Refresh your driving skills with the AARP Smart Driver online course! Use promo code THANKS to save 25 percent.

Reply
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1020
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,020 Views
Message 1331 of 1,435

Richard.....no.

 

1.  The paper which you urge people to read is one written by you, rife with errors and misconceptions.  It is difficult to imagine how this paper appeared in any publication, respected or otherwise.   A review of the paper by highly respected researcher Gary Whitfird, PhD, DMD details your unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and erroneous scientific assertions.  This review may be viewed:

 

http://fluoridescience.org/commentary/physiologic-conditions-affect-toxicity-ingested-industrial-flu...

 

2.  Contrary to your claim that fluoride “is always accompanied with another cation”, fluoride is not a cation. A cation is a positively charged atom. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine.  An anion is a negatively charged atom.  Fluoride is indeed isolatable and  exists in water in free, ionic form.  

 

3.  You confuse the compound calcium fluoride with fluoride.  To what you are referring are free fluoride ions, not calcium fluoride.  CaF  is simply one of countless chemical compounds  containing fluoride ions, and does not exist in water.  Like fluoride, calcium exists in water in a free, ionic form.  Any combination of these two ions would form the compound calcium fluoride whose solubility is too low to exist in water.  It would thus, precipitate out.  However, there are too few fluoride ions  in water for such combination and precipitation to occur.

 

Given these facts, the EPA obviously does not “regulates any calcium fluoride in drinking water to prevent serious illness but does not insist that levels be low enough to prevent all adverse effects”.  In your context, it regulates the concentration of free fluoride ions.  

 

4. All fluoride ions, regardless the source compound from which they are released, regardless of whether they are termed “naturally occurring” or otherwise....are identical.  This is basic chemistry.  It therefore makes no difference through what “processess” fluoridation substances are produced.   The fluoride ions they release into water are identical to those which already exist in that water.

 

5. Due to the fact that fluoride is a normal constituent of the environment and in most foods that humans eat, fluoride is most certainly a normal component of human blood.  

 

6. Your claim that fluoride accumulation in bone is a pathologic process and not “biologically reversible” is patently false.

 

First of all, there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects resultant of bioaccumulation of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated.  

 

Second, it is a well established fact of fluoride pharmacokinetics that fluoride is incorporated and removed from long term storage in bone in response to its equilibrium with blood plasma fluoride concentration.

 

“Chronic dosing leads to accumulation in bone and plasma (although it might not always be detectable in plasma.) Subsequent decreases in exposure cause fluoride to move back out of bone into body fluids, becoming subject to the same kinetics as newly absorbed fluoride. A study of Swiss aluminum workers found that fluoride bone concentrations decreased by 50% after 20 years.”

 

—Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA Standards (2006)

NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water 

pp 92

 

7.  The use of sodium fluoride tablets in fluoiridated cities does not violate any “FDA prescription instructions”.  Fluoride supplements require prescription in order to ensure, as much as possible, that the fluoride content of the primary water source of the patient is verified prior to dispensing any further fluoride.  Simply because a community is fluoridated does not mean that all residents obtain their water from the public water supply, or that they consume water from their taps.  It is the responsibility of the prescribing dentist or physician to make these determinations, and to prescribe accordingly.

 

8.  Infants do, indeed, have teeth.  Human teeth begin developing in the fetus, continuing to the age of 8 years.  Incorporation of fluoride into the developing teeth results in strengthening these teeth against decay for a lifetime.

 

Abuse of children is denying them the increased dental decay resistance provided by water fluoridation, based on nothing but unsubstantiated claims, false assertions, and misinformation put forth by misguided, uninformed activists.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1020
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
1013
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,013 Views
Message 1332 of 1,435

“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.- European Food Safety Authority on DRV  (2013)

 

“Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences, current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age" - Dr. Robert Carton,  EPA Scientist (1993)

 

"Drinking water: 1.0 mg/L is the upper limit the body may tolerate; less the better as fluoride is injurious to health." - Bureau of Indian Standards, 2012

 

There are essential nutrients and non-essential nutrients. Fluoride is neither in any form despite dental assertions to the contrary. The best American dentists got was convincing some folks in the 1990s to call it a beneficial element with no known adverse effects up to 10 mgs per day - but that ship has sailed.  

 

Fluoride is an enzyme poison and inflammatory drug that accumulates in bones, bodies and brains. In this century, it has been scientifically determined that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant (brain poison) even in low doses previously considered safe and that  0.5 mg/L disrupts thyroid function and that 1 mg/L is nephrotoxic to struggling kidneys. Fluoride penetrates the brain where it can disrupt sleep patterns when it calcifies the pineal gland.  If you drink 3 liters of water a day at 0.7 ppm, assuming you aren't using any fluoridated dental products or have any other exposure and have healthy kidneys, your dose would be 2.1 mg. 

 

* About 40% of Americans over age 60 develop bone spurs - Stage 2 Skeletal Fluorosis. 

* About 70 million Americans suffer from gastrointestinal disease

                  Individual susceptiblity to fluoride poisoning varies

 

2015 Review: 

http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf

SkeletalFluorosis.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1013
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
4
Kudos
1022
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,022 Views
Message 1333 of 1,435

Fluoride is not a mineral. Please read the Journal of Environmental and Public Health  439490 article in its entirety. Fluorite is a mineral but fluoride is not isolatable itself and is always accompanied with another cation.

Natural minerals containing fluoride that can be found in the ocean or as a contaminant in some fresh waters is calcium fluoride with limited solubility. The EPA regulates any calcium fluoride in drinking  water to prevent serious illness but does not insist that levels be low enough to prevent all adverse health effects. All added fluoride sources are synthetic, made in industrial processes. Fluoride is not a normal component of human blood and is not a nutrient. Fluoride accumulation in bone lifetime is a pathologic process, not a physiologic one and is not biochemically reversible. 

The use of sodium fluoride tablets in fluoridated cities violate FDA prescription instructions. And infants have no teeth so fluoridating infant bone is abuse. 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
4
Kudos
1022
Views
Bronze Conversationalist
1
Kudos
1026
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,026 Views
Message 1334 of 1,435
Clearly fluoride can be .

A natural mineral in drinking water
A mineral nutrient
A water additive
An over the counter medication
A prescription medication
An industrial chemical
An industrial pollutant
A fumigant
A rat poison

Each of these statements is true. There are important, critical distinctions between each use, each concentration, and the purity standards which define the various incarnations of "fluoride." Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use.

The willful refusal to acknowledge these clear and easily understood distinctions is an important element in fluoridation opponents misleading the general public.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1026
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1009
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,009 Views
Message 1335 of 1,435

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength,  Fluoride is Gin, and America is a Gulag! 

No free nation dumbs artificial industrial waste into the water supply using the ruse that the worthless garbage benefits teeth. We may as well ingest lead and say it makes humans beautiful. Lol! 

Dentist with venal interest have no credibility, since everywhere you look in America, you see spotted teeth. Good business for dentist!

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1009
Views
Highlighted
Bronze Conversationalist
2
Kudos
1006
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,006 Views
Message 1336 of 1,435

Here is the truth regarding your worry about arsenic added to water with fluoridation:Arsenic Intake Compared to fluoridation v4.jpg

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
1006
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
955
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

955 Views
Message 1337 of 1,435

Bill, 

 

1.  The cost-effectiveness of fluoridation is without question.  I will gladly cite the numerous peer-reviewed studies clearly demonstrating this fact. If you want to trot out Thiessen’s study as cherry-picked  “evidence” against these studies I’ll be glad to explain to you the fallacy of her study.

 

2.  The safety fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is without question.  In the 73 year history of this initiative, hundreds of millions having ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, there have been no proven adverse effects.  Zero.  There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at this level is, in any manner, unsafe.

 

3.  The effectiveness of fluoridation is without question.  It has been clearly demonstrated in countless peer-reviewed studies right up to the present.  I will be glad to cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.

 

4.  Opinions are opinions.  Justices are not health-care professionals or experts.  They issue rulings on legal points of law, not on science.  While they are as welcome to their personal  opinions as is anyone else, these opinions are  no more binding than those of the GSA or anyone else.  Your implication to the contrary is erroneous and dishonest.  

 

Rulings by the court are legally binding.  The reasoning they used to get to that point is not. 

 

5. I didn’t state that “Washington state is an ‘unknown state’ “.  You simply stated that “in all state laws I have reviewed”  without specifying which states, or which laws.  Therefore, whatever laws to which you refer were from some states unknown to readers.  Given that you now only mention Washington, it seems a safe assumption that your “in all state laws which I have reviewed” means you have read through a few of the laws of the state of Washington. 

 

6.  Consumable, retail fluoride under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration is labeled  by that agency under its drug classification,  as opposed to labeling  it under its food classification.  Fluoride in water supplies is under the jurisdiction of the EPA.  The EPA does not label such  fluoride as a drug.  Those are the facts.

 

7.  Sure the FDA classifies retail consumables under its jurisdiction as either food or drug, depending on what the FDA deems is their intended use.  

 

The EPA does not categorize substances under its jurisdiction in such manner.  Among many other responsibilities, the EPA determines safety levels of substances within drinking water supplies, and mandates adherence to those levels.  Fluoride in water is under the jurisdiction of the EPA, not the FDA.  It is therefore not subject to  FDA classification or labeling, any more than it would be subject to  the classification and labeling system of any other agency.    The laws and regulations of the FDA are irrelevant to fluoride under the jurisdiction of the EPA. 

 

The EPA  maximum allowable level of fluoride in drinking water is 4.0 pom.  

Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, well under that level.

 

8.  Arsenic is everywhere in nature.  Arsenic dissolved out of  rock formations  is added to water as  that water flows over rocks or when the ground water level sinks to a certain level.    It is added to water from industrial pollution, fertilizer and pesticides in runoff, and from rain and snow which removes it from the air.  Any arsenic added to water from hydrofluorosilic acid is in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety.  

 

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.  Given strong evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient, a zero level would likely do more harm than good.  

 

9.  How you so desperately want the US Environmental Protection Agency to classify substances under its jurisdiction is meaningless and irrelevant.  

 

10.  The EPA does not add anything to water for the treatment of humans or animals.  Decisions to add additional fluoride to water  are not made at the federal level.  They are  made at the state and local level, with implementation at the local level.  

 

11.  Anything in drinking water supplies other than H20 is a contaminant.  The EPA regulates the levels at which contaminants may exist in drinking water for purposes of safety.  The maximum allowable level of fluoride in water is 4.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, far below this maximum. 

 

12.  Yes, let’s do look at the evidence....the valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence.  Your personal opinions, desires,  and speculation do not qualify as such.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
955
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
744
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

744 Views
Message 1338 of 1,435

Steve,

 

We agree on many aspects and accuse each other of not following the facts and the science. 

We agree, science should not be religion and we need to look at factual evidence, not opinion.  

We agree the FDA does NOT have jurisdiction over public water.

We agree opinions of organizations are not facts, just opinions.

 

We disagree on cost effectiveness of fluoridation.

We disagree on safety.

We disagree on judgment.  Appears you feel the Girl Scouts opinion is just as reasoned as Supreme Court Justices.

We disagree that Washington State is an "unknown" state.

We disagree that fluoride is a drug.  Toothpaste says it is.  As a dentist I have prescribed fluoride.  FDA says it is a drug.  Those are facts.  

We disagree on the FD&C Act's definition of drug.  Natural occuring fluoride is not a drug, it becomes a drug when marketed with the intent to mitigate, prevent, cure or treat a disease.  Steve, the definition of a drug is not the chemical, but the use of the chemical, the marketing of the chemical.  The FDA regulates the manufacturer and the manufacturer must gain FDA NDA for any substance used with the intent.  Read the FD&C Act.  Read the FDA web page on drugs and the development of drugs.  Read for yourself.  Read the facts.  The FDA does not exempt a manufacturer from NDA simply because they "adjust" the concentration of the chemical.  The chemical can be fake, non-existant, ineffective, or placebo, the definition is based on the "INTENT" of use.  

 

I agree with the fact that arsenic is added to water as a contaminant of such things as hydrofluorosilicic acid and water treatment chemicals.  The MCLG is zero, but that is not usually possible.  

 

If the intent of adding arsenic to water was to treat or prevent a disease, the substance then becomes a drug.

 

Steve, think this through.  If I took a drug which exists in water in very small amounts, such as penacillin or lithium, and simply adjusted the concentration, would that substance be legal to market and sell as a substance to treat disease and without a prescription or FDA NDA?   No.   Dilution of the substance does not exempt the substance from FDA NDA.  Concentration makes no difference.  Efficacy makes no difference.  The intent of use determines whether a substance is a drug.  

 

Your quote of the SDWA is correct but incomplete.  The SDWA also prohibits the EPA from adding anything for the treatment of humans or animals.  The EPA regulates contaminants, which fluoride is a contaminant.  

 

So lets look at the evidence.

Later.  I'm off to protest and march against children being taken away from their parents and treated like criminals.   

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
744
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
717
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

717 Views
Message 1339 of 1,435

Bill, I’ll go round and round in your little circles as long as you would like. However, no matter how many times you keep repeating the same invalid arguments, the facts will not change.

 

Yes, science should not be treated like religion or politics. It is a mystery why you continue to do so. The only ones I see injecting religion into the issue of fluoridation, for whatever reason, are opponents. You and Connett do so repeatedly.

 

Again, posting misrepresentations, false claims, and misinformation does not you make you a “messenger” of anything but nonsense. I am personally aware of no attempts to “shoot” you, for whatever bizarre reason you keep making that reference.

 

Yet once again.......

 

1. The opinions of the New Zealand justices were just that....opinions. They are not rulings, and carry no force of law. Countless people have opinions on fluoridation. Interestingly enough, the opponents putting out their nonsensical misrepresentation of this ruling, conveniently omit the opinion of the justice which differed with those of the others. The ruling of the NZ Supreme Court in this case was that the arguments presented by the antifluoridationists were inadequate to warrant overturn of the lower court ruling against the antifluoridationists. Their appeal was therefore rejected and the lower court ruling was upheld.  

 

2. The US FDA has no jurisdiction over the contents of public water supplies. It therefore makes no more difference to water fluoridation what the FDA approves, than it does what the Girl Scouts of America approve.

 

3. The US FDA has jurisdiction over consumable retail products. It is certainly free to testify to Congress or anywhere else how it classifies these products. Such testimony has no relevance to contents of public water supplies.

 

4. The NZ justices did not agree that “fluoride is a drug”. Just the opposite. They unanimously agreed that under the regulations set forth under the NZ Medicine Act, fluoridating agents are not drugs. The antifluoridationist challenge to the validity of those regulations had already been rejected.

 

“The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed New Health’s appeal against both aspects of the Court of Appeal decision. The Court found that the regulations were valid because they were not made for an improper purpose, nor were they made on the basis of an error of law. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the question as to whether the fluoridating agents were medicines prior to the making of the regulations was moot.”

 

Fluoridation: New Health NZ v South Taranaki DC Wednesday, 27 June 2018, 12:30 pm Press Release: NZ Supreme Court Supreme Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Mana Nui 27 JUNE 2018 http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1806/S00307/fluoridation-new-health-nz-v-south-taranaki-dc.htm

 

5. You forgot to include the Girl Scouts in your little list of whom you claim thinks fluoride is a drug. Where does GSA stand, Bill? I mean, their opinion on the contents of drinking water supplies is every bit as relevant as that of the other groups you list.

 

6. What you deem you have gleaned from a perusal of the laws of some unknown state or another, could not be any more meaningless or irrelevant. How you personally define fluoride could not be any more meaningless or irrelevant. Produce a ruling from any court of last resort that water fluoridation is illegal.

 

7. My comment does not “suggest” there are no drugs involved with fluoridation. It states this as a fact. Whatever “poison laws” to which you refer, are a mystery.

 

What you personally deem to be “options” for fluoride classification is meaningless and irrelevant. Fluoride has always existed in water. It is regulated by the US EPA, as are all other contents of such water.

 

8. The concentration of the existing fluoride content in public water supplies is adjusted through fluoridation to that level at which has been established that maximum dental decay resistance occurs in the population served by that water, with no adverse effects upon anyone. The fluoride ions added to adjust to this level are identical to those which already exist in water. An attempt to suddenly proclaim these fluoride ions to be a “drug” is obviously ludicrous.

 

9. Arsenic is ubiquitous in nature. It is added to water constantly. To prevent this occurrence would be nearly impossible. The amount of arsenic which can legally exist in drinking water at the tap, is 10 parts per billion The amount of fluoride which can legally exist in drinking water at the tap is 4.0 parts per million. As long as these amounts are not exceeded there are no legal violations. Optimally fluoridated water contains 0.7 parts per million fluoride.

 

10. Under the US Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the EPA has complete jurisdiction over the contents of drinking water. There is no “EPA legal council ” that somehow cedes this jurisdiction to the FDA. It is a congressional mandate.

 

“SDWA authorizes the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally-occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water. US EPA, states, and water systems then work together to make sure that these standards are met.”

 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/epa816f04030.pdf

 

11. The FDA never “withdrew approval of fluoride supplements”. Unlike fluoride in water, fluoride supplements are retail consumables, regulated under the FDA. They are therefore subject to the “drug” label of that agency. Drugs which were already on the market prior to 1938 when the 1906 Food and Drugs Act was revised were grandfathered in under the then new regulations. The 1906 law was revised to require testing of new drugs introduced into the market after 1938. Drugs already on the market at that time with no evidence of safety concerns were considered to be safe and not required to undergo the testing for new products which had no such existing record. Fluoride supplements were already on the market then, with no reason to question their safety. To this day, here has been no credible evidence that these supplements are in any manner unsafe. Had there been, the FDA would have reevaluated its decision to grandfather the substance......as it is currently doing with caffeine, a substance which had also been grandfathered but is now being questioned due to to effects of large doses in energy drinks.

 

The list of grandfathered drugs is extensive and includes, along with fluoride supplements and caffeine, such commonly ingested substances as acetaminophen, aspirin and codeine.

 

Antifluoridationist attempts to portray the grandfathering of fluoride supplements as an indication that such substances are unsafe, are misrepresentative and dishonest.

 

12. Penicillin does not already exist in water as does fluoride. Introducing this drug into water supplies as you suggest would be introducing a new substance not already being ingested from the water. Penicillin also has clearly documented adverse side effects, including potentially fatal allergic reactions, which fluoride does not at the optimal level utilized in fluoridation.

 

13. I have not stated you to have received any payment from FAN or AEHSP. I stated that you were extensively involved with this antifluoridationist faction. Given your lack of denial that you are a former Director of FAN and your admission that you are the Chair of the AEHSP Board, which is the same Board for FAN, the extensiveness of your involvement with FAN is self-evident.

 

14. Seeking to undermine the most cost-effective means of dental decay prevention in entire populations based on nothing but false assertions, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation is neither ethical nor moral.

 

to be continued......

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
717
Views
Silver Conversationalist
2
Kudos
677
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

677 Views
Message 1340 of 1,435

Osmunson, continued.......

 

15.  I have no “paradigm shift”.  I’m doing exactly as I said.  I’m correcting the misinformation you continually post, and have no desire to “discuss dentistry, fluoride, or other issues” with you, as you proposed in your previous comment.

 

16.  The FAN claim of what “NHANES shows”  is FAN’s interpretation, not that of NHANES.  You clearly admit here that moderate/severe dental fluorosis is not attributable to fluoridated water.  What you are therefore seeking to do is end fluoridation due to an effect that is not attributable to this public health initiative.  

 

17.  Yes, your arguments against the NTP study are not compelling in the least.  This is particularly true in view of the fact that your group promoted and blustered about this study from the very beginning, yet by some strange twist now finds it to be fraught with limitations and  having utilized questionable methodologies.  The no uncertain terms in which the results of the study debunked FAN’s claims, has nothing to do with this sudden shift in confidence in the NTP, I presume........

 

 

I fully agree.  No one study is proof of anything.  This is precisely the point  fluoridation advocates have been hammering home against the cherry-picking of antifluoridationists for years.  You should tell this to your FAN colleagues.  They are the ones who blustered about the NTP study as one “that could end fluoridation”,  who misrepresent Bashash as “proof” of neurotoxicity, and who constantly cite Bassin for their ridiculous cancer claims, while ignoring the volume of science which has clearly demonstrated just the opposite.  

 

Your claim of 6 to 1 is typical of the unsubstantiated nonsense constantly put forth  by antifluoridationists.  Providing titles of studies which contain the word “fluoride” in them somewhere does not denote relevance, validity, or proper representation of the results of such studies......as the EPA made clear in its 40 page rejection of the most recent meritless FAN petition.

 

18.  Anecdotes about what you claim the NTP told you are meaningless and irrelevance.  

 

The ones who “pops open the champaign” were FAN and its followers who blustered about this NTP study at the beginning, only to have their champaign go completely flat when the study results didn’t go as planned......to the surprise of no one except antifluoridationists.

 

19. As both York 2000 and Cochrane 2015 clearly noted, RCTs on large, population-based initiatives such as water fluoridation are infeasible, and will thus never be done.  Not only are the observational studies on fluoridation entirely acceptable, such studies have been clearly demonstrated to provide equally reliable results as RCTs.

 

“We found little evidence that estimates of treatment effects in observational studies reported after 1984 are either consistently larger than or qualitatively different from those obtained in randomized, controlled trials.”

 

—-A Comparison of Observational Studies and Randomized, Controlled Trials

Kjell Benson, B.A., and Arthur J. Hartz, M.D., Ph.D.

N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1878-1886

DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200006223422506

 

 

However, empirical proof that observational studies of treatment are widely off the mark has been surprisingly elusive.2 Four meta-analyses contrasting RCTs and observational studies of treatment found no large systematic differences (Benson 2000, Concato 2000, MacLehose 2000, Ioannidis 2001).

 

—-Why do the results of randomised and observational studies differ?

BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d7020 (Published 07 November 2011)

 

20.  Perhaps it is you who “should  read the NZ court case again”.....or actually read  for the first time, which your comments indicate you have not yet done.  If you did, then maybe you would cease misrepresenting it.  That aside, it’s interesting that you attempt to base your “choice” argument on one court case in New Zealand given that you previously professed the inadvisability of relying upon “one single study”.  I rest my case about the cherry-picking of antifluoridationists.

 

You have the option of purchasing fluoride-free bottled water, utilizing an RO filter, utilizing rain water, obtaining water from rivers and streams.....

 

Options are choices.  Inconvenience does not equate to force.  You are free to consume fluoridated water, or to obtain fluoride-free water from other sources.  Entirely your choice.

 

21.  Your “bottom line”:

 

a.  Your personal opinion as to whom is ingesting what is unsubstantiated, unquantified, and does not demonstrate  harm from optimally fluoridated water.  It is certainly not a reason to deprive entire populations of the very valuable disease preventive benefits of this public health initiative.

 

b.  The dose of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled.  For every one liter of such water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested.  When the amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the level of adverse effects for that substance, then dose is not of concern in regard to adverse effects.  Before this level could be attained from ingesting optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with fluoride intake from all other normal sources of fluoride, water toxicity would be concern, not fluoride.

 

This is true not only for fluoride but for chlorine, ammonia, and the myriad other substances routinely added to public water supplies. 

 

c.  There are  no “freedom of choice” issues involved with water fluoridation.  You are  free to consume it or not.  Entirely your choice.

 

d.  The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic.  The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water.  Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.  As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.  Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically. 

 

—-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH

http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long

 

 

Additionally, topical effects of fluoride are made possible through its ingestion. Saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing of the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.

 

Further evidence of systemic benefit is provided by:

 

------Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States

United States Centers for Disease Control

Recommendations and Reports

August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42

 Additionally, in a 2014 study Cho, et al. found:

 

-----Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence

Cho HJ, Jin BH, Park DY, Jung SH, Lee HS, Paik DI, Bae KH.

Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014; 42: 341–348. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

 

---Buzalaf MAR (ed): Fluoride and the Oral Environment. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel, Karger, 2011, vol 22, pp 97–114

(DOI:10.1159/000325151)

 

 

e.  Unsubstantiated claims about some phantom studies existing somewhere or another....are meaningless and irrelevant.

 

f.  There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any sensitivity to fluoride at the optimal level.

 

G.  Your “greatest blunder” in regard to this issue is a failure to properly educate yourself on it from reliable, respected sources of accurate information.

 

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
677
Views