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! 

[rs5526]

Yes. An Associated Press article came out last week stating that the CDC now claims that kids are using too much toohtpaste because of the endemic of dental fluorosis. So the followers of the CDC also accept this. But yes water fluoridation began causing dental fluorosis long before fluoride toothpaste was ever invented. The original correlation that attempted to claim fluoride in water reduces caries was in the 1930's where substantial dental fluorosis was observed in communites with fluoride at 1 ppm in water. Toohtpaste with fluoride was not available until the 1950's.

The CDC has a mission to protect the Surgeon General's claim that fluoride ingestion is safe and effective, so obvsiouly it must be that toohtpaste be blamed for what is mostly done by water fluoride..But both now are involved in causing the high incidence of fluorosis enamel hypoplasia.

The bizarre thing is that there is no credible well controlled evidence in man or animals proving that fluoridation even works to lower dental caries. And yet vast effort and funds are put into fluoridating the country. Pretty disgusting and when this is called out, all you will get from fluoridationists is that you are somehow the 'scaremonger.' 

[CarryAnne]

"Sticks and stones...." 

          "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true." 

The controlled dose study in the 1950s before fluoridated toothpaste documented coppery brown staining and and thin enamel in some of those children. (Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides - A Progress Report. Reuben Feltman, D.D.S. Dental Digest. August 1956.)

The 1962 govt memo from the first fluoridation trial city documented a disproportionate dental fluorosis impact well in excess of what predicted, again from before fluoridated toothpastes, i.e. 15% white v. 35% black children. This is why fluoridation policy is an environmental justice issue and opposed by many human rights activists. 

“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed.

Look only and solely at what are the facts.”

-  Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel laureate on evidence and data analysis (1959)

Feltman 1956

1962 Memo

[KenP315323]

CarryAnne - you should take your own advice - "Repeating a lie doesn't make it true." 

You make unwarranted claims and provide citations which often do not support them. That is simply propaganda.

Now, if you were actually willing to enter into good faith, uncensored, open exchange of the science of your claims and citations that would be different. But I think you are aware of that and your demonstrated refusal to enter into a normal human exchange indicates you are very aware you are simply in the propaganda business - truth is your last concern.

Naturally, people have built up immunity to propaganda like this. We can recognise fake news when we see it.

[rs5526]

And F has no physiologic role in urine or blood and is in urine because the kidneys,are eliminating a toxic waste from the system. Unfortunately fluoride accumulates in bone before the kidneys can eliminate it all.

[CarryAnne]

”No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." —Albert Einstein

Fluoridation has been proved dangerous by hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) studies, even those at low dose concentrations. Additionally, toxicology guidelines dictate that the animal studies that find damage at 10, 50, and 100 mg/L are sufficient to ban fluoridation as unsafe for vulnerable sub-populations. Since those guidelines are not followed, it seems U.S. EPA scientists are correct when they claim fluoride is a 'politically protected pollutant.' 

• Fluoridation policy is a reckless public harm policy, that is particularly dangerous to the very young, those in fragile health and senior citizens. Fluoridation policy is scientifically and ethically corrupt. 

"We applied EPA's risk control methodology, the Reference Dose, to the recent neurotoxicity data. The Reference Dose is the daily dose, expressed in milligrams of chemical per kilogram of body weight, that a person can receive over the long term with reasonable assurance of safety from adverse effects. Application of this methodology to the Varner et al.\4 data leads to a Reference Dose for fluoride of 0.000007 mg/kg-day. Persons who drink about one quart of fluoridated water from the public drinking water supply of the District of Columbia while at work receive about 0.01mg/kg-day from that source alone. This amount of fluoride is more than 100 times the Reference Dose. On the basis of these results the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.
"

- From NTEU Chapter 280 statement, “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Water Fluoridation” (May 1, 1999)

[KenP315323]

CarryAnne - you claim "Fluoridation has been proved dangerous by hundreds (perhaps a thousand or more) studies."

Considering the subject under discussion and normal use of the word I am assuming you mean community water fluoridation.

Could you please cite a couple of these hundreds/thousands of studies?

I am aware of several studies investigating harmful effects from community water fluoridation - the New Zeland, Candian and Swedish studies are examples. None of these showed any evidence of harm -quite the contrary.

So I am curious what hundreds and thousands of studies on community water fluoridation you have picked up and I have missed.

And since when have resolutions at union meetings become a substitute for real science?

[CarryAnne]

“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008)

I am happy to engage in a good faith scientific discussion, but that isn't possible with the troop of fluoride trolls who have overwhelmed this site with rhetorical deceits and attempts to bait opponents into endless bickering in order to create a fog of doubt in the minds of decision makers. For whatever reasons, their goals are to puff themselves up with perceptions of personal power and preserve profitable policies instead of protect public health. I've encountered them already in othe venues. Click here and here for my recent AARP responses. I also like SIRPAC's recent entry on this topic. 

Also, debating prenatal studies and diagnoses of dental fluorosis in children isn't particulary on topic for an AARP forum and agricultural scientist KenP's dismissal of Bashash et al. 2017 isn't really worth the effort. For the record, that was the first of three reports published by a multi-million dollar NIH sponsored research project conducted by reknowned experts at world class U.S. and Canadian research universities such as the very pro-fluoride University of Michigan and Harvard School of Public Health, as well as the University of Toronto, McGill University, Indiana University School of Dentistry, and Mount Sinai School of Medicine. All three reports documented significant and sobering neurological damage from low dose prenatal exposure to fluoride. 

If KenP, who I still maintain has no business on the AARP site where his purpose is to disrupt conversations with vitriol, rather look to universities in his homeland of New Zealand, I suggest the two Sept 2018 presentations by Irish scientists at Otago University are breathtaking. 

• Vyvyan Howard, toxico-pathologist on thyroid science & prenatal/postnatal exposure to fluoride: (26 min):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0o3kxZNXCw 

• Declan Waugh, environmental scientist on science & political dirty tricks (43 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7JUYXNVmiw 

[RossF715288]

KenP challenged ‘r3sponse’ to prove that the Victoria water board and related health authority have taken the drastic measure of disqualifying any peer reviewed science during water fluoridation reviews that do anything but shower praise on dental outcomes of water fluoridation. I’ll let ‘r3sponse’ answer that but that is exactly what happens in New Zealand with its Ministry of Health.
When a National Fluoride Information Service was established under contract between the Ministry and a district health board at a cost of around NZD1.25 million the contract had the laudable aim of maintaining an objective and credible viewpoint when reviewing literature and framing communications on water fluoridation (Service Specification, clause 2.3) yet in that same clause there was a requirement that the contractor would “not act in any way that may contradict or be inconsistent with Ministry policy on water fluoridation or with the MoH publication ‘Good Oral Health for All, For Life” both of which unequivocally advocate fluoridation. There was no room for the widest range of peer reviewed fluoride science.
KenP also asserts that New Zealand data from ‘Our Oral Health: Key findings of the 2009 New Zealand Oral Health Survey’ clearly support fluoridation - but they don’t. The survey itself states that it was not designed as an in-depth water fluoridation study (see ‘Our Oral Health’, XXV)
Also, for 5-year-olds, Figure 3 on page 28 of that survey shows only marginal differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas from 2003 to 2009.
Over the whole six-year time period the figure shows that the prevalence of dental decay rates declined in non-fluoridated areas while the prevalence of dental decay rates increased in fluoridated areas with an acceleration of those trends between 2007 and 2009. At the end of the time period the difference in the mean for (dmft) was ~0.3.
The oft quoted 40 per cent fluoridation induced reduction in caries prevalence coming from ‘Our oral health’ report is derived from an extremely small sample over 16 age groups – 519 from fluoridated areas and 468 from non-fluoridated.
However, it is interesting to note from an Official Information Act disclosure of that data that at ages 16 and 17, of the 52 fluoridated children surveyed the average decayed, missing or filled teeth dmft was 2.46 and of the 55 non-fluoridated children the average dmft was lower at 2.39.
Irrespective of growing and well-researched concern about fluoride as a neurotoxin there is ample evidence that fluoridating community water supplies is an uneconomic way of improving the oral health of a population.
In its recently released ‘Oral Health Improvement Plan’ the Scottish Government states that although water fluoridation could make a positive contribution to improvements in oral health, the practicalities of implementing it determines that alternative solutions are more achievable.
The latest oral health statistics from the New Zealand school dental service for 12-year-olds (2017) show a small difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated cohorts.
The 27,822 children fluoridated were 68.91 per cent caries free with a mean of 0.65 dmft and the 21,405 non-fluoridated children 63.08 per cent caries free with a mean of 0.83 dmft. That is a 5.8% difference in caries free and with dmft the difference is less than one fifth of a tooth.
Attempting to close that small gap by adding a neurotoxin to community water supplies where dosage control from drinking the water is virtually impossible is nuts.
A far less costly, more effective and proven approach is expenditure on individual treatment, persistent early childhood and primary (elementary) school oral health education and ongoing publicity on the bad health consequences of excessive sugar consumption.
All public health authorities should be taking serious note of this month’s paper in the American Journal of Public Health, ‘Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Consumption 3 Years After the Berkeley, California, Sugar-Sweetened Beverage Tax’, which has determined that consumption of sugary drinks in Berkeley's diverse and low-income neighbourhoods dropped precipitously in 2015, just months after the city levied the nation's first soda tax on sugar-sweetened beverages.
The study, which is the first to document the long-term impacts of a soda tax on drinking habits in the United States, provides strong evidence that soda taxes are an effective tool for encouraging healthier drinking habits, with the potential to reduce sugar-linked diseases like diabetes, heart disease and tooth decay.
In KenP’s own country an Otago dental school masters thesis supports the positive outcomes of Scotland’s Childsmile programme.
Gertrude Clark’s 2017 thesis, ‘Supervised tooth brushing in Northland’, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Community Dentistry, concluded that the aim of the study, which was to improve the oral health of Northland children, had proved successful.
Her programme has been the first large-scale, fully evaluated supervised tooth brushing programme to be set up and run successfully in New Zealand. It showed improved caries outcomes at one year for children involved in a supervised tooth brushing programme and reinforced the need for policy to consider this approach to improve children’s oral health in communities that experience high caries and poor oral health. It was also the first study in the world to show that an overall improvement in oral health related quality of life can occur in children who take part in a supervised tooth brushing programme.
In commenting on the Cochrane Collaboration report, Trevor Sheldon, who chaired the advisory group for York Review 2000 says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today nobody would even think about it due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis.
He also said that when a public health intervention is applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose.
It is clear, in my view, that current pro-fluoridation policies are an affront to medical ethics and a monstrous waste of money.
In a 22 February letter to Tulsa World, Jim Maxey DDS concluded “Truth decay causes water fluoridation”. What a gem!

[KenP315323]

RossF715288 I will respond to the several items you raise separately.

1: I do not know who you are or who  ‘r3sponse’ is. Nor am I familiar with the incident you describe related to Victoria. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else. As I don't know you,  ‘r3sponse’, or anything about your claim I can not comment further.

2: I will comment on the specifics of your claim about the NZ Oral Health survey when I have checked to pages you refer to (possibly tomorrow). At the moment I can say I am well aware that the document says it is not an in-depth fluoridation study. My usual point in referring to the study, though, is that attempts were made to ensure the collected samples were representative.

I can explain some aspects of this by referring to the data from the New Zealand school dental service for 12-year-olds (2017) you refer to. I have written about the latest data here, so am familiar with them:

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2019/01/23/preempting-the-annual-misrepresentation-of-nz-dental-...

Obviously, the data from the New Zealand school dental service is also not an in-depth study of fluoridation. it is simply a record of treatments for the treated children. No attempt to make the data representative or to overcome problems such as the use of fluoride varnish treatments of children's teeth in unfluoridated areas.

It always amazes me when anti-fluoride activists stoop to using this uncorrected data while rejecting the Oral Health Survey data where attempts were made to ensure the data was representative. Simply pointing to the large numbers in the dental service data is naive to the extreme - or opportunist.

While much more must be done to overcome those sort of problems inherent in such data I have simply corrected for ethnic effects (the preponderance of Pacific Island Children in fluoridated areas skews the total data).

So while the use of the total data, uncorrected for ethnic differences, as you have done  is simply not scientific, once separated along ethnic lines the data shows the following:

For 5-year-olds the overall data suggest a benefit of fluoridation to Maōri and “other” children – about 14% for “Other” and 25% for Māori children (using the data for mean dmft).

For year 8 children the DMFT data suggest a benefit of about 30.5% for Māori and 26% for “Other” children.

3: Regarding the ChildSmile programme, and similar programmes in other countries, I have also written about them and am aware aspects of these programmes, which include fluoride varnish treatments for young children, are also part of the health programmes used in New Zealand.

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/?s=ChildSmile

I am therefore interested in Gertrude Clark’s 2017 thesis you refer to - could you please provide me a link?

Experts agree programmes like this can be successful - but describe them as complementary to community water fluoridation (as it is in New Zealand), not as a substitute.

As always, one must look below the surface to understand such issues, not rely on claims made by biased ideologically driven activists.

4: Could you please back up your claim that we are "adding a neurotoxin to community water supplies." I am aware of the literature used by Connett's crowd in an attempt to shift the debate about negative effects away from dental fluorosis and into IQ but the evidence used in either irrelevant, coming from areas of endemic fluorosis, or extremely weak (the recent Bashash studies). The studies made in New Zealand, Sweden and Canada of fluoride concentrations used for CWF also showed no negative effect. In fact, the Swedish study confirmed a number of positive social effects beyond improvement of oral health (but possibly a result of that improvement).

I will leave it here for tonight but may return to specifics depending on your response.

[CarryAnne]

”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology… If you drink it, you are running the risk of all kinds of toxic actions… Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, neuropharmacologist. 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and official scientific advisor to the Swedish Government (1923-2018)

For the record, I have read all the studies I've referenced and have both the training and intelligence to understand them. From my study, I agree with Dr. Carlsson quoted above. I also understand the propaganda techniques that make heavy use of ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies in order to promote an agenda, techniques which are favored by fluoridationists, bloggers and trolls. I have also given honest testimony to my own health experiences which are consistent with fluoride poisoning. I speak for myself. Over 20 other seniors made similar reports about their own health experiences on this AARP thread before it was overwhelmed by fluoride trolls in June 2018. 

My preference is to discuss data and ethics rather than argue opinions on specific scientific minutea or personalities. To that end, consider that 2018 reports from US NHANES data document that over half of American teens have experienced fluoride overdose during early childhood evidenced by dental fluorosis in permanent teeth (Wiener et al. 2018). Also consider that American reports publishd in peer-reviewed scientific sources validate that at least 37% of American babies exceed the upper tolerable level of fluoride exposure assumed safe (Harriehausen et al. 2018) plus all the other studies I've summarized in this forum thread that have been ignored by the fluoridationists or selectively & spuriously dismissed. 

Then consider the suggestions of scientists that doctors should educate parents not to use too much fluoridated water in prepared cereals, etc. for their young children because of risk of fluoride overdose (Zohoori et al. 2012) and pro-fluoride scientists contorted efforts that argue in favor of fluoridated tap water because cavities are a more immediate threat than lead poisoning to children (Sanders & Slade 2017). Really?!

I suggest it's those who promote fluoridation who are intellectually challenged when they can't see, as does Nobel Laureate Dr. Arvid Carlsson, that adding a drug to water that renders water unsafe for many consumers as well as increasing the lead exposure for all consumers is an immoral & shameful action.

• See Sandy, Utah news for a current example of what can go wrong with fluoridation. 

• See image below for a demonstration of how inappropriate it is to assume there is any dose control over a drug added to water supplies. 

Dose Quiz

[KenP315323]

CarryAnne - you say:

"I have read all the studies I've referenced and have both the training and intelligence to understand them."

Great. Then you should be capable of discussing the science related to the Bashash et al (2018) study you cited and made claims about. Yet you refused to. Why is that? Surely you can understand that it is logical for me to assume that whichever of the claims you make and citations you use that I respond to the response will be the same.

In other words, you refuse to discuss the science. You wish only to make your own claims and will not enter into a discussion of them.

Might I suggest that your refusal to interact with a discussion partner and use of long lists of claim and citations which you refuse to discuss is actually a "Propaganda technique?"

As for "ad hominem attacks" - isn't that what you did with me when I entered the discussion here - attempting to suggest I was hiding my identity, had no right to participate in the discussion and had been involved in research on "pesticides" and "development of high fluoride fertilisers." The last claim was an outright porkie and you later apologised for it.

You clearly are not interested in an uncensored good-faith scientific exchange - yet you continue even now to make claims and link to citations. Claims and citations we know from experience you will refuse to discuss.

Under your own definition aren't you just employing a "propaganda technique" - on a forum which is meant for discussion, not propaganda?

[rs5526]

Thank you Sirpac for your comments.

Yes the fight is endless. Just mentioning the  F word brings on massive ridicule and a  collapse on ones professional standing from many. Its amazing how judgmental people can be when they think they know something and you don't.

But i can't stand allowing my students or anyone for that  matter to be lied to.

So onward.

[rs5526]

Whoever made the stock claim advertisement that fluorotic, thin enamel teeth are resistant to decay, ive already addressed that. Kumar routinely claims the means in his observations are significantly different when the error bars overlap. That is slop. There is no credible evidence that thinning one's enamel helps fight caries. Again you can't cage humans to control their candy rating and brushing habits.

Sorry

[skanen144]

Fluoride leaching lead has a history in other cities as well as Sandy, Utah

[DavidF928895]

Skanen, I took the liberty of looking into the Tacoma water quality history.  

This is from a pamphlet they distributed to the public:  

"We conducted a Corrosion Control Optimization Study  and found we needed to add a chemical, like sodium hydroxide, which raises the pH of our water from its natural 7.0 to a less corrosive 7.5, to help control lead and copper corrosion. We built a corrosion control plant to accomplish this and operations began in the spring of 1997." 

"Another round of water samples were taken and tested in October 1997. Test results showed we reduced the levels of lead and copper in our water to half of previous levels."  https://www.mytpu.org/tacomawater/water-quality/corrosion-control-lead.htm

So they are saying lead and copper levels went down after the initial rounds of sampling in 1992.  And they implimented a corrosion control program.  

This is the Tacoma 2014 Water Quality Report.  https://www.mytpu.org/file_viewer.aspx?id=57666

If you look under the heading "Regulated at the Treatment Plant" you will see that Tacoma still fluoridates its water.  Analysis showed fluoride from 0.71 ppm to 2.03 ppm.  (Those numbers are a little deceptive.  Sampling for this report is is taken  once annually, directly after additives are injected into the line, before mixing and dilution have taken place.  So unless a sampler back-flushes water for an extended period of time, you are unlikely to see numbers that are reflective of what is going on in the distribution system.)

Anyway, I also see, under the heading "Regulated at the Consumer's Tap" that lead samples easily complied with the EPA's Action Level.  

In 2014 they are still sampling from the same sites.  They are still fluoridating their water.  The underlined implication that the author of your letter was making was dismissed.  And they are not in exceedance of the AL.   They are practicing corrosion control, which they would normally be doing now anyway because this is a population of greater than 50,000.

It's interesting that you found this letter, but I would question the motives of someone who would go to the trouble of digging up something as irrelevant as this, which possibly only relfected the non-experienced opinion of a water operator.  

After all, in 1992, these were the first two rounds of lead and copper sampling the city carried out.  By coincidence they stopped fluoridating between rounds.  The lead levels naturally decreased a little bit, and the author of your letter was suggesting that one event (lack of fluoridation) led to the second (lower lead levels).  He had never seen 2 consecutive lead & copper before and that was his natural conclusion.

[DavidF928895]

skanen, that is interesting.   Not so much the newspaper article (A reporter may have gotten information from someone with an axe to grind.)  But more so the letter. 

The Tacoma letter references daily pH analysis at the water plant.  Since you were able to obtain this letter, could you also please provide that data (pH) pre and post fluoridation.   Any alkalinity pre and post fluoridation (which can be found on the city's required annual Partial Chemistry analysis) would also be interesting to see.  

The EPA's National Primary Drinking Water regulations for lead and copper testing in the United States were initiated in May of 1991.  Start dates for monitoring were January, 1992 for systems larger than 50,000; July, 1992 for systems serving 3300 - 50,000; and July, 1993 for systems serving a population smaller than 3300.  This letter, dated 1992, is describing data from the second round of sampling.  Large systems were required to monitor during 2 consecutive 6 month periods.  So this tells me we are looking at information from a large system.

This is the part that may be relavent here.  From the beginning of this program until January, 2019, priority was given to "Tier 1 Sites."  These were single family homes which had lead and copper plumbing that were installed after 1982.  Why 1982?  Because after ten years, copper plumbing with lead solder will develop a patina, a coating that, depending on the chemistry of the water, will protect it from leaching and corrosion.  And sampling began in 1992.

The idea was to take samples from the worst possible case scenarios so the highest examples of water contamination could be found.  New plumbing puts more lead into drinking water than old plumbing.  And, as an example of moronic rules, the 1982 rule stayed in effect for the past 30 years, until this year.  So, in effect, distribution systems were able to sample from post 1982 plumbing which would not have given an accurate picture of any water contamination from new plumbing. 

Anyway, the point here is that lead levels will naturally go down over time.  Also, I find it odd that corrosion control wouldn't have been implimented, if it already wasn't.  It looks like they had some pretty high levels.  The SDWA stipulates that distribution systems serving more than 50,000 shall use corrosion control methods.  (Perhaps this a recent amendment.)

So, this system was monitoring exactly the same sample pool for the first two rounds.  Lead levels would have naturally gone down a little bit.  Can you also provide data from more recent sampling rounds?   Can you provide a recent water quality report?  And can you tell me if the city currently fluoridates its water?  

The author of the letter also says, "This latest testing gives us some limited insight as to the amount of chemical adjustment that may be necessary."

If they are talking about fluoride, I would love to see those records.  This also implies they were planning to resume fluoridation.  If they are talking about corrosion control, that would make more sense . . although he is saying it in the context of fluoridation.   It's a little vague.  And the fact that he underlines the part about fluoridation tells me he is trying to make a point.  

Interesting.  

[rs5526]

It's hard to believe the same people who claim others are deceptive are themsleevs most devious. Fluoridationists refuse to accept that fluoridationof people could do anything bad and it must be predefined as only good for you, so they even discount the effects of fluoride that accumulates in bone in all consumers.

After 20 years of consuming 1 ppm F water the bone concentration might reach about 2,000 mg/kg. This is even higher than the fluoride concentration in fluoridated toothpaste. And in a place where it does not belong, a contaminant that weakens bone (CDC, ATSDR, 2003).  Unbelievably, with a straight face fluoridationists argue that this has no clinical significance. But levels this high can in some peple cause bone pain suffiicent to cause bone replacement surgery. Others do not have that type of pain (due to diffeences in bone innervation or other factors?) but all have an abnormally formed microcrystal structure where fluoride exchanges for hydroxide. There is no biochemical hormone that is deisgned to resorb fluoridated bone. PTH is designed to resorb normal bone to release calcium in times of calcium dietary deficiency which is necessary to support physiologic functions, thee most critical of which is mediating excittation and contraction in the beating heart. Every time the heart contracts it is because extracellular calcium rushes into the cell after electrical excitation to activate contractile fibrils, and when it is pumped back out the heart relaxes. Lub- dub occurs because of calcium in and calcium out.  Fluoridation of bone compromises the ability of a person to sustain the beating heart in times of calcium deficiency. This is a clinically signficant problem and fluoridatioisnts will never admit or even believe it or ever bother to study it because fluoride is predefined as being good for you.

Here we have fliuen suj;lins who cloaim that flien has beenon the rise and Cancer mortality as been argued here to be unbaffected by fluoride ingestion. because fluoridation has been on the rise at the time cancer has been in decline. Hogwash. Fluoridaiton is not increasing. Many cities across the country in the last many years have halted fluoridation. Further, the HHS requested in 2011 that fluoride levels be reduced from 1 to 0.7 ppm in water because of the endemic of dental enamel hypoplasia fluorosis due to fluoride poisonoing in U.S. teens. So fluoridation has not be "increasing" during the time canccer has been in decline which has been happenbiunbg sinece tge nud 1960'. Fluoride ingestion in fact has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to minmize the decline.

Do fluoridaitonists believe this? Of course not. That is not possible because all such discoveries are discounted for any possible reason they think they have found because fluoride is pre-defined as being good for you.

Get the picture now?.

[rs5526]

The exact SDWA quote is written in the article I published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 in 2013 on page 9.

If you refuse to read the Act then just go there to see the legal, Congressionally approved statement..

But is this the same guy who also claimed I said that all the salmon in the Sacramento River were killed by fluoride discharges?

And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?

If it is the same guy then hopefully all will see that discussion is pointless and he just wants to twist what is said to make it ludicrous so he can have the luxury of attacking and then saying I am the one who needs some sleep. 

Incredible, no?

[DavidF928895]

Richard, here we go again.

The exact provision to which you are referring is this:  “No National primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”   Correct?  

You had said, " "Here in America we have the safe drinkng water act that prohibits 1) requiring the addition of anything - harmless or not - into water other than to sanitize the water"  

Now look at the provision.  "“No National primary drinking water regulation . . "  That is a reference to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act itself. 

" . . may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water”   This means that the SDWA may not mandate (require), may not insist upon, may not enforce or demand that (in this case we are talking about) fluoride be added to drinking water. 

It doesn't say water fluoridation is prohibited.  It just says it may not be mandated by a Federal authority toward a local or state level.  That's about as clear as it gets.

Your inability to admit when you are wrong amazes even me.  I am using the English language.  Are you using something different?  

Your quote:  "But is this the same guy who also claimed I said that all the salmon in the Sacramento River were killed by fluoride discharges?"

Response:  That's right.  And when you pointed out my mistatement I apologized and corrected myself.  The fact that you would exploit a mistatement that was admitted, apologized, and corrected by me says a lot about your character.  

But you did say CWF was responsible for the collapse of the Salmon industry in the Sacramento River, with absolutely no evidence to support it.  You don't know fluoride levels in the river pre or post effluent discharge.  You've never taken temperature measurements of the river.  You don't know what the daily discharge of effluent is, and you don't know the flow of the river itself.  

Would you care to contradict any of that?  Moreover, there are no environmentalists who have reached that conclusion or agree with you.  You came up with the idea yourself with no evidence to support it.

And finally, your quote:  "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"

Let's review.  You had said, "Phyllis Mullenix and others have analyzed samples of fluosilicic acid . . "  ‎02-20-2019 11:12 AM

Knowing the answer to the question, I asked you, "Dr. Richard, could you tell me how many samples of fluosilicic acid Phyllis Mullenix tested?  I am curious how comprehensive her analysis was."  02-20-2019 01:31 PM

Your resonse was, "Mullenix examined in detail three different samples of fluosilicic acid."

Yeah, I knew that.  That's why I asked it.  So I said, "Three Whole Samples?  I'm sure that must be representative of the millions of tons produced worldwide."  ‎02-20-2019 02:58 PM

And from that exchange, you came up with, "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"

I never implied that.  In fact I implied just the opposite.  The little Mullenix study, with only 3 samples tested, should in no way be considered comprehensive or representative of the product used in CWF.  But you go around citing it as if it were the Bible.  (The way you read things, from that you'll probably accuse me of misquoting the Bible.)

Maybe I should ask you for an apology . . Nah, nevermind.  The ability to apologize or admit when you are wrong is way beyond you.

[rs5526]

wow.

1. What I said in plain English is what the statute means. Apologize? for what?  The CDC requests fluoridation of the country and their staff has intimidated many States into absolute mandating fluoridation as a police power.

2. The Sacramento River discharge tube is municipal water during a drought having the same 1 ppm fluoride that was added in the first place. It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation. So what? And again to emphasize, a salmon collapse is not dead salmon, it is a gross diminishing of egg laying and spawning so that the following years the expected population is decimated. It still is going on in the Sacramento tributary where the discharge tube is, while other tributaries are gaining some ground (likely becaue the salmon that would have returned to the affected tributary do not recognize the fluoridated water and must adjust to spawn in adjoining areas).

3.The comment about 3 samples being representative of all is of course stupid and that is why I never made such a claim. I was asked how many she used and I answered. So what? Many preparations of fluosilciic acid hazardous waste are far more contraminated than those she tested, especially the materials shipped here from China, as I stated. If you are confused, I really have a hard time caring, because by your own admission  you asked the question when you already knew the answer (3). So you try to trap people who oppose fluoridation so that you can denounce them? Again, you sarcastically made it clear that of course 3 samples are not representative of all (as though I had thought this?) and you want me to apologize?  For what , the truth? In your dreams.

No wonder Dr. Osmunsen blocked your correspondence.

[DavidF928895]

By the way, Dr. Richard, you write, "No wonder Dr. Osmunsen blocked your correspondence."

Response:  Hmmm . . this is the first time I'm hearing about this.  In fact, I don't recall ever corresponding with him.  You may be recalling - and misremembering - a comment by KenP in which he said he was blocked by Dr. Bill on social media.  

[DavidF928895]

Richard: 

1.)  " What I said in plain English is what the statute means."

Response:  No it doesn't.  You said, "Here in America we have the safe drinkng water act that prohibits 1) requiring the addition of anything - harmless or not - into water other than to sanitize the water"  

The provision reads:  "“No National primary drinking water regulation may require the addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water” 

"Prohibits" is not the same thing as "No . . regulation may require."  Prohibits means you can't do it.  No regulation may require means the Federal government can't make you do it.  Anyone who can comprehend the written word knows this.    

Am I done humiliating you with this, or do you want to continue?  

2.)  This is priceless:  "The Sacramento River discharge tube is municipal water during a drought having the same 1 ppm fluoride that was added in the first place. It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's (sic.) water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation."

Response:  First of all, no actual fluoride levels were measured in the river pre or post discharge.  Is that correct?  

In the second place, did it ever occur to you that sanitary sewer systems are not waterproof?  That's right.  There is such a thing as water infiltration which will dilute sewage.  Manhole covers are not water proof.  Simply looking at flow rates during rainy days and comparing them to flow rates during dry times will confirm this.

Did you do that?  No, of course not.  Can you tell me how much effluent is discharged into the Sacramento River?   No, you can't.  Can you tell me what the flow and temperatures of the river is pre and post discharge.  No, you can't.  

Your quote:  "It doesn't disappear and it is the entire citie's (sic.) water supply and in fact increases somewhat in concentration because of evaporation."

Response:  Evaporation?  In a closed sewer system?  Ok.  How much?  Were any "evaporation" measurements taken anywhere?  No, they were not.  You just made it up to justify your story.

You are a one-of-a-kind scientist who believes no evidence is required to make up a theory and spout off about it as though it were fact.  

Am I going to continue to humiliate you about this or are we done? 

3.)  Your quote:  "3.The comment about 3 samples being representative of all is of course stupid and that is why I never made such a claim."  

Response:  I never said you did.  Please show me where I said you made this claim.  Nevertheless, you said, "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"    That was a lie.  You can apologize to me about that.

"Straw Man --  an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument."  

Your quote:  ". So you try to trap people who oppose fluoridation so that you can denounce them?"

Response:  I'm not trying to "trap" anyone.  You're making up theories about salmon that nobody else believes in, with absolutely no evidence.  You're misreading a simple provision in the SDWA and spewing out your misrepresentation of it as though it were truth.  And you're putting words in my mouth so that you can try to look like some kind of victim here.  I don't need to try to trap you.  Your own words are doing that for you.

[rs5526]

1. That no national requirement may be made means that it is prohibited to make the requirement. The CDC is prohibited from making the requirement for a national fluoridation program. .Period. And States can be no less restrictive but yet are highly influenced by the CDC to make it a mandate requirement. We have gone over this before. And remember that the intent of the SDWA was to prevent the spread of water fluoridation that began in 1945 (Graham and Morin).

2. The fluoride content of the River before fluoridation is well known and published by water engineers. (typically about 0.2 ppm). I have no interest in spending my life up North to study the problem. I already know that 0.3 ppm fluoride diminishes salmon spawning and that the tributary with the fluoridated water discharge pipe is where the collapse continues.  I never said this is a fact. Facts are absolute and incontrovertible. I have never proven this. Again where do you get this stuff you make up to trap someone?

.3.  I don't know who made the intimation on this site that I implied that 3 samples would represent many. Search the threads and find him if you want.. It's irrelevant who.  But that was the context of the question I answered.when I was asked (by whoever) how many were tested. .I told the truth-3.  So what?

[DavidF928895]

Richard, give it up.

"That no national requirement may be made means that it is prohibited to make the requirement. The CDC is prohibited from making the requirement for a national fluoridation program. Period."

Response:  And the CDC doesn't require that anybody fluoridates its water.  Period.

"And States can be no less restrictive but yet are highly influenced by the CDC to make it a mandate requirement. "

Response:  First of all, before you veer off into a gish gallop swamp, water fluoridation is not prohibited by the SDWA.  Period.  Can we move on? 

As to the rest of your comment, you, yourself, are trying to highly influence the population.  So what.  I respect your 1st Amendment right, even though I don't agree with what you are saying.  The CDC provides factual data.  Period.  If you don't agree with reality, that's on you.  If Ebola breaks out in this country, you want the CDC there.  

What exactly is your problem?  You don't like it that data that the CDC puts out steps on the toes of your agenda?  Find a new country to live in where the CDC doesn't exist.  Contrary to what you say, no laws are being broken.  Period.  

"And remember that the intent of the SDWA was to prevent the spread of water fluoridation that began in 1945 (Graham and Morin)."

Response:  No it wasn't.  Yes, we've gone over this before.  Graham and Morin wrote a book with a footnote.  Who were they?  I don't remember.  I think one was a lawyer and one was a dentist.  Is that correct?  But the footnote didn't even say that.  It was another misunderstood passage by you.  Show us the footnote and remind us all of the quote.  

Regarding the salmon, your quote:  " I never said this is a fact. Facts are absolute and incontrovertible. I have never proven this. Again where do you get this stuff you make up to trap someone?"

Response:  Wow!

Your quote:  " I don't know who made the intimation on this site that I implied that 3 samples would represent many. Search the threads and find him if you want.. It's irrelevant who."

Response:  I already did.  You will see each comment in the exchange marked with a Timestamp.  And the answer is - You.  You said it right here:   "And also now that claims I implied that 3 samples  is representative of all sources used to fluoridate water supplies?"  ‎02-20-2019 07:20 PM

"It's irrlelvant who??"  If it's irrelevant who, why did you make such a big deal about it.  

Richard, get some rest and we'll do this again tomorrow.

[rs5526]

I have no clue what your point is about the 3 samples. If you don't care and I don't care, then what is your complaint and your rationale for continuing to call me a liar? I answered the question --3 - and that was that. What of it?

You interpretation of the Graham and Morin quote is incorrect. There were no proviksions in the original SDWA that allowed for fluoridation, but it was written to allow for sanitizing chemicals.

Basically the TSCA prohibited adding any poisonous substances into water, and the SDWA made allowances for sanitizing chemicals. and that's about it. No Federal agency can force anyone to accept fluoride in their water and yet the CDC  endorses this and works together with the EPA to arrange for cities to do so and even urges and allows some States to mandate it-- yes, absolute requiring it. The States are to be no less restrictive, and yet CA mandates--absolutely requires-- ciities fluoridate. This violates the law..If you interpret the wording to support fluoridation then you are not understanbding the total intent of the SDWA. 

The current paragraph in the Act now were not part of the original SDWA.

Arguing that it is just fine to dump industrial, useless, harmful fluoride into water where salmon normally spawn is nuts and you are not someone I want to disucss anything with. I do so out of necessity, not because I want to.

Recall when the miners in CA started using cyanides to refine gold in the Nothern CA rivers and fish were being killed off. My conclusion was that the cyanide was kiiling the fish but I cannot prove that beyond any doubt with experimentation or direct measurement so that i could prove it is an absolute fact. But so what?

The theory that it was what killed the fish is a solid one. And now it is banned from being used in CA and good riddance.  But adding fluoride into the river where salmon spawn, knowing full well salmon are sensitive to fluoride above 0.3 ppm, does not need to be investigated to absolute proof beyond any doubt, just like with cyanide. It is immoral to continue adding toxic waste into the river where salmopn normally spawn.

Get some sleep yourself. I don't follow your orders. I'm still at work on my lunch break.

[DavidF928895]

Well, Richard, I see your comments have evolved from: 

"Here in America we have the safe drinkng water act that prohibits 1) requiring the addition of anything - harmless or not - into water other than to sanitize the water"  

to

" No Federal agency can force anyone to accept fluoride in their water and yet the CDC  endorses this and works together with the EPA to arrange for cities to do so and even urges and allows some States to mandate it"

Well, that's progress I guess.  By the way, States have their own Safe Drinking Water Acts.  As long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA they can be as strict as they want, and they can do whatever they want.  Saying the EPA "allows" some states to mandate it is like saying NASA "allows" people to drive 55 mph.  The EPA is irrelevant to what states do with their own SDWAs as long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA.  

If you have a problem with what your state does, take it up with your state.  The Federal Government and the EPA have nothing to do with it.  

Enough for today, Richard

[rs5526]

What hogwash.  Yes the EPA in writing denies they have authority to regulate fluoridation because that is correct--they don't. But in reality the EPA is fully involved. The EPA produces videos and handbooks on how to fluoridate to water districts. They oversee and instruct districts when they first set up the fluoridaitonsystems. All this is done to ensure cities will not accidentally exced the MCL. But when LA finished fluoridiating for the first time when public outrcy was troublesome, the water district head stated on public TV news that the EPA is in charge of the system setup and has assured us that it is safe.

Don't tell me the EPA has nothing to do with fluoridation. The EPA also published their analyses of fluosilicic acid to prove the point that HF is minimal in the product water leaving the fluoridation system. But the EPA reported only HF levels down to pH 5, not to the pH of the acidic stomach at 2 where all fluoride is protonated to HF. This leaves the district with the impresion that you are not consuming HF, backed up by EPA data, when you actually are. 

EPA is the best organization we have for keeping our environment normal but everyone makes mistakes, same with the CDC. And a key mistake now is the bone fluoridation program the CDC endorses and even requests and in CA CDC officials demanded, and the EPA that assists its enaction. 

[DavidF928895]

Richard, once again you've proven that you can't comprehend the written word . . and you are arguing defensively for no reason.

"What hogwash. Yes the EPA in writing denies they have authority to regulate fluoridation because that is correct--they don't. But in reality the EPA is fully involved."

Response:  Yes, I know the EPA is involved with water fluoridation.  It oversees the program on the Federal level.  I said the EPA has nothing to do with your state mandating CWF.

Read this again, read it slowly, and take time to digest it.  You've just wasted everybody's time by arguing against something I never said.  

My quote:  "By the way, States have their own Safe Drinking Water Acts.  As long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA they can be as strict as they want, and they can do whatever they want.  Saying the EPA "allows" some states to mandate it is like saying NASA "allows" people to drive 55 mph.  The EPA is irrelevant to what states do with their own SDWAs as long as they are in compliance with the Federal SDWA."

Again - The EPA is not involved with your state mandating CWF.  That is what I said.  I can't discuss something with someone who is overly defensive and who can't read.

[rs5526]

I know full well how to read. 

And I'm not the only one who states that the EPA should regulate fluoride infusions into public water supplies. The FDA ruled on the fluoridation ban petition that 1) fluoride has never been approved for ingestion by the FDA and 2) as a toxic substance at any concentration the EPA needs to regulate its addition into public water supplies under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

(But the EPA refuses with the excuse that the FDA needs to regulate it because it is added for purported therapeutic purpose). 

Neither the FDA nor the EPA want to take responsibility for the scam or to challenge the CDC.

So if you think I can't read, perhaps you should also correct the FDA.

[sirpac271999]

Thank you Dr. Sauerheber, Dr. Osmunson, CarryAnne, and others for holding down the fort against the fluoridation demons. Despite the noise these demons generate, claiming 'legal and scientific justification for fluoridation', I find the statements of DavidF, RandyJ and KenP on this thread without any rational basis in law, ethics, or science. It appears they are here just to squash the voice of reason, morality, ethics, and science to create confusion and cacophony in the minds of average readers, who might not know that fluoridation does not have any valid empirical basis and it is completely unethical and immoral at best!

Any fluoride (i.e. fluorine compound), and especially the artificial fluorine compounds added to the water supply, are designated as water contaminants by the EPA, based on empirical evidence of harm. In addition to multiple other harms, as noted in the previous responses, fluoride(s) are enzyme poisons in any amount. Regardless of common practice, or contorted interpretations of legal language, the political endorsement of fluoridation as 'beneficial' is scientifically and ethically corrupt. 

Empirical evidence and government reports substantiate that fluoridation is harmful to many consumers, including members of my family in ways that are validated by multiple recent empirical studies that I have personally read. My family is financially able to take measures to avoid this municipal polluted water, however many are not as fortunate. Consequently, the intentional addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies in order to 'treat people' is an act of intentional poisoning, with malice aforethough, because it is a knowing practice of dumping industrial waste into the public water supplies to dilute pollution, using people as filters. 

I can only hope that these demons of fluoridation, who have overwhelmed this AARP forum to confuse the readers with rhetoric will be unmasked. In the meantime, I support any efforts by the AARP, or anyone else with basic moral understanding and ethics, to end the intentional poisoning of the people in America.