Reply
Conversationalist

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. 

 

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. 

 

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! 

29,929 Views
1449
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Billo, we've discussed this.  Your problem is that you don't want to listen.

 

The EPA would be responsible if any harm came to any person who drinks optimally fluoridated water.  Again, since you missed it the first time:  The EPA allows 4 parts per million of fluoride in our drinking water.  That's on them.

 

If any person were documented to have been harmed by drinking water with only 1 part per million of fluoride, they would have every right to sue the EPA for negligence.  And guess what - people sue the EPA all the time.  

 

The FDA has nothing to say about optimally fluoridated tap water, because the FDA doesn't consider it a drug.  No Federal U.S. Agency Considers optimally fluoridated water a "drug."

 

Again, since you seem to have missed it every time it is mentioned, the FDA has regulatory jurisdiction over bottled water because it is considered a "food."  Bottled water does not fall under the same jurisdiction as tap water (as in CWF), even though it is the same product. 

 

You will not see the word "drug" on this label of FDA regulated fluoridated water.  https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2

 

You will not see the word "drug" on a label of bread with folic acid added.  You will not see the word drug on a gallon of milk that has vitamin D added, you will not see the word drug on a package of Morton Salt that has iodine added to help prevent goiter. 

 

The only people who call optimally fluoridated water a drug are those sad true believerrs, and you, people who are trying to raise the level of paranoia about water fluoridation so that the Fluoride Action Network's donors can sell their expensive alternative health junk. 

0 Kudos
673 Views
27
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Some in the current FDA consider fluoride in water to be a poison, and not a drug, that should be regulated by the EPA, that is true. However others in the FDA recognize that the U.S. Pharmacopia labels fluoride, when intended for ingestion to treat caries, as a drug. 

In fact, the fight over whether the switch from using sodium fluoride (a USP Drug) to fluosilicic acid was precisely over this, since fluosilicic acid is not a USP drug (it's just another source of fluoride for its use as though it were a drug).  The usual published argument from fluoridation advocates is that there is no need to use USP grade sodium fluoride drugs in water fluoridation because the amount of arsenic in the product water might be higher than when using fluosilicic acid. But this is of course nonsense because all USP grade drugs are made under GMP conditions that do not allow impure source materials.

 

The point is, no one has a right to reject Dr. Osmunsen for calling fluoride a drug.

The US Pharmacopia also says it is.  So complaints could be addressed to them.   

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
694 Views
8
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

As usual, your rant is backed up with no objective evidence.  It is nothing more than a rant and any objective reader of this thread sees it for what it is.  

 

Your quote:  "The point is, no one has a right to reject Dr. Osmunsen for calling fluoride a drug.

The US Pharmacopia also says it is."

 

Response:  Your comment is deceptive.  U.S. Pharmacopia does not say that optimally fluoridated water is a drug.  If it does, please provide evidence.  

 

U.S. Pharmacopia does not call bread with folic acid a drug.  Nor does it call salt with iodine to prevent goiter a drug.  Nor does it call milk with vitamin D a drug.  

0 Kudos
690 Views
7
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Sorry but folic acid and vitamin D are essential vitamins,  essential for normal health. They have nothing to do with toxic fluoride, which is not a component of normal human blood and which is not a nutrient, having no physiologic purpose of any kind. The absence of fluoride does not cause dental caries. Caries are caused by leaving sugars on teeth so that streptococcus.mutans metabolic acids dissolve enamel.

 

And of course the USP does not list fluoridated water as a drug because water itself is not a drug. But the fluoride added into the water from USP sodium fluoride is already certainly labeled a drug.

 

And again, whether fluoride infused into water to treat dental caries is argued  to be only a mineral and not a drug can be debated, but what cannot be debated is the fact that the forced whole body fluoridation of citizens is harmful, useless, and illegal as published in references previously submitted (Top 10 Contributions on Environmental Health, Chapter 8, AVID Science, 2018) at: http://www.avidscience.com/book/top-10-contributions-on-environmental-health/

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0
Kudos
8500
Views
685 Views
6
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, 

 

Once again you have shifted the issue at hand.  We are not talking about what is essential.  That is a discussion that you have already lost previously in this thread.  We are talking about what is considered a "drug."  

 

Again, there is no federal agency which considers optimally fluoridated water, or any of its ingredients, a drug.  Again, for the 4th time, this is a label from the FDA regulated product "Dannon's Fluoride to Go" fluoridated bottled water https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2

Where does the word "drug" appear on this label?  The FDA doen't consider this product to be a drug in any sense of the word.  Only you do.

 

Regarding your link.  This was to a non-peer reviewed paper that you wrote.  On it you claimed affiliation to the Department of Chemistry at the University of California.  That is a lie.  You have no affiliation with the the Chemistry Department at any University. 

 

0 Kudos
647 Views
5
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Arguing with a fluoridation advocate is pretty bizarre.  Whoever the one here is, he acts like he is the authority on the subject but yet provides no credentials, and nevertheless accuses me of not being forthcoming with credentials. Pretty slick.

The latest version of the article that is now under attack was an invited book chapter that updated the orginal article published under rigorous peer review at the Jour. of Env. and Pub. Health 2013. I stand by my work.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
637 Views
3
Report
Reply
Trusted Contributor

Thank you Dr. Sauerhaber, Dr. Osmunson, and CarryAnne! I agree that these fluoride promoters, who apparently have never done any fluoride research themselves, take the audience as fools. They merely rely on the corrupt opinions of some authoritative bodies only, which have neither done any fluoride research themselves, nor take any responsibility for the harms caused by fluoridation, such as the ADA.

Since there has been multiple recent peer reviewed studies regarding fluoride harms, these fluoride promoters are nothing but science deniers, who think their opinion is somehow more valuable than science. Opinions, let alone lay opinions, do not stand in court, since they are worthless. Science speaks for itself and is not just an opinion, even if an opinion by some brainwashed dentist.

Here is a brand new study from Canada, which clearly shows a causal link between fluoridation and thyroid damage: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/30316182/

2,231 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Thank you for the Canada study. It looks very well done, considering that one cannot place people in cages to control all potential confounding variables. The sampe size was large and the difference between groups were clearly between non-fluoridaed (0.2 ppm fluoride in water average) and fluoridated (0.6 ppm) and the urine fluoride measured reflected these levels accurately.  The elevated TSH due to iodine deficiency plus fluoride exposure was, as stated, very likely an underestimate because those with clinical hypothyroidism (likely most vulnerable to fluoride toxicity) were excluded from the study.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
2,199 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

We've also gone over the other complaint before. Dr. Groth of the FDA originally ruled that fluoride levels were not to be listed on bottled water because that would give the public the impression that fluoride belongs in water.

And labeling bottled water with fluoride a drug would condemn many water supplies that contain fluoride naturally in calcium-rich water supplies.

AGAIN, the FDA ruled that adding fluoride into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug (letter from FDA chief Edna Lovering, 1963). In 1963 there were no "links" to this fact. But the absence of links does not change the fact.

Understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
597 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

We've gone over this before (and I won, I didn't "lose").

My affiliation with UCSD is long-standing. I completed my BA and PhD there and have done graduate work there over the years. The listing of UCSD on the original article (peer reviewed by Dr. Stephen Peckham for the Journal of Environmental and Public Health) is through the late Dr. Andrew Benson. He assisted with the article and provided help with it eventually being published. He also taught on the toxicity of synthetic fluoride compounds in my earlier education. He completed his Ph.D. at UC Berkeley on the fluoridated derivatives of thyroxine. His work lead to the Nobel Prize in biochemistry for  discovering the carbon fixation reaction in plant photosynthesis and the development of the Calvin Benson cycle.

Since his passing I no longer work with anyone at UCSD other than the alumni association. So what?

From what is stated, one would assume that because I cited the works, of Ziegelbecker and of Teotia and Teotia and of Yiamouyiannis and of Sutton, that their work must be rejected?  And suddenly my data on the conversion of fluoride to HF over a broad pH range (down to stomach pH levels) is also not peer reviewed and somehow suspect?  How cute.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
562 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

I assume by "Billo" you are referring to Dr. Osmunsen? If so, understand that there are many communmications between citizens and EPA officials that are not placed in an online link.

Second, the 4 ppm allowed by the EPA, because some calcium-rich waters contain that naturally, is to prevent stage III severe skeletal fluorosis with inability to walk due to spicules extending from bone. And the 2 ppm MCLG was set to prevent severe dental fluorosis where teeth are so disfigured from fluoride ingestion as to be a gross deformity.

 

What does this have to do with water fluoridation? Water fluoridation is not regulated by the EPA. That is because it is the intentional discharge of fluoride into water to treat people which is rightfully the responsibility of the FDA (who also refuses to accept that responsibility). No Federal Agency regulates water fluoridation and accepts liabliity for any of its hazards. The NRC was commissioned by the EPA to investigate the relevance of their old 4 and 2 ppm standards and were specifically told NOT to investigate water fluoridation (again, because the EPA takes no responsibility for water fluoridation).

 

There are however data in the NRC report on 1 ppm fluoride in water that have proven harm to consumers, and the conclusion was that the old levels of 2 and 4 do not protect all consumers from all harm.  This is not difficult to understand, right?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
452 Views
8
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

And the CA state law that purportedly "mandates" water fluoridation is not even actionable. No mention is made for what source chemical to use for fluoride. Does this mean we can use arsenic fluoride, fluosilicic acid for fluoride, anything with fluoride?  Of course not, but no source is even stated. AND the tacit assumption in the opening of the law states that ingesting fluoride (no source identified) reduces caries. This of course has always been false, based on a correlation with natural calcium fluoride in water that never was causative (as described previously, fluoride absence does not cause caries and dental enamel is so hard that fluoride cannot enter its matrix, and saliva fluoride at 0.016 ppm from water ingestion is 96,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste). So the State "Mandate" has no meaning. 

I encourage cities in CA to halt fluoridation because all those that have are not under any penalty or punishment of any kind. In fact,  CA DPH officials wrote to me saying that CA DPH does not require cities to fluoridate. That decision is made by city officials themselves. We do not oppose it and we do not endorse it.

So don't worry cities, just stop the program, save your funds for something useful, and go back to delivering clean fresh drinking water as you always had done before the "mandate" that has no interpretable meaning. 

[One city in CA that is listed as fluoridated is actually not , becasue the water operator stopped ordering the hazardous waste and his suprvisor didn't care either. Some cities have rational officials]. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
834 Views
4
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Hi Richard,

There are only 3 fluoride water additives approved for use in the US by the American Water Works Association. Specifying which of these three that has to be used doesn’t allow the fluoridation decision-makers the flexibility to choose which they feel would work best for their community. The equipment design and costs vary depending on which fluoride additive that they choose. 

https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/wfadditives.htm

 

As for for statements about calcium fluoride, the low salivary fluoide content, and fluoride not being able to enter the enamel matrix has been addressed in detail by Dr. Gary Whitford, a dentist, toxicologist, and researcher. Your statements have been scientifically been debunked:

http://www.fluoridescience.org/assets/FullReview_Sauerheber2013.pdf

 

Your encouragement of cities to stop water fluoridation because it doesn’t work is not supported in credibly conducted scientific research that has been published in credibly recognized peer-reviewed journals. 

 

The overwhelming consensus based upon the preponderance of the literature continues to confirm the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation at the low fluoride levels of 0.7ppm in water fluoridation. To promote stopping fluoridation is a willful disregard for families who suffer cavities and the pain and suffering that goes along with it. Do you oppose vaccinations as well?

 

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

President, American Fluoridation Society 

 

 

0 Kudos
1,060 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

My work has never been "debunked" although fluoridationists certainly wish they could. The poisoning in Hooper Bay was due to a sodium fluoride water feed that corroded a pump valve. When did I ever say the same system is used in other public water systems? And yes fluoridationist blogs have attacked the analysis but failed. I never said that using calcium fluoride in soft water lacking calcium, rather than NaF, would make a significnat impact in lowering blood and urine fluoride levels from the consumed water. Instead, the fact is that if calcium fluoride had been used in Hooper Bay, no one would have died and none of the 300 people would have had to have been evacuated to distant hospitals for their severe GI pain.

The reason this is so is because the solubility of calcium fluoride is limited to about 8 ppm. No natural fluoride in fresh water, even in Turkey or India or China where severe bone fluorosis is endemic, could immediately kill with heart block because the water does not contain added industrial soluble fluorides. Natural fluoride is calcium fluoride that is always accompanied with plentiful calcium from other calcium salts. Blood fluoride levels cannot achieve lethal concentrations even when water is 8 ppm natural fluoride.

But NaF is a different matter with infinite solubility in water.This is why the corroded pump valve produced 100 ppm fluoride in the drinking water. The bizarre thing is that the Public Health Service refuses to accept ANY liability for the death and poisonings and instead blames the city for doing it, when the PHS made the city fluoridate in the first place! Hooper Bay now rightfully refuses fluoridation even though the PHS still requests that they do. I defend their rights to deny fluoridation and abhorr that it is being forced on cities around the country against their express will -- so are youi going to shoot me?

 

Everyone knows that there are three currently used starting materials rubber stamped by the NSF. So what? They are all fully solubile in water to high concentrations and are all manufactured with industrial processes that do not follow GMPs required by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act as recently upgraded to include all supplements used in the U.S.

The idea that fluoridation is merely adjusting "water properties" and thus is not a supplement or a drug is false. The express purpose of water fluoride infusions (Conshow vs Escondido, 2005) as testifed by CADPH official David Nelson is to elevate the fluoride level in blood to attempt to prevent dental caries. The purpose is not to adjust the natural conditions of the water. The purpose is to alter the water so that blood fluoride levels will rise.

Whole body fuoridation is a crime--especially whole body fluoridation of infants in the womb where the U.S FDA banned the sale of all flouride compounds intended to be sold for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. This is all reviewed in the JEPH 2013 article. And yet there are vast numbers of pregnant U.S. women who consuime artificially fluoridated water in treated cities today, because current NSF personnel know nothing about nor care about the FDA ruling. NSF is a private money-making for-profit group. It is not a nonprofit governmental agency that is run by U.S. citizens through the voting will of the public.

 

"Debunk" this all you want, but such thoughts have no meaning.

And if yo want to debunk something, debunk the idea that blood fluoride somehow reduces caries when it doesn't. Even the CDC published research indicating that the effect of fluoridated water on caries (they believe occurs) is NOT mediated by systemic blood fluoride. Again, catch up with the truth because one day it will catch up to all.

The real problem is that infusing minute levels of a toxic material into public water supplies (which avoids acute toxicity through use of expensive electronic metered infusion systems in most U.S. water supplies today) fulfills the prediction of Buck (The Grim Truth about Water Fluoridation, 1960). He wrote that such a program would not be able to be proven as causing direct harm and thus those running such a program will not be stopped and chronic toxicity will prevail. I hold the view however that with enough time one day it could  be stopped. I don't give up on hope.

Again, CA AB733 does not have sufficient deetail to be meaningful. The purpose of blood fluoride is to lower caries (as stated underoath in court by one of the key authors of the law), but the CDC after that law was passed reported that blood fluoride does not lower caries.

And the use of calcium fluoride would prevent adverse acutely toxic overfeeds.   I can't change the facts.

I usually say I'm sorry, but with this crowd, I pass on that..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,107 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Dr. Johnny Johnson,

 

I'm still waiting for your apology for slander.   And what about 60% of adolescents (20% moderate/severe) having dental fluorosis a biomarker of excess fluoride, is safe?

 

Stop ignoring research, such as:

 

Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Wo...

 

Study: Fluoride levels in pregnant women in Canada show drinking water is primary source of exposure...

 

A new study led by York University researchers has found that fluoride levels in urine are twice as high for pregnant women living in Canadian cities where fluoride is added to public drinking water as for those living in cities that do not add fluoride to public water supplies.

 

The study “Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada” was published today in Environmental Health PerspectivesIt is the first study in North America to examine how fluoride in water contributes to urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women. The research was conducted as part of a larger study funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigating whether early life exposure to fluoride affects the developing brain.

 

“We found that fluoride in drinking water was the major source of exposure for pregnant women living in Canada. Women living in fluoridated communities have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in non-fluoridated communities,” said Christine Till, an associate professor of Psychology in York’s Faculty of Health and lead author on the study.

The Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study recruited 2,001 pregnant women between 2008 and 2011. The women lived in 10 large cities across Canada. Seven of the cities (Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Sudbury, Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg) added fluoride to municipal water while three (Vancouver, Montreal and Kingston) did not.

 

Urine samples were collected during each trimester of pregnancy for over 1,500 women. Fluoride levels in municipal water treatment plants that provided water to each women’s home were obtained. Information about each woman’s demographics, lifestyle and medical history was also collected.

 

In addition to fluoridated water, sources of fluoride can include toothpastes, mouth rinses, as well as processed beverages and food, especially those made with fluoridated water. Beyond water, products such as tea have previously been found to have high concentrations of natural fluoride.

 

In this study, fluoride level in water was the main determinant of fluoride level in the women’s urine. Higher consumption of black tea was also correlated with higher levels of urinary fluoride in pregnant women.

 

The levels of fluoride among pregnant women living in fluoridated communities in Canada were similar with levels reported in a prior study of pregnant women living in Mexico City where fluoride is added to table salt.

 

“This finding is concerning because prenatal exposure to fluoride in the Mexican sample has been associated with lower IQ in children. New evidence published today in Environment International also reported an association between higher levels of fluoride in pregnancy and inattentive behaviours among children in the same Mexican sample,” said Till.

 

The research team, including experts from Simon Fraser University, Université Laval, Indiana University, University of Montreal and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, is investigating whether prenatal exposure to fluoride in Canadian children results in IQ deficits, similar to the Mexican study.

 

Fluoride has been added to public drinking water in Canadian and American communities since the 1940s as a means of preventing tooth decay. Today, about 40 per cent of Canadians and 74 percent of the U.S. population on public water supplies receive fluoridated water.

 

 Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

 

1,108 Views
0
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

this is utter baloney. Only approved water additives which meet NSF/AWWA Standard 60 criteria of purity and physical properties can be used as an additive in water treatment plants.

It is an easily verifiable fact that this author's opinions are opposite to the the support of fluoridation from America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians, Internal Medicine specialists and public health experts.

Readers must choose between a lone-wolf opponent and mainstream scientific opinion.

It is this opponent's wishful thinking that the California (and other state mandates) law is not actionable.
0
Kudos
9897
Views
0 Kudos
988 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

For anyone interested:  While we are on the subject of being fraudulent, let's review what happened to force CA to fluoridate all cities with more than 10,000 water connections.

As mentioned, David Nelson helped write the fluoridation mandate law that was not put up for public vote and was passed by the State Legislature anyway. Nelson in discussions with us citizens in L.A. responded to complaints about the Hooper Bay, AK fluoride water poisoning disaster by saying "that was not the fault of water fluoridation."  I said why?  He said "because the wife of the man killed, it was her fault". Why?  "Because she is a nurse and should have known that when he vomited the water he drank, that it must have had too much fluoride and she should not have given him more water when he asked for it". 

 

Note: Dominic Smith, the deceased Coast Guardsman at the time, was very thirsty when the fluoride overfeed (to about 100 ppm) occured from a fluoride-corroded valve, and there are many causes of vomiting besides high fluoride in water, and Nelson always claims that fluoridation is totally safe for all consumers at all times.

 

So as the author of an article on the incident, I responded by saying "do you mean this event that poisoned 300 people was the wife's fault, not the fault of the water district for a fluoridation overfeed? Did she go around town and purposely give water to all these victims, really?"  He caught himself in his own false story and pulled the usual reponse "Richard, I just do what the CDC tells me to do" and abruptly ended the discussion.

 

This of course does not mean the CDC wanted the man to be killed. It does though mean that people are harmed from the operations required for water fluoridation and that officials in charge are the first to invent fraudulent stories to protect the bone fluoridation program which itself causes harm, is useless in preventing caries, and is illegal.

 

I found that Nelson truly believes in his heart that whole body fluoridation of kids is good for them. He even accused us, for opposing fluoridation, as hating children for depriving them of good dental care.  I'm not kidding!  (And no, this is not a tirade, it is a summary of facts). Nelson is now retired after taking 1 million yearly to force cities in CA to fluoridate. He had been convicted of dental malpractice and after leaving dentistry he took a job with the CA DPH to promote fluoridation of the State of CA, as desired for the country by dental officials in the Oral Health Division of the CDC..

Get the picture?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
806 Views
1
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Citing an incident in a remote Alaskan Yup'ik Eskimo village which does not serve individual homes; has no fresh water distribution system and no sewer system is hopefully clearly irrelevant to modern water utility plant operation. This is a good example why undecided readers investigating fluoridation should look to legitimate credible mainstream expert opinion rather than misleading arguments
0 Kudos
1,048 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

For the readers, please examine this link:

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride#section=Top

This describes fluoride as a drug that is used in water fluoridation. Fluoride of course is actually a poison, but when it used to try to treat people for dental caries through ingestion, it is then defined as a drug by the government. 

 

Also in there you will find that the CDC website is packed with false ilnformation that contradicts the information in PubChem. For example, eating fluoride along with milk or a calcium rich breakfast reduces fluoride assimilation substantlally.  When I informed the CDC of this fact, the CDC hired their own study which was sloppily done to allow themselves the luxury of concluding that industrial fluoride ingestion (which does not contain calcium) is no different than natural fluoride ingestion when calcium is present.  

 

I personally don't care if a fluoridation advocate calls fluoride a drug, supplement, an ingestible oral dentifrice, or something else. It simply doesn't matter. The fact is that it is illegal to not only add drugs, or supplements, or foods into water, it is illegal for the National CDC to request that States (which mandate it) add ANYTHING into public water supplies (Clean Water Act and Water Polllution Control Act), other than specific allowances made for agents that sanitize the water (SDWA). . 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
593 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

 

 

There has been no response from your alleged FOIA Request which stated that water fluoridation is illegal.  For one thing, FOIA Requests exist to make previously undisclosed documents available to the public.  That department of the EPA would not waste its time re-interpreting a very clear statute for you.  That's not what they do.

 

For another thing, I have searched the entire catalogue of EPA FOIA Requests for the response which you claim exists.  It doesn't exist.  It wasn't there.  You don't have it.  You can't find it.  You can't provide a link to it - and there should be a link to it.  

 

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

0 Kudos
623 Views
8
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

David,

 

Stick to the facts rather than attacking people.  Just because you don't know something doesn't mean the other person is a liar.  Try to be professional.  Try to be factual and scientific.  Everything you don't know, is not automatically a lie.

 

Contact the EPA with the FOIA number.  Ask them.

 

And what does your fluoride toothpaste label say?   "Drug Facts."

 

Fluoride added to water did not go through the regulatory process.  Rather a health claim was permitted based on other agencies, not the science.

 

Contact the FDA and ask if ingesting fluoride with the intent to prevent disease is a drug.  And ask if it is diluted in water with the same intent, is it a drug?

 

Ask.  Do your homework.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

0 Kudos
610 Views
7
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

The FDA defines a drug as a product intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease and as a product intended to affect the structure or body of a person or an animal.

However it is delivered to a body does not alter the fact that fluoride, which is intended to affect the structure of teeth, is a drug by this authoritative definition.

Delivering fluoride to a population by way of community water fluoridation (CWF) should not conflate the drug (fluoride) and method of delivery (by water) into a new entity called ‘optimally fluoridated water’ and ludicrously assert, as does DavidF, that no federal U.S. agency considers ‘optimally fluoridated water’ a "drug."

It is also wrong to assert that no federal agency considers any of the ingredients of CWF as a drug, e.g. the FDA classes sodium fluoride – a sometimes ingredient of CWF – as a drug.

Iodine is the drug ingredient of some salts and folic acid the drug ingredient of some breads.  

0 Kudos
577 Views
6
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Please understand that the Safe Drinking Water Act, prohibiting any National requirement for substances placed into water, includes not only drugs, but any and ALL substances that do not sanitize the water--period.

The CA Dept. of Pub. Health officer David Nelson, who forced L.A. to fluoridate, knew full well of this stipulation in the SDWA. When asked why he thought mandatory fluoridation in CA and other States, as requested by officials in the Oral Health Division of the CDC, was legal, he said "we don't force people to drink the water, that is up to them". In other words this fluoridationist thinks he is not violating the SDWA because everyone has the freedom to NOT drink the treated water if they wish.

What this argument fails to grasp is that the SDWA prohibits a National requirement for the very addition itself into water. It does not stipulate a prohibition on forcing people to drink. It does not stipulate whether anyone drinks the water or not. It prohibits adding substances into water by National decree.

Officials in the CDC OHD request State Depts. of Public  Health inform cities of the need to fluoridate in their long quest to fluoridate the country. Now that 70% of water districts participate in this bone fluoridation program, and many states such as CA have laws making it a mandate, this National program violates the SDWA , whether people avoid ingesting the water or not. The water is being tainted daily and in violation of the law.

Nelson refused to discuss this any further and gave his typical reply "I just do what the CDC tells me, Richard."

There were 200 people attending the official public input session the day before fluoridation was to start. Only one person was there to endorse it and that was Nelson, who participated in drafting the CA mandate law and who ordered the Met.Water Dist. to follow that law.

Must be nice to break Federal law and then argue that you followed it, because after all if people drink the treated water and get dental fluorosis, that was their decision. Nelson is now retired.

The LA basin along with North San Diego County all became fluoridated by the MWD the following day in 2007.  A total con job, and totally against the intent of the SDWA which fluoridationists have also altered over the years to fit what they want, not what the country wants.

And yet I'm the one accused of being outside reality?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
582 Views
5
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

There are about 45 water additive, many of which have functions other than sanitizing the water.

The operation of water plants, including the regulation of water additives, falls principally to state regulations. The EPA defines the maximum allowable concentrations for contaminants. It is specifically the responsibility of water systems to determine the mineral content of their product.

Again, I believe if you think there is a legal mandate to disallow community water fluoridation you should pursue that theory in a court of law. I utterly disagree that there is lawlessness in the United States. Your position on national law and fluoridation has simply not been upheld. Any decisions against fluoridation have been reversed on appeal.
0 Kudos
2,321 Views
4
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Of course. There are corrosion inhibitors for example that minimize metal ions in water. And aluminum salts that remove solid  contaminants, etc.

But there is ony one chemical added for the purpose of treating people, human tissue,  and that is fluoride.

 

It is illegal to add therapeutics into public water. It is even illegal to add foods into public water. Please get some understanding.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
2,297 Views
3
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Notwithstanding your view, the courts have ruled time and time again that fluoride is a normal mineral constituent present to some degree in most water sources, that optimizing the fluoride concentration is within the proper powers of governments, that the regulation of fluoride used for fluoridation as water additives is legal and sufficient, and that the practice is not mass medication.

Here is a database of court cases: http://fluidlaw.org/

Presumably the parties in at least some of these many cases were aware of relevant federal and state laws.

0 Kudos
2,272 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

The Coshow vs Escondido case was ruled correctly by the judge. The verdict was on that fluoridation alters the bodily composition of humans. That is a fact.  In all fluoridated cities blood and urine fluoride levels in consumers are  elevated compared to before fluoridation. We now know from published, stidies that dental fluorosis is increased in incidence in,all fluoridated cities --there are no exceptions. the problem is judges,who dont understand,and believe the CDC that  fluorodatupn is harmless except it alters teeth and such a judge overruled the case appealed by fluoridation advocates.

The truth being suppressed in courts is nothing new.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
2,278 Views
1
Report
Reply
Regular Contributor

Escondido's fluoridation program prevailed in the case you cite.

Specifically: " However, the right to be free from forced medication is not a fundamental constitutional right in the context of adding fluoride or other chemicals to public drinking water.   City's use of HFSA to fluoridate its drinking water does not force Coshow to do anything. " This is but a small part of the judge's ruling in about the forced medication theory under which Coshow sued the city.

It beats me how fluoridation opponents choose to make claims so at odds to reality.

Here's the decision if anyone wishes to read it all

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1492563.html
0 Kudos
2,274 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

“While four out of five dentists may be enough to pick a gum, all should agree before we force-medicate the public.” - Judge Peter Vallone, Jr., former Chair of the NYC Public Safety Committee (2012)

 

First, it shouldn't matter a whit if it is legal if it has been proved harmful, but there is money involved. Fluoridation has been ruled harmful but legal under 'police powers' using rational basis in courts of last resort. Judges and legal academics have suggested that fluoridation needs to be settled at the legislative level. Specifically judges and legal scholars have written:

"By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities...arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary's pestle to the patient, without the latter's consent. Thus will the people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional liberty under our republican form of government and the police state will be substituted for the police power of the state." - Justice Donworth, dissenting opinion  in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS before Supreme Court of Washington (1954) 

”That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies… may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in

man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Judge Anthony Farris, District Court, Houston, TX (May 24, 1982)

 

“Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

 

”My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water  supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue...That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

 

"Over the course of five months (in 1978), the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

 

"Marginal benefit in exchange for significant risk is the sine qua non of gross disproportionality…the stronger the scientific evidence of risk of harm, the greater the gross disproportionality.” - Nader R. Hasan, esq. (2014)

 

The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D.  (2014)

 

 

 

839 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Any American who forces the ingestion of a substance by treating the nation's water supplies is in violation of the SDWA, not just Federal employees. All americans are obligated to follow the law.

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
758 Views
12
Report
Reply