Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

Science is factual, data, not endorsements.

You keep looking for endorsements and who is on which "team."   

Look at the facts, the data, rather than the people.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[BillO538145]

Dr. Johnny,

You are puzzled that I can't wrap my head around the safety of fluoridation.  

And I'm puzzled that you can't wrap your head around excess fluoride exposure.

If water fluoridation were the only source of fluoride exposure, I would not be so concerned.  

8 years ago NHANES reported 20% of adolescents had moderate/severe.  Two other National surveys have been done and dental fluorosis recorded, but not released.  All other data from these newer surveys have been released but not fluorosis.  I don't know why fluorosis data is being withheld, do you?  

Hundreds of thousands, millions are showing signs of excess fluoride exposure.  Where do you recommend a decrease in fluoride expsure?  

Toothpaste?  Topical has some benefit and is FDA approved.

Fluoride antibiotics?  Save lives

Fluoride pesticides? Reduces waste

Fluoride post-harvest fumigants?  Preservative

Fluoride from mechanically deboned meat?  Reduces processing cost. . . .

Fluoride in manufacturing?  I'm not sure that would be a significant reduction in exposure.

Fluoride in water?  Serves no other purpose than alleged caries reduction.  

HHS/PHS reduced fluoridation concentration because too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  

Yes, too much fluoride and many are still ingesting too much fluoride based on fluorosis and urine, serum, and bone fluoride concentrations. 

What source of fluoride do you recommend we reduce to reduce excess exposure?

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[rs5526]

That is correct. So what is your point?

San Diego held democratic elections and they are ignored by fluoridationists.

And the 7 pages of mostly dental officials praising fluoride ingestion are plagued with false statements and none of the sections are referenced.

The Mayo Clnic writer is wrong because fluorine as an element, F2,  does not exist in nature. Fluoride compounds do, but that does not include NaF or H2SiF6.

The opening claim is that fluoride remineralizes teeth. This is a common false notion. Normal teeth enamel contains no fluoride and is a hard crystalline form of hydroxyapatite. And also fluoride does not incorporate into enamel topically or systemically because enamel is too hard. One can force fluoride in by applying HF hydrofluoric acid, acidulated fluoride gels for example, which dissolves enamel and forms an abnormal structure and is not something to be desired. Bone hydroxyapatite of course is a different crystal form and readily incorporates fluoride in exchange for hydroxide when fluoridated water is consumed.

And the late Linus Pauling stopped promoting fluoridation and advocated vitamin D, which increases calcium absorption, for preventing tooth decay. Calcium builds strong teeth, not fluoride. (I was fortunate to have a chemustry class at UCSD from Pauling). So this 7 page list of undocumented claims is far out of date.

Other errors are so numerous that who would want to read all the corrections?

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

It's called a democratic society, Rich. Democracy.........Not like the party affiliation

[DrChuckHaynie]

I note you cite some obscure person in New Zealand. On the other side are just over 140 prestigious organizations and societies going on record that fluoridation prevents cavities, is important and is safe. America's Pediatricians have a convenient reference where many of these statements can be read: http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

[rs5526]

And to think that there are people who actually believe that fluoridation is a democratic procedure is absolutely moronic.  The city of San Diego voted twice, --two separate elections over a multi-year period -- against fluoridation and later also passed city ordinance section 67 that prohibts the addition of fluoridation chemicals into our water supplies. And yet when money was placed in front of the city council, all that was ignored and fluoridation was forced on the city anyway in 2011.

Democratic voting most often is opposed to fluoridation as long as a fair campiagn is conducted that includes actual data.  And yet this bone fluoridation program is actually mandated in many states including CA where there was no State wide public vote at all.

Democratic? You've got to be joking.

[rs5526]

Absolute horse puckey. Most of the fluoride in the bloodstream of consumers in fluoridated communities is from fluoridated water consumption. The rest is from foods and toothpastes, etc. (NRC 2006).  Dental fluorosis increases in incidence in every fluoridated city. There are no exceptions. This is old  news.

[Drjohnnyjohnson]

Hi Bill,

Historic data is what you are referring to.  But humor me for a moment.

To say that conclusions are cherry picking is quite humorous.  The 2006 NRC looked back at 10 years of literature on fluorides when they evaluated the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG).

The Committee considered three toxicity end points for which there were sufficient relevant data for assessing the adequacy of the MCLG (4 mg/L) for fluoride to protect public health:

1. severe enamel fluorosis

2. skeletal fluorosis

3. bone fractures.

(NRC Report, page 346)

Conclusions:

1. ONLY adverse health effects at 4mg/L of fluoride in water was severe enamel fluorosis.  No other organs, neurotoxicity, reproductive effects, carcinogenicity, endocrine.....nothing!  This is a level 6 times higher than water fluoridation, 0.7ppm

2.  At 2mg/L, severe dental fluorosis was virtually zero.

US Community Preventive Services Task Force: (2013)

Community water fluoridation does not cause severe dental fluorosis.

It baffles me that you still can't wrap your head around the fact that severe dental fluorosis isn't caused by community water fluoridation.  But that's ok.  I've backed up my material with references that opponents use frequently to cherry pick from, the 2006 NRC Review.

Thanks for the exchange, Bill.  Have to go defend another community under attack from the opponents of community water fluoridation.

Johnny

[rs5526]

Thanks carryanne. Indeed , the safe drinking water act was written specifically to halt the  spread of artificial fluoridation of peoples' drinking water. Fluoride promoters not only deny this, they misinterpret the law the way they want. And the CDC dentists who assume it is useful and somehow harmless promote it, knowing it cannot be legally required.

[CarryAnne]

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson (1787)

This is about individual human rights and medical science, not a simplistic majority rule interpretation of democracy. Individual biological integrity is a fundamental principle of law. Yet, fluoridationists politicized community fluoridation policy in an effort to confuse and deceive the public. My neighbor should not have the right to add a known enzyme poison to municipal drinking water - the water I drink and in which I bathe because they believe it might  'prevent cavities' in some poor kid who doesn't brush his teeth when that substance threatens my thyroid, compromises my kidney and inflames my gut.

That there are very profitable business plans behind fluoridation practice and fluoridation promotion which fund the political campaigns to fluoridate is immaterial to ethics and evidence of harm. 

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

”Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.” - UNESCO on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 6 (2005)

 ”The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.”  - UNESCO documents on Medical Consent in Bioethics and Human Rights, Article 3 (2005)

“Since first enacted in 1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act has stated that “[n]o national primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.” -  Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 93-523)

“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential ... The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity ... During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible." - Nuremberg Code (1947)