Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

“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. 

• 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

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! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

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

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

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

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

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

Really? 

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

BMCL

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

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

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 “Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)

Well, it as been a busy few weeks! 

Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real." 

In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers. 

• UNSAFE: p. 2:  the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.

• HAZARD: p 5:   The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
  
  

• CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
  
  

• VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
  
  

• SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people. 

[rs5526]

I did not say that no one can label the fluoride content in bottled water. I said the FDA ruled to prohibit labeling (but the FDA) fluoride levels in bottled water. Pure pristine clean drinking water such as in the Pacific Northwest has no detectable F, like water is supposed to be. Again, the FDA ruled this to avoid people thinking that fluoride is a normal ingredient in fresh drinking water, when it most certainly is not.

Trump lying about what he said has nothing to do with statements   on fluoride. Most things Trump says are false

 I dont speak falsehoods. And I am with the majority of Americans who voted for  Hillary. So what? 

No one has proven that F has never caused or exacerbated cancer. 

 Quite the opposite. Read the data published by Dr. Yiamouyiannis.

Also it would serve you well to read the actual full text in the NRC Report 2006. There have been several cases of stage III skeletal fluorosis in the U. S. . It remains rare but stage I is not rare

 The ingestion of fluoridated water for about 20 years even  before the  existence of F toothpaste caused bone F levels of 2500 mg/kg, higher than in toothpaste where it does nor belong Newbrunn)  Many people experience bone discomfort at levels below 2500( NRC).

I don't know Mercola so you may be projecting to someone else. 

I published the racehorse fluoridation breakdown article and the journal of environmental and public health 439490 article

 I haul my drinking and cooking  water from a clean well because fluoridationists  violated the San Diego vote opposed to fluoridation and violated the SDWA and infuses industrial fluoride sources into the water I am forced to buy though it is so treated. Fresh municipal water is no longer available here (IN THE U. S) 

I do not use an RO fluoride water filter. Again, you are projecting. . 

[BillO538145]

Laws are complex and not everyone agrees on the intent of each law.

The best I've been able to do is read the FDA and EPA positions and their intent, contact them and try to understand.   Complex.  I think pulling firm conclusions out of either or both Agencies is problematic, until the courts rule. 

Much we don't know and certainly some are being harmed with excess fluoride exposure.

Giving people the freedom to choose more fluoride, is a fundamental human right. 

If we were dealing with a highly contagious lethal disease, then I am not opposed to my public health profession using police powers.  Dental caries are not highly contagious or lethal. 

Give people freedom to choose how much fluoride they ingest.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Richard,  Round & Round we go . . where it ends nobody knows.  This is what you just said: 

“I did not say that no one can label the fluoride content in bottled water. I said the FDA ruled to prohibit labeling (but the FDA) fluoride levels in bottled water. “  (It’s a bit garbled, but I think I know what you are saying.)

And this is what you actually said: 

“07-12-2018 03:46 PM

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. “  End quote.

So . . if it’s forbidden . . it’s forbidden by everyone.  Forbidden means forbidden.  Where in that comment do you say this only applies to the FDA?   Or is that even what you meant?  Who knows . .

Bill Osmunson’s comment is more interesting. 

“Giving people the freedom to choose more fluoride, is a fundamental human right. 

If we were dealing with a highly contagious lethal disease, then I am not opposed to my public health profession using police powers.  Dental caries are not highly contagious or lethal. 

Give people freedom to choose how much fluoride they ingest.”  End quote.

Bill, since we know that water containing 0.7 ppm F is harmless to people who drink it (because nobody can seem to provide even one documented case of harm because someone drank optimally fluoridated water – even for as much as a lifetime.)  And we know that water containing fluoride is helpful against dental carries (hell, we’ve known this since Colorado in the early 20th century), then you are literally arguing for the freedom to choose poorer oral health.  --  That is not rational.

Let me repeat.  You want the freedom to choose poorer oral health.

Moreover, you want to impose your irrational mindset upon entire communities, people who could truly benefit from this health initiative.  And you want to do it to help your millionaire buddy, Mercola, sell his stuff.  (You know, like when you copy/pasted “Kyle’s Story” which was really an advertisement for Mercola shower head filters.)  That’s not cool, man. 

[BillO538145]

David,

I agree, we are going in circles.   Given the scientific evidence of harm from too much fluoride and added fluoride adds to the excess, does not seem to be something you understand. 

I don't think I can be more clear than saying, too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  20% of adolescents with moderate/severe fluorosis is too much.  NHANES 2011-2012. 

You ask for proof.  The FDA requires the manufacturer to provide proof of efficacy at a specific dosage and then safety at that dosage.  The FDA rejected the evidence of efficacy as incomplete. 

We could argue about gravity the same way.  Science has not "proven" all aspects of gravity. . . or anything.  But you and I know that gravity must exist.  The "degree" of proof is debated. . . global warming etc.

And yes, if someone wants to choose poorer health or lower quality of health, that is their choice.  Called informed consent.  As a clinician, I understand that I'm not god and do not have all the answers for each person.  Health is their choice.  If the only source of fluoride were from fluoridation, and if caries were contagious, and if caries were lethal, we would be closer to the same side of this discussion.   

However, you are assuming the additional fluoride exposure from fluoridation is reducing dental caries.  However, proponents have failed to provide one prospective double blind study on efficacy and the FDA is not convinced.  Yes, we still have to do lots of research on efficacy.

For example, the research fails to consider many of these confounding problems:

• A.   Not one Study corrects for Unknown Confounding Factors
• B.   Not one Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial   
• C.   Socioeconomic status usually not controlled
• D.   Inadequate size
• E.   Difficulty in diagnosing decay
• 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
• I.    Oral hygiene not determined
• J.     Not evaluating Life time benefit
• K.    Estimating or assuming subject actually drinks the fluoridated water.
• L.    Dental treatment expenses not considered
• M.    Breast feeding and infant formula excluded
• N.   Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected. 
• O.   Genetics not considered

And may I suggest you read the primary research on fluoride exposure. 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, you say, "proponents have failed to provide one prospective double blind study on efficacy and the FDA is not convinced."

Response:  The FDA has nothing to do with Community Water Fluoridation (CWF), and you know that.  A double blind study for CWF would be nearly impossible to carry out . . and you know that too.  

And the FDA is convinced.  According to the FDA, "Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay]." . . . and that is all "proponents" of optimally fluoridated water have ever claimed.  https://www.fda.gov/food/labelingnutrition/ucm073602.htm

[BillO538145]

David,

Several points, but lets first look at your link to fluoridated bottled water.    Slow down and listen and read carefully.  

The title is, "Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries"

Read the title carefully, it is a "NOTIFICATION" to the FDA by the manufacturer of a health claim which is being made based, not on the FDA's review of the science, or any other treatment chemical regulatory body, but on "authoritative statement from an appropriate scientific body of the United States Government or the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or any of its subdivisions."  

The "notification" is under a new law which does not require the FDA review process.  The claim is based on other agencies.   Although those other agencies are scientific, they are not chemical regulatory agencies with protocol and policies, procedures and experts to determine safety and efficacy AND dosage of any substance used with the intent to prevent disease in humans.

David, you have mistakenly attributed the FDA approval review process for a notification process.  FDA never reviewed the scientific evidence.  

On your second point, you again read so fast you did not read it correctly.  I was very precise that proponents have failed to provide one prospective double blind study on efficacy.   Where is one?  Just one?  You have not provided one.  And you fail to understand the FDA regulatory process which reviews the studies but does very little testing of its own (that I'm aware of.).

The excuse that a prospective randomized controlled trial is nearly impossible is bogus and a cop out.  For heavens sake, we have gone to the moon, we have split the atom, we have cures for many diseases and we have RCT studies on all chemicals used with the intent to prevent or treat disease in humans.   To say an RCT study is nearly impossible is unscientific and seriously blinded.

There are places in Canada and Alaska and other places in the world where water is shipped in by truck.  Simply find two similar communities and fluoridate one.

Another is to use fluoride supplements in RCT studies.  Again, simple, inexpensive and done for other pills all the time.

I smile when I hear people say, "it can't be done."  Watch out, stand back, because others are or will do it.  So why not fluoride?  Simple.  It does not significantly reduce dental caries.  

I gave you a list of items often missing in fluoride studies.  You did not comment that I have seen?  Why? Because studies on fluoridation are miserably lacking in rigor, quality, strength, etc.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Bill,

First of all, while you were the director of the Fluoride Action Network, how much money did Mercola fund your organization?

To your two points in your first comment.

First, the 2006 FDA Health Notification for fluoridated bottled water.

I know exactly what the FDA Health Notification is. If you will be so kind as to review your own comment, you said, “proponents have failed to provide one prospective double blind study on efficacy and the FDA is not convinced.” ‎07-19-2018 05:33 PM

The fact is that the FDA is convinced. You may not like the criteria that the FDA uses, (in fact it seems to annoy you that you can’t get away with bringing the FDA into a discussion about optimally fluoridated water any more). The fact is that the FDA will accept a health claim “based on an authoritative statement from an appropriate scientific body of the United States Government or the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) or any of its subdivisions.“ End quote. That is a fact.

Slow down and read the Health Claim. The FDA accepts the health claim that optimally fluoridated water helps to reduce dental decay. The FDA allows that wording on its fluoridated bottled water. End of story. The FDA accepts and takes responsibility for this wording.  There is no spinning it despite your desperate attempt at drawing attention away from what it is.

Your second point is that you want to undertake a double blind randomized trial for Community Water Fluoridation. First of all, your comments about going to the moon and splitting the atom are irrelevant . . but let’s look at your ideas for undertaking such a study:

Your quote: “There are places in Canada and Alaska and other places in the world where water is shipped in by truck. Simply find two similar communities and fluoridate one.”

Response: A double blind study between two similar communities would be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which states that an annual Water Report must be supplied to all water consumers, (sometimes called a “Consumer Confidence Report”) so that water customers are aware of the contents of the drinking water they are paying for. Your suggestion is unethical and illegal.  In other words, it is illegal to supply water to consumers without informing them of analysis results undertaken on their water. 

However, one idea, you could run a study for under a year, between reports, but a study under one year in length wouldn’t be much of a study would it.

Your second suggestion: “Another is to use fluoride supplements in RCT studies. Again, simple, inexpensive and done for other pills all the time.”

Response: You must be joking. Fluoride pills in place of optimally fluoridated water? When you are trying to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of Community water fluoridation? First of all, and most obvious, these two substances, pills & drinking water, are not the same thing. Nothing would be proven and such a study would be ridiculed.

Moreover, it seems to me that this goes back to a common tactic that you anti water fluoridation fanatics use. You blur different degrees of fluorosis, and you blur different concentrations of fluoride. . as if bottled oxygen, which requires a prescription, is the same thing as optimally oxygenated air, which does not.

I hope this answers your nonsensical points.

[CarryAnne]

“It is very unwise to assume that little or none of the extensive middle and old-age osteoarthritis that plagues so many people in the United States is not an undiagnosed manifestation of various stages of skeletal fluorosis.” - Dr. Albert W. Burgstahler, chemist in letter to NAS/IOM (1998)

Dental fluorosis (DF) is the visible evidence of a defect in the tooth. It is evidence of cell death in every case and due to fluoride consumption. Always. Period. These teeth are more brittle. It is caused by fluoride consumption in early childhood but is a lifelong condition that increases dental bills. As fluoridation has increased in the US, so has DF so that it now afflicts over half of US teens.  

Skeletal fluorosis (SF) is the invisible evidence of the same process which manifests as pain in the bones and increased brittleness. This is a cumulative process that in 'optimally' fluoridated communities afflicts adults in middle age and senior citizens. Because fluoridation is supported by US agencies and administered by US governmental authoritis, skeletal fluorosis is misdiagnosed as any number of other conditions. All foods prepared with fluoridated water are contaminated with fluoride - often at much higher concentrations than in tap water.

• 1978 SF Checklist:  http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/flier_waldbott_symptoms_ftgd.pdf
• 2015 SF Report:  http://fluorideandfluorosis.com/Reprints/pdf/IJPP%2017(2)%202015.pdf
• 2018 DF complications: 

  http://www.lupinepublishers.com/madohc/pdf/MADOHC.MS.ID.000133.pdf 

• 2017 DF & cell death:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5770627/

[rs5526]

Millions  of people are being harmed from fluoridated water. Consumers all  accumulate F in bone,, causing formation of poor quality bone to varying degree.

Three court cases ruled that fluoridated water consumption can cause cancer in people. Who am I to overturn these rulings?

The study claiming reduced decay in fluorotic molars is not a valid conclusion I would make based on the data. The confidence intervals overlap substantially between fluoridated and nonfluoridated. Moreover as I have said the studies like this on people who cannot be put in cages are not well controlled, as for animals in cages  

 The animal data are conclusive and agree with the largest human data we have on populations showing fluoride water is useless in decreasing dental decay.

Sorry. 

[DavidF928895]

You know, and now that I think of it, the FDA doesn't list any mineral content on bottled water.  Why would they?  (And I didn't mean to say 'why wouldn't they.'  You won't see me pulling a trump 🙂 )   In that light, your comment is not only unbelieveable, it's nonsensical.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, your quote:

“07-18-2018 03:19 PM

As  said, the FDA does not permit itself to label fluoride levels in water, or to require that fluoride be labeled on bottled water by anyone.”

Response:  No, that’s not what you said.  This is what you said, word for word:

 “07-12-2018 03:46 PM

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. “  End quote.

Are you going to pull a “Trump” on us and tell us that you forgot to include one word which would have changed the entire meaning from, ‘no one is allowed to list fluoride levels on bottled water,’ to, ‘only the FDA is not allowed to list fluoride levels on bottled water? 

It doesn’t seem to be working for Trump, and it’s certainly not working for you.  You might want to put out that fire on your pants.

Of course you don’t believe the Kumar study.  If you acknowledged that teeth with mild fluorosis are more resistant to decay, that wouldn’t help your buddy Mercola sell his water filters & fluoride free toothpaste, would it.

Your quote:  “Three court cases ruled that fluoridated water consumption can cause cancer in people.”

Response:  Look Out!  If I have to prove again that fluoride doesn’t cause cancer, Carrie Anne will get upset with me and call the issue that you just brought up a “red herring,” and blame it on me.  Hey, maybe we can blame it on Obama.

And of course Carrie Anne is scare-mongering again by bringing up the issue of Skeletal Fluorosis . . a condition so rare in the United States that roughly a dozen cases have been documented . . you know, the United States, where more people enjoy the health benefits of fluoridated water than any other place on the planet . . where skeletal fluorosis is virtually nonexistent.  You know . . that place.

Can’t wait for you to remind us that we’re all being drugged through our water lol

[skanen144]

Since 1 in 5 American teens have moderate to severe dental fluorosis on at least two brittle teeth and dental fluorosis is the visible evidence of cell death due to fluoride exposure, senior citizens should be paying attention because their bones are also more brittle due to a lifetime of fluoride exposure.

I know, it happened to me and I’m a chemist formerly with the Army Corps of Engineers recognized whistleblower to lead in drinking water. I have moderate to severe dental fluorosis from childhood as the daughter of a military dentist. This has been a lifelong embarrassment. I had veneers finally at 40. Now at 65, I have many health concerns including problems with thyroid, parathyroid, kidney stones and joint failure. (Hip bone ashed measured 1500 ppm F) with slow improvements avoiding F now for 5 years. There is no miracle cure for F accumulation and only the subtle progressively increasingly serious damage as a risk. The lack of medical recognition of the disease processes from chronic F poisoning makes it difficult to get help.

To medical professionals who say no damage even from a lifetime of F exposure: where you don’t honestly look, you will not find. Cite all the skewed studies you want, your willful blindness boaders on negligence. Everyone should diligently ask how could consuming a known accumulative poison possible be good for you or even your pets?

[rs5526]

As  said, the FDA does not permit itself to label fluoride levels in water, or to require that fluoride be labeled on bottled water by anyone. If you have a problem with that or with companies that label the fluoride level in their bottled water, then take it up with the FDA

 Dr. Groth first instituted this FDA policy, not me. If it were me, I would require fluoride level labeling if the water is  either natural at 1 ppm or above  or if any fluoride was added artificially from an industrial source. But that is me. 

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Oh Richard.  The fluoride content and other contents used to be listed on bottled water.  I recall.  I stocked that aisle when I was working my way through college at a large Florida grocery chain, Publix.

Secondly, your comment about fluoride supplements not being approved by the FDA is partially accurate.  The same is true about aspirin.  The reason?  Both pre-date the FDA's testing criteria that is now in place.  Fluoride supplements and aspirin are grandfathered in.  

If aspirin or fluoride supplements were unsafe, they would be pulled from the shelves immediately.  The anti-fluoridationists have tried to get the FDA to change this in writing many times, but to no avail.  

I'm glad that you and the other anti-fluoridationists continue to post here.  At the ripe old age of 62, like my fellow readers here, we grew up without the benefits of water fluoridation.  And they, like me, continue to pay the price for not having had the benefits of water fluoridation.  Fillings, crowns, root canals, tooth removal, bridges, dentures, implants, and decreased quality of life are all attributable to not having had the benefits of water fluoridation, along with fluoridated toothpaste, perhaps not a well balanced meal, regular dental care, and a myriad of other factors that lead to tooth decay.

As a Pediatric Dentist, I have seen the children and grandchildren of folks who are reading your thinly veiled attempts to mislead them.  Every generation that has grown up with water fluoridation has better oral health than the one before them.  Even in the face of bad diets, poor oral hygiene, and lack of routine dental care, these kids are growing up with less cavities, and less severe cavities because of fluoridated water.  Fluoride toothpaste is a must.  Fluoridated water plus fluoride toothpaste work together.  It's like air bags and seat belts.  One does not replace the other.  They work in tandum to protect us from harms.

I won't have the time to go back and forth with you and the other antis, as I have work to do.  Suffice it to say that if there was a single health ill caused by fluoride in water at the levels in water fluoridation, or at levels much greater, we would have known it by now.  The benefits of fluoride were discovered in 1901.  The natural levels of fluoride in the water was found to be from 2-12 parts per million (ppm).  These folks did not have a single health issue associated with them.  Read about it here on a reputable website:

https://www.nidcr.nih.gov/health-info/fluoride/the-story-of-fluoridation

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

[BillO538145]

Dear Johnny,

Read the primary research.

The  NIDCR link you provide to the history of the theory of fuoride and dental caries is interesting and illustrates the lack of scientific rigor which is accepted by fluoridationists.  Not a single reference to primary research.  As a dentist and scientist, those stories are a fun read, but not science.

GV Black, the father of modern dentistry, was worshiped in dental school, but that does not mean science will never improve or go past his theories.   And he would be the first to remind us to continue research, question all theories and improve on them or discard them.

NIDCR mixes systemic and topical fluoride use.  Topical fluoride has shown better benefit than systemic.

Your own opinion and story is certainly of human interest; however, consider scientific evidence, primary research, and a review of all the evidence rather than simply trusting tradition and opinion.  

The NIDCR story reminded me of a careful evaluation of national surveys we currently have.  I was very surprised to see dental caries rates change with the concentration of calcium and magnesium water concentrations.  The ratio of all three, fluoride, calcium, and magnesium affect dental caries, but at low concentrations (under 1 mg/L) fluoride has less effect than changes in magnesium and calcium concentrations.  An entire new world of caries prevention few have considered.

If magnesium goes up or down plus or minus from about 10 mg/L, caries goes up, depending on calcium and fluoride concentrations.  But over about 20 mg/L magnesium and caries goes down, and that is at 0.7 mg/L fluoride.  Change the fluoride to 0.1 and caries increases over 10 mg/L.   50 mg/L of calcium seems to be a sweet spot, but caries goes up with less calcium.  And at 1 mg/L of fluoride, both calcium and magnesium concentrations affect caries in a different way.   

We have been far to simplistic when we have focused exclusively on fluoride and caries prevention.  The ratio of other chemicals in the water need to also be adjusted or considered in order to maximize caries reduction and not have iatrogenic harm.  In fact, adjusting magnesium or calcium could have a greater impact on caries than fluoride concentration.  

Obviously, any caries research which does not include the confounding factors of magnesium, calcium, sugar exposure and other diet factors is seriously limited with a high risk of false positives.

As long as my professions are camped on the flawed and limited theory of fluoride exposure, we have not been able to move past fluoride to other chemicals which are perhaps more important.    And with careful research, we might find fluoride is beneficial with hard water but not soft water or other chemicals.  So much to learn and discover.  At this point, DMFS appears to be the same whether the fluoride concentration in the water is 0.1 mg/L, 0.7 mg/L or 1.0 mg/L.  

Read the primary literature rather than tabloid stories reaffirming tradition and based on tradition.  

People promoting or opposed to fluoride exposure are not bad people.  They have experienced and read different literature.  We must get past looking at people, picking teams, trust, and faith.  It is time to look at the primary factual evidence.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[BillO538145]

Hi Johnny,

FDA has approved Asprin but not fluoride.

• ASPIRIN (ASPIRIN) | NDA #203697 | CAPSULE;ORAL | Over-the-counter | PLX PHARMA

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/index.cfm?event=BasicSearch.process

Essential review are Guidance documents of the FDA.  For example, unapproved drugs : https://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm070290.pdf

And a must review is FDA explaination and definition of a drug.

https://www.fda.gov/drugs/resourcesforyou/healthprofessionals/ucm553116.htm

There is no exemption from drug approval due to dilution or dilution in water.  A drug is defined based on intent of use.  Certainly we agree fluoride supplements are drugs.  Taking the NaF or any substance and diluting in water, marketed with intent to prevent disease, does not exempt FDA approval, regardless of whether any other Federal or State Agency also has jurisdiction.

Quote from FDA:

"LCDR Wagner: Whether a product is regulated as a drug, a cosmetic, or both under the law is determined by a product's intended use. Drugs are defined as articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease and as articles intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or animals. Cosmetics on the other hand, are defined as articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.  Some examples of cosmetic products include skin lotions, perfumes, lipsticks, fingernail polishes, eye and face makeup, cleansing shampoos, hair dyes, and deodorants. . . . 

LCDR Wagner:  To establish a product’s intended use, FDA may consider a variety of direct and circumstantial evidence. This includes any claim or statement made by or on behalf of a manufacturer that explicitly or implicitly promotes a product for a particular use and any circumstances surrounding the distribution of the product or the context in which it is sold.  For example, FDA may consider the following to establish intended use: 

• Claims stated on the product labeling, in advertising, on the Internet, or in other promotional materials.  Certain claims may cause a product to be considered a drug, even if the product is marketed as if it were a cosmetic. Some claims establish the product as a drug because the intended use is to treat or prevent disease or otherwise affect the structure or any function of the human body. For example, claims that products restore hair growth, reduce cellulite, treat varicose veins, or regenerate cells are generally drug claims.
• Consumer perception, which may be established through the product's reputation. In other words, asking why the consumer is buying it and what the consumer expects it to do.
• Inclusion of ingredients that have a well-known therapeutic use. An example of this is fluoride in toothpaste."

The FDA is quite clear, fluoride is a drug based on intent of use.  FDA has approved fluoride in toothpaste.  For example, FDA Orange Book lists fluoride:

OTC

SODIUM FLUORIDE; TRICLOSAN

COLGATE TOTAL

N020231

PASTE

DENTAL

0.24%; 0.3%

RLD

RS

COLGATE PALMOLIVE

I am unable to find any NDA for fluoride supplements with the intent to prevent dental caries.  I asked FDA and FDA responded fluoride supplements are not approved.  

Dilution of a drug does not exempt the drug.  Even a placebo needs FDA approval.  A brief excellent vido by the FDA is https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/HealthProfessionals/ucm553114.htm

Please watch at least the last half.  Even public perception without manufacturer's claim, puts the substance as a drug.   Certainly we would agree that public perception of ingesting fluoride is with the intent to prevent dental caries.  

If the ingestion of fluoride were effective, the FDA would approve ingestion of fluoride.  However, the scientific evidence, the facts, are not strong enough to pass FDA approval.  In fact, FDA reviewed the evidence available at the time and said the evidence was incomplete.  

The first step for those wanting to promote fluoride ingestion is to gain FDA approval.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

There are no lies in any of my posts. The FDA statements and actions are what they are.

As far as lawsuits for health effects of drinking fluoridated water, one that might have a chance of being proven would be hip replacement surgeries where the denigrated bone is assayed for fluoride. But physicisn don't order such tess. Period. Some patients have paid for them themselves at indsutrial analytical laboratories (non-clinical). But again, the suit would likely fail because people actually believe that fluoride belongs in bone and blood, when it doesn't.

Cigarette smoking many people tolerate genetically well, and bone fluoride can be tolerated by some to fairly high levels without necessarily developing pain, that others cannot tolerate. It took over 60 years of intense fighting to finally get cigarette makers to agree that smoking causes cancer in susceptible people even though others can tolerate it. And it would take just as long to convince fluoridationists that fluoridation of bone causes bone weakening and structural abnormality and in many cases bone pain. Lawsuits are not likely to go anywhere because fluoridationists would argue the exopsrue came from somewhere else, not the water. This is alreeady being done now with dental fluorosis. Water districts berate that dental enamel fluorosis is the fault of toothpaste makers since water fluoridation started first and toothpaste added to the total fluoride dose. But toothpaste makers blame water districts since toothpaste (by FDA guidelines) is "not to be swallowed or used in children undeer 6", while water fluoride is added with the specific intent to be swallowed. It is swallowed fluoride from both sources that casue dental fluorosis. So how does the lawsuit proceed on the premise that fluoride causes harm? Jeff Green avoided such impossible lawsuits under these ciricumstances (unlike more readily provable Chrojmim six) and used the law to force city councils to halt fluoridation.

People on this site who preach fluoridation believe that fluoride actually belongs in blood and bone. They are incorrect because fluoride is a contaminant of blood and bone. Of course hexavalent chromium that was measured in blood was key to winning the suit against PG&E. So what? It can be proven that F levels in blood of those living in fluoridated cities are higher than in nonfluoridated cities, but fluoride is not Cr which is recognized as not belonging in blood. So instead, Eein Brockovich is fighting to have fluoride removed from the list of ingredients thought to be part of a normal diet.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, your quotes, copy/pasted from your comments: 

“07-13-2018 03:58 PM

There are no lies in any of my posts. The FDA statements and actions are what they are.”

Of course there are.  Here is one of many examples in this thread alone.

“07-12-2018 03:46 PM

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. “  End quote.

After I provided a link to a label of bottled water on which fluoride was listed at 0.77 ppm, you changed your story to this:

“07-13-2018 11:16 AM

The FDA does not require labeling fluoride on bottled water--but the FDA also does not ban it.“  End quote.

“The FDA statements and actions are what they are.”

Those aren’t FDA statements.  Those are YOUR statements alleging contradictory policy.  YOUR statements are false.

Please be kind enough to show me that somehow both of these contradictory statements, by you, are correct.  Please provide a links to FDA websites proving your statements are not lies.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber you say, “People on this site who preach fluoridation . . “

First of all, to be clear, I don’t “preach fluoridation.”  I preach against unwarranted scare mongering.

Second, in your comment below you simply use the phrase “dental fluorosis,” or, “dental enamel fluorosis” as if all degrees of fluorosis are the same.  You know that is not true, and this blurring of the different degrees of fluorosis is typical of scare-mongers.   

You know that the mild degrees of fluorosis improve the health of teeth, making them more resistant to decay, improving quality of life, while the more severe degrees of fluorosis, which are NOT associated with optimally fluoridated water, are detrimental to quality of life . . just as dental decay is detrimental to quality of life.  That in itself is a lie by deception.

I mean, isn’t it odd that someone who claims to be a knowledgeable scientist is so vague when describing degrees of the symptoms of fluoride ingestion. 

Third, and to the point of your comment below, you claim that a lawsuit for health reasons would be almost impossible to prove in court.  That is interesting.  All you would need to have a successful lawsuit for health reasons is one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. 

Are you saying there has never been one documented case of harm to any human being from drinking optimally fluoridated water?  If there was . . you could win your lawsuit.

Speaking of lies, Sirpac says, “David, who is a troll, engages Dr. Sauerhaber into neverending distraction and falsification, because that is his job, . . “

Sirpac, no one is paying me to thwart the efforts of a few paranoia-generating scare mongers as they attempt to hijack a proven health initiative.  I do it because evil thrives when good people are silent.  But I appreciate you proving my point that most of you scare mongers don’t tell the truth.  Thank you.

[rs5526]

Mild fluorosis due to fluoride Ingestion and moderate or severe fluorosis are abnormalities, with deficient enamel on teeth

Flluorosis of varying degree increases in incidence in all Fluoridated cities. There are no exceptions

[rs5526]

Fluorosis ends with the suffix osis because it is pathologic. It is only caused by fluoride Ingestion during childhood. Fluoridated water is one of, and usually the most significant, source of ingested fluoride that causes fluorosis. The systemic fluoride contaminant inhibits protein removal during teeth mineralization. It does so as an enzyme inhibitor. 

Notice however  that proving water fluoride, rather than some other fluoride source, is the cause would be disputed in court and, just as with mild bone fluorosis,  this interferes with lawsuits. 

I also  do this because evil flourishes when good people ignore the problem. U. S. kids are being fluoride poisoned, with fluorosis being the first visible sign. In adulthood the fluoride accumulation continues into bone, causing formation of permanent bone of poor quality, to varying degtees depending on total exposure. 

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber,

I take it from your responses that you are not able to cite one documented case of any human being who was harmed in any way because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime . . .

. . . that you are unable to explain your contradictory statements that on one hand the FDA “forbids” bottled water distributors from providing fluoride levels in water . . yet on the other hand they don’t ban it . .

. . . and that you are still unwilling to admit that mild dental fluorosis, which is associated with community water fluoridation, makes teeth stronger and more resistant to decay, thus improving quality of life.

“CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.”  www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

[rs5526]

Excuse me, but the best way to not poison anyone with exogenous industrial fluoride is to not add it into their water supply. For those who insist on doing so, in the U.S. (I don't know where you work) large cities with vast volumes of water to 'fluoridate' use sophisticated electronic equipment that monitors the precise fluoride levels continuously in real time, to both prevent overfeeds and if one were to occur since it is still not fullproof, the sensors are designed to signal that an overfeed has occurred so that the public can be alerted to not drink the water until further notice.  The facility at Lake Skinner, CA for all of North San Diego County to fluoridate its masive volumes of water, this facility  cost vast amounts of money. The facility is surrounded with barbed wire fencing so terrorists don't access the flujosis acid tanks, it is constantly under both electornic surveillance and also is guarded with guards in real time, etc. A few hundred dollars might work in Hooper Bay, but not for cities with vast millions of people whose blood is to be fluoridated.

[sirpac271999]

While David engages Dr. Sauerhaber into neverending distraction and falsification, because that is his job, here is a relevant study regarding osteoporosis and fluoride ingestion:

Abstract

Carbonic anhydrase is a key enzyme for initiating the crystal nucleation, seen as “the central dark line” in the crystal structure in calcified hard tissues such as tooth enamel, dentin and bone. Both estrogen deficiency and fluoride exposure adversely affected the synthesis of this enzyme in the calcifying hard tissues. This led to the notion that fluoride exposure might increase the risk of developing osteoporosis in postmenopausal women. Using ovariectomized rats, which represent an estrogen (Es)-deficient state, as an animal model of postmenopausal women, we examined the causal relationship between fluoride (F) exposure and risk of developing osteoporosis. Two groups of rats, an Es-deficient group and a non-Es-deficient group, were administered free drinking water containing F ions (1.0 mg/L). Two other groups, an Es-deficient group and a control-group, were administered tap water. Soft X-ray radiography demonstrated a significant increase of radiolucent areas in the calvaria of the combined Esdeficient plus F group compared to that in the other experimental groups. Electron microscopy revealed an increase of amorphous minerals in the radiolucent areas. Light microscopy demonstrated that combined effects evidently of Es-deficiency and administration of F caused deterioration of the rat tibia with a coarse pattern of trabecular architecture, suggesting that a decline in bone formation might be the primary cause of osteoporosis. Consequently, F exposure might accelerate osteoporotic changes in postmenopausal women even at a low dose.

Reference:

Kakei M, Yoshikawa M, Mishima H (2016) Fluoride Exposure May Accelerate the Osteoporotic Change in Postmenopausal Women: Animal Model of Fluoride-induced Osteoporosis. Adv Tech Biol Med 4:170. doi: 10.4172/2379-1764.1000170

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/fluoride-exposure-may-accelerate-the-osteoporotic-change-in-...

[rs5526]

Yes the FDA has problems with how it acts on fluoride. First of all, there are many divergent opinions within the agency.  But Groth was given charge of fluoride labeling on bottled water many decades ago. The fact that the FDA will not label F levels on water or require it to be labeled and that Groth opposed the FDA requiring the F level be labeled, if a botter does so the FDA doesn't go out of its way and ban the bottler for doing so. I don't know another way to say it, there were people in the Agency who wanted to require labeling but Groth forbid that. How else can I explain this to you?

Erin Brockovich is now advocating for the halt of all water fluoridation in the United States. Her organization has no better path to win a lawsuit for chronic poisoning as anyone else has. When half the country feels that it is acceptable to have fluoride forced into peoples' blood, how does one convince a judge otherwise?  With lead in Flint, most people recognize that lead is a chronic poison so measuring blood levels was sufficient to accuse the water district of being the source and the suit could be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, measuring fluoride in blood which could prove the water district was at fault for infusing it, you and most people and judges would laugh all day long, and say so what? Don't you want it there? The Brockovich group knows what suits have a chance and what won't and is instead pursuing the government to remove fluoride from being presumed to be a nutriltional requirement. That itself in some circles is also dififlcut to achieve since so many are duped into thinking that dental caries reduction is sufficient to declare fluoride is a nutritional requirement, which is absurd. Fluoride has no physiologic role or reason for being in human/mammalian blood. Between those who think F belongs beionjg added into blood, and those who don't, I know who the sane people are.

[DavidF928895]

Richard, your quote:  “When half the country feels that it is acceptable to have fluoride forced into peoples' blood, how does one convince a judge otherwise?”

Response:  First you find victims of this alleged poisoning.  Then you do it with facts and evidence.  Evidently you have neither . . that’s why there have been no successful lawsuits for health reasons because someone drinks optimally fluoridated water and was harmed. 

Any objective reader of this thread will see that you have been caught in lie after lie after lie.  This isn’t rocket science.  When Pacific Gas and Electric was sued because hexavalent chromium 6 was in drinking water, it was provable.  Fluoride poisoning from drinking optimally fluoridated water is not only not provable, it’s a fantasy.  That is why there has never been one successful lawsuit for health reasons because people drink optimally fluoridated water.  It has nothing to do with all your garbled spin.  Simply put, successful lawsuits don't happen because there is no harm from drinking it. Period.

[rs5526]

The study from Poland brings up a key point. The original corrlatiion by Dean that fluoride in water caused decreased dental decay was misinterpreted, as proven by the Ziegelbecker more thorough analylsis. But in addition, in any small sample that may have had fewer caries in children compared to children on similar diets in another sample, one needs to control for the fact that kids with dental fluorosis are embarrassed by the discoloration. It was called Colorado brwwn stain. And hence those kids were most likely brushing their teeth more often and longer, thinking that it was their own poor care of their teeth that caused the stains. This would need to be factored into any study deternining whether fliuoride ingestion had anything to do with caries reduction. In short, published studies in small samples claiming benefit are not worth much in spite of how nuerous they are. Animals studied in cages are the most reliable and proved beyond doubt that ingesting fluoride has zero effect on reducing spontaneous dental decay in mammals..

[rs5526]

Nice try to avoid any significance of the Hooper Bay incident and its ongoing lawsuit. Of course it is relevant. We are taxed to pay for vast millions of dollars for equipment to help prevent a similar overfeed from acutely poisoning anyone thorughout the rest of the coutnry. And overfeeds do still occur with some regujarity anyway. It's entropy driven, and the tendency for concentrated chemicals to disperse, and most easily for those that are corrosive as are fluorides.

Moreover, chlorination doe not treat pepole. Chlorine is added to sterilize water that otherwise could contain dangerous microbes. If chlorination overfeeds were able to kill people by drinking their kitchen sink water, then we could do away with it and boil our own water if we had to. But fluoridation does not clean the water. It is exclusively added under the disproven belief that eating and drinking  fluoride somehow through an unknown mechanism decreases dental decay even though in saliva it is at 94,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste. And even though the level in blood lifelong cauases bone fluoridation to several thousand ppm, higher than in toothpaste which is a bone abnormality that eventually produces pain similar to arthritis. All who consume it accumulate bone fluoride. There are no exceptions.  Sorry.

[DavidF928895]

Again, Dr. Sauerheber, your quote:  “the Hooper Bay incident and its ongoing lawsuit. Of course it is relevant. We are taxed to pay for vast millions of dollars for equipment to help prevent a similar overfeed from acutely poisoning anyone thorughout the rest of the coutnry.”

Millions of dollars?  No.  I have pointed out that redundancies are mandated to prevent incidents like this.  Check it out.  That’s what I said.  So, what is necessary to prevent such an incident?  Two things (thus the redundancy).  A feed pump activates when the main pump energizes.  This is what existed in Hooper Bay.  However, to prevent an accidental over feed, for a few hundred dollars, a flow switch in inserted into the water line and will only “make” when there is water flow.  An additional paddle flow switch would have prevented the Hooper Bay incident, it would have only cost a few hundred dollars to install, and they are part of modern chemical feed equipment. 

How much fiction from you must I disprove before you will resort to telling the truth?

[sirpac271999]

In addition to the Gulags in the former Soviet Union, Stalin used to fluoridate East Germany, which was under the iron curtain before the wall went down in 1989. Since the wall went down, East Germany ceased water fluoridation, 16.11 million people, with the following results:

Abstract

In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This trend corresponded to the national caries decline and appeared to be a new population-wide phenomenon. Additional surveys (N=1017) carried out in the formerly-fluoridated towns of Spremberg (N=9042) and Zittau (N=6232) were carried out in order to support this unexpected epidemiological finding. Pupils from these towns, aged 8/9-, 12/13- and 15/16-years, have been examined repeatedly over the last 20 years using standardised caries-methodological procedures. While the data provided additional support for the established fact of a caries reduction brought about by the fluoridation of drinking water (48% on average), it has also provided further support for the contention that caries prevalence may continue to fall after the reduction of fluoride concentration in the water supply from about 1 ppm to below 0.2 ppm F. Caries levels for the 12-year-olds of both towns significantly decreased during the years 1993-96, following the cessation of water fluoridation. In Spremberg, DMFT fell from 2.36 to 1.45 (38.5%) and in Zittau from 2.47 to 1.96 (20.6%). These findings have therefore supported the previously observed change in the caries trend of Chemnitz and Plauen. The mean of 1.81 DMFT for the 12-year-olds, computed from data of the four towns, is the lowest observed in East Germany during the past 40 years. The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures (F-salt, F-toothpastes, fissure sealants etc.). There is, however, still no definitive explanation for the current pattern and further analysis of future caries trends in the formerly fluoridated towns would therefore seem to be necessary.

Reference Information:

Künzel, W., Fischer, T., Lorenz, R., Brühmann, S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dental Oral Epidemiology, 28(5):382-9. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2000.028005382.x 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/11014515/

or

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pubmed/11014515-decline-of-caries-prevalence-after-the-cessation-o...