AARP Eye Center
3 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#
It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.
Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines.
When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge.
Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case.
On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment.
Really?
Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.
But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand:
- No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease.
... however if you really want to get into the scientific part of what exactly happens when you add fluoridation chemicals to the water, I suggest this item has some very useful information.
Fluoridation does not prevent cavities but does cause dental fluorosis, but even if that wasn't the case... it is still immoral mass medication that doses municipal water with a contaminated product that causes or worsens disease and disability in many consumers.
Moreover, fluoridation chemicals are harmful to the environment. There is nothing more to say about it.
Randy,
I stand by my statements because you do not provide evidence to the contrary. If you would spend more time checking the endorsements rather than simply regurgitating the mantra, you would be shocked.
Circular referencing is a huge problem.
Chuck provided some of his favorite endorsements. Lets look at the first one, the Hispanic Dental Association policy statement located at: http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/FLResources_Hispanic_Dental_Association_Endor...
HDA references other endorsements as their evidence for their position. For example, they reference the CDC, Surgeon General, and USPH. However, no primary research is provided.
The CDC is slightly better with a longer list of cherry picked endorsements from other like minded organizations. https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/organizations/index.htm
CDC goes further with a list of links,
- Water Fluoridation Basics
- Water Fluoridation Guidelines & Recommendations
- Water Fluoridation Data & Statistics
- Water Fluoridation Promotional Resources
- Community Water Fluoridation FAQs
- Water Operators & Engineers
Randy, maybe you could help me out here. CDC lists basics, guidelines and recommendations, data and statistics, promotional resources, FAQ, and operators and Engineers. What do you see missing??? Science. Well that is hidden under Guidelines and Recommendations, as Scientific Reviews and Reports: Assessing the Evidence. CDC did not assess the evidence, they rely on reviews and report which allegedly assess the evidence. Lets, very briefly in summary look at their references.
The Community Preventive Services Task Force, (Cherry picked members who support fluoridation and avoided much science not supporting their position.)
NRC 2006 (CDC cherry picks the 2006 report. And severe DF is now over 2%, or about 4-7 million people being harmed, known and undisputed harm, and CWF is a contributing factor, not the only factor. NRC has too many reservations and concerns with recommendations for further study than space permits here. Read the report and remember it is 12 years old, so read the last 12 years of research on each topic.)
US PHS. ( USPHS references the CDC, circular logic and again cherry picks research.)
CDC. (CDC references itself, circular logic.)
IOM (IOM's dietary guidelines for 1997. What is the current IOM dietary guideline for fluoride? Look it up.)
Cochrane review of 2015. (See below)
Australian NHMRC (Again, cherry picked evidence)
WHO 2005 (WHO recommendations are not followed. WHO advises to determine how much fluoride people are getting before starting fluoridation. To my knowledge, no community, city, state, or country has determined with empirical measured evidence the current fluoride exposure prior to starting fluoridation. They blindly start to fluoridate based on endorsements, not science.)
In my opinion, the Cochrane and NRC 2006 review need to be taken together, because Cochrane looks at "benefit" and NRC looks at "exposure" and "risk."
Cochrane with my emphasis in bold.
Authors' conclusions:
"There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.
Randy, "very little contemporary evidence" does not give me confidence. When we see huge increases in fluoride exposure from other sources, certainly we need contemporary evidence. And the mother of all confounding factors which decreased dental caries by 4 to 5 teeth prior to fluoridation is not considered. What was it? Maybe that confounding factor is what caused caries to decline and not fluoridation. With very little contemporary evidence, my confidence in mass medication evaporates. We need good contemporary evidence to support fluoridation before fluoridation is continued.
Continuing with Cochrane Authors' conclusions;
"The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.
There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.
There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation."
Randy, is that what you call a robust endorsement of fluoridation? I would say you need to read and weep. But the CDC references Cochrane as evidence every single person, infants, adults, elderly, all ages, all health conditions, even those without teeth must ingest more fluoride. . . even without consent.
You seek to pose isolated factoids that are unimportant to the public health decision. I suspect that at the concentration of 0.7 ppm the fluoride and hydrogen atoms are completely dissociated but it really is utterly irrelevant whether undissociated molecules of HF exist there or not.
Here is a convenient place to read what the many restigious scientific and prefessional organizations advocating fluoridation have to say, in their own words. For reader's convenience I've attached a small sample. These quotations well reflect the scientific consensus supporting fluoridation.
http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
“Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems…. Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” - United States Public Health Service Report (ATSDR TP-91/17, Sec.2.7, April 1993)
Fluoridationists have been organized and trained by marketing gurus to frame the conversations around teeth or whatever minor or discredited piece of science that can create doubt. However, the fact of the matter is the weight of the scientific evidence supported by testimony of seniors as well as evolving medical opinion is that fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that causes disease, disability and even death in millions of consumers.
"I downloaded AARP Perks to assist in staying connected and never missing out on a discount!" -LeeshaD341679
