- AARP Online Community
- AARP Rewards
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Ask for a Rewards Tip
- Leave a Rewards Tip
- 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
- 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!
So the complainer is walking away from the conversation and that is fine with me because he appears unable to understand it anyway. Using the scientific method, to determiine a role of a particular material in causing an effect it is necessary to isolate that material from other possible independent variable effectors. The role of fluoride in saliva, that is a direct filtrate of the blood that contains fluoride at levels determined mostly by drinking fluoridated water, can only be assessed by examining the product saliva that is not contaminated with foods or other materials. When this was done properly, the NRC Report discussed that study for the saliva contribution of fluoride from drinking fluoride water. The NRC obviously did not include studies in which food was a known contaminant of the saliva since then the role of drinking water fluoride in saliva would not have been able to be determined. .
So I've made the point. Fluoride from fluoridated drinking water that enters into saliva to bathe teeth topically continuously 24 hours a day makes no significant contribution to affect dental caries.
Thank you if the conversation has now ended.
And the claim that I am not an actual scientist is countered by the fact that I have published over 50 research studies in scientific journals over the last 45 years, so the rationale for that particular complaint is unclear.
No Richard - this is not true - "So I've made the point. Fluoride from fluoridated drinking water that enters into saliva to bathe teeth topically continuously 24 hours a day makes no significant contribution to affect dental caries."
The point you have made is that fluoride in freshly exuded duct saliva (the "direct filtrate of the blood") does not make a contribution. That is, ingested fluoride transferred from the blood to freshly exuded saliva is of so low a concentration it does not contribute to the protective effect of fluoride.
That is something I have never disagreed with. Never. That argument is a straw man and you should be ashamed to have to fall back on it. The dishonesty is that you continue to pretend I am referring to this freshly exuded saliva when I am talking about the whole saliva in the mouth which has received direct inputs of chemical species from food, water, beverages, and oral treatments - throughout the day.
The composition of directly exuded saliva has no DIRECT relevance to the composition of real-world salvia.
It has INDIRECT relevance in that freshly exuded duct saliva causes the lowering of the concentration of chemical species in real-world saliva after every meal, drink, and oral treatment. Just as it causes the lowering of acidity in real-world saliva as a result of bacterial activity after a meal.
But only a fool would argue that this means that acid from bacterial production or fluoride, phosphate, and calcium from food, drink, and oral treatments have no effect on the surface of teeth.
I have never made claims about the "direct filtrate of the blood." I have made that clear again and again. it is dishonest to use this irrelevant situation to deny the real world truth.
There is nothing dishonest about it. As you say, fluoride from drinkng water that is assmilated into the blood and filters into 24 hour a day continuous fluoridated saliva, at 0.016 ppm, is unable to affect dental caries. Voila. Fluoridated water is useless.
If you want to change the topc to effects on teeth of eating fluoride rich foods, this has nothing to do with fluoride from water. If you want to fight dental decay, stop eating sugar withuot brushing afterward. Eating foods with fluoride has nothing to do with "community water fluoridation".
It is CWF that we object to on this site. If you want to eat fluoride do so, that is your business. But everyone has to drink water and when the only source in your home is fluoridated by the cilty, then you are trapped into consuming lifelong something that is useless. And which incorporates into bone to thousands of mg/kg during lifelong drinking.
End useless CWF. End of story.
Richard, the dishonesty is to use the situation with freshly exuded saliva (as you put it fluoride ingested so that we have "filtered blood") to pretend there is no fluoride (or calcium and phosphate) coming from beverages, water (including fluoridated water) food, and oral treatments and contributing directly (not via the blood) to the chemical species concentration is the real-world whole saliva.
I have never argued against the experimentally demonstrated low F content of freshly exuded duct fluoride - never. So it has no direct relevance to this discussion. It is dishonest to continually revert to that argument as a way of refusing to front up to the role that water, beverages, food, and oral treatments play in increasing the concentration of chemical species in the real-world whole saliva.
I, nor anyone else, would ever claim there is no fluoride in the oral cavity when you eat fluoride containing foods. Where do you get this stuff?
I'm making the point, as did the NRC, that fluoride from drinking water has no topical effect on dental caries. I'm not talking about food fluoride, toothpaste fluoride, gel fluoride, or any other source of F. Surely you can eventually grasp this. lt's amazing that anyone could actually think that I have argued that saliva in the mouth would not contain fluoride when you put fluoride in the mouth from other sources.
Richard, good to see you have moved on and will no longer rely on your irrelevant argument about freshly exuded ductal saliva. You now accept that there is a direct transfer of chemical species to real-world whole saliva from water, bevergaes, food, and oral treaments.
You no appear simply to be denying that fluoride in the oral cavity has a beneficial effect in reducing tooth decay.
Please cite the "NRC" (or more appropriately the original paper) for your claim "that fluoride from drinking water has no topical effect on dental caries."
Because that simply conflicts with a huge amount of research showing that commoinutyw ater fluopdiation is effective in reducing tooth decay.
Come on - a citation - not a poltical/ideological/nonscientific unsupported claim or statement.
“I am a retired dentist and a doctor of integrative medicine. I see both sides of the story. In my less informed days, I fed my older child fluoride pills to prevent decay. By age 7 she developed Hashimoto's thyroiditis. And this was pharmaceutical grade stannous fluoride, not hydrofluorosilicic acid! Since then I have seen many cases of thyroid damage and lowered IQ's in my practice in clients who have not filtered fluoride out of their drinking water." - Oksana M. Sawiak, DDS, IMD, MAGD, AIAOMT (2019)
Essentially every opponent of fluoridation began believing fluoridation was safe & effective. It is only those who do their due diligence and also have professional integrity and personal courage who speak out. Some like Dr. Sawiak above and Dr. Evans below learned the harms the hard way, by causing damage to their own children through blind obedience to dental dogma.
Those who cling to the medical myth are no different than the papal experts who tortured Galileo or those who so aggressively argued against Einstein. Consensus is not science. Neither are name calling or other logical fallacies employed by fluoridaitonists a scientific debate - it is an orchestrated disinformation campaign.
However, the consensus is changing. The Alzheimer's Association quietly demanded its name be removed from the ADA list in January. It's not the first, and won't be the last to remove its name from that marketing tool. I don't know whether it was the half dozen dementia studies published in the last few months that moved the Alzheimer's Association to take action or the call to action from a cross section of 8 out of over a dozen professional organizations openly opposed to fluoridation (IAOMT, AAEM, etc.) and many more activist organizations i.e. FAN.
See FAN TV for a few interviews with some of the experts who changed their minds: http://fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/
And the reason the AARP site is a most appropriate place to discuss the bone fluoridation CDC government endorsed program is because the elderly have have been exposed to,substantial amounts of the cumulative toxic substance and are in the most precarious position from chronic exposure. Bone levels can only go so high until preclinical skeletal fluorosis turns into stage II with bone pain and mobility problems. The elderly have been exposed to fluoride long enough.
And the reason the AARP site is a most appropriate place to discuss the bone fluoridation CDC government endorsed program is because the elderly have elderly have been exposed to,substantial amounts of the cumulative toxic substance and are in the most precarious position from chronic exposure. Bone levels can only go so high until preclinical skeletal fluorosis turns into stage II with bone pain and mobility problems. The elderly have Been exposed to fluoride long enough.
“There are studies that show that osteoporosis, thinning of the bones, is higher in fluoridated communities and that when you get towards the end of your life the rate of hip fractures is measured to be twice as high in fluoridated townships in America than non-fluoridated ones.” - Dr Vyvyan Howard, toxo-pathologist at the University of Ulster Coleraine (2013)
Thanks, RandyJ for the excerpts of some of my AARP comments. Let me elaborate on this one you pulled with additional commentary:
“Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems. [the sentences left out] For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride. Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations.” (Page 162-163) https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf
Since that 2003 statement above, considerable science has been published that supports the increased susceptibility to adverse effects from fluoride for vulnerable populations who include the very young, seniors, pregnant and those with immune or inflammatory disease which includes arthritis and most kidney disease.
Click here for over a hundred scientific citations attached to a 2018 open letter to professionals, politicians and public signed by leadership in a cross section of organizations. Those references are organized by year and mostly published after 2003.
Here are just a couple of comments of note supporting the observation that low dose concentrations of fluoride in 'optimally fluoridated' communities poses a hazard to all consumers with an increased risk to vulnerable populations. Fluoridation undoubtedly harms millions of consumers.
2014: "....the WHO's recommended concentrations in drinking water become nephrotoxic to CKD rats, thereby aggravating renal disease and making media vascular calcification significant." - A. Martín-Pardillos et al. in Toxicology
2018: “We are putting this in our water and aren’t sure of what each person’s exposure is... There is a growing concern in the public health community… This is a compound that is shown to affect the thyroid, there is no disagreement with that in the medical community.” - Brian Bienkowski in Environmental Health News
CarryAnne – It is interesting that you did not explain why you misrepresented your “adjusted citation” I highlighted, but that is typical of the way anti-science activists “bend” the evidence in an attempt to support their inflexible beliefs.
Those adjustments and misrepresentation of the actual scientific evidence is the reason the alleged “scientific citations” in your “2018 open letter to professionals, politiicans and public” have not been able to convince nearly all members of the scientific and health communities that anti-science activists have anything of value to contribute to the ethical or scientific discussions of health-related issues. All of the alleged evidence will have significant limitations (and/or outright misrepresentation) which may not easily be recognized by the politicians and members of the public to whom the “open letter” is addressed.
When anti-science activists present their “evidence” (which has been rejected by most scientists and health experts) to the public, it will typically have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted, misused &/or misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only be suggestion of a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable; 6) the study will be demonstrably flawed &/or 7) The claim will be a complete fabrication.
That is why Ken has requested that you engage in a discussion of specific claims instead of trying to respond to a dump-load of hundreds of irrelevant &/or misrepresented citations.
It is easy to provide a list of citations that support a specific position. For example this is a list of 33 reviews and studies published since 1999 that support the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and effective public health measure.
This list includes the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health:
—> Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water ﬂuoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artiﬁcial water ﬂuoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.
—> More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have conﬁrmed that water ﬂuoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.
—> The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to ﬂuorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.
This link provides over 200 citations of studies that support the scientific consensus that CWF is safe and beneficial:
The difference in the citations that CarryAnne provides and those I provide is that the overwhelming majority of science and health experts and professionals agree with the interpretation of the studies that support the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure.
In contrast, no recognized science or health organization in the world agrees with the interpretation of the anti-science activists that CWF is a dangerous and ineffective public health initiative to poison innocent members of communities worldwide.
As always, CarryAnne includes a bunch of opinions in her comments from other individuals (Vyvyan Howard, A. Martín-Pardillos et al. (mixed results study which had absolutely nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water), Brian Bienkowski, and Verena Romero et al. (an opinion piece), to support her opinions.
Also, you never responded to my suggestion that you might be interested in contacting another very active anti-science activist, Karen Spencer, who spends considerable time on the Internet fighting against the scientific consensus and constructing threatening letters to health organizations like the American Thyroid Association referenced in my previous reply “suggesting” they stop supporting fluoridation or face a lawsuit. I am sure she has absolutely no relationship to you, but your stories – publically provided by both of you – are very similar to each other, so you might want to consider reaching out since you might be interested in her lack of concern for public health and employment of disingenuous anti-science tactics.
CarryAnne 07-07-2018 04:49 PM
My Story (summarized):
- As a pregnant woman, I almost lost my child when my city began fluoridation.
- As a young woman, I experienced rashes, arthritis and gastrointestinal conditions that were untreatable.
- As a senior, I experienced chronic kidney pain and a liver crisis that scared me into abandoning my water filter in favor of no-low fluoride bottled water.
- Bottom Line: Now in my 60s, my arthritis of decades duration, as well as my chronic allergic cough, dry gums, IBS, nerve pain, etc., have all disappeared - and they did so in less than two weeks of my switch to no-low fluoride water. No more kidney pain and no more liver episodes, either.
Karen Spencer, Gloucester MA
As to my involvement as an activist, it is personal.
- The city started ﬂuoridating July 1, 1981 during my pregnancy. I became seriously ill during my second pregnancy in 1981 and almost lost my child.
- My illness continued after I gave birth. It was marked by rashes, hives, fatigue, and gastrointestinal problems resulting in drastic weight loss.
- In 2014, my “chronic Lyme” hobbled me and I was having kidney and liver problems.
- Nine days after being assiduously strict in my avoidance of ﬂuoride, even using spring water to brush my teeth, my arthritis of 23 years disappeared. My kidney and liver trouble also disappeared. Even my painfully dry gums cleared up.
And whichever person on the NRC panel who decided to put in that last sentence completely contradicts findings in the rest of the Report. Notably, consumption of 1 ppm fluoride water chronically causes 1) elevated parathyroid hormone levels to compensate for the adverse effects of fluoride in converting bone to a different crystal structure where fluoride is not biochemically reversible after incorporation, and 2) elevates calcitonin levels to help build replacement bone that is compromised by fluoride intrusion, and 3) elevates thyroid stimulating hormone to counter the effect of fluoride on the thyroid, all to help maintain normal physiology during the fluoride insult.
So including the statement that there is no evidence that a population would be harmed by fluoride levels typical from fluoridation is an example of too many cooks spoiling the broth, and it is understandable why the false sentence was intentionally avoided for clarity.
Either you describe the actual hard data, the science, or you give opinions as done by whoever included that sentence in the NRC Report.
Fluoridationists on this site go with the opinion. Those who know the truth go with facts and data, the science.
Saliva F is 24 hrs a day continuous. And it is there mostly because the largest percent of F in the blood is from F'd water consumption (NRC).
F accunulates in bone of adults in F"d water areas to thousands of mg/kg long before F'd toothpaste,was widely used. Also the Dean studues,in the,30's reported,substantial dental fluorosis in 1 ppm fluoride water areas., long before,F toothpaste,was ever thought of.
Richard, you say "sorry." I wonder if that is a Freudian slip for being so obtuse.
There is nothing groundbreaking about the statement "Saliva F is 24 hrs a day continuous." Of course it is. But the chemical composition of that saliva changes during the day because of inputs from food, beverages, water, and oral treatments.
You and your mates purposely confound freshly exuded saliva with the bulk saliva in the oral cavity.
There is quite a bit of research showing the elevation fo fluoride concentration in saliva resulting from eating food, drink (including fluoridated water), toothpaste use and dental treatments. Some of this research also looks on the relaxation of these concentrations - due to freshly exuded saliva which has low concentrations of fluloide.
Read a few papers:
Sjöman, J. H. R., & Twetman, I. S. S. (2006). Fluoride Concentration in Saliva after Consumption of a Dinner Meal Prepared with Fluoridated Salt. Caries Res, 40, 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1159/000091064
Zero, D. T., Raubertas, R. F., **bleep**, J., Pederson, A. M., Hayes, A. L., & Featherstone, J. D. B. (1992). Fluoride concentrations in plaque, whole saliva, and ductal saliva after application of home-use topical fluorides. Journal of Dental Research, 71(11), 1768–1775. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345920710110201
Macpherson, L. M. D., & Stephen, K. W. (2001). The effect on human salivary fluoride concentration of consuming fluoridated salt-containing baked food items. Archives of Oral Biology, 46, 983–988. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003996901000401
Bruun, C., & Thylstrup, A. (1984). Fluoride in whole saliva and dental caries experience in areas with high or low concentrations of fluoride in the drinking water. Caries Research, 18, 450–456.
Eakle WS, Featherstone JDB, Weintraub JA, Shain SG, Gansky SA. (2004). Salivary fluoride levels following application of fluoride varnish or fluoride rinse. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 32(13), 462–469. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2004.00185.x
Oliveby, A., Twetmanb, S., & Ekstrandc, J. (1990). Diurnal Fluoride Concentration in Whole Saliva in Children Living in a High- and a Low-Fluoride Area. Caries Res, 24, 44–47. Retrieved from https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/261237
Edgar, M., Dawes, C., & O’Mullane, D. (2012). Saliva and oral health. Retrieved from http://www.wrigleyoralhealth.com/content/docs/SHL_S_OH_A5_2015_FINAL.pdf#page=53
And the Oliveby study provided was discussed in the NRC 2006 Report. Notice that the "high fluoride water area" had 1.2 ppm F in the water and the night-long F saliva varied from 0.002 ppm to 0.14 ppm. The variation is likely determined by how much water one consumed before bedtime. So what? The levels are still multiple thousands of times less concentrated than in toothpaste at 1,500 ppm for topical application. 24 hours at 0.016 ppm average from drinking water F in saliva is completely topically worthless.
Richard, I think you should read the papers. You are stubbornly looking at freshly exuded duct saliva and saliva taken a long distance from drinking and eating. You are stubbornly ignoring the rest of the time where there is a significant elevation of chemical species in saliva phosphate, calcium anbd fluoride which does help reduce acid attack.
Well, you can take a horse to water . . but it seems impossible for an anti-fluoridationist to see the real world situation.
I just wrote to the U.S. CDC to ask them to halt fluoridation again. I hadn't written to them in some time. The resaon I wrote again is because the CDC recently claimed that it is fluoride toothpaste that is being consumed by children that causese the endemic dental fluorosis problem in the U.S. I had to show them the Zip[kin study of 1958 before toothpaste fluoride became widely used to show what F content in adult bone where water is 1 ppm fluoride ranged from 1610 - 4920 mg/kg of bone. These were difficult measurements done on live people from bone biopsies and are definitive. This means that along with dental fluorosis (first recognized in teh 1930's as CO brown stain and Texas teeth, tc. in fluoride water areas before F toothpaste was invented) bone fluoride levels were problems, even more concentated than f in toothpaste, in bone where it does not belong. Bone pain in some people occurs at only 1700 mg/kg and the NRC concluded that Stage II fluorosis with pain mobility issues occurs typically in most people at 3,500 mg/kg. So lifelime drinking of the garbage water produces denigrated bone even without fluoridated toothpaste.
But will the CDC do anything about this? Of course not. Am I to remailn silent and ignore the truth? No thanks.
And you can lead a fluoridationist to clean water and he will turn away and consume F'd water anyway because he would think he was missing something and that God didn't Create water properly in the first place. .
Again, how else can one determine the drinking water F concentration to saliva if you don't take saliva samples after the previous materials eaten have been cleared? There is no other way to delineate whether drinking water fluoride has any value in affecting the F content of the oral cavity. And it clearly has no significant role at all.
Richard, it is obvious to me why you have no credible research publication record or experience in designing research studies.
Can you not see how self-defeating it is to insist on subjects who have no fluoride intake in their food or oral treanmtents and then measure only their excreted ductal saliva. When the reality is that people receive intakes of fluoride and other nutrients via food, beverages, water and oral treatment throughout the day. These nutrients are directly transferred to the saliva and other parts of the oral cavity. They play a protective role for teeth - yet you want to design an experiment which specifically ignores such inputs! That is just stupid.
Really, Richard, I really have no patience for such stubbornness. As far as I am concerned this discussion has been exhausted and I will not continue to itneract with you on this specific subject. You are really away with the birds on this issue.
Most all in Broadbent's study had similar fluoride intake and Broadbent, no surprise, did not find a decrease in IQ from fluoride intake.
The Broadbenet study was incapable of detecting an IQ loss.
Regarding Richard's desire for measured evidence such as saliva fluoride concentration, what about measured evidence are you opposed to? Or is herd opinion your choice for science?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, you have simply resorted to a political/ideological statement and refused to respond to my request you provide scientific support. I repeat:
"As it stands it is simply a declaration - which is ideological/political. It is certainly not a substantiated scientific statement.
You could support your claim in either of two ways:
1: Provide the list of samples with the treatments (actually this should be available but not expected to be published);
2: Cite the infinite confidence intervals that would result if this claim were true."
Now, on the basis of the confidence intervals, I know your political/ideological/nonscientific statement is false. And your refusal to respond indicates to me you know that as well.
You can call me all kinds of things. . . but I don't know which statement you are refering to. So your comment is lost on me.
You say, "Political statement? " Yes, I am into politics because politics is forcing me to swallow too much fluoride.
You say, "Ideological?" Several definitions of ideological. Yes, I am fixated (if that is what you mean) on stopping my two professions from harming the public with too much fluoride.
You say, "Nonscientific"? Well, I'm sort of a fundamentalist and simple. How much fluoride is good? How much fluoride is bad? How much fluoride are we getting and is it too much? Sorry if those basic questions are beyond your desire to respond to, but as a practicing prescribing clinician, those are the fundamental questions I must answer on a daily basis.
You want me to respond, to something I don't know what you are referring to. And I keep asking you for the basic facts of dosage and although you say you have responded, I can't find your response. Please post again.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Everyone knows that placing high fluoride varnishes or gels or fluoride salt in one's mouth that the saliva is for that time elevated in F. So what? What is being discussed is the 24 hour continuous permanent lifelong saliva F concentration that bathes teeth topically that is a filtrate of the blood. The blood F level in a fluoridated city is about 0.15 ppm with a filtered saliva F level of 0;016 ppm, useless for affecting caries. Notice that the one link describes the 24 hour saliva fluoride level (without eating F gels or varnishes or F rich foods) did not vary (when the drinking water F was not excessively high). So my point is well made yet again, that all night long the F level in saliva does not vary from this low useless level that bathes teeth topically.
Anyone can brush their teeth with 1500 ppm F paste and change their existing saliva F level for the moment. But this has absolutely nothing to do with fluoridated drinking water, where the F in saliva filtrated from the bloodstream after the water is consumed is useless, as we have been correctly saying for years.
Richard, you may be persisting in discussing freshly exuded duct saliva but that is pure stubbornness on your part. The scientists involved are discussing real-life saliva in the mouth which has elevated concentration of chemical species form consumption of food, water and beverage, and oral treatments. Also, from CaF2 deposited ion the oral cavity.
You are simply straw clutching to deny what the science is showing, that fluoride in the oral cavity helps inhibit acid attack and repair after acid attack.
You remind me of the silliness Paulk Connett exhibited when I discussed this with hum - tried to claim that when drinking water none of the water touched the teeth or mixed with saliva. You have to be a determined reality denier to claim that.
Such antics really make a person look silly.
The science shows that food, water, beverages, mouth rinses, etc., all increase the fluoride content of the whole saliva. The concentration in the freshly exuded duct saliva does not prevent this - although over time it helps reduce the concentration of chemical species in the whole saliva.
The concentrations you insist on citing are not for normal situations. The subjects need to have a low fluoride diet and stop using fluoridated toothpaste for some time. Collections are also made at a distance from eating and drinking (usually before a meal).
I guess it's easy for some people to simply miss the point.
The girls whose night time saliva F levels were measured continuously until the next morning are indeed a normal situation. (No one eats while they are sleeping all night). And night time saliva washes the teeth and oral cavity.
Of course F levels in the mouth can be high when one goes to sleep for the night after recently eating an F rich material such as toothpaste or dental gel, etc, but again all through the night the F level bathing teeth from the saliva that contains F from 1 ppm drinking water at less than 0.016 ppm in saliva is a useless contribution. Fluoridationists might believe that higher F from foods and gels might topically affect teeth, but this has nothing to do with F infused into drinking water which is worthless as a topical effect.
Only ductile fresh saliva could be used to determine how much F actually comes from the bloodstream of a F'd water consumer. There is no other way to determine it because indeed foods and beverages and gels would contaminate the saliva produced. So what?.
Bottom line, F'd water is useless at affecting caries, either systemically (CDC) or topically from that contained in nascent saliva. These are the facts. Again, the F content in the blood and thus the 24 hour a day produced saliva is mostly determined by the F level in the drinking water (NRC) and only 10% or so is from foods/beverages (p. 60, Report on F in Drinking Water 2006).
”Fluoride 'science' is corporate 'science'. Fluoride science is DDT 'science'. It's asbestos 'science'. It's tobacco 'science'. It's a racket." - Chris Bryson, investigative reporter and author of 'The Fluoride Deception' (2006)
KenP writes 'when have resolutions at union meetings become a substitute for real science' - yet offers his blog posts to claim that the real science published by world experts is 'dishonest.' This specific to an exchange on dose and the EPA scientists' testimony to EPA management on a scientifically justifiable reference dose for fluoride.
KenP writes in his first three days on AARP that several participants are 'dishonest,' 'deranged,' 'liars,' 'unreliable' and 'so intellectually stubborn as to make rational discussion impossible,’ yet consistently writes things like "Bill, I wish you would back away from the personal attacks."
KenP writes that in optimally fluoridated communities dental fluorosis is caused 'mainly by ingestion of toothpaste.' Yet, when I offer two sources with urls and screen shots documenting dental fluorosis that predated fluoridated toothpaste (a 1956 PHS sponsored controlled dose study documenting 'coppery brown' dental fluorosis & 1962 government report that documented the first generation of children raised on fluoridated water had alarming rates of dental fluorosis, disproportionate by race in the same community), KenP replies that 'truth is your last concern,' that I made 'unwarranted claims' and spread 'propaganda' and 'fake news.' Then he says I refuse to enter into honest conversation about science?!
However - fluoridation policy should primarily be about ethics.
- Is it ethical to use municipal water to mass medicate the public?
- Is it ethical to add a poison to water that is medically contraindicated for many consumers?
- Is it ethical to claim more science is needed before ending a program when dozens of human studies and hundreds of animal studies have validated neurological harm from that program?
- Is it ethical for anyone to dismiss the poisoning of vulnerable populations as a political decision?
- Is it ethical for AARP and other organizations that claim to advocate for a constituency to remain silent?
CarryAnne - I agree completely, in the current situation, with your comment that "fluoridation policy should primarily be about ethics."
This is because currently, the science is pretty definite. Community water fluoridation is effective in reducing tooth decay and there is no evidence of harm. However, like all such social interventions, the issue is political. That is why I say that where there is controversy in the community about fluoridation proposals it should be decided democratically, involving the community. Referenda are good for this.
In my own community, it took a second referendum, confirming the first referendum of overwhelming support for fluoridation, for the local council to reverse its decision to terminate fluoridation. A decision made under pressure from ideologically motivated activists who were distorting and misrepresenting the science - thereby confusing the issue.
If the referenda in my community had opposed the return of fluoridation I would have supported that decision. I support democracy.
In fact, the ethical issue is the best argument anti-fluoridationists have. They discredit themselves when they resort to misrepresenting and distorting the science to make a "sciency" argument - but when they lose at that they resort to the ethical argument. I have seen this sort of behaviour again and again - and now with you. You should start with the ethical argument, stick with it, not attempt to use "science" as a proxy for your ethical or values concerns - and accept the democratic decisions which always decide such ethical questions.
Unlike science - which on the whole deals with factual matters, ethical considerations are based on values. There is no "correct" or factual argument to decide an ethical question. These are decided by the prevailing values - usually, by referenda or simlar democratic decsion.
Anti-fluoridationists will always lose the scientific arguments because it is determined by the facts (that is why you refuse to participate in an honest, good faith scientific exchange) but they can win the ethical one - depending on the previaling ethics of their community.
Finally, you make claims that I have used words that I certainly have no recall of using - and you do not provide any evidence. I am sure I did not use most of those terms - however the charge of describing your claim that in my scientific career I was researching pesticides and developing high fluoride fertilisers I am sure I described as "dishonest" or a "lie" - because it patently was and you admitted it and apologised for making that dishonest claim..
KenP, in claiming that a 2013 (non-binding) referendum provided overwhelming support for his local council to reverse a decision to terminate fluoridation is grossly distorting history. He also asserts that the council decision to stop fluoridation was made under pressure from ideologically motivated activists who were distorting and misrepresenting the science, thereby confusing the issue.
A four-day tribunal style hearing had been held by KenP’s city council with one-and-a-half hour primary presentations from both sides of the fluoridation debate with half an hour for questions from councillors after each presentation.
The case against fluoridation and summing up was given by medical doctors, a doctor of dental surgery and the retired biochemist who had supervised John Colquhoun’s doctoral thesis and co-authored with Colquhoun ‘The Hastings fluoridation experiment: science or swindle?’
The case for was given by a large number of district health board, Ministry of Health and New Zealand Dental Association representatives.
1,385 of submissions asked the council to stop fluoridation with 170 submissions supporting continuation. Of the 141 requests to speak at the hearings only 11 wanted fluoridation to continue.
I watched much of the hearings online and also read many submissions on which the council decision was made.
On the weight of evidence presented at the tribunal there were six factors that influenced the council’s post-tribunal decision to stop fluoridation. They were:
1. Application by toothpaste or other means that directly affect the tooth surface are much more effective at reducing tooth decay.
2. Fluoridation is wasteful – of the 224 litres of water used by the average person each day, less than two litres is used for drinking – 99% goes down the drain (i.e. of the $48,000 per year spent on fluoridation only $480 ends up being fit for purpose).
3. Communities around the world are rejecting the practice – most of Europe does not fluoridate.
4. There is strong evidence that fluoride should not be ingested at all by babies under six months old and bottle-fed babies are therefore at greater potential risk.
5. While fluoridation may have some benefits for some, it isn’t good for everyone and fluoridation of the water supply affects personal choice.
6. Statistical evidence that fluoridation potentially causes harm.
Are these not reasonable factors on which to make a rational decision?
One councillor, also a district health board member, had been excluded from council decision making on the issue because of conflict of interest but within weeks had marshalled the local dental fraternity to garner support for a referendum which was eventually held in October 2013 with only around one third of eligible voters participating. Of those voting, 70 per cent voted for fluoridation while 32 per cent voted against.
The 24,635 voting for fluoridation had determined that the 11,768 against were forced, against their best judgement, to accept addition of a neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor to the water delivered through their household taps.
The district health board spent huge taxpayer funds in advertising.
As well as brochures and posters, their campaign included four huge billboards outside their buildings, three full city-wide letter box drops, two-page newspaper advertisements for four weeks in a row and Google and YouTube advertisements.
All emails from the health board and hospital had pro-fluoride messages as part of the signature, a recorded pro-fluoride message was on health board and hospital telephones and even TV screens at the hospital showed pro-fluoridation videos.
Local newspapers were blatantly pro-fluoridation.
Anti-fluoridation groups were unable to afford counterbalancing public information.
I find it quite bizarre that for KenP to admit that if referendums in his community had opposed the return of fluoridation he would have supported the outcomes. So what happens to his ‘safe and effective’ fluoride science?
Intellectual consistency would surely force him to state that those opposing fluoridation had got it wrong.
Referendums are by far the wrong ways to resolve fluoridation disputes.
Local governments face ethical issues with fluoridation.
A clear majority of pro-fluoridation voters in a poll should not be able to determine that the rest are forced against their will to take a health-affecting toxin in their drinking water.
If you are sick you don’t ask a stranger to vote on your medication so why should fluoridation be any different?
Ross, re the Hamilton city debacle - biased activists are biased activists even if they have degrees. Yes, I know Bob Mann too - and he is an extremist on this issue.
I interacted with many councillors after their initial decision and it was clear to me that they did not understand the science at all - what they understood is that there were two different stories coming from people they thought were experts. They were incapable of discussing the science and they had no idea of criteria to use to judge if a submitter was a real or a fake expert.
It is this confusion caused by activists pressuring councils which lead to the councils requesting, and partially financing, the authoritative NZ Fluoridation Review (https://royalsociety.org.nz/assets/documents/Health-effects-of-water-fluoridation-Aug-2014-corrected... and eventually pressure for legislation to take such decisions away from councils (as councils pointed out - they do not have the skills to make scientific evaluations and they considered the whole issue a "poisoned chalice" for councils). That legislation is still waiting for its second reading in parliament.
The numbers you quote are a symptom of the problem councils saw - cynical form letters and copies of letters given as submissions simply to get numbers. It’s an old activist trick.
Scientific issues should not be considered by councils, but by relevant experts. It's up to democratic bodies to consult such experts for advice - not replace them.
You list issues you claim swung the council (rather a naive understanding considering the stupid politics involved in that council at that time with competition to replace the Mayor). Let’s look at these:
1: Yes, the surface reaction of phosphate, calcium and fluoride at the tooth surface is considered the main mechanism of preventing decay and recovering from acid attack. This results from the presence of these chemical species in saliva, plaque and the oral cavity in general. Fluoridated water and food help provide these and help maintain saliva F, P and Ca concentrations during the day (saliva F from toothpaste drops relatively quickly so restoration of concentrations during the day is important.
2: Your argument for "wasted" treated water is simply an argument for a double reticulation system - one for drinking and one for all other uses. That is extremely wasteful financially and that is why such an approach is only considered for very small reticulation systems.
3: Each country approaches the involvement of F in oral health according to their own situation. CWF is not suitable for many systems (it's not suitable for many systems in NZ) and alternatives like school fluoride rinses, fluoridated salts, natural fluoride levels, etc., come in to play. In the end, each country and region make its own decision according to its situation.
4: Use of fluoridated water is not considered a risk to bottle-fed infants by health professionals - but parents who do have a concern are recommended to sometimes used alternative water sources - simply a "peace of mind" issue. Anti-fluoride propagandists always misrepresent that situation.
While there has been some concern that bottle-fed infants exceed the recommended maximum intake for F the lack of prevalence of moderate or severe dental fluorosis caused experts in NZ and Australia to reconsider the calculations. They found a flaw and there are now new recommendations showing that bottle-fed infants do not exceed the recommended F intake. See:
5 & 6: You don’t explain. However, I have written several articles about the way that anti-fluoride activists distort the evidence and use statistical analyses incorrectly. See for example:
I could say that I find it bizarre that you think my attitude to democratic processes is bizarre. It is simply a matter of democracy for resolution of differences based on values or ethical issues. Yes, the minority "loses" but nothing is "forced" on them. When CWF was stopped in my city I used a mouth rinse. When it was restored many anti-fluoride activists used filters and alternative sources (2 of these provided by the council). This is what sensible people do when they feel the democratic decision doesn’t suit them - they use alternatives.
I think democracy is a win-win situation for this reason. It is simply dishonest to claim that either side is forced into anything. They aren’t
Think about free hospitals or secular education. People who object to these have alternatives and use them - at far more cost than the $250 for a filter or similar amount for a year’s supply of mouth rinse.
You say of my attitude to democracy:
"Intellectual consistency would surely force him to state that those opposing fluoridation had got it wrong.
Referendums are by far the wrong ways to resolve fluoridation disputes."
Of course, I think those opposing fluoridation have got it wrong - just as I believe those voting for certain political parties have got it wrong. But democracy means the majority decision prevails - I accept that and take alternative action if necessary.
No, referenda cannot solve scientific issues - they are not meant to. But they do resolve the values differences - providing decisions suiting most people. And as I say, usually there are alternative actions available for the minority (not for the elected government, though, and we all accept that.
You say, "Local governments face ethical issues with fluoridation." Yes, but isn't it disgusting for ideologically motivated activists to use science (and distorted science at that) as a proxy for their own ethical views. They should be honest - face up to the ethical issues and attempt to win a political decision on those grounds and not distorted scientific claims - recognising there are no black and white, facts or correct decision when it comes to values. Except that the majority should prevail.
But the majority does not prevail. Citizens in San Diego voted twice in two separate elections (before I got involved) to ban fluoridation chemicals from their water supply. And yet the city council ignored that and fluoridated anyway.
The entire L.A. basin is fluoridated even though hundreds of people came to protest at the time designated for public input by the water disrrict. Only one person favored it, the man who wrote the CA fluoridation mandate against the statutes of the Safe Drinking Water Act..
When it comes to fluoridation, money talks, Democracy and truth have nothing to do with it.
For example fluoride in salive in a fluoridated city is only 0.016 ppm, completely useless in affecting calcium phosphate preciptation and the structure of teeth enamel, at 96,000 times less concentrated than in fluoridated toothpaste.. It;'s a scam that makes money for cities and in CA muich of the money comes from Delta Dental who never reimburses a member with more funds than what the member pays into it in the first place The extra money is given to cities to fluoridate. For San Diego it was First Five money from collected tobacco taxes that was supposed to be used for childrens' health programs. Again, money talks, and Democracy and truth walk.
Dental fluorosis is now endemic in the U.S. because of water fluoridation. it is not because of toothpaste fluoride in most cases, as claimed recently by the CDC who are protecting their longheld view that fluoridation is harmless. The original observations were reported by Dean in the 1930's that water fluoride at 1 ppm was causing substantial dental fluorosis in kids at the time, long before fluoridated toothpaste was ever invented.