Content starts here
Bronze Conversationalist

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. 



  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞
  2. 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.😞 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞

  4. 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); 

  5. 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.):



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. 



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.

  • 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. 



  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: 
    1. 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 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh:
    1. 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.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999):
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011):
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015):
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015):


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 


“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)


It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.


As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 


Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 


However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 



Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:



For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 


View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 


 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)


If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 


They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 


WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial


My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 


Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 


Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 


Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 


  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 


When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.




Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 


Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week:  


It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.


Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 


When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 


Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 


On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 




Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  




But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 



View solution in original post

Regular Contributor

Dr. Osmunson lists "information" sources which have been specifically created to politically oppose fluoridation.

Legitimate scientists are only committed to being true to the available objective information.  If fluoridation were either dangerous or worthlessly effective America's Pediatricians and their medical, dental and scientific colleagues would speak out and fluoridation would cease.

The truth is that there is overwhelming support these legitimate professionals and scientists advocating community water fluoridation.

Here is an editorial from the Portland, Oregonian which speaks to the many arguments brought against community water fluoridation the Oregonian said:

"To believe such crackpottery is implicitly to believe the following: That state and federal health agencies are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens, aided by the American Dental Association and, we guess, credulous editorial boards like The Oregonian's. While we don't consider any of these groups infallible, or even close, it's far more likely that fluoridation receives so much mainstream support because it does exactly what it's supposed to. It reduces the incidence of cavities."

Here is a convenient place to read what the many organizations supporting fluoridation have to say, in their own words

And here are systematic reviews, which are the highest quality of scientific evidence, supporting fluoridation as beneficial and safe.

2017 Systematic Review of the effects of Fluoride on Learning and Memory in Animal Studies - National Toxicology Program

2017 Information Paper:  Effects of water fluoridation on dental and other health outcomes.  Australian National Health and Medical Research Council

2017 Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water Response to TSCA Section 21 Petition, Environmental Protection Agency

2016 (update) Best Practice Approach - Community Water Fluoridation -  Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors

2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries (2015)

2015  Health Effects of water Fluoridation - An Evidence Review.  Ireland Health Research Board

2013 Systematic Evidence review of Community Water Fluoridation - American Academy of Family Physicians  (full access limited to AAFP members)

2013 Community Preventive Services Task Force.  Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation (2013)

2011 California Carcinogen Identification Committee (2011)

2010 Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality - Fluoride.  Health Canada:  Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality:  Guideline Technical Document - Fluoride (2010)

2007 Findings and Recommendations of Fluoride Expert Panel.  Health Canada

2007 A systematic review of the efficacy and safety of fluoridation.  National Health and Research Council, Australia

Regular Contributor

"Numerous reputable studies over the years have consistently demonstrated that community water fluoridation is safe, effective, and practical. Fluoridation has made an enormous impact on improving the oral health of the American people. " 
"Our country is fortunate to have over 204 million Americans living in fluoridated communities and having access to the health and economic benefits of this vital public health measure." 
Jeffrey S. Flier, MD
Dean of the Faculty of Medicine
Caroline Shields Walker Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
R. Bruce Donoff, DMD, MD
Dean and Walter C. Guralnick Distinguished Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Harvard School of Dental Medicine
Julio Frenk, MD, MPH, PhD
Dean of the Faculty, Harvard School of Public Health
T & G Angelopoulos Professor of Public Health and International Development,
Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Kennedy School
"I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level"
---John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
“With the development of fluoridated drinking water and dental sealants, Americans are less likely to experience tooth loss and gingivitis by middle age …  Community water fluoridation continues to be a vital, cost-effective method of preventing dental [cavities].”
Dr. Regina Benjamin, Surgeon General (2009-current)
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
“Water fluoridation has helped improve the quality of life in the United States by reducing pain and suffering related to tooth decay, time lost from school and work, and money spent to restore, remove or replace decayed teeth.”
Dr. Richard Carmona, Surgeon General (2002-2006)
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
“More than 50 years of scientific research has found that people living in communities with fluoridated water have healthier teeth and fewer cavities than those living where the water is not fluoridated.   … A significant advantage of water fluoridation is that anyone, regardless of socioeconomic level, can enjoy these health benefits during their daily lives — at home, work, or at school or play — simply by drinking fluoridated water or beverages prepared with fluoridated water.”
Dr. David Satcher, Surgeon General (1998-2002)
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
“Data consistently have indicated that water fluoridation is the most cost-effective, practical, and safe means for reducing the occurrence of tooth decay in a community.”
Dr. Audrey Manley, Surgeon General (1995-1997)
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
Fluoridation is “the single most important commitment a community can make to the oral health of its children and to future generations.”
Dr. C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General (1982-1989)
The American Dental Association
“Studies conducted throughout the past 65 years have consistently shown that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective in preventing dental decay in both children and adults.”
The American Academy of Pediatrics
“Fluoride plays a very important role in the prevention of dental [decay]. Although the primary mechanism of action of fluoride in preventing dental [decay] is topical, systemic mechanisms are also important.”
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“For many years, panels of experts from different health and scientific fields have provided strong evidence that water fluoridation is safe and effective.”
The American Academy of Family Physicians
“Fluoridation of public water supplies is a safe, economical and effective measure to prevent dental [decay].”
The Institute of Medicine
“Evidence continues to reaffirm that community water fluoridation is effective, safe, inexpensive, and is associated with significant cost savings.”
The American Public Health Association
“Much of the credit for the nation’s better oral health can be attributed to the decision in the 1940s to begin adding fluoride to public drinking water systems.”
Steven D. Slott, DDS



Endorsements can be found for everything.  Endorsements are not science.


Lets keep the discussion on a scientific footing and please answer my question,




Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor



”Endorsements”?  The opinions and recommendations of such highly respected healthcare professionals, educators, Publc Health officials, and organizations.....are “endorsements”?  Well, I suppose that makes about as much sense as the rest of your comments.


Interesting that you seem not to have a problem with the constant flow of “endorsements” posted by your FAN colleague, “CaryAnne”......


So, since we’ve put Spencer’s nonsense into proper perspective, let’s do get on a “scientific footing” as I’ve been urging you to to do from the no avail.


In regard to your cap enhanced question, you must first define “EXCESS EXPOSURE”, as this could be defined in any manner.  Then, once that is established, you must provide valid scientific evidence of any such “EXCESS EXPOSURE” which may be causing a discernible problem.  My opinion, as well as probably that of most others, is that “EXCESS EXPOSURE” in the negative sense would be defined as a level just above that at which adverse effects may begin to occur.  The National Academy of Medicine has established 10 mg fluoride intake per day to be the threshold of adverse effects for daily fluoride intake.  As I personally know no one who routinely ingests that huge amount of fluoride on a daily basis, I’m not sure what it is you deem needs to be reduced.


In countries such as China and India which have massive environmental fluoride pollution, large reductions in fluoride exposure are an absolute necessity.  Among other health concerns, crippling skeletal  fluorosis is an overwhelming problem for the unfortunate residents of those areas. As such, those countries constantly struggle to reduce chronic exposure to abnormally high levels of this environmental fluoride pollution.  In the United States we have no such problems with fluoride exposure, as evidenced by the near non-existence of skeletal fluorosis,   and the lack of any valid evidence of adverse effects from the optimally fluoridated water serving nearly 75% of this country.  So, I’m really not aware as to why you are obsessed with “correcting” a non-existent problem, and don’t know how to help you with that.


Steven D. Slott, DDS








Thank you for responding to my question.   You state, "So, I’m really not aware as to why you are obsessed with “correcting” a non-existent problem, and don’t know how to help you with that."


Apparently for you, there is no amount of dental fluorosis which is of concern.  I presume if all 200,000,000+++ people in the USA had dental fluorosis even severe, that would not be a problem for you?  Or is there an upper limit acceptable to you?


You reference the National Academy of Medicine 10 mg/day of fluoride as a threshold of adverse effects.  What adverse effects did they use to make that determination?  Are you referring to the book "Health Effects of Fluoride" from 1993?  Or which one?   


I presume the 10 mg/day is for adults and what did they recommend for children and infants?  


My memory is 3 mg for women, 4 mg for men a day.  EPA has 0.06 mg/kg for an RfD or about 3 mg for a 50 kg woman.   But EPA does not include infants or those drinking the most water.   Here is their Figure 8.1 from 2010, Dose Response Analysis.  You can see they proposed 0.08 mg/kg/day, but that has not been chosen that I'm aware of. 


Note how they ignore infants, use the 90th percentile which ignores those drinking the most water, proposes to increase the RfD (EPA's "safe" dosage) and about a quarter of kids will still ingest too much even.  EPA has skewed the evidence as much in favor of fluoride as they can and still many are harmed.  


The reason I'm focused on excess fluoride exposure as considered with dental fluorosis, is the effect that much fluoride has on other tissues.  


We can't really consider risks until we know how much fluoride is excess in your opinion.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

EPA 2010EPA 2010



Regular Contributor

1.  Sure, Bill, the internet is a wonderful thing.  Instead of depending on your memory, and/or blurbs from “fluoridealert” all you have to do is exert a modicum amount of effort, and you can obtain a wealth of accurate, authoritative information.  Here’s a link to the NAM reference tables:


The daily upper limit for fluoride intake is 10 mg/day for children and adults above the age of 8 years.  That for infants and children 0-8 is considerably less due to the chance of occurrence of mild dental fluorosis in teeth during those teeth developing years. That such fluorosis is the only reason for this lesser upper limit is evidenced by the fact that after age 8, the teeth have developed, dental fluorosis no longer possible, and the daily upper limit jumps to 10 mg.


2.  If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that “all 200,000,000+++ people in the USA had dental fluorosis even severe” then feel to present it any time.  Otherwise your question is moot.  


3. Your garbled opinions on the EPA...NAM...or whatever it is to which you are trying to refer, are irrelevant.


4.  If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal daily sources of fluoride, feel free to present it any time. 


5.  You’re the one obsessed with some unquantified level of fluoride intake which you consider to be “excess fluoride exposure”, not I.  I’ve already told you that I consider “excessive fluoride exposure” to be that at which adverse effects may begin to occur.  Whatever you consider to be such a level is entirely up to you, and of no concern to me.  



Steven D. Slott, DDS








Thank you for responding to my question.   You state, "So, I’m really not aware as to why you are obsessed with “correcting” a non-existent problem, and don’t know how to help you with that."


Apparently for you, there is no amount of dental fluorosis which is of concern.  I presume if all 200,000,000+++ people in the USA had dental fluorosis even severe, that would not be a problem for you?  Or is there an upper limit acceptable to you?


You reference the National Academy of Medicine 10 mg/day of fluoride as a threshold of adverse effects.  What adverse effects did they use to make that determination?  Are you refering to the book "Health Effects of Fluoride" from 1993?  Or which one?   


I presume the 10 mg/day is for adults and what did they recommend for children and infants?  


My memory is 3 mg for women, 4 mg for men a day.  EPA has 0.06 mg/kg for an RfD or about 3 mg for a 50 kg woman.   But EPA does not include infants or those drinking the most water.   Here is their Figure 8.1 from 2010, Dose Response Analysis.  You can see they proposed 0.08 mg/kg/day, but that has not been chosen that I'm aware of. 


Note how they ignore infants, use the 90th percentile which ignores those drinking the most water, proposes to increase the RfD (EPA's "safe" dosage) and about a quarter of kids will still ingest too much even.  EPA has skewed the evidence as much in favor of fluoride as they can and still many are harmed.  


Thnaks for sending the reference on your 10 mg/day quote.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

EPA 2010EPA 2010



Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoridation promoters argue that it does not matter that dental fluorosis increases in incidence in every city that fluoridates its people and that there are no exceptions.  Their idea is that white spots are not pathologic.  But fluorosis is properly named because it is an abnormal condition of deficient enamel layered at the fluorosed location. A surface cut which eventually heals is still labeled a pathologic trauma that requires inflammation to occur to repair. But fluorosis is permanent damage that cannot be repaired and is thus worse than simple pathology. it is a permanent abnormality. Many are affected with reduced employment oportunites because of it. And no one actually goes out and seeks for or desires it because it is an abnormality.

It is downplayed by fluoridiaotnists becuase it is the chief visible outcome of the fluoridation of people that is a recognized side effect. It is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. The Kumar chart is in agreeement with many other studies that show as water fluoride increases, dental fluorosis incidence increaes progressivley while dental caries are not affected outside experimental error (as in Ziegelvecker and by Teotia and others).

Second, although the NRC estimated a half life of bone fluoride at 20 years, note that it is only marrow and otehr soft tissue regions in bone that are able to have fluoride removed upon transfer to fresh clean drinking water. Fluoride removal from compact bone is not a biochemically reversible process. Fluoride is a poisonous insult to bone and has of course no function there.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

"The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence.” - Wiener et al. (2018)


Apologies to the senior citizens who must be disgusted by now with all the scientific vitriol since Thursday. However, since JJ brought up dental fluorosis and used a picture, I thought I'd share a picture - with excerpts from studies and citations for those of you who have noticed stains on your grand-kid's teeth, albeit more prevalent and with worse severity in Black & Hispanic populations because of a genetically determined lower tolerance to fluoride.


What has changed over the years is more and more communities are fluoridated. Dental fluorosis is a lagging indicator of overexposure from 10-12 years earlier, a predictor of increased learning disabilities during childhood, and a leading indicator of increased dental bills - for a lifetime.


DFwQuotes.jpgTo confirm the numbers, here are links to the source documents: 

2010 CDC:  
2018 31% increase in a decade:


BTW: My little daughter (white) who consumed fluoridated tap water from age one to age 3 had mild dental fluorosis on several of her teeth, diagnosed by her dentist who was positively gleeful when he saw it. I was not happy with those white stains. Since I figured out that it was the water causing rashes and stomach problems in both my children and myself, I switched to bottled water for a decade and my children's adult teeth were fine.


However, when I started using a filter about 10 years later, all sorts of other health effects emerged in my family. Sadly, I did not connect them to the water until after decades of misery. 

Regular Contributor

As a senior citizen, member of AARP, and a Pediatric Dentist, you should apologize to those that may still be reading this thread.


You are misrepresenting the findings of credibly conducted science.  You are also in need of a definitive diagnosis of your "rash", as optimally fluoridated water has never been indicated as a cause of allergic dermatitis.   You should see a Board Certified Allergist.  You would be an interesting case report in their journal.


Additionally, with >3 decades of clinical private practice in pediatric dentistry, your pictures and snippets of articles does not represent in what is seen in practice.  Having seen thousands and thousands of patients over my career, from birth to mid-20's, there has never been one that required treatment for the mild to very mild dental fluorosis that is slightly higher in fluoridated communities than those which aren't.  None has EVER required dental veneers costing thousands of dollars as you state.


It is very easy to pull information from the internet and claim that it supports your perspective.  If those reading your posts are clicking on your hyperlinks, they will readily see that many do not apply to community water fluoridation as practiced in the U.S.  Additionally, many are misquoted.


Leave this to the dental and medical professionals to discuss.  Writing confusing pieces to mislead my families here is unforgivable.


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit group of medical and dental health professionals formed to disseminate the credible evidence-based science on community water fluoridation


Johnny Johnson,


You said, "as optimally fluoridated water has never been indicated as a cause of allergic dermatitis."  The word "never" is not a word which is used very often in science, and then it is a red flag.


Yes, there are some people who are chemically sensitive who develop a rash taking a shower or bath in fluoridated water.  I know of three.  


The cases are rather interesting.  One keeps moving when fluoridation is started in her community.


Another has a child who develops allergic dermatitis.  The teenager is in sports and they travel to different communities and stay in hotels.  Mom has made it a habit to look at her teenager's skin after a shower.   Whether or not there is a rash, mom calls the water department to confirm the hotel is or is not getting fluoridated water.  So far the results have been consistent.  No rash with no fluoridated water and a rash with floridated water.  


More common is a rash from topical use.  I do have patients who have been advised not to use fluoride toothpaste and their rashes have stopped.  


Perhaps more common than we know, but we must be careful in science when someone uses the word "never."   


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

 Fluoride is capable of producing any number of symptoms. They include drowsiness, profound desire to sleep, dizziness, nasal congestion, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat, coughing, wheezing (asthma), chest pain, hives, and various intestinal symptoms. Most of the information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication.” - Hobart Feldman, MD, American Board of Allergy and Immunology (1979)


How dare you! You are crossing a whole other line in offering me off the cuff medical advice and  diagnosis without a consultation that derisively dismisses me on a public forum, JJ.  


My children and I did see allergists and other MDs. Our rashes were diagnosed as eczema, psoriasis, allergic urticaria odd 'lesions' in allergic hive variety, IBS, etc. and I was advised by my doctors to only consume spring or filtered water because 'some people are sensitive to the chemicals in the water.' Also, to watch my diet in order to avoid things that set me off.  Everything set me off, because water is in everything.  15% of the population is like my family, misdiagnosed & dismisssed. 


At least a couple of those doctors were deceptive  - they knew. Their choice of language and odd treatment gave them away, although it took me a long time to figure it all out. The literature as you well know documents rashes including the odd lesions as a very distintive type of hive specific to fluoride sensitivity that a minority of women and children get in the preclinical stage of fluoride poisoning called Chizzola maculae - a symptom that the fluoridation lobby has successfully succeeded in hiding from most medical practioners. 






20th Century Science: 

Feltman R. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Dental Digest. August 1956. pp 353-357. 


Feltman R,  Kosel G. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report. R Journal of Dental Medicine. October 1961; 16(4):190-198. 


Fluoride dentrifice and stomatitis. Douglas TE. Northwest Medicine. Sept 1957, 56:1037-1039. 


Waldbott GL, Zacks MN. Blood Clotting in Patients with Chizzola Maculae. Fluoride. 1977; Vol.10, No. 1.  


G. L. Waldbott & V. A. Cecilioni (1969) “Neighborhood” Fluorosis, Clinical Toxicology, 2:4, 387-396,


Allergy to Fluoride. Shea JJ,  Gillespie SM, Waldbott GL. Annals of Allergy, Volume 25, July, 1967. 


Spittle B. (1993) “Allergy and Hypersensitivity to Fluoride.” Fluoride. Volume 26. 


Gibson S. (1999) “Effects of fluoride on immune system function.” Complementary Medical Research. Vol 6: 111-113.


Case Studies 


21st Century Science 

See database for recent science tagged by topic: 








Don't let Johnny Johnson intimidate you because you don't have a dental or medical degree.   And you are not offering off the cuff medical advice.  


If we are going to start that kind of intimidation, then we could charge all the dentists and physicians talking about fluoride with malpractice because none of us are licensed in every state where people are reading these posts.


Johnny is only trying to make you feel inferior.  A bully, such as Trump, uses intimidation and public threats and intimidation.  He especially likes to pick on those with less power, such as children, especially immigrant children because they can't fight back.


Your posts, facts, and references are most reasonable.  I think we can all agree that a Cochrane review of RTC studies has more weight, but because fluoridationists refuse to do those studies, we have to use trials and reports with lower confidence.  


You have better judgment when evaluating the evidence than some on this forum blinded by bias.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Regular Contributor



Yes, all seniors need to do is observe how much “stain” they have noted on their grandkids’ teeth.  In doing so, they will note very little discernible discoloration which can in any manner, be attributable to fluoride exposure.  Why?  Because dental fluorosis is not a problem in regard to optimally fluoridated water, and is certainly not a problem that antifluoridationists have attempted to pump it into being.  The only dental fluorisis considered to be an adverse effect is severe.  This level of dental fluorosis is rare in the US, and does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content less than 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that level.  


Steven D. Slott, DDS



You asked for references for the CDC Figure 1.  Note the CDC has 5 references for their data.


And you said only "severe" dental fluorosis is an adverse affect.  And if a patient comes in and wants treatment for moderate or mild DF, am I supposed to say they have a monosymptomatic hypochdriacal psycosis and send them out the door?  


Harm is in the eye of the beholder.  If I scratch your car, the car will run just fine and I'm sure you would not call that severe damage, so it is only cosmetic and does not need to be repaired, right?   Wrong.  If I scratched your car, it is harm.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH



Regular Contributor

So, okay, Bill, you claim the CDC/NHANES data used for the graph to be “bogus, an exageration and simply cherry picked science.” and that “they [CDC] persist in telling lies.”  in regard to the inverse relation of fluoridation and dental decay incidence depicted in the graph.....yet you seem to have no probem with NHANES data when you believe it supports some point you deem important about dental fluorosis.   Hmm.....there seems to be a bit of confirmation bias occurring in your thinking.


As you, yourself, noted, the NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered only the severe level of dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect.  As far as your patient whom you claim wants treatment for moderate or mild dental fluorosis, in all likelihood, any perception of “harm” and request for treatment would be driven by your own bias and recommendations to the patient, not by an initial complaint or desire of  that patient.  Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated such fluorosis to have little or no negative impact on oral health related quality of life of patients or their families.


“Using a population- and person-centered perspective, we conclude that dental caries in school-aged children in North Carolina is a much bigger public health concern than enamel fluorosis.  The prevalence of fluorosis is less than caries, and it had no impact on the OHRQoL of children or their families. Dental car-
ies had a negative impact on OHRQoL for the majority of students and their families.”


—Effects of Enamel Fluorosis and  Dental Caries on Quality of Life

U. Onoriobe, R.G. Rozier, J. Cantrell, and R.S. King

J Dent Res 93(10):972-979, 2014


Your personal bias, perception of what you personally deem to be “harm”, and treatment recommendations you make to your patients based on your own perceptions, are not valid reasons to deprive entire populations of the very valuable disease preventive benefits of water fluoridation......especially in view of the fact that the alternative to fluoridation is risk of significant increase in dental decay, which does, indeed have a negative impact on quality of life.


Steven D. Slott, DDS














I'm amazed at your thought processes and ability to change the subject and twist the concepts.  


I do not dispute the CDC/NHANES data.  In fact, it appears better than surveys done in other countries.  For example, some countries only look at dental fluorosis of the front teeth, whereas NHANES evaluates all teeth. . . much better data. 


I dispute the CDC Oral Health Division use of the data to suggest a random 17% increase in CWF caused a huge decline in caries nation wide.  There is no common cause, simply not possible.   Yes, twe events happened but they are unrelated.


What is so hard about that to understand?????


Steve, you appear to be "all or nothing."   You do not seem to have an ability to make value judgments.    Yes, I do use and respect NHANES data, it is the best we have.  However, I don't respect trying to force the data to fit the policy.


Not everyone is all "right" or all "wrong."   We all make mistakes but that does not mean we are all bad.   I give the CDC credit for their surveys, but I am highly opposed to the CDC - Oral Health Division's total effort to protect policy rather than protect people.  


When you see heavy metal or chemical or other clinical signs in the mouth of harm, do you tell the patient?  Of course.  


Failure to diagnose pathology is malpractice.  A dentist who fails to diagnose dental fluorosis and advise the patient not to swallow toothpaste and reduce their fluoride exposure is failing to provide the standard of care necessary to protect the patient.  True, the DF signs were caused when young, but their body has had too much fluoride and current exposure may still be too high.  What they swallowed causing the DF maybe still a habit.


The half life of fluoride in the body is about 20 years.  A patient with a biomarker of excess fluoride in their bodies must be told options for reducing the excess.


Some patients will say they don't like the white spots on their teeth and others like them.  I don't push people to treat dental fluorosis if they have it.   I do diagnose.  The same with TMD.  Diagnosis is not an option, treatment is much less.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor



”change the subject and twist the concepts”?  Hmmmm......your graph and your words, Bill.  All I do is respond to your claims point-by-point. The subject changes are all yours, not mine.   If you are having trouble keeping up with all your claims then perhaps you should consider reducing them to a number which you can manage.


1.  Seems that it’s fine with you that FAN “interprets”  NHANES data then claims it to be “what NHANES data shows”, yet when some other entity interprets the data contrary to your desires, you lash out deeming  that to be “cherry-picking”, and making a groundless accusation that the CDC is lying.  Again, there seems to a good bit of confirmation bias occurring on your part


3.  Mild dental fluorosis is not pathology.  It is simply a barely detectable cosmetic effect which requires no treatment.  “Diagnosing” a non-existent pathology, then recommending expensive, invasive treatment to the patient for such “pathology” is unethical at the very least.  In addition, given that mildly fluorosed teeth have been demonstrated by peer-reviewed science to be more decay resistant, by performing an unecessary, invasive treatment on such teeth you are making them weaker, more susceptible to decay, and subject to a lifetime of replacement restorations and treatments.  Regardless of how pure you’ve convinced yourself are your motives, such treatment of patients is a detriment to their their health and fosters a justifiable lack of trust in the profession of dentistry. 


Steven D. Slott, DDS



Bronze Conversationalist

"Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson 


July 1, 2018 New York Times Obituary:

Arvid Carlsson, Who Discovered a Treatment for Parkinson’s, Dies at 95

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, a Swedish scientist whose discoveries about the brain led to the development of drugs for Parkinson’s disease and earned him a Nobel Prize, died on Friday. He was 95...... 


... Dr. Carlsson was an outspoken critic of fluoridating water supplies to prevent cavities. He said that fluoride produces side effects, such as mottled teeth, and that fluoridation was contrary to the principles of modern pharmacology because there was no way to regulate the amount of fluoride individuals received. He argued that individualized preventive care was a better approach.


Note: Dr. Carlsson was a world-renowned scientist who specialized in neurodegenerative diseases that primarily affect senior citizens. He was one of thousands of scientists who oppose fluoridation based on evidence of harm. His country of Sweden, like most of Europe & the world, is unfluoridated because of his integrity & courage






Bronze Conversationalist

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

Regular Contributor



Karen, do you seriously believe that a handful of unsubstantiated personal opinions constitutes valid evidence of anything, whatsoever?  


Sigh..... I will be glad to provide you with a page full of opinions to the contrary from some of the most highly respected healthcare professionals and organizations in the world if that’s your argument.


Steven D. Slott, DDS

Bronze Conversationalist

A diagnosis of Skeletal Fluorosis was observed in patients with fluoride intake as low as 0.355 mg/day with urinary fluoride levels of just 0.485 mg/L. In fact, the majority of SK cases had fluoride intake < 10 mg/ day with a large number < 5 mg/day.

  • “Fluoride toxicity depends on the following factors: (i) the total dose ingested, (ii) the duration of exposure, (iii) the nutritional status, and (iv) the body’s response… genetic factors, especially SNPs, which may affect bone metabolism, may influence the pathogenesis of fluorosis… related with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)… subjects showed different degrees of fluorosis when exposed to the same degree of fluoride… suggested that the individual genetic susceptibility to fluorosis would benefit from further research… ” in Chinese study (2017) 

The team of trolls from the 'American Fluoridation Society' who overwhelmed this site a few days ago would have you believe there isn't any valid science about fluoride and arthritis or any other ailment. Well, we seniors understand about arrogant doctors, misdiagnoses, and medical malpractice. Case in point, American & Canadians studies that found attempts to treat osteoporosis with purified NaF (a clean version of what is dumped in many water systems) caused gastrointestinal complaints, aggravated arthritic symptoms and didn't prevent fractures (that's because even though fluoride makes bones more dense & hard, it is low quality bone that increases brittleness): 


Although there is less American research on fluoridation and arthritis than there should be, there is more than enough science to prove fluoridation policy is harmful rather than helpful. Moreover, there are a wealth of government reports in mainstream American press that Baby Boomers have more arthritis at younger ages than our parents ever did. 


“'This is not your mother's arthritis': Most cases found in younger Americans” by Jen Christiansen. CNN. March 7, 2017. 


Excerpts on arthritis 

Databased of science: 

Arthritis numbers 


BTW: The reason there isn't more American research specific to arthritis & fluoridation is that everything there is documents fluoride causes or worsens arthritis in people of all ages. Consequently, more documentation only increases liability risk and threatens a profitable industry.


Fluoride causes or worsens many types of arthritis, most notably osteoarthritis & rheumatoid arthritis. After 23 years of going to bed in pain every night, my arthritis ('chronic Lyme') ended in less than two weeks of assidious avoidance, even using spring water instead of filtered water to brush my teeth. Avoidance is very difficult when it's in municipal water. AARP - pay attention! 




Regular Contributor



Karen, please stop fear-mongering about skeletal fluorosis.  Aside from the mound of misinformation you’ve posted, you’ve clearly demonstrated that you have no idea as to the difference between dose and concentration of fluoride, much less the effect of either.


Once again, skeletal fluorosis is not a concern in regard to optimally fluoridated water.  If it was, this disorder would be rampant in the nearly 75% fluoridated US by now.


From the US Department of Health and Human Services:


“Several of the more recent reviews on the safety of fluoride intake have discussed skeletal fluorosis, which is extremely rare in the United States. Epidemiological studies in the U.S. of communities with naturally occurring fluoride in the water 3.3 to 8 times the amount in optimally adjusted water supplies found no evidence of skeletal fluorosis. Pages 45-47 of the 1991 Department of Health and Human Services document Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks discusses the topic of skeletal fluorosis topic in more detail and provides references. Only 5 cases of skeletal fluorosis have ever been reported in the U.S. In these cases, the total fluoride intake was 15 to 20 mg./fluoride per day for 20 years.”—-fluoridation-hhs-response-rfr



In regard to your other claims:


1.  Your attempt to equate your own ignorance of the facts with the knowledge of all other seniors.....i.e. “we seniors understand”...... is an insult to the intelligence of seniors everywhere.  Unsubstantiated claims as to what you think you know, have no foundation in fact, much less any valid evidence to support them.


2.  Because a study has the word “fluoride” in it, does not make it relevant to the minuscule amount of fluoride in optimally fluoridated water.


a.  In the 1991 study you cite, the osteoporosis treatment consisted of administering 22 mg of fluoride per day.  Yeah.... no kidding.....with  that incredibly massive dose of fluoride, there would undoubtedly be problems.  


The amount of fluoride obtained from consuming one liter of optimally fluoridated is 0.7 mg.


b. Neither is the  2002 study you cite of any relevance.  It is in regard to guidelines in the management of osteoporosis.  Water fluoridation is not intended, or expected to prevent osteoporosis.  Fluoridation is simply the adjustment of the level of existing fluoride in water to that concentration at which has been determined to result in significantly reduced amount of dental decay in the populations served by that water.


c. In your third opinion piece posted  on an antifluoridationist website.....long time fluoridation opponent, Hardy Limeback, expresses his “concern” about fluoridation effects on human bone.  Limeback’s own 2010 study demonstrates there to be no effect on human bone from fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated:


“Many decades of epidemiological studies have shown minImal evidence of any effects of fluoride administration on bone, and it is therefore very unlikely that municipally fluoridated water affects adults with healthy bone. In this study, no
effects of fluoride on mineralization (by BSE) and no substantive negative effects of fluoride administration on bone mechanical properties were observed”

—The Long-term Effects of Water Fluoridation on the Human Skeleton

Chacra, Limeback, et al.

Journal of dental research 89(11):1219-23 · November 2010


3.   Unsubstantiated claims of some phantom “science” you believe to  exist somewhere or another, are obviously meaningless.


4.  Studies on arthritis are irrelevant to water fluoridation.  There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any association of optimally fluoridated water with arthritus.


5.  Anecdotal claims and self-diagnoses  of your own perceived ailments are of no relevance.  If you have valid, documented diagnoses of the cause of any medical condition you may have, from qualified, properly licensed and credentialed healthcare providers, feel free to present it at any time. In the meantime, you are probably exacerbating any such medical conditions by failing to obtain proper diagnoses and treatment.  



Steven D. Slott, DDS





















I would like to look at some research which is powerful questioning support of fluoride ingestion.  The Figure 1 reproduced from the CDC Oral Health Division web page is an example of cherry picked evidence.  In dental school I was shown the early renditions which were used to convince me fluoridation caused caries to decline.  

Evidence settled, some might say.  However, look and think about the evidence.  Caries declined from 4 DMFT to just over 1 DMFT.  Very impressive, 75% reduction in caries.  The graph seems to claim the huge decrease resulted from an increase in about 17% of the ENTIRE USA population fluoridated.   Not possible.  Even a halo from heaven could not do that.  Fluoride would have to have been targeted on the 17% of the population most at risk, not randomly added to public water in various cities.  The CDC knows their evidence is bogus, an exageration and simply cherry picked science.  But they persist in telling lies.

CDC Web Page 2017CDC Web Page 2017

Now lets look at a longer time frame as presented in the graph below which includes the CDC timeline with the same decline.  However, a longer timeline helps put perspective on fluoridation.  Caries declined from over 11 cavities for a 12 year old in 1930, to about half by the time fluoridation became significant.  


What cause the huge decline in caries prior to fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste?   Please answer Steve?   


Once you know what caused the decline, based on research, then explain how that huge caries crushing cause all of a sudden stopped when fluoridation started and the credit for caries reduction can be given to fluoridation.


Any benefit from fluoridation, based on the population at large is simply pipe smoke speculation and assumptions.  


Yes, two events happened but the evidence does not show common cause.  Any study comparing two groups may simply be comparing the random decline which we could say is a natural ebb and flow of all diseases.   


Colquhoun 1997 ISFRColquhoun 1997 ISFRAnd please, stick to the evidence.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor

Bill, given that the graph you posted claiming to be something from the CDC, has no citation to its original location, and no context, whatoever, how you expect any valid conclusion to be drawn from such “information” based solely on your unsubstantiated personal assertion of what you deem to be shown in this anybody’s guess.


You need to learn what constitutes properly cited, valid scientific evidence.  Your reliance upon such nonsense as you post is probably one good reason why you have so little understanding of this issue, and can provide no valid evidence to supprt your claims.


Steven D. Slott, DDS

Regular Contributor



How about we stick with clinical dentistry for the present moment Bill.  And perhaps a bit of evidence-based science thrown in.


1.  You stated in your testimony in Cortland, NY, that you place veneers over teeth that are showing fluorosis from CWF.  You did not show any before or after pictures.  You know that the only fluorosis attributed to CWF is very mild to mild.  Why don't you show pictures of before and afters of patients you've treated from CWF that needed veneers?  I'd like to see them.  Please refer to the CDC figure below:

Image of normal tooth with semi-translucent structure and smooth, glossy, pale cream color.
Image of questionable fluorosis. Teeth show some slight differences from normal translucent appearance. Some white spots are apparent but not enough to warrant a diagnosis of very mild fluorosis.
Very mild
Image of very mild fluorosis. Teeth with small, paper-white opaque spots over a small area.
Image of mild fluorosis. Teeth show white opaque areas covering an extensive portion, but not as much as 50%, of the total surface.
Image of moderate fluorosis. All surfaces of teeth affected with opaque areas and teeth show marked wear and brown staining.
Image of severe fluorosis. All enamel surfaces of teeth are affected and the teeth do not exhibit normal development. The teeth are pitted and brown staining is also apparent.


2.  The US Community Preventive Services Task Force stated that severe fluorosis does not occur from CWF.  The literature review that they undertook was reviewed by the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG), the same COHG that published their report in 2015 on CWF.  They gave their stamp of approval to the studies used.


The USCPSTF findings:

Task Force Finding (April 2013) The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends

1. community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations.

2. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF.

3. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis. Evidence indicates the economic benefit of CWF is greater than the cost.

4.In addition, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the size of the community population.


Lastly, your mixing of facts and snippets of information based on the typical anti-fluoridation 101 handbook should be somthing left to a person that is outside of our profession, especially someone with an MPH after their name.  Stick with the facts.


Show me before/afters of the last 10 patients that you treated with veneers that were required by fluorosis that you relate to CWF.  It's time to become a dentist here, Bill.  Let the other non-dental commentors use the double talk that you are putting out.  Let's make this about clinical experiences.




Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society


Dr. Johnny Johnson,


Before I respond to your comments, let me once again express my admiration for Pedodontists.  I worked in a rural area where there were no specialists and I took children to the hospital for treatment.  Moving on to a larger center, the first thing I did was find a good Pedodontist to take my children.  


Adults usually know why they have problems and accept treatment.  Children don't understand and too often suffer with fear, pain, and the unknown.  I hurt for the kids and was just as stressed as they.  I would not have lasted long drilling holes in children.  God bless Pedodontists.  And yes, I gave the kids fluoride before I knew it was frying their thyroids and brains.


Yes, I treat dental fluorosis.  Some try bleaching, which can have some benefit.  Some try smoothing and recalcification, but they don't follow through well.  Some want composite veneers and some porcelain veneers.


Johnny, those (CPSTF and others) who say that severe fluorosis does not occur with CWF. . . make no sense and have their heads buried in the sand.


CWF is a contributing factor for total fluoride exposure.   No one has done a study on humans removing all other sources of fluoride.  Humans don't consume ONLY CWF water and no foods, medications, dental products or any other sources of fluoride.  CPSTF is probably correct, if the only intake of fluoride were CWF, the person would die from lack of food and air. . . never developing DF.  Many sources of fluoride and we don't live in isolation living on CWF alone.


The statement is not real world, reality, and is theoretical abstract non-sense.  


CWF contributes to total fluoride exposure.  




20% of adolescents have moderate/severe DF.  When CWF started, Burk assured us perhaps only 10-15% of children would get DF and then only the mildest forms.   We now have 60% with 20% moderate/severe.  In my judgment, too many children are ingesting too much fluoride.


As a public health professional, it is urgent that we reduce total fluoride exposure.  Do we do that by removing fluoride medications, pesticides, post-harvest fumigants, or ??????   Clearly, adding more fluoride to the diet with CWF is the most reasonable step to reduce exposure.  In fact, HHS agreed, lowering the concentration to 0.7 ppm.   They estimated a 14% reduction in exposure.  A great start, but not enough.   Getting the CWF to 0.4 ppm would still not be enough.  We need a cessation of CWF AND also determine where additional fluoride is coming from or is the DF a synergistic effect from other chemicals?


CDC needs to release the data on the next two dental fluorosis surveys after 2011-2012 NHANES.  Yes, they have done two more and have released the data on everything except DF.   Why????  Why not release all the data ASAP?   


How many of the USCPSTF members have reservations about CWF?  No, the members were cherry picked for their support of CWF.  Because of their belief in CWF, they did not demand high quality evidence.  Cochrane reviews are better/higher quality.


You suggest my comments are mixing facts and snippets, but I can say the same for your comments.    


Indeed, some evidence is stronger than others.  Each needs to be weighed and the weight of each added for a judgment.


1.   Many are ingesting too much fluoride.


2.  Stopping CWF will still not reduce total exposure enough to get DF under control.


3.  The evidence for efficacy of ingesting fluoride is not adequate to gain FDA approval.  Ingesting fluoride may not work, topical has some benefit.


4.  The evidence of risk is ever increasing and rapidly now that researchers know how to focus their research to areas of concern.  


Question Johnny,  "What concentration of fluoride in the tooth is optimal?"  Teeth with caries and without caries have similar concentrations of fluoride, except for topical application on the surface of the tooth.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH









Periodic Contributor

Thank you for this informative post.
0 Kudos



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


Bronze Conversationalist

“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: