- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
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.
- 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
- 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.😞
- 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
- 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);
- 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.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
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
- 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
- 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
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- 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.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
As you must be well aware, the EPA is currently being sued, due to water fluoridation policy, by multiple environmental organizations. See https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Food__Water_Watch_Inc_et_al_v_Environmental_Pro...
This type of lawsuit is completely beyond the reach of ordinary citizens, as you must understand. Very few attorneys would take on such a lawsuit, because there will not be any money damages from the EPA, but this is a lawsuit just to enjoin fluoridation in the United States. Thus, it is an injunctive action.
Private attorneys would not take on such a suit, because it takes magnificent resources and they would not get paid. Thus, your claim that private parties have access to such lawsuits, when there are no deep pockets to sue, is blatantly false!
In sum, people are being forcefully medicated, either unknowingly or by propaganda, that such forced medication somehow benefits them, in the United States, which is supposed to be the land of the “free”. The fluoridation policy makes such “freedom” highly questionable.
But the truth is that It is the Institute of Public Health which published the report 'Inequalities in Health' that actually highlighted the very diffetences in burden of diseases and mortality between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland.
It is the National Cancer Registry of Ireland and Northern Ireland that highlighted the significantly higher incidences of cancer in the Republic, which is fluoridated.
Richard - since you mention them, check out the National Cancer Registry’s own statement on this at https://www.ncri.ie/tags/water-fluoridation which states how it’s data has been misused by antifluoridation campaigners and that there is no link between their cancer findings and fluoridation. The Institute of Public Health showed similar or lower levels of chronic diseases in the Republic, see lots of detail at http://chronicconditions.publichealthwell.ie/ . Waugh’s material did not take into account different definitions and different data collection systems in both jurisdictions. For example, the primary cause of deal the for a diabetic with pneumonia might be recoded as diabetes in the South and pneumonia in the North. Simple misunderstandings like these are constantly made by people with no qualifications in epidemiology and no knowledge of the systems of data collection. Other examples of these types of mistakes are comparing prostate cancer rates which have to be much higher in the Republic due to PSA screening, which detects preclinical lesions, which is not carried out in the North, or comparing Down Syndrome birth rates where abortion was outlawed in the South but freely available in the UK, where the large majority of such pregnancies are terminated. Such are the pitfalls of comparative health statistics, they are really much better left to the professionals.
And I'm not willing to toss out the significance of data sets analyzed by Declan Waugh comparing disease incidence in Southern Ireland vs Northern Ireland.
Or the data on hypothyroidism incidence by Peckham.
Or data on ADHD incidence by Malin and Till.
Or data correlating the blood fluoride concentration with degree of IQ lowering.
And it is an absolute certrainty that fluoride accumulates in bone to thousands of ppm, higher than what is in toothpaste, in a nonphysiologic manner where it does not belong, over a chronic period of consumption of about 20 years, all forming bone of poor quality.
And I stand by my own studies of the effects of fluoridated water on racehorse fatalities in Southern California (Racehorse breakdowns and artificially fluoridated water in Los Angeles, Fluoride 46:170-177, 2013 at:
Richard - Regarding Irish health stats, you need to check the official data published by the OECD, EU and the cross-border Institute of Public Health. These indicate better general health in the Republic. Not to mention better oral health.
Richard, CarryAnn and other contributors, I am leaving this discussion unless any issues arise re Irish or European research. Nice to chat with you all.
It's a free country and you can believe what you want. And so can I. I trust the published information I know. Enamel exposed even to 20,000 ppm fluoride does not incorporate fluoride into it. At this level, calcium fluoride globules form on teeth that are readily dissolved with a meal afterward.
At 0.016 ppm fluoride there is no such precipitation and it is now argued to somehow work by incorporating into dental plaque "to help" toothpaste fluoride (a recent CDC position).
But dentists here request that plaque be removed from teeth regularly. So all the vast literature praising the wonders of fluoride on caries needs to be considered more carefully. There is no actual proof that fluoride has some intrinsic ability to fight caries--other than coating teeth with high levels above the solubility product for calcium phosphate, where it might act much like a coat of paint would. But of course 0.016 ppm is far below this level.
The scientific data that is perfectly controlled is with caged mammals where diets were rigorously regulated. Animals given fluoridated water do not have any reduction whatsoever in spontaneous dental caries compared to nonfluoridated water (done in two U.S. labs and one lab in the U.K as reviewed by Yiamouyiannis). These data you can bank on.
Those who want to fluoridate people though will dismiss this all by arguing that animals are not humans. But I can include it in my analysis because teeth enamel in mammals is similar to that in man.
Many studies claiming benefit report differences that are not outside experimental measruement error, and so many others were not with humans that volunteered to eat exaclty the same foods between fluoride water and no fluoride water groups. It is simply a mess with massive numbers of studies claiming benefit that are not well done. The textbooks by the dentist statistician Sutton are a necessary read for people wanting to see if fluoride added into drinking water can actually affect caries-- It doesn't.
Most all countries of the world reject fluoridation. In India, Dr. Susheela, a scientist who has studeid the effecs of fluoride on the people of India here entire career, cannot believe that the U.S. intentionally adds this non-physiologic substance into water, when India spends vast sums to remove it from contaminated water. In Ireland, the South followed U.S. dentists and fluoridated their country while the North does not. The health disparities between the two countries are atrocious there. Australia fluoridates, and that is about it. Most of Canada is canceling fluoridation and the rest of the world has rejected it.
The reason I mentioned the Teotia study (a 30 year examination) and the Ziegelbecker and Yiamouyiannis studies is that they are so much more thorough and comprehensive than studies published widely iln dental journals. Moreoever, there is no mechanism by which fluoride from drinking water can decreases caries in the first place. Fluoride cannot penetrate into the enamel matrix. it is simply too hard and a different structure than the hydroxyapatite in bone which readily accumulates fluoride. The level in saliva from drinking fluoridated water that continuously bathes teeth is only 0.016 ppm (NRC, 2006) This is 93,750 times less concentrated than fluoride in toothpaste (1,500 ppm). And the CDC already realizes and published that systemic fluoride does not affect caries. So people are scrambling to invent a new mechanism to explain what they have long accepted, that somehow drinking fluoride in water decereases decay. But it does not, which is consistent with the above facts.
Richard - Sorry, but I cannot agree with you. The mechanism for caries prevention is very well understood and the epidemiology around the reduction in decay levels in fluoridated areas is copious. The general health in the Republic of Ireland compares very well with Northern Ireland and with Europe generally. The official comparative data can be accessed on the OECD and EU websites.
It is necessary to read and understand accurate well-collected scientific data, not articles written by those with biases. How many in the government have taken the time to read the Teotia and Teotia 30 year study showing that caries incidence is highest in populations that have high fluoride and low calcium in their diets?
Or the Ziegelbecker study demonstrating that the original correlation by Trendley Dean with natural fluoride water was mistakenly taken from a limited data set, where considering all data there is no caries efffect of flouride in water over a broad concentration range to 6 ppm.
Or the Yiamouyiannis study of U.S. fluoridated cities showing zero effect on dental caries in massive population sets as a function of age.
Or the Sutton textbooks demonstrating how the false conclusions were made in the original Grand Rapids and Newburgh fluoridation trials?
How many have read the Fluoride Deception that traces the actual reasons why fluoridation trials were begun in the first place without FDA approval and with FDA opposition?
Dean confessed in court under oath that the evidence correlating water fluoride with caries incidence had no basis in fact.
Why does the government continue it? I don't know. You seem to suggest that you know they would stop if they knew the truth. When a government program starts, who can stop it? I can't.
Richard - I don’t work in the area of fluoridation any longer but I did spend the best part of 20 years in this area, particularly in regards to dental public health. I did take the time to read every text I could access which opposed fluoridation because I felt that this public health policy did require justification and needed to be questioned constantly. While I came to disagree with them, I have always recognized that anti-fluoride advocates were utterly sincere in their opposition. What was obvious is that there are an enormous number of relevant studies out there - I think the York Review identified over 3000 as far back as 2000. In such a situation we have to rely on a synthesis of all the evidence by competent experts rather than selecting bits and pieces of individual studies. This has been carried out now on many occasions in many countries. Thus, I accept this consensus.
You again make an incorrect extrapolation.
I've informed the FDA several times that allowing fluoride in bottled water contradicts their own ruling to ban the sale of fluorides intended to be ingested by pregnant women. Their response is that they don't authorize adding the fluoride ilnto bottled water and in most cases it is naturally there and not intentionally added. Furthermore, fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water.
Dr. Sauerheber, you say, “Furthermore, fluoride levels in water are forbiddenfrom being listed on bottled water because that would give the false impression to the public that fluoride actually belongs in water.”
That is odd, because on this label of bottled water http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2 I see that there are 23 mcg of fluoride per 30 gram serving. That comes to 0.77 parts per million (ppm) of fluoride, which is very close to the optimal level for maximum benefit and no harm.
I’m going to start keeping track of your false statements, Dr. Sauerheber J .
Where did you get your medical degree, David? And remind me, when did I see you for a medical consultation? Or is your degree in bioethics?
- My allergist told me to avoid municipal water because of my rashes and other symptoms, based on skin and blood tests, as well as clinical examination. He had a packet of information that he handed to many of his patients on this topic. He mentioned there are 'many different chemicals' used to treat water that can set some one off. This in 1983.
- My MD told me to 'watch what I ate' for my gastrointestinal complaints and to learn to live with the arthritis. This in the 1990s.
When it's in water, it's in everything. It took me decades to find out exactly what the problem was. Once I knew and could take more comprehensive steps to avoid fluoride, after decades of misery - my 'allergies,' IBS and arthritis are gone. Also gone are my more recent kidney and liver problems - all of which are documented as being indicative of fluoride posioning.
Fluoride is not added to water to treat water - it is added to treat people. Although they allow a limited amount in bottled water, fluoride is characterized by the FDA as an 'unapproved drug.' The FDA assumes no authority for 'water additives' and the EPA leaves fluoridations decision to states and municipalities where the issue becomes politicized - because the SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people. Fluoride is the only substance ever added to treat people.
Neither my city nor you, David, have the right to use municipal water to dose me with a drug that worsens my health!
“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)
2015 Report w/checklist:
Where did you get your Water Treatment Operator’s License?
You say, “. . . SDWA states that no federal authority may add any substance to water to treat people.” Clearly you are talking about the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, since states do not have authority over the Federal Government.
Could you please cite the specific statute which says this? Of course you can’t. Your comment is false.
You also say, “fluoride is characterized by the FDA as an 'unapproved drug.'” As I pointed out to Dr. Sauerheber, while the FDA does not have regulatory authority over Community Water Fluoridation (the EPA does), the FDA does have regulatory authority over Bottled Water. This includes fluoridated bottled water.
This is a label from the FDA regulated product “Dannon’s Fluoride to Go” bottled water: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2 . Under “Nutrition Information” you will see that Fluoride is listed as a Mineral. It is not identified as a “Drug.” Could you please show me any place on this FDA regulated product where the word “drug” exists? Of course you can’t. The FDA doesn’t classify, identify, consider, or label optimally fluoridated water as a drug.
Could you please show me anything, on any FDA website, which identifies optimally fluoridated water as a drug?
So, when you say, “Neither my city nor you, David, have the right to use municipal water to dose me with a drug that worsens my health!” you can’t be referring to optimally fluoridated water, since neither the FDA, the CDC, the EPA, . . No Federal Agency considers fluoridated water to be a “drug.” People who try to generate paranoia about safe drinking water call fluoridated water a drug. And they’re the only ones who do so.
Moreover, if you claim that you have gotten “fluoride poisoning” by drinking water with 1 ppm of fluoride in it, you would be the first person in history to suffer from such an ailment. . . . Oh wait, there was a guy, about 50 years ago, from the 1950s to the 1970s (his name escapes me at the moment) who did have some anecdotal stories about people who allegedly suffered from drinking fluoridated water, but it never really panned out. Someone would develop a rash, they moved out of the city, and the rash disappeared. Imagine that. Besides, you like to look at post-2015 science don’t you.
There was one other guy, Hans Moolengurgh, whose idea of science was to take a baby bottle away from a screaming baby to see what would happen. lol
Yes, wouldn't it be great if every scientist were only good, unbiased, and exclusively truth-seeking?
The evidence that fluoride does NOT cause any bone cancer in humans is incomplete and in fact is in disagreeemnt with other data suggesting it might. The term "strong" is a weighted opinion or educated guess in cases such as this because, again, there are no such things as bone cultures with which one can directly and scientifically attempt to address the question of whether it is causative or not. No mortal human on earth, no matter how good a scientist he thinks he is, understands how bone cells cause the orchestrated formation of bone with the precisly proper shape necessary to serve the purpose it has at any particular bodily location. No one understands.
To say that fluoride does not cause bone cancer would be over-the-top speculation, being in the face of a complete lack of such experimentation even being possible with human tissue that grows during formative years in youth. The idea that there is strong evidence to support such a claim is a group consensus opinion that led to its placement in group 3, and it remains an opinion, in particular since it opposes the animal results that are scientifically demonstrated.
The FDA goes the proper extra mile. When a substance is known to cause adverse health effecs in anmals, the agency assigns that substance into Category X. This category forbids the use of that substance by pregnant women In this group is where fluoride belongs, and indeed in 1966 the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intendced for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. This is because of the known harm to animals at blood levels comarable to that in a fluoride water consumer, coupled with the absolute fact that newborn offspring have zero benefit from beilng fluoridated in the womb. Yes, the CDC and WHO are not the only organizations that make decisions based on group think and consensus. It is a part of life, and frequently wrong and harmful decisions have been made especially in the case of a low level chronic poisonous substance affecting overall health and longevity.
Dr. Sauerheber, you say, “in 1966 the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intendced for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S.”
That is interesting. All bottled water falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of the FDA. Isn’t that right? This is a label from Dannon’s fluoridated water: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2
If what you said was correct, then I would expect the FDA to have put some kind of warning that this product is not intended to be consumed by pregnant women. Could you please point out that warning on this FDA regulated product, fluoridated water, which is intended for ingestion?
Of course you can’t. The FDA doesn’t warn pregnant women not to drink fluoridated water.
“We too often bind ourselves by authorities rather than by the truth.” - Lucretia Mott (1793-1880)
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” —Albert Einstein
Truth doesn’t change. What changes is how people, including doctors and scientists, see the truth - how they interpret the data. We've several scientists on this forum thread and thousands of scientists across the country who are definitive in their professional and scientific evaluation of the evidence, that fluoridation is a harmful policy - and that includes scientists in essentially every organization supporting fluoridation. Two dentists and a doctor in my town have privately encouraged me to keep up the fight because they know the truth is fluoride is harmful to health and does not provide any dental benefit, but none of them will say so publicly.
However, forget about the scientific evidence for a moment. Consider the morality - what right does anyone or any group have to add a drug to my water that is medically contraindicated for me and my grandchildren because they believe it might prevent a cavity in some neighbor's kid who doesn't brush his teeth!
Hello CarryAnn - I don't think Einstein was arguing that scientific consensus should be ignored, he was arguing against unthinking acceptance of unsupported opinions from those in authority.
In the case of water fluoridation, the scientific consensus from very many major reviews by experts is that water fluoridation is beneficial and does not cause harm.
It seems to me that we should need very good reasons not to accept the consensus of the scientific community, particularly in public health.
You say, “ what right does anyone or any group have to add a drug to my water.”
To that I would say, if you believe a minute amount of fluoride in your drinking water is somehow “drugging” you, then you will have to take your argument up with either God of Nature, depending on what you believe, since all drinking water on Earth has some degree of fluoride in it already, and they have been “drugging” you for your entire life.
This is a nonsensical argument you make, Carrie. You are not being “drugged” when you eat breakfast cereal fortified with vitamins & minerals, when you eat bread with folic acid, or when you drink milk fortified with Vitamin D. But I understand it’s easy to frighten people by telling them they are being “drugged.”
I listed the evidence against fluoride causing human bone cancer already, that prompted the insertion into Group 3. But it is not strong or conclusive. Bone cancer prior to water fluoridation was essentially non-existent in the U.S. Now we have cases of it. In 1989 there were 1,300 lethal cases. I don't know if fluoride was involved, I can't prove it veyonod doubt of course, but I also cannot use the fact that over 99% of the population don't get it proves that no one has or will. In mammals it takes fluoride exposure for typically 1/3 of its entire lifespan to induce it significantly. These are well controlled experiments with caged creatures, only possible with lab animals.
Yes, fluoride in toothpaste is over 2,000 times more concentrated than that in fluoridated water, which demonstrates why fluoride in water is useless in preventing caries. But it is not an argument that fluoride cannot cause bone cancer. First of all, enamel is a covering that efficiently protects underlying bony dentin, and fluoride ion is unable to pass through enamel into dentin. Topical fluoride through oral surfaces can enter the bloodstream of course, but only ingested systemic fluoride substantially accumulates into bone (i.e. from swallowing toothpaste or drinking/eating fluoridated water and foods). Of all the fluoride in the blood of a consumer living on 1 ppm fluoridated water, only 15% comes from toothpaste use (NRC, 2006).
The reasons to denounce water fluoridation are massive, and cancer is not one that necessarily needs to be argued. For example, fluoride ingestion does not significantly affect dental decay (Teotia;Ziegelbecker;Sutton;Yiamouyiannis, etc), but does efficiently cause bone quality deterioration from lifelong ingestion. Why would anyone marginilize bone health when there are excellent simple methods to maintain dental health without fluoride ingestion? (brushing after eating sugar or avoiding sugar, etc.). Normal enamel is calcium phosphate and does not contain fluoride as a necessary ingredient. Same with bone- - fluoride is a contaminant, not a nutrient.
Richard - It is clear that the international scientific consensus is that fluoride is not a carcinogen. It is also clear that the strong consensus is that fluoridated water is beneficial to oral health.
It is also clear that the benefits of fluoridation extend into older age, with greater numbers of retained teeth and lower levels of root caries. Epidemiological studies of dental health consistently report improved dental health for residents of fluoridated areas, regardless of toothbrushing.
If either of these points was untrue, public health authorities would not be promoting water fluoridation.
Joe - Tell me, why did an Irish dental fluoridationist join and begin commenting on the website of the American Academy of Retired Persons, which is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to empowering Americans 50 and older to choose how they live as they age?
Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room. I hear Sligo-Leitrim is only a train ride away from Dublin, yes?
Myself, I prefer to limit my activities to my side of the Atlantic and let environmental scientist Declan Waugh and biologist Doug Cross deal with the trolls in the UK.
Carrie Anne, you say, “Cancer was a red herring that Chuck Haynie threw in to disrupt the conversation. If you, Chuck and others want to argue cancer - get a room.”
You may be confusing Chuck Haynie with me. The first time I brought up "cancer" it was in response to one of your comments. This is my exact quote:
“Carrie Anne has presented a quote by Dr. Wm Marcus:
“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use.” “
Since you want to talk about “Cancer,” where would you like to get a room?
While I agree your response to me was a more subtle put down, I suggest you read what Chuck, David, Steven & Johnny have been writing about Dr. Bill Osmunson, Dr. Sauerheber, SIRPAC and me since 6/27. Their choice of language is trully abusive.
But yes - I feel and expressed some righteous indignation that the AFS imported an Irishman to weigh in on this American website whose membership is supposed to be American, not international. I've already had plenty of dealings with abusive trolls from the southern hemisphere on my small town newspaper, but I only found out they weren't local by digging into their online identities - so I now dig into everyone who seems not to belong. Other AARP members might not have been tipped off by the referenc to SCHER and the BDS post-nomial, but I knew it meant you might not be an American.
Joe, read my posts about my experience which has nothing to do with cancer - a distraction from the purpose of this thread which chugged along unmolested for three years with about 60 posts until 6/27. Chuck and David jumped on the passing reference to cancer to derail the conversation, which it has with your help, while he and company denigrate me and belittle my testimony of harm.
For the record: Einstein wasn't hailed as a brilliant hero from the get go. He up ended lots of 'consensus' - which is a political construct without scientific basis. See what a former fluoridationist had to say about so called fluoridation consensus;
“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.” - Dr. John Colquhoun BDS, PhD, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and leading proponent turned opponent (1998)
Speaking about consensus, here are just a few professional American organizations who are on record opposing fluoridation in teh 21st century. I'm sure there are a few in Ireland, too:
- IAOMT 2017 Position Paper with 500+ citations AGAINST any fluoride use: https://iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fluoride-Position-Paper.pdf
- AAEM 2015 cosigner of letter with Erin Brockovich et al: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/LetterIOM_2015.04.27.pdf
- CHEJ 2015 Position of Lois Gibbs, Nobel Prize nominee and environmentalist: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf
- Sierra Club 2008 on damage to environment: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water
- EWG in 2011 to HHS on evidence of harm: https://www.ewg.org/news/testimony-official-correspondence/proposed-federal-fluoride-cap-too-high
- LULAC 2011 Resolution on Medical Consent & Environmental Justice: http://lulac.org/advocacy/resolutions/2011/resolution_Civil_Rights_Violation_Regarding_Forced_Medica...
CarryAnn - Thank you for your reply. For the record, I very rarely contribute to online discussions, and I am a public health official making statements that are consistent with WHO and public health bodies generally. I am not sure why that would qualify me as a “troll”!
While I still work as a public health official, I am not directly involved in fluoridation these days. However, I am aware of a lot of work concerning fluoridation and older people within Ireland at present. Perhaps this may be relevant.
CarryAnn - that’s a bit abusive isn’t it? You do realize that this discussion is online and can be viewed from anywhere? If you simply resort to insulting people who have a different view to yours it tends to lessen your own arguments, don’t you think?
You say, “I listed the evidence against fluoride causing human bone cancer already, that prompted the insertion into Group 3. But it is not strong or conclusive.”
No, . . . that is not what prompted its insertion into Group 3. Let’s take a look at the definition of Group 3 which you have already used. Your quote, copy/pasted from your comment:
“"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."
Nowhere in that definition is there any mention of any evidence of cancer in humans. To the contrary. Read it. The definition of a Group 3 carcinogen is that there is “inadequate” evidence of cancer in humans. It doesn’t say there is “weak or inconclusive” evidence. It also says there is Strong Evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity does Not operate in humans. In other words, there is strong evidence against the possibility of cancer being caused by the substance. These are two distinctly different things.
Caffeine is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen.
I would think that a true scientist would look at the facts as they are and objectively draw a conclusion instead of twisting and distorting definitions in order to fit an agenda.
“One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)
Chuck - you misrepresent my response to your post in which you challenged Dr. Sauerheber to file a lawsuit. My response was about lawsuits, not about cancer. One lawsuit example I used was about falsification of data in a cancer study which ended up in a lawsuit. Senior EPA scientist Dr. Wm. Marcus won that lawsuit against the EPA for wrongful termination prompted by his memo about the scientific fraud at the EPA in that cancer study. The legal decision provided remedy to Dr. Marcus but didn't impact the fraudulant study which was allowded to stand, which is one of the reasons cancer isn't my go to subject. I also gave examples of other lawsuits. But again, legal cases aren't my go to either.
My go to is: at least 15% of the population is intolerant of fluoride but misdiagnosed as having gastrointestinal disease, arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, autoimmune disease, etc. Some of us eventually figure it out. The science supports all of these symptom clusters as consistent with fluoride toxicity. Kidney disease and neurodegenerative symptoms are also well documented symptoms of chronic fluoride intoxication, even from 'optimal' water concentrations. All of these issues are particular concerns for senior citizens who have been consuming fluoridated water for decades and consequently are carrying a heavy load of fluoride in their bodies, brains and bones.
Joe - Among other interesting things, the 2010 SCHER also states:
"...in older adults (more than 65 years of age), a significant decline in renal clearance of fluoride has been reported consistent with the age-related decline in glomerular filtration rates."
Reduced clearance means heavier fluoride retention in the body where it can cause or worsen inflammatory and other symptoms. I have a bunch of kidney fluoride science items, even a couple from this year, but I think this image of a few items from the 2006 National Resource Council will make the point:
Folks - This AARP forum is meant to be a place to share stories and advice relevant to our experiences which also could be of interest to AARP as senior citizen advocates. This social media thread is not for armchair criticism of studies that are not supportive of a point of view, not for interpretting legal cases and most certainly not for personal attacks on AARP members whether they are scientists or individuals who share their personal health history and the remedies that have improved their quality of life.
In relation to Dr Haynie's comment, I was involved in the presentations to the European Union's Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risk (SCHER) in 2011. This was a comprehensive review by a panel of scientists who were primarily toxicologists by training. Their comment on cancer was as follows:
"SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in
drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from
animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic."
This is just one of many comprehensive reviews by experts in their field, none of which have concluded that fluoride causes cancer, and certainly not at the levels found in fluoridated water.
The SCHER report is available online at https://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/environmental_risks/docs/scher_o_139.pdf.
Joe Mullen BDS