- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“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.
- 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!
1. Apparently unbeknownst to you, the cause and preventive factors involved in dental decay are myriad. Attempts to assess the overall and cost-effectiveness of but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on nothing but comparison of raw data on dental decay incidence which controls for none of the myriad other variables involved in this process....is obviously ludicrous.
2. Your obsession with RCTs is indeed bizarre, however, as I have explained previously, randomized controlled trials are not necessary to assess the effectiveness of broad public health initiatives such as water fluoridation.
Your unsubstantiated personal opinion of what constitutes valid evidence of cost-savings, is unqualified and irrelevant.
Peer-reviewed science demonstrating cost-effectiveness:
J Public Health Dent. 2001 Spring;61(2):78-86.
An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation.
Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL.
b. “These results clearly indicate that there is an association between
adequacy of water fluoridation and hospitalization due to dental infections
among children and adolescents. This effect is more prominent in populations of
lower socioeconomic status.”
Hospitalizations for dental infections
Optimally versus nonoptimally fluoridated areas in Israel
Amir Klivitsky, MD; Diana Tasher, MD;
Michal Stein, MD; Etan Gavron, BSc;
Eli Somekh, MD
c. “Compared with the predominantly fluoridated counties, the mean number of restorative, endodontic, and extraction procedures per recipient was 33.4% higher in less fluoridated counties. The mean number of claims per child for caries-related services was inversely correlated with the extent of fluoridation in a county (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.54, p < 0.0001), but claims for non-caries related services were not.”
Kumar J.V., Adekugbe O., Melnik T.A., “Geographic Variation in Medicaid Claims for Dental Procedures in New York State: Role of Fluoridation Under Contemporary Conditions,”
Public Health Reports, (September-October 2010) Vol. 125, No. 5, 647-54.
d. “We estimated that Colorado CWFPs [community Water Fluoridation Programs] were associated with annual savings of $148.9 million (credible range, $115.1 million to $187.2 million) in 2003, or an average of $60.78 per person (credible range, $46.97 to $76.41).”
Brunson D, O’Connell JM, Anselmo T, Sullivan PW. Costs and Savings Associated With Community Water Fluoridation Programs in Colorado. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2005;2(Spec No):A06.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Have you considered taking some anger managment courses. Wow. Calm down.
You have provided some studies reporting a benefit of fluoridation. Thank you. Yes, I have read them. Yes they have value, but limited.
None of them are prospective RCT studies. And yes, quality of study is important.
None of them controled for nor mentioned the unknown which crushed dental caries prior to fluoridation.
Studies of small subsets of the population are valid if the treatment is targeted to those subsets of the population.
Fluoridation is treatment of the entire population, not a subset.
And evaluation of hospitalizations is important, but I think we agree there are multiple causes for caries. And hospitalization is a major factor for socioeconomics.
A friend took the 1986 NIDR survey of dental caries which included fluoride concentration, magnesium concentration and calcium concentration in the public water of each child. The graph below is most interesting. It is three snap shots of data with variations in those three elements, fluoride, magnesium and calcium.
The graphs clearly show caries rates vary with all three chemical concentrations and they are interdependent. The software is cool because a person can adjust any one of the three chemicals higher or lower and see what it does to the dental caries rates.
Take the first graph where I chose 0.1 ppm fluoride in the water. I then chose a low magnesium concentration and a low calcium concentration where caries were optimally low. This is similar to soft water in Seattle. If all three are at their "optimal" concentration for caries, the caries rate is 1.7 cavities per child.
The second graph I chose 0.7 ppm fluoride and and the third graph I chose 1.0 ppm F. Those concentrations of fluoride also resulted in 1.7 cavities per child.
In other words, when the magnesium and calcium concentrations in the water were controlled, caries rates were the same regardless of fluoride concentrations at 0.1, 0.7 or 1.0 ppm.
However, we can see a change in concentration of magnesium or calcium does make a huge difference and increased fluoride exposure over 1 ppm increased caries. Any study which does not report magnesium or calcium exposure has limitations.
When total fluoride exposure increases, caries increases. Excess total fluoride exposure as reported with increased dental fluorosis is a serious concern.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Yes, “Conversationalist”, antifluoridationists constantly do wish fluoridation advocates would cease correcting the misinformation supporting the confirmation bias against fluoridation, of these antifluoridationists. Exposing the misinformation posted by those such as Osmunson and Spencer, holding them accountable to provide valid evidence to support their claims, does indeed make it far more difficult for them to impose their personal ideology unto entire populations. It would be decidedly simpler if they didn’t have to deal with such annoyances as facts and evidence.
However, as long as antifluoridationists keep posting their unsubstantiated claims and misinformation here, I, for one, will continue to correct it. The readers of this forum deserve no less than truth and accuracy.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Thank you for your comments. Please spread the word,
TOO MANY ARE INGESTING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE
Over a hundred million Americans are ingesting too much fluoride and promoters of fluoridation mistakenly want governments to continue giving us more fluoride without our consent, without an honest review of science, and knowing too much fluoride causes harm.
The graph below based on Iida's data, peer reviewed by the Journal of American Dental Association, 2009, is powerful. The data is not from the more recent NHANES 2011-2012 survey which reports 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis. This older survey reported 40% had dental fluorosis.
Iida's data shows an increase in dental fluorosis with increased fluoride concentration in the water. Remember, when water fluoridation first started, the public was assured maybe 10-15% of the public would get dental fluorosis because such a small amount of fluoride was being added to the water. In order to get dental fluorosis down to about 15%, the fluoride concentration in the water would need to be less than 0.3 ppm, the natural fluoride concentration for many in the USA. Without question, increased fluoride exposure causes increased dental fluorosis in the population at large.
Now to the second major point in this data. Note how the caries rate changes with increased fluoride exposure. The amount of caries decrease is hardly detectable. Governments are mass medicating (supplementing, administering without consent) the diet of everyone, young, unborn, old, those with kidney problems, those with cancer, those without teeth, everyone, with little or no evidence from this data of benefit. Those most harmed are the very children promoters are trying to help, the poor.
Reasonable people looking at both sides of the fluoridation controversy would stop fluoridation simply because too many are ingesting too much fluoride. Add the lack of benefit, the cost, the loss of freedom of choice and the known risks and we realize fluoridation is one of public health's greatest blunders.
Before you start calling me dishonest, please read what I have written. I carefully said the "data" is from Iida. We all make mistakes, but you are not reading things carefully and then disparage me publicly. Slander is not professional. Stick with the message, not the messanger.
K Thiessen compiled the graph of data from Iida and my memory is Iida got the data from the 2000 NHANES.
You say the study is misrepresented, but again you misread my post. I am not representing the study, I am representing the data from the study. Just because Iida et al and reviewers and editor chose to spin the data to promote fluoridation, and omit the problems the data presents, is not the point of the discussion.
The point of the data is that most of us agree that with an increase in fluoride water concentration, indeed we see an increase in dental fluorosis. If you dispute that fact, please provide your evidence.
The second point is that dental caries does not appreciably change regardless of fluoride concentration in water within those ranges unless a gee whiz graph is made. If you dispute the NHANES data or Iida data, please explain.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
No, Bill. You’re the one not reading. I stated that the claim was made that the graph was based on IIda and Kumar, but that that you cited it in a manner misrepresenting it as having been taken directly from Iida and Kumar....i.e. the large citation directly over the graph. You did the same with that graph “based on NHANES data”. You are taking graphic analyses of data, put together by some unnamed sources, and misrepresenting those graphs to be from sources you cite. I stand by my original statement. Your dishonesty is staggering.
If you want to present information you believe supports your position, then cite it correctly and don’t misrepresent its origin. Dishonesty is that which is not professional.
You should also learn the difference between slander and libel. I’ve been maliciously libeled by antifluoridationists so often that I am well aware of what constitutes both.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I am not misrepresenting the data and you have not shown that I am.
I have clearly presented where the data has come from and graphs have been made from the data to better illustrate the point.
Again, if you have a problem with the points I am making, please attack the points, the message, rather than me.
My point so far are:
Many are ingesting too much fluoride. So far, you have refused to comment. You don't like how I referece the data, but you don't explain how you disagree with the fact that too many are ingesting too much fluoride.
Instead, you and Johnny Johnson (and others) misrepresent water fluoridation as though it is the only source of fluoride. May I repeat, no one has ever lived with water fluoridation as the only source of fluoride. Your statements are unrealistic and anyone seriously listening to what you are saying will discredit your statement. You must use TOTAL fluoride exposure, not just water fluoridation.
Once you agree that many have excess fluoride exposure, then lets move on to "how much total fluoride is optimal?" And then we can move on to "is that optimal total fluoride safe?"
We have not agreed on the first step because you keep attacking the messanger rather than the message.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, the dishonesty of your comments and posts are self-evident, as I have amply demonstrated. In accordance with your bizarre Trump analogies, you seem to be playing by his playbook.....make outrageous claims enough times and people will begin to believe them, regardless of their lack of validity. I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers of these comments to easily ascertain your dishonesty.
I have not felt any need to comment on many of your personal opinions as they are completely unsubstantiated. Your graphic analyses of data prepared by some unnamed sources are valid evidence of absolutely nothing. It is neither my, nor anyone else’s, responsibility to disprove your unsubstantiated claims.
The bottom line is that there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects on anyone from total fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal sources of fluoride. You have provided nothing to contradict that fact.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You attack the messanger but have no comment on the message.
Many, millions, are exposed to too much fluoride. Your lack of response to that most critical point is evidence of the lack of science behind the continued addition of fluoride to public water. Why give more fluoride when half of our youth have too much?
HHS lowered their recommendation. Another government agency or the courts will lower it some more. Where are the good scientists with responsible ethics calling for a reduction in total fluoride exposure?
I am not interested in going into the risks of excess fluoride exposure because you simply will not acknowledge the fact that too many are ingesting too much. When you acknowledge that 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis is too many, 20% with moderate/severe is too many, then we need to discuss the source of fluoride which needs to be reduced.
Topical has some benefit.
Systemic has mixed evidence of benefit.
The first step is for you and Johnny Johnson and the American Fluoridation Society to recommend a source of fluoride which needs to be reduced or stopped to reduce the rapid rise in dental fluorosis.
What is your recommendation and the American Fluoridation Societies official position on excess exposure? Stop Medications with fluoride? Foods with fluoride? Air with fluoride? or fluoridation of public water?
The answer is obviously public water fluoridation. All the other sources of fluoride have significant benefits (and risks), only water fluoridation is without a benefit.
Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, I notice that as antifluoridationists become more and more frustrated with the facts and evidence presented debunking their claims, they begin making inane personal comments and project their own personality traits unto the commenters who are frustrating them. If you need anger management courses, that’s your business, but try not to project your problems unto me.....okay?
Your unsubstantiated personal opinions on the peer-reviewed scientific evidence you have requested, and which I have provided, is unqualified and obviously of no relevance. What value you seem to believe there to be to some uncited graphs of something or other will remain a mystery known only to you, I suppose.
The bottom line is that I can and do provide valid scientific evidence to support my claims. You cannot, and do not, for your own.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You asked for any peer reviewed evidence fluoride at 0.7 -1.4 ppm (Oh, that was lowered because HHS found it was not safe) now 0.7 ppm.
NHANES 2000 and 2011-12 showing 20% of adolescents have moderate/severe dental fluorosis. Remember, all members of NRC 2006 report on fluoride for the EPA unanimously agreed severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health risk, in other words, harm.
The question is not one of whether people are being harmed with the addition of fluoride in public water which is over exposing them to fluoride. The question is "how many" are over exposed.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
1. No, Bill, I did not ask “for any peer-reviewed evidence fluoride at 0.7-1.4 ppm” whatever in the world you deem that to mean.
2. The US DHHS did not lower anything, nor find anything unsafe, in regard to water fluoridation. These are yet more false claims to add to your ever growing list of such.
3. A FAN claim as to what NHANES data has shown does not constitute proper evaluation of this data by any qualified, reliable entity.
4. Yes, the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered severe dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect. This is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water. As this same committe clearly stated in its final report, severe dental fluorosis does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content below 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that level.
5. Neither you, nor anyone else, has provided any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that anyone, anywhere, is being “harmed by the addition of fluoride in public water”. Your inexplicable unsubstantiated personal opinion to the contrary obviously does not qualify as such evidence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Your statements that the cost effectiveness and safety of fluoridation are without question is unprofessional and unscientific.
For good scientists, everything is in question, even gravity and life itself. When a person claims a theory and policy is "without question," that means the person is not looking at all the evidence.
Science questions. Religion is without question.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Invoking “religion” again, I see, Bill. I fail to understand the constant attempt of antifluoridationists to mingle religion into water fluoridation, however, to each his own, I guess.
1. Your personal opinion of what constitutes “unprofessional and unscientific” is obviously irrelevant and meaningless.
2. Again, as I have clearly demonstrated, the cost savings and safety of water fluoridation are without question. Constant attempts by antifluoridationists to create “controversy” and “question” with unsubstantiated claims, false assertions, misrepresented science, and misinformation, does not constitute “good scientists”.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
There are so many flaws in your posts, it is hard to know where to start.
For example you state, "A zero level of arsenic is neither attainable nor likely to be desirable. The EPA maximum allowable level of arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion."
I agree zero level of arsenic is not likely. However, the EPA has zero as the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG). What scientific evidence can you provide the EPA is in error and some arsenic is desirable?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
There are no flaws in my posts, as evidenced by your inability to to provide any valid evidence to demonstrate any such “flaws”. Your unsubstantiated personal opinion obviously does not qualify as such.
The EPA, as a matter of policy, sets the MCLG at zero for substances which can be carcinogenic, regardless the level at which carcinogenicity may occur. Arsenic at high levels can be carcinogenic.
In regard to the undesirability of a zero level of arsenic:
“Definition of specific biochemical functions in higher animals (including humans) for the ultratrace elements boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic still has not been achieved although all of these elements have been described as being essential nutrients. Recently, many new findings from studies using molecular biology techniques, sophisticated equipment, unusual organisms, and newly defined enzymes have revealed possible sites of essential action for these five elements.”
—Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.
FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Please cut the derogatory comments. Attacking the messanger rather than the message is a bully tactic used by Trump. Or did you go to the University of Trump to learn how to be a bully? If so, you must have a PhD in bully.
Speculation arsenic is an essential nutrient. As long as you agree the quality of speculation evidence is just speculation, lets go more to the facts on fluoride and not speculate. Don't get me wrong, speculation can lead to some great inovation, but speculation is not a strong scientific reason to eat arsenic.
I'll stick with EPA's "zero MCLG" until the evidence is stronger than speculation.
And even if someday a physiologic function for arsenic is found, the beneficial and harmful dosage will need to be determined. A great deal more research on arsenic needs to be done.
SPECULATION: The need for fluoridation is stronger than the need for arsenic in the diet. However, the same flawed logic that arsenic is essential is used to claim fluoride is essential.
Speculation is low quality evidence, along with conspiracy theories. I reject both and so should you.
For efficacy, stick with RCT studies like the FDA does.
For risk, the precautionary principle and freedom of choice MUST be seriously considered.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Stop your childish whining, Bill. Attempting to divert attention from exposure of your false claims and misinformation, with groundless, kindergarten complaints of “bullying” is a transparent tactic frequently employed by antifluoridationists who become frustrated with the facts and evidence, having nothing with which to counter them. Now, please refrain from such tactics and stay with facts and evidence you can provide.
1. “Stick with” whatever you please. You asked for scientific evidence to support my claim that a zero level of arsenic is undesirable. I provided it. Live with it.
2. Fear-mongering about arsenic is yet another diversionary tactic which has no merit. The amount of arsenic in water at the tap which has been fluoridated with HFA is not even detectable unless 10 times the manufacturer’s recommended single use amount of HFA is utilized in order to get some sort of reading.
Neither arsenic, nor any other contaminant in fluoridated water at the tap is in an amount to be of any concern, whatsoever.
3. Yes, as I have been stating, your constant speculation and unsubstantiated personal opinions are valid evidence of nothing. At some point you need to understand that science is evidence-based, not Bill Omunson personal opinion-based.
4. The precautionary principle applies when there is no scientific consensus of the safety of an initiative. Water fluoridation has been in effect for 73 years, hundreds of millions having ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, with no proven adverse effects. The public health benefits of fluoridation are publicly recognized by the US CDC, the US National Academy of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world. There is not one credible organization in the world which opposes fluoridation. Clearly there is scientific consensus of the safety of this initiative.
Obviously, the precautionary principle does not apply to fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain.” - Dr. Mark Hyman MD, scholar, medical correspondent and author (2016)
Dr. Johnny Johnson,
You miss the point. That is just the latest study in a series of studies going back to at least the 1950s that repeatedly prove that fluoride suppresses thyroid function even in low doses. Fluoride was used orally and in baths during the 1930s and 40s to treat hyper-active thyroids. Thyroid doctors frequently tell their patients to avoid fluoride in order to stabilize their thyroid health; at least once they become aware of the medical science. Thyroid disease is just one of several problems affecting the health of senior citizens that is associated with decades of fluoridation exposure.
Thyroid doctor on fluoride studies: http://www.cleanwatersonomamarin.org/get-the-facts/shames-on-fluoridation/
Hi Carry Anne,
I will refer you back to the information that I posted initially regarding the National Research Council's Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water; A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.
This panel of 12 unpaid experts, led by the top Toxicologist in the U.S., met for 3 1/2 years and reviewed all literature on fluoride in water for impacts that it may have on our health.
The EPA maximum allowable fluoride content in water is set at a point where no adverse health effects are expected to occur and the margins of safety are judged "adequate". That level is 4mg/L of fluoride in water.
This panel is assembled every few years to evaluate whether this level is still appropriate considering all available research. Over 200,000 residents in the U.S. have drinking water that exceeds 4mg/L. Fluoride is in almost all water at varying amounts. Ground water picks up fluoride from igneous rocks as the water flows over them. This study is conducted as part of responsible government looking out for the health of our residents. The study cost over 4 million dollars.
All body organs and systems were evaluated in their 3 1/2 year review. NO adverse health effects were found in any organs or systems at 4mg/L of fluoride in water, except for severe dental fluorosis.
1. Endocrine system (thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary, pineal, adrenal, pancreas....)
2. Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral (IQ, other disorders)
4. Immune System
5. Gastrointestinal System
7. Reproductive and Development
8. Genetic Damage
9. Musculoskeletal System
This comprehensive literature review answers all claims that are made by those that oppose community water fluoridation.
Community water fluoridation (CWF) contains 0.7mg/L of fluoride. This is 1/6th of the maximum allowable level set by the EPA as safe to drink (4mg/L). No adverse health effects have ever been shown to be caused by CWF. Over 70 years of fluoridation in the U.S. and thousands of research and publications have shown CWF to be safe to drink and effective in reducing cavities by at least 25% over a person's lifetime. It benefits both children and adults.
Leading health and scientific organizations endorse community water fluoridation as safe and effective for all. These include:
1. American Academy of Pediatrics
2. American Dental Association
3. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)
4. American Medical Association
5. Mayo Clinic
6. World Health Organization
No credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation. Not one.
I hope this helps put this issue into perspective for my fellow AARP readers. A list of credible references is listed below for further information on CWF.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society, non-profit organization of unpaid dentists and physician
Dr. Johnson isn't telling you the whole story about the 2006 National Research Council's (NRC) Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water; A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.
The NRC reports that there is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland.
According to a co-author of the NRC Report “Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency,” says Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, “The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals,” says Thiessen.
Robert Carton, PhD, an environmental scientist who worked for over 30 years for the U.S. government including managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, says “fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male.” (the levels recommended in public water supplies)
Among many others, the NRC Report cites human studies which show
- fluoride concentrations in thyroids exceeding that found in other soft tissues except kidney
- an association between endemic goiter and fluoride exposure or enamel fluorosis in human populations
- fluoride adversely affects thyroid and parathyroid hormones, which affect bone health
Further, Scientific American quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly, “The thyroid changes do worry me.”
In fact, both the ADA and CDC have voiced concerns about fluoride's toxic thyroid effects. And the National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation endosement because of the evidence presented in the 2006 NRC report.
It is a straightforward fact that the final NRC opinion was that the EPA's maximal allowed fluoride of 4 ppm (nearly 6x higher than fluoridation) protects human health from disease save for severe enamel fluorosis.
Anyone who wants to verify exactly what the NRC concluded can listen to the summarization in this press conference:
It is an easily verifiable fact that America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians and Internal Medicine Specialists along with well over 100 other groups of sophisticated, committed legitimate scientists and professionals are on easily verified public record affirming this decision. Fluoridation at the optimal concentration of 0.7 ppm prevents cavities, saves tons of money with lower dental bills and is completely safe.
The concerns and opposing arguments raised here have been dissected with reviews of all the relevant science in many systematic reviews done both in the US and around the world. There is a unanimity that fluoridation prevents cavities and is safe. Many older people can no longer brush their teeth well and if in a residential care facility may have minimal or no oral health care. The only dental care they receive is from their tap water.
Given the overwhelming professional and scientific consensus in support, how can a mainstream organization like AARP even consider opposing. If they wish to change positions on fluoridation, Dr. Limeback and others have an obligation to make their case before legitimate scientific forums and not simply bring arguments to lay audiences that have been rejected by experts.
Anyone wishing to learn more about the importance of community water fluoridation should start here:
American Academy of Pediatrics
Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
American Fluoridation Society
British Fluoridation Society
American Dental Association
While community water fluoridation (CWF) is not a silver bullet, it importantly decreases the oral health disparities which come with economic disadvantage. To argue against CWF is to argue for greater pain, suffering, greater health inequality and lifelong oral health disadvantage for people of all ages.
C. Haynie, M.D.
It appears there are many trolls holding DDS decrees, on the fluoride question community. The American Fluoridation Society is a trolling group created to deceive the public into believing the fluoridation fraud. Fortunately there is a lawsuit pending in the Federal Court (9th), which is barely covered by the corporate media to stop forced water fluoridation in the United States. The details are available from Bloomberg law, see https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Pro....
Although this case has been in discovery for months, the EPA has not been able to provide any valid science to support water fluoridation, which is banned in most of Europe and Japan among other nations. Also, the industrial fluoride waste is labeled as category 6 toxic poison by law. See http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/lawandcourts/pa-law-poison.html Yet, the trolls claim that there is some science supporting fluoridation, when there is none!
Hello Sirpac & Carrie Anne,
First, dentists possess dental degrees, not decrees in the U.S. and around the world as I know it. We are Doctors if Dental Medicine (DMD) and Doctors of Dental Surgery (DDS).
Secondly, we do not state
personal opinions in disseminating evidence-based scientific research. We are held to a higher standard of ethics and moral behavior as doctors. We have to accurate and evidence-based in our world of scientific expertise. We can’t simply quote our interpretations of the literature. Others may choose to do so. And when they do, their feet are held to the fire by the scientific community.
Someone once said that the truth only hurts once. Another said don’t go away mad, just go away.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society, a not for profit organization of healthcare professionals dedicated to the dissemination of credible evidence-based scientific research that has been published in credible recognized peer reviewed scientific journals
P.S. Have the courtesy to use your real names as we do. Hiding behind fake names and attacking the folks here is cowardly
“There is no doubt in my mind that fluoridation has next to no benefit in terms of reduced dental decay and the risks for harm to several organ systems, including the brain, are so significant as to make fluoridation a practice that can now be considered ineffective and unsafe.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)
Speaking of trolls, the president of the AFS published a disingenous taunt on Dr. Bicuspid this week. See the reply from Dr. Hardy Limeback to JJ who has also started trolling this thread with his disinformation.
Yes, please do see Dr. Limeback’s false claims, half-truths, and personal attacks in regard to the article by Dr. Johnson. His claims are fully addressed and corrected in subsequent comments on that page, as are those of other fluoridation opponents who chose to post irresponsible and unsubstantiated claims on that page. Your choosing to pluck and post Limeback’s erroneous claims here, implying that they are somehow credible, without posting the rebuttals to those claims, puts you in the same, irresponsible category as those opponents posting on Dr. BIscupid.
Limeback’s comment as well as the evidence-based rebuttals to his vlaims may be found:
In addition, if you can produce any valid evidence, whatsoever, that any of what Dr. Johnson has posted on this page is “disinformation”, as you claim, then do so. Your inevitable failure produce any such evidence will be further evidence of your dishonesty and attempt to intentionally deceive the AARP membership.
In the future, you might also consider having the courage to disclose your real name instead of posting your attacks while hiding behind pseudonyms.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
"It was found that F impacts human thyroid hormones, especially TSH and T3 even in the standard concentration of less than 0.5 mg/L." - Kheradpisheh et al. 2018
“…thyroid disorder during pregnancy is a danger to both mother and baby. For mothers, the risks include preeclampsia… For babies, the risks include preterm birth, decreased mental abilities, thyroid disorder and even death.” - March of Dimes
I recently spoke with a woman who is unable to consume fluoride due to a thyroid condition. She developed thyroid disease as a child while being treated with fluoride to prevent cavities. All three of her children were low birth-weight and preterm - and she narrowly survived toxemia. Preeclampsia and toxemia are a poisoning of the placenta, and fluoride build up is one suspected cause.
The latest fluoride study looking at impact on thyroid hormones found that 0.5 mg/L (which is less than half what my city considered 'optimal' between 1981 and 2015) depresses thyroid hormones. This is consistent with research going back to at least the 1950s. The thyroid is very sensitive to fluoride exposure at any level. On a population level, you see ill effect above 0.3 ppm. The ppm designation is typically used for concentration and is the equivalent of mg/L which refers to dose.
Since 2015, the current US 'optimal' fluoride concentration in drinking water is 0.7 ppm. India considers any concentration over 0.5 ppm to be 'excessive.' I believe the actionable Indian contaminant level for fluoride removal is 1 ppm. The US EPA has an action threshold of 4 ppm. The politically set US EPA MCL/MCLG is eight times what is documented to cause harm to the thyroid.
Call your politicians in your cities, state and in Washington, call the American Thyroid Association and call the AARP. Tell them enough is enough - get the F- out of our water!
- 2018 Thyroid study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20696-4#ref-link-section-d17e615
- 2017 Pregnancy Resources: http://pregnancyandfluoridedonotmix.com/index.html
- 2016 Letter to ATA with citations: http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf
Take a look at table one from the Kheradpisheh study that you referenced:
|Fluoride||0.07 ± 0.38||0.07 ± 0.35||0.94|
|Temperature||0.6 ± 19.3||6 ± 19.3||0.16|
|pH||0.63 ± 7.3||0.56 ± 7.2||0.24|
- *IR, Interquartile range.
Look at the pH. Case median of 0.63+7.3. Control Median 0.56+7.2. Do you know what this means?
This shows the acidity of the water that the people were drinking. If indeed these authors reported accurately, which I certainly hope that they did not, it would mean that these families were drinking water that had the acidity of sulfuric acid. Not only would any health issues be moot, but these people would be dead from the acidity of water.
The problem with studies like this is that they are not well peer reviewed and make it into published journals. This one problem, along with many other issues with their study, will make it highly criticized in the scientific community and possibly retracted from print.