoridate in Canada, the US, Australia and Wales. They also note that there is a similarly significantly higher rate of IBD in communities with naturally high levels of fluoride and in industrial workers exposed to fluoride on the job. People who brush their teeth frequently are more likely to suffer IBD, too. Plus, animal studies confirm, even low levels of fluoride inflames the bowels. S**t! Vol 51, 2016 Issue 9 in Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00365521.2016.1177855?journalCode=igas20

skanen144 · ‎08-20-2016

Fluoride accumulates lifelong in our bones. What makes a profluoridationist think it miraculously goes only to the teeth? Does the tooth fairy direct all the fluoride ion entering your bloodstream only to your teeth? Absurd! Bone sawed off my femur head during total hip replacement was ashed and measured 1500ppm as F. Analyzed by a reputable mineral lab because I couldn't find a medical lab offering F analysis of bone. I have many ailments (parathyroid and thyroid disease, kidney stones, osteoarthritis, dental fluorosis, GERD, uterine fibroids and prolapse, neurological problems such as loss of memory, hospitalized with acute pancreatitis, GI and bladder irritation) but AMA doctors have not recognized the contribution of chronic low level F poisoning even when I mentioned acute exposure to F gasses at work as a chemist at a water treatment plant. Avoiding F for 3 years has slowly reversed many ailments especially normalizing parathyroid hormone levels, shrinking of thyroid goiter and lowering of antibodies against my thyroid and GI issues.

Baby Boomers-connect the dots and awake up to the reality you have been part of an ill conceived human science experiment being lifelong exposed to chronic low level fluoride poisoning and many of the illnesses you currently experience are directly related to the level of your fluoride exposure lifelong. Protect yourself and loved ones now and avoid all the many exposures to fluoride.

ri1666 · ‎08-21-2016

I appreciate this post very much. Thank you for drawing attention to these concerns! Many need help connecting the dots in this busy world.

CarryAnne · ‎05-24-2016

“No school, college or independent medical research institution dares to be critical of fluoridation because they receive grants from the U.S. Public Health Service. Likewise, no big food, beverage or drug company will dare speak critically of fluoride because they are under the supervision of the FDA, a branch of the USPHS. One brewery official told me that their own research indicated grave questions about fluoridation, but they dare not speak out. As you know, the Food and Drug Administration can bankrupt any national food, beverage or drug company with a little adverse comment." - W .B. Hartsfield, mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, in Dental Survey (1961)

The politics of fluoridation promotion are staggering. The worst of the social media trolls formed a non-profit, bought an url, and are collecting grant money to continue to spew their lies. The "American Fluoridation Society" got at least $50,000 from Delta Dental. Delta Dental also funded a propaganda curriculum under the guise of "civic engagement" at Allegheny College that sent college students home ready to campaign in their home towns for fluoridation in order to help the poor kids. Doubt Delta Dental told these college students that hundreds of fluoridation studies during their lifetime prove that fluoridation inteferes with their ability to learn, disrupts their hormones, and does more harm to teeth than good.

See April 2016 letter to National Governors Association from consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, water consultant Bob Bowcock, and "elite" whistleblower lawyer Michael Kohn regarding the propaganda efforts to politicize fluoridation in order to drown out the science: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/brockovich-2016.pdf

CarryAnne · ‎08-20-2016

“The current system in the United States for evaluating scientific evidence and making health-based decisions about environmental chemicals is fundamentally broken,” - Project TNDR (Targeting Environmental Developmental Risks) 2016

“There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain…Communities of color and the underserved are disproportionately harmed by fluorides." - Mark Hyman, MD (2016)

Incredulously, the fluoridationist profiteers and their shills are not only continuing to pour millions of dollars into supporting this policy, they have managed to kill a CNN medical expose on fluoridation and are tying Medicaid dollars to fluoridation even as more studies are proving connections between fluoride consumption and increases in diabetes and irritable bowel disease.

2016 in Scandanavian Journal of Gastronology Fluoride: a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease? found statistical spikes in diagnoses of Crohn's and other IBD in America, Canada, Australia and Wales shortly after communities fluoridated. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27199224

2016 in Journal of Water and Health Community water fluoridation predicts increase in age-adjusted incidence and prevalence of diabetes in 22 states from 2005 and 2010 found that NaF, which is not only used to fluoridate water supplies but is also prescribed to children living in non-fluoridated communities, spikes diabetes. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-08/cwru-fcl081716.php

Folks - this is serious. Phone and email AARP executives and DEMAND the AARP use their power in Congress and with state officials to end the poisoning of our water supplies!

CarryAnne · ‎12-20-2015

All I want for Christmas is for my water not to be poisoned!

The arrogance of lazy lawmakers and corrupt regulators astounds me. Not only has the Institute of Medicine refused to respond to the April 2015 letter signed by consumer advocate Erin Brockovich, Wm. Ingram president of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, David Matthews of Matthews & Associates, and others, but also Congress hasn't made a single request that the IOM do so.

Sign this petition demanding a response to that letter: http://petitions.moveon.org/s/sVCrGR

Letter: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf

Please share the link to the petition with your friends and family on Facebook and via Twitter.

CarryAnne · ‎02-17-2016

“Drinking fluoridated water is harmful, we’ve been deceived to believe it is safe, and with new found knowledge we must all act now to stop it.” - Erin Brockovich, April 2015

Sign and share this petition demanding Congress tell the IOM to respond to the content of the April 2015 letter signed by Erin Brockovich and others!

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/dietary-fluoride-and/

CarryAnne · ‎02-24-2016

"The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison, harmful, toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts, will remain unchanged no matter how may times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of the water supply is 'safe'." - Ludwig Gross, MD, former Chief of Veterans' Administration Cancer Research and medical journalist

Geez - how much evidence does anyone need that fluoridation is harmful? There is no question that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, even in "optimally" fluoridated water. There is a ton of evidence going back a hundred years proving it suppresses thyroid hormones, science which was reinforced in recent years. Now look at these latest studies.

2016 in Advanced Techniques in Biology & Medicine. Fluoride Exposure May Accelerate the Osteoporotic Change in Postmenopausal Women: Animal Model of Fluoride-induced Osteoporosis. Shows that the lack of estrogen in the presence of fluoride damages bone structure, making them more brittle. http://www.esciencecentral.org/journals/fluoride-exposure-may-accelerate-the-osteoporotic-change-in-...

2015 in Toxicology in Vitro. Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. Immune system inflammation means your body is stressed and could be overwhelmed, as well as worsening any inflammatory disease. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605

2016 in Journal of Endocrinology & Metabolism. Timing of Environmental Exposures as a Critical Element in Breast Cancer Risk. Fluoride is one of many EPA environmental toxins, and timing of exposure increases risk factor to breast cancer. Fluoride also reduces melatonin, a hormone produced by the pineal gland. Melatonin protects against breast cancer. So, take away the protective hormones, add a little glyphosate here, a little fluoride there, and voila! Breast cancer! http://press.endocrine.org/doi/abs/10.1210/jc.2015-2848#sthash.cKViKSuL.dpuf

Baby Boomers, we are being poisoned simply because there are paychecks and professional reputations dependent on fluoridation promotion. Big business and big pharma are funding fluoridation because their business model is at risk if fluoridation is criticized. But it is our health, our lives, and our grandchildren's lives at stake!

Tell the AARP president to grow a spine and write an AARP resolution opposing fluoridation as being an ill advised policy that is harmful to many senior citizens! aarppresident@aarp.org

CarryAnne · ‎03-14-2016

"Long-continued ingestion of minute quantities of fluorine causes disease of the thyroid gland." - Douglas D. Styne, MD

"The American Thyroid Association should be the spokesmen on thyroid health, not dentists or marketeers funded by the fluoride industry." - 2016 letter to ATA

Share this letter with everyone you know who has a thyroid disease. Ask they share it with their physicians. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/ATA_2016_02_11.pdf

CarryAnne · ‎07-28-2015

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, I am the great and powerful Oz!" - Professor in the Wizard of Oz

Pew, in association with the CDC and various dental health coalitions, has taken the lead in the creation of a series of "effective messaging" trainings which are based in psychological manipulation of public opinion rather than science.

Poisoning Minds: The Pew training includes advice on 'inoculating' key community stakeholders with pro-F literature and warnings about fluoridation opponents.
Sales Literature: Pew provides 'media packets' aimed at editors and reporters, essentially writing articles and editorials for them, i.e. creating infomercials to sell a product. These materials emphasize authoritative endorsements and dismissively ignores contrary evidence.
Astroturfing: Pew also provide sample letters to the editor and sample comments for local fluoridationists to copy and paste. Dentists, dental hygienists, dental students and members of local Boards of Health have been their traditional shills. However, they are expanding into high school youth groups with 'mentoring' programs.
Bullying: Pew emphasizes inserting "outrage and anger" into local conversations. That particular intimidation technique scares some locals away from commenting on line or otherwise speaking out about their opposition to fluoridation, while tainting the science for for those who might be receptive to objectively looking at the facts. To underscore their promotional intitiative, members of the Pew sponsored "Rapid Response Team" comment on every local article and letter published in the English speaking world. Perhaps ten to twelve folks, the RRT team is primarily made up of older dentists and members of the ironically named "skeptics" group, and of course a few irregular "intranet trolls" who simply enjoy being abusive.

Pew and CDHP Fluoridation Advocacy Report: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/cdhp-fluoridation/CDHP_FlouridationAdvocacyReport_FINAL.pdf

AARP - Speak up!

CarryAnne · ‎07-28-2015

"....infants fed formula made with fluoridated water suffer higher rates of dental fluorosis."

- Dr. Paul Connett, former Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry and founder of the Fluoride Action Network (see post on infant exposure)

NysCof posted a link in a comment above to a blog post that describes how the f-lobby got the mandatory California fluoridation on the books, then bragged about their secretive tactics to avoid public input and debate. In that post, it mentions a CA team led by Howard Pollick team that studied 2,520 California preschool children. A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.They report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.

Pollick also reports in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health" that "infant formula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth." That is consistent with many studies that show children's teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.

Yet, Pollick remains committed to fluoridation, even when his own dental research proves it has no benefit, and causes permanent harm to infants and young children. Pollick assidiously avoids exploring any of the neurological, thyroid, or kidney damage science attached to childhood exposure. Pollick is also committed to back room dealings of questionable ethics, both on a state and national level. See following extracted from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) email communications released this year.

CDC Clearance Chain: 2010 email collaboration between Steven Levy and Gary Whitford of IFS, Jay Kumar of NY DPH and ADA staff with CDC regarding wording of a 2011 ADA report on infant formula supposedly based on IFS data revealed a less than scientific approach to decision making. The collusion softened the language and obfuscated findings so as to remain supportive of CDC fluoridation policy. A concern voiced in the email trail was not to provide “fodder to antifluoridationists.” This biased “wordsmithing” by individual authors and ADA with CDC input calls into question the scientific integrity of dental researchers, IFS project and ADA. The peer review of the report by JADA found the report to be too confusing. The JADA editor suggested that the authors focus on major findings, include less data, and articulate clearer conclusions, which ironically was what the group was trying so hard not to do.

I particularly like the comment by Howard Pollick of the University of California, San Francisco on June 4, “We should say something about why we are recommending fluoridated water, even though there has been no or little research on the benefits of fluoridated water in infant formula in the prevention of dental caries.” This led to discussion about the inclusion of endorsements of fluoridation to justify recommendations not supported by data, a puzzling action for a panel claiming to promote an “evidence-based approach” to care for national implementation. Including any of those endorsements, like the one from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), provides the textbook example of circular logic. The AAP based their endorsement on PHS/CDC endorsements of dietary fluoride from the discredited 1940s and 1950s trials…. trials that IFS was trying, unsuccessfully, to substantiate.

Also in this email trail, Krishna Aravamudhan, the Asst Director of Evidence-Based Dentistry, on 2/22/2010 suggested it might be better to phrase the report so as to let the reader wonder if there was a connection between formula and fluorosis rather than imply it, although he stated on 3/2/2010 that there was a statistically significant association between elevated fluorides and reconstituted formula. On 5/3/10, Krishna states the thorny questions of the group on a call included, ‘How can we say mostly mild dental fluorosis in the report when 3% of the fluorosis cases in the Iowa study are moderate to severe?’ It seems that Krishna was personally fine with using “mostly” as the qualifier.

Another email trail in these FOIA documents concerned the ADA and CDC co-sponsoring recommendations for topical fluorides, a continuation of the ‘successful ADA-CDC collaboration on many project over the last few years.’ Krishna Aravamudan of the ADA specifically complimented CDC staff, Dr. Barbara Gooch, Dr. Eugenio Beltran and Dr. Jennifer Cleveland of the CDC for their assistance to the ADA in their endeavors, most of which seem to be for the purpose of fluoride promotion. Jane McGinley, ADA Manager of Fluoridation and Dr. Wm Bailey of the Chief Dental Officer of the PHS were other primary stakeholders in these collaborations.

2011 Infant Formula Report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243832
2001 CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
2007 Over 80% dentists got it wrong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899898
2015 FOIA: http://nidellaw.com/wp-content/uploads/FOIA2.pdf (formula exchange near end)

Baby Boomers, if you figure it's too late for you..... consider your grandchildren.

Tell the AARP you want a Position Paper in opposition to fluoridation!

skanen144 · ‎07-20-2015

Many Alaskans know of the dangers of water fluoridation with many Alaskan cities and towns are fluoride free. We in the Facebook Group: Fluoride Free Alaska, hope to make our state water fluoridation free!

CarryAnne · ‎07-20-2015

"Early researchers had it backwards." - Lahey Clinic and Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital

Websites of several major hospitals include this phrase about fluoridation, "Early researchers had it backwards." They go on to state that fluoride works topically as in toothpaste, not by ingestion, and that fluoridation is unncesssary for dental health. Research out of the IFS longitudinal studies have also found that despite the best efforts of dental researchers, "Current evidence strongly suggests that fluorides work primarily by topical means through direct action on the teeth and dental plaque. Thus ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention,” but does cause dental fluorosis. This is consistent with the 2015 Cochrane Review and 2000 York Review that both noted the poor quality limited evidence in dental studies purporting benefit. They both went on to note that those studies demonstrated more BIAS than benefit, and SELECTIVE SAMPLING rather than safety. (Also see 20th century analysis by Dr. Philip Sutton, Dr. John Colquhoun, and Dr. John Yiamouyiannis)

So why are we taking these risks:

Hooper Bay Alaska was just one example of all too common accidents, albeit one of the more dramatic poisoning examples (see comments by lm89599076 and rs5526.)* In my state of Massachusetts, just this century:

1. Wakefield 2000 fluoride overfeed that resulted in gastrointestinal distress and neurological symptoms, i.e. extreme dizziness.
2. Marlboro 2003 fluoride overfeed that resulted in warnings not to use the water, even for washing, as it could irritate skin and even cause chemical burns.
3. Westminster 2005 fluoride spill at water treatment plant that resulted in hospitalization of several workers.
4. Amesbury 2011 fluoride clogs in the equipment and related costs prompted the process that led to the discontinuation of water fluoridation

Also, consider the health impact on water workers who handle fluoride, many if not all of whom, develop fluoride illnesses before reaching retirement, such as Susan Kanen who has commented in this thread.

From the manual, Water Fluoridation Principles and Practices, 5th Ed (2011):

“Always wear protective safety gear when handling fluoride chemicals. In particular, full face shield, splash-proof goggles, rubber gloves and boots, and acid proof aprons should be worn….” Workers are also warned to never eat near fluoride and that the disposal of fluoride bags and other containers are “usually a problem.”

So since it is UNNECESSARY for preventing cavities, inflicts life long damage to teeth of approximately half the children in fluoridated communities, has the potential for serious accidents causing debilitating illness or death, and poisons water departments staff ..... why are we fluoridating our water?

AARP - It is time for you to write a Position Paper opposing fluoridation!

See AAEM for examples:

FLUORIDATION RESOLUTION: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/FluorideResolution.pdf

CHEMICAL SENSITIVITIES POSITION PAPER: https://www.aaemonline.org/chemicalsensitivity.php

* Richard Sauerheber and I assumed that lm89599076 was referring to the Hooper Bay, AK overspill that resulted in a death and hundreds of life threatening illnesses in a very small community. However, lm89599076 tells us later in this thread that her experience that resulted her child's severe dental fluorosis and tooth loss was actually in an unreported extended duration overfeed in Juneau, Alaska.

lm89599076 · ‎07-19-2015

I and my family were accidentally poisoned by an overspill of sodium fluoride into the municipal water system in a small Alaskan town in the 90's, and that is how I became aware of fluoride toxicity and overexposure. Ironically my son, who was a fetus/infant at the time, has very poor enamel with major mottling which continues to get worse as he gets older. I expect him to have false teeth in his twenties. I have had huge trouble with my thyroid function ever since. Glad to hear AARP is considering a policy against fluoridation. This definitely would interest me in joining!

rs5526 · ‎07-20-2015

Thank you so much for your comments on the overfeed in Alaska. It was the overfeed in Hooper Bay AK that inspired me to investigate the mechanism of acute fluoride toxicity in those poisoned in that event, which is probably the worst poisoning disaster fron use of fluoridated water in the country. This after 15 years led to the published article in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490. It is available free online (due to kind donations from private persons) at:

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

Thank you

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

lm89599076 · ‎07-21-2015

Richard, our overspill was in Juneau and was never publically acknowledged. It took me about 2 years to put two and two together and figure out what happened to us. I did eventually get private confirmation from a contact at the water utility who was a friend of a friend. They have since stopped fluoridation there after a long battle.

I don't think most toxic overspills of fluoride are ever publically acknowledged, and they are a lot more common than people think. After all, fluoride is extremely corrosive and eventually all fluoridation equipment malfunctions for that reason. Small towns with small municipal budgets have difficulty keeping up with the maintenance, but instead of stopping the fluoridation until they can maintain the equipment properly - they just keep on putting it in the water. It's crazy!

rs5526 · ‎07-21-2015

Thanks. Yes the media do not often report fluoridation overfeeds. I recall one newspaper reporting an overfeed in Wisconsin where the water official said, "it's only 50 ppm, so it's not a big deal if people drink it because when they do they will just vomit it up anyway." Nevertheless since the water was deemed unsuitable for drinking, the entire treated amount, scores of thousands of gallons, were dumped into a local field. The casual treatment of industrial fluoride ingestion is amazing. Also, in drought-laden CA, water waste like that would result in a huge fine.

Well, the FDA wrote to me last week and stated that the fluoridated water ban petition FDA-2007-P-0346 and its supplemental letters of support (83 in total) will, rest assured, be carefully evaluated -- and that no further comment can be made until the reveiw committee reaches a decision. The petition was accepted for review in 2007 and we have not given up hope that it will, at least in part, be honored.

Thus far, the FDA remains the only U.S. government body that has made a number of official rulings against fluoridation of water supplies. One ruling was that it must not be used in kidney dialysis equipment because whole body dialysis in kidney disease patients results in too high a blood fluoride level which is associated with increased morbidity in those who have been so treated. We are hoping this nonsense can all be disposed of with a formal ban on the sale or production of industrial fluoride compounds intended to be ingested. Fluoride compounds have of course never been FDA approved for ingestion, but we hope the FDA can help us a little bit more, with a ban.

The Erin Brockovich legal group has officially come out against fluoridation, but we are asking AARP and other organizations to also examine the evidence in full.

And congratulations to the people of Juneau and also Fairbanks, AK. My sister lives in Anchorage where help is still needed to halt this ineffective, harmful, illegal waste of taxpayer dollars.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

lm89599076 · ‎08-07-2015

There are people in Anchorage working to get fluoride out of the water.I liked their facebook page so I could read their posts. That's another one of the towns where I was getting slowly poisoned for many years. It's nice to see Alaskans wising up and getting rid of fluoride. Such an ironic tragedy for people living in that beautiful pristine state to have their water poisoned. How could I have guessed that people would put rat poison in my water and that I wouldn't be able to smell it, taste it or see it? The whole thing is just awful, really. I probably wouldn't believe it if I hadn't experienced first hand what fluoride can do to you. It **bleep** near killed me! Glad I figured out what was going on before it did. I still hadn't figured out it was fluoride making us sick at the time I moved out of Alaska after living their all my life, something I thought I'd never do. But I went on a few vacations out of state and realized I was getting better while away, and getting sicker again when returning to Juneau. I wasn't sure what was doing it, but I got my family out. Later, after I put two and two together and figured out it had been fluoride in the water sickening us, I contacted people I knew who were still there to tell them.

CarryAnne · ‎07-28-2015

“A good scientist spends his whole career questioning his own facts. One of the most dangerous things you can do is believe.” - Nigel Noriega, Environmental Scientist and Endocrine Biologist (2011)

There is no argument that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, nor that it causes inflammations and has an impact on the immune system. Fluoridationists argue that water concentrations are too low to trigger those effects, despite the visible evidence of dental fluorosis in approximately half of today's children, many of whom also drink filtered and bottled water which reduces their dosage.

- This summer, yet another study confirms fluoride inflames the immune system and AT CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN ARTICIALLY FLUORIDATED WATER!
Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. I. Gutowskaa, I. et al. Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661–1668. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605
- Another study proves for the first time that the central nervous system, spinal column and brain, has an immune system susceptible to inflammation. This likely explains why those with autoimmune diseases also complain about neurological symptoms.
Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels. Louveau A. et al. Nature. 2015 Jul http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

Regardless of what anyone believed the science proved in 1949, leadership should be making decisions based on MODERN SCIENCE.

AARP, the ADA and CDC are in too deep to do an about face. Be a LEADER.... speak up!

CarryAnne · ‎07-28-2015

"....infants fed formula made with fluoridated water suffer higher rates of dental fluorosis."

- Dr. Paul Connett, former Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry and founder of the Fluoride Action Network (see post on infant exposure)

NysCof posted a link in a comment above to a blog post that describes how the f-lobby got the mandatory California fluoridation on the books, then bragged about their secretive tactics to avoid public input and debate. In that post, it mentions a CA team led by Howard Pollick that studied 2,520 California preschool children. A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.They report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.

Pollick also reports in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health" that "infant formula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth." That is consistent with many studies that show children's teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.

Yet, Pollick remains committed to fluoridation, even when his own dental research proves it has no benefit, and causes permanent harm to infants and young children. Pollick assidiously avoids exploring any of the neurological, thyroid, or kidney damage science attached to childhood exposure. Pollick is also committed to back room dealings of questionable ethics, both on a state and national level. See following extracted from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) email communications released this year.

CDC Clearance Chain: 2010 email collaboration between Steven Levy and Gary Whitford of IFS, Jay Kumar of NY DOH and ADA staff with CDC regarding wording of a 2011 ADA report on infant formula supposedly based on IFS data revealed a less than scientific approach to decision making. The collusion softened the language and obfuscated findings so as to remain supportive of CDC fluoridation policy. A concern voiced in the email trail was not to provide “fodder to antifluoridationists.” This biased “wordsmithing” by individual authors and ADA with CDC input calls into question the scientific integrity of dental researchers, IFS project and ADA. The peer review of the report by JADA found the report to be too confusing. The JADA editor suggested that the authors focus on major findings, include less data, and articulate clearer conclusions, which ironically was what the group was trying so hard not to do.

I particularly like the comment by Howard Pollick of the University of California, San Francisco on June 4, “We should say something about why we are recommending fluoridated water, even though there has been no or little research on the benefits of fluoridated water in infant formula in the prevention of dental caries.” This led to discussion about the inclusion of endorsements of fluoridation to justify recommendations not supported by data, a puzzling action for a panel claiming to promote an “evidence-based approach” to care for national implementation. Including any of those endorsements, like the one from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), provides the textbook example of circular logic. The AAP based their endorsement on PHS/CDC endorsements of dietary fluoride from the discredited 1940s and 1950s trials…. trials that IFS was trying, unsuccessfully, to substantiate.

Also in this email trail, Krishna Aravamudhan, the Asst Director of Evidence-Based Dentistry, on 2/22/2010 suggested it might be better to phrase the report so as to let the reader wonder if there was a connection between formula and fluorosis rather than imply it, although he stated on 3/2/2010 that there was a statistically significant association between elevated fluorides and reconstituted formula. On 5/3/10, Krishna states the thorny questions of the group on a call included, ‘How can we say mostly mild dental fluorosis in the report when 3% of the fluorosis cases in the Iowa study are moderate to severe?’ It seems that Krishna was personally fine with using “mostly” as the qualifier.

Another email trail in these FOIA documents concerned the ADA and CDC co-sponsoring recommendations for topical fluorides, a continuation of the ‘successful ADA-CDC collaboration on many project over the last few years.’ Krishna Aravamudan of the ADA specifically complimented CDC staff, Dr. Barbara Gooch, Dr. Eugenio Beltran and Dr. Jennifer Cleveland of the CDC for their assistance to the ADA in their endeavors, most of which seem to be for the purpose of fluoride promotion. Jane McGinley, ADA Manager of Fluoridation and Dr. Wm Bailey of the Chief Dental Officer of the PHS were other primary stakeholders in these collaborations.
2011 Infant Formula Report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243832
2001 CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
2007 Over 80% dentists got it wrong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899898
2015 FOIA: http://nidellaw.com/wp-content/uploads/FOIA2.pdf (formula exchange near end)

Baby Boomers, if you figure it's too late for you..... consider your grandchildren.

Tell the AARP you want a Position Paper in opposition to fluoridation, now!

CarryAnne · ‎07-28-2015

“Community water fluoridation is a malignant medical myth!” - Dr. Joel Kauffman, Professor Emeritus in Chemistry (2006)

Fluoridation is unfair:

1. Since fluoridation causes approximately double the dental fluorosis in non-white populations, it is a Civil Rights and Environmental Justice issue.
2. Since fluoridation is harmful to susceptible populations that include the elderly, the very young, those with prolonged illness, and those with insufficient protein, calcium or vitamin C in their diets (the poor), it is a Human Rights issue.
3. Fluoridation ignores our rights & freedoms that include freedom of choice & informed medical consent.

a. When fluoride is in municipal water, it is ubiquitous in our food supply making it impossible for us to avoid this drug.
b. Fluoride is also absorbed through skin, and is an irritant for those with eczema and other skin conditions.

4. Fluoridation is NOT necessary to provide fluoride to the public. Saying so creates a false choice, i.e is flawed logic.

a. If someone wants to ingest fluoride, they still have that option by adding drops to their own drinking water.
b. Since fluoride is available in toothpaste and the only confirmed actual science of benefit states that high concentrations as in toothpaste make cavity causing bacteria “less sticky,” the 1940s justification for fluoridation is no longer valid.
c. The argument about fluoridation benefiting poor children has been rejected by both the 2000 York Review and 2015 Cochrane Review of dental literature purporting SES benefit.

2015 Cochrane Review featured in Newsweek:

http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251

AARP, now is the time to take action. The science this century proving harm is robust and staggering. The 2014 and 2015 science alone is justification for writing a position paper opposing fluoridation.

rs5526 · ‎07-20-2015

My understanding is that the litigation over the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed is still not resolved. The city blames the State for making them fluoridate, and the State blames the city for doing the fluoridating.

It should be noted that in CA, the State chief fluoridaiton officer David Nelson (now retired) helped write the CA fluoridation law and forced Los Angeles to fluoridate in 2007. He actually told me that the Hoper Bay accident was not the fault of the water treatment facility. He claimed it was the victim's wife's fault! This is because she is a nurse and "should have known that the first sign of fluoride overdose is vomiting, so she should not have given him more water when he asked for more after vomiting."

I responded by saying there are many causes of vomiting, and why would anyone suspect the water supply when you tell cities that fluoridation is perfectly harmless? And are you telling me the wife went around the whole town of Hooper Bay and gave them fluoride poisoned water to drink so that all 302 people would be poisoned by it?

He realized how foolish he was being, stopped discussing it, and then said, "I only do what the CDC tells me to do."

Hence CA remains a state where fluoridation is an attempted mandate. But remember that there is no law that can mandate what violates Federal water law. And the CA law does not mention the source of fluoride material to be used, so the law is not actionable and is null and void. Further, the first line in the law makes the assumption that fluoride in water decreases incidence of caries. This has been fully disproven in vast studies, so the mandate has no actual meaning, is not legally binding, and is basically a worthless historical anecdote.

In fact, the CA Department of Public Health has written that no city is litigated if it does not fluoridate, and in their view it is the city itself that decides whether to fluoridate.

So all you CA city councils out there, go ahead and halt fluoridation, and nothing wrong will happen. Caries will not increase, because they were not reduced in the first place, and there is no State law that forces you to infuse this industrial hazardous waste.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

nyscof · ‎07-21-2015

That's interesting. I watched on the internet as the San Diego City Council voted to fluoridate even though they didn't want to, didn't understand it and the voters rejected it several times. The reason they voted in favor was that they were told if they didn't, they would be fined daily or weekly for not doing so.

Fluoridation was foisted on Californians in a stealthy manner - deliberately avoiding notification so citizens couldn't object and then they bragged about it in the California Dental Association journal

See: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2005/12/how-dentists-manipulate-legislators-to.html

Nelson was one of the nastiest of fluoridationists.

sn4302 · ‎07-18-2015

The National Academy of Sciences 2006, The recent Cochrane Report, the Australian Review, the York Review, all agree - the quality of scientific research on the benefits and adverse health effects is surprisingly poor - considering that hexafluorosilicic acid, a known toxic waste product from the fertilizer industry and other industries (Aluminum and Oil) has been added to our clean water for over 50-60 years!

Fluoride was touted as a nutrient yet we know now that not one cell in our body needs the fluorine element to function properly, and in fact, it reduces thyroid function!

Why are we still paying the industries to dilute their toxic waste for a chemical that is not regulated by the FDA yet we drink this drug every day? If we don't drink fluoridated water, we get fluoride in our tea, our meat, our soda, wine, beer, anything that has been made with fluoridated water! Yet if we have arthritic pain, we do not get tested for fluoride over exposure. If we have memory loss, we do not get tested for fluoride overexposure. If we have reduced thyroid or reduced kidney function, no doctor routinely checks our exposure to fluoride, this untested, unregulated, unapproved drug.

By the American Dental Association still promoting water fluoridation, they are not doing their homework.

Please AARP - provide a task force that does it's own unbiased research on this and inform your members on your findings. We need to know.

thank you

skanen144 · ‎07-17-2015

We can't afford to wait for those who have endorsed water fluoridation to finally realize this has been a gross mistake and an immoral human experiment. I changed my professional opinion on water fluoridation only after realizing how I have been poisoned lifelong by many exposures to fluorides. Thank you CarryAnne for the great information you have posted.

At 60 years old, I have had a lifetime of uncontroled and unmonitored fluoride exposures including fluorine fumes working at a water treatment plant. I am a chemist and was responsible for making fluoride standards to measure the amount of (I didn't know then-TOXIC and INDUSTRIAL WASTE PRODUCT) HFSAcid added to Washington DC drinking water. At 60 years old, I suffered many health catastrophes many that are slowly reversing now 2 years avoiding fluoridated water for drinking or bathing, drugs, dental products etc.

I speak from painful personal experience. As AARP considers a stand on water fluoridation, please be advised you should have no confidence in the integrity the system that produced the 'science' of water fluoridation. (see numbered links below)

I am a biochemist involved with an experiment since 2005 on lead service lines supplying drinking water to homes in Washington DC (1). My dissenting opinion has been that industry research and compliance with U.S. Lead and Copper Rule (LCR)1991 systematically underestimates lead contamination of drinking water(2). I have been recognized as a whistleblower (3). EPA has continued for years ignoring my input (4). Recent studies in 2013 (5) confirm my concerns (6). I also suffer painful, serious health effects and consequences of 60 years exposure to fluoridation chemicals made apparent to me only since May 2013 (7), perhaps exasperated by fluorine gas I was exposed to at the water treatment plant in Washington DC.

The US EPA, CDC, municipalities, and water utilities continue to this day, as they have for decades, to mislead the public about their true exposure to lead in drinking water leaching from lead service lines and the real possibility that fluoridation chemicals increase lead leaching from lead service lines still often used in older sections of major US cities.. THIS IS THE SAME SYSTEM that produced the 'science' of water fluoridation replete with decades of willful blindness, bias, grants for preconceived research results, repression of true scientists, propaganda slogans, down playing of negative health effects, professional bullying, junk science techniques, cherry picking data, fraud, powerful corrupt politics, and industrial interests.

To unduly threaten the health of seniors with water fluoridation based on schemes that masquerade as true science is foolishness indeed.

Sincerely,

Susan Kanen

Biochemist

Fluoride Free Alaska (a facebook group)

Links and additional comments:

(1). http://www.waterrf.org/PublicReportLibrary/91229.pdf starting at C-87 Washington Aqueduct Lead Service Line Pilot Study. Misrepresented and miscalculated lead release from lead service lines by 4000%.

(2). http://water.epa.gov/drink/ndwac/upload/ndwacdec11122013.pdf Comments by SKanen to National Drinking Water Advisory Council

(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apZynV7lfic at 12:43 Dr Marc Edwards of Virginia Tech mentions Sue Kanen as a whistleblower in the DC Lead in Drinking Water scandal

(4) http://www.epa.gov/dclead/corrosion_research.htm Minutes of EPA conference calls, Susan Kanen participated since 2011

(5) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23879429 Environ Sci Technol. 2013 Aug 20;47(16):9300-7. doi: 10.1021/es4003636. Epub 2013 Aug 2.

Detection and evaluation of elevated lead release from service lines: a field study. Del Toral MA1, Porter A, Schock MR. Abstract: Comparative stagnation sampling conducted in 32 homes in Chicago, Illinois with lead service lines demonstrated that the existing regulatory sampling protocol under the U.S. Lead and Copper Rule systematically misses the high lead levels and potential human exposure.

(6) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC2Y4LI49R4 Lead in Drinking Water Sampling Manipulation 3 minute video by SKanen demonstrating my concerns on lead leaching from lead service lines.

(7) I was exposed to fluorine gas in the basement at the water treatment plant in 2005 (HF etched glass and corroded window and door frames until they collapsed) My lungs and throat burned, I lost sense of taste and smell, had nausea and shortness of breath,and brain fog. Nevertheless, I had no idea I was being exposed to HF in the air at the point the fluoridation chemicals are added to drinking water. Fluoride is an accumulative poison, I continued my lifelong consumption of fluoridated water, food and exposure while bathing, swimming, and in hot tubs. I have dental fluorosis as a child of a military dentist. Front teeth have veneers. Uterine fibroids and prolapse. Multiple internal hernias. In 2007, I was hospitalized with acute pancreatitis, two emergency room visits in Sept 2012 with a 0.7 mm kidney stone, diagnosis of degeneration of hip and lower spine, elevated serum calcium and parathyroid hormone, parathyroidectomy of 5200 mg in Nov 2012 with persistent elevated parathyroid hormone, osteoarthritis required hip replacement in Aug 2013, osteopenia, painful multinodual calcified goiter of the thyroid with hypo and hyperthyroid symptoms, autoimmune thyroiditis, GERD and irritation of GI and urinary tract, Barrett's esophagus, calcified ligaments with X-ray evidence of calcification of the interosseous membrane of the forearm, phleboliths, bilateral renal cysts, enlarged heart, fatigue not relieved by rest, neurological symptoms such as numbness, anxiety, forgetfulness, perhaps pre- Alzheimer symptoms-just to name a few classic responses to fluoride intoxication. None of my AMA doctors had a clue what was wrong with me. As a biochemist, I finally speculated I might be fluoride poisoned. I insisted on getting a fluoride analysis of the deformed head of my femur bone sawed off during hip replacement. It measured 1500 ppm fluoride of ashed bone weight, pointing to the diagnosis of the initial stage of skeletal fluorosis. My medical bills 2012-2014 were almost $150,000. Fluoride is a lifelong accumulative toxin and slowly harms and, if exposure is excessive, eventually destroys every human organ system for everyone in water fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas alike. It really is absolute foolishness to add more fluoride to drinking water. I did not give my consent to be an experimental toxic waste dump for the last 60 years! Now since May 2013 avoiding fluoride, I am slowly getting better.My thyroid has shunk to 61% of the goiter of two years ago, antibodies against thyroid are reduced, my parathyroid hormone level is now midrange normal after persistently elevated levels post parathyroidectomy, no reoccurrance of kidney stones, less GI irritation and less neurological symptoms like numbness, anxiety, lack of ability to concentrate. and forgetfulness, less pain.

Fluoride toxicity symptoms are threantening to steal away the golden years of the 'baby boomers', the first generation to be experimental subjects to lifelong water fluoridation.

AARP act now!!!

CarryAnne · ‎07-19-2015

”Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time." - Dr. Robert Carton, EPA (1992)

Thank you Susan Kanen for your comment above!

AARP - Are you reading this?

EXCERPT: "None of my AMA doctors had a clue what was wrong with me. As a biochemist, I finally speculated I might be fluoride poisoned. I insisted on getting a fluoride analysis of the deformed head of my femur bone sawed off during hip replacement. It measured 1500 ppm fluoride of ashed bone weight, pointing to the diagnosis of the initial stage of skeletal fluorosis. My medical bills 2012-2014 were almost $150,000....... I did not give my consent to be an experimental toxic waste dump for the last 60 years! Now since May 2013 avoiding fluoride, I am slowly getting better. My thyroid has shunk to 61% of the goiter of two years ago, antibodies against thyroid are reduced, my parathyroid hormone level is now midrange normal after persistently elevated levels post parathyroidectomy, no reoccurrance of kidney stones, less GI irritation and less neurological symptoms like numbness, anxiety, lack of ability to concentrate. and forgetfulness, less pain."

sn4302 · ‎07-13-2015

This is a really great article: please help get this neurotoxin out of our water, and our food.

I am starting a coalition against artificial fluoridation in NYC - please email nyc.caaf@gmail.com if you are interested in helping getting the word out - this stuff is toxic, not a nutrient, not safe and we shouldn't be drinking it!

rs5526 · ‎07-13-2015

First, eating and drinking fluoride ion has no effect whatsoever on dental caries, as published in detailed studies by Zigelbecker, and also by Sutton, and by Teotia and Teotia, and also by Yamouyiannis. The fluoride concentration in saliva that bathes teeth topically (at 0.016 ppm, NRC, 2006) is 75,000 times less than that in toothpaste. Second, systemic fluoride dissolves in the blood and throughout all tissues at 0.2 ppm from regular consumption of treated drinking water. The ion accumulates lifelong permanently into bone causing the formation of new bone of poor quality. We now have 1/3 million U.S. elderly who suffer from broken hips which usually is lethal due to pneumonia that ensues while waiting for fluoridated bone to heal. Cruel experiments in dogs indicate that broken bones heal far more slowly when animals are given fluoridated water. Finally, adding fluoride into drinking water is illegal. No EPA regulated water contaminant, including fluoride, can be discharged into public drinking water intentionally without an NPDES permit from the EPA, as stipulated by the Clean Water Act. And the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the requirement of any substance added into water other than to sanitize the water. The EPA Office of Water argues that, as a substance that is being used to treat humans, the FDA is responsible for regulating fluoridation. The FDA argues that, as a pollutant being added intentionally into water, the EPA is in charge of its regulation. The HHS recommended that fluoride levels not exceed 0l7 ppm but refuses to accept liability for its use, in particular to avoid litigation over the easily proven increase in unwanted unsightly abnormal dental enamel hypoplasia dental fluorosis that plagues 42% of U.S. teens as a result of water "fluoridation." Please get involved and halt this absurd experiment from being continued.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

CarryAnne · ‎07-17-2015

Dr. Richard Sauerheber who added a post in this thread is a chemist, college professor and researcher who has published some excellent work on the toxicity of industrial fluoride in drinking water. As a result of his research, he has written letters opposing fluoridation to the FDA and other regulatory agencies, urging they take action, i.e. actually consider science to regulate the industries in order protect the health of the public:

2013 Publication: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/
2010-2011 Letters: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/ask-dr-sauerheber

Thank you, doctor!

“When industry and government agree, people suffer.” - Proverb

CarryAnne · ‎07-13-2015

"Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide ... it is capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses. It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridation." - James B. Patrick, Ph.D., antibiotics research scientist at National Institute of Health

Latest study on fluoride concerns its capacity to cause INFLAMMATIONS even at very small exposure level, such as that from water fluoridation. I especially like this key finding, "Long-term exposure to fluoride may affect activities of many enzymes."

Do we really want a drug that interferes with the normal functioning of our enzymes, as well as causing or worsening inflammations to be an ubiquitous contaminant in our water and food?

2015 in Toxicology in Vitro. Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605

Baby Boomers - this is your life and the lives of your children, grandchildren, and g-grandchildren at risk. DO SOMETHING!

Contact the AARP, your politicians, the White House.... tell them to get the F* out of our water.... Municipalities can use the financial savings to replace ineffective and dangerous chloramine which also kills enzymes and causes disease with a more effective and safe disinfectant alternative. And you can use the better quality of life and lower doctors bills to enjoy life.