Reply
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. 

 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
     
  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.😞 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
    2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

  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); 
    1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
    2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf

  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.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

 

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

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. 

 

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

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.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

  • 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. 

 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
    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: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
    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): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

 

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

13,065 Views
1449
Report
Conversationalist

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” - Dr. Wm. Marcus (1998)

         "Follow the money." - Deep Throat (1972)

 

Part 1

“Children with dental fluorosis were burdened more by dental disease and had more treatment needs (dental caries, fluorosis, periodontal disease and gingivitis) when compared to those without dental fluorosis.” 

  • Mildred ndoti Mavindu, Gladys N Opinya, Richard Owino and Edith Ngatia. Oral Hygiene Habits and Dental Treatment Needs of Children with Dental Fluorosis and Those Without .... Mod. Approach to Dental Oral Hygiene. 2(2)-2018. 
    • Study of 248 teens in Kenya, matched for age and gender with 1:1 ratio for with:without dental fluorosis. Most children were consuming 1 ppm concentration in water, some less and some more. All children had similar brushing patterns of twice a day.
  • Over half of American teens have dental fluorosis and one in five has moderate to severe fluorosis (Wiener et al. 2018). Children & the elderly are among the 'vulnerable subpopulations' for fluoride intoxication (chronic posioning).

 

Part 2

Since lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), they typically have other complicating issues. Elite whistleblower attornies Stephen & Michael Kohn won a lawsuit against the EPA in the 1990s on the wrongful termination of senior EPA scientist and toxicologist Dr. Wm. Marcus who wrote a memo about management interference for manipulation of cancer data in order to disappear the evidence of carcinogenicity in a fluoride study. 

 

The ADA and friends who have no liability for fluoridation even though they aggressively promote it, frequently threaten and sometimes bring lawsuits against vocal opponents. I especially like the story told by medical correspondant and NYC celebrity dentist, Dr. Gerry Curatola. Apparently, he made a comment against fluoridation as ineffective and unsafe and the ADA got it into its head to either threaten or to actually bring a lawsuit against him in order to shut him up. Well, Dr. Curatola has money and wasn't going to be intimidated. He stood up to the fluoridationist bullies. He paid his legal fees and provided science to document that fluoridation was ineffective and harmful and demanded the ADA provide science to document their claims against him. The ADA backed down. I don't know if that particular story is in any of Dr. Curatola's many recordings on YouTube, but he tells it in various venues. 

 

Sample videos: 

 

 

Regular Contributor

Ms. Butterfly - Systematic reviews are the most reliable category of information for evidence based medicine.

see:
https://guides.lib.uci.edu/ebm/pyramid

Random quotations from individuals with no mention of expert qualifications isn't even on the list of information sources considered for quality.

All systematic reviews published in the last two decades have concluded that fluoridation doesn't cause cancer.  The most definitive and profound analysis was in 2011 when the California Carcinogen Identification Committee decided by unanimous vote that fluoride doesn't cause cancer in ANY concentration.


"Follow the money" you say!  Conspiracy theories like this are a standard part of science denying gospel.  Those denying the importance of vaccination, the reality of human caused global warming, that cigarettes cause cancer and biologic evolution use similar rhetorical devices:  fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible research demands and expectations, cherry picking scientific literature and conspiracy theories.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXA777yUndQ

"Following the money" creates no trail to America's pediatricians, registered dental hygienists, clinical nutritionists or any of the other 140 organizations which support community water fluoridation:

AFL CIO
Acad for Sports Dentistry
Acad of Dentistry InterNatl
Acad of General Dentistry
Alzheimer's Assn
Am Acad of Family Physicians
Am Acad of Nurse Practitioners
Am Acad of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology
Am Acad of Orthopaedic Surgeons
Am Acad of Pediatrics
Am Acad of Pediatric Dentistry
Am Acad of Periodontology
Am Acad of Physician Assistants
Am Assn for Community Dental Programs
Am Assn for Dental Research
Am Assn for Health Education
Am Assn for the Advancement of Science
Am Assn of Endodontists
Am Assn of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons
Am Assn of Orthodontists
Am Assn of Public Health Dentistry
Am Assn of Women Dentists
Am Cancer Society
Am College of Dentists
Am College of Physicians-Am Society of Internal Medicine
Am College of Preventive Medicine
Am College of Prosthodontists
Am Council on Science & Health
Am Dental Assistants Assn
Am Dental Assn
Am Dental Education Assn
Am Dental Hygienists' Assn
Am Dietetic Assn
Am Hospital Assn
Am Institute of Nutrition
Am Legislative Exchange Council
Am Medical Assn
Am Nurses Assn
Am Osteopathic Assn
Am Pharmaceutical Assn
Am Pharmacists Assn
Am Public Health Assn
Am School Health Assn
Am Society for Clinical Nutrition
Am Society for Nutritional Sciences
Am Student Dental Assn
Am Veterinary Medical Assn
Am Water Works Assn
America's Health Insurance Plans
Assn for Academic Health Centers
Assn of Am Medical Colleges
Assn of Clinicians for the Underserved
Assn of Maternal & Child Health Programs
Assn of State & Territorial Dental Directors
Assn of State & Territorial Health Officials
Australia New South Wales Dept of Health
Australian Dental Assn ADA
Australian Health Ministers' Conference
Australian Natl Health & Medical Research Council
British Dental Assn
British Fluoridation Society
British Medical Assn
Canadian Assn of Dental Public Health
Canadian Dental Assn
Canadian Dental Hygienist Assn
Canadian Medical Assn
Canadian Nurses Assn
Canadian Pediatric Society
Canadian Public Health Assn
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Child Welfare League of America
Children's Dental Health Project
Coalition Of Physicians for Social Justice
Consumer Federation of America
Consumer Federation of America
Council of State & Territorial Epidemiologists
Delta Dental Plans Assn
Dental Assn for disabled people
European Organization for Caries Research
Federation of Am Hospitals
Food & Drug Administration FDA
Food & Nutrition Board
Fédération Dentaire InterNatle FDI
Great Britain Ministry of Health
Health Canada
Health Insurance Assn of America
Health Resources & Services Administration HRSA
Hispanic Dental Assn
Indian Dental Assn U.S.A.
Indian Health Service
Institut Natl de santé du Québec
Institute of Medicine
InterNatl Assn for Dental Research
InterNatl Assn for Orthodontics
InterNatl College of Dentists
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
Mayo Clinic
McGill University Faculty of Dentistry
Montreal Children’ Hospital Child Development Program
Montreal Children’s Hospital Council of Community Pediatricians
Montreal Public Health Dept
Montreal Research Centre on Social Inequalities in Health
Montreal, Laval, Laurentides et Lanaudiere
Natl Acad of Science
Natl Assn County & City Health Officials
Natl Assn of Community Health Centers
Natl Assn of Dental Assistants
Natl Assn of Local Boards of Health
Natl Assn of Social Workers
Natl Cancer Institute
Natl Council Against Health Fraud
Natl Dental Assistants Assn
Natl Dental Assn
Natl Dental Hygienists' Assn
Natl Down Syndrome Congress
Natl Down Syndrome Society
Natl Eating Disorders Assn
Natl Foundation of Dentistry for the Handicapped
Natl Head Start Assn
Natl Health Council
Natl Health Law Program
Natl Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
Natl Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research
New Zealand Ministry of Health
Nutrition Directors
Oral Health America
Pan Am Health Organization
Public Health Assn of Australia
Quebec Assn of public health dentists
Quebec Federation of family physicians
Quebec Order of dentists
Quebec college of physicians
Quebec dental Acad
Quebec Dept of environment
Quebec Dept of health & social services
Quebec order of dental hygienists
Quebec order of pharmacists
Québec Assn of Pediatricians
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Royal College of Physicians London
Society for Public Health Education
Society of Am Indian Dentists
Special Care Dentistry
St-Justine Hospital Dept of pediatics
St-Justine Hospital university center
The Children's Health Fund
The Dental Health Foundation of California
U.S. Public Health Service
U.S. Surgeon General
U.S. Dept of Defense
U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs
University of Montreal Dept of social & preventive medicine
Water Fluoridation: An Analysis of the Health Benefits & Risks
World Federation of Orthodontists
World Health Organization

Reference:
Water Fluoridation:  An Analysis of the Health Benefits and Risks
Scientific Advisory.  Institut national de santé publique, Quebec
June 2007, p 47.  
http://www.inspq.qc.ca/pdf/publications/705-WaterFluoration.pdf


Trusted Contributor

It is truly a shame that so many associations have been conned to support the water fluoridation policy. These organizations have obviously not looked into the recent science or have failed to see the low quality of the earlier studies.

I spent the last 3 years reading and annotating all the fluoridation science there is and it is more than clear SCIENCE IS VERY ANTI-FLUORIDE. There is not even a question in scientific consensus: fluorides are neurotoxic endocrine disrupting carcinogens. Thus, who cares about the teeth, if brains are at stake?

Also, there is not that much evidence for any benefit to teeth either, only harm to multiple bodily organs and the biome, from fluorides. It is more than obvious these associations have been fooled or are just too lazy to read current science. It is truly a shame!
Not so in most other countries: http://www.actionpa.org/fluoride/countries.pdf

Conversationalist

Sirpac,

 

I agree.  A review of both sides is compelling and many health organizations agree.  

 

Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.

 

Many researchers write in their research that fluoride is a KNOWN carcinogen.  

 

One study explained how they induced cancer in the animals with fluoride so they could test the cancer treatment drugs.  Anyone who claims fluoride is not a carcinogen has not read the research.

 

As scientists learn where the potential risks from fluoride are found, more detailed and higher quality studies will be done.  The new studies will be focused more on how much fluoride causes harm and to which sub-populations.  

 

Are children, infants, or the fetus harmed most?

 

Which gender is harmed more?

 

Which race is harmed more?

 

What synergistic chemicals are confounding risks?

 

On the "efficacy" side of the problem, the quality of research is unacceptable.  We have data on costs for dental treatment and Delta Dental assured me 10 years ago they were going to publish data showing reduced costs with fluoridation, but they have not.  Clearly, their evidence would not support fluoridation.

 

Here are a few concerns with the fluoride research on efficacy:

 

A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors (for example, what reduced dental caries from 11 cavities to 5 cavities before fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste were introduced?)

B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial  (They can be done and maybe have been done, but none published.) 

C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled (Wealth and health are related and must be controlled)

D.   Inadequate size 

E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay (Not every dentist diagnoses a cavity at the same degree of damage.)

F.   Delay in tooth eruption not controlled 

G.   Diet: Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round
vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled. 

H.   Total exposure of Fluoride not determined (Urine fluoride concentration is not difficult to measure and not invasive)

I.     Oral hygiene not determined 

J.     Not evaluating Life Time benefit (How do those without teeth benefit?)

K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.  (Many drink bottled water, very little water and some drink over 10 liters/day.)

L.     Dental treatment expenses not considered with measured evidence 

M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded (Mother's milk usually has no detectable fluoride)

N.    Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.  

O.    Genetics not considered

P.     Synergistic effects not considered

 

No wonder the FDA has not approved the ingestion of fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries.  The evidence, as they generously say, is "incomplete."

 

Based on incomplete evidence of benefit, no water purveyor should add fluoride to public water until we have confidence of efficacy and safety.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Conversationalist

Steve Slott and Johnny Johnson,

 

It has been three days since I've heard from you and I trust you had a good 4th of July.  I'm in Eastern Washington working on a farm for a couple days.  Good exercise, dry and hot.  

 

We were discussing total fluoride exposure and a desired exposure or total dosage to prevent dental caries.  How much fluoride do you want a person to ingest.  What is the "optimal dosage" for a person, not the water, but an individual?

 

Without an "optimal individual dosage," we can't determine if that dosage is "safe" for each individual.   FDA determines efficacy first, then safety at that dosage, so should we.

 

I was amazed and shocked when Dr. Limeback told me both teeth with caries and teeth without caries have similar tooth fluoride concentrations (except on the outer few microns).  

 

In other words, we don't know a desired or "optimal" concentration of fluoride for the tooth which reduces dental caries.

 

And we don't know how much fluoride should be in the blood to achieve the "optimal" tooth fluoride concentration.

 

And we don't know how much fluoride a person should ingest to achieve the unknown blood fluoride concentration, for the "optimal" tooth concentration.

 

And we don't know how much an individual is ingesting from non-water sources

so that we can supplement the unknown individual exposure with fluoridated water, to achieve the unknown total fluoride exposure, for the unknown blood fluoride concentration, and then the unknown tooth fluoride concentration.

 

Instead, public health scientists treat the water to achieve 0.7 ppm, they talk about water like we are treating water rather than humans who drink an unknown amount of fluoride.  

 

It is time to stop adding fluoride to water.  So much we don't know.  Avoid fluoride and reduce sugar intake.  Brush and floss, eat healthy foods.

 

If a person chooses to ingest more fluoride they can get a prescription, or swallow a small pea size of fluoride toothpaste, drink a couple cups of tea or wine, eat non-organic foods

 

Adding more to water makes no sense and is harming people.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

Conversationalist

When scientific sunshine hits fluoridaiton, proponents go silent.

 

Another day without response from proponents of fluoridation.

 

Two questions were asked and proponents fell silent without fully answering.

 

What do you consider to be the upper limits of fluoride ingestion for infants and children?  (SAFE)  Although Steven responded 10 mg/kg/bw, each new scientific study usually finds harm at ever lower dosages.  10 mg/kg/bw is historical and we now know that dosage is not safe, especially for the unborn and infants.  In the not too distant future, fluoride will be in the same category of lead and arsenic with zero ingested is best.

 

What dosage of fluoride is required or recommended to prevent dental caries? (EFFECTIVE)  As a dentist with public health training, I am disappointed my professions have promoted fluoride ingestion without knowing how much fluoride is beneficial.  The focus has been on water fluoride instead of tooth fluoride concentrations.  

 

If the only source of fluoride were water fluoridation, proponents would have a much stronger case.  

 

If proponents encouraged open discussion, academic freedom and sincere scientific discovery, we could all learn and improve the health of the public.  Instead, proponents work using one side of the evidence, cherry picking the evidence, using endorsements and in the dark, behind the scenes, convincing city councils and water districts to add fluoride.  Once the elected leaders are on board, the proponents railroad policy.  

 

Portland, Oregon, has been used as an example with one paper's Editor in support of fluoride.  Working behind the scenes and without public input, proponents convinced the city to fuoridate the water.  The short hearings did not permit science to be discussed in depth.  It became an emotions and power struggle rather than a candid evaluation of science and laws.  Fluoridation passed in spite of the tremendous push back.   However, a great deal of money was spent on both sides to go to the public and 2 out of 3 of the public voted no fluoridation.  

 

Give people the time to contemplate medicating their neighbors and most chose freedom.   It would be wonderful to be able to trust my dental and public health professions on their position of fluoridation, but the evidence has been growing that the fluoridation policy is flawed and rather change, proponents dig in deeper.  HHS recommended lower fluoride concentration, but lowering is not enough.  A complete cessation of fluoridation is required.  Even that will not reduce fluoride intake to safe levels.  But it will give people more freedom to choose.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

Bronze Conversationalist

The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton in 1945 under the direction of officials from the U.S. military. U.S. Sugeons General in the CDC have historically recommended the practice since that time. The original material used was industrial waste sodium fluoride but the starting material since 1985 has been fertilizer industry waste fluosilicic acid, after Rebecca Hamner of the EPA wrote that this use in public water supplies would be an ideal solution to dilute the waste material, assuming it would have dental benefit to consumers.

Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride, ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrlled use of an unapporve drug, forbids the use of fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards, and banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women. The FDA requires Good Manufacturing Practices for all consumed materials used to treat human tissue, but GMP rules are not followed by fertilizer production faciltiies that generate the waste used to fluoridate consumers through water supplies.  Please read the Journal of Enviornmental and Public Health 439490 for details: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/

Fluoridationists at the CDC rely on the EPA MCL to claim the intentional infusions are somehow legal, but the EPA only regulates contaminants, not nutrients or drugs purposely added into water to treat humans. The EPA consistently states that fluoridation is the legal responsibility of the FDA since it it is added intentionally to treat humans, rather than its presence in a chemical spill or when present naturally as a contaminant in water.  The current FDA staff has no understanding how to enforce FDA rulings on fluoridation of water supplies. Critics argue that the FDA has no "rights" to regulate water supplies, but the FDA is the only Federal agency approved by Congress to regulate any substance intended for ingestion to treat humans, regardless of how the ingestible substance is disseminated. Fluoride promoters will not voluntarily follow the law and, as seen here, have no interest in following GMP regulations or existing FDA rulings.

 

R. Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

Dr. Saueheber - - you make a number of allegations which if true, surely would have actionable legal consequences.

The current EPA is clearly "mindful of the public health significance of reducing the incidence of dental caries in the U.S. population."  This quotation is from the EPA rejection of the FAN petition to apply section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act to "prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies."

The undeniable fact is that in 2014 74.7% of US citizens on community water supplies drink fluoridated water.  Quite obviously none of your points have ever successfully challenged this very important public health program in any court room.  No state mandated fluoridation obligation has ever been withdrawn for these reasons.

Since you believe fluoridation to be illegal, my advise is for you to bring suit against New York City.  If you were to prevail, one action would cease fluoridation in our largest city.  Isn't it a bit inappropriate to argue legal views which, to the extent they have been formally contested, have always been rejected by US courts?

Conversationalist

“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell!” - Carl Sandburg

 

It makes little difference if a group is an advocacy group like the AFS and "I Like My Teeth" or an activist group like FAN. What matters are the facts of the matter, not opinions, endorsement of policy or well-funded marketing campaigns.  What also matters are integrity and good behavior. 

 

FAN provides a database of ALL fluoride science mostly listed in PubMed for ease of use by those not familiar with scientific research, while AFS and friends specialize in loudly singing the praises of endorsements most of which originated in the 1950s as part of organizational policy statements and have been rubber stamped for decades. The fluoride advocates also simultaneously and aggressively denigrate any who disagree with them. They also offer questionable selections of science and politics pretending to be science. 

 

For example, AFS member Chuck Haynie just pointed to the EPA 2017 response to a citizen's petition from six organizations including FAN. That EPA response was so poor that a judge in a federal lawsuit brought against the EPA threw it out. The judge essentially said that the EPA arguments lacked common sense, were contrary with their agency mission and regulations, and were internally inconsistent. The TSCA lawsuit will be heard in federal court in August 2019. Like the petition, the lawsuit is specific to neurotoxicity science.  

 

I expect the EPA will pound the table and yell like crazy in defense of their fluoride MCL, while the plaintiffs who include FAN will argue the facts. Much like what has been happening on this thread the past few days. 

 

Lawsuit

https://www.eenews.net/assets/2017/04/21/document_gw_02.pdf 

Timeline

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Pro...

Regular Contributor

The difference between FAN and the Campaign for Dental Health (CDH) could not be starker.

 

CDH is the organization behind ilikemyteeth.org and is part of the American Academy of Pediatrics which in turn is composed of many thousands of practicing pediatricians. The mission of CDH and their web site is to promote dental health, especially children's.

 

The EPA suit is reminiscent of the action FAN and collaborators brought to the California Carcinogen Identification Committee claiming this would be the end of fluoridation. In fact a unanimous vote found that fluoride is not related to cancer at any concentration.

 

FAN predicted and promoted the National Toxicology Programs planned animal studies as "finally" showing low fluoride exposures to harm developing brains. No effect at all was found. The promotion before the fact of the EPA suit seems similar.

 

The EPA suit decisions thus far have been strictly on procedural grounds. The merits of the suit have not been considered. The monograph the EPA published in the Congressional Record contains core arguments and issues which will be judged if the case proceeds to full trial. I'm betting that if FAN et al loose in Federal Court they will just look for the next set of claims. Courts are hesitant to over-rule scientific decisions made by venerable and responsible bureaucracies. While I am reasonably confident, we will just have to wait and see how it turns out.

 

Your picture of pounding on the table is incredibly out of step with reality of Federal Court proceedings.

 

To return to the point of these many posts, it is not reasonable for AARP to oppose well established and widely supported public health programs for any the points in your last message.

1,705 Views
14
Report
Conversationalist

Charles,

 

Indeed, the difference between FAN and CDH is significant.  Carefully examine the research references of FAN and CDH?

 

For example, both quote and agree with the Bashash study that fluoride lowers inteligance.  However, the "judgment" of CDH and FAN are significantly different.

 

CDH and FAN AGREE that the study found "a 0.5mg/L increase in prenatal urinary fluoride was associated with 3.15-point drop in GCI scores (p=0.01, N=287)."  and GCI and IQ have significant correlation.

 

CDH recommends further studies, as all good studies recommend further studies.   

 

CDH fails to put the pieces of the puzzle together, as FAN has done, adding the other 50 human studies and animal studies to make a reasonable judgment.  We have plenty of studies for judgment on fluoridation.

 

CDH takes the position that we need more studies.

 

FAN takes the position that since mothers with higher fluoride concentration have children with lower intelligence, and those urine fluoride concentrations are similar to those found in the fluoridation population, and the Bashash study did not find a "lower limit" or "safe" urine fluoride concentration, and the Bashash study is consistent with more than 50 human studies, then from a public health and individual policy, we must cut back on our total fluoride exposure. 

 

The best place to reduce total fluoride reduction in the population at large is fluoridation cessation.

 

Charles, need I tell you that dentists and public health officials do not treat IQ?  

 

Brains are more important than teeth?  

 

Your comment on cancer will be touched on next.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

Bronze Conversationalist

Carrie Anne has presented a quote by Dr. Wm Marcus: 

“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” 

 

The standard that I use for a carcinogen is:  Does the substance cause cancer.  The World Health Organization, and The American Cancer Society both have presented lists of known and probable cancer causers.  Over 100 substances are listed.  Nowhere on either list is fluoride mentioned.  If indeed Dr. Marcus actually said that he is wrong, according to both the WHO & the American Cancer Society.  https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html

Carrie Anne then attempts to answer a question posed by Charles H595927, “Dr. Saueheber - - you make a number of allegations which if true, surely would have actionable legal consequences.”

 

Carrie Anne says, “Since lawsuits are expensive and given the way fluoridation is set up (there are no deep pockets to sue), they typically have other complicating issues.”

Nonsense.  Any good attorney with financial motivation would take a case of “poisoning via water fluoridation” pro bono – for free.  After all, if anything merits a lawsuit it would be the intentional poisoning of citizens by a local government through its water system.  No deep pockets to sue?  I wonder why lawsuits are flying throughout the city of Flint, Michigan, where the City actually is being sued because local citizens were poisoned through the water system.

Carrie Anne is trying to defend comments by Dr. Richard Sauerheber, who also said, “The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton . . “  Not true.  The FDA has never opposed community water fluoridation.  Show me anything from the FDA to prove me wrong.

 

Dr. Sauerheber also says, “Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride,”  Not true.  While the FDA has no regulatory jurisdiction over community water fluoridation (the EPA does), the FDA does have regulatory authority over Bottled Water.  The FDA does allow the sale of Fluoridated Bottled Water.  (For example, Dannon’s “Fluoride to Go” bottled water is regulated by the FDA which allows Dannon to sell it.)

 

The list of untruths goes on and on.  Time and space limit a proper response, but these examples illustrate the accuracy of these anti-fluoride arguments, and the lengths that people will go to in order to generate paranoia about safe drinking water.

Bronze Conversationalist

The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion. For example toothpaste boxes have warning signs not to swallow.
But on the other hand the FDA has not entered into the practice of ordering a ban on fluoride ingestion, and hence do not ban bottled water that may contain it at 1 ppm or less.
FDA officials in 1945 were poised to oppose water fluoridation trials in grand Rapids but were afraid that such opposition might impede the war effort (Bryson, The Fluoride Deception).
The FDA over the years has written that fluoride ingestion is not FDA approved (with the full endorsement to do so that is implied with such approval). No controlled human clinical trials have ever been completed or submitted to the FDA to solicit approval.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber has said two different things now.  First he said, “The U.S. FDA has opposed water fluoridation since its first incepton in 1945 under the direction of officials from the U.S. military.”  ( https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2022558#M753 )

 

When I challenged him on his claim that the FDA opposed water fluoridation, he says, “The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion.” 

 

Now, these are two different things, Dr. Sauerheber.  However, you did provide a citation for your first claim that the FDA opposed water fluoridation.  Your claim originates in the book, “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson . . . who also alleges in this book that Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) has its roots in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program.  

 

Do you have any other source beyond Bryson’s book of conspiracy theories to support your claim that the FDA ever opposed CWF?  A quotation or a link to an actual FDA website would be adequate verification. 

 

Dr. Sauerheber also said, “Again, the FDA will not approve the oral ingestion of fluoride, ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrlled use of an unapporve drug, forbids the use of fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards, and banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women.”  (Same comment)

 

Well there’s a lot here, Dr Sauerheber.  First of all, since the FDA does have regulatory authority over fluoridated Bottled Water . . Can you please show me anywhere on the label of Dannon’s “Fluoride to Go” bottled water where pregnant women are warned not to drink this product. 

 

Of course you can’t.  Your first comment was not true. 

 

Can you show me anywhere where the FDA says that water fluoridation “is an uncontrlled use of an unapporve drug?” 

 

Of course you can’t.  Your comment was false. 

 

Now this is interesting:  “(The FDA) forbids the use of fluoridated water in kidney dialysis wards . . “

 

Technically, that may be true.  The FDA also forbids calcium, salt, iron, magnesium, or anything for that matter in water that is to be used for kidney dialysis.  In other words, only purified water may be used for kidney dialysis.  (I won’t call that a lie, but it was certainly deceptive.)

 

Carrie Anne says something interesting:  “Yet, another f-troll heard from . . “  (She’s referring to me.)  This is my second comment on this page.  Without counting, I am guessing (and we can check) that Carrie has made at least a dozen comments thus far.  So . . the definition of a “troll” is someone who disagrees with her?   Is that right?  Is BillO51 a troll?  Of course not.  He is scare-mongering against water fluoridation. 

 

Carrie’s full quote:  “Yet, another f-troll heard from with his standard "somebody would have sued already and won" response as a denial to scientific evidence which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015.”

 

She is saying that the Courts are not an adequate standard for deciding the merits, or dangers, of water fluoridation.   Fair enough.  And yet, for some odd reason, BillO538145 finds it appropriate to present a list of Countries (Political entities are not part of the “scientific evidence which has become even more compelling with studies published since 2015.”) as well as such organizations as the Sierra Club, Whistleblowers, International Chiropractors, Center for Health, Environment & Justice (that sounds like we are getting into the purview of the Courts to me).  Odd, this double standard, isn’t it. 

 

Lawsuits are flying through the courts in Flint, Michigan, because people WERE poisoned by lead in their drinking water.  This is provable.  And yet, with all the ailments these people attribute to fluoridated water, I stand in disbelief that no litigation has ever been successful against the practice!

 

Just so we’re clear.  Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen.  No legitimate scientific or medical organization says that it is.  Neither the American Cancer Society, nor the World Health Organization says that it is.  (Holistic Dentistry or medicine does not qualify as such.  I will not see a midwife to have my appendix taken out.  Steve McQueen died of cancer because he believed in holistic medicine.)

Conversationalist

David,

 

This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies.  

Here are some, in response to your claim, "Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen."

 

 

David,

 

This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies.  

Here are some, in response to your claim, "Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen."

 

Known Carcinogen: Pal (2014): Fluoride, a well-established environmental carcinogen, has been found to cause various neurodegenerative diseases in human. Sub-acute exposure to fluoride at a dose of 20mg/kgb.w./day for 30 days caused significant alteration in pro-oxidant/anti-oxidant status of brain tissue as reflected by perturbation of reduced glutathione content, increased lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, nitric oxide and free hydroxyl radical production and decreased activities of antioxidant enzymes. Decreased proteolytic and transaminase enzymes' activities, protein and nucleic acid contents and associated DNA damage were observed in the brain of fluoride intoxicated rats. The neurotransmitters dopamine (DA), norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin level was also significantly altered after fluoride exposure. Protective effect of resveratrol on fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative dysfunctions was evaluated. Resveratrol was found to inhibit changes in metabolic activities restoring antioxidant status, biogenic amine level and structural organization of the brain. Our findings indicated that resveratrol imparted antioxidative role in ameliorating fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative stress in different regions of the brain.

Known Carcinogen:   McCully (2009) “. . . Depletion of thioretinaco ozonide from cellular membranes is suggested to underlie the carcinogenic and atherogenic effects of fluoride and other electrophilic carcinogens.”

Known carcinogen (increase incidence): Marigold (1969)  explained that fluoride has a paradoxical action on cancer.  Some of the most effective anti-cancer drugs have contained fluoride and yet other inorganic fluoride compounds are powerful carcinogens such as dimethylaminoazobenzene who’s cancer-producing ability is enhanced seven times as much as by substitution of fluoride with other halogens.

Known carcinogen (chronic exposure - shorter life span): Taylor (1954) carried out a total of 12 experiments involving 645 mice. The data indicated that drinking water containing as little as 1ppm of fluoride shortened the life span of cancer-prone mice by an average of 9%, regardless of whether they died of cancer or another disease.  In contrast, 1953, Fleming36 transplanted sarcoma 37 into young adult mice and guinea pigs.  For a few weeks, one group received 20 ppm NaF in drinking water and another 1,000 ppm intraperitoneally while controls received no fluoride. The fluoride treated animals lived longer, lost less weight and had tumors inhibited by fluoride.   One striking difference between Taylor’s and Flemming’s studies is “time and dosage,”  Taylor had chronic low dose exposure while Flemming had acute high dose.

Known carcinogenic: Taylor (1965) reported observations from 54 experiments, 991 mice bearing transplanted tumors and 58 experiments with 1817 eggs implanted with mouse cancer tissue.  Sodium fluoride accelerated the growth of cancer tissue.  Taylor’s work has been repeatedly confirmed.  Note: Talyor’s first study was criticized because he did not control the fluoride in animal feed, probably CaF.  His subsequent work did control for total fluoride exposure and the results were confirmed.

Known Carcinogen: Suzuki (1991) “We tested the induction of mutagenic effects by in vivo and in vitro bone marrow micronucleus tests. A significant increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was observed 24 H after intraperitoneal injection of sodium fluoride at a dose of 30 mg/kg body weight. In the in vitro micronucleus test, the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was increased significantly at concentrations of 2 and 4 MM. These results indicate that the micronucleus test may be useful in evaluating the cancer risk of sodium fluoride.”39

Known Carcinogen:  Pati (1987) “Genotoxicity of Sodium fluoride was evaluated in mice in vivo with the help of different cytogenetic assays.

 

Known Carcinogen:  Tazhibaev (1987) “The test animals were fed with low-grade food during 2-5 months under conditions of acute and chronic action of hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride induced by inhalation, that resulted in the pronounced impairment of the chromosomal apparatus of the bone marrow cells in the rats. A principal possibility has been established of modification of the hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride cytogenetic effect by the alimentary action. In particular, it has been found that the effect is significantly higher when the rats are fed with a low-grade ration than under conditions of balanced nutrition.”

 

NTP mutagenic: According to the National Toxicology Program “the preponderance of evidence” from laboratory “in vitro” studies indicate that fluoride is a mutagenic compound. Many substances which are mutagens, are also carcinogens. As is typical for in vitro studies, the concentrations of fluoride that have generally been tested were usually, but not always, higher (millimolar levels) than the concentrations found in human blood (micromolar levels). In Khalil (1995), the authors found a statistically significant mutagenic effect at a concentration of just 1 micromole (0.019 ppm). This is similar to blood fluoride concentrations among individuals living in fluoridated communities. More recent research has found effects at 24 uM (Zhang 2009) and 34 uM (Tiwari & Rao 2010).

The relevance of the in vitro findings are further amplified by the fact that there are certain “microenvironments” in the body, such as the bones (3,708 ppm Eble DM 1992 JPHD), teeth, kidney (50 fold increase over plasma, NRC 2006), bladder, and pineal gland (21,000 ppm, Luke 1997; 2001), where the cells can be exposed to fluoride levels many times higher than the fluoride levels found in the blood (between none detected and 0.01 ppm). 

Bone mineral is regularly broken down by osteoclasts as part of the bone remodeling process, the fluoride sequestered in bones (and other tissues) may be periodically released, exposing bone cells to increased fluoride concentrations. This might help explain why fluoride has been associated, in both human and animal studies, with osteosarcoma (bone cancer). One in vitro study, for example, found that 10 to 19 ppm fluoride caused mutagenic effects in bone cells after 24 to 48 hours of exposure. (Mihashi 1996). According to the authors:

Known Carcinogen: “Significant increases in the frequencies of chromosome aberrations were induced in a dose- and treatment time-dependent fashion when NaF was administered to [rat vertebral bone] cells at 0.5 and 1.0 mM [=9.5 to 19 ppm] for 24 and 48 h. The results indicate that NaF is genotoxic to rat vertebrae, providing a possible mechanism for the vertebrae, as a target organ of NaF carcinogenesis.” 

Known Genetic Damage:  Humans and apes have been found to be more susceptible to fluoride-induced genetic damage than rodent cells. (Kishi 1993). Chromosome breaks occurred in human and ape cells at fluoride concentrations (19 to 114 ppm) that had no effects on rodent cells.  (Note: Fluoride varnish is 22,600 ppm)

Known Mutagenic:   1990 NTP  “In summary, sodium fluoride is mutagenic in cultured mammalian cells and produces transformation of Syrian hamster cells in vitro. The reports of in vivo cytogenetic studies are mixed, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured mammalian cells. These mutagenic and clastogenic effects in cultured cells are supported by positive effects in Drosophila germ cell tests that measure point mutations and chromosome breakage. In vivo tests in rodents for chromosome aberrations provide mixed results that cannot readily be resolved because of differences in protocols and insufficient detail in some study reports to allow a thorough analysis. The mechanism(s) by which these effects result from exposure to sodium fluoride is not known.”

Preponderance of Evidence:  2001 Bassin “The effects of fluoride as a mutagen, carcinogen, and antimutagen are inconsistent, but the preponderance of evidence in cultured mammalian cells indicate that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges.”

Capable: 1993 Environment Canada “Fluoride (as sodium fluoride) should be considered capable of inducing chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and sister-chromatid exchanges in vitro in mammalian cells, although the results from such studies have been inconsistent.”

Genotoxic:  1991 HHS “Genotoxicity studies are highly dependent on the methods used… Despite the apparently contradictory reports appearing in the published literature, fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in bacteria (Ames test). In some studies fluoride has been reported to induce gene mutations in both cultured rodent and human cells. Fluoride has also been reported to transform rodent cells in vitro. Although there is disagreement in the literature concerning the ability of fluoride to be a clastogen (induce chromosome aberrations) in cultured cells, it has been suggested that fluoride can cause chromosome aberrations in rodent and human cells. Fluoride induced primarily chromatid gaps and chromatid breaks, indicating that the cells are most responsive in the G stage of the cell cycle, i.e., after chromosome duplication in preparation for cell division. Negative results reported in some cytogenetic studies are likely the effect of inadequate test protocols…. Although the mechanism(s) by which these cellular effects result from exposure to fluoride is not known, a number of possible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the genetic activity observed. These mechanisms have been based on the observed reactions of fluoride in solution with divalent cations or necleotides, or the physiological and inhibition protein synthesis, or a result of the direct inhibition of DNA polymerase. Fluoride can react with divalent cations in the cell so as to affect enzyme activities that are necessary for DNA or RNA synthesis, or chromosome metabolism or maintenance; it may react directly with DNA as part of a complex; or it ca disrupt other cellular processes such as cell differentiation or energy metabolism.”

 

 

Known Carcinogen: Zhang (2009)   “Twenty four agents were used to evaluate this screening assay. We selected the agents, ranging from DNA alkylating agents, oxidative agent, radiation, DNAcrosslinking agent, nongenotoxic carcinogens, precarcinogenic agents, which included . . . sodium fluoride, acrylamide . . . . The results showed that all 20 tested known carcinogenic and genotoxic agents were able to induce gadd153-Luc expression at a sublethal dose.. . . .”

Known Genotoxic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic:  Ercivas (2009)      “In this study we

concluded that NaF, in 5 and 10 lg/ml NaF concentrations cause genotoxic alterations. So genotoxic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects of NaF need to be carefully screened and evaluated together with other long-term effects using in vitro and in vivo animal test models.”

 

 

 

Regular Contributor

Your opinion is opposite to that in the reports prepared by teams of distinguished scientifoc experts who are selected on the basis of their expertise to look at all scientific sides of issues. These systematic review panels debate the evidence and draft a final report and recommendations.

Since the 2011 California Carcinogen Identification Committee decision by unanimous vote that fluoride does not cause cancer in any concentration. additional systematic reviews finding no risk to cancer from fluoridation has included the Australian National Health and Medical REsearch Council, the Ireland Health Research Board, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the HHS Community Preventive services Task Force and the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks. Perhaps I've missed a few.

The public can have high confidence in the evaluation of the science that occurs through such processes, whatever their findings might be. In the case of community water fluoridation, every such panel of experts that has met to review and critique the evidence has concluded that community water fluoridation is safe and effective.

C. Haynie, M.D.

Conversationalist

 

Charles and David,

 

Lets look briefly at SCHER and cancer.  Several places in the SCHER report report no effect, I will only bring out the point that SCHER did find some evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride.  Dose was not determined.  For both sides, read the report.  I'm only showing one side to refute the idea that there is not evidence of fluoride causing cancer.

 

Genotoxicity studies

In general, fluoride induced mutations in cultured cells at concentrations that were slightly cytotoxic and reduced growth rate.

no significant increase in frequency was observed in human fibroblasts at concentrations below 4.52 mg F/L and for Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells below 226 mg F/L.

Positive genotoxicity findings in vivo were only observed at doses that were highly toxic to animals, . Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in bone marrow cells were observed

Fluoride has only been reported to be positive in genotoxicity tests at high concentrations (above 10 mg/L), 

 An increase in sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) and micronuclei has been reported in peripheral lymphocytes from patients with skeletal fluorosis or residents in fluorosis-endemic areas in China and India, 

 

Carcinogenicity studies

Carcinogenesis studies have been conducted by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP).  The studies SCHER used have been strongly disputed.  Rats and mice can tolerate much more fluoride than humans mg/kg bw.  

 

 

 

"On the basis of the results from the most adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies, there is only equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride in male rats and no consistent evidence of carcinogenicity in mice (ATSDR 2003)."   

 

SCHER requires unequivocal evidence.    

 

"No carcinogenicity studies have been conducted using (hydro)fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, disodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid."   Are we to suggest the lack of studies is proof of safety?  No.

 

Epidemiological studies

"Early epidemiological studies did not find a consistent relationship between mortality from all types of cancer and exposure for fluoride, including the consumption of fluoride- containing drinking water."

 

That doesn't sound convincing that fluoride exposure is safe.  We need more study.  Do we keep medicating while we decide whether smoking or fluoride or lead or thalidomide is really harmful?

 

 

Two studies from the US found a higher incidence of osteosarcoma among males less than 20 years of age living in fluoridated communities compared with non-fluoridated communities (Cohn 1992, Hoover 1991). 

 

One case-control study found an association between fluoride exposure during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males, but not among females (Bassin 2006).

 

The Harvard Fluoride Osteosarcoma study was conducted as a hospital based case- control study in 11 hospitals in the USA and was limited to subjects below the age of 20. 

 

 

"Conclusion

SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general." 

 

The weight of evidence needs to get to an almost impossible level.   Scientists force everyone to ingest more fluoride because scientists need to do more research to have absolute certainty.    

 

That is an unreasonable standard.

 

Bill 

 

 

Regular Contributor

The point is that taken as a whole the literature on fluoride and cancer is held by expert panel reviews to be unrelated.

Because hydrofluorosilicic acid and its salts completely and irreversibly dissociate in water, there is no need to study that because fluoridated water has only fluoride ions. It has been conclusively proven by the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance work of Finney et al (2006) (Reexamination of hydrofluorosilicic hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement) that there is complete decomposition of fluorosilicate species at neutral pH values on dilution in water. They also showed the presence of surviving fluorosilicate species at low pH values (3 and below) which is irrelevant for water treatment which by quality regulation is neutral pH..

It is disappointing that fluoridation opponents continually demand specific study of hydrofluorosilicic acid in drinking water when the complete decomposition and Finney's NMR study has been explained many many times. HFSA components are simply not in a simple equilibrium relationship following hydrolysis. One cannot study something that doesn't exist.

C. Haynie, M.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill O & Dr. Sauerheber,

 

The World Health Organization and the IARC have presented lists of known and possible carcinogens, categorized into 5 groups.   The lists are comprehensive and exhaustive.  The IARC list includes 1006 substances, and the WHO list includes 983 substances.  https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/26/the-carcinogens-identified-world-health-organization/Ad...

 

Group 1 includes substances that are known to cause cancer.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens

 

Group 2A includes materials in which the Agency is less certain about cancer.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2A_carcinogens

 

Group 2B includes substances in which there is even less certainty.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens

 

Group 3 includes materials which are “non classifiable.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_3_carcinogens

 

And there is one material listed in Group 4 which is considered “probably not carcinogenic.”  It is Caprolactam.  

 

You will not find Fluoride on any of these all-inclusive, far reaching lists.  I suggest you take your spin to the IARC, the World Health Organization, or the American Cancer Society and try to convince them.  They all disagree with you, as do all experts in the field of Cancer Research.

Bronze Conversationalist

Yes. And notice that fluoride is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen. This is because the cancer causation demonstrated in animals is not necessarily adequately known to occur in humans. Note the recognized description for group 3:

 

"agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans." 

 

Why ask me to contact the WHO? I didn't do the research work with fluoride on animal cancers. And intentional exposures in intact live humans would be unethical. There is no method of growing bone cells in culture to do fluoride cancer caausing screening assays, so one can put all their eggs in one basket and rely on standard tissue culture tests and hope that bone cells would also follow the same result, but I wouldn't. Bone tissue is far different than other tissues and accumulates fluoride like a sponge compared to other tisssues.

So the WHO leaves it listed as a group 3 carcinogen but this is because everyone wants to have the full answer immediately, even when the full answer may never be known.

As for me, I do not accept that fluoride had absolutely no involvement in any way with Ted Kennedy's son getting bone cancer in Boston after fluoridation began there when he was a young child . Yes lethal bone cancer is extremely rare (thank God), but the most efficient way to generate it in animals is with chronic fluoride exposure for years. I don't rely on organizations to make a final decree for any issue that is technically nearly impossible to fully prove beyond doubt.

 

Fluoride is not a nutrient and is only a contaminant in the human body. It is in bone where it does not belong and causes formation of poor qualty bone structure.  I choose not to ingest it, but certainly wish the water district would leave my kitchen sink alone, with sterile water that is otherwise clean and devoid of added chemicals, rather than what they insist on me buying, or else I get no tap water at all because fluoridationists insist (unlawfully) it be fluloridated.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Your point is taken, Dr. Sauerheber.  However, substances are placed into Group 3 when “there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.

 

You are quite right when you say that, “intentional exposures in intact live humans would be unethical.” 

 

Nevertheless, strong evidence does exist that using tobacco causes cancer.  Where does this evidence come from?  No one is intentionally, unethically exposing people to tobacco to come up with an answer.  The evidence comes from stats like this:  As of 2014, 16.8% of the population of the United States used tobacco.  A lot of people use this stuff.  That’s how we know.

 

But what about fluoride?

 

In the U.S., 69% of the population (224,733,000 people) expose themselves to a substance which has about 2000 times more of a concentration of fluoride in it than optimally fluoridated water (which is what we are talking about here).  This substance, toothpaste, is brushed up against and into the teeth and into the thin membrane of the gums, in proximity to the upper and lower jaw bones.

 

Many of these people use electric toothbrushes which serve to more efficiently grind this substance into the thin lining of the gums.    

 

Now think about that.  About a quarter of a billion people (in this country alone) are brushing 2000 times the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water directly into their teeth and gums twice a day, every day, for their entire lives, against the mandible and maxilla, simply by brushing their teeth.

 

We know that chewing tobacco will cause bone loss simply because users place it into their mouths.  So we know that the mandible is injured by tobacco via the thin lining of the gums.  In light of that fact, I have to wonder why toothpaste doesn’t cause this bone cancer, in the same area that chewing tobacco injures bone, that you are so worried about. 

 

With a Quarter Billion people who grind toothpaste into their teeth & gums every day, why don’t we know that toothpaste (with 2000 x the concentration of fluoride as fluoridated water) causes bone cancer in the upper & lower jaw bones?  We don’t know it because it doesn’t happen.  This is why hospitals aren’t over-run with bone-cancer victims who brush their teeth every day.  And I would consider a Quarter Billion people unharmed, who use a high concentration of fluoride every day, twice a day, “strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity does not operate in humans from the use of fluoride.