- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
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
https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/fluoride.html (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
The Fluoride Action Network has the largest compilation of fluoride research available and I can highly recommend reviewing for your consideration.https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/
Another significant source of research is the IAOMT at https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/
Of the many pages of research and topics raising concerns with fluoride use, here are a sampling:
“The recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water should be zero.” Carton RJ. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride. 2006 Jul 1;39(3):163-72.
Carton worked at the EPA for many years.
“The ‘optimal’ intake of fluoride has been widely accepted for decades as between 0.05 and 0.07 mg fluoride per kilogram of body weight but is based on limited scientific evidence.”
“These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.” Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B, Cavanaugh JE, Kanellis MJ, Weber‐Gasparoni K. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 2009 Mar 1;69(2):111-5.
Many know these authors who are strong promoters of fluoridation. Even the dosage of fluoride is based on limited scientific evidence. EPA has also chosen 0.06 mg/kg as their RfD or reference dose.
Consider a 5 kg or 12 pound infant. At 0.06 mg/kg the "optimal" intake would be about 0.3 mg of fluoride a day. Infant formula made with public water would be less than 2 cups of milk for the infant.. . not enough. Mother's milk contains no detectible fluoride in most samples.
Knowing infants on fluoridated water get too much fluoride, the EPA does not even include infants in their Dose Response Analysis or Relative Source Contribution. I disagree. If governments send out fluoride to everyone without their consent, the EPA needs to include everyone in their determination of what is safe.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
In addition to the dosage issue, which is impossible to control, water saturation of 0.7ppm-1.2ppm silicofluorides does not mean dosage. Dosage depends on how much fluoride anyone is exposed to daily. This includes drinks, food that has been exposed to fluorides in the water, bathing, dental products, and so on. It is obvious that no-one can determine exactly how much fluoride anyone ingest or absorbs daily. So, how is this 'opminum level' nonsense anything other than a red herring issue? The 'optimum level' babble is truly the biggest nonsense, which should be obvious to anyone, even with a fluoride damaged brain. Also, who gave some dentists a medical license to practice internal medicine or medicate the entire public without regard to individual conditions? These fluoride promoters are not the personal physicians of the entire public!
Thank you for your professional response.
What do you consider to be the upper limits of fluoride ingestion for infants and children? (SAFE)
What dosage of fluoride is required or recommended to prevent dental caries? (EFFECTIVE)
One area of communication which breaks down between us is consideration of the contribution of fluoride from fluoridated water versus total fluoride exposure. I would mostly agree with you on risks from fluoridated water. . . if fluoridated water were the only source of fluoride.
However, I have never seen studies comparing fluoridated water with no fluoride exposure. Just not possible because fluoride comes from many sources and fluoridation usually contributes between a third to two thirds total individual exposure.
Therefore, a statement claiming "There are no “proven” adverse effects on the brain, bones, or any other bodily system, from optimally fluoridated water," has several serious problems.
1. Studies are not possible. Sort of like saying that there are no "proven" adverse effects living on Mars. The problem is obvious, no one has been there.
2. The statement is intentionally trying to decive the reader, or is not taking relative source contribution, total exposure seriously. Water fluoridation is only one source of fluoride. And not everyone drinks the same amount of water, swallows the same amount of toothpaste, eats the same amount of fluoride in food, etc.
3. The word "proven" is troublesome when evaluating risk, and I presume that is why you used the word in quotations. We can do RCT studies of benefit, but RCT studies on risk are not ethical. In the end, risk is a judgment call. Sort of like driving fast in the mountains, going around a curve can have risk and the driver needs to use judgment based on all factors of road conditions, traffic, car and driver etc. The same with chemical risk. Not all humans have the same tolerance for chemicals. Age, kidney function, dosage, synergistic effects, and a host of other concerns for each individual. To "prove" harm for an individual, we would need to harm them, which is not ethical.
4. The judgment of "proof" for chemicals such as fluoride requires weighing all factors such as degree of freedom of choice, degree of benefit, degree of harm, and total dosage. All three areas are complex and need a "global" consideration.
From a Public Health standpoint, if the lack of fluoride caused/permitted a highly contagious lethal disease, certainly mass medication should be considered. (Courts have been reasonably consistent giving Public Health strong police powers for quarentene, treatment, etc.) Caries is not considered highly contagious or highly lethal. Yes, bacteria moves from one person to another and a few die from oral infections. But everyone (probably) has the bacteria in their mouths and deaths are extremely rare. Indeed, Public Health officials will force medication or isolate the contagious individual to protect the public. We do not isolate a person with dental caries from the rest of the public.
Would we consider going house to house and requiring each person to swallow a fluoride supplement pill to protect the spread of dental caries? No. Well, that is preciesly what water fluoridation does. Goes house to house, with police powers, and gives each person an additional Rx dose of fluoride without the person's consent.
Nor would we consider removing those individuals who refuse the Rx fluoride supplement from their homes and isolating them from others in the community.
Ethics of fluoridation are problematic.
Before we even consider the evidence of risk, we must determine the dosage needed to prevent dental caries. Once the dosage needed to prevent caries is determined, then we need to determine whether that dosage is safe.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
It is true that the Texas GOP platform opposes fluoride. It also opposes vaccination mandates thereby promoting polio, measles, and other childhood infectious disease. It want the US to abandon the United Nations and force the organization to leave NYC. It is stuff full of ideas that most Americans would find bizarre.
You cite a science denying political document and other lone-wolf individuals like Erin Brockovich.
The support for fluoridation comes from nearly 150 legitimate organizations, societies and experts.
Here is a convenient place to read what the many organizations supporting fluoridation have to say, in their own words
"...the political profluoridation stance has evolved in to a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." - Dr. Edward Groth, III, Senior Scientist at Consumer Union (1991)
The most interesting thing about that video of the presentation by JJ & SS originally used in Green Bay is that slide that JJ quickly goes past claiming it lists claims by opponents that are ALL FALSE. This misrepresentation of the opposition position is known as the 'straw man fallacy.' It is a rhetorical deceit. In a subsequent presentation in Cortland, JJ did spend a few minutes misrepresenting a couple of those points.
I took a screenshot of that slide in order to actually read it.
- Not only does the WHO data verify the 20th global decline of cavities regardless of fluoride status of water beginning before fluoridation and continuing after some fluoridated communities ceased fluoridation, it has been reported on in multiple journals. Sadly, 21st century data shows an increase in cavities in several countries including America & Canada, even in long fluoridated communities. Fluoridation was coincidental, not causal. (Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1990, 1997, 1999; Künzel 2000; Maupomé 2001)
- Technically you can't be allergic to fluoride since it is a poison, but yes allergic type reactions are well documented and previously addressed in this thread.
- Ditto for thyroid problems. They are not only very well documented as being caused by or exasperated by fluoride, many fluoride doctors advise patients avoid fluoride - despite the ATA's silence on the topic. I have it on good authority that they don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards. http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf
- The derisive reference to the "2012 Harvard study" that lists fluoride as brain poison ignores not only the EPA scientist characterization of fluoride as a 'gold standard developmental neurotoxicant' (Mundy et al. 2009; 2015), it also ignores the recent high quality studies by American and Canadian researchers with expertise in neuortoxicity (Bashash et al. 2017; Thomas et al 2018; Yu et al 2018; Choi et al. 2015) There are dozens of human and hundreds of animal studies that find fluoride neurotoxic - even in low doses consistent with fluoridation. Only a handful claim not to find evidence of harm, and I believe every one of those few have been found to have serious design flaws.
- The 2015 Cochrane Review, like the 2000 York Review, didn't say fluoridation didn't have an effect, they said the effect was small and there not only was no evidence of safety, there was evidence fluoridation significantly increases dental fluorosis, plus the studies claiming benefit were all low quality and at high risk of bias, so they had low confidence in those findings of benefit. They also opined the relevance of fluoridation in the 21st century was doubtful. I believe it was that last statment that JJ and company managed to lobby the Cochrane to drop from their evaluation - an exceptional feat of interference with an independent review by lobbyists.
- Here's how the 2000 York Review senior scientists responded to similar attacks on their research: "It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases.... The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis." - Professor Trevor Sheldon, chair of Advisory Board of 2000 York Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation, Head of Dept of Health Studies, University of York (2003)
- 2015 Newsweek article w/comments from scientists on meaning of Cochrane Report:
- "ChildSmile" - how is this one word "false" - it's a reference to alternatives to fluoridation that are effective at reducing cavities in populations of poor kids without adding uncontrollabe doses of this drug to municipal water.
- "Pharmaceutical Grade" - again, how is this "false" .... what it alludes to is that the chemicals added to our water are contaminated waste products of industry, invariably contaminated with aluminum, lead, arsenic, etc. (Mullenix 2014)
- Fluorosis of teeth is a sign of toxicity. Well, yes.... dental fluorosis is the evidence of cell death during formative stages of tooth development. There is substantial evidence of other toxic damage during this same period. But just on teeth:
“Enamel fluorosis is a developmental disturbance caused by intake of supraoptimal levels of fluoride during early childhood.The enamel defects consist of horizontal thin white lines, opacities (subsurface porosities), discolorations, and pits of various sizes. The molecular mechanism underlying enamel fluorosis is still unknown.…. We can hypothesize that fluorosis is due to a combination of direct cytotoxic effects causing cell death, the delayed development of tight junctions, which are necessary to form a sealed barrier between apical and basolateral surfaces, and a direct inhibitory effect of fluoride on vectorial calcium and/or bicarbonate transport.” - Rácz et al., 2017
I could go on down the list - but here is that deceptive slide that JJ flashed in a sleight of hand attempt to deceive his audience.
To the AARP moderation team: Please don’t close this thread! There is much true and good information here regardless of the bullying by some trolls. This conversation must be open and public, because historically the entire fluoridation scheme has been done in secrecy, without any true informed consent or public discourse. Also, if every threat is closed because of bad behavior, then many would know how to manipulate any thread. This stifles free speech! It would be a wiser policy to wipe out the comments that are there just to attack another commenter (i.e. ad hominem) and not focus on the issue. Punishing everyone due to troll attack is very unfair and gives the trolls exactly what they want, which is to stop public discussion about this issue. Thus, please do not close this thread!
It would be a shame to have this thread closed. There is much true and good information here regardless of the bullying by some trolls. If every threat is closed because of bad behavior, the opponents would know how to manipulate any thread. It would be a wiser policy to wipe out the comments that are there just to attack another commenter (i.e. ad hominem) and not focus on the issue. Thus, please do not close it!
Fluoridationists love to tear apart any study that dares to taint fluoride in any way. I think we can all do that with any study because science is never settled.
I think it's time to look at the studies which gave birth to fluoride use for dental decay
The Kingston/Newburgh; Grand Rapids/Muskegon and others were the first experimental cities used to test the hypothesis that ingested fluoride via the water supply safety reduced tooth decay. Both Newburgh and Grand Rapids were fluoridated. The trials were set to last from 10 - 15 years but were cut short after only about five years - before the teeth of those born into the experiment had even erupted. Newburgh was the only city to look at health effects. Preschoolers and adults weren't studied and long term effects never considered.
Dr. Hayne, Slott and Johnson - please tell us why those early fluoridation studies are valid by today's standards - or even by the standards of 1945 when they began.
Thank you for your consideration