Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

• 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
• 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
• 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

• a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
• b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

Really? 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

BMCL

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

• No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

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

Well, it as been a busy few weeks! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[BillO538145]

David,

Sorry for double posts.  My computer said it did not go through the first time.

Thanks for asking for futher elaboration.  Yes, the FDA requires the label to say, "Do Not Swallow" fluoride toothpastes.  Seems clear.  And the amount of fluoride absorbed from the toothpaste without swallowing is minor.  However, some chemically sensitive people will have bad reactions to fluoride toothpaste touching their skin or mouth, but the FDA considers the risk for most to be acceptable.  The problem is spitting all the toothpaste out.   Is that reasonably possible?  Research shows most people swallow some or most.   

David, you asked, "You are saying if you brush your teeth with toothpaste, which has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, spit it out, . . . then you won't be exposing yourself to a significant amount of fluoride.  Correct?"

Bill:  Yes, FDA has approved toothpaste.  

David continues, "By "significant" I think we can agree that we mean - not enough to cause any effect, negative or positive.  Correct?"

Bill: No.  For some there might be a positive effect with mitigation of dental caries.

For some there will be risks such as swallowing, skin irritation (achne), apoptosis of cells, and for chemically sensitive individuals more problems.  In science, the words "always" and "never" are red flags and should not be used.  

Your illustration of arsenic is interesting.  I'm not an authority on arsenic absorption through the oral mucosa.  Nor has the FDA approved arsenic, but I would expect the arsenic would reduce dental caries.  Mercury does.    So my answer to your statement is, "I don't know."

Regarding your response to excess exposure, I agree.  Flavored toothpastes are highly suspect.  Unsupervised use of toothpaste is a serious concern.  I lean towards all fluoride toothpaste to be by prescription only. 

And I don't see where you bring up the fluoride added to water.   Do you think the toothpaste is a problem but not fluoridated water?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

BillO, your quote:  "Yes, the FDA requires the label to say, "Do Not Swallow" fluoride toothpastes.  Seems clear."

Not quite.  My tube of Crest says, "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.

So the question is:  Why would someone swallow more than the amount that would be on a toothbrush?  Because they wouldn't be taking it off of a toothbrush.  They would be taking it directly from the tube.  And if a parent walked in on his or her toddler with an empty tube of toothpaste, then you might have an overexposure to fluoride . . since toothpaste has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water.  

"And I don't see where you bring up the fluoride added to water.   Do you think the toothpaste is a problem but not fluoridated water?"

I've already addressed that.  Since we weren't seeing the sharp increases in moderate fluorosis in the 1960s - 1990s, a period in which water fluoridation was on the rise, but we do see more moderate fluorosis now, when toothpaste marketers are catering more to the tastes of children, with bubble-gum or cotton-candy flavored toothpaste, then, no, fluoridated water does not appear to be a contributing factor to the rise in moderate fluorosis.  

[BillO538145]

David,

You are so obsessed with proving me wrong, you don't read carefully.  

Please, slow down.  Think.  If your Crest toothpaste does not say, "Do Not Swallow" then I'll buy it from you.  Read it again.

Yes, the FDA permits variable wording, such as  "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.  

Now THINK, David.   The amount used for brushing is a different concept than "Do Not Swallow."  Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  The reason for a small amount is so that if the person swallows, it will not be so much.  

Would you agree, neither Crest nor the FDA suggest it is safe to swallow toothpaste?  No.  I think we agree.  

Now take the next step in reasoning.  How much fluoride is in a pea size of toothpaste?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Bill O.  Thank you for your condescing remarks.  Did it ever occur to you that you might be the one who needs to slow down and think?  Go back, re-read my comment stating what it actually says on a tube of Crest toothpaste, why it would say that, and what it means.  

Then before you act on your knee-jerk reaction to prove me wrong, reflect.

[DavidF928895]

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed six comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

[rs5526]

I looked for a mere 5 minutes and found the website for Crest toothpaste. It says when teeth are developing  a child can avoid dental fluorosis by not drinking fluoridated,water.

What more do you want? Toothpaste makers argue the bulk if blame goes to fluoridated water. To get the truth you need to find it. It doesn't come out of a link that spoonfeeds it to you. the site is https://crest.com/en-us/oral-health/conditions/enamel/dental-fluorosis-causes-treatments-prevention

[DavidF928895]

Richard, you say, "I looked for a mere 5 minutes and found the website for Crest toothpaste. It says when teeth are developing  a child can avoid dental fluorosis by not drinking fluoridated,water.

What more do you want? Toothpaste make4s arg7e the bulk if blame goes to fluoridatedxwater."

I believe your last sentence is saying, 'Toothpaste makers argue the bulk of blame goes to fluoridated water.'  Correct?  

No they don't.  Do you mean this link from Crest?  https://crest.com/en-us/oral-health/conditions/enamel/dental-fluorosis-causes-treatments-prevention

It says, "Is fluoride bad?  No."  

It also says, "Infants can contract dental fluorosis due to the fluoride that is found in water (usually ingested when mixed with infant formula) or due to ingesting fluoride toothpaste."  

And:  "For older children, remember to only apply a pea-sized amount of toothpaste and monitor their brushing to help them remember to spit toothpaste out after use."

Why spit after use?  So that the child doesn't swallow it.  Why not swallow it?  Because, according to Crest, ingesting fluoride toothpaste can lead to dental fluorosis.  Nowhere on that link does it say the bulk of any problem is because of fluoridated water. 

So, No, Crest does not argue that "the bulk of the blame goes to fluoridated water."  You made that up.  Crest fully admits that swallowing toothpaste can lead to fluorosis.  

Please, Dr. Sauerheber, like so many people today, you seem to double-down on a lie once you've been discovered.  

Either admit you were mistaken, you misspoke, or you lied.  And then we can move on.

[rs5526]

Excuse me? On what basis does this person claim a "lie"? Has he seen every posted link on the entire internet and every statement ever made by toothpaste reps/makers and happens to know the statement I read does not exist?  Wow. Between that person and me I know who is lying.

[rs5526]

It is a fact that Hillary Clinton's landslide victory was prevented in part because u.s. citizens aided russians tied to the kremlin to undetmine the 2016 election. . Where is the link to that statement? I dont know.  I know the,truth. And speak the truth without links.

Understand?

[rs5526]

Just because I don't have a link handy that has  the claim, this does not make the claim false.

Many statements on this,site in fact have provided onlne materials intimating that eating and drinking water infused with 0.7 ppm industrial fluoride is totally harnless after lifelong consumption. This, no matter hoiw many links are submitted that attempt to provide proof of this claim, iis completely false. Lifelong consumption of artificially fluoridated water and foods made from it  causes formation of abnormal bone and the,sequela that exist from it. There is no escape.  

Online Links do not disprove the truth. The truth, that bone fluoridation is harmful, and that toothpaste makers continue to make fluoride pastes at ever increasing F levels because dental fluorosis is attrubuted to water fluoridation which is swallowed, rather than pastes which instruct not to be swallowed, does not exist in links.  If one can't understand these truths without an online link, no wonder so many false beliefs are rampant . 

[rs5526]

This link is from the Columbia College of Dental Medicine. Notice the blame for fluorosis is not on toothpaste, but it is on using fluoride toothpaste if one's water is also fluoridated. .https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/basics/fluoride/fluorosis

Does this clear things up for all you readers? Toothpaste makers do not accept blame for dental fluorosis. It is the use of toothpaste in a city that has community water fluoridation that is the cause. Get it now? Both are culprits that cause the abnormal thin enamel. Both need to be sued together, but how do you do it?

[rs5526]

Toothpaste makers know that dental fluorosis,is caused only by bloodborne fluoride and that 80% of the fluoride in the bloidstream in thos3 in a fluoridated community comes from the fluoride,swallowed from municipal fluoridated  drinkimg water. This,was analyzed in,detail,and published in the NRC Report 2006. I dont know if there is a limk indicating water distrcts blaming the advent of toothpaste F for the fluorosis emdemic but i have seen and read such complaints because toothpaste F came out in the 50's after water fluoridation in the 40's. Bu5 what does it matter? Both sources,are guilty for not fully researching its side effects before mass marketing the calcium chelator.

[DavidF928895]

Richard Sauerheber, you had said, "Meanwhile toothpaste  makers argue excess fluo ride is the water districts fault because toothpaste is not allowed to be swallowed but water is freely consumed."

And I had asked, " Could you please provide a statement from any toothpaste manufacturer in which water districts are blamed for excess fluoride?"

I am trying to read through, and understand, your brief response.  I believe this was your answer: 

"Toothpaste makers know that dental fluorosis,is caused only by bloodborne fluoride and that 80% of the fluoride in the bloidstream in thos3 in a fluoridated community comes from the fluoride,swallowed from municipal fluoridated  drinkimg water."

To be clear, are you saying that you are unable to support your claim with evidence.  You are unable to provide a citation in which toothpaste manufacturers blame water districts for excess fluoride of any kind.  

Thank you.  I believe you've answered my question, "Where did you get this information?"

[rs5526]

Here is a tyypical link describing sources of fluoride causing fluorosis in children. The top listing is municipal fluoridated water. But in children under 4 or 5, 48% of the fluoride ingested comes from using fluoride toothpaste. Both are involved in the endemic of fluorosxis that we now have in the U.S. Treatments for the abnormal hypoploasia are also described. and are all not necessary if fluoridated water and fluoridated paste had never been invented in the first place.

Toothpaste manufacturers continue to make fluoride toothpaste and are now proposing increase the level to 5,000 ppm ! becaue caries are still not solved by use of 1,500 ppm. Dental fluorosis is presumed by them to be the fault of drinknig fluoridated water since toothpaste is not supposed to be swallowed, as listed on their packaging. Try going to court and blaming toothpaste makers for fluorosis and you wil find that water fluoridation is listed by them as the number one source of the problem.

Try  taking city water districts to court and you wlil find that they list all sources of fluoride and blame everyone else but themselves. It's human naure, I understand, but it is all wrong. The intentional addition of industiral fluoride into materials that enter the mouth of a child is unethical and a useless procedure. There is no way to win a suit (as was suggested here) against either toothapse makers or water distircts . One could tyry to sue both for their contributions, but again, good luck with that..

[DavidF928895]

Richard,

Thank you for your response, but it is irrelevant to the single question I had asked, twice now.  

You had said, "Meanwhile toothpaste  makers argue excess fluo ride is the water districts fault because toothpaste is not allowed to be swallowed but water is freely consumed."

And again, two comments down, you said, "Dental fluorosis is presumed by them (toothpaste manufacturers) to be the fault of drinknig fluoridated water since toothpaste is not supposed to be swallowed, as listed on their packaging."

So, for the third time now, since you continue to make this claim, I will ask again:  Could you please provide a statement from any toothpaste manufacturer in which water districts are blamed for excess fluoride?

I hope that is clear enough.  This is the only thing from your link that even remotely approaches your claim.  From Colgate:  "Most cases of fluorosis result from young children taking fluoride supplements or swallowing fluoride toothpaste when the water they drink is already fluoridated."  That is not a toothpaste manufacturer placing the blame of excess fluoride on water districts.

I belong to the Old School, and I don't ascribe to current trends.  I still believe that words matter.  I believe that if someone makes a statement, it should be presumed to be truthful.  If someone makes a truthful statement, evidence of that truthfulness should be easy enough to provide.

Unfortunately, in today's world there are so many untruths coming at us that people have become numb to it and have learned to accept it.  I haven't.  If you are discussing something with me, and you make a statement that sounds unbelieveable, you had better be prepared to provide evidence of its truthfulness.

[rs5526]

Many suits gave been filed against water districts for fluoridation damage usually the successful suits,are overturned later. How does one win such a case when water fluoridationists claim that excess fluoride is the fault of toothpaste manufacturers since fluoridation started first so go sue toothpaste makers.. 

Meanwhile toothpaste  makers argue excess fluo ride is the water districts fault because toothpaste is not allowed to be swallowed but water is freely consumed.

Good luck  with a lawsuit,against a city when they argue fluoride is,food or an oral dental prophylactic, etc and they should be given a prize for their "gteat public health achievement."(

[DavidF928895]

Richard Sauerheber, you say, "Meanwhile toothpaste  makers argue excess fluo ride is the water districts fault because toothpaste is not allowed to be swallowed but water is freely consumed."

Where did you get this information?  Could you please provide a citation for that comment?  Could you please provide a statement from any toothpaste manufacturer in which water districts are blamed for excess fluoride?  

[rs5526]

It has been claimed here that if one only had 0.7 ppm fluoride water as a total exposure to fluoride, that this would be safe, this needs to be clarified. Yes it would be more safe than having additional exposures from other sources. But  there is no blood concentration low enough to prevent fluoride incorporation into bone. So if one otherwise might have lived to be 95-100 or more,  fluoride water consumption would cause bone adversity long before such a duration of exposure. It is,a cumulative poison and it is not a normal component of human blood. It is a contaminant calcium chelator. The lower the exposure the better.

[CarryAnne]

“It causes problems with the brain. It's bad for people with thyroid issues. It's bad for diabetics. It's bad for people with kidney problems. You're not supposed to mix infant formula with fluoridated water. It's corrosive. You put it in water, and it leaches lead out of the plumbing." - Andy Anderson, president of the Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority in Arkansas (2016)

A big red flag is the term "most individuals." There are others that are alerting those of us who are paying attention that fluoridation policy is based on mythology and pseudo-science. 

Safety studies often exclude people with diabetes, kidney disease, and any other chronic health condition, and then say it is safe for 'most' of their test subjects, i.e. 95%.... well what about that 5% and the rest of the people who researchers excluded because they knew we were likely to have an adverse reaction? This is what happened with fluoride studies I've seen that often included an asterisk to mention the excluded populations. 

That type of testing might pass muster in a prescription drug study where you include caveats in the inserts and montior the effects on individuals, but when you add this drug to water systems, it is a deceit. Most doctors haven't a clue and most people don't know that fluoridated water and foods made with fluoridated water are NOT safe for everyone.  

[rs5526]

Nonsense.  Without using fluoridated tea or fluoridated toothpaste and only consuming water with 0.7 ppm fluoride has zero chance of affecting a single dental cavity. The blood level of fluoride would be less than 0.1 ppm and the level in saliva bathing teeth topically would be less than 0.01 ppm.This is 150,000 times less concentrated than fluoride in toothpaste.

Good luck with that.

But meanwhile the fluoride wold accumulatein bone to about 1400  ppm in about 25 years.  Fluoridationists care less, but we opposed  to artificial fluoride water infusions certainly care.

[CarryAnne]

"I was conned by a powerful lobby.” - Richard G. Foulkes, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Calgary, AB and former Canadian fluoridationist  (1992)

I do not drink tea or use fluoridated dental products and haven't done so for decades. Neither do I drink wine or cosume any grape products since I don't tolerate them. I used a high quality filter that reduced the fluoride in my 'optimally' fluoridated water. I had suffered from decades of arthritis and gastrointesintal issues (among other things).... 

Switching to bottled water in a desperate attempt to alleviate chronic pain, an attempt I thought was a waste of time, eliminated the debilitating arthritis in my foot in less than 2 weeks, as it did my IBS. My stiff neck and back quickly resolved, too. Now in my 60s, I no longer have arthritis and the only change was my water. 

Denying my testimony and the testimony of about 30 seniors on this forum, as well as the scientific studies documenting our experience, is bullying behavior. The risk of adverse health effects from 'optimal' doses was documented back in the 1950s by Public Health Service researchers, but the PHS didn't want to admit a mistake. They preferred condemming millions to decades of misery, just like fluoridationists in the 21st century. 

1. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. Dental Digest. August 1956. pp 353-357.
   1. The best study done in that time period, the researchers determined a portion of the allergic population had a low tolerance that manifested as serious adverse effects in their test subjects. PHS researchers had to drop those test subjects and advised if in water, fluoride avoidance would be difficult. Researchers used controlled doses equivalent to fluoridated water and confirmed with placebo, it was the fluoride.
   2. I believe the allergic population was about 10% of Americans then, now it is closer to 50% of us. 
      
      
2. Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - Fourteen years of investigation - Final report. Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. & George Kosel, B.S., M.S. Journal of Dental Medicine. October 1961; 16(4):190-198.
   1. This final report noted that fetal fluoride levels were approximately twice, tripled and quadrupled the control group dependent on type of fluoride used in the controlled dose. Researchers had no idea what the long term implications could be in the children (12.9 mcg/L v. 26.85, 32.68, and 44.8 mcg/L).
   2. Feltman & Kosel also unexpectedly noted moderate-severe dental fluorosis in their child test subjects which is evidence of fluoride poisoning. They also noted delayed tooth eruption in the children that they suspected was due to thyroid suppression.
   3. The PHS pulled further research funding with the statement, they ‘considered fluoridation settled.’

A few case studies from 'optimaly' fluoridated communties:  http://www.fluoridation.com/waldbot.htm

A few more testimonies: https://momsagainstfluoridation.org/stories

[DavidF928895]

"CarrieAnne"

I am always interested in claims of actual documented harm from optimally fluoridated water, and while I did comment on your link to the antecdotal stories from the 1950s to the 1970s by George Waldbott, to which you provided a link, I seem to have failed to comment on your link which, I believe, was intended as further evidence of harm from fluoridated water.   And for my failure, I apologize.  Please allow me to rectify that now.

This was the link you provided:  https://momsagainstfluoridation.org/stories

At the top of that page we see this disclaimer:  "Moms Against Fluoridation is not responsible for the content or the accuracy of these stories and makes no health statements or claims regarding them. All information on this page and this website is not intended to diagnose or treat any symptoms or disease."

Again:  " "Moms Against Fluoridation is not responsible for the content or the accuracy of these stories . ."

This begs the question, if Moms Against Fluoridation will not even vouch for the accuracy of these stories, why do you believe you can?

[DavidF928895]

"CarryAnne," the link you provided to case studies from fluoridated communities, by George Waldbott, were from studies from the 1950s-1970s.  I am always curious why people who claim to rely on the latest science to support their position, always point to cases from 50 years ago when they are asked for documented examples of people who have been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water.  I just find that odd.

I am also curious about your own testimony of suffering because of the drinking of fluoridated water.  I have never been able to understand why you never chose to sue your local municipality for "poisoning" you.  If successful, if you could prove that water fluoridation has harmed you, and you could end the practice in the U.S.  Isn't that your goal? 

Lawsuits have been won because coffee was too hot!   And yet, with all the suffering you have undergone . . no lawsuit . . no documentation . . just anecdotal stories in discussion threads on the internet.  

[651241]

A 79-year-old's joint pain markedly decreased after stopping fluoride ingestion from tea, fluoridated water & toothpaste and her mobility considerably improved enabling her to have a long-awaited trip overseas.

https://search.proquest.com/openview/bbcf32df3d8919d166ecf5167c491d61/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=105...

[CarryAnne]

 “It is foolish to be convinced without evidence, but it is equally foolish to refuse to be convinced by real evidence." - Upton Sinclair

”It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair

Because of the gross over-fluoridation of our society which involves essentially all packaged foods and even fresh or dried foods, the evidence of fluoride poisoning in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities is undeniable. However, despite wishful thinking from fluroidationists who do their best to manufacture scientifically invalid reports, there is more 'overdose' with corresponding damage in fluoridated communities. The only rational move is to immediately end fluoridation in order to stem the tide of dental damage, disease & disability.

Forgive me for repeating myself, but since fluoridationists are willfully blind to evidence and try to bury it with their comments, allow me again to address your attention to these recently published studies. 

OVERDOSED BABIES: Over one third of babies (37%) in fluoridated American communities consume amounts of fluoride in excess of the upper limits of fluoride considered safe per government regulations. Even 4% of babies in non-fluoridated communities are overdosed on fluoride due to consumption of products made with fluoridated water. At the very least, this puts these children at high risk for developing dental fluorosis, which is associated with increased incidence of learning disabilities, broken bones and kidney disease.
http://jocpd.org/doi/10.17796/1053-4625-43.1.7 

• Claudia X Harriehausen, Fehmida Z Dosani, Brett T Chiquet, Michelle S Barratt, and Ryan L Quock. Fluoride Intake of Infants from Formula. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2018. [Online Ahead of Print]

THYROID: 18% of people drinking 'optimally' fluoridated water in Canadian communities have a heightened risk of low thyroid function because fluoride interferes with iodine metabolism. Many of them will be sub-clinical and not know they are mildly hypothyroid, which nevertheless increases their risk for diabetes, high cholesterol, and other problems. Study excluded those already diagnosed with thyroid disease.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201830833X

• Ashley J. Malin, Julia Riddell, Hugh McCague, Christine Till. Fluoride exposure and thyroid function among adults living in Canada: Effect modification by iodine status. Environment International. Volume 121, Part 1, December 2018, Pages 667-674. [Online Ahead of Print]

PREGNANT WOMEN: Pregnant Canadian women drinking  'optimally' fluoridated water had twice the fluoride exposure per individual testing as compared to pregnant women in non-fluoridated Canadian communities - and consistent with the range in the Mexican women whose children had up to 6 points lowered IQ based on prenatal exposure to fluoride (from salt). Excluded those with health conditions such as kidney disease as well as considered confounding factors such as tea consumption. 
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/pdf/10.1289/EHP3546 

• Christine Till, Rivka Green, John G. Grundy, Richard Hornung, Raichel Neufeld, E. Angeles Martinez-Mier, Pierre Ayotte, Gina Muckle, and Bruce Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada. Environmental Health Perspectives. October 2018.

[DrChuckHaynie]

This patient did not have a fluoridated public water system.  (first paragraph next to last sentence) This case, if indeed the symptoms were from fluoride in tea and toothpaste is consistent with recent data which shows that enamel fluorosis rates are the same in fluoridated and not fluoridated towns

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9608443

and from New Zealand

https://www.health.govt.nz/publication/our-oral-health-key-findings-2009-new-zealand-oral-health-sur... .. page 1 of summary, bullet point #10

The data is that community water fluoridation prevents cavities in both baby and adult teeth.  Further, the effects of too much fluoride come from the inappropriate use of fluoride containing products, toothpaste, mistakenly prescribed supplements and tea (especially green tea) being at usual sources.

[651241]

Hey Chuck - Thanks for the fact-check.  It's rare that Chuck and I agree on anything.  But clearly he admits that people can get way over recommended doses of fluoride simply from brushing their teeth and drinking their tea.  Logically, that means there is no need for water fluoridation.

[DrChuckHaynie]

The danger from 0.7 ppm fluoride is zero.   Children improperly brushing and using toothpaste as candy and adults drinking large amounts of tea are those who are harmed by their mistaken and usually aberrant consumptions. 

Even this case illustrates that these conditions are not related to the tiny amount of fluoride in drinking water.   This person with arthritis water was not fluoridated. 

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

If we exclude infants on formula, I would agree with your statement to a significant degree: "The danger from 0.7 ppm fluoride is zero."

A.  IF and I must repeat IF, the only source of fluoride were water  (Not happening) 

B.  IF, I must repeat IF, infant formula were made with fluoride free water (Not happening)

C.  IF mother's to be and pregnant mother's had low fluoride in their bodies (urine) (not happening). 

D.  And if we assume the only risk is from excess fluoride is moderate and severe dental fluorosis.

Without those concerns, water alone as the only source of fluoride at 0.7 ppm would not cause problems to most individuals.

To suggest there is zero danger is simply not scientific.  "Never" and "always" are red flags in science.

With 60% of adolescents having dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride,  and 20% with moderate or severe dental fluorosis, we must admit that total exposure is more than optimal.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[CarryAnne]

 “One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” -  Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)

This is an excellent animal experiment that finds there are observable differences in the brain tissue of rats who consumed relatively moderate amounts of fluoride 'long term' which for an experimental rat is 10 weeks. These changes were observed in the part of the brain having to do with memory and learning. 

The risk assessment rules for determining a 'safe reference dose' for human populations using a no observable effect level (NOEL) in an animal experiment is reducing the concentration by a factor of 100 for occassional exposure and by 1,000 for chronic exposure. So, for 50 ppm in an animal experiment, we could predict that any fluoride in drinking water above 0.05 ppm is harmful to senior citizens - except that this wasn't a NOEL. They did observe an ill effect at 50 ppm, so that concentration should be further reduced, cut in half or more... so any fluoride in drinking water concentration above 0.02 ppm consumed long term is  potentially damaging to brains. 

Chronic fluoride exposure induces neuronal apoptosis and impairs neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity: Role of GSK-3b/b-catenin pathway. Pei Jiang, Gongying Li, Xueyuan Zhou, Changshui Wang, Yi Qiao, Dehua Liao, Dongmei Shi.  Chemosphere. Volume 214, January 2019, Pages 430-435. [Online ahead of print]  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518317508 

NINJA EDIT: I originally calculated an uncertainty factor of 100 to get 0.5 ppm, but that would be for occassional exposure. In drinking water, the reference dose would be 0.05 ppm for chronic exposure.