Learn how to spot and avoid common scams with AARP's Fraud Resource Center. Try it today!

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
481
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

481 Views
Message 1331 of 1,448

Some good scientists on fluoridation policy which should be of special interest to seniors

 

Expert in Risk Assessment: “One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” -  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Committee panelist (2017)

 

Expert in Medical Chemistry: “Community water fluoridation is a malignant medical myth!”  - Professor Joel Kauffman, chemistry innovator and multi-patent holder (2006)

 

Expert in Environmental Toxins: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water. These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration," - Dr. Leonardo Trasande MD, New York University Langone Health on 2017 NIH sponsored longitudinal study on IQ and prenatal exposure to fluoride by Bashash et al. (2017)

 

Expert in Chemical Analysis of Water: “Fluoride has a very short life in blood, is quickly sequestered in bones and excreted through the urine. This is a biological clue that the body regards fluoride as highly dangerous.”  - Susan Kanen, biochemist formerly with Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Aqueduct, water treatment plant for Washington, DC, whistleblower on lead in drinking water (2016)

 

Expert in Medical Journalism: “In large measure, those marred by dementia are showing the results of toxicity from mercury, aluminum, lead, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals. Their neurons have been poisoned. They are turned into Alzheimer’s victims directly through the efforts of dentists who blindly follow the party line of their trade union organization, the ADA.” - Dr. Morton Walker, DPM (1994)

 

Expert in biochemistry with a particular interest in toxicology: “When I tried to raise the issue with the Australian Dental Association, whom I thought were interested in the science and in integrity, there was no interest. In fact there was a lot of pressure against me to say anything at all. There was a great concern about upsetting our principle sponsors, the toothpaste manufacturers….” - Dr.  Andrew Harms, BDS, former fluoridation promoter and former President of the South Australian division of the Australian Dental Association (2013)

 

And excerpts from recent studies.

Quotes2017.jpgStudy Excerpts

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
481
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
481
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

481 Views
Message 1332 of 1,448

Steve, 

 

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

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
481
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
498
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

498 Views
Message 1333 of 1,448

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.

 Nielsen FH.

FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
498
Views
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
507
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

507 Views
Message 1334 of 1,448

Yes, Bill.  Good scientists are not “dogmatic and absolute”.  Good scientists rely on valid evidence from reliable sources.  They do not rely upon erroneous  personal opinions, unsubstantiated claims, and speculation.  When you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your claims, feel free to provide it at any time.   Attempting to cloak the absence of such evidence in personal philosophical  opinions is transparent and disingenuous.

 

As for your “sub-topics”

 

1.  Yes, concentration and dose are two different quantifiers.  Your acknowledgement of this elementary concept does not change the facts.

 

The intake, or dose, of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled.  For every one liter of such water consumed, 0.7 mg fluoride is ingested.  The average water consumption of adults is 2-4 liters per day.  Ten liters is roughly 2.5 gallons.  If you know of anyone ingesting 2.5 gallons of water on a daily basis you should caution him/her  about the dangers of water toxicity.  No public health initiative is expected to account for extreme behaviors such as this.

 

Prior to attaining the daily limit of  fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal sources, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.  When the amount of a substance which can be ingested falls below the level of adverse effects for that substance, then dose is not a concern in regard to adverse effects.  Presumedly  you understand this as you seem to have no problem with any “uncontrolled” dose of chlorine, ammonia, or any of the other substances routinely added to public water supplies.

 

Ironically, the non-fluoridated systems for which you advocate are far less controlled in regard to fluoride dose than are fluoridated systems.  While fluoridated systems maintain a constant fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/liter, non-fluoridated systems are only governed by a maximum allowable level of 4.0 mg/liter, nearly 6 times that of fluoridated systems.

 

2.  Both the EPA maximum allowable level, and the US DHHS recommended optimal level, of fluoride in drinking water obviously take into account total fluoride intake from all sources.  Believe it or not, the scientists establishing such levels are not incompetent.  

 

Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter).  Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the "dose" of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg.  The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-4 liters per day. The US CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or "dose", of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. 

 

The National Academy of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. As can be noted from a simple math equation,  before the daily upper limit of fluoride intake could be attained in association with optimally fluoridated water, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.  

 

The range of safety between the minuscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that "dose" is not an issue. 

 

3.  FAN claims as to what NHANES data “clearly shows” does not constitute proper interpretation of this data by any qualified, reliable entity.

 

The severe level of dental fluorosis is the only level of this effect considered to be an adverse effect.  Severe dental fluorosis is  rare in the US and, as clearly noted by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content less than 2.0 ppm.  And yes, this takes into account fluoride intake from all sources.  These scientists were not incompetent either.  

 

4. An image of some graph you claim to be from the EPA, with no citation to the original is meaningless.

 

5.  Your unsubstantiated personal opinion as to what the EPA “ignored” or “proposed without support” is meaningless and irrelevant.

 

6.  It has been  determined, through countless peer-reviewed scientific studies,  that  a concentration of 0.7 mg/liter fluoride in drinking water fluoride is beneficial in preventing a significant amount of  very serious dental infection in populations served by that water.

 

Steven D. Slott, DDS

  

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
507
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
560
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

560 Views
Message 1335 of 1,448

Steve,

 

Please provide just one prospective peer reviewed randomized controlled trial on the cost effectiveness of water fluoridation.  

 

Most studies are estimates of assumptions, not measured evidence.  I call that hopeful guessing.

 

Just one study please.

 

And if fluoridation is cost effective, then countries, states, or counties with water fluoridation should have lower costs and lower prevelance of caries, but they don't.

 

Certainly costs for dental treatment should be lower in fluoridated communities and that should result in lower dental insurance rates?  But that's not the case.

 

And there should be fewer dentists per 1,000 population in fluoridated communities, but that is not what I've found.

 

Yes, if we assume fluoridation is effective, then we can estimate the savings, but measured evidence such as Maupome do not show evidence of cost savings.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
560
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
551
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

551 Views
Message 1336 of 1,448

Steve,

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

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
551
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
565
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

565 Views
Message 1337 of 1,448

Steve,

 

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

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
565
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
626
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

626 Views
Message 1338 of 1,448

Steve,

 

What physiologic function reqires arsenic (or fluoride or lead)?  

What scientific evidence can you provide that arsenic is, as you say, "desirable?"

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
626
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
651
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

651 Views
Message 1339 of 1,448

Steve,

 

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

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
651
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
705
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

705 Views
Message 1340 of 1,448

Scientists. . . good scientists. . . are not dogmatic and absolute, non-negotiable.  Good scientists understand that not all evidence, research, facts are known.  We are always challenging the evidence and questioning the theories.   The terms "ignorant"  "always" "never" "established" are terms to be avoided.  Camping on assumptions is hazardous because 50% of what science has "established" is wrong and we don't know which 50%.  An open mind is essential.

 

I want to break the concept of fluoridation into small sub-topics for more clarity.

 

Lets talk about one aspect of dosage, which involves how much are we getting? and how much do we want?

 

1.   CONTROLLED DOSAGE FROM WATER:  The concentration of fluoride in water is a concentration, not a dosage.  Concentration of fluoride in water makes no "dosage" sense unless we know how much water the patient is ingesting.  Some ingest almost no water and others ingest over 10 liters a day.  Dosage of fluoride from water is uncontrolled because the amount of water consumed by each individual is not controlled.  Water is a poor medium for dispensing any substance used to treat humans or animals.

 

2.   TOTAL FLUORIDE EXPOSURE:  In all discussions on fluoride, total fluoride exposure is essential.  Individuals consume a great deal of fluoride from many sources.  Swallowing toothpaste, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, medications, and much more.  A discussion of fluoridation MUST consider all sources of fluoride exposure, not just water.  A statement such as a Harvard Professor tried to use, "water fluoridation has never been shown to cause any harm," is deceptive.  In fact, I don't know any human study which has isolated out only water fluoridation as the only source of fluoride exposure.  

 

3.  MANY ARE INGESTING TOO MUCH FLUORIDE:  NHANES clearly shows a huge increase in dental fluorosis to 60% of adolescents in 2011-2012, a biomarker of excess fluoride exposure.  Note the EPA graph below:

00001.jpgEPA 2010  The US EPA Relative Source Contribution of fluoride in 2010 shows fluoride daily intake is excessive (percentage above the black line) for about a quarter to a third of children.  

The EPA ignored the 10% of children drinking more water.  

The EPA ignored infants below six months of age.  

The EPA proposed, without support, claiming fluoride is a third safer (RfD).

 

 

And we have not considered, yet, "HOW MUCH FLUORIDE IS BENEFICIAL?"

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
705
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Are you new to the online community? Say Hi and tell us a bit about yourself, your interests, and how we can help make this community a great experience for you!


close-up group of seniors smiling at camera