- 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!
Water fluoridation has nothing to do with the 4 ppm MCL of the EPA for natural fluoride contamination of water. Water fluoridation uses 0.7 ppm in water supplies with less than 0.7 ppm.
Thus, the EPA deos not regulate water fluoridationn, as evident in your own statement that the EPA farmed that out to the NSF.
So what's the beef?
PhD Richard's quote: "Water fluoridation has nothing to do with the 4 ppm MCL of the EPA for natural fluoride contamination of water. Water fluoridation uses 0.7 ppm in water supplies with less than 0.7 ppm.
Thus, the EPA deos not regulate water fluoridationn, as evident in your own statement that the EPA farmed that out to the NSF."
Response: You said that no one is responsible for water fluoridation. Wrong. The EPA allows 4 ppm F in drinking water. The target for optimally fluoridated water, i.e., water fluoridation, is 0.7 ppm. Therefore, if someone was harmed because they drank water with 0.7 ppm F, the EPA would be liable because it has set the MCL at almost 5 times that level.
Since people are not harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water, no one has been able to sue the EPA for legitimate health reasons.
The EPA is responsible for its own limit of 4 ppm. Are you beginning to understand?
I'm not the only one with typos. By "deos" I assume you mean does? But no big deal.
The fact that the EPA long ago decided that 4 ppm natural fluoride in water should not be consumed at all ! (to avoid stage III serious skeletal fluorosis with lifeling consumption) and that 2 ppm natural fluoride in water requires a warning to avoid drinking it (to prevent severe teeth disfigurement wlith chronic drinking during childhood) is not an endorsement or even an allowance of intentional infusion of fluoride into water as in fluoridation. The MCL does not provide a license to "fill 'er up" by the intentional infusion into water of any fluoride level up to 2 ppm.
The EPA has no physicians or toxicologists or pharmacologists or any staff who have any ability or authority to determine how much more fluoride anyone can ingest above that which is already ingested before water is "fluoridated." The Agency has no personnel who can or who do monitor blood levels of fluoride in those treated consumers or ability to monitor bone fluoride levels in consumers or to categorize or keep track of other systemic effects that fluoride is known to cause. In short, the EPA does not regulate water fluoridation and refuses in fact to do so.
Fluoridation today is the intentional infusion of industrial fluosilicic acid hazardous waste into public drinking water supplies for the express purpose of elevating blood fluoride levels in consumers, where it is presumed to have some sort of dental caries preventive effect for which there is no known mechanism to explain.
The EPA does not regulate, endorse, require, monitor, or have any authority whatsoever over the intentional fluoridation of human beings through treating the water supply at 0.7 ppm or any other level of fluoride under 2 ppm. The EPA Office of Water routinely writes that EPA is not responsible for monitoring and does not endorse or request water fluoridation.
The U.S Congress gives authority for the regulation of all supplements and materials proposed to be ingested by Americans to the U.S Food and Drug Administration, not the EPA -- period. The fact that the FDA has not banned it is irrelevant. The FDA has ruled many times against fluoridation by ruling that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug and banning the sale of all fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S.
The water purification claim was on an insert for one of the suppliers of fluosilicic acid sold to a water district. For readers who know I don't lie, that is sufficient for them. For those who would disbelieve whatever I say anyway, I don't owe you any outside material proof. I don't know if I kept a copy in my records or not. So what? I know what I saw..
There is one water worker (Escondido) who actually believes that fluoride is a food!. He loses no sleep whatsoever over the whole body fluoridation of all consumers in the city. Longterm bone fluoridation issues? He not only doesn't care, he imagines it must be good for you. I don't have a link to that because there is no link to that. So?
Again,the EPA does not regulate the infusion of foods, supplements, or decay preventive dentifrice substances into public water supplies. The mission of the EPA is to regulate contaminants from natural sources and from accidental spills, etc.
RS: " For readers who know I don't lie, that is sufficient for them."
Response: You are a guy who claims to be a scientist. You claimed that the people in Alaska are fully aware that water fluoridation was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River.
You said this with no evidence, no supporting documentation, no studies, no environmentalists agree with that claim, no fluoride levels were measured in the river, no fluoride levels were measured in the fish.
When push came to shove, and I pressed you for any supporting evidence, in the end it came down to the fact that you believed it to be true, therefore it was true.
I don't know what your definition of "scientist" is, but it clearly doesn't have anything to do with science, since science depends upon facts and evidence, not personal beliefs.
By the way, you are also a guy who claims that Einstein got it wrong about time dilation, and you got it right.
Sure, your readers really get you.
Richard, this is your entire quote. You said, "The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as a water purifying agent pass inspection and to gain favor with skeptics so that it appears legal to add into water." 10-30-2018 10:50 AM
Response: Ok, I had to read this a few times to understand what you were saying. Your grammer is a bit muddled. You are the one calling fluorosilicic acid a "hazardous waste." (The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste as a water purifying agent . ." It would have been more understandable if you had said, "The NSF lables fluorosilicic acid, which is a hazardous waste, a water purifying agent." You needed some comas for clarity.)
That's a lie too. The NSF doesn't label fluorosilicic acid as a water purifying agent (because it is not a water purifying agent - not every water additive is for the purpose of making water clean. We've already gone over this.), to gain favor with skeptics or for any other reason. Please provide the link which supports that "untruth."
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
There are no links to forward. The NSF charges money to purchase the 320 page report. it is no avialable online to the public.
Also the water purification agent claim is on insert sheets includced with the purchase by water districts of the fluosilicic acid, which is a relabeled hazardous waste. It is included witrh the MSDS sheets.
RS: "Also the water purification agent claim is on insert sheets includced with the purchase by water districts of the fluosilicic acid, which is a relabeled hazardous waste. It is included witrh the MSDS sheets."
Here's an MSDS (now called SDS) for fluorosilicic acid https://www.sciencelab.com/msds.php?msdsId=9924083 Care to show me anything that labels it a "water purifier?"
Not on the MSDS? You must have gotten that information from somewhere. Please provide evidence that anybody has ever called fluoride a "water purifier."
Your story is that you've seen this? Show it to us.
Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus
You are taking one portion of the statement out of context. The EPA itslef (including me and other scientists) labels fluosilicic acid prepared from fertilizer waste as a hazardous waste, because it is a hazardous waste.
The NSF describes that hazardous waste a water "purifying agent" when it is intentionally added into water..
Have you even read the 320 page NSF document on water regulations and requirements that includes Standard 60?
Part of the text labels fluoride as a water contaminant (as labeled by the EPA). Other parts of the text change the name to indicate it is an allowed additive if it is added on purpose.
They go so far as to overrule their own regulations, of allowing contaminants at only 10% of the EPA MCL, for fluoride because when it is added on purpose it is then considered by NSF to be an additive. NSF has no expertise in toxicology testing or in regulating the fluoridation of people and yet stamps seals of approval on hazardous waste that is labeled a water additive. .
Vitamin D fights dental decay (see the Linus Pauling publications). Fluoride does not, as revealed by the Teotias; by Ziegelbecker; and Yiamouyiannis; and Sutton; and the CA NIDR study, etc. And why would one believe it could when it is only 0.016 ppm in saliva when consuming fluoridated water?
Vitamin D fights dental decay (see the Linus Pauling publications). Fluoride does not, as revealed by the Teotias; by Ziegelbecker; and Yiamouyiannis; and Sutton; and the CA NIDR study, etc. And why would one believe it could when it is only 0.016 ppm in saliva when consuming fluoridated water?
Fluoride is not a vitamin. In fact fluoride opposes the chief function of vitamin D, so the analogy is ludicrous. Vitamin D is essential for proper assimilation of calcium, to build strong bones and teeth.
Yes, calcium builds strong bone and teeth, not fluoride. Fluoride instead incorporates pathologically into bone and alters its crystal structure, forming bone of poor quality as it accumulates irreversibly during lifelong ingestion.
Fluoride is thus an anathema to bone health, while vitamin D is essential for it.
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Municipal votes and legislative action are not the places to decide medical treatment for my family. That decision belongs to the individual. But since fluoridationists have used politics and the doctrine of police power to strip me of my human right to sovereignty over my own body and right to make my own medical decisions, either the legislature or the courts need to take action. I recommend reading UNESCO on Medical Consent. Here are a few excerpts from UNESCO and others.
UNESCO Mandate: “set universal standards in the field of bioethics with due regard for human dignity and human rights and freedoms, in the spirit of cultural pluralism inherent in bioethics.” - October 2003, 32 C/Res. 24
Medical Consent: ”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)
Medical Consent: “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)
Human Dignity & Human Rights: ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)
UNESCO on Discrimination: “No individual or group should be discriminated against or stigmatized on any grounds, in violation of human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.” - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 11 (2005)
UNESCO on Environmental Duty: “Due regard is to be given to the interconnection between human beings and other forms of life, to the importance of appropriate access and utilization of biological and genetic resources, to respect for traditional knowledge and to the role of human beings in the protection of the environment, the biosphere and biodiversity.” - UNESCO documents in Bioethics and Protection of the Environment, the Biosphere and Biodiversity, Article 17 (2005)
SDWA: “Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” - SDWA (P.L. 93-523)
US Government on Bioethics: “All participants in an experimental program should be informed in advance of all features of the treatment and measurement process that they will be experiencing that would subject them to any obvious risk or jeopardy and that would be likely to influence their decision to participate in the program or their conduct as participants in the program." - The 1979 Belmont Report on The National Research Act of 1974
Medical Treatment: “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)
CarryAnne, I have asked you several times before without receiving an answer.
Based on your libelous accusations directed at several specific science and health organizations, do you believe all science and health organizations in the world that recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation (CWF) and their hundreds of thousands of members who have not rebelled are “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” willing to , “protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”? Is that your only explanation for why the major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF or do you have other explanations?
Also, do you accept Bill’s apparent belief (based on his specific accusations and failure to address them) that ALL the science and health experts in the world who accept the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective (or who don’t publically accept the anti-F opinions),, “don't think for themselves … No conspiracy…. Simply blind obedience to tradition and a lack of scientific critical thinking.”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science. All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation and exhibit the morality of those responsible for the Tuskegee Syphilis study.”?
These are your specific comments
(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group”
(08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “I don't believe most dentists intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [big bucks earned from treating dental fluorosis]. 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”
(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates”
(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.” Provide specific evidence of your claim these professionals are “cowards”.
You provided a link to a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics. The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water ﬂuoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition, “In closing, given the ﬂuoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontario … and other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be ﬁled, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientiﬁc integrity and professional ethics. We suggest the ATA speak for themselves…”
RandyJ, this is interesting.
Your quote: " a 2016 “petition” to the American Thyroid Association prepared by anti-F activist, KSpencer, that exposes the anti-F tactics. The petition “suggests” the ATA “Publish a position statement opposing the practice of community water ﬂuoridation…” and provides a not-so-subtile suggestion of potential consequences of ignoring the petition . . "
That is interesting, isn't it. These same people, "Carry Anne," for example, "Demanding" that the AARP do the same thing.
We can only hope that laymen who have been trained at the University of Google not be allowed to hijack proven health initiatives. It is a frightening thought.
"Carry Anne" your quote: "Municipal votes and legislative action are not the places to decide medical treatment for my family. That decision belongs to the individual."
Response: You are literally saying that the individual has the right to choose poorer oral health. That would not be a rational decision by the individual. Moreover, the individual does not have the right to impose his/her irrational beliefs upon his/her neighbors.
You bring up UNESCO, Medical consent, Human Rights & Human Dignity, and of course your irrelevant citation of an SDWA statute that you have twisted out of context.
Medical Consent. Looking through the lens of your slightly agitated worldview, this would be an example of your idea of a violation of Medical Consent:
I have a child who goes to public school. That school fed my child milk with Vitamin D added. That school never informed me that it would be feeding my child Vitamin D. Using your logic, that school is guilty of violating my, and my child's right of informed medical consent.
When I hear fluoridationists using opponents language, I'm reminded of the classic comic-strip villian scenario where the super-villian assumes the likeness of the hero in order to confuse the public.
Fluoridationist arguments are all logical fallacies and worse. For example:
I hope that the AARP staff and other uncommitted folks reading community water fluoridation opponents' highly referenced interpretation of various laws, federal responsibilities and water and toxin oversight bureaucracies clearly understand that the Fluoride Action Network and its allies have zero successful legal challenges.
This is despite six figure yearly fundraising, despite an in-house attorney (Michael Connett) and most importantly despite their impassioned conviction fluoridation is both illegal and immoral.
Zero . . .
And why not tell the more complete story? It is hoped that AARP staff and all readers understand that there have been many very successful legal suits against fluoridation. Many cities have halted fluoridation because it is indeed illegal to add dental treatment chemicals (allowed in toothpaste but designed not to be swallowed) into public drinking water.
In Escondido it was ruled that fluoridation alters the bodily chemistry of consumers. In Pennsylvania and in Texas it was ruled that fluoridated water consumption increases morbidity in those with cancer. In other cities various legal rulings against fluoridation have occurred even though in some those rulings were overturned by other courts on appeal.
The courtroom is not the place to "decide" complex science. Systematic reviews where experts for the panel are selected for a spectrum of important scientific skills and there is ample budget to collect and consider all the scientific literature is the appropriate forum.
In many cases higher courts have made improper decisions while lower courts decided more carefully. Even the Supreme Court has made decisions that contradicted earlier Supreme Court decisions. As for fluoridation, ingested fluoride does alter the chemistry of the human body while not even being able ironically to penetrate into the teeth enamel matrix. There is no court ruling one way or appeal another way that changes this. Fluoridaiotn is a useless harmful cause.
Please. The question being asked here cannot be answered in full by anyone. No mortal knows all the possible reasons why people do not oppose fluoridation. There are probably vast reasons and every individual thinks for himself on the issue. Some follow others, some others lead the way, they are all different.
And the suggestion is ridiculous that if one is opposed to fluoridation they should contact the "appropriate officials." There are no appropriate officials. The EPA and the FDA both deny responsibility and liability for fluoridation and neither endorse it, but both do not oppose it.
The only Federal agency involved in endorsing fluoridation is the Oral Health Division of the CDC. This is the only agency who officially endorses and recommends and requests the practice but will not accept any liability for it for any associated damages and will not require it because the Agency understands that it is illegal to mandate it (SDWA).
When fluoridationists ask questions that cannot be answered, and then use the lack of an answer to accuse the opponent as somehow being un-informed or wrong, that is a trap.
And there are no Federal officials to contact who have the power to halt fluoridation because none accepts liability for it. NONE
This urine study also agrees with previous studies published demonstrating the progressive lowering of IQ as a direct function of progessive increases in fluoride concentration in the blood. At fluoride levels found in blood of consumers of 1 ppm fluoride in water, the IQ reduction is significant compared to those with a lower blood fluoride level in people in non-fluoridated areas.
Unlike the problems that plague dental researchers, where tooth brushing habits and sugar eating habits confound any attempt to interpret small samples studies on fluoride and dental decay, blood fuoride levels and brain IQ are far removed from environmental diffrences taking place in the oral cavity and are thus more clearly interpreted.
See the Journal of Environmental and Public Health #439490 (2013) and the upgraded version in Chapter 8 of Top 10 Contrilbutions on Environmental Health (2018).
Courts: I only know of two court cases where the issue before the court was science. One is currently before the court and has not been decided. The other years ago and the judge ruled that fluoride was a carcinogen, later to be overruled on proceedural grounds. (My understanding).
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
What I've noticed over the years is that fluoridaion promoters continue to be unable to explain how it is that fluoride affects teeth caries. For a long time it was argued that it must do so from the bloodstream by incorporating into developing teeth during childhood to make stronger teeth. This was based on the fact that fluoride indeed incorporates into bone and so it was also believed to incorporate into teeth. But fluoride was not found in the enamel matrix from ingesting fluoridated water, so the CDC published a new argument, that systemic fluoride is not responsible for its (believed) effect and so it must work topically. But since fluoride does not enter teeth enamel upon topical application even at high concentrations in dental gels, the mechanism remained stil unknown for the assumed topical effect.
All the Agencies mentioned on this site that supposedly either promote fluoridation or at least don't formally in writing as an official declaration oppose it, provide no information whatsoever on how fluoride water swallowing works on teeth topically. One reference by Featherstone cited by the EPA claims that fluoride water ingestion incorporates fluoride into plaque on teeth surfaces where it can exude out to help toothpaste fluoride between brushings. But saliva fluoride that bathes teeth continuously is only 0.016 ppm, and this fact was not mentioned in the discussion that was theoretic. Nor was it made clear that most dentists now request that plaque be removed from teeth regularly anyway.
And water fluoride is only present on teeth for seconds during swallowing and is only 0.7 ppm, 2,100 times less concentrated than in toothpaste. .
So I ask you all, how does fluoride affect dental caries?
The answer is that first of all, it doesn't affect dental caries. And second, there is no actual known mechanism by which fluoride could strengthen teeth. Enamel hydroxyapatite is so hard that there is no fluoride -- hydroxide ion exchange, as occurs in bone hydroxyapatite, a completely different allotropic-type form.
And none of these "many supporting" agencies has ever answered the crucial question of even if it did work, how are people who live to advanced age supposed to remove the fluoride that incorporates in their bones during lifelong consumption? How, when it is biochemically irreversibly incorporated into bone? Understand, there is no concentration in blood low enough above zero at which fluoride does not bind bone. So lifelong consumption if one lives long enough will eventually lead to significant bone pathology. Are these symptoms and problems in elderly lilfelong fluoridated poeepe expendable because they are presumed to have been coupled with fewer dental caries? What about people who don't eat sugar and never have dental caries? They are supposed to accept this fate as well?
Where are the answers from these Agencies that supposedly promote lifelong whole body fluoridation for everyone? (Hint: there are no answers from them. So their "support" is essentially meaningless).
You asked three questions and I was going to answer the next, but the answer to your question #2 answers the rest of you questions.
I'm EVIDENCE based, NOT organization or individual based. I am persuaded by facts, not people. (Money persuades people. Facts are less biased.)
The questions you asked are not scientificly based and cannot be answered by empirical evidence. You questions are political, personality, and human based.
Start thinking FACTS, evidence based rather than people based. Ask a science question rather than a people question.
I answered your four questions. Now please answer mine.
1. How many people with moderate/severe dental fluorosis is acceptable to you and are too many ingesting too much fluoride?
2. Bashash 2017 (Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes) did not find a "no effect" threshold. Mother's urine samples mean of 0.90 mg/L and for every 0.5 mg/L increase showed 2.5 IQ drop.
Till just published a study reporting pregnant mothers in Canada have a similar fluoride urine concentration in fluoridated communities. Most studies I have read report urine fluoride concentration in fluoridated communities is close to 1 mg/L regardless of country, including the USA.
Question: What empirical evidence (evidence based science, measured evidence) can you provide which reports that fluoride urine concentration at 0.9 mg/L is neurologically safe for the developing fetus?
Thanks for your response.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill – Wow! Trying to get specific answers from you to my specific questions might be compared to pulling teeth. (10-23-2018 02:48 PM, 10-23-2018 03:00 PM, 10-23-2018 05:24 PM, 10-21-2018 09:44 PM)
In response to your most recent 10-23-2018 05:24 PM & 03:00 PM comments: All legitimate scientists base their conclusions on the evaluation of scientific EVIDENCE. Scientists and health professionals are frequently members of organizations, but I’m not sure what you mean by “[I am] NOT organization or individual based” –– is that part of your lemming/puppet “theory”?
All legitimate scientists are persuaded by facts – but facts are also interpreted by people who can be exceptionally biased and/or don’t understand science. Members of the Flat Earth Society claim their beliefs are based on facts. Anti-vaccination activists claim their beliefs are based on facts as do all other anti-science activists.
That is precisely why the scientific consensus is critical. The consensus of a majority of experts (members of the major science and health organizations, for example) is a provisional agreement on how best to interpret the entire body of evidence in context. The scientific consensus is a firewall to help keep the scientific community from becoming a pinball machine where theories bounce, spin, crash and get flipped around based on every new unverified, unvalidated, unconfirmed, incompletely understood “fact” that gets dumped into the hopper. The fact is that a consensus changes when new, legitimate evidence is presented, tested for relevance, evaluated in context with the rest of the evidence and found to conflict with the existing consensus in a manner that requires a change. Changing a consensus is, and should be, a challenging and rigorous process that examines all relevant evidence and not just the evidence that appears to support strongly held beliefs of individuals.
Yes, the scientific consensus is “people based”, but it is also “FACTS, evidence based”. That is what makes the methods of science and the scientific consensus completely unique – completely different from any other human consensus; philosophical, political, religious, artistic, judicial, moral, etc. Fluoridation opponents (FOs) seem to believe that science-based conclusions can and should be validated by strong personal opinions.
Do you accept the concept of scientific consensus as traditionally defined, “the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity”? (Wikipedia) If not, what is your alternative – a “scientific” free for all, based on everyone’s personal interpretation of the FACTS?
The questions I have asked you (10-21-2018 09:44 PM and others) are based on trying to understand the FACTS of your specific statements. The opinions of Dr. Limeback you posted don’t count – they answer none of my specific questions to you – nor do any of your other answers.
The only conclusion I can reach based on your (10-23-2018 03:00 PM) comment and lack of specific answers is that you are not perfect, you were “raised in a religious cult”, and you seem to believe all scientists and health care providers in the world who have not accepted the anti-F interpretation of the complete body of scientific evidence as legitimate or credible are members of a cult (or cults?) who blindly follow beliefs that are “based on fraud, lies, and mistakes”. That would explain your earlier comments.
I will take your failure to address my specific questions about your specific comments, (08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM), (07-09-2018 09:09 PM) as strong evidence that you believe ALL scientists and health care providers who don’t accept the anti-F opinions “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science. All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”
Is this a correct interpretation and summary of your comments and beliefs about the scientific and health communities? If I don’t hear otherwise, I will assume you agree with my summary, and you would use it to describe all members of the 100+ science and health organizations who either support or do not denounce fluoridation. If you disagree then provide other specific explanations (with supporting evidence) as rational reasons why none of the major science and health organizations referenced by Dr. Haynie, 07-04-2018 12:51 have accepted the so-called “evidence” provided by FOs as sufficient to change the consensus.
You claim to be “EVIDENCE based … persuaded by facts”. However:
~> You ignore all the evidence that supports the conclusion that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure that improves health.
~> You ignore the fact that most scientists and health professionals accept that supporting evidence as legitimate and compelling.
~> You ignore the fact that most science and health professionals care deeply about understanding as much as they can about their profession and protecting the health of their patients and fellow citizens.
~> You focus exclusively on a small, carefully selected subset of available evidence which FOs believe proves CWF is ineffective and dangerously harmful to health.
~> You ignore the fact that relevant experts continually review that “subset of available evidence” presented by FOs (in context with the rest of the evidence FOs ignore) and find sufficient limitations to prevents the FOs' “evidence” from changing the majority consensus.
~> However you and other FOs “adjust” and present this inconclusive, flawed “evidence” to the public –– as demonstrated in this discussion –– in a manner designed to create fear and sow distrust of the science and health establishments they depend on to protect and improve their health.
In reality, you and other FOs are actually EVIDENCE biased … persuaded by carefully selected “facts”.
I do not want members of the public to blindly follow any person, organization or me either. I also don’t want them to blindly follow a group of anti-science activists. However, if members of the public do not have the training, experience, inclination or time to seek out and evaluate a significant number of relevant studies for themselves, they must – by default – trust some person or organization.
According to your comments (and those of other FOs) anyone who disagrees with the anti-F interpretation of the evidence –– which includes most members of the science and health communities –– are not really scientists and are not to be trusted. If they can’t be trusted with making an accurate decision about the benefits and risks of CWF, how could they be trusted with any other health-related decision??? You and other anti-science activists deliberately sow and promote distrust against the major science and health organizations and their members. That tactic, along with carefully orchestrated fear mongering (trust in me, CWF is ‘proven’ to lower IQ, cause cancer, diabetes, thyroid problems, etc.), are the cornerstones of your anti-science strategy.
I trust the current scientific consensus, for two reasons:
First: Overall, I trust the scientific and health communities to draw the best conclusions and make the best decisions possible based on a continual and accurate evaluation of the available body of evidence as understood at any given time. Science is not perfect, nor is it settled – new evidence is always available for review. However, I trust that the conclusions, as accepted by the majority of relevant experts, have the best potential for protecting the public. In the case of CWF, as in vaccination and other recognized public health measures, I trust the majority of professionals. I do not trust the few outliers who are unable to change the consensus, who have no unified cohort of relevant experts and who resort to fear-mongering techniques and sowing distrust of major science and health organizations to influence public opinion and promote their agenda.
Second: I have experience in the sciences and in evaluating studies, and I have examined the “evidence” presented by FOs, (including The Fluoride Deception, Connett’s publication and others). I have also examined actual scientific evidence (which has been rejected by FOs) that supports the consensus that CWF is safe and effective. I am not an expert in the specific areas related to fluoridation, but I can recognize when the content of studies has been used out of context by FOs to misrepresent the conclusions. I can identify when conclusions of a suggestion of a possible, potential correlation has been exaggerated by FOs and presented as “proving” a cause and effect relationship to bolster the fear-factor, and I recognize and understand other tactics all anti-science activists utilize to scam the public. That is why I continue to challenge you to answer specific questions about how you interpret and understand evidence and conclusions reached by the scientific and health communities.
What was the point, for example, of you Gish gallop frenzy (9/4 – 9/5), copy/pasting a bunch of studies you seem to believe proved that CWF causes cancer? Are most members of the public ever going to read your posts, and why would you expect any non-expert who read these comments to legitimately come to a different conclusion than members of several cancer societies – who have not reached that conclusion?
Are you more qualified than those professionals to evaluate the evidence and draw those conclusions? If you have such an excellent understanding of carcinogens, why not present your case (your ‘professional’ analysis of the evidence) to the American Cancer Society or the National Cancer Institute instead of online to a group of non-experts? Neither organization has concluded that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes cancer, but perhaps they missed evaluating the studies you listed. What is your explanation – 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 CWF?
Unfortunately two of your previous claims, 09-04-2018 02:04 PM, are true, “Marketing can change public opinion” – Anti-Science Activists simply throw out masses of fear-laced misinformation and misdirection to try to scare the public into trusting their conclusions, and because of that mistaken trust, “the masses can be wrong“ –– which continues to remind me of the scene in Jungle Book where Kaa claims (1:25), “I'm not like those so-called fair-weather friends of yours. You can believe in me” then places Mowgli in a trance and instructs him to “Trust in me, just in me” in preparation to eating him. Substitute ‘mainstream scientists and health care providers’ for ‘fair-weather friends’ and you will have an excellent illustration of the deceptive tactics of anti-science activists.
Trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to have a discussion with. . . . impossible.
Attack, name calling, attack, name calling, disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks. Your response clearly answers your own questions. Not one reference to science, all opinion and attack. Try being professional and see where that gets you.
What about scientific evidence based discussion scares you? Just evidence, not guns or a train going to run you over.
The first stage to change is denial. Of which you are doing.
Lacking evidence to support their position denial is closely followed by attacking the messenger rather than the message. Which you are doing.
In time, those opposed will say it was really their idea in the beginning. Not long from now you will also be opposed to ingesting excess fluoride.
Because, I am confident, good scientists will stop fluoridation in the not distant future. And then what will you say? They are wrong? Or will you start thinking for yourself rather than being faith, trust based.
Ask a scientific question and I will respond with the best science I'm aware of. If you continue with gossip and attack, I won't waste my time.
Until then, be kind, gentle, friendly, and use polite words.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill. You are accusing me of “name calling, disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric unscientific attacks.”
Please list the specific personal attacks and names I have called you that are “disparaging, and simply cruel, vulgar, barbaric”. I will certainly apologize for any unwarranted personal attacks I have made on you.
However, as I described in my previous comment (10-24-2018 02:23 PM), I stand by my support of the scientific consensus which supports community health measures (like fluoridation, vaccination, community water disinfection, etc.) that are under attack by anti-science activists. I continue to support the majority of science and health organizations and their hundreds of thousands of members who support the consensus.
I am seriously opposed to, and will not apologize for, exposing the fear-mongering and various deceptive tactics of anti-science activists whose agenda is to scam the public into trusting their distortions of the evidence and fearing and doubting the scientific and medical communities.
I repeat – if anti-science activists have legitimate evidence to support their opinions, convince the relevant science and health experts, and the consensus will change – that is how science progresses – not by scamming the public and basing your comments on what you hope will happen in the future – fluoridation opponents have been fighting and claiming they have incontrovertible supporting evidence for over 70 years. Your unsupported, libelous accusations against the science and health professionals in your comments below are the actual unprofessional attacks.
Let’s take a look at your comments that I have responded to and have been trying to obtain clarification of and rational explanations for. I have a similar set of quotes from CarryAnne which I have asked her to clarify without success. Both your comments and those of CarryAnne have all the characteristics of the “attacks” you accuse me of.
(08-19-2018 02:18 AM) “The CDC simply reacts to the ADA and they don't think for themselves or review the research.“
(08-19-2018 07:15 PM) “CDC, ADA and proponents of fluoridation think fluoride is a magic element unaffected by other chemicals, everyone benefits and everyone needs more and no one is at risk. That kind of simplistic thinking might be good for first grade, but not science.”
(07-09-2018 09:09 PM) the “CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing.”and “All the so called "scientific" organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation. None reviewed the science.” and “the credibility of those so called ‘scientific’ organizations [AAP, ADA, CDC] has been seriously tarnished. They do not protect the public. They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.” and “They were silent because they never looked at the science.”, and “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation“
You still have not answered my question about whether you apply these accusations to all the other organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of members) that that continue to publically support CWF or do not publically accept the anti-F opinions. I believe it is safe to conclude from your arguments (unless you publically provide an alternative interpretation) that you would also apply the same descriptions to all members of the 100+ science and health organizations who either support or do not denounce fluoridation. These organizations include the WHO, the AMA, the APA, the CDA, the CMA, the CPS and the other 100+ organizations listed here, 07-04-2018 12:51, by Dr. Haynie.
Until then, be kind, gentle, friendly, and use polite words – are the words you use above (and those used by CarryAnne) examples of what you are recommending?