- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Atari Talk
- Games Talk
- Games Tips
- Leave a Game Tip
- Ask for a Game Tip
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Entertainment Archive
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.
However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.
Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.
- 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
- 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞
- 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);
- 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)
Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)
There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
- a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
- b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.
POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD
- In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf
- EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
If you are bored, perhaps you should find other things to do that hold your interest. As for me, I'm having the time of my life. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Your quote: "I i (sic.) havent made incorrect statements."
Response: No? Here are three examples for starters.
1.) Your quote: "I never said if you drink fluoridated water yiu (sic.) will develop CO brown stain." (Timestamp 02-17-2019 11:08 AM) . . . That incorrect statement was disproven in my comment timestamped 02-17-2019 01:07 PM.
2.) You also said, "You quote kumar wjo (sic.) publishes data that have means that do not differ beyond standard etror (sic.) and proclaims that a fluorotic tooth is resistant to decay. That is deception." . . . It is not deception; therefore your comment is incorrect. I provided a link to a valid peer-reviewed study to support my comment which you called deception. I asked you to provide valid peer-reviewed work to support your contrary opinion. You were able to provide Nothing. Your comment was incorrect. And
3.) You said CWF was responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River. You provided not One Shread of evidence to support your solitary opinion. You just made up this story without a.) knowing background fluoride levels in the river . . . b.) checking fluoride levels in the river downstream of effluent discharge . . . c.) knowing the flow of the river . . .
d.) knowing the amount of daily effluent discharge . . . e.) any examination of any actual dead salmon . . . f.) and without the agreement of even one real environmentalist who actually agrees with your unique hypothesis.
Yes, Dr. Sauerheber. You make incorrect statements all the time. Perhaps you do it out of boredom.
The studies published by maas, and others demonstrated lead leaching by fluoridation materials at levels used in fluoridation. The san diego data i collected myself.. I dont rely on the EPA for that since they generally dont interfere with intentional government endorsed fluoridation.
You know, Richard, you have been making statements, and I have been proving you wrong for a long time now. This is just a personal observation, but I've noticed at as the day wears on, your writing skills appear to deteriorate. Can you think of anything that would account for this?
First its deception now its hypocrisy.
In reality its, simple knowledge of the truth, that fluoride at any dose is a poison. It as no physiologic function and is not an ingredient of the normal bloodstream. Period.
And yet we have fluoridation societies who demand people ingest it. What do we call that?
Fluoridation overfeeds occur and have sickened and in one case killed. Fluoridation advocates claim this has nothing to do with fluoridation. But these accidents are only possible because of fluoridation
And even in the absence of overfeeds lead is leached from lead based plumbing by fluoridation. In san diego county lead levels,at our public schools exceeded epa limits when fluoridation started. Many fixtures had to be replaced. I suggested that intact orthosilicic acid is the culprit. In a city that already has a lead problem near the epa limit, fluoridation can put the,water over the limit. Fluoridationists of course deny it all.
Dr. Sauerheber, your quote: "Fluoridation overfeeds occur and have sickened and in one case killed. Fluoridation advocates claim this has nothing to do with fluoridation. But these accidents are only possible because of fluoridation"
Response: Yes, and car accidents are only possible because of travel by automobile. Food poisoning is only possible because of eating. And people being cut by glass is only possible because of the existence of glass.
Since you decided to chime in, we were discussing the deceptive photo taken by Hardey Limeback which appeared in an anti-CWF article. But since you brought up overfeeds, reduncies are mandated now which would prevent such overfeeds as the Hooper Bay incident which occurred over a quarter of a century ago. Your diversion is irrelevant in 2019.
Gish Gallop is a technique, named after the creationist Duane Gish who employed it, whereby someone argues a cause by hurling as many different half-truths and no-truths into a very short space of time so that their opponent cannot hope to combat each point in real time.
It appears you were unable to defend the indefensible deceptive Limeback photo. It also appears you were unable to defend yourself in this untruth: "Thus (sic.) is nuts. I never labeled any picture of teeth and claimed it was CO brown stain."
I suppose you can go on until the end of time bringing up irrelevant subjects. And so you did bring up another issue.
Leaching from lead? This has already been brought up by Skanen144 who said, "EPA knows fluoridation chemicals increase lead corrosion. Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride see pages. C104-111 in an EPA paper is found." And Skanen provided this link https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf .
As newbie KenP rightly pointed out, the link has nothing to do with water fluoridation. For his efforts, "Carrie Anne" decided to try some intimidation on him. What a lovely group of people you all are.
Continuing, no one intentionally adds poisons into food that have no purpose so the comparison with food poisoning is laughable. And cars and glass have their own separate purposes and are not related to fluoridation.
There is no purpose for adding poisonous fluoride into otherwise healthy good drinking water. So of course I stand with those who oppose fluoridation and oppose those who endorse it.
It is neither hypocrisy nor deception. It is defending what is true. The fact that fluoridation is unnecessary and useless proves that fluoridation overfeeds are of no concern when fluoridation is ended because they won't exist anymore.
Cars and food and glass have functional uses. So what?.
I take it from your response that you can provide no peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate that teeth with Mild Dental Fluorosis are more subject to decay than teeth without this condition. This was expected, since Kumar et al. demonstrated that teeth with Mild Dental Fluorosis are healthier and more resistant to decay.
As for the rest of your comment, Richard, please. Your quote: "Thus (sic.) is nuts. I never labeled any picture of teeth and claimed it was CO brown stain. That condition caused by fluorosis plus high iron occurs in Durango and in Colorado Springs, CO."
Response: Really? In my discussion of Hardy Limeback's decptive photo on the fluorideaction website, you jumped into the conversation with,
"Stained fluorotic teeth are common in areas of Colorado where fluoride is significant in drinking water. The name Colorado brown stain" was given for the affliction in the 1930's. So why is that "deceptive" to give an example of what can commonly happen to flurotic teeth since fluorosis leaves teeth with enamel hypoplasia (thin enamel) that is more subject to staining than normal teeth which do not contian fluoride?" (Timestamp: 02-14-2019 11:44 PM)
You are asking why the photo is deceptive when Colorado Brown Stain is a common condition of flurotic teeth. If you weren't discussing the Limeback photo, then everything you said in that paragraph is irrelevant and a waste of time.
In that same discussion of the deceptive Limeback photo, you also said, "In colorado springs the brown stain was also attributed to iron that gained access to teeth interiors because of fluoride in drinking water. Regardless of the source of fluoride ingestiin during childhood, fluorosis is an undesired abnormality." (Timestamp: 02-16-2019 11:51 PM)
Again, irrelevant and a waste of time if not in reference to the deceptive Limeback photo which appears on the Fluroide Action Network website.
I find it fascinating to have a discussion with someone who treats reality as if it does not exist; as if it were the wind . . not grounded, with no substance, and continually moving from place to place. Please let me know what, if any, pharmaceutical assistance is making its presence known in this discussion. I only ask so that I can join you on your phantasmagoric level . . then perhaps we can have meaningful dialogue that makes sense . . at least until the effects wear off.
EPA knows fluoridation chemicals increase lead corrosion. Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride see pages. C104-111 in an EPA paper is found at https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf
Your quote: "That is not true. F is not reported as a component of the scales in this section."
Response: Could you please specify to whom you are addressing and in what context? My guess is that you are replying to Skanen144 who provided this link https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf
with this comment:
"EPA knows fluoridation chemicals increase lead corrosion. Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride see pages. C104-111 in an EPA paper is found." - Skanen144
If so, yeah, I looked at that too. C104-C111 has absolutely nothing to do with water fluoridation.
I posted a link demonstrating lead scales on lead drinking water pipes were mainly compounds of fluoride.
Just to be sure we are all looking at the same pages. I refer to the Washington Aqueduct Lead Service Line Pilot Study, section starting on page 315 of 523 pdf or (C-88) as labeled in the report: Contribution of Service Line and Plumbing Fixtures to Lead and Copper Rule Compliance Issues. C-104 to C-111 is the analysis of scales lining the lead service pipes (LSL) that deliver drinking water to Washington, DC. Lead pipes were dug up out of the ground and hung on the wall as in the picture C-88. Sections or coupons of LSL in each loop were periodically removed and the scales analyzed. I am an eye witness to this pilot study in Washington, DC. Yes these were the scales on the surface of LSL bathed in the fluoridated water of Washington, DC. DavidF, how can you say this has nothing to do with water fluoridation?
The discussion on C-104, Figure C.95 summarized in table C.26 mentions the dominant scales from Washington Aqueduct pipeloop #7 as peaks labeled Pm = fluoropyromorphite, a compound of fluoride or Pb5F(PO4)3 .
Page C-107 describes three minerals from the scales; apatite, pyromorphite and vanadimite that are compounds of ‘X’ listed as X= F, CL, or OH. Ken P., how is this not about compounds of fluoride?
I am surprised that my statements are challenged by saying my link has nothing to do with water fluoridation or lead scales composed of compounds of fluoride.
My original concern about this Pipeloop project was that it obscured the truth that the lead leaching from LSL was highly seasonal with much higher lead results during the warmer summer months. Hidden in the raw data also are lead results from samples varying the amount fluoride added. Obviously from the data, the EPA was asking the question, ‘does addition of acidic fluoridation chemicals increase lead leaching?’ Not getting the answer the EPA wanted to accept, the results were deeply archived.
Lead and Copper Rule sampling is gamed in many ways to hide actual lead contamination of drinking water. I cannot understand why anyone can have such a callous disregard for the harmful effects, especially on infants, of both lead and fluoride found in drinking water.
skanen144 Pyromorphite is usually the Cl compound Pb5(PO4)3Cl. Yes, isomorphous substitution occurs but what surprises me is that there are no analytical data given in this section for F. See table C27, page C106. This makes me suspect the pyromorphite identified by XRD is not the fluoride analogue but more likey a Cl, phosphate, OH analogue.
The description of pyromorphite as the fluoride analogue in Table C26 appears to be a mistake. If the authors seriously suggested it was a fluoride analogue they would have provided analytical data for F, not Cl. I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."
So, yes my comment was based on the analytical data. And I am aware that by itself and without fine structure XRD would not differentiate between different analogues.
So I do not think your original comment "Lead scales formed on lead service lines were mainly compounds of fluoride" is warranted.
Thanks susan. It is not sirprising that fluoride cohld fo this with lead dalts that are akeays predent on old plumbing woth oxidized lead. Ion exchange of a hydroxide with flioride to form these precipitates remimds one of the fact that fluoride in blood,at only 0.15 ppm partixipates in an ion exchange process with hydtoxide in hydroxyaoatite, converting bone into abnormal fluoroapatite. Fluoride does this at concentrations far belpw the solubility product concentratipn required to precipitate calcium fluoride.
This isn't about teeth. This is about the stupidity of adding small amounts of poison to municipal water that increase the dissolution of other metals into water all of which accumulate in bodies and environment.
The fluoride (and other metals associated with fluoridation) that build up in bodies, bones and brains over the years lead to kidney disease, arthritis and dementia in many consumers.
Excerpts: Contaminated drinking water sickened a 3-month-old baby and several other people in an area of Sandy where a no-drink order is in place pending lab results on levels of copper and lead.Owens said the impacted area has expanded in size twice since the initial discovery and now includes as many as six schools, care centers and a recreation center. More than 450 households are impacted.... the pump sent undiluted high concentrations of fluoride into the system for about 36 to 48 hours.Nate Roe, the father of 3-month-old Henry, said he talked with multiple city employees by phone after the infant vomited his formula twice on Wednesday. His wife was sick as well, and the water tasted metallic.A city worker visited his home and suggested the problem was a malfunctioning water softener. Roe said he doesn't have a water softener.Workers told him to repeatedly flush his system and call the Utah Poison Control Center to report medical issues, but assured him the water was safe to drink.The [Poison] center, however, could not advise him of what to do unless he knew the level of fluoride exposure. He said the city later told him it was 150 times what it should be.When the city declared the water safe to drink, the Roe family resumed using tap water in their home by Feb. 11. "Then we found out yesterday (Friday) from a news article that there is lead and copper in the water," he said. "It is infuriating. Nobody told us about copper. Nobody told us about lead."A Sandy City mother, who asked for her name to be withheld to protect her 3-year-old daughter's identity, said the girl tested "high" for levels of lead her pediatrician's office and they were referred for a full blood screening at a hospital lab for lead and copper.Dr. Mike Moss, medical director of the Utah Poison Control Center, said multiple calls came after the initial burst of fluoride hit the drinking water system and they are still fielding calls from residents concerned over potential lead or copper exposure.He said a friend and neighbor who is a chemist ran a pH test on the tap water that came back at 3.89, which is extremely acidic.
Nonsense. I never said if you drink fluoridated water yiu will develop CO brown stain It takes high iron ingestion along with fluorosis to develop that. Fluorotic teeth may he subject to a variety of stains depending on where you live and what you consume.
Please stop the deceptipn as though fluorosis is,desirable. You quote kumar wjo publishes data that have means that do not differ beyond standard etror and proclaims that a fluorotic tooth is resistant to decay. That is deception
The point of all this is all enamel fluorosis is abnormality. And such teeth can be subject to discoloration depending on where you livev and what you ingest, the severity of the fluorosis etc.
We dont need a treatise on the subject and instead advocate for no fluiride in rhe diet as much as possible . This means stopping fluoridaton where fluorosis increases in every fluoridated city and there are no exceptions.
Richard, your quote: "I never said if you drink fluoridated water yiu will develop CO brown stain It takes high iron ingestion along with fluorosis to develop that. Fluorotic teeth may he subject to a variety of stains depending on where you live and what you consume."
Response: I never claimed you said this. You say you have a Ph.D. Surely you can comprehend the meaning of my comment. We are discussing the deceptive use of a photograph taken by Hardy Limeback. Please try to stay focused.
I am sorry to have to keep repeating myself, but you seem distracted. Dr. Limeback's photo of stained teeth, which you have claimed have Colorado Brown Stain, falls into the category of Moderate Dental Fluorosis according to the standard Dean's Index.
Again, Moderate Dental Fluorosis, which is not associated with CWF, is defined as, "All enamel surfaces of the teeth are affected and surfaces subject to attrition show wear. Brown stain is frequently a disfiguring feature."
The photo of these teeth which appear in an anti-CWF article by attorney Michael Connett are diagnosed as having Mild Dental Fluorosis. By implication, the photo suggests that this is what can happen by drinking optimally fluoridated water. PLEASE NOTE: You didn't say that. The photo in that context deceptively implies this.
I find it odd that you would spend roughly one third of your response on Dr. Jay Kumar's peer-reviewed work. It is not central to the discussion. Indeed, after citing it I added, "but that is irrelevant to this discussion."
Of course you would disagree with Dr. Kumar's peer-reviewed work. It disagrees with your bias. If you can show me some peer-reviewed work that demonstrates teeth with Mild Dental fluorosis are more subject to decay, please present it.
But the fact is that teeth with Mild Dental Fluorosis are less resistant to decay than teeth without this condition . . as demonstrated by - well, right here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049
Where's your peer-reviewed work demonstrating the contrary?
You simply saying something doesn't make it true. It's like you saying that CWF is responsible for the collapse of the salmon industry in the Sacramento River without . . . 1.) knowing background fluoride levels in the river . . . 2.) checking fluoride levels in the river downstream of effluent discharge . . . 3.) knowing the flow of the river . . . 4.) knowing the amount of daily effluent discharge . . . 5.) any examination of any actual dead salmon . . . 6.) and maybe a real environmentalist who actually agrees with your unique hypothesis.
You seem to have a habit of just saying things with no evidence to support it. It is interesting that Dr. Bill has compared me to the President. Maybe he hasn't been reading your non-evidence based comments. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/15/593844812/trump-admits-to-making-up-trade-deficit-in-talks-with-canad...
In colorado springs the brown stain was also attributed to iron that gained access to teeth interiors because of fluoride in drinking water. Regardless of the source of fluoride ingestiin during childhood, fluorosis is an undesired abnormality.
It is,deceptive to claim it is something to be desired to reduce caries, when thinned enamel cannot protect against caries.
You are claiming that there is nothing deceptive about this photograph of teeth belonging to someone who has never drank artifically fluoridated water being used as an argument against it.
Ok. Well that says a lot about your standards regarding the level of deceptiveness you are willing to accept (provided the deceptiveness in question supports your bias).
Beyond that obvious deception, these teeth have been diagnosed by attorney Michael Connett as having Mild Dental Fluorosis. You are telling me that the obvious stains on them are Colorado Brown Stain. Photographer Limeback said they were orange stains which he believed were iron. I suppose the color is irrelevant here.
But Wait! There is even more deceptiveness about this photograph. This article is all about arguing against Community Water Fluoridation (CWF). And it is true that Very Mild and Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with CWF. (Kumar has demonstrated that these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay - but that is irrelevant to this discussion.) So the implication that is being made with this photograph is - this is what happens from drinking water which has been fluoridated to the optimal level.
According to standard and widely accepted Dean's Index used for the diagnosis of Dental Fluorosis --
Very Mild Dental Fluorosis is defind as teeth having, "Small, opaque, paper white areas scattered irregularly over the tooth but not involving as much as approximately 25% of the tooth surface. Frequently included in this classification are teeth showing no more than about 1 – 2mm of white opacity at the tip of the summit of the cusps, of the bicuspids or second molars."
Nothing about Colorado Brown Stain there.
Mild Dental Fluorosis , which is what these teeth are defined as having, is, "The white opaque areas in the enamel of the teeth are more extensive but do involve as much as 50% of the tooth."
Hmmm . . Nothing about Colorado Brown Stain there either. Isn't that interesting.
Moderate Dental Fluorosis, which is not associated with CWF, is defined as, "All enamel surfaces of the teeth are affected and surfaces subject to attrition show wear. Brown stain is frequently a disfiguring feature."
Colorado Brown Stain, which you seem convinced that these teeth have, is a characteristic of Moderate Dental Fluorosis . . . But these teeth are diagnosed as having Mild Dental Fluorosis - which, again, can be associated with CWF.
This photograph is not an example of what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. This photograph is a lie.
Still want to stick with your story that there is nothing deceptive about the use of this photograph as an argument against CWF on a website whose sole motive is to generate fear and paranoia about CWF?
Stained fluorotic teeth are common in areas of Colorado where fluoride is significant in drinking water. The name Colorado brown stain" was given for the affliction in the 1930's. So why is that "deceptive" to give an example of what can commonly happen to flurotic teeth since fluorosis leaves teeth with enamel hypoplasia (thin enamel) that is more subject to staining than normal teeth which do not contian fluoride?
This is not deceptive at all.
The observatiuon of good teeth in one country and poor teeth in another is not due to fluoride ingestion. Fluoride ingestion has nothing to do with dental caries, as proven in detailed perfectly controlled animal studies and in our largest epidemiiologic human studies. The presence of flujoride salt and the absence of fluoridated water are an anecdotal coincidental correlation.There are many regions where caries are lower when the water is devoid of fluoride and higher when the water is high in fluoride. This is because eating fluoride has absolutely nothing to do with dental caries. It is calcium content of the diet and the lack of sugar in the diet that have the largest effect., as prove4n inthe 30 year massive study by Teotia and Teotia.
What is deceptive is to claim that low levels of fluoride that are harmless even to salmon can somehow magically harden the hardest substance in the body, teeth enamel.
And what is deceptive is the article that was published by the Asso.Press this week by the CDC, who bames the high incidence of dental fluorosis in U.S. teens on kids using too much toothpaste when brushing. Wow. No mention of the fact that the CDC endorses water fluoridation which is responsible for 80% of the fluoride ion found in one's bloodsream in a fluoridated city (NRC, 2006). Unbelievable stupidity at best, and at worst downright deception and finger pointing to avoid litigation and any possible correction of following a deceptive false correlation to its full course..
Dr. Limeback had said, "There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area."
So what we have here are the iron stained teeth of a young man who grew up in a non-fluoridated area. The man had a history of not drinking artifically fluoridated water.
The photograph of these iron stained teeth are being used as an unsightly example on a website dedicated to the abolition of community water fluoridation.
You don't see that as deceptive? Interesting.
“In large measure, those marred by dementia are showing the results of toxicity from mercury, aluminum, lead, cadmium, arsenic and other heavy metals. Their neurons have been poisoned. They are turned into Alzheimer’s victims directly through the efforts of dentists who blindly follow the party line of their trade union organization, the ADA.” - Dr. Morton Walker, DPM (1994)
Fluoride, too, Dr. Walker. This month, January 2019, the Alzheimer's Association had enough. They demanded its name be removed from the ADA & CDC lists of fluoridation supporters.
Fluoridated water poisons from womb to tomb, with those on either end of that spectrum counting among the vulnerable sub-populations because of several factors, most notably their reduced kidney function to eliminate the toxin and increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier.
Fluoridationists will continue to do their song and dance, but it's as futile as rearranging chairs on the Titantic.
“Official stories exist to protect officials.“ - Liam Scheff, investigative journalist and author of “Official Stories: Counter-Arguments for a Culture in Need” (2012)
Senator Ted Kennedy led the Congress in condemming the CDC, NMA & AMA sanctioned Tuskegee Syphillis Experiment that withheld diagnosis & treatment from infected men and their families 'in the interest of the greater good' which was to study the progression of untreated syphllis.
The 1974 National Research Act and 1979 Belmont Report came out of that effort. The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was also created in 1974. It would never occur to people in general to have to write laws saying that doctors and government agencies should behave ethically and not cause suffering and spread of an infectious disease by using self-serving and immoral justifications - but there we had it. The CDC, under the direction of the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) and with the support of independent associations of doctors, who also endorse fluoridation, perpetuated a fraud that did exactly that.
The only reason that three decade 'experiment' ended was a public health service employee got fed up with trying to get the public health service to act ethically since 1966 and leaked the story to the New York Times and Senator Kennedy in 1973.
This month, Sen. Kennedy's nephew, human rights activist & environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr, through the Children's Health Defense which he chairs has issued a condemnation of fluoridation as a human experiment that must end! RFK who recently won a case against Monsanto that included unearthing documents proving EPA & Monsanto collusion to hide evidence that RoundUp causes cancer has also filed fraud and obstruction of justice charges against the DHHS and its DOJ attorneys this month on another issue.
Now tell me again how we should trust endorsements from the CDC, DHHS, AMA, etc. and how ethical these fluoridationist are. Also, explain how the authors of the SDWA didn't have ethics in mind when they inserted the language they did about not using water to dose people, albeit hampered by federal vs. state jurisdictional constraints.
- The question at hand is whether the AARP has the integirty & courage to do the right thing like the PHS employee who leaked the story to the NY Times?
“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” - Albert Einstein
I got curious so went looking for that study on fluoride reducing brain size in rats that Chuck apparently sent Bill in error. I didn't find it, but I found two others that I found interesting given that I had been experiencing alarming liver problems between 2012-2014 that disappeared overnight without returning when I got very strict about avoiding fluoride, even using no-low fluoride water to brush my teeth. My gastrointestinal, kidney and arthritic symptoms that plagued me for decades also diappeared not to return. Ditto for my high cholesterol which began in my 20s concurrent with all those other symptoms and the fluoridation of my town.
Fluoride messes with lipids which are the body's main energy store and associated with the liver as well as messes with the immune system. (Afolabi et al. 2013)
Low doses of fluoride damages good antioxidants that protects cells and increases lipid peroxidation which is damaging to cells, particularly the liver. (Yamaguti et al. 2013)
We don't need any more studies: Fluoride is poison in any dose, more dangerous to some people than others, but particularly dangerous to the bodies, bones and brains of senior citizens who have consumed it daily for decades.
Regarding the effect of fluoride on the brains of rodents, the abstract of a paper titled ‘Neurotoxicity of fluoride: Neurodegeneration in hippocampus of female mice’ (Bhatnagar et al., 2002) published in the Indian Journal of Experimental Biology reads:
“Light microscopic study of hippocampal sub-regions demonstrated significant number of degenerated nerve cell bodies in the CA3, CA4 and dentate gyrus(Dg) areas of sodium fluoride administered adult female mice. Ultrastructural studies revealed neurodegenrative characteristics like involution of cell membranes, swelling of mitochondria, clumping of chromatin material etc. can be observed in cell bodies of CA3, CA4 and dentate gyrus (Dg). Fluoride intoxicated animals also performed poorly in motor co-ordination tests and maze tests. Inability to perform well increased with higher fluoride concentration in drinking water.”
See full paper at IJEB 40(5) 546-554.pdf
A good study supporting the consensus of other studies.
My friends just put together a few more items on fluoride and the brain.
There is no question that fluoride is neurotoxic, damaging the brain and central nervous system, as documented by hundreds of studies. Extensive scientific evidence, including studies at exposures caused by fluoridated water, show it can harm children. It can NOT be declared safe.
2006: The National Research Council published Fluoride in Drinking Water1, the most authoritative review of
fluoride’s toxicity. It stated unequivocally that “fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body” and “the chief endocrine effects of fluoride include decreased thyroid function.”
2012: A Harvard-funded meta-analysis2 found that children ingesting higher levels of fluoride tested an average 7 IQ points lower in 26 out of 27 studies. Most had higher fluoride concentrations than in U.S. water, but many had total exposures to fluoride no more than what millions of Americans receive.
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.”
Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, Harvard study co-author, Danish National Board of Health consultant, co-editor of Environmental Health, author of over 500 scientific papers.
2015: A study3 covering nearly all of England found that populations drinking fluoridated water had nearly twice as
high prevalence of hypothyroidism (low thyroid level), known to be linked to IQ deficits. The study’s authors concluded “there is substantial cause for public health concern.”
2017: A petition to EPA4 to end fluoridation found fluoride caused neurotoxic harm in 57 out of 61 human studies (mainly lowered IQ), several at levels in fluoridated water, and 112 out of 115 animal studies. EPA denied the petition, triggering a lawsuit going to trial in federal court in 2019.
2017: A National Institutes of Health - funded longitudinal study5 in Mexico covering 13 years, one of the most robust ever done, found that every one part per million increase in fluoride in pregnant women’s urine – approximately the difference caused by ingestion of fluoridated water6 - was associated with a reduction of their children’s IQ by an average 5-6 points. Leonardo Trasande, a leading physician unaffiliated with the study, said it “raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water.” 7
2018: A Canadian study8 representing 6.9 million people found iodine-deficient adults (nearly 18% of the population) with higher fluoride levels had a greater risk of hypothyroidism. The study’s lead scientist, Ashley Malin, said “I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure.” 9
Peckham et al http://jech.bmj.com/content/69/7/619
Bashash et al https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/
Newsweek, Sept. 19, 2017, https://www.newsweek.com/childrens-iq-could-be-lowered-drinking-tap-water-while-pregnant-667660
Environmental Health News, Oct. 10, 2018, https://www.ehn.org/we-add-it-to-
“In my book, ‘Health and Nutrition Secrets,’ I have a long chapter on the fluoridation issue in which I cite and discuss a great number of real scientific studies which show conclusively that the fluoridation of public drinking water to prevent cavities is not only a scam but that it is also quite harmful, especially being linked to significant brain pathology.” - Russell L. Blaylock MD, board certified neurosurgeon and Editor-in-chief of Neuroinflammation section of Surgical Neurology International (8 Jan 2019)
One of the online strategies of the fluoridationists is to bury substantive comments with lots of rhetorical noise. Here are four major points with hyperlinks to supporting detail that they are trying to hide from AARP and seniors on this forum:
- Many scientists, doctors, dentists and professionals have come to the conclusion based on the evidence that fluoridation provides little to no dental benefit, but harms bodies, brains and bones. Click here and here.
- Groups particularly vulnerable to ill effects from fluoridated water include pregnant women, bottle fed babies, senior citizens and any with chronic health conditions.
- Many plants and aquatic species have low tolerance for fluoride which builds up in the environment from waste water where it persists a millions years or more along with the tramp contaminants included in fluoridation chemicals which are the waste product of industry. Click here.
- Judges have determined that fluoridation is harmful but legal under US law and should be dealt with by the legislative branch of government or regulatory agencies, but the well-monied fluoride stakeholders who include Big Pharma & Big Sugar as well as the ADA and industrial fluoride interest, pay millions to lobbyists, (and even fund social media campaigns) in order to perpetuate the profitable deceit. Click here.