- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.
However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.
Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.
- 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
- 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞
- 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);
- 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)
Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)
There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
- a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
- b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.
POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD
- In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf
- EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
I have been a bit busy and unable to keep up with your frequent posts.
Your post about the NTP is lacking in accuracy. The first phase found mild to moderate confidence in the data that they reviewed.
The second phase, which was the definitive and rock solid phase of their evaluation, showed no neuorological effects from fluoride ingestion of regular chow, low fluoride chow, or 0ppm, 10ppm, or 20ppm fluoride in the water fed to the pregnant rats during the 6th day in utero and testing of the offspring male rats to adulthood. This is where the train runs off the track with the anti-fluoride group's arguement with the NTP's methodology.
For a full response to the letter that was sent to the main author of the NTP Report, please click on the link below. The NTP was an authoritative study which measured both intakes of all foods and liquids ingested. The outcomes of these intakes were evaluated at the highest level that this group always performs. Yet, you didn't like the results. Opinions do not equate with facts:
I don't publish in the journal of GE, and yes it is low caliber, but does contain some decent articles. My two articles on the topic were pubslished in "mainstream" journals -- Optics, which is published by Elsevier publishing in the Netherlands, and Physics Essays published in Canada.
But you need to realize that the truth of a finding is not determined by the journal, good or poor, in which it is printed. It is in the data and its proper analysis.
Many people claim that time dilation has been confirmed experimentally but it has not been confirmed by reliable experiment. The GPS time differences you mention, like so many others who claim it confirms time dilates due to motion, is most easily explained by the fact that orbiting satellites send a signal along a dilfferent distance path than a received signal from a location on earth. This is because the detector position is on the earth's surface, not the center of the orbit that the satellite follows.around the earth. Of course it takes a different time for EM radiation to travel two diffrent path lengths. This has nothing to do with the dilation of absolute time. Time doesn't have a brain to decide to slow down because an object moves, or speed back up when it stops moving. You may want to read the textbook published by the former Chairman of the Stanford Physics Dept. Arther Otis called Light Velocity and Relativity (Burckel and Asso. Yonkers on Hudson, NY, 1960). This thorough refutation of time dilation was published at the time the Physics text by Beiser came out promoting time dilation theory, but colleges decided to use the Beiser text because it contained other useful information that was good..
I have no access to areas along the Sacramento River near the discharge pipe, to do the sampling necessary to meet needs for absolute proof of harm to salmon. I would have to use vacation time or take time off work and travel there and rent a boat for access to that area, etc. Also my fluoride electrode is currently in need of repair and such studies are all done on my own private funds. And more than likely, attempting to sample the river near the discharge pipe without auuthorization would get me arrested.
I attempted a similar thing at Lake Skinner 30 miles North of me. The area I found is under camera and armed guard surveillance and is protected with barbed-wire-topped fencing, and anyone near it gets pulled over for loitering or potential trespassing. The horse ranch across the street from the fluoride tanks moved out because of the facility. Fluoridation facilities are highly police-protected. Just standing near the area looking at it caused two security guards in separate vehicles to stop and view my every move. Fluoridation has long been a police-state action that is assumed to be a case-closed, non-debatable position, and anyone questioning it is viewed as some sort of fringe lunatic. And officials at CalEPA have no desire to be so labeled.
RS: "Fluoridation facilities are highly police-protected. Just standing near the area looking at it caused two security guards in separate vehicles to stop and view my every move. Fluoridation has long been a police-state action that is assumed to be a case-closed, non-debatable position, and anyone questioning it is viewed as some sort of fringe lunatic. And officials at CalEPA have no desire to be so labeled."
Response: Given the history of bullying, and sometimes violent behavior of this fringe anti-fluoride faction with whom you have associated yourself (see my comment timestamped 08-17-2018 09:44 PM), I don't blame any facility for taking precautionary measures for the protection of its property, and possibly the environment.
This has nothing to do with a "police-state action" but rather it sounds like a common sense approach for the protection of what could be highly dangerous materials if they were to be blown up by some maniac with a bomb.
Perhaps if you were to let someone at the treatment facility know what you were doing instead of lurking around covertly and looking suspicious, things might go a little easier. After all, isn't this common practice?
I doubt that the California Environmental Protection Agency has any concerns about being labled "fringe lunatics" given its history of strict strict environmental stuardship and taking on any industry which threatens that environment.
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.
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.
I am amazed that a guy who has the ability to out think Einstein can't figure out a way to take simple fluoride samples from a river. You can purchase a new Fluoride ISE probe from USA Blue Book for under $500. And since you seem to be hell bent on proving that municipal discharge with under 0.7 ppm F is somehow harmful to the environment, I would think this would be a necessary tool. Since you claimed affiliation with UCSD when discussing the issue with Dr. Ken Perrott under his Open Parachute article, "Fluoridation and horses – another myth"
perhaps UCSD can fund your research.
I'm hearing a lot of excuses about why you can't prove CWF harmed the salmon industry in the San Diego River, but I'm not seeing any solutions. So far, all we have is your word, and absolutely ZERO science, to support this interesting claim of yours.
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.
The Hafele Keating experiment reported a difference in time measured by atomic clocks under two different sets of conditons that was not outside the measurement error of the clocks. But you need to read the small print to see it. Further, the dilation formula requires the velocity of the moving clocks be known. The planes flew in a circular path and had a velocity (net displacement per second) that was not used in the computation. Instead, ground speed of the plane was used. You might want to examine my published work on the subject in Physics Essays vol. 27(1) pp. 116-125, 2014 and in Optik, International Journal for Light and Electronic Optics, volume 168, pp. 974-986, 2018, or simplly read the journal of Galilean Electrodynamics where time dilation is repeatedly and routinely proven to be false. Absolute time cannot sense motion of an object, including clocksd and peopole. So traveling in a spececraft does not make one age slower. Absolute time, again, simply marches on regardless of human activity. But the false concept prevails, much like fluoridation prevails in spite of the truth.
Biology teachers use the argument that lightning strikes cause the formation of the first amino acids that would eventually combine to make proten and that over millions of years could form the first RNA molecules capable of self replication and hence life would eventuallhy arise from inanimate matter. Modern colleges and universities are trapped in these views. Common sense high schools, which are not so common, avoid teaching the subject of lilfe's origins. Modern College teachers however use academic freedom to claim the extreme view, that it must be factual because life does indeed exist. The theory of naturalistic macroevolution, including that all liife macroevoled from some premordial bacterial species, is taught routinely as fact, much like fluoridation is taught to be a health benefit in spite of the truth, simply because of endorsements and printed media, etc.
Sorry to keep harping on this, but what you've said in your comment, about time and motion, is entirely new to me. At your suggestion, ("simplly read the journal of Galilean Electrodynamics where time dilation is repeatedly and routinely proven to be false.") I took a look for it. I found this review of the periodical itself:
" So let’s say you’ve got a theory. You have decided you cannot keep quiet any longer — you have to expose why Einstein was wrong. (In particular, you think he ties his shoes bass-ackwards.) But no one in the establishment will listen to you, despite your advanced degree in personal finance and that you own a calculator. So how are you going to get your ninety-four page article accepted in the mainstream? . . .
"Just like our friends over at Autodynamics, who founded a society to advance their own theory, the folks at Galilean Electrodynamics founded a journal to publish articles for their friends, and presumably for anyone else who can’t get their theories published in mainstream journals. Cobble together some papers, publish them in your latest journal, and presto biz markie, you can now claim that you’ve been “published in peer-reviewed scientific journals”."
The Journal gets bad marks for "Terrible English," "All science is Wrong," "Irritated, Emotional Language," "One Extremely Long & Ugly Webpage," and "Completely New Definitions." http://timeblimp.com/?page_id=298
I will say this for you, Doctor, your science is consistant.
Dr. Sauerheber, we're a little off topic here, but I find your position on Relativity, interesting, to say the least. If nothing more, you've given me an excuse to take a second look at the original experiment of the 1970s.
I see that the theory behind the original experiment has been applied time and time again. All results were consistant with Einstien's predictions. In 2005 gravitational time dilation was measured from the top of Mt. Rainer over the course of a weekend using HP 5071A cesium beam clocks. In 2016 the experiment was repeated from the top of Mt. Lemmon. The results were consistant, and predicted.
In 2010, more precise instrumation allowed time dilation to be measured at speeds below 36 kilometers per hour. At that speed, velocity time dilation was measured at 10 to the negative 16th power level.
That being possible, I also see that gravitational and velocity effects are incorporated into global positioning systems that we use today.
I don't pretend to be an expert on the subject, but since the theory has been applied to various experimentation, results have been predicted and confirmed again and again and again, which is what we like to see in science, and the fact that we take advantage of a practical application of that theory to assist modern technology, which I use every day, I have no problem accepting the theory as fact. In fact, I don't consider it a theory as long as my GPS doesn't get me lost.
By the way, have you considered measuring fluoride levels in a grid pattern upstream and downstream of effluent discharge in the Sacramento River to prove your theory? CalEPA would, of course, have to confirm the results.
Chlorine is NOT added to treat human tissue. It is added to kill pathogens that commonlyl exist in water supplies. Caustic soda is added to remove organic matter from water, to purify the water. Aluminum is added to ;purify materials in the water. Fluoride does not need to be added to any water system because it does NOT sanitize or purify the water. Fluoride is added for the specific purpose of elevating the fluoride level in the bloodstream of human consumers with the intent to alter the structure of teeth. But the program backfired and should be referred to as a bone altering fluoridation program. After 70 years of use in the water supply in Grand Rapids, MI we still have no controlled human clinical trials to determine if it is effective and if it is harmless. In fact, we now have massive publsihed work including controlled studies with animals and detailed broad epidemiologic studies and observational studies that prove that the program is ineffective and abnormal.
Regardless of what the CDC or the ADA claim, they have no science to support the practice of water fluoridation. On the contrary. In comparison, in Europe, the only country that fluoridates their water supply to a greater decree is the Republic of Ireland, where Northern Ireland dos not fluoridate their water. The Republic of Ireland has one of the worst dental health in Europe, whereas Northern Ireland does not. So what has all the fluoridation done for the Irish dental and overall health? It has decreased it and damaged the brains, teeth, and bones of the Irish.
Also, 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 result of both dental and overall health significantly improving after water fluoridation was stopped. Thus, the ADA or the CDC have very little credibility. See:
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.
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
“I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.” - Dr. John Colquhoun BDS, PhD, former Chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand and leading proponent turned opponent (1998)
It took over 70 years and the dogged persistence of Clair Patterson to get the lead out of gasoline. Leaded gasoline, like asbestos and fluoridaton, was defended by the Kettering Institute under the direction of Robert Kehoe for whom the infamous Kehoe Paradigm was named. I already referenced over a dozen credible organizations with scientific, environmental or human rights missions who oppose fluoridation in the 21st century and provided links to several documents from EPA scientist unions likewise opposed to fluoridation and the politically set EPA MCL/MCLG.
I've also quoted dozens of individual doctors, dentists and scientists who have studied emerging scientific data and changed their minds - a few of whom have openly opposed fluoridation on this forum. Many more, like several in my home town and even some sitting on boards of medical organizations, admit that they know fluoridation is ineffective and harmful to some consumers but they won't speak publicly because of fear of retalitation from abusive fluoride trolls, their rabidly pro-fluoride peers, and even their patients. A lawyer I know called me this week to tell me that another lawyer is threatening to file charges against him with the bar if he continues to openly oppose fluoridation. Dentists are even more vulnerable to this sort of bullying as the ADA will revoke their membership if they persist and the ADA provides financial business benefits to dentists just as fluoride interests provide financial benefits to the ADA. Bullying is effective - but only for so long.
Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt. I provided a quote from Dr. David Michaels, author of "Doubt Is their Product" and referenced the $289 million award last week to a man with cancer that unveiled the duplicitous deceit by vested interests that involved collusion between Monsanto with professional liars for hire and the EPA. I also provided a link to a relatively recent revelation that the sugar industry subverted dental authorities from pursuing sugar as a cause of cavities by diverting their attention to fluoridation; here's another that straignt out says that public health officials should recognize the sugar industry as an adversary. I also provided scads of links to modern science documenting harm, a number of which actually include words to the effect of 'in light of these findings, we suggest municipal fluoridation schemes require a fresh re-examination' and a few of which are more blunt 'avoid the fluoridation of drinking water.'
Emerging modern science, evolving medical opinion and the persistant voices of victims will end fluoridation. I'm doing my part to protect people & planet, just as vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions.
2014: Controversy Manual
AARP - Your voice as an advocate with lobbying power matters. Oppose fluoridation!
Skanen says, "As a chemist formerly with the Army Corps of Engineers and whistleblower on lead in drinking water, I appreciate chemistry professor Dr. Sauerheber’s contribution to fluoride science and am disgusted with DavidF’s personal attacks on this forum."
Skanen, if you can point out where I made "personal attacks" against Dr. Sauerheber on this forum, I will be happy to apologize to him. Please show me the quotes along with timestamps. If you are unable to provide such evidence, I will be forced to conclude that your comment is an unjustified personal attack against me. We are, after all, evidence based in our worldviews aren't we?
There are many concepts that are false and yet are assumed true by those considered to be in mainstream science. It is not only artificial fluoridation of water with industrial chemicals.
1. The idea that life came to exist through spontaneous generation from inanimate matter in a naturalistic way has not been observed or proven to have happened, and yet Biology texts teach it as though it were a proven scientific fact.
2. Time does not slow down or dilate due to motion as is believed by physicists since the idea was proposed in 1905 in special relativity theory. Time dilation has been disproven theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally, and yet Physics trextbooks still teach that time slows down for objects in motion with respect to an observer, as though it were a proven verified scientific fact.
3. Fluoridation has been proven to be ineffective and also is harmful, causing abnormality particularly in bone strucutre. And yet mainstram textbooks still state the myth that ingesting fluoride somehow with an unknown mechanism prevents dental decay and hardens the hardest substance in humans, enamel, while at the same time fluoride in blood doesn't cause a single harmful event whatsoever even after lifelong consumption.
There is no proof for any of these three concepts and yet organizations endorse them all.
This is nothing new or surprsing. People generally prefer to stick to stories they are told because it's easier, and particularly if they invented the stories themselves..
Eating fluoride does not and cannot improve the structure of enamel but does alter the structure of bone. Life did not create itself. And time does not slow down for any event simply because an observer is in motion who watches it. Time does not sense motion and respond to it, time simply marches on.. But making these statements in a typical college science class can cause you to be removed from the room because it is not considered 'mainstream thought'.
Organizations can be dead wrong, just as much as people who imagined the notions in the first place.
Dr. Sauerheber, an interesting comment on known and verifiable science. You say, "There are many concepts that are false and yet are assumed true by those considered to be in mainstream science."
Regarding your 3 examples, and with all due respect:
1.) Did life spontaneously occur from non-life? It's not my area of expertise, however, I believe this was a debate that ended over 150 years ago, with the answer being No: Biology texts do not teach it as though it were fact.
"The debate over spontaneous generation continued well into the nineteenth century, with scientists serving as proponents of both sides." . . and . . "Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular."
2.) RS: "Time does not slow down or dilate due to motion as is believed by physicists since the idea was proposed in 1905 in special relativity theory. Time dilation has been disproven theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally . ."
Actually, time does slow down with motion, and actually, it has been proven experimentally. I direct your attention to the Hafele-Keating Experiment. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html
3.) Water fluoridation. That's what this is all about.
I hope you don't consider the fact that I pointed out the inaccuracies of your comment to be a "personal attack."
“One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)
“The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude. Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement.”- Prof. Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D. (1980)
Refusal to acknowlege the substantial objections of leading scientists and over a dozen organizations is not the same thing as there not being substantial objections. Similarly, dismissing hundreds of reproducable studies proving harm that are peer-reviewed and published in valid journals does not mean they do not still exist. However, fluoridation persists because fluoridation, like fluoridation promotion, is profitable to many vested interests, such as but not limited to the sugar industry.
But even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication of many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney disease for whom fluoride causes harm.
Moreover, fluoride not only builds up in bones where it causes or worsens arthritis and brittleness, fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier where it contributes to dementia. Particular concerns of seniors.
For a change of pace, here are a few video interviews:
2001 Testimony of Dr. J. Wm. Hirzy, EPA scientist to Congress & interview (28m): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNNIwmzTzI
2013 Documentary featuring interviews with scientists and lawyers (64m): http://www.fluoridegate.org/the-film/
2015 Telemundo Atlanta 3 part series (5m each): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTZQveF6LAE
CarryAnne – You still have provided no rational explanation for why community water fluoridation (CWF) opponents have been unable to change the scientific consensus. Why would rational, unbiased individuals choose to accept the consensus of a small minority of outlier experts and their non-expert followers instead of the consensus accepted by the majority of relevant experts? Accusations that “fluoridation, like fluoridation promotion, is profitable to many vested interests” is simply another unsupported, libelous claim that fluoridation supporters conjure up when they lack legitimate evidence to convince the scientific/health communities their opinions have merit.
Your philosophical bias is evident when you arbitrarily claim that “even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication“, and your statement highlights the importance of personal, non-scientific beliefs to anti-science activists when evaluating and interpreting the evidence.
By your “logic” those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument. Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy is immoral poisoning??
Stating that there are “substantial objections of leading scientists and over a dozen organizations “ does not make those “objections” scientifically validated.
I am not, as you claim, “dismissing hundreds of reproducible studies proving harm”, I am stating that CWF opponents have selectively extracted and misrepresented those studies from the thousands conducted and published over the last 70+ years which can be used to try and support their strongly-held opinions. When one actually reads those cited studies, it is obvious that by, the time fluoridation opponents have presented them to the public, this “evidence” will have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted/misused/misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only suggest a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable; 6) the study will be demonstrably flawed &/or 7) The claim will be a complete fabrication.
The misrepresentation and fabrication of evidence is one of the reasons the reputable science and health organizations mentioned/listed (and their representatives) have not accepted the anti-F opinions and continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of CWF.
I would like to bring attention to another of Dr. Osmunson’s comments on 07-09-2018; “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished. They [CDC, ADA and AAP] do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists. Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust. Those allegedly ‘credible scientific organizations promoting fluoridation at 1 ppm have not and did not review the science and follow the science. They all waited for someone else to stand out from the herd and protect the public. I do not call those organizations following the herd scientifically credible, when it comes to fluoridation. Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation. Change is very slow when following the herd. Change is faster when following science.”
So, the CDC, ADA and AAP, are according to Dr. Osmunson, “so called ‘scientific’ organizations” – Really??? Do you accept his claims as valid? How about the rest of the organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF – do you believe they are all “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” as well???
Dr. Osmunson seems to be trying to make an arbitrary and absurd distinction between organizations and the members and representatives of those organizations. Do you believe that “they are the best in their field and experts” in everything non-fluorine-related, yet they are completely ignorant, don't protect the public and are unable to recognize and correctly interpret legitimate scientific evidence when it has anything to do with CWF?
I would also like to see Dr. Osmunson justify and prove his claims about all the science and health organizations (and presumably their members) that accept the scientific consensus on CWF.
Since 2000, there have been a number of scientific literature reviews that have concluded that CWF reduces dental decay, and none of these reviews reported any health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water, only an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis. They include: the 2018 Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents review; the 2018 Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report for England; the 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report; the 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water; the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health; the 2016 Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Fluoridation Report; the 2015 Manual of Dental Practices, Council of European Dentists; the 2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries; the 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review; the 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence; the 2013 Congressional Research Service, Fluoride in Drinking Water Review: and the 2000 York Water Fluoridation Review; the 2000 Community Preventive Services Task Force, Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation – not to mention the 2018 National Toxicity Program fluoride study.
Again, if the alleged health risks alleged to be caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water have been proven valid, how do you explain the fact that 100+ science and health organizations listed elsewhere (and their many thousands of members) have gone against all scientific and health principles and not accepted this evidence? The only explanation that makes sense is that the evidence, in fact, does not prove there are significant health risks of CWF, and the evidence actually confirms the benefits of reducing tooth decay (which do have real, well documented health risks) far outweigh any alleged risks.
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.
That doesn't stop fluoridationists from trying to use organizational endorsements of policy that originated in the 1950s as their 'evidence' - that's endosemental science. For examples of evidentiary science, then and now, see these two examples that invalidate the claim of consensus:
- Now: IAOMT 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use:
- Then: Sutton P R N. Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions in Experimental Trials. 2nd ed. Australia: Melbourne University Press, 1960.
CarryAnne – That’s exactly my point – if there were actually “substantial scientific objections to fluoridation” that were confirmed by legitimate, reproducible, properly interpreted scientific evidence, I can’t imagine a rational explanation that would explain why the hundreds of thousands of members of those science and health organizations that publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation (CWF) would keep silent. Unless, of course, they are mindless minions of (to quote the 07-09-2018 comment of Dr. Osmunson) “All the so called "scientific" organizations [which] were all puppets of each other with fluoridation. None reviewed the science. … CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing.”
If I were a current or retired member of any organization that publically recognizes the safety and benefits of CFW, I would be more than a little offended by these unsupported, libelous charges. These organizations do not exist without their members, and they include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), etc.
I accept the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of members of these organizations are caring and informed contributors to the scientific and health communities, and they have not joined the anti-F crusade because they accept the scientific consensus (which the anti-F activists have been unable to change for over 70 years) and not unsupported fear-mongering.
What exactly do you propose to accept as a legitimate conclusion for 70+ years of evidence if not the scientific consensus – as established by those respected (except by anti-science activists) national and international organizations?
Unless you can provide a rational explanation for why anti-F activists have been unable to provide legitimate evidence sufficient to convince a majority of members of all (or even a few) of the organizations that continue to recognize the safety and effectiveness of CWF a rational reader will come to the conclusion that fluoridation opponents (FOs) are promoting an outlier anti-science un-consensus.
If FOs actually had legitimate scientific evidence to support their philosophical beliefs, they would not have needed to spend the last 70 years trying to scare the public into blindly accepting their opinions and joining their crusade – the evidence would have changed the consensus. That is how science works.
“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008) *
"The available data, responsibly interpreted, indicate little or no beneficial effect of water fluoridation on oral health." - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2011) **
The U.S. promoted fluoridation based on flawed studies & falsified evidence. Modern reviews have recognized every pro-fluoridation report prior to the 1980s as badly biased and unreliable. (Iheozor-Ejiofor et al. 2015; McDonagh et al. 2000; Yiamouyiannis 1990; Diesendorf 1986)
The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive. The hesitation to speak out against fluoridation is based on rhetorical devices, intimidation and disinformation - consistent with campaigns mounted by pesticide giant Monsanto and the Tobacco industry.
Click here and then use PREVIOUS button to read the 60 comments in oppostion to fluoridation that include personal testimony from AARP seniors and references to modern science from before this thread was overwhelmed on June 27, 2018 by a few fluoridationts. Also, a dozen 21st century environmental citations re fluoridation's adverse impact on animals & plants can be accessed here.
*Dr. Michaels is a well published epidemiologist with insight into the political machinations and astroturf efforts of industry propaganda that protects business plans and paychecks instead of people and planet.
** Dr. Thiessen is a risk assessment expert who has sat on two National Research Councils concerned with health risks and fluoride. She has also said that “Elimination of community water fluoridation at the earliest possible date would be in the best interest of public health.”
CarryAnne – Your frogs in a pot cartoon misrepresent 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. The same precautionary principle “logic” could be used to support the anti-chlorine activists’ claims that “we should discontinue public water chlorination until it is proven that there are no harmful health effects that can be caused by the public health measure. Do you have that evidence? Do you support chlorination?
Read “Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle“
You just claimed the “evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive. The hesitation to speak out against fluoridation is based on rhetorical devices, intimidation and disinformation”.
If that claim is even remotely valid, how can you possibly explain the fact, which has been brought up and ignored 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.
I don't believe in dumping waste water into streams or rivers for any reason. . To me it is immoral and a denigration of our heritage and future. And dumping wastewater that is also fluoridated, and continuing to do so even after salmon spawning, that had been present for years ends, that's downright mind-boggling.
The math presented to claim salmon are unaffected when fluoridated water is duschsrged into their spawning grounds is laughable. The water salmon must navigate through near the discharge pipe cannot possibly dilute to a final concentration computed from M1V1=M2V2 (where M1 is 1 ppm, V1 is the discharge volume in a given period, V2 is the volume of river flow during that period, and M2 the final dilution level after thorough mixing. M2 is only valid after full mixing, not while it is mixing. the concentration in which salmon swim is not simply M2. M2 is the concentration that would exist if the fluoride added were fully dispersed. It is not fully dispersed at the point of discharge. There is no expression that can compute the maximum level that salmon would be exposed to while navigating through the discharge area, particularly since they spawn in shallow water and swim near the surface to to so. F is not uniform in concentration until after full mixing.
There is no math that describes it adequately. Math without chemistry in a chemical problem is not useful and in fact misleads.
If you choose to he misled I can't help you. But if anyone wants to not he misled then this post should help.
The claim I don't care is insulting. CalEpa does not care. Unless there is absolute proof which neither i nor anyone has, the agency will not make any demands on the city of sacramento. Hence even though evidence of harm is beyond reasonable doubt (esp. published harm to human consumers) fluoridation and the discharges stand.
Blame me all you want. The salmon industry in CA is dead and humans consuming fluoridated water have progressive compromised bone quality. Registering complaints and providing data are what I have done. And I disagree that it is pathetic. Absolute proof of visible harm with dental fluorosis has not halted fluoridation. Known bone accumulation in all consumers has not halted fluoridation. And neither will good correlative evidence of harm to salmon. Absolute proof sufficient for CalEpa to act is an unreasonable request by the agency and yet this is the way it is for this government advocated policy of fluoridating the country. What blame pray tell in that belongs to me?
RS: "The claim I don't care is insulting. CalEpa does not care. Unless there is absolute proof which neither i nor anyone has, the agency will not make any demands on the city of sacramento."
I guess it is easer to convince readers of a thread on an AARP website, who are not familiar with the science, of something, than it would be to convince the scientists, toxologists, and environmental experts whose sole duty is to protect the environment from toxic waste.
RS: "Absolute proof of visible harm with dental fluorosis has not halted fluoridation."
Why would it. Mild Dental Fluorosis, which can be associated with water fluoridation, makes teeth stronger and more resistant to decay. Kumar demonstrated this, and you know it. Therefore, quality of life is not dimished. It is anti-fluoridationists like yourself who attempt to blurr the degrees of dental fluorosis, as though they were all the same thing, as part of your scare-mongering campaign. I'm sure the experts at Cal EPA are aware of that little trick.
RS: "Absolute proof sufficient for CalEpa to act is an unreasonable request by the agency and yet this is the way it is for this government advocated policy of fluoridating the country."
Then you have contacted them? Please allow us to see the correspondence sent and received by you so that we can judge for ourselves the level of apathy that you claim Cal EPA has.
RS: "There is no math that describes it adequately. Math without chemistry in a chemical problem is not useful and in fact misleads."
Then provide empirical evidence. That is, after all what science is. Here's how you do it. Take samples at marked and documented intervals at a cross section of the river at points downstream of the discharge. You should be able to make a fairly accurate map of fluoride levels in that river. If you know that salmon are affected at 0.5 ppm, it shouldn't be that hard to prove your theory. This would actually be a fairly simple proceedure.
But, as I said, it is far easier to frighten readers of a thread who are unfamiliar with the science than it would be to convince actual experts in the field who are dedicated to protection of the environment. I guess that's what you're going for here.