- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Atari Talk
- Games Talk
- Games Tips
- Leave a Game Tip
- Ask for a Game Tip
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- 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!
Bill, you say "I'm sure Randy and Ken are not intentionally trying to promote harm to the public, they simply get confused with so much information and fail to look at the big picture of all the evidence. . . such as desired dosage."
Kind of you - but are you willing to show confidence in your claim of our "confusion?"
I will be writing a critique of this paper and post it in the next few days. I offer you equal space as a right of reply to critique my critique and justify your claim " this study does show harm from fluoridated water."
You could start by explaining how a nonsignificant difference in mean IQ of +0.5 (in favour of fluoridated water) between subjects from fluoridated and fluoridated areas shows harm!
I invite you to join a proper scientific exchange on the merits of this paper.
So thoughtful of you to include me in the statistical evaluation of the Green et al 2019 study with measured urine fluoride concentrations and lower IQ.
I would invite you to discuss total fluoride exposure and recommended dosage.
How much fluoride do you want to prevent dental caries?
How much is each person ingesting?
How much is safe?
Of course one study does not prove most anything. However, we now have over 50 human studies reporting harm.
You and I want the highest quality of research. But that does not exist for benefit of ingested fluoride.
And you will not find the highest quality of research evaluating harm. That would be unethical and simply acceptable to University Research Ethics Committees.
We cannot give enough fluoride to people and see when they start to be harmed. Not ethical.
So Ken, you want to pick the studies apart. Good. Design a study which you would accept that determines risk/safety of ingested fluoride.
The study of benefit is much easier than the study of harm. We can intentionally cause benefit and measure it. We cannot intentionally cause harm.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, despite your attempted diversion I take from your reply that you are rejecting my offer of a proper scientific excxhange on this paper.
I also take from your reply ("Of course one study does not prove most anything.") that you are no longer willing to support your claim "this study does show harm from fluoridated water."
Not surprised. The study clearly shows no difference between individuals from fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.
sirpac - Baguley actually wrote:
"the claim that maternal fluoride exposure is associated with a decrease in IQ of children is false. This finding was non-significant (but not reported in the abstract)."
He is referring to the data for all children (perhaps you only read the abstract). In fact, the p-value for that analysis (using maternal urinary F) is 0.12 (my own analysis) which is considered non-significant.
The abstract only gives an analysis for male children where a statistically significant relationship was found (they report a p-value for adjusted values of 0.02, I found a p-value of 0.10 for the values in the figure). However, that relationship explains only 1.3% of IQ variance so is quite meaningless. The expert comments also raise other issues involving the non-normal distribution of the data and subgroup analysis which makes their conclusion of statistical significance questionable.
There are many problems with reliance on p-value alone and the full results of statistical analysis should always be reported. In this case, the data is shown in the figures which enables one to do one's only analysis. As I have said, this shows the result is rather meaningless.
"When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, pound the table and holler like crazy." - Aphorism
Dr. Osmunson @BillO538145 -
It seems obvious that the NIH/NIEHS also drank the fluoridated Kool-Aid before they sponsored these epidiological studies, fully believing that they'd prove fluoridation safe. However, when faced with study after study that validate the findings of in vitro, animal, and other laboratory studies, i.e. that fluoride exposure even in low doses is harmful to biological systems including brain function, there are only two options left to fluoridationists. Either they admit the mistake and take action to remedy the situation or stick to the lie while doubling down on promotion per quote above.
A friend recently sent me the following which illustrates his point of view. I suggest it is integrity more than intelligence that is lacking in fluoridationists and their organizations.
“The effects of this study are comparable to the effects of lead… I would advise them (pregnant women) to drink bottled water or filtered water...” - Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH and JAMA Pediatrics editor on “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada" (August 19, 2019)
The JAMA Pediatrics podcast on August 19, 2019 was ostensibly about the high-quality study published that day that added to the scientific evidence that prenatal exposure to even low doses of fluoride in 'optimally' fluoridated North American communities by educated white women living in urban settings results in a significant reduction in the IQ of their offspring. However, perhaps even more interesting is that these two medical doctors certified in public health medicine admitted that they struggled with the decision to publish this NIH sponsored science even after submitting it to an extended, repeated and scrupulous peer review and statistical analysis because they had been taught in medical school to ignore and disparage anyone or any science that claimed anything negative about fluoridation policy.
Sadly, fluoridationist organizations wasted no time in following their script that both defends the policy and attacks the science, willfully blind to the evidence in front of them. Call it willful blindness, cognitive dissonance, agnotoloty or uncertainty bias, but whatever you call it recognize that the scientific evidence proves that fluoridation policy is a womb to tomb public harm policy.
- Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada. Rivka Green, Bruce Lanphear, Richard Hornung, et al. JAMA Pediatrics. August 19, 2019 [online ahead of print].
- CTV News Report with several videos attached including interviews with a study author.
The Editor's note in the JAMA Pediatrics is well said:
"This decision to publish this article was not easy.1 Given the nature of the findings and their potential implications, we subjected it to additional scrutiny for its methods and the presentation of its findings. The mission of the journal is to ensure that child health is optimized by bringing the best available evidence to the fore .Publishing it serves as testament to the fact that JAMAPediatrics is committed to
disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results maybe. That said, scientific inquiry is an iterative process. It is rare that a single study provides definitive evidence. This study is neither the first, nor will it be the last, to test the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive development. We hope that purveyors and consumers of these findings are mindful of that as the implications of this study are debated in the public arena."
With over 50 human studies reporting harm to the developing brain, the Green et al 2019 study is certainly not the first, nor it will be the last.
The question proponents must ponder is, "What are the chances more research will reverse the 50 studies reporting harm?"
We can fix teeth, but we can't fix brains.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, you do realise the publication of an editors note on the paper is extremely unusual. This indicates to me a huge dispute on publication - perhaps most or all referee's arguing against publication. The comment in the note from Julian Poulkton-King from Monash health who says "this should not have been published without further exploration" supports this suggestion.
Unusually at this stage, the paper has been roundly condemned by independent experts contacted by the UK Science Media Centre - (see expert reaction to study looking at maternal exposure to fluoride and IQ in children). For example. Prof Thom Bradley comments:
"In summary, it is not correct to imply that the data here show evidence of a link between maternal fluoride exposure and IQ. The average change in IQ is not statistically significant.”
I will be writing my own analysis and critique of the paper. Fortunately, the authors include their data in the figures which enables an independent statistical analysis to overcome their deficiency in not presenting the full results of their own analysis. (Simple reporting of p-values can be very misleading).
My initial look shows absolutely no difference in IQ of offspring from fluoridated (mean IQ 108.8) and unfluoridated (mean IQ = 108.3) areas.
Prof Baguley also commented on the unorthodox statistical approach ("This is an example of subgroup analysis – which is frowned upon in these kinds of studies because it is nearly always possible to identify some subgroup which shows an effect if the data are noisy. Here the data are very noisy "). Others have criticised the statistical analysis because the data was not normally distributed and should have been transformed.
However, even with the analysis used the "apparently" significant relationship (low p-values which are often misleading) can explain only 1.3% (between IQ of male offspring and maternal urinary F) or 0.3% (child IQ with maternal fluoride uptake) of the variance in IQ. Considering this, and the faulty statistical methods use, I have no hesitation at this stage of concluding the results are meaningless. Which, of course, won't stop anti-fluoride campaigners from touting the study as "brilliant science" - simple confirmation bias.
I hope the journal editors will allow this study to be debated in the journal - it is disappointing that they refer only to debate "in the public arena." Proper scientific peer review should take place after publication - but I know from experience journal editors often prevent this and authors attempt to ignore scientific critiques.
Fluoridaton policy is politics pretending to be science. Fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that poisons people and planet.
It is a symptom of the politicizatin of fluoridation policy that we continue to argue about whether or not a known poison should be considered a nutrient in order to justify using municipal water to dose people.
Despite claims by self-appointed experts, the FDA does not list fluoride on its Vitamin and Mineral Chart. Per KenP's refusal to respond to questions from BillO and challenge that BillO does his own nutritional research (which BillO has as a dentist with a MPH), see the following from nutritional experts. KenP claims BillO won't accept anything from him in an effort to devalue BillO, but the fact is that fluoridationists like KenP dismiss all science and opinion that contradicts their fluoridationist point of view.
“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority on DRV (2013)
In a discussion that noted that FDA governs fluoride as a drug and that ingestion was associated with “dental fluorosis; bone fracture; reproductive, renal, gastrointestinal, and immunological toxicity; genotoxicity; and carcinogenicity,” the FDA wrote in 1995 that “Accordingly, because there is no consensus on the essentiality of fluoride…. the agency (FDA) is removing fluoride from the RDI list.” - Federal Register, Vol 60. No. 249, Dec 28, 1995
“It is the responsibility of the nutritionist to help build good teeth, it is the responsibility of the dentist to help prevent dental decay, but it is definitely not the duty of the water companies to practice preventive medicine or dentistry.” - George S. Bratton, technical advisor Anheuser-Busch Inc. (1953)
"Many factors can modify the metabolism and effects of fluoride in the organism, such as chronic and acute acid-base disturbances, hematocrit, altitude, physical activity, circadian rhythm and hormones, nutritional status, diet, and genetic predisposition."- Buzalaf and Whitford in Fluoride Metabolism (2011)
See excerpt from 2019 text on Nutrition by nutritionists which supports the comments of Dr. Richard Sauerheber on this thread.
CarryAnne, my pointing out to Bill that he is just as capable as I am of checking recommended dietary uptake figures is hardly a refusal to respond.
Fortunately Bill has agreed to participate in an open, uncensored scientific exchage with me on the blog Open Parachute. This will provide proper space for a good scientific exchange of the sort I ahde woith Paul Connett (you can read that exchange in the document - Connett & Perrott, 2014 The Fluoride Debate. This has had thousands of reads and many downloads so obviously fulfills a purpose for both opponents and supporters of CWF).
Bill can introduce and discuss the recommended dietary intake values there - just as he will also be able to discuss his take on the dental fluorosis issue. I, of course, will have the right of reply.
I strongly believe such open exchanges are far more valuable than the sort of cherry-picking and opinion citing that goes on in social media columns like this.
In fact, I would be just as open to that sort of exchange with you if you felt confident in actually discussing the scientific evidence.
With reference to a presentation by Paul Connett to the New Zealand Parliament last year KenP asserts that no one turned up. However, one of his own blog postings (06/03/2018) records correctly that three Members of Parliament attended.
KenP’s quaint reliance on democratic process to resolve a public health issue involving uncontrolled medical treatment with a neurotoxin by way of a community water supply stands in stark contrast to his self-proclaimed scientific integrity.
In his own city 24,635 citizens determined that 11,768 fellow citizens were forced against their expressed wishes to receive fluoridated water through their household taps. Where are scientific principles or medical ethics here?
There is no doubt about the science under-pinning the escalating climate crisis but there is sufficient science-based growing concern about the total bodily effects of ingested fluoride for an ultra-precautionary approach to be taken on CWF.
There are viable oral health alternatives to CWF which have been demonstrated in several countries, including New Zealand, that are safer, more effective, with broader societal coverage and immensely more economical so I keep wondering why KenP devotes so much of his discretionary research time to bolstering a medical intervention that is well past its use-by date.
Yes, Ross. The three organisers turned up but no one else did.
If you talk to politicians they are well aware of the way activists bombard them with rubbish - this whole process is quite unproductive for anti-fluoride activity. Even local body politicians, who are far more gullible, have been turned off by this bombardment and have been pleading with the government to remove the issue from their responsibilities.
You may believe the democratic process is quaint - but it is fundamental in our society. I think it is worse than "quaint" for you to think that democratic expressions must be "forced" from people. To my mind such a characterisation is obscene.
And, no, democratic expression does not rely on "scientific principles or medical ethics" - it relies on the predominant values in the community. That is why I believe such democratic decisions should stand - even when I disagree with the result scientifically, ethically (and no one should vote on science - that relies on facts) or politically. After all, there have been extremely few elections I have been involved in which have resulted in the decision I favored - but to me, the majority decisions are far more important than my own.
I am glad you accept the scientific basis supporting our understanding of man-made climate change - but your description of it as a crisis is not supported to the same degree by any means. The science supporting the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of community water fluoridation is far more certain.
You claim that "There are viable oral health alternatives to CWF which have been demonstrated in several countries, including New Zealand, that are safer, more effective, with broader societal coverage and immensely more economical." I would certainly be interested in your presentation of them and the evidence for them so that a proper comparison could be made. Interesting you neglect to do that and I certainly can't think of what you mean.
In the end, health experts have the respoosnbibilty of introducing policies that they consider effective, safe and economical - and also acceptable to the community. I believe that is happening. To a large extent, the range of health actions that are used are complementary and there is no need the put all one's eggs in one basket.
I have already explained my activity on this question - as on my explaining of the science behind climate change and evolution. My critique of religious apologists who justify misrepresentation and distortion of science. Scientific principles never have a use-by date and should always be defended. If you understood that, then you would see what I am doing and your contribution to discussion here would be science-based instead of relying on activist ideology and unsupported attacks on science. Evidence and scientific understanding are the sorts of things I prefer to engage with.
I recently posted a comment describing a common tactic of anti-science activists, Circular Debating Technique (08-17-2019 09:11 AM).
Another very common tactic of anti-science activists is Gish Gallop, “a technique used during debating that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible, without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott and named after the creationist Duane Gish, who used the technique frequently against proponents of evolution.” (Wikipedia) “By using a quantity of arguments as a quality itself, a Gish Gallop tries to create the illusion of authority and weight of evidence. It is effectively style over substance."
Various Cancer Claims are excellent examples of both Gish Gallop and Circular Debating Technique used by fluoridation opponents in this discussion.
Earlier in this discussion Bill Osmunson dumped over 16,000 words into the exchange in an apparent attempt to support his claim that drinking optimally fluoridated water is a significant risk factor for causing cancer.
Bill Osmunson’s Gish Gallop references to fluoride and cancer:
“Randy, Lets talk science rather concensus. Remember, the masses can be wrong. Marketing can change public opinion. The next few posts will be just a touch on one aspect of fluoride, carcinogenicity.” (09-04-2018 02:04 PM), “Randy, Let’s look at some studies.” (09-04-2018 02:05 PM), (09-04-2018 02:07 PM), (09-04-2018 04:11 PM), (09-04-2018 04:12 PM), (09-04-2018 04:47 PM), (09-04-2018 04:57 PM), (09-04-2018 05:02 PM), (09-04-2018 05:03 PM), (09-04-2018 05:05 PM), (09-04-2018 05:06 PM), (09-05-2018 04:12 PM), (09-05-2018 04:14 PM), (09-05-2018 04:18 PM), “This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies. Here are some, in response to your claim, ‘Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen’” (07-11-2018 06:26 PM)
That is one of the most remarkable examples of Gish Gallop I have ever seen, and other fluoridation opponents have also contributed their opinions.
If any of the anti-fluoridation interpretations of the evidence were legitimate, why do none of the major cancer organizations list community water fluoridation as a cancer risk? Do the activists have a better understanding of the evidence than the relevant experts? Why would anyone trust the opinions of passionate activists who have no legitimate evidence to support their opinions and change the conclusions of the experts, but who continue to dump tons of irrelevant studies into public discussions.
These are the actual conclusions of some relevant Cancer Organizations:
National Cancer Institute – Fluoridated Water: “More recent population-based studies using cancer registry data found no evidence of an association between fluoride in drinking water and the risk of osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma.”
American Cancer Society - Water Fluoridation and Cancer Risk: “The general consensus among the reviews done to date is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer” and “More recent studies have compared the rates of osteosarcoma in areas with higher versus lower levels of fluoridation in Great Britain, Ireland, and the United States. These studies have not found an increased risk of osteosarcoma in areas of water fluoridation.”
Canadian Cancer Society – Fluoride: “Based on current evidence, CCS believes it is unlikely that adding fluoride to water raises the risk of cancer, including osteosarcoma, in humans. At the same time, we know that there are many benefits to water fluoridation, especially for people who have less access to dental care. We will continue to watch this area of research and update our information as we learn more.”
Cancer Council Western Australia - Cancer myth: Fluoride and cancer: “Fluoridation is considered by many to be a major public health achievement of the 20th century. The addition of fluoride to drinking water has led to a significant reduction in dental caries. There is no consistent evidence that fluoride in drinking water increases the risk of cancer. The weight of the current evidence supports the view that there is no link between water fluoridation and osteosarcoma.”
Cancer Council NSW: "Fluoride in tap water does not cause cancer."
Cancer Society, New Zealand: “One hazard that has been mentioned is that children drinking fluoridated water are at higher risk of developing an extremely rare form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma. At this time there is no evidence that this is true.”
National Cancer Control Programme – Water Fluoridation and effects on health: “In conclusion, all systematic reviews to date have found no association between fluoridation of drinking water at the recommended levels and risk of cancer or bone fracture. The effects of fluoride on health and related matters are kept under constant review. In addition, the Expert Body on Fluorides and Health in Ireland is of the opinion that water fluoridation significantly benefits dental health.”
National Health Service, UK – Fluoride “Overall, these reviews found that water fluoridation appears to contribute to reduced tooth decay levels and doesn't seem to be associated with any significant health risks.”
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) 2011 report, Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating
agents of drinking water: “SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic.”
Also the 2016 World Health Organization report, Fluoride and Oral Health report concluded, “On the basis of recent published reviews and peer reviewed publications there is no evidence that fluoride levels in drinking water at concentrations aimed at controlling dental caries is associated with increased risk of osteocarcoma or any other kind of bone cancer in humans.” Nor was drinking optimally fluoridated water linked to any other forms of cancer. In fact, one of the studies reviewed (Public Health England, 2014), “found a lower rate of kidney stones and bladder cancer in fluoridated areas than non-fluoridated areas”.
A Healthline discussion with references:
For months you have been silent on dosage.
You even mocked me for not being willing to debate you on your forum. I chose dosage and sent you my first statement. You claimed computer problems and then went silent on the issue. Why? You have no answer.
You have gone silent here again.
The most fundamental question any scientists would ask for any substance for any purpose is, "how much?" Yet you refuse to answer.
Clearly, you do not have an answer. You are totally blind to dosage. Have you not even thought about total dosage desired from all sources? Not to treat water, but to treat humans, prevent dental caries.
How can I pop your fake science mythology by forcing, begging, pleading with you to consider the most fundamental question, "how much?" "What dosage of fluoride ingested prevents dental caries?"
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, You wrote:
“You even mocked me for not being willing to debate you on your forum. I chose dosage and sent you my first statement. You claimed computer problems and then went silent on the issue. Why? You have no answer.
You have gone silent here again.”
I do not appreciate your misrepresentation of the situation or your attempt to imply I am avoiding any exchange. For this reason, I will quote from our emails and I apologise the length.
These emails followed my offer of an open uncensored exchange on my blog along the lines of the one I had with Paul Connett in 2013/14. You accepted my offer and on April 5 this year I got a document with your email saying:
“Here you go, attached. Graphs did not cut and paste below.
Excess Fluoride Exposure—Streams of Evidence
I responded the same day with:
“Thanks for this Bill.
“I will aim to start this exchange early next week (Weekends are not a good time for hits). I should be able to extract the images from the pdf.
Do you have a reference list to go with this that could go at the end of the article?”
I set out to make the necessary conversions to unformatted text required on the blog but had some difficulties and emailed you 2 days later (April 7) saying:
Do you have a word version of this?
I am having trouble removing the formatting when converting the pdf so a word or text version would help.
Also, have you got a reference or citation list yet – preferably with links.”
You replied the next day (April 8):
“Working on it.
And then later
“**bleep** computers. I also had problems and I'm moving and swamped. I did add some references. Can you get it off of this attachment?
On April 10 I replied:
I think I can just copy and paste from the pdf and I have extracted the figures. But have not yet been able to extract a reference list from what you gave me.
But now my computer is now playing silly buggers and it is undergoing a long term scan – probably not complete until tomorrow (when I have my great grandson for our weekly play date so won’t be doing any computer work).
It would help if you could extract the references and give me a list, preferably linked, that I can add to the end of the article.
Then my computer packed up. It was taking a while to repair (both hard drives were wiped) so I contacted you a few days later (April 15):
My computer is being repaired. Learned yesterday that both hard drives have been wiped. I do have a backup but it will take time to reinstall all the programmes and recover the data.
So anything you can do to insert the references and links will help.
Don’t know when I will get the computer back. They may well find other problems.
You responded on April 17
“Sorry about computer problems.
I’ll see what I can do. How do you want references inserted? Footnotes is what I provided. Do u want web links instead?”
I cannot, at this time, find any of our other correspondence on this specific issue.
However, I had given up hunting down your references (yes proper citations and links are normal – out of respect to readers and to you discussion partner. How can one check what the referenced article says without proper citation?).
There was also the problem of a figure which had not been prepared properly for this particular exchange (Obviously used elsewhere).
But I certainly understood the ball was in your court to correct the article (as it should be) and in no way was I withdrawing from the exchange.
As I explained the other day I am interested in critiquing the dental fluorosis argument – specifically the Neurath paper you rely on in your article – so I am keen for the exchange to go ahead.
I hope this clarifies the situation for other readers. I repeat I do not appreciate the misrepresentation you have indulged in, Bill, or the resort to abusive terms. These should not be used in a scientific exchange – another reason why I think the Open Parachute blog is the best place for such an exchange.
CRITICAL THINKING: Since fluoride is a poison that is known to kill developing tooth cells which cause staining and pitting called 'dental fluorosis' and fluoride accumulates in bones, stresses kidneys, and suppresses thyroid function, the 21st century science documenting disease processes from even low dose exposure to fluoride should prompt an immediate suspension of municipal fluoridation programs.
CIRCULAR REASONING: Since the U.S. government decided fluoridation was 'safe and effective' in 1950, any modern scientific evidence that fluoridation is harmful must be flawed. Consequently, promoters of fluoridation are justified in using any political actions and social media strategies to suppress science, silence expert opinions and stifle the voices of victims.
In the early 1980s, the EPA was under political pressure to increase the MCL/MCLG of fluoride from 2.4 ppm to 4 ppm. The first step in getting that done was to change the perception of dental fluorosis. The first image is an excerpt from a 1984 MEMO from the Director at the EPA Office of Drinking Water to the Head of the EPA regarding the deception underfoot. Dental fluorosis at that point in time was affecting about 1 in 4 American teens with about 1 in 100 having moderate to severe dental fluorosis.
In 2019, HHS and CDC with partners are involved in the same type of word play. Dental fluorosis is now affecting about half of all American teens, with fluorosis of aesthetic concern affecting at least 1 in 10 per 2015 Cochrane report (2nd image) and 1 in 3 suffering from moderate to severe DF per 2019 analysis of most recent NHANES data (C. Neurath , H. Limeback, B. Osmunson, M. Connett, V. Kanter, and C. R. Wells. "Dental Fluorosis Trends in US Oral Health Surveys: 1986 to 2012" in JDR Clinical and Translational Research. 2019.)
Indeed it is so true. For example, there are fluoridation promoters all over the internet that are anti-science. This diatribe just presented doesn't even mention that even fluoridationists publish that all cities that fluoridate people have increased incidence of dental fluorosis and that there are no exceptions. Dental fluorosis is an abnormality. It is pathologic, due to systemic fluoride interfering with removal of albumin during enamelization in childhood so that the fluorotic tooth has enamel hypoplasia. This is a laughable joke to some fluoridation promoters, and other fluoridation promoters actually assume that since "fluoride must be good" then enamel fluorosis must be good too and assume that fluorotic teeth have fewer cavities, not realizing the underlying dentin, a derivative of bone, has accumulated fluoride as well and that caries are far more difficult to treat becuase of it. It is all a pretty sick joke, and yet those opoposed to eating and drinking fluoride are the ones claimed to be "anti science.". Wow. .
I most certainly do not agree with fluoridating people simply because the water supply is considered hard. Although assimilation of F would be impaired by the somewhat protective calcium, and these people,would be fortunate to be able to better withstand artificial fluoridation, there is zero benefit for tne action and lifelong it still accumulates F in bone.
In natural areas where 1 ppm F is accompanied with plentiful calcium. dental fluorosis is still rampant and teeth interiors become crumbly (dentist Dr. Heard, Hereford Texas who initially promoted fluoride adjustments in water supplies but later apologized for the notion). The procedure of adding more of the F contaminant into water is mistaken, period.
I have read hundreds of cientific studies on fluorides and listened to the opinions of many “experrts”. It is more than clear that there is very little valid science in support of fluoridation. Even though some older papers start with such statements “in support”, they conclude otherwise. Thus, any “expert”, who supports water fluoridation based on mere venally interested opinions, is no expert at all.
In addition, it is truly irrelevant what any of these fluoridation promoters have to say, because (regardless of anyone’s opinions), what gives anyone a right to medicate the masses through the public water supply? Are these so called (unnamed and unknown) “experts” our personal doctors who monitor the dosage daily? Where is their expertise in every individual case that have been dosed with these artificial compounds of fluorine?
What kind of a fascist country do we live in that our individual consent does not matter? Why is the population being used as fluoride waste filters, with the pretense that there is some unproven benefit to one part of the body?
I have heard the fluoridation waste industry’s motto that: “ Dilution is a solution to pollution!” HA!
Yes, AARP and CARP should take action.
Artificial fluoridation began 75 years ago. In this time dental fluorosis rates have skyrocketed. The industrial by-product used to fluoridate water has been classified as a persistent, bioaccumulative, neurodevelopmental toxin. And rates of neurodevelopmental issues like Alzheimer’s, ADHD, and autism have also skyrocketed.
Time to stop the nonsense and stop the additional exposures of this toxic substance.
“One usually expects at least a factor of 10 between a no-effect level and a maximum ‘safe for everyone’ level, yet here EPA seems to approve of less than a factor of 6 between ‘not safe’ and ‘recommended for everyone’ (including susceptible subpopulations).” - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2017)
This is not the place for scientific bickering. Moreover, strawman misrepresentation of the opposing views is not helpful. The topic is whether or not fluoridation policy is harmful to some consumers who include vulnerable populations such as senior citizens and those with chronic illness like kidney disease or diabetes.
A valid part of that discussion, as mentioned by Bill O, is how do you control dose when the substance is in the water? This is a particularly important point for those vulnerable populations who have medical reason to avoid fluoride, such as those with kidney disease, thyroid disease, immune system disease, inflammatory diseases, and diabetes.
I also know people with a family history of breast cancer whose doctors have advised they avoid fluoridated water and foods as a precautionary measure since fluoride is an endocrine disruptor and there is evidence of it promoting cancer. See scientific references included in this 2016 letter to the American Thyroid Association.
AARP - You told me in January 2015 that you use activity on your forum to gauge interest for items to take under consideration by your policy team.
This thread certainly has been active for the past 4 years.
When are you going to advocate on behalf of your constituents?
Some good news. An effort aimed at possibly stopping fluoridation of drinking water in Gloucester MA was recently defeated (8/13/2019) despite vigorous, vocal promotion by fluoridation opponents (FOs). Only two of eight City Council members believed the anti-F propaganda –– the others six carefully considered the evidence on both sides, recognized the severe limitations and misrepresentation of the anti-F “evidence”, and chose to accept the conclusions of the Gloucester Board of Health and virtually all other science and health organizations in the world.
In a democracy it is critical for citizens, government representative responsible for making important public health decisions or citizens responsible for electing those representatives (and sometimes voting on public health measures), to either actually understand the complex science underlying those decisions or trust the interpretation of evidence by reputable experts. There are serious dangers to trusting the opinions of vocal critics of those scientific conclusions which are accepted by the overwhelming majority of relevant experts. These anti-science critics utilize a variety of disingenuous tactics to mislead and scare and scam members of the public into blindly trusting their opinions over those of the actual experts.
In a recent Dilbert comic, Wally describes the Circular Debating Technique that FOs like “CarryAnne”, Richard Sauerheber, Bill Osmunson and other anti-science activists have mastered. For evidence, go back over 1,290 posts and start reading…
“The public debates go on, the claims get repeated and the task of countering misleading and dishonest claims just doesn’t go away. They need to be countered – especially as they are often being promoted, almost unchallenged, to decision-making bodies.” (Ken Perrott)
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/ - reviews of studies used by anti-F activists
Fact: Most people respect and trust most scientific conclusions that are accepted by the majority of relevant experts and the policies and technological advances that are based on those conclusions. However, strongly held personal beliefs can cause some people to distrust some specific scientific conclusions that seem to conflict with those beliefs. Those individuals are not necessarily anti-science activists – they choose to believe the interpretation of “evidence” presented by anti-science activists. The Scientific American article describes this as “isolated incidents of motivated bias”.
Fact: Anti-science activists are those scientists and health care professionals who have exceptionally strong, passionately held, inflexible beliefs that conflict with an established scientific consensus. However, they have no legitimate, relevant, reproducible scientific evidence sufficient to challenge the scientific consensus. With no valid evidence and a fixed belief, they abandon working within the scientific communities to legitimately change the consensus and (with the help of some passionate followers) take their opinions directly to the public (in forums like this) in an attempt change public opinion and hijack the democratic process.
Fact: The scientific consensus of nearly all relevant science and health experts world-wide for over 70 years continues to be that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing the risk of dental decay and related health issues in communities.
Fact: Legitimate challenges to established scientific conclusions (theories, consensus) by legitimate researchers presenting legitimate evidence to the relevant scientific experts are critical to scientific progress. If the evidence presented is relevant, well conducted, as unbiased as possible, and reproducible, even an established scientific consensus will change. More than 70 years of scientific evidence continues to support CWF.
Fact: Circular debating FOs have no legitimate scientific evidence to change the scientific consensus. That is why the World Health Organization and more than 100 of the most recognized science and health organizations in the world (and their hundreds of thousands of members) continue to recognize the benefits and safety of CWF to reduce the risk of dental decay and related health problems.
Fact: FOs have no rational explanation the fact that there are no such nationally or internationally recognized science or health organizations that promote the anti-F opinions. Only about 6 alternate “health” organizations, some activist groups like Children’s Health Defense and conspiracy fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS] and Mike Adams [Natural News] support the beliefs of fluoridation opponents (FOs).
Fact: If well-meaning citizens who participate in the democratic process (as voters or elected government officials) have been deceived and manipulated to believe the opinions of anti-science activists over the actual scientific conclusions, the resulting governmental actions can be harmful – resulting in an increased risk of largely preventable diseases and health problems.
Fact: FOs and other anti-science activists employ fear-mongering and other disingenuous tactics to try and convince well-meaning citizens (most don’t have the training or experience to personally evaluate decades of complex scientific issues) to trust their opinions over the conclusions of most relevant experts. The tactics include dismissing the scientific consensus as irrelevant, employing the “Gish Gallop” strategy to present mountains of poor quality and irrelevant studies, manipulating, selectively quoting and exaggerating the findings of legitimate studies to fabricate false conclusions and blurring the boundaries between ethics and science to set up false “moral” arguments.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop “Cite a giant wall of text, or a three hour long YouTube video, and then claim it as irrefutable proof. When they ask for the relevant excerpt, whine about how it's not your job to do the research for them. When they go through the video and start explaining why the video is wrong, accuse them of cherry picking […] because they aren't addressing the "important" arguments. When they ask you what the important arguments are, insist that it's not your job to do the research for them. And… repeat.”
Fact: One of the more duplicitous tactics employed by FOs and other anti-science activists is to try and cast doubt on and discredit mainstream scientists and health care professionals who support CWF and the organizations that represent them. For example in this discussion:
CarryAnne described these professionals as “willfully blind”, “morally corrupt”, “cowards”, “ignorant” “sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks” willing to “protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions”.
(08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM), (07-03-2018 07:35 AM)
Bill Osmunson claims these professionals “don't think for themselves”, “think fluoride is a magic element”, have “seriously tarnished” credibility, “don’t protect the public”, are “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” and “None reviewed the science. All the so called ‘scientific’ organizations were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.”
(08-19-2018 02:18 AM), (08-19-2018 07:15 PM), (07-09-2018 09:09 PM)
I asked both FOs several times if that’s their only explanation for why all major science and health organizations continue to recognize the benefits of CWF – and received no answers.
(09-15-2018 10:34 AM), (10-26-2018 02:17 AM), (10-23-2018 11:24 AM – Q1)
For those reading these comments who care about your health, the health of your family and fellow citizens and who don’t have the training or experience to personally evaluate hundreds of complex scientific studies, please consider trusting the majority of science and health experts over the opinions of a relatively few, but extremely vocal and persistent, activists who completely contradict the majority conclusions on important scientific and health issues and completely misrepresent the evidence to try and support their opinions.
Most citizens are not anti-science. They are well-meaning non-scientists who have been scammed by the anti-science activists who abandoned the scientific process of proving their claims to the relevant experts and legitimately challenging the consensus.
Some additional relevant resources:
So true Randy.
Internet debates every day reinforce my understanding that humans are not a rational species, more a rationalising one.
On the other hand, most of us do tend to respect expert advice and can only take so much conspiracy theory rubbish, In New Zealand, these days most community consultations on community water fluoridation show support for the health policy because people get the message that it is effective, economical and safe.
People have become so fed up with the anti-fluoride activists they do not get an audience these days. Very telling was that when a few anti-fluoride members of the NZ parliament organised a meeting at Parliament Buildings for Paul Connett last year no-one turned up.
On the other hand, while these anti-fluoride campaigners may be tiresome and do misrepresent the science their activity does keep good science on its toes. For example, dredging up poor quality research from areas of endemic fluorosis to argue that fluoride lowers IQ has led to genuine science checking this out in areas where fluoride intake is much lower (as in fluoridated areas). This research has shown no IQ effect.
Similarly, in New Zealand, the intense activity of anti-fluoride campaigners aimed at local body councils led to councils requesting a proper scientific review from authoritative bodies like the Royal Society. That resulted in the NZ Fluoridation Review - see Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence. It also resulted in councils requesting that the government take away responsibility for fluoridation decisions from local bodies and invest it in regional Health Boards.
Personally, I think local communities should have the final say and do not advocate introducing fluoridation where it is not suitable or the community is overwhelmingly opposed. To me democracy is important.
I leave the advocacy of health policies to the health experts. However, as a scientist, I object very strongly to the misrepresentation and distortion of since which is so rampart amongst anti-fluoridationists - as it is amongst climate change deniers and religious apologists (creationism, "intelligent design"). So I will get involved in debates where I see this happening (as it is here).
Finally, I accept that the die-hard anti-science, anti-fluoridation, climate change denying and creationist propagandists will not be convinced by my contributions. But I do not do it for them - my hope is that there are readers lurking in the background who may appreciate clarification of the scientific issues.
Randy...you sound exactly like Randy Johnson ...a fluoride lobbyist who is from the American Fluoridation Society. Your president Johnny Johnson appeared at our City Council meeting and lied to our councillors claiming concentrations in water would still be safe even 16x the levels considered optimal. We have it on tape.
why would anyone believe you or your group?
Everyone knows most calcium in water supplies is from calcium salts other than calcium fluoride. So what?
NaF has an LD50 and CaF2 does not,
even though the fluorode ions are identical in structure in the two salts.
I never said calcium is reduced from fluoridation.
I said fluoridation with toxic NaF in calcium deficient water ( such as in pagosa springs or in hooper bay) is an extreme poison. If calcium fluoride were used then an overfeed would not have happened due to solubility issues.
Calcium fluoride is very insoluble but sodium fluoride is the opposite, extremely soluble, even though the fluoride atoms are identical in structure in both.
Anyway, there are plentiful sources of fresh clean water lacking F. The sun evaporates salt water (which contains 1 pom F) to form a distillate that is free of F. this is the,eource of rain and snow that forms rivers,and lakes. If no F salts are in a reguon then the distillate will remain fluoride free..
Richard - so you appear to be acknowledging that the normal treated water used for supply has no problem with toxicity because (in your eyes) the calcium levels are relatively high?
Of course, the other aspect is that the fluoride levels are extremely low - concepts like LD50 are just not relevant.
Uncontrolled use of CaF2 would produce far higher levels of F than is optimum for treated water. And at those higher concentrations, skeletal and dental fluorosis would be and are, problems.
As for snow and rainwater - don't forget that they also pick up contaminants from the atmosphere. In fact, rainwater taken from a roof can often be problematic because of contaminants.
LD50s not relevant? Tell that to the survivors of the Hooper Bay, AK fluoridation overfeed. The lawsuit is still not resolved , the loss of life not recompensed, and the government relations with native American tribes is lost.
This is bizarre. Of course fluoride anions are identical in any salt compund or as the free ions in solution. So what? When fluoride is in calcium rich water as in natural sources it is not possible to drink enough to be acutely fluoride poisoned. The LD50 for calcium fluroide does not exist. But when fluoride is in calcium poor water at high amounts from sodium fluoride then people have been killed from lethal fluoride poisoning as in fluoridation overfeeds (JEPH 439490, 2013). If calicumfluoride had been used to fluoridated then no one would have been acutely poisoned. This is because fluoride toxicity depnds on the chemical environment in which the otherwise identical anions are located. The LD50 for sodium fluoride is about 65 mg/kg (Merck Index) and sodium fluoride (but not calcium fluoride) is listed in all poirosns registries as a toxic substance.
But I was not discussing that. That has been published for all to read.
I was pointing out the Perrot statement that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water in the Connett section.I have no problem with Connett's words there, but with Perrot's..
Clean fresh drinking water deos not contain detectable contaminant fluoride. I suppose it doesn'tmatter how many times I say the pdf statement is worng.But the readers can read the pdf report themselves.
Richard, I take it from your reaction that you now acknowledge that your claim about me referring to fluoride-free natural waters was wrong.
I also think Connett's claims were bizarre - as you say "Of course fluoride anions are identical in any salt compound or as the free ions in solution." But he worked very hard to justify his statement that there was a difference.
However, you also seem to be arguing desperately for differences - without providing a single fact.
1: Calcium fluoride, by itself, does not control the calcium concentration in natural waters - there are a number of sources. So the calcium concentration in natural waters can vary quite independently of fluoride.
2: Similar fluoride in treated water drinking water does not control the calcium concentration - nor does the calcium concentration generally control the fluoride concentration. This is because the fluoride concentrations are very low and the solubility product does not come into play.
3: There is generally no reason for the concentration of calcium to drop when water is treated for drinking. Because lime is often used for water treatment the calcium concentration may well be higher after treatment.
4: You do not attempt to back up your implied assertion that somehow the calcium concentration of fluoridated water is lower than in the natural source water. I don't believe you can.
5: I have been into this discussion before and shown that the concentrations of calcium in our "soft" drinking water are much higher than anything CaF2 could contribute see - Calcium fluoride and the “soft” water anti-fluoridation myth. See figure:
As I said then your claim was hogwash. It still is.