Refresh your driving skills and you could save on your auto insurance! Sign up for the AARP Smart Driver course.

 

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
813
Views

Re: Nat'l Kidney Foundation Drops Fluoridation Endorsement

813 Views
Message 821 of 1,355

Another area where research is needed is fluoride and Oral Cancer.

 

  1. ORAL CANCER:

 

Research into the potential contributing factor of fluoride with oral and pharyngeal cancer is minimal.  The thought of our toothpaste or ingested fluoride causing cancer is difficult for dentists to consider.  We are trying to do good, not bad.  The research focuses on using fluoride to reduce dental caries during cancer treatment rather than asking whether the fluoride is increasing cancer risk.

 

Plotting the percentage of the whole population and

oral cancer in the population at large for the 43 reporting states, we again see an increase trend, the higher the percentage of fluoridation, the higher rate of oral cancer.  When consideration is given to the high fluoride concentrations in fluoridated toothpaste and fluoride varnish, the modest concentration of fluoride in water would seem insignificant.  However, the fluoride in water is systemic and represents an additional chronic dosage.  

             

Dentists frequently have office policies to give everyone additional fluoride without diagnosis, irregardless of whether the patient has dental fluorosis, the science, FDA approval, total exposure, or any considerations other than the dental insurance company pays. “Never want to put a rational thought in the way of a lucrative procedure.” 

NTP (1990) “A second potential target site for sodium fluoride when given in drinking water is the upper digestive tract and oral cavity. Squamous cell neoplasms of the oral mucosa (tongue, palate, or gingiva) occurred with marginally increased incidences in dosed males and female rats over the rates in controls. The increased incidences of these neoplasms were not statistically significant when compared with the incidences in concurrent controls; however, the incidences in the high-dose groups were significantly higher than the incidences observed in historical control animals (0.7% male rats; 0.6% female rats).

“As with lesions of the bone, a direct comparison with the historical rates for oral cavity neoplasms is not completely accurate because of the increased attention given to the oral cavity and teeth in the sodium fluoride studies compared to previous NTP studies. Rates for oral cavity neoplasms similar to those observed in high-dose male and female rats in the sodium fluoride studies (4%) have been observed twice for males and once for females in the historical control database of 42 dosed feed or water studies. Neoplasms of the oral cavity were observed in control male and female rats in the current studies; one was observed in an age-matched control male rat and one occurred in a control female rat in the main study.

An argument could be made for combining the male and female rat studies for analysis of oral cavity neoplasms because a marginal increase occurred in both groups. An analysis for significance of the combined P values for the logistic regression trend tests for males and female rats resulted in a nonsignificant P value of 0.065.

“In contrast to osteosarcomas, for which there are no recognized benign or preneoplastic counterparts (Litvinov and Soloviev, 1973), squamous cell hyperplasias of the oral cavity are considered preneoplastic precursor lesions of squammous cell neoplasms of the oral cavity (Brown and Hardisty, 1990). Squamous cell hyperplasia occurred in no more than one animal in any of the dosed or control groups in the current studies. Thus, based on the absence of statistical significance versus the concurrent controls, the occurrence of these tumors in control animals, and the lack of a dose-related increase in non-neoplastic precursor lesions, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to relate tumors of the oral cavity with administration of sodium fluoride to male or female rats. Glattre and Wiese (1979) reported an association between a decrease in human mortality due to oral cavity neoplasia and increasing fluoride content in water over the range of 0 to 0.5 ppm.”[1]

Research animals were not given fluoride varnish, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride medical and dental products and these other sources need to be included in research on a possible connection between oral cancer and fluoride.

 

[1] National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). 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 ...ces, Research Triangle Park, N.C. p. 73-74.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
813
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
830
Views

Re: Nat'l Kidney Foundation Drops Fluoridation Endorsement

830 Views
Message 822 of 1,355

I would like to post additional research on fluoride's relationship with specific cancers, and then respond to comments.

 

  1. BRAIN CANCER RATES

Fluoride appears to cross the blood brain barrier with similar concentrations as blood.  Hu (1988)[1]  reported controls with a range of 0.14--0.23 ppm fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and those with fluorosis at 0.10-0.38 ppm fluoride for both blood and CSF.  I was unable to find studies measuring CSF fluoride concentrations for brain cancer patients.   Just because studies have not been published is not proof of safety.

 

The theory of fluoride being involved with brain cancer is plausible.  

 

Ranking the 50 states on the percentage of whole population fluoridated,[2] the trend of increased cancer continues as graphed below, although Blacks appear to take the most significant hit.  It is strange almost no studies look specifically at race and the fluoride cancer connection.   

 

A similar comparison for Black women shows less increase.  Perhaps fluoride affects the male chromosome more than female?

Considering that fluoride exposure has increased significantly in all states, an increase in White male cancer of perhaps 8%-10% and Black male cancer rates of perhaps 13%-15% is reasonably consistent with Burk’s 17%.   

Comparing states based on water fluoridation (NHANES 2011 60% with fluorosis) does not account for other sources of fluoride, age, diagnostic and treatment centers, toothpaste ingestion, whether a person is actually drinking the water and other confounding effects.  The PHS 2015 suggests water fluoridation currently represents perhaps 14% of total fluoride exposure and comparing a 30% fluoridated state with an 80% fluoridated state would represent even less of a difference.   

When we rank the 50 USA states on the percentage of the whole population fluoridated, a slight increase in brain cancer is found for males.[3] (Females did not show an increase)

              Moolenburgh[4] 1994  “Tiel was

fluoridated until late in 1973. After those twenty years the High Court of the Netherlands came to the conclusion that fluoridation of the water          125 supplies had been illegal all that time, and Tiel stopped adding fluoride to the drinking water.

Van den Berg wanted to know if differences in health had occurred between Tiel and

Culemborg (not fluoridated) 20 years after the measure was stopped. She chose the people between 40 and 60 years of age, as these people had drunk fluoridated water from their birth onwards for twenty years. Of course only those people were taken into consideration who had lived in the two cities the whole of their lives (as happens frequently in the Netherlands). There was a surprising 40 and 46% response to the 14,200 enquiry forms that were sent out. 

Here are a couple results:

Brain and Nervous Diseases:             Fluoridated                  Non-fluoridated     Women 51-55 years,  N=146 Tiel 18.6%0%              Culemborg 7.0%        

Cancer:

    Women 56-60 years,           N= 109            Tiel 11.10%                 Culemborg 3.10%

A more than tripling of cancer for women due to water fluoridation seems extreme based on other studies.  The small sample might be a factor along with other confounding factors.  However, the trend is consistent with a fluoride/cancer connection.

Research on the effect of fluoride to brain cancer is beginning.  

 

Altonen (2012)[5]  “We conclude that vanadate- and propranolol-sensitive LPP activity locally guards the signalling pool of LPA whereas the majority of brain LPA phosphatase activity is attributed to LPP-like enzymatic activity which, like LPP activity, is sensitive to AlFx- but resistant to the LPP inhibitors, vanadate and propranolol.”

Altonen (2012) Figure 5

 

“AlFx-(not NaF) generates the LPA1receptor-mediated response; AlFx-also blocks the LPA phosphatase activity. . . Note that NaF partially and AlFx- totally inhibit LPA-derived Pi formation and that DFOM reverses these actions.

 

Xu (2011)[6]The mechanisms underlying fluoride-induced apoptosis in neurons still remain unknown. To investigate apoptosis, caspase-3 activity, and mRNA expression of Fas, Fas-L, and caspases (-3 and -8) induced by fluoride, human neuroblastoma (SH-SY5Y) cells were incubated with 0, 20, 40, and 80 mg/L sodium fluoride (NaF) for 24 h in vitro. The data show that cell viability in the 40 and 80 mg/L fluoride groups were significantly lower than that of the control group. . . The results indicate that fluoride exposure could induce apoptosis in SH-SY5Y cells, and the Fas/Fas-L signaling pathway may play an important role in the process.

 

Although the evidence of fluoride contributing to brain cancer is only a theory still to be investigated, adding the negative effects of fluoride onto cognitive effects certainly warrents further investigation.

 

 

 

[1] Hu Yu-Huan, Wu Si-Shung, Fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid patients with fluorosis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry. 1988;51:1591-1593.

[2] http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/nohss/FluoridationV.asp  pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table05.html and http:// pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table05.html  CDC for cancer data.  Fluoridation data is used to determine the percentage of the whole population fluoridated in each state for graphs below. 

[3] Data for these graphs was obtained from the CDC fFact sheets on fluoridation and then corrected for “whole population” of each state on public water. As of 4/25/15 this link was good  http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/nohss/FluoridationV.asp www.cdc.gov/cancer/npcr/uscs/pdf/2002_USCS.pdf  2002 cancer statistics still current as of 4/25/15 http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1268/htdocs/table05.html  Current 4/25/15 used to determine percentage of population on public water

[4] Moolenburgh, H. MORE NEWS FROM TIEL AND CULEMBORG, Fluoride Vol. 28 No.2 119-122 1995 Letters to the Editor 119 Accessed 4/25/15 http://www.fluorideresearch.org/282/files/FJ1995_v28_n2_p119-122.pdf

[5] Aaltonen N1, Lehtonen M, Varonen K, Goterris GA, Laitinen JT. Lipid phosphate phosphatase inhibitors locally amplify lysophosphatidic acid LPA1 receptor signalling in rat brain cryosections without affecting global LPA degradation. BMC Pharmacol. 2012 Jun 11;12:7. doi: 10.1186/1471-2210-12-7.

[6] Xu B1, Xu Z, Xia T, He P, Gao P, He W, Zhang M, Guo L, Niu Q, Wang A. Effects of the Fas/Fas-L pathway on fluoride-induced apoptosis in SH-SY5Y cells. Environ Toxicol. 2011 Feb;26(1):86-92. doi: 10.1002/tox.20543.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
830
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
838
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

838 Views
Message 823 of 1,355

What nonsense. The United States Constitution guarantees rights of free speech to all citizens. Our government is [supposed to be] a government of, by, and for the people. Lay persons in the U.S. are totally enitled to enter into the realm of public policy and to debate health "experts". 

 

And health "'experts" do not exist when it comes to artificial fluoridaiton of people. If they were experts we would not have rampant dental decay, rampant bone pathologies, etc. All people are biochemically very different. Neither the policy of, nor the toxicology of, fluoridation of people is taught in any U.S. or foreign medical school. It is a government policy, mentioned in U.S. dental schools, that was started by misguided dentists who saw a mistaken correlation that also had nothing to do with causation (fluoride in water does not affect dental caries even up to 6 ppm but indeed does cause dental enamel hypoplasia in children).

 

We now know with certainty that fluoridation of the bloodstream has nothing to do with dental caries and is in fact harmful, causing permanent, pathologic accumulation of bone fluoride during lifelong consumption. And infusing chemicals into any public water supply that do not purify (or prevent contamination of) the water is illegal. Ignoring these facts, although this is widespread and very common, is absurd.  

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
838
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
830
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

830 Views
Message 824 of 1,355
  1. If they do not, I recommend that you stop urinating in your bathwater - if it's the chloramines. 

You are telling someone to stop urinating in their bathwater but don’t even know if they do such a thing in the first place. And it is none of anyone’s business in spite of fluoridationists presuming it is, as they do when presuming fluoridation of all people will harm none.

 

  1. Why don't you put calcium & magnesium in your bathwater if you're getting hives and you know this will help?

Of the many students I know, several complained about rashes when showering after silicofluoridation started in their city. One was helped by using a calcium-rich gel quickly after showering. There is no mechanism by which calcium and magnesium could be added to the bathwater in our modern society where water districts determine what water to supply to a home and how it is piped onto one’s property. Construction of a metal-infusing tank for bathwater that is also heated is an expensive proposition and I know of no one ever doing it. And why should this be required when all the city need do is stop purchasing and adding useless fluoridation chemicals that do not sanitize water (and do not prevent corrosion of metals into water) and are thus illegal?

 

  1. You don't drink seawater.  – Irrelevant

It is most certainly relevant. Fluoridation of water supplies is conducted, not to treat human skin, but to be ingested, to elevate fluoride levels in peoples’ bloodstream where it is a contaminant (that fluoridationists argue can somehow by some unknown mechanism affect dental caries). Any rash caused by contact with silicofluoridated water on the skin, after ingestion, can also affect intestinal epithelia. But seawater contains 412 ppm calcium and 1,292 ppm magnesium, both of which minimize fluoride assimilation.  AND sea water is not consumed as a beverage anyway, so any internal effects in artificial fluoride-allergic or sensitive people would not be a concern (fish consumption could also be avoided if it were necessary). But fluoridated water with little calcium ion most certainly is consumed, where fluoridationists demand it be piped into homes as their paid-for source of water for drinking, bathing, cooking, etc., regardless of fluoride sensitivity or whether anyone has kidney or bone disease, or other pathologic issues.

 

And seawater averages 1 ppm fluoride (along with the hghly concentrated divalent metals). That is only 1.4 times the recommended fluoride level of 0.7 ppm. Cities now allow however 1 ppm fluoride because it is dififcult to maintain levels at precisely 0.7, and this is the same as in seawater.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
830
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
867
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

867 Views
Message 825 of 1,355

Carry Anne, you accused the AARP of Criminal Behavior if they don't submit to your demands.

 

Your quote:  ""Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics."

 

Most normal people would consider that "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community."  That would make you the troll wouldn't it.

 

Under your attack on me, your definition of "Astroturfing," because you would never go off topic, you are accusing me of "masking the sponsors of a message or organization." 

 

I'll tell you right now, that is a slanderous lie against me.  I will accept your apology anytime.

 

I am commenting under this thread because I don't like bullies.  Your "demand" of the AARP, and your accusation of criminal behavior against them is nothing short of extortion. 

 

Moreover, I think it is incredibly dangerous to allow a bunch of self professed experts to hijack a proven health initiative.  "Experts," like yourself, who have graduated from the University of Google, who probably suffer from extreme hypochondria, and definitely paranoia, have no business pushing their way into the domain of health experts and public policy.  

 

  

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
867
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
893
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

893 Views
Message 826 of 1,355

TROLL DEFINITION: In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.... Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment.

 

ASTROTURFING DEFINITION: Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. 

 

I never, ever, ever said I get hives from bathing in fluoridated water. 

 

I got hives primarlly in the early stages of fluoridation poisoing when my city began fluoridation, concurrent with a resurgence of childhood eczema subsequently diagnosed as psoriasis. In my instance, bathing in fluoridated water when I had open lesions was extremely painful. I know others who have problems bathing in fluoridated water even without open lesions. I filter my bathing water to reduce exposure to fluoride and other chemicals and have done so for decades. 

 

Regardless of my personal experiences, the scientific literature documents that the skin conditions are common in those who are intolerant of or who have low tolerance for fluoride. Moreover, since fluroide is an inflammatory drug, it is biologically plausible as well as documented in medical science that fluoride aggravates inflammatory conditions whether it's eczema, irritable bowel disease or arthritis

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
893
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
938
Views

Re: Seawater & Sadism: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

938 Views
Message 827 of 1,355

Carry Anne,

 

Thank you, for giving the question so much thought. 

 

So that's a "Yes."  You have walked barefoot in the ocean . . And that's a "No."  You didn't get hives on your feet, even though the ocean has twice the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water.

 

You bathe in optimally fluoridated water, you get hives.  You walk in the ocean, you don't.  

 

To rationalize this paradox you offer several reasons. 

 

1.)  You don't drink seawater.  -- Irrelevant

 

2.)  The "type" of fluoride is different in seawater.  Hmm, That's odd.  Any high school chemistry student should be able to tell you that a fluoride ion is the same as any other fluoride ion regardless of the source.

 

3.)  "The mineral make up of seawater is quite high. We know that minerals including calcium and magnesium diminish the toxic impact of fluoride."  --  Why don't you put calcium & magnesium in your bathwater if you're getting hives and you know this will help?

 

4.)  "The fluoridation chemicals added to municipal water are highly polluted with other substances."  --  Ah yes, Phillis Mullenix.  This is from the study you cite:  "Metal concentrations were analyzed in three hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS) and four sodium fluoride (NaF) samples .."  

 

So, what she did was look at a whopping 7 samples total of fluoroscilicic acid & Sodium Fluoride, and I imagine this was supposed to be a comprehensive overview of every batch going into the hundreds of billions of gallons of water flowing throughout U.S. water distribution systems. 

 

What she doesn't tell you, or you could figure it out for yourself, is that any contaminants which may exist in the raw products she tested, already in the parts per million, are diluted down even further when HFS & NaF are added to water at about 2 parts per million.  So, in the end, you have parts per million of parts per million.  The levels of contaminants in her study are so low in drinking water that they are below detection level.  Astronomically lower than EPA guidelines. 

 

Here's the part I like best.  The ocean has far greater levels of every contaminant cited in the Mullenix study than you will find in your drinking water which has been fluoridated to the optimal level.  

 

Are you sure you don't get hives on your feet when you walk on the beach? 

 

5.)  "Municipal water typically includes chlorine and often includes ammonia laced chloramine. The toxic impact of fluorides is multiplied when in the presence of chlorine and even more so with chloramine."

 

It's true, chloramines, which are a combination of organic material and chlorine, does give people hives.  Public pool water, which can be chlorinated as high as 5 - 10 ppm Cl2, can contain very high levels of chloramines.  And low levels of chloramines are used by some cities for water sanitization.  This is because they last longer in the distribution system.  I, personally, disagree with the practice.

 

You may be onto something there.  I don't know enough about it to be sure, but you can easily find out if your city uses chloramines as a tool for water sanitization by asking.  If they do not, I recommend that you stop urinating in your bathwater - if it's the chloramines. 

 

6.)  "Eczema and other rashes or skin lesions such as stomatitis are an accepted adverse reaction to fluoridethat have been noted as such in physician manuals and dental product inserts since at least 1950."  --  Ah yes, Waldbott found cases of this stuff from the 1950s through the 1970s. 

 

Is that what you mean when you say, "there is considerable emerging scientific evidence against fluoridation .?"  Stuff from the 1960s that has never been repeated by anyone?  

 

"I've previously offered a number of citations on these and don't need to repeat them again."  --  And for some odd reason, nobody else can repeat Waldbotts results today either.  

 

Carry Anne also says, "attacking any individual who reports any skin condition from fluoridated water . . . . .  is sadistic."

 

Response:  Of course they are.  And in your mind the AARP is guilty of criminal acts if they don't submit to your demands.  ("Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics.")

 

Of course they are, dear.

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
938
Views
Gold Conversationalist
0
Kudos
1002
Views

Personal Opinions replace the Scientific Consensus?

1,002 Views
Message 828 of 1,355

CarryAnne – You claim that you, "have answered every one of the questions posed by DavidF & RandyJ here and elswhere", and you "have been giving more thought to the specious distratction about seawater and fluoride provoked skin reactions"

 

If that is your claim, then all you have to do is copy/paste your specific answers (you are a master copy/paste artist) from "here and elsewhere" to the specific questions I just repeated.  Once you do that, I will not be in jeopardy of misinterpreting your comments, and I'll re-ask my other specific questions I have net seen answered.

 

Your Feldman quote pretty much summarizes the anti-fluoride "evidence" as claims based on "information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication"

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1002
Views
Highlighted
Frequent Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
1017
Views

Seawater & Sadism: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,017 Views
Message 829 of 1,355

Fluoride is capable of producing any number of symptoms. They include drowsiness, profound desire to sleep, dizziness, nasal congestion, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat, coughing, wheezing (asthma), chest pain, hives, and various intestinal symptoms. Most of the information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication. - Hobart Feldman, MD, American Board of Allergy and Immunology (1979)

 

Although I have answered every one of the questions posed by DavidF & RandyJ here and elswhere, I have been giving more thought to the specious distraction about seawater and fluoride provoked skin reactions and have expanded my answer to that question: 

 

  1. I don't drink seawater. 

  2. The type of fluoride in seawater is different from the types used to artifically fluoridate community tap water. (Sauerheber 2013)
     
  3. The mineral make up of seawater is quite high. We know that minerals including calcium and magnesium diminish the toxic impact of fluoride. 

  4. The fluoridation chemicals added to municipal water are highly polluted with other substances. (Mullenix 2014

  5. Municipal water typically includes chlorine and often includes ammonia laced chloramine. The toxic impact of fluorides is multiplied when in the presence of chlorine and even more so with chloramine. (Naidenko 2009)

  6. Eczema and other rashes or skin lesions such as stomatitis are an accepted adverse reaction to fluoride that have been noted as such in physician manuals and dental product inserts since at least 1950. Chizzola maculae is a fluoride-specifc autoimmune reaction, a type of hives that some women and children experience in the early stages of fluoride poisoning. I've previously offered a number of citations on these and don't need to repeat them again. 

 

Consequently, attacking any individual who reports any skin condition from fluoridated water which has a totally different composition from seawater by distracting the conversation with comments about the ocean in an attempt to discredit either the science or the individual is a political deception. Insisting that senior citizens with psoriasis or other inflammatory skin conditions bathe in fluoridated water because of dental dogma is sadistic

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
1017
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
1026
Views

Re: Political Deceits & Ethics: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

1,026 Views
Message 830 of 1,355

These are good arguments, Carry Anne. 

 

You say, "Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics."

 

Wow!  Now in your "Demand" that AARP submit to your wishes, you threaten them with being guilty of "criminal" acts.  This sounds vaguely familiar.  The same tactic was used by anti-fluoride Attorney Robert Reeves in his extortion of the National Kidney Foundation, threatening them with a "Public Relations Disaster," even if they weren't guilty of anything.  

 

"Individual Human Rights."  Good argument.  However, since there has never been one documented case of harm to any person who drinks optimally fluoridated water, no one is ever harmed by drinking it, you are literally arguing for the "right" to have poorer oral health.  That is not rational.  Moreover you are attempting to impose your irrational mindset upon those individuals who could truly benefit from this health initiative.  That's not cool, man.  

 

By the way, you never answered the question.  You said your rashes are inflamed when you bathe in optimally fluoridated water.  The question is, have you ever taken a walk along the beach at the ocean and walked in the water?  

 

Since ocean water has twice the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, I'm wondering if your feet broke out in hives if you did.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
1026
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark