Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

“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. 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 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
    
2. 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.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 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
   
   
4. 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); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 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

1. 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 
1. 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 
2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
1. 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.” 
3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 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.  

BMCL

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. 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 “Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)

Well, it as been a busy few weeks! 

Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real." 

In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers. 

• UNSAFE: p. 2:  the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.

• HAZARD: p 5:   The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
  
  

• CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
  
  

• VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
  
  

• SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people. 

[CarryAnne]

The better word choice is potable. 

Water additives should have the purpose of making the water potable, not of medicating the consumer. That is clearly the intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the mission of water workers. 
 

• Water workers are not my pharmacist. 
• Political bodies are not my doctor. 
• Neighbors are not the boss of me. 

Each individual has the right to make his or her own medical choices. Fluoride is added to water with the intention of having a medical outcome. Water is consumed because it is necessary to live. I have the right not to have a drug added to my water, especially when I know that it is a substance that causes illness in me and members of my family. 

[DavidF928895]

"Carrie Anne" says, "Water workers are not my pharmacist. Political bodies are not my doctor.  . . .  Each individual has the right to make his or her own medical choices."

Folks, we are talking about optimally fluoridated water here.  There is not one Federal Agency that calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug," or a "medicine."  The only people who call optimally fluoridated water a "drug," are people like you who are trying to generate paranoia.  

Here's a label from a bottle of FDA regulated optimally fluoridated water.  https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2  It's FDA regulated because it's considered a "Food."  You won't see the word drug, or medicine anywhere  on it.  

Again, not one federal agency considers this product a drug.  If I am wrong, please show me which Federal Agency calls water with 0.7 ppm F a drug.  Your comments are a complete denial of reality.

[rs5526]

Well said Carry Anne.  Why fluoridation promoters cannot understand the SDWA is mind-boggling. Thinking that fluoride is added to affect the quality of the water is nonsensical. Fluoride is added specifically to treat humans and has nothing to do with altering either the purity of, the pH of, the natural chemistry of pristine fresh drinking water, or the sterility or general potability of water that the SDWA is intended to protect. Maintaining the natural chemistry of our nation's water supply, when there are peple bull-headedly intent on fluoridating the world, has proven to be an unbelievable nightmare because such people do not understand the meaning of the SDWA.. 

Additives are allowed and in many cases necessary to attempt to normalize as best as possible the natural chemistry of the Nation's water supplies. But additives are not materials added to treat humans. The distinction is clear. The SDWA prohibits any national requirement for any such materials since they have no business being added and labeled as additives as though they purify, sanitize, re-normalize the chemsitry of, etc. the water. 

Fluoride is not an additive. It is infused for its presumed effect on teeth (but has no such significant effect), and sadly it indeed does irreversibly affect bone.

[CarryAnne]

"Words are but wind." - Italian proverb 

”The plausibility of the bladder as a target for fluoride is supported by the tendency of hydrogen fluoride (HF) to form under physiologically acid conditions, such as found in urine. Hydrogen fluoride is caustic and might increase the potential for cellular damage, including genotoxicity." - 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water, page 330

Asbestos was thought so great that not only did we stuff our school buildings full of it, we wove it into kids' pajamas. We did this at the recommendation of the same folks who at the same time were promoting fluoridation. It's the hard data that is meaningful, and we have plenty of data that the chemicals we use to fluoridate our waters convert to HF in our bodies where it is even more toxic than HFSA, FSA or NaF. 

Interesting read: HF becomes FSA but easily converts back: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch08/final/c08s07.pdf

Even in the human body: https://www.nap.edu/read/12741/chapter/6 

[CarryAnne]

It is easy enough for anyone to decline milk with or without vitamin D when there is a medical reason to avoid it, or simply because they dislike it, or if milk is contrary to their religion. Every classroom teacher knows she has a duty to protect her pupils from various exposures per parental instructions. 

No one can survive without water. When fluoride is added to water it permeates everything making it impossible to avoid for those of us with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney diseases caused or worsened by fluoride, inclusive of eczema & psoriasis which are inflamed by bathing in fluoridated water. 

The other side of that coin is that it is easy and cheap to use fluoridated toothpaste, buy fluoridated drinking water for a buck or less a gallon, or give your kids prescription fluoride drops for about $3 a month if you want it. I'm not trying to prevent your choice to use fluoride, just my choice to avoid consuming it and bathing in it.

[DavidF928895]

"Carry Anne," you have misquoted me.  Your quote:  "It is easy enough for anyone to decline milk with or without vitamin D when there is a medical reason to avoid it, or simply because they dislike it, or if milk is contrary to their religion. Every classroom teacher knows she has a duty to protect her pupils from various exposures per parental instructions."  

 In my example I was not informed that my child was drinking milk with Vitamin D added.  And you have shown, by your response, that this would be some kind of a big deal.  If the kid is lactose intollerant, that's one thing.  But using your logic, the problem is the kid getting a healthy dose of Vitamin D.  

By your odd logic, it would be inappropriate to feed a kid a healthy diet rich in fiber, .  .  no beans, no fresh vegatibles, no apples, certainly no cranberry juice, because these things might lead to a healthy digestive system and really good bowel movements.  

According to the Mayo Clinic, "A high-fiber diet may also help reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes."  https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/high-fiber-foods/...

Feeding a child a healthy high fiber diet has medical consequences.

Using your logic, this would be a violation of human rights to force my child to reduce his risk of heart disease and diabetes by forcing him to eat healthy food.   

[rs5526]

Since vitamin D and bone health is now the topic, understand that many dentists who support fluoridation are coming to understand that bone health is compromised when people are treated with fluoride as in water fluoridation. Here for example are statements in one J Dental Res. article:

“While NaF may increase bone mass, the newly formed bone appears to lack normal structure and strength (Carter and Beaupre, 1990; Riggs et al., 1990; Søgaard et al., 1994). In trabecular bone, fluoride results in an increase in bone volume and trabecular thickness without a concomitant increase in trabecular connectivity (Aaron et al., 1991). It is this lack of trabecular connectivity that reduces bone quality despite the increase in bone mass. These observations in humans have been extended in rodents (Søgaard et al., 1995; Turner et al., 1995)” from:

Fluoride’s Effects on the Formation of Teeth and Bones, and the Influence of Genetics

E.T. Everett, J Dent Res. 2011 May; 90(5): 552–560.

Notice that since fluoridation is not halted, dentists believe that poor quality bone is a side effect that one must accept in order to treat teeth. This of course is nonsense since fluoridation of people does not affect dental caries in the first place.

So what pray tell are we supposed to tell seniors who failthfully consume artificially fluoridated  water their entire life and develop bone and joint pain issues in later years? A fluoridaitonist might  falsely proclaim something like: at least you didn't have as many dental caries, and fluoridation is low level so in spite of the accumulation of it in bone, the pain must be caused by something else, but if fluoride accumulation in bone is involved, then that is a side effect of us helping your teeth so live with it--otherwise you would be depriving children of proper dental care.

Scientists and rational people could say: we've tried to halt the fluoridation of your bones since some experience pain even at about 1,700 ppm in bone, the concentration of fluoride in toothpaste which is achieved in people consuming fluoride water for 20 years, but a government recommended program is difficult to stop, we're very sorry. The SDWA was supposed to halt the spread of fluoridation but judges in courts and fluoride promoters have allowed exceptions for fluoridation. 

[DavidF928895]

Thanks for all your input about Vitamin D, Dr. Rich.  However, it would have been more appropriate for you to respond to questions directed toward you, instead of avoiding them.  

For example, this from me:

"Your quote:  ""The NSF labels fluosilicic acid hazardous waste . . "

That is a verifiable "untruth."  NSF says no such thing.  If so, please provide evidence of that."

So, again, could you please provide a link to an NSF website in which it labels fluorosilicic acid a "hazardous waste?"

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus 

[rs5526]

I know it musst be difficult for a fluoridation promoter to understand, because no one actually wants to find out that they are harming, rather than helping, people.  But for the benefit of the country please try harder to understand. 

NSF standard 60 allows the final concentation of EPA contaminants in water at only 10% of their MCL. But 10% of the fluoride MCL's of 2 - 4 ppm in water would be 0.2 - 0.4 ppm. Fluoridation is conducted at 0.7 - 1 ppm, so NSF had little choice but to re-describe the fluoride contaminant (which it is) as a "water additive" (which it is not, since it does not purify water) that would then be allowed.

And since when is a Nation's entire water supply supposed to be controlled by a private organization anyway? Answer: when the EPA does not want to regulate a contaminant because it is believed at low concentrations to be a therapeutic treatment that is endorsed by the Federal CDC, then the private organization the NSF is asked to take charge of certification of the EPA hazardous waste source material. Avoiding liability is of paramount importance to Federal agencies, so when an Agency is expected to take charge of an issue with which they have no expertise, then it is farmed out. Understand better? 

[DavidF928895]

Richard, your quote:  "I know it musst be difficult for a fluoridation promoter to understand, because no one actually wants to find out that they are harming, rather than helping, people.  But for the benefit of the country please try harder to understand. 

NSF standard 60 allows the final concentation of EPA contaminants in water at only 10% of their MCL. But 10% of the fluoride MCL's of 2 - 4 ppm in water would be 0.2 - 0.4 ppm. Fluoridation is conducted at 0.7 - 1 ppm, so NSF had little choice but to re-describe the fluoride contaminant (which it is) as a "water additive" (which it is not, since it does not purify water) that would then be allowed."

First of all, I don't know that I'm a "fluoridation promoter."  I consider myself more of an anti-scare mongerer.

I asked the fluoridation engineer at the CDC about the point you are making.  First of all, nowhere in the SDWA does it say that all water additives must only purify water.  There are many additives which are NSF approved which treat other additives.  There are additives which adjust pH.  --  My point here is that a legal expert you are not.

Anyway, Kip Duchon at the CDC explained that the NSF rule you cited does not apply to the additive itself.  I know you already know this, because you have already said this in a previous comment.  

Your quote:  "And since when is a Nation's entire water supply supposed to be controlled by a private organization anyway? Answer: when the EPA does not want to regulate a contaminant because it is believed at low concentrations to be a therapeutic treatment that is endorsed by the Federal CDC, then the private organization the NSF is asked to take charge of certification of the EPA hazardous waste source material. Avoiding liability is of paramount importance to Federal agencies, so when an Agency is expected to take charge of an issue with which they have no expertise, then it is farmed out."

Wow!  It must be scarey in your world.  First of all, EPA takes responsibility for water fluoridation.  For the 4th time now, EPA allows 4 ppm F in drinking water.  If anyone were to be harmed by drinking water with 1 ppm F, that would be EPA's fault.  And guess what.  People sue the EPA all the time.  

In the second place, the "nation's entire water supply" isn't controlled by a private organization.  You are talking about NSF?  EPA has outsourced some of its workload to NSF, an independent not-for-profit organization which is made up experts in many fields.

[rs5526]

And it appears you agree, that the NSF 10% rule is not applied to the fluoride contaminant as long as fluoride is used on purpose because then it is considered an "additive."  But additives are substances used specifically to sanitize water -- the term does not apply to any subsatnce infused to treat humans. Substances that treat human tissue are not water "additives" because adidtives are to purify water, and to maintian the normal chemistry of the nation's water supplies, including adjusting the pH (especially after the pH has been lowered un-naturally with fluosilicic acid infusions).

That is the whole point. The rule for contaminants (of which fluoride in water is) is not used when fluoride is infused into water intentionally because it is then re-considered to be, and re-labeled as, an "additive." 

Again, where's the beef with whaat I have said?.

[DavidF928895]

Rich's quote:  "But additives are substances used specifically to sanitize water"

Response:  Wrong!  Where do you get that?  For the 5th time now, there are many additives to drinking water which have nothing to do with purifying or sanitizing it.  

Please explain why you think why a water additive must have something to do with purification.

[rs5526]

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?

[DavidF928895]

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?

[rs5526]

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.

[DavidF928895]

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.  

[DavidF928895]

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

[rs5526]

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.

[DavidF928895]

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

[rs5526]

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. .

[rs5526]

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?

[rs5526]

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?

[rs5526]

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.

[CarryAnne]

 “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)

[RandyJ913440]

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…”

[DavidF928895]

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.

[DavidF928895]

"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.  

[CarryAnne]

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: 

Numerical Deceit

[DrChuckHaynie]

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 . . .

[rs5526]

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.