- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- 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
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- 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!
Review of Levy (2012)
Levy 2012. As evidence of fluoride’s lack of carcinogenicity, PHS 2015 cites at 77, Levy 2012.
The Levy 2012 study concludes that water fluoridation in the U.S. is not associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma. Levy 2012 use a notably crude measurement for determining fluoride exposure, the National Cancer Institute’s SEER data, average fluoridation rate of the child’s STATE of residence at the time of diagnosis rather than exposure a decade earlier.
By contrast, when the NCI conducted its analysis of the SEER data in 1990 (in which NCI found elevated rates of osteosarcoma among young males in fluoridated areas), the NCI considered the fluoridation status on the COUNTY level — a smaller unit which is less prone to classification error. A study without significance is not proof of safety. The Levy study thus sheds little light on fluoride’s possible relationship to osteosarcoma.
Blakey et al (2014) 
“The study objective was to examine whether increased risk of primary bone cancer was associated with living in areas with higher concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.”
This is an ecological study where cases were obtained from cancer registries and fluoride levels in drinking water from regional companies, Drinking Water Inspectorate, and Scottish Water. The record does not show total fluoride exposure, supplements, blood, bone, urine or any other fluoride concentration measurement, nor whether the cohorts were actually drinking the water or swallowing toothpaste. “Other sources of fluoride are not taken into consideration.”
In contrast with Bassin’s 2006 study, cases with Blakey 2014 were divided into three age groups, 0-14, 15-29 and 30-49 years of age at diagnosis. Bassin’s study used each year of life and contacted each water source to ensure the address while growing up actually received fluoride in the water (10% reporting error) and the subject lived in that location. Bassin found ingestion of fluoridated water during 6-8 years of age increased cancer several years later. By including all ages 0-14 in one group and 15-29 in another group, Blakey would have “watered down the evidence” and not account for the high risk growth spurts reported by Bassin. Blakey assumes fluoride consumption was consistent throughout the study time-frame.
Blakey 2014 reported, “The monitoring data suggests that levels in some AF areas were much lower than 1 ppm. Indeed, 33% of AF WSZs were below 0.7 ppm. . . and 61% of AF SAUs had such a level. This suggest that 35% of populations residing in AF areas were being supplied with AF water dosed below the optimal level.”
Blakely 2014 states, “Furthermore, although the overall results contradict those from Bassin’s study, the use of total accumulated fluoride dose rather than a specific time in life course prevents any direct comparisons being made.”
Osteosarcoma is a rare cancer (Blakely 2.64/million) and unless a study is carefully controlled, the data can be easily diluted, negating significance.
Blakely’s Table 1 is produced here for the purpose of understanding the importance of age. In this study, an increase in osteosarcoma is evident during 15-29 years of age and over 49 years of age. Studies must include age and measured fluoride serum, urine, and bone concentrations. Perhaps the rate of bone turnover is reduced during middle age. Fluoride accumulates with time and seniors have higher bone fluoride concentrations perhaps triggering risk.
Number of osteosarcoma cases
Number of Ewing sarcoma cases
Gelberg et al (1994)
The PHS 2015 failed to consider Gelberg KH. (1994) reporting, “When fluoride exposure
increases, the following bone responses generally occur: 1) an increase in the number of osteoblasts, 2) an increase in the rate of bone formation, 3) an increase in the serum activity of alkaline phosphatase, and 4) an inhibition of osteoblastic acid phosphatase… The increase in osteoblast proliferation and activity may increase the probability that these cells will undergo malignant transformation.”
The case-control study by Gelberg, published first as a PhD dissertation (Gelberg 1994) and then later in two peer-reviewed journals (Gelberg 1995, 1997), may represent the most substantive study on fluoride/osteosarcoma previous to Bassin’s 2001 analysis.
While Gelberg has errors, such as stating cases were females when they were males, and reversing cases and controls in the “Total Fluoride” and “Toothpaste” categories in Tables 2 and 3, primary concerns with Gelberg’s work relates to the methods used to analyze her data.
Gelberg uses data from NY Cancer Registry and state rather than county fluoridation rates. Gelberg, like Hoover 1991, never analyzes her data with subjects divided into a simple two-category model: exposed versus unexposed, but rather quartiles.
However, for males the lower “quartile” group shows a borderline statistically significant increased risk OR of 2.8 (95%CI 1.0-8.1). For females the OR is even higher and statistically significant at 10.5 (95%CI 1.2-91). For both males and females in the higher “quartiles” of exposure, the ORs are no longer significant, but the risk for osteosarcoma generally stays above 1.0. If, instead of breaking the data into “quartiles”, it had been broken into just “exposed” and “unexposed”, it is quite possible the exposed group would have a significantly elevated risk for osteosarcoma compared to the unexposed group.
In looking for other possible risk factors for osteosarcoma, Gelberg (1994) found that a history of exposure to dental x-rays was significantly related to the development of osteosarcoma (OR 4.0; 95%CI 1.3-12) . Dental x-rays were, in fact, one of the few variables Gelberg examined that had an effect reaching statistical significance.
However, increased dental x-rays would indicate possibly more frequent dental visits which indicate more frequent topical applications of fluoride (22,300 ppm fluoride) in the dental office. The efficacy of fluoride varnish is mixed, and risks have not been studied.
Bassin 2006; Cohn 1992; Hoover 1991 are consistent with the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) cancer bioassay which raised concerns that fluoride-treated male rats had a dose-dependent increase in osteosarcoma. (Bucher 1991). Although a number of studies including PHS 2015 citations have failed to detect an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma, none of these studies have measured the risk of fluoride at specific windows in time, which is the critical question with respect to fluoride and osteosarcoma.
A report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), titled “Drinking Water and Health”, expresses concern about a possible connection between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young males:
“There was an observation in the Kingston-Newburgh (Ast et al, 1956) study that was considered spurious and has never been followed up. There was a 13.5% incidence of cortical defects in bone in the fluoridated community but only 7.5% in the non-fluoridated community… Caffey (1955) noted that the age, sex, and anatomical distribution of these bone defects are `strikingly’ similar to that of osteogenic sarcoma. While progression of cortical defects to malignancies has not been observed clinically, it would be important to have direct evidence that osteogenic sarcoma rates in males under 30 have not increased with fluoridation.” (NAS 1977)
 Blakey, K, Feltbower, R et al, Is fluoride a risk factor for bone cancer? Small area analysis of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma diagnosed among 0-49-year-olds in Great Britain, 1980-2005. Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Feb; 43(1): 224-234.
 Gelberg KH. (1994). Case-control study of osteosarcoma. Doctoral Thesis, Yale University. p. 13.
 Hoover R.N., Devesa S.S., Cantor K.P., Lubin J.H., Fraumeni J.F. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End R.... National Cancer Institute. In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service.
We must consider the fact that there have been over 4000 studies on fluoride alone. Some studies are peer-reviewed, some studies have been debunked.
It is odd isn't it. When one looks at the discussion presented by the American Cancer Society on water fluoridation, ( https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html ) one would think water fluoridation does not lead to any kind of cancer. In the studies the ACS presents there is either No Evidence, (For example: "In 2011, the state of California’s Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC) reviewed the evidence and concluded that “fluoride and its salts has not been clearly shown to cause cancer.”), or there is No Strong Evidence for any link between the two.
On the other hand, when one looks at your cherry-picked non-peer reviewed studies, one would think that osteosarcoma and other forms of bone cancer are almost a certainty.
Considering the fact that there are roughly 400 cases of the bone cancer, osteosarcoma, per year in the U.S., and considering the fact that hundreds of millions of people enjoy the health benefits of optimally fluoridated water on a daily basis, you would think, according to your cherry-picked studies, that hospitals would be over-run with these bone-cancer victims. But they aren't are they.
The American Cancer does not accept funding from unethical alternative health businesses which routinely receive warning letters from the FDA. Fluoride Alert, & the Fluoride Action Network do. The sole existence of the American Cancer Society does not depend on the creation of some controversy, where no controversy actually exists. The existence of Fluoridealert does.
Perhaps that is why we see such different interpretations between the American Cancer Society & Fluoridealert when it comes to water fluoridation and cancer.
Dr. Bill, have you ever had any relationship with the Fluroide Action Network?
What did some reviewers say?
Thiessen’s Review of Kim et al. (2011), (Referenced in PHS 2015 as evidence of safety).
“The paper by Kim et al. (2011) is part of the Harvard osteosarcoma study. The paper describes a comparison of bone fluoride levels in cases of osteosarcoma and a set of controls. The authors report no significant difference in bone fluoride levels between cases and controls and no significant association between bone fluoride levels and osteosarcoma risk.
“To give some context it is important to know that an earlier part of the Harvard osteosarcoma study, namely the work of Bassin et al. (2006; based on a 2001 dissertation by Bassin 2001), reported an association between age-specific fluoride exposure and risk of osteosarcoma, with the highest risks for childhood exposure for young males. Bassin's study involved 103 cases under the age of 20 (median age, 13.7) and 215 matched controls (median age, 14.5; matching based on age, gender, and distance from the hospital) from the orthopedics departments of the same hospitals. Cases were diagnosed between November 1989 and November 1992. Bassin estimated fluoride exposure from drinking water and fluoride supplements or rinses for each participant, for each year of life, based on residential histories. Bassin et al. describe the limitations of their study and point out that additional studies with larger numbers of osteosarcoma patients, with incidence under age 20, that examine age-specific and sex-specific associations are required to confirm or refute the findings of the current study.
“The NRC report (NRC 2006, pp. 329-330) was published shortly before the Bassin et al. paper appeared, but included an analysis of Bassin's dissertation (2001), which reported essentially the same findings. The NRC also reported a personal communication from C. Douglass of the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, describing a second study involving 189 cases and 289 controls. This study was said to include residence history, detailed interviews about water consumption, and fluoride assays of bone specimens and toenails of all subjects. The NRC committee was told that the preliminary results indicated no statistically significant association with fluoride intakes and that the results were expected to be reported in the summer of 2006. The NRC report describes some concerns about possible bias (in either direction) in the selection of controls and the expectation that the study could have limited statistical power to detect a small increase in osteosarcoma risk due to fluoride exposure.
“When Bassin's work was published (Bassin et al. 2006), the same issue of the journal contained a letter to the editor by Douglass and Joshipura (2006), both of whom were coauthors on an earlier paper describing Bassin's exposure analysis (Bassin et al. 2004). This letter mentioned that preliminary findings from the second set of cases did not appear to replicate the earlier work (Bassin's study) and indicated that their findings, which were “currently being prepared for publication,” did not suggest an overall association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. It also indicated that both a fluoride intake history and a bone specimen were being obtained for each participant, and that their preliminary analysis indicated that the fluoride content of the bone was not associated with excess risk of osteosarcoma. However, this letter provided no data and therefore constitutes no more than an opinion.
“The paper by Kim et al. (2011) was submitted to the Journal of Dental Research in January 2011 and published electronically in late July 2011. No mention is made of why it took 5 years from the time Douglass and Joshipura indicated that their findings were “currently being prepared for publication.” Nor is it obvious why the paper was published in a dental journal, when it does not deal directly with anything related to dentistry. Other recent papers that include some of the same coauthors (specifically, C. Douglass and R.N. Hoover) have been published in cancer research journals, (e.g., Savage et al. 2007; Mirabello et al. 2011a,b,c), as was Bassin's work (Bassin et al. 2006).
“Kim et al. (2011) describe a study involving 137 cases (37 ages 0-14, 72 ages 15-29, 13 ages 30- 44, and 15 ages 45 and older) and 51 controls, with cases diagnosed between 1993 and 2000.
“Although there is mention of “orthopedic” controls (patients with benign tumors or non- neoplastic conditions), only “tumor” controls were in fact used. The selection of cases and controls was affected in part by the need to obtain bone specimens. The cases had a median age of 17.6 years, the controls, 41.3 years. Kim et al. report no significant difference in the median fluoride concentration in bone between matched osteosarcoma case and tumor control in 32 pairs where age matching was possible. In an unmatched analysis of all cases and controls, the median bone fluoride concentration was significantly higher in controls than in cases. The authors conclude that their study “did not demonstrate an association between fluoride levels in bone and osteosarcoma.”
“The use of an individual measure of fluoride exposure (bone fluoride concentration) is important to note. However, as the authors themselves point out, “if risk is related to exposures at a specific time in life, rather than total accumulated dose, this metric would not be optimal” (Kim et al. 2011). Bone fluoride concentration is a measure of cumulative fluoride exposure to the time of diagnosis and surgery. Given a “lag time” of at least 5 years between initiation and diagnosis of most cancer types, the bone fluoride concentration at time of diagnosis can be affected by fluoride exposures that occurred after the cancer was initiated. Most importantly, a bone fluoride concentration at time of diagnosis says nothing about fluoride exposure at specific ages, so it does not address the key finding of Bassin et al. (2006).
“The osteosarcoma cases analyzed by Kim et al. (2011) included 28 individuals aged 30 or older. The actual number of patients under 20 years old is not given, but was said to be too few to provide sufficient statistical power. Thus the cases analyzed by Kim et al. are not fully comparable to the cases analyzed by Bassin et al. While osteosarcoma obviously occurs in adults, the majority of cases occur in children and young adults (Sergi and Zwerschke 2008; Mirabello et al. 2011a,b,c; Savage et al. 2007); Kim et al. (2011) themselves indicate that osteosarcoma is more prevalent in individuals less than 20 years old. Kim et al. have not explained their justification for including older individuals, other than to have large enough numbers to do their statistical analyses. The possibility that different mechanisms are involved in pediatric and geriatric osteosarcoma has not been addressed.
“As mentioned, the controls were all patients with malignant bone tumors other than osteosarcoma, apparently because bone samples were more readily available for tumor controls than for other controls (Kim et al. 2011). Kim et al. point out that if “fluoride levels were related to bone cancer in general, the current study design would be unable to detect this. There is no published evidence of such an association.” There also is no published evidence clearly demonstrating a lack of such an association. The one small finding that has been published (as part of an appendix to a Public Health Service report) was an excess of Ewing's sarcoma in fluoridated counties as opposed to nonfluoridated counties (Hoover 1991). This was explained as an artifact of the analysis. However, given the distinct lack of adequate analyses of fluoride exposure and other types of bone cancer, the use by Kim et al. (2011) of tumor controls alone obviously has to be regarded with caution.
“Bassin et al. (2006) limited their analysis to 103 cases diagnosed before the age of 20 (median age 13.7) and used 215 orthopedic controls (median age 14.5). Kim et al. (2011) used a much broader range of ages among cases, together with a relatively small set of controls very different in age from the cases and who were themselves bone cancer patients. While there were apparently limitations in selecting controls who could provide bone samples, nevertheless, the result is that the analysis by Bassin et al. had a much better set of controls than did the analysis of Kim et al.
“Kim et al. (2011) report a higher median fluoride concentration of controls compared with cases, which they attribute to the older ages of the controls than the cases. Comparison of the distributions of bone fluoride concentrations between cases and controls (Figure, part D) indicates that the ranges are not greatly different. Given that the median age of the controls is more than twice the median age of the cases (41.3 vs. 17.6), the obvious conclusion is not a lack of association between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, but considerably higher average exposure (by a factor of 2) in cases and controls, in order to reach similar bone fluoride concentrations. Kim's 2007 dissertation, on which the 2011 paper is based, reports estimates of “median cumulative lifetime water fluoride” of 14.4 ppm year for the cases and 16.5 ppm year for the controls. These cumulative exposures together with the median ages of the two groups again indicate higher average fluoride exposure among cases than controls, by a factor of 2. Rather than refuting the work of Bassin et al., these findings by Kim et al. support an association between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma.
“In order to obtain the estimates of median cumulative lifetime water fluoride, Kim had to develop the exposure histories for the individual cases and controls. In addition, her dissertation indicates that the exposure histories were available for the orthopedic (noncancer) controls. Douglass and Joshipura (2006) indicated that exposure histories were being obtained. Any meaningful comparison of Kim's findings with those of Bassin et al. (2011) will require use of the individual exposure histories to look at exposures at various ages, as opposed to just the comparison of bone fluoride concentrations.
“As an incidental note, the bone fluoride concentrations reported by Kim et al. (2011, Figure) for both osteosarcoma cases and tumor controls, extend into the range reported for skeletal fluorosis (NRC 2006).
Also of note is that Kim et al. (2011) found that a history of broken bones was a significant predictor of osteosarcoma risk. An increased risk of bone fracture has been associated with fluoride exposure in a variety of studies (e.g., NRC 2006; Alarcón-Herrera et al. 2001; Danielson et al. 1992).”
A National Cancer Institute (NCI) report on Kim (2011), failed to appreciate using a different cancer for controls is not “normal” bone fluoride concentration.
The NCI states “they [Kim] measured fluoride concentration in samples of normal bone adjacent to a person’s tumor. . . The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors.”
Thiessen’s Review of Comber et al. (2011) (Comber et al was cited by the PHS 2015 recommendation as evidence fluoride is not carcinogenic and safe.)
“Comber et al. (2011) compare osteosarcoma rates in nonfluoridated Northern Ireland and in partially fluoridated Republic of Ireland, with the latter data divided between fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas. They report no significant differences in either age-specific or age- standardized incidence rates of osteosarcoma between fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.
“Comber et al. also describe several limitations of their study, including uncertainty about fluoridation status of particular areas (the possibility of misclassification), the possibility that the place of residence at the time of diagnosis may not be an accurate proxy for lifetime exposure to fluoridated water, and the lack of an accurate measure of total fluoride exposure. Perhaps the most important limitation pointed out by Comber et al. is the relative rarity of the cancer and the correspondingly wide confidence intervals of the relative risk estimates. They estimate that the risk for a fluoridated population would need to be at least 1.7 times that of the nonfluoridated population (a 70% increase) for a statistically significant effect to be detected. In other words, fluoride could cause a 50-60% increase in risk of osteosarcoma, and this study would not be able to detect it.
“With respect to using the place of residence at the time of diagnosis as a proxy for lifetime exposure to fluoridated water, Comber et al. point out that if fluoride exposure at a specific age is critical to osteosarcoma development (citing Bassin et al. 2006), use of the fluoride estimation at the time of diagnosis is less valuable. In other words, their analysis cannot evaluate the importance of age-specific exposure.
“With respect to the lack of an accurate measure of total fluoride exposure, the authors mention that at least one-third of fluoride intake is estimated to come from sources other than drinking water, citing tea, fish, and toothpaste as examples. The authors do not discuss the possibility that variability in total fluoride intake within the Irish populations could overwhelm differences between populations in fluoride intakes from drinking water alone.
“In summary, the paper by Comber et al. does not demonstrate an absence of a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, simply that any effect of fluoridated water (as opposed to total fluoride intake) is not large enough to detect by the methods employed.”
 Thiessen IBID Pages 12-14.
 Kim FM, Hayes C, Williams PL, et al. An assessment of bone fluoride and osteosarcoma. Journal of Dental Research 2011; 90(10):1171–1176. https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/myths/fluoridated-water-fact-sheet#q4 Accessed 2/14/2017
 Thiessen IBID p. 12.
Nothing in science is "settled." We have theories which must constantly be retested and tested again in light of the new research and understanding. Nothing in science is written in stone. There are no absolutes, no "never" and "always." We scientists must live in a state of discovery.
I have provided some research on the basics and will now go into some of the specific cancers.
- BONE CANCER:
PHS 2015 notes about 100 unique comments regarding fluoride as a carcinogen. Of the many references provided to PHS 2015, they include nine references and dismiss carcinogenicity. Osteosarcoma is the singular cancer listed. PHS 2015 references:
- PHS 2015 lists Bassin 2006 as reporting an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma; although PHS 2015 does not go into specifics.
CHESTER DOUGLASS HISTORY:
DOUGLASS REPORTS NO ASSOCIATION: A team of Harvard scientists, led by
Dr. Chester Douglass, publish the preliminary findings of a large case-control analysis of fluoride and osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995). In the preliminary analysis the authors report no association between fluoride and osteosarcoma.
DOUGLASS REPORTS ELEVATED RISK: To the NIH, Chester Douglass
reports “all” of his analyses which assumed bottled water contains no fluoride found that fluoridated drinking water (>0.7 ppm) is associated with elevated, but not statistically significant, rates of osteosarcoma. Douglass later expresses concern about the ramifications to water fluoridation from reporting that fluoridation is associated with an elevated, even if not statistically significant, rate of bone cancer:
“Because of the importance of the question at hand, we think the policy implications of reporting that the relative risk maybe higher than 1.5 would have consequences for fluoridation health policies.”
the study shows fluoridation has either no effect, or a slightly protective effect, on osteosarcoma rates.
DOUGLASS KNOWS THERE IS RISK: However, Douglass’s signature is on Bassin’s
2001 thesis using Douglass’s data which found a statistically significant increase in osteosarcomas.
DOUGLASS REPORTS NO RISK: In 2004, the National Research Council
(NRC) begins a review of the safety of currently allowable levels of fluoride in drinking water. Douglass submits a summary of his fluoride/osteosarcoma study to the NRC, claiming no significant association between fluoridation and osteosarcoma. Douglass even cites Bassin’s study as one of 2 supporting references for this summary of no fluoride osteosarcoma association. Douglass fails to report that Bassin found a statistically significant, 5-to-7-fold risk of osteosarcoma among boys drinking fluoridated water a decade prior to their diagnosis of cancer.
Bassin et al published some of her thesis data in 2006. She reports that boys drinking fluoridated water during the ages of 6 to 8 have a five-fold increased risk of developing osteosarcoma during their teenage years:
“We observed that for males diagnosed before the age of 20 years, fluoride level in drinking water during growth was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma, demonstrating a peak in the odds ratios from 6 to 8 years of age. All of our models were remarkably robust in showing this effect, which coincides with the mid-childhood growth spurt. For females, no clear association between fluoride in drinking water during growth and osteosarcoma emerged.”
The Bassin study is consistent with other studies. The fluoride carcinoma risk appears age and cell cycle dependent.
DOUGLASS ADMITS SOME ASSOCIATION: Douglass publishes a letter in the
same issue in which he publicly discloses for the first time that he had found some associations between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in the (retrospective) dataset that Bassin analyzed.
DOUGLASS CAUTIONS AND PROMISE: Douglass states that he was unable to
replicate these findings in a new (prospective) dataset, and thus cautions readers from making any conclusions based on Bassin’s findings. Douglass notes, however, that he has yet to conduct an age-specific analysis on the prospective data. He notes though that he is planning on doing so. To quote:
“A parallel analysis of age-specific exposure to fluoride, especially during growth periods, is also being pursued by our study team in the second set of cases of our study. Accordingly, readers are cautioned not to generalize and over-interpret the results of the Bassin et al. paper and to await the publications from the full study, before making conclusions, and especially before influencing any related policy decisions.”
Note: As of April, 2015 Douglas, to our knowledge, has not published the agespecific analysis on the prospective data.
COMPLAINT AGAINST DOUGLASS: The Environmental Working Group filed a complaint of scientific misconduct with the National Institute of Health which launched an investigation run by Harvard University; however, EWG is reported to have not been contacted.
NO INTENT TO MISREPRESENT: Harvard issued a short, one page press release announcing that Douglass did not “intentionally misrepresent” the research.
To be continued:
 Bassin EB et al, Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2006;17:421-8
 Bassin EB, et al. 2006. Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes & Control 17(4):421-8. May.)
 Douglass CW, and Joshipura K. 2006. Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes & Control 17(4):481-82. May.
Lets look at some studies.
Fluoride exposure is systemic, potentially affecting all tissues. Evidence is mounting that age and “timing” along with dosage, host health, race, and synergistic chemicals are all significant.
Known Carcinogen: Pal (2014): Fluoride, a well-established environmental carcinogen, has been found to cause various neurodegenerative diseases in human. Sub-acute exposure to fluoride at a dose of 20mg/kgb.w./day for 30 days caused significant alteration in pro-oxidant/anti-oxidant status of brain tissue as reflected by perturbation of reduced glutathione content, increased lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, nitric oxide and free hydroxyl radical production and decreased activities of antioxidant enzymes. Decreased proteolytic and transaminase enzymes' activities, protein and nucleic acid contents and associated DNA damage were observed in the brain of fluoride intoxicated rats. The neurotransmitters dopamine (DA), norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin level was also significantly altered after fluoride exposure. Protective effect of resveratrol on fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative dysfunctions was evaluated. Resveratrol was found to inhibit changes in metabolic activities restoring antioxidant status, biogenic amine level and structural organization of the brain. Our findings indicated that resveratrol imparted antioxidative role in ameliorating fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative stress in different regions of the brain.
Known Carcinogen: McCully (2009) “. . . Depletion of thioretinaco ozonide from cellular membranes is suggested to underlie the carcinogenic and atherogenic effects of fluoride and other electrophilic carcinogens.”
Known carcinogen (increase incidence): Marigold (1969) explained that fluoride has a paradoxical action on cancer. Some of the most effective anti-cancer drugs have contained fluoride and yet other inorganic fluoride compounds are powerful carcinogens such as dimethylaminoazobenzene who’s cancer-producing ability is enhanced seven times as much as by substitution of fluoride with other halogens.
Known carcinogen (chronic exposure - shorter life span): Taylor (1954) carried out a total of 12 experiments involving 645 mice. The data indicated that drinking water containing as little as 1ppm of fluoride shortened the life span of cancer-prone mice by an average of 9%, regardless of whether they died of cancer or another disease. In contrast, 1953, Fleming36 transplanted sarcoma 37 into young adult mice and guinea pigs. For a few weeks, one group received 20 ppm NaF in drinking water and another 1,000 ppm intraperitoneally while controls received no fluoride. The fluoride treated animals lived longer, lost less weight and had tumors inhibited by fluoride. One striking difference between Taylor’s and Flemming’s studies is “time and dosage,” Taylor had chronic low dose exposure while Flemming had acute high dose.
Known carcinogenic: Taylor (1965) reported observations from 54 experiments, 991 mice bearing transplanted tumors and 58 experiments with 1817 eggs implanted with mouse cancer tissue. Sodium fluoride accelerated the growth of cancer tissue. Taylor’s work has been repeatedly confirmed. Note: Talyor’s first study was criticized because he did not control the fluoride in animal feed, probably CaF. His subsequent work did control for total fluoride exposure and the results were confirmed.
Known Carcinogen: Suzuki (1991) “We tested the induction of mutagenic effects by in vivo and in vitro bone marrow micronucleus tests. A significant increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was observed 24 H after intraperitoneal injection of sodium fluoride at a dose of 30 mg/kg body weight. In the in vitro micronucleus test, the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was increased significantly at concentrations of 2 and 4 MM. These results indicate that the micronucleus test may be useful in evaluating the cancer risk of sodium fluoride.”39
Known Carcinogen: Pati (1987) “Genotoxicity of Sodium fluoride was evaluated in mice in vivo with the help of different cytogenetic assays.
Known Carcinogen: Tazhibaev (1987) “The test animals were fed with low-grade food during 2-5 months under conditions of acute and chronic action of hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride induced by inhalation, that resulted in the pronounced impairment of the chromosomal apparatus of the bone marrow cells in the rats. A principal possibility has been established of modification of the hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride cytogenetic effect by the alimentary action. In particular, it has been found that the effect is significantly higher when the rats are fed with a low-grade ration than under conditions of balanced nutrition.”
NTP mutagenic: According to the National Toxicology Program “the preponderance of evidence” from laboratory “in vitro” studies indicate that fluoride is a mutagenic compound. Many substances which are mutagens, are also carcinogens. As is typical for in vitro studies, the concentrations of fluoride that have generally been tested were usually, but not always, higher (millimolar levels) than the concentrations found in human blood (micromolar levels). In Khalil (1995), the authors found a statistically significant mutagenic effect at a concentration of just 1 micromole (0.019 ppm). This is similar to blood fluoride concentrations among individuals living in fluoridated communities. More recent research has found effects at 24 uM (Zhang 2009) and 34 uM (Tiwari & Rao 2010).
The relevance of the in vitro findings are further amplified by the fact that there are certain “microenvironments” in the body, such as the bones (3,708 ppm Eble DM 1992 JPHD), teeth, kidney (50 fold increase over plasma, NRC 2006), bladder, and pineal gland (21,000 ppm, Luke 1997; 2001), where the cells can be exposed to fluoride levels many times higher than the fluoride levels found in the blood (between none detected and 0.01 ppm).
Bone mineral is regularly broken down by osteoclasts as part of the bone remodeling process, the fluoride sequestered in bones (and other tissues) may be periodically released, exposing bone cells to increased fluoride concentrations. This might help explain why fluoride has been associated, in both human and animal studies, with osteosarcoma (bone cancer). One in vitro study, for example, found that 10 to 19 ppm fluoride caused mutagenic effects in bone cells after 24 to 48 hours of exposure. (Mihashi 1996). According to the authors:
Known Carcinogen: “Significant increases in the frequencies of chromosome aberrations were induced in a dose- and treatment time-dependent fashion when NaF was administered to [rat vertebral bone] cells at 0.5 and 1.0 mM [=9.5 to 19 ppm] for 24 and 48 h. The results indicate that NaF is genotoxic to rat vertebrae, providing a possible mechanism for the vertebrae, as a target organ of NaF carcinogenesis.”
Known Genetic Damage: Humans and apes have been found to be more susceptible to fluoride-induced genetic damage than rodent cells. (Kishi 1993). Chromosome breaks occurred in human and ape cells at fluoride concentrations (19 to 114 ppm) that had no effects on rodent cells. (Note: Fluoride varnish is 22,600 ppm)
Known Mutagenic: 1990 NTP “In summary, sodium fluoride is mutagenic in cultured mammalian cells and produces transformation of Syrian hamster cells in vitro. The reports of in vivo cytogenetic studies are mixed, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured mammalian cells. These mutagenic and clastogenic effects in cultured cells are supported by positive effects in Drosophila germ cell tests that measure point mutations and chromosome breakage. In vivo tests in rodents for chromosome aberrations provide mixed results that cannot readily be resolved because of differences in protocols and insufficient detail in some study reports to allow a thorough analysis. The mechanism(s) by which these effects result from exposure to sodium fluoride is not known.”
Preponderance of Evidence: 2001 Bassin “The effects of fluoride as a mutagen, carcinogen, and antimutagen are inconsistent, but the preponderance of evidence in cultured mammalian cells indicate that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges.”
Capable: 1993 Environment Canada “Fluoride (as sodium fluoride) should be considered capable of inducing chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and sister-chromatid exchanges in vitro in mammalian cells, although the results from such studies have been inconsistent.”
Genotoxic: 1991 HHS “Genotoxicity studies are highly dependent on the methods used… Despite the apparently contradictory reports appearing in the published literature, fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in bacteria (Ames test). In some studies fluoride has been reported to induce gene mutations in both cultured rodent and human cells. Fluoride has also been reported to transform rodent cells in vitro. Although there is disagreement in the literature concerning the ability of fluoride to be a clastogen (induce chromosome aberrations) in cultured cells, it has been suggested that fluoride can cause chromosome aberrations in rodent and human cells. Fluoride induced primarily chromatid gaps and chromatid breaks, indicating that the cells are most responsive in the G stage of the cell cycle, i.e., after chromosome duplication in preparation for cell division. Negative results reported in some cytogenetic studies are likely the effect of inadequate test protocols…. Although the mechanism(s) by which these cellular effects result from exposure to fluoride is not known, a number of possible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the genetic activity observed. These mechanisms have been based on the observed reactions of fluoride in solution with divalent cations or necleotides, or the physiological and inhibition protein synthesis, or a result of the direct inhibition of DNA polymerase. Fluoride can react with divalent cations in the cell so as to affect enzyme activities that are necessary for DNA or RNA synthesis, or chromosome metabolism or maintenance; it may react directly with DNA as part of a complex; or it ca disrupt other cellular processes such as cell differentiation or energy metabolism.”
Airborne Fluoride: “Fluoride has displayed mutagenic activity in studies of vegetation, insects, and mammalian oocytes. There is a high correlation between carcinogenicity and mutagenicity of pollutants, and fluoride has been one of the major pollutants in several situations where a high incidence of respiratory cancer has been observed. For these reasons, the relation between airborne fluoride and incidence of lung cancer needs to be investigated.”
More to follow:
 Pal S, Sarkar C, Protective effect of resveratrol on fluoride induced alteration in protein and nucleic acid metabolism, DNA damage and biogenic amines in rat brain Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. 2014 Sep;38(2):684-99. doi: 10.1016/j.etap.2014.07.009. Epub 2014 Jul 23.
 McCully KS, Chemical pathology of homocysteine. IV. Excitotoxicity, oxidative stress, endothelial dysfunction, and inflammation., Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2009 Summer;39(3):219-32
 Marhold, J. and Matrka, M.: Ca=inogenicity and Oxidation of Fluoro- Derivatives of Dimethylaminoazobenzene. Fluoride 2:85, Apri11969.
 Taylor, A.: Sodium fluoride in Drinking Water of Mice. Dental Digest, 60:170, 1954.
 Fleming, H,S.: Effect of fluorides on the Tumors 37 After Trans- plantation to Selected Locations in Mice and Guinea Pigs. Journ. of Dent. Res. 32:646, October 1953
 Taylor, A.: Effect of Sodium fluoride on Tumor Growth. Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Med. 119:252-5, 1965.
 Pati PC, Bhunya SP. (1987). Genotoxic effect of an environmental pollutant, sodium fluoride, in mammalian in vivo test system. Caryologia 40:79-87.
 Tazhibaev ShS, et al. (1987). [Modifying effect of nutrition on the mutagenic activity of phosphorus and fluorine compounds.] Vopr Pitan. Jul-Aug;(4):63-6.
 Mihashi M, Tsutsui T. (1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture. Mutation Research 368(1):7-13.
 National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). biochemical responses of cells treated with fluoride. Sodium fluoride inhibits both protein and DNA synthesis in cultured mammalian cells. The inhibition of DNA synthesis may be a seco...Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
 Bassin EB. (2001). Association Between Fluoride in Drinking Water During Growth and Development and the Incidence of Ostosarcoma for Children and Adolescents. Doctoral Thesis, Harvard School of Dental Medicine. p. 15.
 Environment Canada. (1993). Inorganic Fluorides: Priority Substances List Assessment Report. Government of Canada, Ottawa.
 Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride. Washington, DC. p. 70. (There is also an abbreviated report)
Lets talk science rather concensus. Remember, the masses can be wrong. Marketing can change public opinion.
The next few posts will be just a touch on one aspect of fluoride, carcinogenicity.
The “biological plausibility” of a fluoride-osteosarcoma link (and other cancers) is widely acknowledged in the scientific literature. When the connection between a chemical and a cancer is biologically plausible, studies that detect an association between the two are taken more seriously.
Three lines of plausibility in a fluoride/cancer connection:
1 Ames 1976, reported about 90% of organic compounds that were found to be mutagenic are also carcinogenic.
2 Tissues such as bone, bladder, kidney, brain, are principal sites for fluoride accumulation in the body, and the rate of accumulation is increased during periods tissue turn over, such as for bone the development and osteoclastic osteoblastic activity.
3 Fluoride is a mitogen. For example, osteosarcoma is a cancer caused by an abnormal proliferation of the osteoblasts.
All tissues which come in contact with higher concentrations of fluoride should be considered for a fluoride cancer connection.
In short, fluoride’s ability to induce mutagenic damage in fluoride-rich environments coupled with its ability to stimulate proliferation of osteoblasts provides a compelling biological basis by which fluoride could cause, or contribute to cancer. The only relatively “static” tissue high in fluoride appears to be dentin. Cancer of the dentin or enamel is not reported.
 Ames, BN et al, Mutagens and carcinogens. Science, 194:132-133, 1976.
Next, lets look at a snipet of studies.
Thank you Dr. Haynie for your succinct response to Dr. Osmunson’s CWF causes cancer claims 09-04-2018 03:14 PM. He is still avoiding my request that he explain his earlier comments 08-27-2018 01:40 AM, redefining the Scientific Consensus as an “Endorsement Consensus”, claiming 08-19-2018 02:18 AM that “Endorsements are not science”, claiming 07-09-2018 09:09 PM that “Most endorsements are not backed by a good scientific review of all sides of the literature” and making accusations of the CDC, ADA and AAP that, “None reviewed the science. All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”
Dr. Osmunson – Let’s look at your statement 09-04-2018 02:04 PM, “Lets talk science rather consensus. Remember, the masses can be wrong. Marketing can change public opinion” just before you dumped over 16,000 words into the discussion in an apparent attempt to support your claim that drinking optimally fluoridated water is a significant risk factor for causing cancer. That was one of the most remarkable examples of Gish Gallop I have ever seen…
If you believe your interpretation of the “evidence” actually supports the conclusion that optimally fluoridated water is obviously and dangerously carcinogenic, why on earth are you presenting this devastating news and “evidence” on a public forum instead of demanding a meeting with members of the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Cancer Society (and other relevant expert organizations) to instruct them on your “correct way” to evaluate the evidence.
Following protocols that are even remotely scientific would first and foremost require presenting legitimate scientific evidence to the relevant experts and convincing them that your interpretations are legitimate. But that’s the whole issue with these anti-F opinions, isn’t it? Relevant experts have evaluated the evidence you just presented and have not accepted your anti-F conclusions.
In fact, the ACS states, “In 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the National Research Council, part of the National Academy of Sciences. … The Subcommittee concluded that none of the data demonstrated an association between fluoridated drinking water and cancer” and “A 1999 report by the CDC supported these findings. The CDC report concluded that studies to date have produced “no credible evidence” of an association between fluoridated drinking water and an increased risk for cancer” and “In 2011, researchers examined the possible relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in a new way. … The analysis showed no difference in bone fluoride levels between people with osteosarcoma and people in a control group who had other malignant bone tumors.” and “More recent population-based studies using cancer registry data found no evidence of an association between fluoride in drinking water and the risk of osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma.”
The CCS publically states, “Based on current evidence, CCS believes it is unlikely that adding fluoride to water raises the risk of cancer, including osteosarcoma, in humans. At the same time, we know that there are many benefits to water fluoridation, especially for people who have less access to dental care. We will continue to watch this area of research and update our information as we learn more.”
Does the fact that neither of these organizations supports your outlier interpretation of the cancer-related evidence mean that you extend your 07-09-2018 09:09 PM accusations of the CDC, ADA and AAP to the ACS and CCS?
That libelous claim reads in part, the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing.”, and “the credibility of those so called 'scientific' organizations has been seriously tarnished. They 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”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“.
So, do you believe members of the ACS and CCS are "the best in their fields", but they can’t get it right when evaluating the carcinogenic risks of community water fluoridation (CWF) - Really?
You still have not addressed my questions about the necessity of the scientific consensus to protect the public from rampant fear-mongering by anti-science activists (ASAs).
Actually, challenging the current Scientific Consensus (or Expert Consensus) with new, legitimate evidence is a critical element of the scientific method.
Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists:
Nor have you provided a rational explanation (besides claiming everyone who disagrees with you is a lemming) to explain why only a small group of outlier, alternative health organizations support the anti-F opinions – in contrast to all major science and health organizations (and their members) that either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not made public statements that CWF is a harmful public health measure.
Nor have you provided a logical alternative to replace accepting the scientific consensus when the public is evaluating complex, scientific conclusions. Unfortunately two of your claims are true, “Marketing can change public opinion”
Nor have you provided a logical alternative to replace accepting the scientific consensus when the public is evaluating complex, scientific conclusions. Unfortunately two of your claims are true, “Marketing can change public opinion” – ASAs simply throw out masses of fear-laced misinformation and misdirection and try to scare the public into trusting their conclusions, and because of that mistaken trust, “the masses can be wrong“, which reminds me of Kaa's attempt to hypnotize Mowgli into trusting him.
RandyJ asks BillO, "If you believe your interpretation of the “evidence” actually supports the conclusion that optimally fluoridated water is obviously and dangerously carcinogenic, why on earth are you presenting this devastating news and “evidence” on a public forum instead of demanding a meeting with members of the American Cancer Society, the Canadian Cancer Society (and other relevant expert organizations) to instruct them on your “correct way” to evaluate the evidence."
Response: Probably because it is easier to convince lay persons and a few conspiracy theorists who have graduated from the University of Google that controversy exists where there is no controversy, than it would be to convince knowledgeable people with legitimate scientific training.
“The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz (1995)
DavidF last comment, per usual, is not only not factual but also uses a mix of logical fallacies in order to achieve his goal of burrying useful information under a mountain of rhetoric.
The purpose of this forum thread started in February 2015 that had 60 supportive comments from about 20 seniors prior to the troll invasion is to share personal testimony and advocate for a ban on fluoridation. The fluoride 'rapid response' team that overhelmed the thread in June 2018 has disrupted the conversation with flights into every possible distraction, one of which was arguing over environmental harm (another about Einstein's theories). RossF responded to the environmental issue first with an appropriate abstract documenting that yes, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Services knew in 1980s that salmon are harmed at fluoride concentrations of 0.5 ppm.
DavidF's reply that attacked RossF misrepresented a reply that provided 23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s) which included one from a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation. The lawyer reported that those client medical records struck a chord in him regarding his own health issues. In addition to the 1993 affadavits from doctors, scientists and lawyers that attested to human harm from fluoridation, this forum includes personal testimony of harm which David ignores, including mine.
But as to environmental harm from fluoridation which at least is relevant if a little off topic, since I can't find my earlier comment with a list of a dozen environmental citations on harm cause plants & animals due to fluoridation waste water, here they are again (I have more):
- Mullenix PJ. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014 Apr-Jun;20(2):157-66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
- Camargo, J.A. 2003. Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review. Chemosphere, 50:251-264. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12656244
- Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU. https://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/pathogen-articles/nonpathogenic-phenomena/fluorine-toxicity-pl...
- Karina Caballero-Gallardo, Jesus Olivero-Verbel and Jennifer L. Freeman. (2016) Toxicogenomics to Evaluate Endocrine Disrupting Effects of Environmental Chemicals Using the Zebrafish Model. Current Genomics. 17:6. 515-527.
- Jianjie C Wenjuan X, Jinling C, Jie S, Ruhui J, Meiyan L. Fluoride caused thyroid endocrine disruption in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicology. 2016 Feb;171:48-58.
- Huan Zuo. Liang Chen. Ming Kong. et al. Toxic effects of fluoride on organisms. Life Sciences. Volume 198, 1 April 2018, Pages 18-24.
- AW Burgstahler, RF Freeman, PN Jacobs. Toxic effects of silicofluoridated water in chinchillas, caimans, alligators, and rats held in captivity. Research report. Fluoride 41(1)83–88 January-March 2008. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/411/files/FJ2008_v41_n1_p083-088.pdf
- Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714
- Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. Included: http://fluoridation.com/enviro.htm
- Kausik M and Sumit N. Fluoride Contamination on Aquatic organisms and human body at Purulia and Bankura District of West Bengal, India. Bull. Env. Pharmacology. Life Sci., Vol 4  June 2015: 112-114. http://bepls.com/june2015bepls/18.pdf
- Sauerheber R. Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2013:439490. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/
- Sauerheber R. Disabled Horses: Racehorse Breakdown and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles. Fluoride 46(4)170–179 October-December 2013. http://www.academia.edu/6508850
Carry Anne, your quote: “The purpose of this forum thread started in February 2015 that had 60 supportive comments from about 20 seniors”
Response: I didn’t get the memo. Please show me where the rules for this thread are written so I can review them. All I see is a title indicating that you are “Demanding” the AARP do something for you. Should I be demanding something also? Is that what this is about?
Ok, Carry Anne, since you want to talk about this again, There is not one documented case of any human being who has ever suffered harm because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.
Your quote: “DavidF's reply that attacked RossF misrepresented a reply that provided 23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s) which included one from a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation. The lawyer reported that those client medical records struck a chord in him regarding his own health issues.”
When I click on “a reply,” it takes me to kf’s comment which says: “The sworn testimony of George W. Kell, Esq. (pg58) includes both his personal medical history and documents having received medical records from the doctor of his client, Mr. Riggins.”
And here is the link that KF provided: https://firewaterfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/affidavits-safe-water-assn_plaintiff-vs-fond-du-la...
Let’s look at Page 58 and see if it says what you say it says. Again, this is what you said that it says: “a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation.”
Really? Here’s what the Affidavit actually says: “he brought in a report from a doctor which stated that persons who had previously experienced nephritis or hepatitis were known to be more susceptible to chronic fluoride poisoning.” That’s all it says. There are no personal medical records which are ever mentioned. And this report was from 1968!! That was the science of the time.
There is no mention of “documented medical records.” I didn’t misrepresent anything. You, in your attempt to demand that the AARP does what you want them to do, are lying about what the Affidavit says.
Moreover your quote: "23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s)"
Response: The incident we are discussing happened in 1968. From the Affidavit: "8.) In the early part of 1968 a Mr. Riggins, alleging total disability, consulted me, "
Moreover, George Kell, the guy who is giving the testimony didn’t suffer any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. He himself says that the water he drank had several times the amount of fluoride in it than optimally fluoridated water. Moreover, he provided no documentation attributing any of his problems to fluoride, water, fluoridated water, or anything for that matter. He diagnosed himself!!
You also say that I ignore personal stories of harm, including yours. That’s because you provide no documentation of anything either. You could be a simple hypochondriac, you could be suffering from chlorine sickness, you could be suffering from any number of things. Who knows. The bottom line is that you diagnosed yourself, and you are not a doctor, and there is no documentation of anything you say.
Question: How many doctors have you seen, given them your “fluoridated water” hypothesis, had them tell you that you were wrong, before you just decided to go with your own non-professional diagnosis?
You say that fluoridated water inflames your rashes when you bathe. Really? Have you ever walked in the ocean on the beach, since the ocean has twice the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water. Were your rashes inflamed by that water?
By the way, none of the links to studies that you provided shows that salmon are harmed by cities who fluoridate their water and discharge treated effluent into rivers. All irrelevant to the discussion, unless you are trying that age-old tactic of gish galloping.
CarryAnne – You still have not answered the questions I asked you on 08-26-2018 & 08-30-2018 or adequately addressed my three observations on 08-21-2018 of how you continually and disingenuously manipulate and misrepresent information. You are certainly better at not answering questions than you are answering them.
These are shortened questions – my original questions were posted on 08-26-2018 05:47 PM, and again on 08-30-2018 04:12 PM after your failure to address them.
I find it remarkable that you seem to believe a public. anti-science thread with the sole stated purposes, “to share personal testimony [anecdotal observations] and advocate for a ban on fluoridation”, by disseminating flawed interpretations of the scientific evidence would not be challenged by individuals who actually care about accurate evaluations and presentations of scientific evidence.
It is my obligation as a scientist to challenge false, dangerous, anti-science propaganda.
Back to the questions you are avoiding, starting with your inability to understand various logical fallacies, yet you have apparently mastered employing them:
Explain how my asking you a series of questions designed to examine your publically posted statements and positions and my requests for clarifications can, in any way, be defined as “A straw man fallacy” where “statements and positions are misrepresented by opponents” (08-30-2018 07:46 AM)? I actually requested that you explain more clearly your statements and positions so I don’t misrepresent them. Specifically:
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 – and the related sub-questions posted previously.
Q2) Do you accept as true Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished. They 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”? And do you believe that it applies it to the other 100+ organizations that do not publically denounce fluoridation and their hundreds of thousands of representatives?
Q3) 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”? Or do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any risks?
Q4A) You still have not addressed my 08-21-2018 01:00 PM correction to your blatant misrepresentation of the precautionary principle.
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.” Oh, that’s right – you have listed six alternative health organizations…
Q5) Did you actually describe in your comments (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as (corrected version) -- “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths" Note: I corrected my original use of the term greedy. If I am still misrepresenting your statements, please explain what you actually meant by those comments.
Update: It is interesting to observe that in your “correction” comment 08-30-2018 11:03 AM, you don’t reference or highlight your 08-22-2018 06:59 comment “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA & EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt.”
Instead you reference your 08-19-2018 01:05 PM post in which you only accuse some dentists who “intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [financial benefit]” and continue with “Most 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.”
Q6) Do you also extend your description of fluoridation supporters in Q5 to all 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?
Q7) Another of my questions (08-21-2018 09:36 PM) I don’t remember you answering: ”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 mass poisoning because toxic chemicals are used and there may be health risks from overexposure to disinfection byproducts?”
You are still dodging my questions and providing additional false &/or irrelevant comments, opinions and conclusions.
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. Or, if you believe the scientific consensus on fluoridation is irrelevant, you have not explained what your alternative would be. It appears your alternative is to do whatever it takes to convince the public to blindly trust and accept fear-based, minority, outlier opinions.
Also, you have not provided a rational explanation of why you would trust or accept any claims made by any health professionals who supported or did not denounce CWF:
- If, as Dr. Osmunson’s apparently believes, those professionals who accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective “are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.“
- And, as you apparently believe, they are “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"
Q8 - New) Are all these science and health professionals selectively lemmings, willfully blind, greedy (sorry, [affected by] financial benefit), corrupt, etc., only when it comes to their understanding of the science related to fluoridation?
~> If so, how would Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation” be even remotely justifiable?
As noted elsewhere, the IAOMT Position Paper Against Fluoride Use with “over 500 citations”, your lists of studies and articles FOs have interpreted as supporting their cause, dozens of opinions from other FOs, and what you accept as “inconsistencies between policy & scientific data” are completely irrelevant to any scientific discussion of the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.
All the tactics of anti-science activists (ASAs) are nothing more than marketing strategies designed and implemented to try and scare the public (most of who are not trained and experienced in science or medicine) into believing the anti-F arguments and interpretations of the evidence have some legitimate credibility. If the interpretation of “evidence” by anti-F, ASAs was even remotely legitimate and credible, FOs would have been able to change the scientific consensus in discussions with relevant experts and there would be no need to try and scam the public.
The Christian thing to do is to defend the rights of the needy, not to find fault and judge them.
So my opposition to fluoridating people is an attempt to defend kids, elderly, and in particular the poor who can't afford to buy clean bottled water that has no artificially added fluoride materials.
It is pretty clear to me.
Richard Sauerheber – One of your claims is actually partly correct (09-02-2018 04:16 PM), "The Christian [or any honorable] thing to do is to defend the rights of the needy, not to find fault and judge them." So my support for community water fluoridation is an attempt to defend kids, elderly, and in particular the poor based on the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.
It is pretty clear to me.
For the record, fluoridation opponents, utilize reckless, anti-science, paranoid tactics to demand that a safe, effective public health measure which reduces dental decay in communities be abandoned. They appear to believe there are no negative consequences to their actions. Scientific studies from over 70 years, however, clearly show that dental decay rates in low-fluoride areas are higher than in communities with optimal levels of fluoride ions – particularly among those with lower, socioeconomic backgrounds.
Associations of Community Water Fluoridation with Caries Prevalence and Oral Health Inequality in Children: (2017, Kim, et al.) “These results suggest that CWF programmes are effective in the prevention of caries on permanent teeth and can reduce oral health inequalities among children. The implementation of CWF programmes should be sustained to overcome oral health inequalities due to socio-economic factors and improve children's overall oral health.”
Hospitalizations for dental infections: optimally versus nonoptimally fluoridated areas in Israel. (Klivitsky, et al., 2015) “These results clearly indicate that there is an association between adequacy of water fluoridation and hospitalization due to dental infections among children and adolescents. This effect is more prominent in populations of lower socioeconomic status.”
Comparative effectiveness of water and salt community-based fluoridation methods in preventing dental caries among schoolchildren: (2016, Fabruccini A, et al.) “CONCLUSION: Fluoridated water appears to provide a better protective effect against dental caries than fluoridated household salt among schoolchildren from developing countries.”
The benefits of water fluoridation across areas of differing socio‐economic status: (2008, Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health) “The results confirm that there is strong evidence of the effectiveness of water fluoridation across SES groups, even when using an area‐based measure of SES split into 10 categories of disadvantage. Both area‐based SES and the concentration of fluoride in the tap water where children live were related to child oral health outcomes.”
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series: (2013, Kamel, et al.) “Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.”
The costs and benefits of water fluoridation in NZ: (Moore, et al.) “Community water fluoridation remains highly cost-effective for all but very small communities. The health benefits-while (on average) small per person-add up to a substantial reduction in the national disease burden across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups.”
Water Fluoridation: Health Monitoring Report for England, 2018: "Children from all areas benefited from fluoridation, but children from relatively deprived areas benefited the most. PHE results do not provide convincing evidence of higher rates of hip fracture, Down’s syndrome, kidney stones, bladder cancer, or osteosarcoma due to fluoridation."
Effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries across adult age groups: (2017, Do, et al.) “Access to FW was associated with caries experience in Australian adults. The magnitude of associations varied between age groups, dependent on the natural history of caries and its measurement by DMFS.”
The differences in healthcare utilization for dental caries based on the implementation of water fluoridation in South Korea: (2016, Cho MS, et al.) “The implementation of water fluoridation programs and these periods are associated with reducing the utilization of dental health care. Considering these positive impacts, healthcare professionals must consider preventive strategies for activating water fluoridation programs...”
A 4-year assessment of a new water-fluoridation scheme in New South Wales, Australia: (2015, Blinkhorn AS, et al.) “Fluoridation of public water supplies in Gosford and Wyong offers young children better dental health than those children who do not have access to this public health measure.”
Community water fluoridation and health outcomes in England: (2015, Young, et al.) “This study uses the comprehensive data sets available in England to provide reassurance that fluoridation is a safe and highly effective public health measure to reduce dental decay. Although lower rates of certain nondental outcomes were found in fluoridated areas, the ecological, observational design prohibits any conclusions being drawn regarding a protective role of fluoridation.”
Summary of: An alternative marker for the effectiveness of water fluoridation: hospital extraction rates for dental decay, a two-region study: (2014, Chestnutt, G.) “After ranking by IMD, DSRs of hospital admissions for the extraction of decayed or pulpally/periapically involved teeth is lower in areas with a fluoridated water supply.”
Water fluoridation in the Blue Mountains reduces risk of tooth decay: (2009. Evans, et al.) “Tooth decay reduction observed in the Blue Mountains corresponds to high rates reported elsewhere and demonstrates the substantial benefits of water fluoridation.”
Community water fluoridation and health outcomes in England: a cross-sectional study: (Young, Et al., 2015) “This study uses the comprehensive data sets available in England to provide reassurance that fluoridation is a safe and highly effective public health measure to reduce dental decay.”
On fluoride and salmon, the abstract of a paper in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 9:154-162, 1989, ‘Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982—1986’ by David Damkaer and Dougas Dey of the National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Center reads:
Abstract.—There is evidence that fluoride from an aluminium plant near John Day Dam had a significant negative effect on passage time and survival of adult Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. at the dam. In 1982, fluoride concentrations of 0.3-0.5 mg/L were recorded at the dam. These concentrations were probably representative of fluoride levels at the dam in earlier years as well, based on the aluminium plant's fluoride discharge records since 1971. From 1980 to 1982, the time (>150 h) required for upstream migrants to pass John Day Dam and the mortality (>50%) of migrants between Bonneville and McNary dams (below and above John Day Dam) were unacceptably high. Bioassay experiments on the behaviour of upstream migrating adult salmon suggested that fluoride concentrations of about 0.5 mg/L would adversely affect migration. Subsequent experiments suggested that 0.2 mg F/L was at or below the threshold for fluoride sensitivity of chinook salmon O. tshawytscha and below the threshold for fluoride sensitivity of coho salmon O. kisutch. Beginning in 1983 and continuing through 1986, fluoride discharges from the aluminium plant were greatly reduced and there was a corresponding drop in fluoride concentrations in the river. Concurrently, fish passage delays and inter-dam losses of adult salmon decreased to acceptable levels (28 h and <5%, respectively).
RossF, from the Abstract you presented:
"There is evidence that fluoride from an aluminium plant near John Day Dam had a significant negative effect on passage time and survival of adult Pacific salmon Oncorhynchus spp. at the dam."
These higher concentrations of discharged fluoride are irrelevant to community water fluoridation. It's kind of like saying that because pressurized, concentrated levels of oxygen can cause oxygen toxicity, therefore breathing air with the optimal level of oxygen is dangerous and somehow relevant to "anti-oxygen" arguments.
Limnologist Joe Carroll has provided calculations of the effect of community water fluoridation into the Columbia River in Oregon. This would be relevant to water fluoridation. You may review his calculations here: https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Water-Expert-Letter-Fish-Impact-2005.pdf
But I thank you for your irrelevant comment.
DavidF references an April 2005 letter from Joe Carroll and highlights “…we have numerous supported and documented examples that demonstrate the excellent health value in community drinking water fluoridation . . . “.
A year from that Carroll letter the major National Research Council report ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards’ (2006) provided evidence that endocrine systems and thyroid functions are impaired at exposure levels to fluoride below the consumption levels expected from drinking what is described as optimally fluoridated water.
NRC (2006) also says that kidney patients and diabetics are susceptible subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides as low as 1ppm concentration.
The U.S. National Kidney Foundation says that kidney patients should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposures.
NRC (2006) also states that fluorides accumulate over time in the pineal gland but at the time of the report, whether fluoride exposure causes decreased nocturnal melatonin production or altered circadian rhythm of melatonin production in humans had not been investigated.
As a calcifying tissue that is exposed to a high volume of blood flow, the pineal gland is a major target for fluoride accumulation in humans with the calcified parts of the pineal gland containing the highest fluoride concentrations in the human body - higher than either bone or teeth.
The 2006 report did, however, state that fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans.
Grandjean and Landrigan in their paper ‘Neurobehavioural eﬀects of developmental toxicity’ in the March 2014 issue of the The Lancet stated that epidemiological studies since 2006 had identified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant i.e. a chemical that can injure the developing brain. They warned that untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development and that chemicals in existing use, like fluoride, and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
Choi et al. in their Environmental Health Perspectives paper ‘Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ showed results that supported the possibility of an adverse effect of fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment and that future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure adn neurobehavioral performance.
A recent study, Bashash et al. ‘Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico’ published last September in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, by a team of investigators at the University of Toronto, McGill, the Harvard School of Public Health, and other institutions found an association between prenatal exposure to fluoride and cognitive development disorders in children.
In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and non-pregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 years.
The study’s findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforce the need for additional research on potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children, and to ensure that the benefits of population-level fluoride supplementation outweigh any potential risks.
The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientiﬁc near-certainty about its safety. The burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it.
The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of firm evidence and the incompleteness of scientiﬁc knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society.
AARP members will be interested to know that the independent Cochrane Collaboration, which provides high-quality information informing decisions on health issues, found that searching for ‘before and after’ studies did not ﬁnd any on the beneﬁts of ﬂuoridated water for adults.
Fluoridation of community water fluoridation is well outdated. There are safer, more effective and cheaper ways of implementing sound community oral health programmes.
Thanks Ross. This is a great example of what they call “Gish Galloping.” You had originally brought up an incident about an aluminum plant which had harmed the environment with discharge into a river. You saw the word “Fluoride” and therefore, in your mind, it must be a valid argument against Community Water Fluoridation, and you presented it as such.
After I pointed out that this factual incident was completely irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water, rather than attempt to defend your comment, you simply move on to a bunch of other arguments which also have the word “Fluoride” in them.
Ok, the 2006 NRC. There is nothing in that report which says drinking optimally fluoridated water is harmful to anyone. If there is, I’d like to see it. (It’s nice to say stuff, but it’s better when you can actually prove it.)
To the contrary. Dr. John Doull was the Chair of that committee. This is his quote: “"I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level." https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Doull-Email-on-CWF-March-2013.pdf
He was asked about it, and that’s what he said. So, again, please show me where, in the 2006 NRC, that committee agreed with anything you just said. Just because it may have appeared in some junk literature doesn’t mean the NRC agreed with it.
You bring up Grandjean & Choi and “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Question: Do you even know what that was, or are you just parroting anti-CWF propaganda that you read somewhere?
What we are talking about here is a Review of 27 non-peer-reviewed papers that came from Central Asia & China, Mongolia, Iran, etc. In China, atmospheric fluoride levels are as much as 100 times higher than they are in the U.S. In other places in Asia, fluoride levels in water are higher than 33 times the optimal level. In other words, we are talking about what might happen from high levels of environmental fluoride exposure.
But you saw the word “Fluoride,” therefore, somehow this is relevant to Community Water Fluoridation.
Anna Choi herself said, “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.,” the researchers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Eagle. https://www.kansas.com/news/article1098857.html
And you brought up a study from Mexico, where, again, Community Water Fluoridation is not practiced.
And you bring up the “Precautionary Principle” (which you have parroted perfectly. You say, “The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientiﬁc near-certainty about its safety.”
Ok, in that case all transportation should end immediately, since millions more people are harmed and killed from automobiles & air travel than have ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. . there is harm to the global environment from mass transportation. Or are you going to be hypocritical about this & say, ‘No, I need my car.’
You also say, “The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of firm evidence and the incompleteness of scientiﬁc knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society.”
I don’t know what kind of “firm evidence” you are asking for. Since hundreds of millions of people drink this stuff every day, they have been for over 70 years now, and there has never been one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed in any way from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.
There has never been one other study which has looked at so many people over so great a time span. So, just what kind of "firm evidence" are you looking for?
I asked another writer on this AARP webpage for even one documented example of harm, and the best she could come up with was a sworn affidavit from 1968 in which a lawyer diagnosed himself because one of his clients, who also diagnosed himself, wanted to sue the EPA.
But again, I thank you for all of your irrelevant comments and I look forward to the next batch of gish galloping from you.
I did not say I hated lawsuits. I said my folks didn't believe that is the way to settle things but many people do and that is their right.
James Deal is not t a criminal. So answering his questions is not wrong.
Sorry to burst your bubble but I find James to be intelligent and very good at organic gardening and he believes we need to stop putting wastewater into our rivers and other things I also believe in.
Again this has nothing to do with the holocaust.
My credentials from UCSD I cannot change so I don't see the problem. The chemistry department told me I can publish what I want under the UCSD banner which acknowledges where I was taught, both undergrad and grad degrees and the school of medicine.
I've published math articles and physics articles (and on fluoride toxicology while collaborating with Dr. Benson there)
. I am classified staff at Palomar College and am a private group teacher. Unpublished letters I write list UCSD as where my degrees are from. So?
Quote from Dr. S. who said attorney James Deal, "is very good at organic gardening and believes we need to stop putting wastewater into our rivers and other things I also believe in."
Sorry, Richard, I can't seem to find the Organic Gardening section on his Class Action lawsuit website. The page dedicated strictly to you is easy enough to find . . but organic gardening?
Your quote: "My credentials from UCSD I cannot change so I don't see the problem. The chemistry department told me I can publish what I want under the UCSD banner which acknowledges where I was taught,"
Hmm, interesting. So when I look at this paper written by you, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract
and I click on "Author Information," right below your name it says, "Department of Chemistry, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA"
To be clear, you aren't actually employed by the UCSD are you. They don't actually give you money for anything, do they. You don't actually work in the Chemistry Department at UCSD, do you. They don't publish your stuff. Is that all correct?
You just graduated from there.
This is quite unique, isn't it. Again, can you provide any example of any other scholar who lists his Alma Mater under scholarly works as though he is somehow affiliated with that institution?
Here is what I mean by that. Carl Sagan attended the University of Chicago. But he worked, he became a Full Professor, at Cornell University in 1970. So, when we look at Dr. Sagan's work during the time he worked at Cornell, for some odd reason, he doesn't cite the U of C as his affiliation. He, unlike what you do, cited Cornell, the place where he was employed, the place that funded the research and published his material. For example: https://www.mottebooks.com/pages/books/17372/carl-sagan/an-analysis-of-worlds-in-collision-crsr-621
That's kind of the norm. So again, can you cite any scholar who does what you do? Cites his alama mater on his scholarly works as though he were doing the work for that institution?
“In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2010)
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)
Fluoridation was conceived as a human experiment in the 1940s. It has never been proven efficacious, effective or safe. Yet, in spite of dozens of human studies and hundreds of laboratory experiments documenting low dose harm to vulnerable populations which include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and any with chronic illness like kidney, thyroid, autoimmune or endocrine diseases, fluordidationists insist 'we need more study' before stopping this fluoridation experiment - even when the studies document neurotoxic harm to babies in the womb (Bashash et al. 2017; Thomas et al. 2018)
- Fluoridation is a human rights violation. It is a bioethical wrong that denies individual medical consent and causes harms to millions of vulnerable consumers which is the exact reason why AARP should write a resolution in opposition to fluoridation policy
DavidF insultingly uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps as a metaphor in a attack of Dr. Sauerheber's response to DavidF's earlier taunt. Dr. Sauerheber said that as a scientist, he focuses on answering questions rather than on lawsuits - that faulty analogy is beyond the pale,
Carry Anne, thank you for your repetetive and exhaustive quotes. They never get old do they. And in only 34 minutes you managed to catch my comment and write all that. Impressive. You must sit on this site like a hen sitting on eggs. More power to you in your attempt to "Demand" that the AARP adapt your fringe position.
"DavidF insultingly uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps as a metaphor in a attack of Dr. Sauerheber's response to DavidF's earlier taunt. Dr. Sauerheber said that as a scientist, he focuses on answering questions rather than on lawsuits - that faulty analogy is beyond the pale, even for DavidF and his team of fluoride-trolls."
Response: I'll answer that. Aside from your inability to read ("uses Josef Mengele's claim that as a scientist he wasn't responsible for the horrific twin experiments he conducted in Nazi concentration camps" - Where did I say that?) Dr. Sauerheber said, before he edited it, (and the AARP moderator can look at his edits) that he learned the ethics of not suing people from his parents. He basically said that his aversion to lawsuits was part of his value system. Yet I see him all over "Fluoride Class Action," a website dedicated to lawsuits.
This tells me that he, as a self-proclaimed scientist, doesn't care about the ethics of those with whom he aligns himself. He's just there to answer questions at their bidding, even though it might violate his value system.
So, if he doesn't care about the ethics of those with whom he aligns himself, he can align himself with anybody, as long as they ask the questions that he "is expected to answer."
He says he hates lawsuits, but he is posted all over a class action lawsuit webpage. I am opposed to the Nazi Party, and I would never allow anything I have written to be used by them. But apparantly he would. He said, "Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers.”
Now, Carry Anne, your defense of this guy, who falsely claims affiliation with a university simply because he graduated from there, and who doesn't care about the ethics of those who use his work, says more about you and your desperation to convince the AARP to align themselves with your fringe, scare-mongering position than it does about those so-called "fluoride-trolls" who see you for what you are and call you out for what you are.
The oxygen levels in the; Colorado River downstream of Laughlin that discharges sterilized city wastewater directly into the river are substantially lower because of the discharges. But the EPA ruled that since there is no clear level at which a minimum has been set that whatever the level measures at the Mexico border, that is the level that the EPA will recognize as the allowed level.
This twisted thinhking course does not consider the role oxygen deficiency plays in controlling the flora and fauna in the river. My complaints to the Colorado River Board were overturned because an agreeemnt withLaughlin had already been made before I found the emissions were accumulaitng soap suds along the banks below the discharge pipe. So studying a situation and describing the truth don't usually make a hill of beans difference to political systems that are already pre-decided. Laughlin continues to discharge into the river even though water skiing is dead south of the pipe, and Sacramento continues to discharge fluoridated waste water regardless of the fact that salmon are highly sensitive to fluoride. Whatever the oxygen levels have been in the river, fluoride waste on top of that has its own contribution to the poor health of the river.
RS: “I don't work for James Deal and never have, so the extrapolations you claim are not correct.”
And: “My interaction with Deal is the same as my interaction with this AARP site and with anyone else who asks me for information. Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers.”
Response: I never said you did work for him. But you certainly contribute to his Fluoride Class Action website. And for somebody who says he is fundamentally opposed to lawsuits, I find this very strange.
Let me try to provide an example to illustrate what I am saying. Josef Mengele was a scientist who did research on twins. He was, as you said, “supposed to and are expected to answer questions.” He had no problem supplying those answers to the people for whom he worked.
You say you are fundamentally opposed to lawsuits, but you contribute to the Class Action website. That’s fine. You are saying that as a scientist you simply answer questions, post papers on his website, even papers about Relativity, because you don’t care about his ethics, you are simply answering questions. If that’s the case, you wouldn’t have minded working alongside Dr. Mengele, because you don’t care about politics or ethics, or who uses your work, or for what purpose.
I think you aren’t fundamentally opposed to lawsuits. Either that or you’re one of the biggest hypocrites I’ve ever encountered. How much money did you say Deal has collected from gullible clients that you spend your time frightening? And how many lawsuits has he won for them?
RS: “Also I don't teach at UCSD and only am afifliated with the campus now through the alumni association.”
Response: They don’t pay you anything, do they. You offer tutorial services, but you are not listed with the Office of Academic Support and Instructional Services.
But you are affiliated with them because you graduated from UCSD. In that case, I must be affiliated with Central Michigan University, because I graduated from there. Am I also affiliated with my high school? I’ve never heard of a scholar listing as an affiliation a university from which he graduated, have you? If so, please provide an example of one. Does UCSD know that you claim to be affiliated with them on your scholarly work?
RS: “So I have spent most of my free time the last 11 years petitioning the FDA to ban fluoridation for the country. The peitition is still under review (submitted 2011). The Agency now is divided on whether they should ban it or simply leave it as is . . “
Response: That is a complete lie. As you know, the FDA has no jurisdiction over water fluoridation, other than fluoridated bottled water. As you also know, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was agreed upon between the EPA & the FDA in 1979 which placed water fluoridation under the jurisdiction of the EPA.
You are digging yourself in deeper and deeper.
RS: “The oxygen levels in the; Colorado River downstream of Laughlin that discharges sterilized city wastewater directly into the river are substantially lower because of the discharges.”
Response: Then doesn’t it make sense that oxygen levels downstream of the Sacramento discharge point would also be lowered? And wouldn’t this also affect salmon returns, since salmon & trout require high levels of dissolved oxygen? But you say you have looked at all factors and it must be fluoride . . . Ah, but then you can’t frighten people into giving money to a lawyer who says he will sue BOD loading into rivers, can you.
I don't work for James Deal and never have, so the extrapolations you claim are not correct. Also I don't teach at UCSD and only am afifliated with the campus now through the alumni association. My direct collaborative work with Dr. Benson at UCSD ended when he passed away last year. I teach at Palomar and have students who are swamped with work. Interest and desire are far different than actually carrying out a project especially when the racehorse 7 year study that was published has not caused the city of L.A. to even consider halting fluoridation. A city mayor in Australia who supports fluoridation of people was given the study and remarked that "we don't have horses in our town so who cares?"
This is not "defeatist" as earlier claimed. It is simplly pragmatic. The reasons to halt fluoridation that are proven without doubt are already compelling and need to be described. We don't need more proof of harm for fluoridation promoters to ignore.
My interaction with Deal is the same as my interaction with this AARP site and with anyone else who asks me for information. Scientists are supposed to and are expected to answer questions and that is what I have done for Deal and many others who seek to find answers.
One impact that was successful (which is very rare in the fluoridation industry) was to place the racehorse artricle on file at the Rancho Santa Fe Water District since this town has a horse population as high as the population of people. They know how to take care of horses there. The District officials told me they have no interest in fluoridation because most all their customers own horses. Since this city operates the water treatment plant in the region, this spares from fluoridation all cities downline including Fairbanks Ranch, Solana Beach, Cardiff, old Encinitas, and Leucadia. Furthermore, one of my chemisry student's father is the chief breeder of horses for Los Alamitos. When he read the paper the word got out to the racing office at the track and soon after track officials halted purchasing L.A. city fluoridaed water and they only rely on well water.
But victories like this are otherwise relatively nonexistent. So I have spent most of my free time the last 11 years petitioning the FDA to ban fluoridation for the country. The peitition is still under review (submitted 2011). The Agency now is divided on whether they should ban it or simply leave it as is where fluoride infusions were already ruled as being an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. The FDA stands by that ruling, so getting the Agency to go farther than that is difficult (and certainly a time-stealing endeavor).
I don't believe in lawsuits and suing people. I was taught that by my parents. I also don't own an oximeter or a boat. So you are probably talking to the wrong person.
With the avocado leaf blight issue, saline is the chief known cause and there is no doubt the sodium from caustic soda used in fluoridation elevated the level above tolerable limits. There was no lawsuit against the city. It was proof that was undeniable and the conscience of city hall that led to an RO pipe dedicated without sodium and fluoride for the ranchers.
My deduction on salmon recognizes drought and other causes of salmon effects before fluoridation of course, but also that fluoride is one of the most potent causes because the fish only lay eggs in water that chemically matches that where they themselves were spawned. So after the drought effects subsided and returns remain depressed anyway, fluoridation is the chief suspect.
The real question is why are city councils so easily convinced that fluoridation does no harm when it does harm bones, and yet also that it somehow hardens enamel, already the hardest substance in man when fuoride is absent from it? Propaganda is a dangerous thing.
You say, "My deduction on salmon recognizes drought and other causes of salmon effects before fluoridation of course, but also that fluoride is one of the most potent causes because the fish only lay eggs in water that chemically matches that where they themselves were spawned."
Response: Great. What's the dissolved oxygen level in that effluent, and what kind of BOD are they loading into that river? Has anyone ever sampled for the new and emerging contaminant PFAS? That would certainly have an effect on the chemical makeup of any waterway.
Richard, I had asked the question: "Your hypothesis does nothing beyond supporting an agenda that helps Natural/Alternative Health people sell stuff, and Class Action Lawyers stir up potential clients for frivolous lawsuits. Would you know anything about that?"
You responded by saying, "I don't believe in lawsuits and suing people. I was taught that by my parents."
Fair enough. But it's no secret, and you've never made a secret of the fact, that you've done work for an attorney who runs a website called "Fluoride Class Action." In fact, there's an entire page dedicated just to you https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/category/dr-sauerheber . I mean, this is no secret. This information is out there in the public domain.
And this begs the question, how is it that someone whose very values are against the idea of lawsuits, has an entire section dedicated to him, for the entire world to see, on a website dedicated to a class action lawsuit against water fluoridation?
By the way, has attorney James Deal actually won any lawsuits against anyone because of water fluoridation, or is he simply in the business of collecting money from potential clients?
These are just questions. I find it curious. Fluoride Class Action isn't your website. You just contribute to it.
You also said, "I also don't own an oximeter or a boat. So you are probably talking to the wrong person."
Surely the University of California in San Diego has a boat and an D.O. probe. The chemistry department, where you claim affiliation, surely has student interns just waiting for something to measure. If I were in your position with a theory, but no empirical evidence to support it, I'd round up some students in a heartbeat, get some measurements and make some calculations.
Is there any reason why you couldn't do that?
Ever since fluoridation started in the Sacramneto main channel where the discharge pipe dumps the fluoridated wastewater, salmon runs notice average about only 10,000. This is a 90% collapse compared to the former 100,000 before fluoridaiton and the infamous drought ( believed to be the cause of the decimation in the 2007-9 area). But the drought is long over. Only fluoridation remains to this date, and the salmon returns remain dismally below normal still also.
These data were not available when I deduced that fluoridation discharges were apparently affecting salmon in 2010 when the entire fishing industry collapsed on the river.
Yes the tributaries appear to have gained a little, but the tributaries are not and never have been fluoridated. The main channel remains fluoridated and the salmon have not returned anywhere near normal even though the drought is long gone. The drought came and went but fluoridation discharges remain.
Salmon only laoy eggs in the water that has the identical chejmical composiont as that in which they themsleves were spawned. Tributaries ar enot fluodiedc bu the main channel is. If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe. I am sorry to say you are not going to find them.
What else can I say? The outside chance that fluoridation of the channel has nothing to do with the coincident collapse (after the drought ended) all these years is so remote as to be irrational. I don't buy it is merely a coincidence.
Again, regarding this quote: "If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe. I am sorry to say you are not going to find them."
Response: That may be true, but to say that it is because of the minute amount of fluoride, which you have never measured, is absurd. Can you tell me what the BOD levels in Sacramento effluent are? Can you tell me what oxygen levels are in the effluent? Are you aware that trout & salmon require at least 7-10 ppm O2? Can you tell me anything about what is in that discharged effluent?
If I were an environmentalist, I would take a good look at those oxygen levels. From there I would take a good look at that effluent to see what kind of BOD they are putting in that river. But before any of that, I would need some solid evidence that the discharge itself has anything to do with smaller salmon numbers. I see that those salmon returns were dropping to extremely low levels as far back as the early 1990s, well before fluoridation began.
Your hypothesis does nothing beyond supporting an agenda that helps Natural/Alternative Health people sell stuff, and Class Action Lawyers stir up potential clients for frivolous lawsuits. Would you know anything about that?
Richard, you say, "If anyone is bent on claiming that fluoride has no effect on salmon in the fluoridated main channel, then go there and find salmon laying eggs near the discharge pipe. I am sorry to say you are not going to find them."
You know, that is a good idea. I think it would also be a good idea to measure actual fluroide levels in the Sacramento River, since that has never been done. Why don't you have some of your UCSD student interns take those measurements and do the necessary calculations to support these outrageous claims that you have been making . . without a shread of evidence. That way you will at least have an empirical leg to stand on.
I see on this paper that you have written, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/?tool=pmcentrez&report=abstract you list your affiliation with the UCSD. Are you still doing that or did they make you stop when they found out about it?
Fluoridation advocates and their political partners ”share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.” - A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz in Communicating risk that involve ‘uncertainty bias’… Journal of Risk Research. August 2016
Misrepresentation of data is now and has always been a cornerstone of fluoridationist disinformation campaigns.
As Dr. Sauerheber indicates, the original 1940s fluoridationists cherry picked data sets when the entire data set did not prove their hypothesis. Brunelle & Carlos did the same thing circa 1990 with the NIDR study of 39k American school children. Both also used deceptive percentages that gave an appearance of substantial benefit when in absolute terms highly doubtful benefit amounted to a minority of children having perhaps one less cavity, but again only in a small dataset that was not representative of the whole. But that's not the only way the fluoride-lobby manipulates numbers in order to manipulate opinions.
Opponents frequently mention that 98% of Europe does not fluoridate their water or that about 97% of Europeans do not consume fluoridated food or water. A New York state presentation to dentists and public health officials this month promoting fluoridation coached their audience to emphasize that 13 million Europeans have fluoridated water and claimed that 10% have fluoridated salt then trailed off implying other fluoride delivery mechanisms were widespread. They are not.
First, there is close to a billion people in Europe and 13 million is less than 2%. Second, fluoridated salt is only available in some countries where it holds a minority share, mostly for industrial use like in prisons and military installations. That might be 10% of salt for those specific countries; I don't know and I don't care. What I do care about is disinformation campaigns that twist numbers and words and immoral medical mandates that harm vulnerable consumers.
- Missing from the New York DPH training is the harm caused vulnerable populations and the environment - and that is the topic of this thread despite the fluoride trolls hijacking the conversation and baiting some opponents into bickering over distractions.
Here's another fluoridationist numerical manipulation: Even if we accepted government pro-fluoridation figures, a more accurate way of representing that suspect data is 0.15% of the water might reduce 10% of the tooth decay in 25% of Amercian children. That's the best case scenario from pro-fluoride cherry picked datasets, but fluoridationists twist the numbers to give a false impressions and omit the documented harm to vulnerable populations who include senior citizens.