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! 

Trusted Contributor

It is truly horrific that these noted governmental agencies and some doctors, who are not research scientists and who have no time to truly study fluoridation, are enforcing this practice of dumping industrial waste into the public water supply. Here are the CDC links to NIOSH specifications of hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate, which are the most commonly used fluoridation compounds in the United States:


If any of these ‘enforcing’ doctors actually understood what these chemicals are, then this crime against the masses is on them! 

Regular Contributor

Sirpac . .

It is sad that someone so utterly unaware of the subspecialty of oral public health can make claims like this. Even more tragically some will be persuaded..

You should attend a National Oral Health Conference

or the American Public Health Association annual meeting

so you could understand who the advocating professionals are and why they are credible and legitimate sources of information.

Clearly you have no idea the exact nature of the "chemicals."   They are water additives that are highly regulated for purity and physical characteristics.  They have more specifically stringent criteria for purity from heavy metal contamination that do medications.   National Sanitation Foundation water testing shows that the actual arsenic from water additives is less than 0.1% of that which EPA deems protective of human health.

Here's a graphic representation of how utterly unimportant fluoridation water additive contaminants are -

The daily arsenic intake from fluoridation is 0.14 micrograms a day, the daily intake from normal, healthy food is 56.3 micrograms per day.  The truth about these claims that somehow the drinking water is contaminated from fluoridation is illustrative of the abysmal falsehoods so often used to oppose what the CDC considers one of the great public health accomplishments of the 20th Century.




Thank you for your suggestion to attend a dental public health Conference.


I have.   They had a class on fluoridation and I had previously asked to participate.  They refused.


At the end they had question/answer and I asked one question, "Please provide one study of MEASURED evidence reporting significant cost savings in the public at large from water fluoridation."


Yes, many claim fluoridation is cost effective, but the dental speakers looked at the back wall and did not respond.  Finally an insurance speaker said something like, "this is the type of question we need the experts." and he looked at the dental  speakers at the table and they sat silent looking at the back wall.  Finally someone in the audience (a student) shouted Maupome.  I responded, "yes indeed, measured evidence of cost effectiveness of fluoridation in the community at large.  And did you note the cost savings was enough to pay for equipment repairs?  Not enough to pay for chemicals or equipment installation, dental fluorosis treatment, promotions, or operations.  Just enough to pay for equipment repairs.  And did you note that comparing the children in the two largest groups, those without fluoridation actually had lower dental treatment costs?"   The speakers were silence.  And then they took the next question.


Yes, there are a great deal of public health professionals who promote fluoridation, but they don't look at the research which does not support their position.


Charles, I took my MPH prior to dental school.  I almost walked out of my MPH program during the last week of school, I was so disgusted with Public Health.  The professor told us it was not our job as pubic health professionals to evaluate the science.  We were to promote policy, not review science.  I raised my hand and asked, "what if my boss tells me to promote tobacco smoking?"  The professor paused, several students turned around and glared at me.  The professor said, "you are to promote tobacco smoking, but don't do it to the best of your ability."   At that point I knew public health was not a profession I could be comfortable with.


30 years later, the Dean of my public health school visited Portland and we had alumni meet him and come to support the school.  I told him about my experience and he said he recognized the problem and they were trying to change that practice of being blind obedient servants of policy.


I was speaking with a public health dentist on the phone about 10 years ago regarding fluoridation.  He said, "we will promote fluoridation until a judge tells us otherwise."  I asked about scientific evidence.  He responded, "I don't care about science and I don't care if it is right or wrong, I only care if a judge tells me the policy is wrong."


Obviously, I do not have much respect for that type of blind obedience, unquestioned loyalty to policy, because sometimes policy is flawed.  And if a policy is flawed, it may take generations to change, or a judge to order a change.


My other profession, dentistry, is only marginally better.  Dentistry at least claims to go with science and promotes science.  Indeed, tradition and policy rule, but as individual clinicians, we can step out and protect patients even if our profession refuses to change their flawed policy and recommendations.


Now to your second point on purity of chemicals.  Most of the chemicals added to make fluoridated water are industrial waste products of the phosphate mining industry, not pharmaceutical grade.  Many are concerned with the contaminants. Personally, I do not think the contaminants pose the greatest risk.  They are a problem, but not the big problem.  Fluoride is the big problem.


So I called up the National Sanitation Foundation after reading their criteria for chemical safety.  They require chemicals to not have contaminants in them which will increase the concentration of the contaminant more than 10% of the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level.  My question to the NSF was, "the MCL for the contaminant fluoride is 4 ppm.   10% of 4 ppm (the MCL) is 0.4 ppm.  However, fluoridation is at 0.7 ppm  


Why does NSF permit fluoride to be added to public water in greater concentration than 10% of the MCL?  The person I talked to said they would get back to me.  And to their credit they did.  The response was, "NSF regulates the contaminants in the contaminant added to water, but they don't regulate the contaminant itself."  I responded, so if we called the hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by any other name, NSF would pull their approval because the concentration of contaminant would be above 10% of EPA's MCL.  But since the name is fluoride, then more than 10% can be added.  The NSF person said, "yes, that's about right."   Since then, my understanding NSF has rewritten their guidelines to give fluoride an exemption.


And do you know how the the statement came to be that fluoridation was one of public health's greatest achievements of the 20th Century?  I've heard it was by three people at the Oral Health Division.  Good marketing, but lacks facts, evidence and science.  


I consider fluoridation to be one of dentistry's darkest hours and one of public health's greatest blunders of the 20th Century.   Fluoridation started about the same time as the Tuskegee study of syphilis on black men and their families.  The ethics of public health back then was not good and if the idea of fluoridation were to come up today, I'm proud to say the policy would be blocked for lack of ethics.  


Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH 

Community Manager
Community Manager

Thank you all for participating in this thread. I understand that you all are passionate about the topic, however, please remember to be respectful and honor the TOS and community guidelines. Continuing to violate TOS and community guidelines will lead to this thread being closed.



AARP Moderation Team

Trusted Contributor

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!  

Trusted Contributor

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! 

Regular Contributor

I  certainly have no problem with this thread being closed. For  the benefit of your readers who seek accurate information on this healthcare issue, I am simply providing evidenced information to correct misinformation posted on your site  by fluoridation opponents, who do so all over the internet.



Steven D. Slott, DDS



Bronze Conversationalist

The NAM upper intake level for fluoride in infants up to 1 year old is 0.7.- 0.9 mg per day. And in children up to 8 years old is 2.2 mg/day.  If these were actually followed, then fluoridated water would need to be avoided since 1 mg of fluoride is ingested simly from drinking and eating 1 liter of water if it were the only fluoride source. Soups, stews, etc. and water-based drinks including formula, etc. provide more fluoride daily than allowed. The desired level should be zero since it is not a mineral nutrient and in fact is a contaminant of the bloodstream. It is called an "allowance" rather than a requirement for a reason--it shouldn't be there at all----we are not designed to need it. 


And these limits merely help avoid significant dental fluorosis in childhood and crippling skeletal fluorosis after lifetime drinking and eating. The limits do not prevent proven effects on developing brain or the formation of bone of poor quality that fluoride ingestion causes at any concentration. There is no blood fluoride level low enough to prevent incorporation into bone, which begins the process of formation of poor quality bone.  Read the Newbruynn text writen by a fluoridation promoter. Fluoridation of bone is progressive through life and from drinking water leads to levels in bone that cause bone pain and weakening.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor



Yes, as I said, the daily upper limits for infants and children ages 0-8 are considerably lower than the 10 mg per day limit above the age of 8.  The reason for this is due to chance of mild dental fluorosis during the teeth developing years of 0-8.  Mild dental fluorisis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.  As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more  decay resistant, this effect is considered by many to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.  


Those parents who are concerned with mild dental fluorosis, in spite of the increased decay resistance of these teeth, may certainly avoid using fluoridated water for their children during these years if they so choose.  Otherwise, there is no need to do so.  There is  no valid evidence to support the claim that the “desired level should be zero”.  Nearly any substance in the bloodstream other than perhaps plasma and blood cell components, could be considered to be a “contaminant”.  This obviously does  not mean that the desired level for all substances is zero.


There are no “proven” adverse effects on the brain, bones, or any other bodily system, from optimally fluoridated water.  The National Academy of Medicine does not concern itself solely with  dental fluorosis.  If there was a concern for any other adverse effects of fluoride in infants and children,  the NAM upper limits for daily fluoride consumption would reflect this......and, this limit would not jump to 10 mg at age 8 if there were concerns other than dental fluorosis.


Optimally fluoridated water has no adverse effect on bone.  Even long time fluoridation opponent Hardy Limeback reported this finding in a 2010 study he co-authored.


“ While we cannot definitively rule out an effect of low-level fluoride accumulation over long periods of time, especially if specific individuals have a genetic or disease background that renders them unusually susceptible to fluoride, it nevertheless appears that the contributors to bone health are too many and varied, and any possible effect of municipal fluoride ingestion is too small, for municipal water fluoridation to be a significant determinant of bone health within the general public”

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

Chachra D, Limeback H, et al.

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



 Steven D. Slott, DDS




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)


References please. 



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




Regular Contributor

Just terriffic, a bunch of YouTubes to justify opposition to what the CDC considers one of the great accomplishments in public health in the 20th Century.


Here's a systematic review from the Community Preventive Services Task force published in a peer reviewed journal .. more worthwhile than an infinity of YouTube videos.


American Journal of Public Health, June 2016 Volume 50, Issue 6, Pages 790-796.  Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation:  A Community Guide Systematic Review.  Tao Ran, Sajal K. Chattopadhyay.  The Community Preventive Services Task Force, Community Guide Branch, Division of Public Health Information Dissemination, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia



Periodic Contributor

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

Trusted Contributor

So the DOCTORS AND DENTISTS who are listed there on YouTube....are no longer credible BECAUSE they are on YouTube??  Is THAT what you're saying??   Hahahahaha......  Ya, that makes ALL KINDS OF SENSE doesn't it??

Ya know what?? We should go after their licenses because somebody interviewed them on YouTube.....HOW DARE THEY ALLOW THEIR INTERVIEWS BE SHOWN THERE?? (sarcasm intended)

Maybe someday someone will interview YOU and post it on YouTube....then the rest of society will know you for what a "farce" you are....BECAUSE YOU WERE PUT ON YOUTUBE.......RIGHT???

(That IS what you're saying, you know).

Periodic Contributor

Here are fluoridationists Steven Slott and Johnny Johnson on YouTube:


"...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. 


  • 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.  

Deceptive Slide - Strawman MisrepresentationDeceptive Slide - Strawman Misrepresentation



The AFS VP, Myron Allukian, doesn't usually comment online - but he uses his connections at Harvard to engage others as shills in endorsing policy and parrotting marketing bullet points. He's been promoting fluoridation since the 1960s. The latest copy and paste by AFS Communictions Officer, is a document from those the VP and his associates duped into compliance.


Everyone at Harvard does not agree with that prepared statement.  

Neither do experts in other prestigious institutions. 


Expert in Neuroscience: “Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.” - Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health (2014)


Expert in Neuroscience & Behavioral Psychology: There’s no doubt that the intake of fluoridated water is going to interrupt basic functions of nerve cells in the brain, and this is certainly not going to be [for] the benefit of anybody……The addition of fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake.” - Dr. Robert Isaacson, 2006 National Research Council panelist on Fluoride in Drinking Water (2007)


Expert in Dental Public Health: “I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory……..It is my best judgement, reached with a high degree of scientific certainty, that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers.” - Dr John Colquhoun, former chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand (1998)


Expert in Legal Analysis: “The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D. at Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University (2014)


Expert in Pediatric Sensitivity to Pollutants: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies potential links between environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)


Dean of Public Health at University of Toronto: “We tested for all the things we could think of that could act on neurodevelopment. But we haven’t found anything else that was a potential confounder...Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure. It also suggests that the pre-natal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children… to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.- Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash study for which he was the lead investigator (2017) 



Bronze Conversationalist

It was stated here that fluorosis does not adversely affect the health of teeth. Really? Normal teeth enamel is a layer that protects underlying bony dentin from exposure to the oral environment. Fluorotic hypoplasia refers to the fact that the enamel covering is not as thick as normal in the discolored area. Long term teeth protection requires normal thick enamel, not a thinned layer that cannot possibly last as long as a thick layer throughout a person's life. 


The Kumar data and others do not ever demonstrate that fewer caries exist in teeth regions that are fluorotic that is ever larger than experimental error. The less enamel covering there is, obviously the less protected the tooth is.


As far as Limeback arguing there may not be adverse bone symptoms due to lifelong consumption of fluoride water, there are no people in the U.S. who have ever been exposed to fluoridated water for the average human lifespan of 75 years yet (the practice only started in 1945). Further, as a participant in the NRC report he was complicit in the textual statement that bone fluoride levels in areas drinking 1 ppm F water are around 2,500 mg/kg while not stating the very data shown in the accompanying table that indicated bone pain in persons having bone fluoride levels below that (around 1,700 mg/kg). It's amazing how one can see what one want to see and not see what one doesn't want to see. The NRC study was not allowed to investigate water fluoridation at 1 ppm, so if you don't look at the raw data you may be trapped by the misjudgments of those who too cursorily summarize the data.


And there is no mechanism to assess bone strength in vivo in a person who has consumed fluoidated water for decades, so the effect that any fluoride accumulated amount has on bone is determined by analyzing the structure of fluoridated bone at various concentrations in vitro. There is zero doubt that fluorotic bone is abnormal bone becaue it is a perturbant that induces formation of bone of abnormal unit size and shape.


Blood comonents are all known and are published in the Merck Manual and most all Nursing Texts where each component has a known specific physiologic function. Fluoride has no physiologic function and is thus only a contaminant and of course is not listed as a required normal blood component in any reference source. It is not a nutrient and has no place in human blood, as stated previously.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.



In case you missed my post.  


Rather than talking about the messangers, please answer my question about excess exposure. . . 60% with dental fluorosis, 20% with moderate/severe:






Bill Osmunson DDS MPH


“The Texas GOP’s official opposition to fluoridation is another example of the diversity of support for our movement.   From Ralph Nader, the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2000, to Libertarians like Dr. Ron Paul, to Democrats and Republicans at every level of government, and everything in between in countries with multi-party systems.  Opposition to fluoridation is clearly an issue we can all proudly find agreement on.” - Stuart Cooper, FAN Campaign Director (2018) 


Politics make strange bedfellows. Regardless of whether you self-identify as 'conservative' or 'liberal', no one wants to suffer from arthritis or dementia in old age. No one chooses decades of restrictions because of irritable bowel or kidney disease. No one wants to see their children struggle with learning disabilities or hide their smile because of embarrassment over stained teeth. No one wants broken bones because fluoride accumulation weakened them. 


And no one wants to be bullied by arrogant doctors who use political campaigns and social media in order to establish fluoridation mandates that force contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of the adverse impact on individual health! 


See Erin Brockovich's Position on Fluoridation:



Regular Contributor

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



Trusted Contributor

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!


To All,


The Fluoride Action Network has the largest compilation of fluoride research available and I can highly recommend reviewing for your consideration.


Another significant source of research is the IAOMT at


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


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