- AARP Online Community
- Games Talk
- Games Tips
- Leave a Game Tip
- Ask for a Game Tip
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Ask for a Rewards Tip
- Leave a Rewards Tip
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Entertainment Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- Home & Family Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Travel Forums
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
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!
Fluoridation is the dosing of municipal water with a drug that is harmful to millions of consumers.
Repeating: In 1995, the FDA wrote there was no consensus about fluoride as a nutrient, so "RDI should not be established for fluoride” plus in the case of consumption, FDA wrote fluoride is "regulated as drugs because of their intended use (to prevent disease) and, therefore are not subject to the food labeling regulations." https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-28/pdf/95-31197.pdf
FDA says fluoride may be listed as an ingredient in bottled water that "may" have dental benefit so long as that water is not marketed to infants. FDA allows sale of prescriptions of fluoride as an "unapproved drug" which means it is not warranted by the FDA for safety or effectiveness. (Topical use of fluoride is handled separately.)
Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and the EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF.
So if the FDA won't allow fluoridated bottled water to be marketed to infants with claims of dental benefit and has all sorts of restrictions around other use, why should we believe fluoridationists who claim fluoridation is safe for babies and good for kids let alone safe for seniors who have been consuming it for decades and are suffering with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney diseases known to be caused or worsened by fluoride?
By the way, "Carry Anne," this comment from you is also wrong:
"Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. "
It was the EPA which outsourced some of its workload to NSF. The FDA has nothing to do with community water distribution systems or anything that is added to its water. Again - EPA. FDA has nothing to do with NSF - Period. That would be the EPA.
It must be a confusing world for you with all of these factual inaccuracies with which you try to impress the reader.
Slow down David,
EPA legal office says FDA is responsible.
Remember, I posted previously a quotation from the EPA's attorney, Steven M. Neugeboren, Associate General Counsel, Water Law Office, February 14, 2013,
I can email you the entire letter if you give me your email address. Too long to write it out here for you. But let me quote more,
"EPA does not have responsibility for substances added to water solely for prevetative health care purposes, such as fluoride, other than to limit the addition of such substances to protect public health. . . The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acting through the FDA, remains responsible fo rregulating the addition of drugs to water supplies for health care purposes."
Go to the FDA website and learn the definition of a drug.
In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug. One way is "INTENT" of use. FDA considers a placebo a drug. Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug.
Even if the manufacturer does not make a health claim, if the public at large considers or it is well known to the public that a substance may cure, treat or prevent disease, then the FDA defines that substance as a drug.
Read the FDA documents.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
billo, let's take a look at what you just said:
Your quote: "In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug. One way is "INTENT" of use. FDA considers a placebo a drug. Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug."
This is a quote from a Mayo Clinic website:
" A high-fiber diet may also help reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes."
You say the INTENT makes something a drug. The Mayo Clinic says if you eat Apples, Beans, Bran, Oranges, Carrots . . . as part of a high-fiber diet, you are helping yourself reduce the risk of diabetes.
According to what you just said, if you want to stay heart-healthy, you're drugging yourself when you eat an apple, because your INTENT has medical consequences.
Do you fully appreciate what a joke your argument is?
Two items here.
A. You raise the issue of "foods" vs "drugs" and reference an opinion of the Mayo Clinic rather than the FDA. The FDA is more precise. But lets look closer. The FDA regulates industry claims and has given precise wording. Read their web pages, many of them.
And is a high fiber diet listed in the US Pharmacopea? No.
You are correct, there is a difference between foods and drugs and the fine line can be confusing. For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison. Fluoride is highly toxic and if not regulated under pesticide laws or drug laws is regulated under poison laws.
And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral. Read the toothpaste labels.
You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods. You think the FDA is funny because you have not read their web pages or gone through the approval process. I have with an approved device and the FDA is excellent and fair. They are not a joke. You think they are a joke because you don't understand their rules.
Now to the second point. Don't be a bully. Be professional and use professional words. Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar. Derogatory personal attacks don't look well on you.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Ah, no dr. bill, you have completely re-written history with your comment.
You originally said . . (you know, because you wanted to make the argument that optimally fluoridated water was a drug) . . you said,
"In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug. One way is "INTENT" of use. FDA considers a placebo a drug. Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug."
That flawed statement is the only thing I was addressing in my comment.
Now you say, "For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison."
Irrelevant to your statement. Toxicity was not part of your definition of the word "drug."
You now say, "And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral. Read the toothpaste labels."
Irrelevant. Toothpaste is not optimally fluoridated water.
You say, "You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods."
No. I called your argument a joke. The FDA does not consider optimally fluoridated water - you know, what we are talking about here - to be a drug.
You say, "Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar."
Response: You seem to have a problem with accepting reality. It is you who lack understanding, and you have demonstrated it many times. You don't understand the purpose of the FOIA, you don't understand clear statutes in the SDWA. And to this discussion, there is not one federal U.S. agency which considers optimally fluoridated water a drug - in any sense of the word, and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.
billo, we were talking about "Carry Anne"'s false statement that the FDA outsourced its workload to NSF. Your comment here is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Nevertheless, the EPA has never said that the FDA is responsible for adding fluoroscilic acid to water distribution systems. What you just said is a blatant lie. If you have some kind of problem with reality, or you think something illegal is going on, the correct forum for that is a Court of Law, not the comment's section of an AARP website.
Oh, sure, it's easier to pull the wool over the eyes of an AARP website administrator, but not so easy in court where you would have to face informed parties.
You know, I'm surprised that a legal genius like yourself would make such a laughable blunder as to lie about a supposed Freedom of Information Act Request that you made to clarify the meaning of a clear statute in the SDWA. The FIOA doesn't exist to clarify law. It exists to request documents which have been hidden from the public.
"Carry Anne," I asked you to provide one example of any Federal Agency which considers optimally fluoridated water - what we are talking about here - a "drug," or a "medicine."
You provided none.
No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.
What you did was to provide evidence that people consider Fluoride itself is a drug. So what. Here is evidence that Oxygen is a drug: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688103/ or this, http://epmonthly.com/article/oxygen-is-a-drug-act-accordingly/ But no sane person considers optimally oxygenated air a drug.
Again, please provide any example of any federal agency which calls optimally fluoridated water a drug or a medicine. Again, the only people who do that are people like you who are attempting to generate paranoia.
You stated, "No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug."
1. Netherlands determined Fluoride added to water is a drug.
“. . . at present the addition of chemicals to drinking water is prohibited by law in the Netherlands. This law came into effect because it was widely perceived that drinking water should not be used as a vehicle for pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, fluoridation of drinking water would conflict with the freedom to choose for natural drinking water. This principle of freedom of choice is considered as an important basic principle in the Netherlands.” (but not for David)
SOURCE: 2007 – RIVM report 270091004/2007 for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports
2. Supreme Court of Canada ruled fluoride a drug (regardless of dilution.)
3. US FDA has testified to Congress that fluoride is a drug. Congressional Investigation 2001
4. Read your FDA approved toothpaste label and www.FDA.gov on drugs. FDA requires the warning "DO NOT SWALLOW."
5. “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS (g)(1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;”
Note: there is no law which exempts FDA regulation of a drug because the drug is diluted in public water. If so, drug dealers could dilute meth or any other drug in public water and bottle it exempt from FDA oversight. Nothing about dilution is part of the drug laws. Fluoride is listed in the US Pharmacopoeia, Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia.
“. . .there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended or suggested in its labeling. . . marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have, therefore, requested that marketing of these products be discontinued.” FDA Letter to 35 Companies DRUG THERAPY 1975
Congress defined drugs: Articles INTENDED for use in the . . . prevention of disease. . . " 21 USC 321 (g)(1)(B)
Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added
Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.
Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of caries....“
Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark.“
Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated“
Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!
Netherlands REJECTED: Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgment overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.
Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.
Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.
Israel SUSPENDED mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects.: June 21, 2006 “The labor, welfare and health Knesset committee”
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Billo, your quote:
You stated, "No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.""
That is correct. And nothing in your comment has disproven that. The Netherlands is not a Federal Agency. Nor is any foreign country a U.S. Federal Agency.
Toothpaste is not optimally fluoridated water. Pure fluoride is not optimally fluoridated water . . . just as pure oxygen, an FDA approved drug, is not optimally oxyginated air. Air is not a "drug" simply because 20.95% of it is an FDA approved theraputic drug.
Oh, by the way, as you people love to point out, endorsements don't prove a thing.
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.
"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.
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.
"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
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.
"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.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
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?.
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.
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. .
AARP Online Community
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Help
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
New Feature: Theater Mode supports a full-width gameplay experience on laptop and desktop. Try it out today on these AARP Rewards-badged favorites: Daily Crossword, Right Again! Trivia, and Let’s Crossword! Try it out today!
Sync your smartphone or favorite tracker with AARP Rewards to earn points for hitting steps, swimming and cycling milestones Sync now.
From soft jazz to hard rock - discover music's mental, social and physical benefits. Learn more.