Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)

The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 

However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 

Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 

Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

• 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
• 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
• 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

• a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
• b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week: https://unite.live/widgets/4142/recording/player#  

It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.

Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 

When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 

Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 

On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 

Really? 

Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  

BMCL

But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

• No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 

[CarryAnne · Accepted solution]

 “Today’s ruling represents an important acknowledgement of a large and growing body of science indicating serious human health risks associated with fluoridated drinking water. This court looked at the science and acted accordingly. Now the EPA must respond by implementing new regulations that adequately protect all Americans – especially our most vulnerable infants and children – from this known health threat.” - Wenonah Hauter, Director of Food & Water Watch in “Historic Court Decision in Fluoridation Toxicity Case Orders EPA to Act” (Sept. 25, 2024)

Well, it as been a busy few weeks! 

Not only was the final NTP Systematic Review, "Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition" published in August (despite political efforts by HHS/PHS and ADA to scuttle it) after five (or was it six) peer reviews, the Final Findings and Conclusion of Law from a lengthy de novo trial was rendered in September with excellent detail, and the 2024 Cochrane Systematic Review, "Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries," published in October repeated that dental fluorosis is an adverse effect of fluoridation, a practice which provides no benefit to adults or lower socio-economic groups. The Cochrane authors also wrote that the very small benefit they were able to document to children from "poor quality" studies at high risk of bias "may not be real." 

In other words, community water fluoridation is all risk and no benefit. Fluoridation is dental mythology, a magic potion tooth-fairy tale. The most important thing is that Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to eliminate the risk to consumers. 

• UNSAFE: p. 2:  the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.

• HAZARD: p 5:   The pooled benchmark dose analysis concluded that a 1-point drop in IQ of a child is to be expected for each 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine. This is highly concerning, because maternal urinary fluoride levels for pregnant mothers in the United States range from 0.8 mg/L at the median and 1.89 mg/L depending upon the degree of exposure. Not only is there an insufficient margin between the hazard level and these exposure levels, for many, the exposure levels exceed the hazard level of 0.28 mg/L.
  
  

• CERTAINTY: p. 77: The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ. There are uncertainties presented by the underlying data regarding the appropriate point of departure and exposure level to utilize in this risk evaluation. But those uncertainties do not undermine the finding of an unreasonable risk; in every scenario utilizing any of the various possible points of departures, exposure levels and metrics, a risk is present in view of the applicable uncertainty factors that apply.
  
  

• VULNERABILITY: p. 76: The size of the affected population is vast. Approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. See Dkt. No. 421 at 206-07 (undisputed). Other Americans are indirectly exposed to fluoridated water through consumption of commercial beverages and food manufactured with fluoridated water
  
  

• SUSCEPTIBILITY: p. 76: Approximately two million pregnant women, and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies are exposed to fluoridated water. The number of pregnant women and formula-fed babies alone who are exposed to water fluoridation each year exceeds entire populations exposed to conditions of use for which EPA has found unreasonable risk; the EPA has found risks unreasonable where the population impacted was less than 500 people. 

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, an interesting comment on known and verifiable science.  You say, "There are many concepts that are false and yet are assumed true by those considered to be in mainstream science."

Regarding your 3 examples, and with all due respect:  

1.)  Did life spontaneously occur from non-life?  It's not my area of expertise, however, I believe this was a debate that ended over 150 years ago, with the answer being No:  Biology texts do not teach it as though it were fact. 

"The debate over spontaneous generation continued well into the nineteenth century, with scientists serving as proponents of both sides."  .  .  and .  .  "Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular."

2.)  RS:   "Time does not slow down or dilate due to motion as is believed by physicists since the idea was proposed in 1905 in special relativity theory. Time dilation has been disproven theoretically, mathematically, and experimentally . ."

Actually, time does slow down with motion, and actually, it has been proven experimentally.  I direct your attention to the Hafele-Keating Experiment.  http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/airtim.html

3.)  Water fluoridation.  That's what this is all about.  

I hope you don't consider the fact that I pointed out the inaccuracies of your comment to be a "personal attack."  

[CarryAnne]

“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)

 “The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude. Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement.”- Prof. Hubert A. Arnold, Ph.D. (1980)

Refusal to acknowlege the substantial objections of leading scientists and over a dozen  organizations is not the same thing as there not being substantial objections. Similarly, dismissing hundreds of reproducable studies proving harm that are peer-reviewed and published in valid journals does not mean they do not still exist. However, fluoridation persists because fluoridation, like fluoridation promotion, is profitable to many vested interests, such as but not limited to the sugar industry. 

But even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication of many with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney disease for whom fluoride causes harm. 

Moreover, fluoride not only builds up in bones where it causes or worsens arthritis and brittleness, fluoride crosses the blood brain barrier where it contributes to dementia. Particular concerns of seniors. 

For a change of pace, here are a few video interviews: 

2001 Testimony of Dr. J. Wm. Hirzy, EPA scientist to Congress & interview (28m): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNNIwmzTzI 

2013 Documentary featuring interviews with scientists and lawyers (64m): http://www.fluoridegate.org/the-film/ 

2015 Telemundo Atlanta 3 part series (5m each): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTZQveF6LAE  

[RandyJ913440]

CarryAnne – You still have provided no rational explanation for why community water fluoridation (CWF) opponents have been unable to change the scientific consensus.  Why would rational, unbiased individuals choose to accept the consensus of a small minority of outlier experts and their non-expert followers instead of the consensus accepted by the majority of relevant experts?  Accusations that “fluoridation, like fluoridation promotion, is profitable to many vested interests” is simply another unsupported, libelous claim that fluoridation supporters conjure up when they lack legitimate evidence to convince the scientific/health communities their opinions have merit.

Your philosophical bias is evident when you arbitrarily claim that “even if fluoride did prevent cavities and did not cause dental fluorosis, fluoridation policy is still immoral medication“, and your statement highlights the importance of personal, non-scientific beliefs to anti-science activists when evaluating and interpreting the evidence.

By your “logic” those who demand that drinking water chlorination be halted because chlorine has been used as an immoral chemical weapon (and creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts which have not been proven by randomized controlled trials to be completely safe) have a legitimate argument.  Do you believe that even if disinfection does help prevent diseases, disinfection policy is immoral poisoning??

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/chlorine-a-dangerous-addition-to-everyday-life/

https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/anti-chlorine-activists-hope-politics-will-trump-science

Stating that there are “substantial objections of leading scientists and over a dozen organizations “ does not make those “objections” scientifically validated. 

I am not, as you claim, “dismissing hundreds of reproducible studies proving harm”, I am stating that CWF opponents have selectively extracted and misrepresented those studies from the thousands conducted and published over the last 70+ years which can be used to try and support their strongly-held opinions.  When one actually reads those cited studies, it is obvious that by, the time fluoridation opponents have presented them to the public, this “evidence” will 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/misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only suggest 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.

The misrepresentation and fabrication of evidence is one of the reasons the reputable science and health organizations mentioned/listed (and their representatives) have not accepted the anti-F opinions and continue to publically recognize the benefits and safety of CWF. 

I would like to bring attention to another of Dr. Osmunson’s comments on 07-09-2018; “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They [CDC, ADA and AAP] do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust.  Those allegedly ‘credible scientific organizations promoting fluoridation at 1 ppm have not and did not review the science and follow the science.  They all waited for someone else to stand out from the herd and protect the public.  I do not call those organizations following the herd scientifically credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation.  Change is very slow when following the herd.  Change is faster when following science.”

So, the CDC, ADA and AAP, are according to Dr. Osmunson, “so called ‘scientific’ organizations” – Really???  Do you accept his claims as valid?   How about the rest of the organizations that recognize the benefits of CWF – do you believe they are all “lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists” as well???

Dr. Osmunson seems to be trying to make an arbitrary and absurd distinction between organizations and the members and representatives of those organizations.  Do you believe that “they are the best in their field and experts” in everything non-fluorine-related, yet they are completely ignorant, don't protect the public and are unable to recognize and correctly interpret legitimate scientific evidence when it has anything to do with CWF?

I would also like to see Dr. Osmunson justify and prove his claims about all the science and health organizations (and presumably their members) that accept the scientific consensus on CWF.

Since 2000, there have been a number of scientific literature reviews that have concluded that CWF reduces dental decay, and none of these reviews reported any health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water, only an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis.  They include: the 2018 Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents review; the 2018 Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report for England; the 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report; the 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water; the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health; the 2016 Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Fluoridation Report; the 2015 Manual of Dental Practices, Council of European Dentists; the 2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries; the 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review; the 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence; the 2013 Congressional Research Service, Fluoride in Drinking Water Review: and the 2000 York Water Fluoridation Review; the 2000 Community Preventive Services Task Force, Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation – not to mention the 2018 National Toxicity Program fluoride study.

Again, if the alleged health risks alleged to be caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water have been proven valid, how do you explain the fact that 100+ science and health organizations listed elsewhere (and their many thousands of members) have gone against all scientific and health principles and not accepted this evidence?  The only explanation that makes sense is that the evidence, in fact, does not prove there are significant health risks of CWF, and the evidence actually confirms the benefits of reducing tooth decay (which do have real, well documented health risks) far outweigh any alleged risks.

[CarryAnne]

Consensus is a political construct that validates there are no substantial objections. There  is and has always been substantial scientific objections to fluoridation. Therefore, there is not now nor has ever been any consensus of safety. 

That doesn't stop fluoridationists from trying to use organizational endorsements of policy that originated in the 1950s as their 'evidence' - that's endosemental science. For examples of evidentiary science, then and now, see these two examples that invalidate the claim of consensus: 

• Now: IAOMT 2017 Position Paper Against Fluoride Use: 
• Then: Sutton P R N. Fluoridation: Errors & Omissions in Experimental Trials. 2nd ed. Australia: Melbourne University Press, 1960.  

[RandyJ913440]

CarryAnne – That’s exactly my point – if there were actually “substantial scientific objections to fluoridation” that were confirmed by legitimate, reproducible, properly interpreted scientific evidence, I can’t imagine a rational explanation that would explain why the hundreds of thousands of members of those science and health organizations that publically recognize the benefits and safety of community water fluoridation (CWF) would keep silent.  Unless, of course, they are mindless minions of (to quote the 07-09-2018 comment of Dr. Osmunson) “All the so called "scientific" organizations [which] were all puppets of each other with fluoridation.  None reviewed the science. … CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing.”

If I were a current or retired member of any organization that publically recognizes the safety and benefits of CFW, I would be more than a little offended by these unsupported, libelous charges.  These organizations  do not exist without their members, and they include: The World Health Organization which represents 191 countries, the British Dental Association (around 22,000 members), the British Medical Association (over 156,000 members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800 members), the American  Dental Association (over 114,000 members), the American Medical Association (over 200,000 members), the American Academy of Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members), the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000 members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026 members), etc. 

I accept the hypothesis that the overwhelming majority of members of these organizations are caring and informed contributors to the scientific and health communities, and they have not joined the anti-F crusade because they accept the scientific consensus (which the anti-F activists have been unable to change for over 70 years) and not unsupported fear-mongering.

What exactly do you propose to accept as a legitimate conclusion for 70+ years of evidence if not the scientific consensus – as established by those respected (except by anti-science activists) national and international organizations? 

Unless you can provide a rational explanation for why anti-F activists have been unable to provide legitimate evidence sufficient to convince a majority of members of all (or even a few) of the organizations that continue to recognize the safety and effectiveness of CWF a rational reader will come to the conclusion that fluoridation opponents (FOs) are promoting an outlier anti-science un-consensus.

If FOs actually had legitimate scientific evidence to support their philosophical beliefs, they would not have needed to spend the last 70 years trying to scare the public into blindly accepting their opinions and joining their crusade – the evidence would have changed the consensus.  That is how science works.

[RandyJ913440]

Removed duplicate comment...

[CarryAnne]

“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008) *

"The available data, responsibly interpreted, indicate little or no beneficial effect of water fluoridation on oral health."  - Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2011) **

The U.S. promoted fluoridation based on flawed studies & falsified evidence. Modern reviews have recognized every pro-fluoridation report prior to the 1980s as badly biased and unreliable. (Iheozor-Ejiofor et al. 2015; McDonagh et al. 2000; Yiamouyiannis 1990; Diesendorf 1986)

The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive. The hesitation to speak out against fluoridation is based on rhetorical devices, intimidation and disinformation  - consistent with campaigns mounted by pesticide giant Monsanto and the Tobacco industry.

Click here and then use PREVIOUS button  to read the 60 comments in oppostion to fluoridation that include personal testimony from AARP seniors and references to modern science from before this thread was overwhelmed on June 27, 2018 by a few fluoridationts. Also, a dozen 21st century environmental  citations re fluoridation's adverse impact on animals & plants can be accessed here. 

Doubt is Their Product - Convenient for promoting poisons and avoiding regulatory action

*Dr. Michaels is a well published epidemiologist with insight into the political machinations and astroturf efforts of industry propaganda that protects business plans and paychecks instead of people and planet. 

** Dr. Thiessen is a risk assessment expert who has sat on two National Research Councils concerned with health risks and fluoride. She has also said that “Elimination of community water fluoridation at the earliest possible date would be in the best interest of public health.”

[RandyJ913440]

CarryAnne – Your frogs in a pot cartoon misrepresent the precautionary principle which is legitimately used in situations where the risks and benefits are not yet clearly understood.  In the case of community water fluoridation, the burden of proof that the public health measure is safe and effective has been met for 70+  years.  The same precautionary principle “logic” could be used to support the anti-chlorine activists’ claims that “we should discontinue public water chlorination until it is proven that there are no harmful health effects that can be caused by the public health measure.  Do you have that evidence?  Do you support chlorination?

Read “Paradoxical Perils of the Precautionary Principle“
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1656&context=wlulr

You just claimed the “evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive. The hesitation to speak out against fluoridation is based on rhetorical devices, intimidation and disinformation”. 

If that claim is even remotely valid, how can you possibly explain the fact, which has been brought up and ignored numerous times, that all of the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and effective and that there are no such organizations that support the anti-F agenda.

Fear Mongering vs. the Scientific Consensus

[rs5526]

I don't believe in dumping waste water into streams or rivers for any reason. . To me it is immoral and a denigration of our heritage and future. And dumping wastewater that is also fluoridated, and continuing to do so even after salmon spawning, that had been present for years  ends, that's downright mind-boggling. 

The math presented to claim salmon are unaffected when fluoridated water is duschsrged into their spawning grounds is laughable. The water salmon must navigate through near the discharge pipe cannot possibly dilute to a final concentration computed from M1V1=M2V2 (where M1 is 1 ppm, V1 is the discharge volume in a given period, V2 is the volume of river flow during that period, and M2 the final dilution level after thorough mixing. M2 is only valid after full mixing, not while it is mixing.  the concentration in which salmon swim is not simply M2. M2 is the concentration that would exist if the fluoride added were fully dispersed. It is not fully dispersed at the point of discharge. There is no expression that can compute the maximum level that salmon would be exposed to while navigating through the discharge area, particularly since they spawn in shallow water and swim  near the surface to to so. F is not uniform in concentration until after full mixing. 

There is no math that describes it adequately. Math without chemistry in a chemical problem is not useful and in fact misleads. 

If you choose to he misled I can't help you. But if anyone wants to not he misled then this post should help. 

[rs5526]

The claim I don't care is insulting. CalEpa does not care. Unless there is absolute proof which neither i nor anyone has, the agency will not  make any demands on the city of sacramento. Hence  even though evidence of harm is beyond reasonable doubt (esp. published harm to human consumers) fluoridation and the discharges stand. 

Blame me all you want. The salmon industry in CA is dead and humans consuming fluoridated water have progressive compromised bone quality. Registering complaints and providing data are what I have done. And I disagree that it is pathetic. Absolute proof of visible harm with dental fluorosis has not halted fluoridation. Known bone accumulation in all consumers has not halted fluoridation. And neither will good correlative evidence of harm to salmon. Absolute proof sufficient for CalEpa to act is an unreasonable request by the agency and yet this is the way it is for this government advocated policy of fluoridating the country. What blame pray tell in that belongs to me? 

[DavidF928895]

RS:  "The claim I don't care is insulting. CalEpa does not care. Unless there is absolute proof which neither i nor anyone has, the agency will not  make any demands on the city of sacramento."

I guess it is easer to convince readers of a thread on an AARP website, who are not familiar with the science, of something, than it would be to convince the scientists, toxologists, and environmental experts whose sole duty is to protect the environment from toxic waste.  

RS:  "Absolute proof of visible harm with dental fluorosis has not halted fluoridation." 

Why would it.  Mild Dental Fluorosis, which can be associated with water fluoridation, makes teeth stronger and more resistant to decay.  Kumar demonstrated this, and you know it.  Therefore, quality of life is not dimished.  It is anti-fluoridationists like yourself who attempt to blurr the degrees of dental fluorosis, as though they were all the same thing, as part of your scare-mongering campaign.  I'm sure the experts at Cal EPA are aware of that little trick.

RS:  "Absolute proof sufficient for CalEpa to act is an unreasonable request by the agency and yet this is the way it is for this government advocated policy of fluoridating the country."

Then you have contacted them?  Please allow us to see the correspondence sent and received by you so that we can judge for ourselves the level of apathy that you claim Cal EPA has.

RS:  "There is no math that describes it adequately. Math without chemistry in a chemical problem is not useful and in fact misleads."

Then provide empirical evidence.  That is, after all what science is.  Here's how you do it.  Take samples at marked and documented intervals at a cross section of the river at points downstream of the discharge.  You should be able to make a fairly accurate map of fluoride levels in that river.  If you know that salmon are affected at 0.5 ppm, it shouldn't be that hard to prove your theory.  This would actually be a fairly simple proceedure. 

But, as I said, it is far easier to frighten readers of a thread who are unfamiliar with the science than it would be to convince actual experts in the field who are dedicated to protection of the environment.  I guess that's what you're going for here.

[rs5526]

And since the bone altering fluoridation program is accepted for the presumed benefit to teeth, then salmon collapses are also part of the deal. . 

[rs5526]

Most all Californians I know don't care that much to lose local salmon in their diets. We are not like Alaska where many peoples' and animals' sustenance depends on salmon such as many native tribes, orcas, and other marine life. 

[rs5526]

I should know something already?

You honestly think that CalEpa has the power to demand the city of sacrmento stop discharging its wastewater into the Sacramento River and to build all new infrastructure to dump it somewhere else? And for some complaining salmon fishing companies?

And you say it's that simple? Be my guest. 

[DavidF928895]

RS:  "You honestly think that CalEpa has the power to demand the city of sacrmento stop discharging its wastewater into the Sacramento River and to build all new infrastructure to dump it somewhere else? And for some complaining salmon fishing companies?"

That's not what I said.  The Environmental Protection Agency of the State with the toughest environmental laws in the country has the power to stop water fluoridation if your claim, that effluent discharge from CWF communities is harmful to the environment, had any merit.  You bet they do!  

They have the power to force the auto industry to submit to California emmissions laws.  

RS:  "And you say it's that simple? Be my guest."

Why would I.  I don't believe a word you are saying.  You refuse to prove it mathematically.  You refuse to submit your data to the DTSC and allow their scientists, toxologists and other environmental experts to review it.  You simply lift up your hands and say, 'Ah, what's the use.'

That's the cheapest cop-out I've ever heard.  

RS:  "Most all Californians I know don't care that much to lose local salmon in their diets. We are not like Alaska where many peoples' and animals' sustenance depends on salmon such as many native tribes, orcas, and other marine life."

I will let your low opinion of your fellow Californians and their poor diets speak for itself.  That is really a pathetic comment.

[rs5526]

For a city to stop discharging into nearby rivers would cost a veritable fortune to reroute waste through constructed facilities and pipes etc. Once an estabolished practice exists its nearly impossible to get a city to stop. They would rather argue the law, get exemptions, and push papers than to construct all new waste facilities. This is old news. 

[rs5526]

In a heartbeat? Please.

Cities have historically discharged treated wastewater into the rivers. That is why no one skis in Needles and why soap suds line the hanks of the colorado river after he discharge pipe. And calepa does absolutely nothing to fight this longstanding city practice  n CA. 

A heartbeat? Come on

[rs5526]

CalEpa may he tough by some standards but it is not tough when it comes to fluoridation. Most cities near rivers in CA and Nevada dump treated wastewater into  rivers. I've complained but to no avail. Now fluoridatjon makrd the practice more problematic because the sanitizing does not remove fluoride. 

The fact is that CalEpa will do and has done absolutely nothing but support cities that fluoridate   their citizens because nor to do so would be taking on the U. S. CDC. and calepa wont do it. We have tried to get them to for many years. 

 If you think you can achieve something with them then please do so. 

[rs5526]

It is insane that a "river" this small has a discharge tube that dumps the city's sanitized but fluoridated waste water into it. This is what happens when cities let dental officials control what is allowed in public waterways. The late Dr. A. A. Benson said this also, after he learned that San Diego began fluoridating the city even though citizens voted twice against it. Dr. Benson discovered the carbon fixation reaction in plant photosynthesis, the Calvin Benson cycle. He is sorely missed. 

[CarryAnne]

"Regulatory gaps are lobbyist created Grand Canyons designed to cheat the system.” - Erin Brockovich (2016)

Plenty of things are legal that are not scientifically justified. Asbestos products and leaded gasoline were legal until they weren't. California is rewriting the book on glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's herbicide sold as RoundUp which is used heavily on GMO foods. Following the recent $289m judgment against Monsanto in a CA court for maliciously deceiving the public regarding purported 'safety' that resulted in one man's terminal cancer, I expect there will be more changes across the country. 

The details of the Monsanto trial mirror the banning of public smoking because of the risk to vulnerable populations. Tobacco fought that one all the way. Second hand smoke bans are an apt analogy for fluoridaton opposition. 

Fluoridation is an immoral medical mandate that pollutes a shared resource necessary to life with a toxin that compromises the health of vulnerable populations as well as poses an environmental threat to other species. 

AARP should be a leader in opposing fluoridation policy based on evidence and ethics. 

Erin Brockovich on fluoridation. 

[DavidF928895]

Thank you for your input, Carry Anne.  

Considering the fact that California has some of the strictest environmental laws in the world, certainly in the United States, and since the State of California is responsible for issuing discharge permits, I was curious about Dr. Sauerheber's concerns regarding discharge from South Sacramento into the Sacramento River.  

I would be interested in whether or not he contacted California's Department of Environmental Protection, specifically the DTSC, and what the reply from that department was.  

Is there anything objectionable with the question?

[rs5526]

And the EPA and state agencies under it decide maximum contaminant levels for humans .not for salmon. No one knows how much arsenic and lead and other contaminants in combination that are in fluoridation chemicals that are needed before salmon runs collapse. The EPA doesn't have the data to act on fluoridated wastewater for salmon

[rs5526]

As long as the EPA prohibits discharges of known regulated contaminants, such as arsenic and lead, cities agree to comply. But when it was decided not to prohibit infusions of the fluoride EPA contaminant at an allowed level,  then cities decided on their own how to act. Some allow fluoridation, others dont. The state mandate convinced many to comply. But just like the titanic, passengers followed instructions from the crew but only until it became dangerous and the  it was everyone had to defend oneself and family. Similarly for fluoridation cities must and most do go on their own. 

[DavidF928895]

Municipalities are not allowed to write their own discharge permits.  It's that simple. 

If there was any evidence that municipal discharge from a fluoridated community posed any threat to the environment, the State would have the authority to shut it down.

I gather from your answer that you have not contacted the California Environmental Protection Agency or the DTSC with your grave concerns.  These are some of the toughest environmental agencies in the world, and you haven't taken advantage of them?  

Why is that?

[DavidF928895]

RS, your comment:  "This is what happens when cities let dental officials control what is allowed in public waterways."

Cities have nothing to do with it.

The State of California issues Discharge Permits.  If you have a concern you should contact the California Environmental Protection Agency.  Specifically, you should contact the DTSC.  You should know this already.  

If you do know this, please provide the text of the letter you sent to that office, and I would be interested in seeing the reply that was sent to you.

[rs5526]

This has been a long ongoing problem. The CA DPH and CA Environmental protection agency has accepted what CDC officials have declared, that fluoridation is requested to he done.

Letters from the state EPA repeat what the Federal EPA Office of Water says  Which is they are not responsible for fluoridation but if a city decides to do so they do not prohibit it. The Office of water states that the responsibility lies with the FDA. 

City discharges require a NPDES permit yes. But all cities have their own excuse for discharging fluoridated water. Most say incorrectly that they have the permit but such permits are supposed to be temporary. (for cleaning and maintenance issues for example)   not permanent permits. Some cities argue that fluoride is. A Food and needs no permit. Every city is different. 

[DavidF928895]

City municipal efflueluent requires a State discharge permit.  California environmental laws are more strict than federal laws.  Neither the FDA nor the EPA has anything to do with municipal discharge permits.  

RS:  "Letters from the state EPA repeat what the Federal EPA Office of Water says  Which is they are not responsible for fluoridation but if a city decides to do so they do not prohibit it."

The California EPA may not be responsible for fluoridation, but they are responsible for discharge into the environment.  If there was merit to your claim, they could shut down municipal discharge of fluoridated water in a heart-beat.

I gather from your answer that you have not contacted the California Environmental Protection Agency's DTSC whose Mission Statement reads:  "The mission of DTSC is to protect California’s people and environment from harmful effects of toxic substances by restoring contaminated resources, enforcing hazardous waste laws, reducing hazardous waste generation, and encouraging the manufacture of chemically safer products."

I find it amazing that someone who is so hell-bent on proving that fluoridated water is harmful to the environment, who has at his fingertips, an agency which has, "Over 1,000 scientists, engineers, toxicologists, chemists, geologists, attorneys, criminal investigators and administrative staff," has not bothered to contact that agency with his grave concerns.  And this is an agency which is tasked with investigating and enforcing some of the strictest environmental laws in the world. 

Why is it that you haven't even brought this matter to the attention of one of the toughest environmental agencies in the world, whose sole purpose it to assist you and your environmental concerns?   

[rs5526]

We just crossed the Sacramento River where it enters the city. As I said, most anyone can throw a stone across it since it is very small for a river. Industrial fluoride chemicals are still discharged by the city into it continuously  and the former thriving salmon fishing industry remains nonexistent. And what else would one expect? 

[rs5526]

This is the last day of my month long travel through British Columbia and Alaska. I'm happy to say that all of B. C. is now fluoridation free. All of Alaska also is except for Anchorage which adds industrial fluoride materials into water to treat citizens in what constitutes a bone fluoridation program. . I provided their city assembly copies of the new book chapter on fluoride toxicology. The group Fluoride Free Alaska wrote several thank you's.

It is time to understand that truth is true and facts are immutable. Stop fluoridating U.S. citizens. I am not interested in retribution for this but simply expect the madness to stop. Our children need help, not an artificial  burden to avoid. 

[rs5526]

 Im in Tacoma now. It was posted when in Skagway AK so that was on 8/14.