- 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
The title here is "Scientific Consensus; however, your comments are about "Endorsement Consensus."
Please provide the names and internet links to the top three organizations' position papers on fluoridation. No. Why don't you send me links to at least one of the position papers of organizations who endorse fluoriation and lets see the primary research to support fluoridation.
Randy, relying on these organizations for endorsements is quite different than relying on them for quality position papers referenced with primary research.
Yes, like a bunch of lemmings, they all have faith in each other, but not the facts to support fluoridation.
Compare the lack of primary research and lack of scientific position papers by promoters of fluoride to the IAOMT position paper and you will see the huge difference. https://iaomt.org/iaomt-fluoride-position-paper-2/
Concensus is not scientific evidence. I request facts, primary research, not estimates based on assumptions as so much of fluoridation is based on.
Give us some primary evidence on total exposure, desired total fluoride intake, optimal fluoride tooth concentrations, measured cost benefit for the population at large, and safety studies.
With 60% of adolescents having dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe, many are ingesting too much. Certainly you would agree, like the NRC 2006 report, that severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health risk.
My concern is that we are way past too much fluoride exposure for most fetuses, infants, children and adults.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
I have answered Randy's questions in this AARP thread and on my own local newspaper where the 'rapid response' pro-fluoride team which includes Randy who lives 2,000 miles away attacked me and every other opponent, just as they do on small town papers from California to Maine. The same small team swarmed this AARP thread on June 27, 2018. Click here to go to my original comment and use PREVIOUS to advance chronologically.
Below is one example of what happens when people respond to the fluoride lobbyists' questions online:
CarryAnne – You still have not answered my questions. You simply provided more quotes (personal opinions) from “dozens of individual doctors, dentists and scientists who have studied emerging scientific data and changed their minds” and claimed (personal anecdotes) that, “many more [doctors, dentists and scientists]… admit that they know fluoridation is ineffective and harmful to some consumers but they won't speak publicly because of fear of retaliation from abusive fluoride trolls, their rabidly pro-fluoride peers, and even their patients.” (08-22-2018 06:59 AM)
Wow, you are claiming these doctors, dentists and scientists actually have credible proof that “fluoridation is ineffective and harmful” (scientific evidence &/or evidence from their own practices), and yet they choose not to publically speak out and try to change the scientific consensus? Those are serious accusations that these health professionals are failing to uphold their professional and moral responsibilities.
You stated (07-07-2018 04:49 PM), “This thread was begun to share both personal stories [anecdotes] and modern scientific evidence of harm from fluoridation policy in order to collect data for AARP” and (07-20-2018 10:02 AM) “This thread is supposed to facilitate discussion among seniors who have found fluoridation causes illness or worsens their health” and you “Demand AARP Take Action” and (08-10-2018 10:13 AM) “advocate for its constituency and craft a policy statement opposed to fluoridation, which is [in your opinion] mass medication using municipal water”. It is obvious that you have no interest in an impartial, rational discussion of the scientifically established benefits and risks of fluoridation.
Challenging the prevailing scientific consensus is one of the foundations of the scientific method. The only way science has progressed over the last few hundred years is by adjusting (sometimes reversing) the consensus of the relevant scientific communities as new, legitimate, reproducible evidence is discovered and evaluated. Yes, individual personal biases and sinister motives are possible, and they can influence the way evidence is interpreted. These all too human traits are precisely why the consensus of relevant experts is critical to science – to identify conclusions based primarily on personal (or group) biases, greed, etc. and enable evidence-based decisions to be made.
However, you still have not provided a rational explanation of why, if fluoridation opponents (FOs) actually have legitimate scientific evidence to support their claims of harm, the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure has not changed in over 70 years.
By scientific consensus, I mean that the majority of relevant experts in a given scientific field agree on the interpretation of the available body of evidence. The fact that the hundreds of thousand members of over 100 nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations have not rebelled over the last 70+ years of community water fluoridation (CWF) while those organizations publically recognize the benefits of CWF, is a clear example of a scientific consensus.
In contrast, you listed a group of 13 alternate health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations (06-28-2018 07:32 AM) that oppose CWF. That is only a demonstration of the fact that there are always minority opinions whose proponents have been unsuccessful at providing credible scientific evidence to change the majority consensus.
Apparently I need to be more specific in my questions about what you believe constitutes the scientific consensus:
Q1) Do you accept the fact that the support of CWF by virtually all nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations constitutes the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective?
YES or NO
Q1A) If your response is NO, then answer the following questions:
- You claimed (08-21-2018 01:14 PM) “Consensus is a political construct that validates there are no substantial objections. There is and has always been substantial scientific objections to fluoridation. Therefore, there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety. If your claim has any validity whatever, explain and document exactly how this “political construct” has caused virtually all the major science and health organizations to reject what FOs consider to be legitimate evidence and continue to support CWF? There are always objections to any scientific consensus – that is how scientific knowledge and theories evolve. It is the responsibility of those who hold those outlier beliefs to prove their claims with legitimate, conclusive, reproducible evidence.
- Explain what you believe the scientific consensus in regard to fluoridation actually is and how it is different from the consensus for other science and health issues. Or if you, like some other FOs, don’t believe the scientific consensus is real or relevant to all specific areas of science and evidence-based health care, then explain exactly the processes the minority of science/health trained FOs employ to determine what constitutes legitimate scientific evidence and how it should be interpreted. From the anti-F comments and “evidence” provided, it seems as though only those studies that fit (or can be ‘adjusted’ to fit) a pre-determined fixed-belief are considered valid. As I noted earlier (08-21-2018 09:36 PM), all “evidence” provided by FOs to date has relatively easily recognized and described flaws.
- Do you recognize as valid any of the health conclusions and recommendations that are supported by the same organizations that accept scientific consensus that CWF is safe and effective? If their members are not able to correctly evaluate the evidence (published and their personal experiences) regarding fluoridation, how can they be trusted to formulate any legitimate conclusions about any aspect of health care?
Q1B) If your response is YES, then answer the following questions:
- Is there a difference is between the scientific consensus on CWF and the scientific consensus of relevant experts that supports vaccines, drinking water disinfection, and other public health measures – or any health initiative, for that matter? If so, how does it differ?
- Explain why you accept any health conclusions supported by the mainstream stream CWF-supporting organizations if they have been so inept, ignorant and willfully blind as to support fluoridation (and vaccination, according to other comments). For any evidence-based health care recommendation or procedure, there will be conflicting evidence. But how can the relevant professionals come to any reliable, trustworthy conclusions on anything if they have interpreted the body of evidence on fluoridation completely wrong by concluding CWF is safe and effective when the body of evidence (according to FOs) proves it is ineffective and significantly harmful.
- Explain why anti-F activists spend immense amounts of time and resources trying to scare the public into accepting their minority position. Instead, why don’t FOs use those resources to try and convince the scientific community their interpretations of the evidence is legitimate? If legitimate, reproducible evidence is presented, the consensus will change – that is how science evolves. So far, that has not happened.
- Explain why anti-F activists don’t use their resources to conduct high quality, unbiased research which will provide the evidence necessary to change the current consensus of experts. Even though I am not a dental or medical expert, I am a scientist familiar with conducting and interpreting research, and I can understand the reasons the studies presented by FOs so far have not been sufficient to change the CWF consensus.
To quote Dr. Haynie, MD (06-27-2018 06:30 PM) ”If [anti-science activists] wish to change positions on fluoridation, Dr. Limeback and others have an obligation to make their case before legitimate scientific forums and not simply bring arguments to lay audiences that have been rejected by experts.”
JoeM (07-12-2018 04:30 PM) provided an excellent description of the scientific consensus, “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.”
Q2A) Do you accept Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all pupets of each other with fluoridation.”?
Q2B) How about the rest of the 100+ organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF – do you believe they are all, “so called ‘scientific’ organizations [that] do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists“ as well?
Q3A) On an important, related subject, (03-14-2017 06:49 PM ) you claim “Medical Mandates, whether finagled with financial incentives to fluoridate a community or legislated with punitive actions against any parent who chooses not to follow a vaccination schedule are dangerous to our health and our freedom.” Since you have gone out of your way to bring vaccination into the fluoridation conversation, do you also believe vaccination policies (to use your 08-24-2018 10:07 AM language) are also “an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated product into bodies of convenient consumers regardless of impact on individuals in vulnerable populations who include senior citizens”?
Q3B) Do you believe the overall benefits to citizens of vaccines for flu, polio, MMR, DTP, chicken pox, shingles (for elders), etc. outweigh the risks, or are you planning to Demand that AARP Take Action and Ban Vaccinations? If everyone accepted the fear-mongering propaganda of the anti-vaccination activists (remarkably similar to the anti-F propaganda, search on -- Mercola vaccines -- for example) and chose to avoid vaccinations, what do you believe the consequences would be – a more healthy population?
Q4A) You have not addressed my 08-21-2018 01:00 PM correction to your blatant misrepresentation of the precautionary principle; “Your frogs in a pot cartoon misrepresents the precautionary principle which is legitimately used in situations where the risks and benefits are not yet clearly understood. In the case of community water fluoridation, the burden of proof that the public health measure is safe and effective has been met for 70 years.” A legitimate cartoon representing the precautionary principle would not show the two frogs already in an obviously dangerous pot of uncontrollably heating water --- that is stupidity, not science, and it is precisely how FOs portray mainstream science and scientists. I have not yet had time to draw one, but an accurate cartoon would depict the frogs in lab coats [a requirement for science cartoons] who are considering a tub of water they just encountered and measured to be at a comfortable temperature (for a frog). At that point, they would not know what chemicals might be in the water, what was controlling the temperature, whether the temperature would rise, fall or stay the same, etc. The cartoon would show them discussing various parameters to measure and processes to resolve the unknowns before determining the benefits vs. the risks. That is an unknown situation where the precautionary principle is legitimately employed. After thorough testing by the frogs and by a number of other frog scientists that reliably determined the water was chemically safe, the temperature remained constant, there were health benefits to soaking in the warm water and no negative health issues were observed, a consensus was established that the benefits to soaking in the tub (as studied) outweighed any risks.
Q4B) You also did not provide an answer to my question, “If your claim ‘The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive’ is even remotely valid, how can you possibly explain the fact, which has been brought up and ignored by FOs numerous times, that all of the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and effective and that there are no such organizations that support the anti-F agenda.” --- except, of course, by claiming all professionals who don’t publically oppose fluoridation are, “greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths”, as claimed in your comments below, which appear to illustrate your disdain for mainstream scientists, health professionals and their professional organizations.
Before I comment further, I would like to make certain I understand exactly what you mean by your claims from several comments:
On (08-22-2018 06:59 AM) you claim, “Willful blindness and financial benefit [greed] affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group”
You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks”
You also claim (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) that. “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates”
You also claim 07-03-2018 07:35 AM), “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”
Q5) Are these comments an accurate representation of your opinion of the ADA, EPA and ATA and any members who do not publically support the anti-F demands?
Q6) Do you also extend your accusations of ADA and EPA and ATA members as "greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths" to the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of all the other science and health care organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of CWF and have not publically denounced CWF? Or do you have another explanation for why those professional health care providers choose to remain silent – or publically support the practice? As noted, according to your opinion (08-21-2018 06:38 AM), "The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive" and so millions of patients worldwide who drink optimally fluoridated water obviously must be suffering the misery of Cancer, Lowered IQ, Diabetes, Hypothyroidism, GI Effects, Arthritis, Hypersensitivity, Kidney Disease, ADHD, Brittle Bones, etc. –– yet they do not speak out. If you are correct, we are all in serious trouble as these greedy, ignorant, willfully blind, morally corrupt, cowardly &/or sociopathic health professionals continue to practice.
I believe the only rational explanation to explain the fact that the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF is that a significant majority of their members have actually evaluated the risks and benefits of CWF, have seen the positive consequences of fluoridation (and negligible evidence of the alleged negative consequences) in their practices and accepted the legitimacy of the scientific consensus that the benefits of CWF are far greater than any alleged risks.
It is claimed in the Kumar study that the data prove fluorotic teeth have fewer caries. The mean incidences in the two groups however did not differ by more than observational error, where the standard deviations substantially overlap between groups. The conclusion is false anyway as indicated in the vast data published by teotia and also by ziegelbecker and also by yiamouyiannis, all showing that as water fluoride consumption imcreases, dental fluorosis increases and dental caries are not reduced. The ziegelbecker study included populations exposed to F even as high as 6 ppm, all with no decreases in caries incidence.
Fluorotic teeth have deficient enamel which functions to protect underlying dentin.
RS, your quote: “The rest of the attacks listed are too ridiculuouos to address here.”
Response: That’s rich. I ask you relevant things concerning your claim like, ‘What is the flow of the Sacramento River at the point of effluent discharge?’ ‘What is the average daily discharge of effluent we are talking about?’ ‘Has anyone ever measured the fluoride level in this effluent discharge which you claim is 1 ppm . . even though I have pointed out factors which would have reduced that number?’
If you consider these important questions “attacks,” then fluoride in your drinking water is the least of your problems. You’re not a scientist if you dig your heels in so deep to a belief that you are unwilling, and indeed don’t even find it necessary, to ask and research the fundamental questions underlying any problem.
Your approach to science seems to be, 'It's true because I said it. We don't need facts, data, or relevant information.'
The SDWA does not forbid the fluoride additive in drinking water, if that is what you are implying. You’ve shown us nothing which supports that idea.
Your quote: “Fluoridation began in 2010 at 1 ppm before the city would lower it to the HHS requested level of 0.7 ppm.”
Response: I find that interesting because historical trends of salmon populations hit an all-time low in 2009, showed improvement in 2010 and that improvement of salmon population continued into 2013 when another downward trend began. http://caltrout.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/CENTRAL_VALLEY_FALL_RUN_CHINOOK_final.pdf
So if fluoridation began in 2010, and salmon population showed an improvement in that year, your theory falls flat on its face.
Give it up, Dr. Sauerheber. A real scientist isn’t afraid to admit when he is wrong.
The background level of fluoride in the Sacramento River is 0.2 ppm. This is well published in district water quality reports as required for the public by the SDWA. Fluoridation began in 2010 at 1 ppm before the city would lower it to the HHS requested level of 0.7 ppm. And 0.7 is greater than 0.3 and 0.5 ppm anyway.
Corrosion inhibiters are most certainly added to prevent contamination of water from corroded metal ions from the deliivery infrastructure. Fluroide has no such action and in fact fluosilicic acid produces silicic acid that leeches lead from fixtures that contain oxidized lead salts.
The EPA Office of Water does not regulate water fluoridation and has written to me and many others this fact. This is because they have no staff or authority to monitor its effectiveness and they are there to help minimize serious health effects from fluoride contamination of water. This is why the MCL and SMCL are 4 and 2 ppm. These are not intended to allow water disticts to go ahead and "fill er up" with added fluoride on purpose. These are level at which warnings are posted not to drink the water because known serious heatlh consequences would result if it were continuously consumed at these levels.
The EPA does not regulate 1 ppm fluoridated public water and does not advocate consumption of fluoride and does not guarantee that tooth decay will be reduced by doing so. The EPA has nothing to do with dental care and has correctly wriltten that the FDA is responsible for ingestible fluorides..(and the FDA has banned the sale of all fluoride compoudns intended for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. and ruiled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug and asserts that the EPA should regulate fluoridation because it is the addiition of a known water contaminant into public water supplies).
The rest of the attacks listed are too ridiculuouos to address here.
Doctor Sauerheber . . . .
Your quote: “ it appears to be fluoride discharges that were the final straw that caused the huge salmon collapse in Sacramento, does not need water fluoride measurements in order to be made. We already know the narrow river with the city's discharge pipe in its center releases mass quantities of 1 ppm fluoride since 2010, which was soon followed by the collapse.”
Response: “We already know . . ?” How do we know the discharge line puts out effluent at 1 ppm? Has it ever been measured? How could a city that keeps 0.7 ppm F in its drinking water discharge water with 1 ppm?
Moreover, we know that there is partial removal of fluoride from solid waste. And we also know infiltration from storm water runoff further dilutes that already reduced level of effluent fluoride. So, please explain how “We already know” anything about it. All we have is your word for it, and that falls apart when the statement is scrutinized.
Ok, let’s assume that salmon are affected at 0.3 ppm F. What is the background level for fluoride in the Sacramento River? You wouldn’t need to break any Trespass laws to determine that. Do you even know? The discussion can’t even begin until we know that.
But as I pointed out in an earlier comment, Limnologist, Joe Carroll calculated discharge into the Columbia River, and its effect on that river, where this exact argument was previously replayed. He calculated that discharge affected fluoride levels by 0.000004 ppm F (or 4 one millionths of a part per million). https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf In other words, using your figure of 0.3 ppm for a harmful effect on salmon, the background fluoride level would have to already be 2.999996 ppm F for salmon to be affected.
What was the background level for fluoride in the Sacramento River again? Do you even know? I must say, I find it odd that someone who calls himself a scientist would expect anybody to believe anything with absolutely ZERO evidence of anything, other than your word.
Mr. Carroll did his work on the Columbia River. Where is your work?
What is the amount of discharge released? What is the flow of the river at the point of discharge? We need to know these things. On one hand you say the river is so narrow you could throw a stone across it, on the other hand you say you would need a boat and a year to collect and do analysis on all the samples required. (The way you initially described the point of discharge, I would have thought you could have done it with a pair of waders.)
Your quote: “But I did present myself to the personnel at the facility. I delivered published information on fluoridation to them. It was at an armed gate where I was not permitted to enter. . . . “
I don’t get it. What were you trying to accomplish? I thought you were attempting, “a similar thing at Lake Skinner 30 miles North of me.” Similar to collecting river water samples . . that’s what we were talking about, right? It’s nice that you knocked on the door first, but you didn’t need to supply them with any published information. A public lake is public domain, unless it is surrounded by private property. Why would you have to get near their caustic death containers?
And, despite your talent for gish galloping, ok, let’s go, your quote: “The SDWA prohibits such a requirement for a substance being placed into water since it does not sanitize or purlify water.”
Response, again, the SDWA does require certain substances to be added to water which do not sanitize of purify it. As I pointed out before, in populations greater than 50,000, corrosion control additives are required. Corrosion control additives do not sanitize or purify water. Your statement is false. (See 141.81, (a), (1) https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/40/141.81 )
So that was incorrect.
And this business about the FDA & the EPA which you and I have discussed ad nauseam is insane. In a nutshell, you argue that a 1979 agreement between the EPA & the FDA, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), which established EPA jurisdiction over water fluoridation was dissolved in 1985. As proof of this dissolution of the agreement, you have provided a document which involved nothing more than the EPA’s declaration that it would outsource some of its workload to the Private Sector, and specifically to NSF.
You also claimed to have some private correspondence from some law firm which supported your claim.
So, when you say, “The FDA also says the EPA is in charge. In reality, no agency has accepted responsilbity of liablity for any damage from fluoridation--environmental, dental, or health related,” it is just insane. There is no other word.
The EPA oversees water fluoridation in the U.S. States enforce EPA policy. So, for example, in Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for enforcing EPA guidelines. A municipality could not, for example, pump 20 ppm F into its water supply without the MDEQ holding it liable and enforcing certain rules, which would include prompt notification of its water consumers.
This notion that you are trying to imply, that this is just a helter-skelter operation, nobody’s in charge, nobody cares, nobody enforces anything, speaks for itself.
But I did present myself to the personnel at the facility. I delivered published information on fluoridation to them. It was at an armed gate where I was not permitted to enter. The guard took the materials reluctantly to officials inside. After that I merely stood outside the fenced facilty on public property on the side of a public highway, to look at the lake and facility where I used to camp as a child, to see the massive fluoridation and caustic soda tanks surrounded by large buffer zone acreage, and the security guards zoomed around to watch, even though I had presented myself at the front gate.
There is no possilbilty of getting the city of Los Angeles to change its views about fluoridation by studying the environmental impacts of their facility at Lake Skinner or any of the other treatment plants. As i said, the horse ranch moved out because of the toxic storage facility right next to the ranch and the city of Los Angeles could care less. I've presented materials to the Water District board and have written to them since 2007 but all the comments are ignored, never responded to other than "the EPA is responsible for fluoridation safety." But the EPA is not, and has written that the FDA is responsible for regulating fluoridation (and this includes the views of the EPA underling CalEPA)..
The FDA also says the EPA is in charge. In reality, no agency has accepted responsilbity of liablity for any damage from fluoridation--environmental, dental, or health related. This is because these agencies know fiull well that it is illegal to require and to enforce fluoridation. The SDWA prohibits such a requirement for a substance being placed into water since it does not sanitize or purlify water.
The statement, that it appears to be fluoride discharges that were the final straw that caused the huge salmon collapse in Sacramento, does not need water fluoride measurements in order to be made. We already know the narrow river with the city's discharge pipe in its center releases mass quantities of 1 ppm fluoride since 2010, which was soon followed by the collapse.
I accept the data that levels as low as 0.3 ppm begin to narcotize salmon signififcantly. The 0.5 mentioned in these posts is able to narcotize all salmon. CalEPA will not do such testing and yet I am blamed for not somehow proving the assertion with such measurements. i have three fluoride ion specific electrodes that have been heavtily used over the years and are not operable. I don't own a boat and Sacramento is a 10 hr drive from here. But most important, fluoridation should be banned because of what it does to innocent human beings, both young and old. The ban does not depend on spending a year proving beyond any doubt that salmon are also being harmed. it took sweven years to indicate beyond reasonable doubt that racehorses in L.A. were being harmed by fluoridated water. And as noticed the policy of fluoridation is not and will not be altered because of this fact. And neither will a proven fact that salmon are harmed, whre we already know this beyond reasonable doubt. Salmon sense of chemical detection of metal ions and all components in the steram where they were imprinted is far beyond the capability of chemical instrumentation. it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that salmon know full well that the river after having fluoride discharges with its contaminant metals is not the same water as that in which they were spawned and imprinted. Imprtinting is an exquisite method used by salmon that takes many months for their brain to know the exact chemical composition of their own personal stream so that they will recognize it and only it after their journey out to sea. This biologic capablity is far behyond our abililty to fully describe.
With all due respect, trying to get readers of a thread to "click" away from comments which question your fringe position doesn't exactly give that position any credibility.