Reply
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
779
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

779 Views
Message 1331 of 1,450

Steve,

 

Your response to CarryAnne does not really make "judgment" sense.

 

You say skeletal fluorosis is "not a conern."  

 

Yet provide research saying skeletal fluorosis in the USA is "extremely rare."

 

I consider rare cases of disease still a concern.  Many diseases are extremely rare and a serious concern for the person with the disease.

 

I agree overt severe crippling skeletal fluorosis is extremely rare.   Early cases are difficult to diagnose because they resemble arthritis like symptoms.   Science has much to learn.  With huge increases in dental fluorosis, I am concerned for skeletal fluorosis.

 

The lack of benefit and lack of cost effectiveness of adding more fluoride to the diet is a serious concern.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
779
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
756
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

756 Views
Message 1332 of 1,450

Last year, the European Union adopted a regulation banning amalgam use for children under age 15, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers beginning 1 July 2018.  Now that day is here!  

 

The amalgam manufacturer had a warning on its label with essentially the same warning 20 years ago.  

 

Steve,  scientists are more and more concerned about the mercury coming off of fillings and harming people.  You have suggested fluoride ingestion evidence is "settled" and many thought the same for amalgams.  But we are learning more and obviously the evidence on both is not settled.

 

Camping on speculation is risky.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
756
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
571
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

571 Views
Message 1333 of 1,450

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.

Study ExcerptsStudy Excerpts

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
571
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
571
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

571 Views
Message 1334 of 1,450

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
571
Views
Highlighted
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
588
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

588 Views
Message 1335 of 1,450

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
588
Views
Highlighted
Silver Conversationalist
1
Kudos
597
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

597 Views
Message 1336 of 1,450

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
597
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
650
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

650 Views
Message 1337 of 1,450

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
650
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
641
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

641 Views
Message 1338 of 1,450

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
641
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
655
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

655 Views
Message 1339 of 1,450

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
655
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
716
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

716 Views
Message 1340 of 1,450

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
716
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users