- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Atari Talk
- Games Talk
- Games Tips
- Leave a Game Tip
- Ask for a Game Tip
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Entertainment Archive
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.
However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.
Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.
- 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
- 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞
- 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);
- 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)
Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)
There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
- a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
- b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.
POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD
- In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf
- EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
Progress, at last, Richard.
This is what I wrote on page 9:
"Connett’s point 1: Why should we not be concerned about controlling the dose of natural levels of fluoride (or many of the other elements we consume) while only be concerned about the fluoride added as a “top up?” The are no differences between the “artificial” and “natural” fluoride anions in drinking water. In reality most elements like this have a sufficiently wide range of concentrations and intakes for efficacy that it is just ridiculous to treat them like powerful drugs which need accurate dosage."
What do you actually object to? I ask because there is nothing here relevant to your original claim.
In fact, Connett objected many times and at length to my statement "The are no differences between the “artificial” and “natural” fluoride anions in drinking water." - which is surprising for a chemist. he could not point to anything to support his objection.
You make no sense because you have never said how much, "fluoride added as a “top up?”
You have never said how much fluoride is desired to reduce dental caries?
Top up to what?
Why add more fluoride when you don't know how much fluoride is desired?
Ever since I've communicated with you, perhaps a couple years, you have been silent on the most fundamental question. How much fluoride prevents dental caries?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Richard and Ken,
Total fluoride exposure is so very important. Fluoride from all sources.
Fluoridationists evade the issue and want to talk about fluoridated water as though it is the only source.
You are spot on Richard to bring up the issue of fluoride from all sources.
And Ken, you really mush look at total exposure. Even though you support adding more fluoride to everyone, you must answer the critical questions of
1. How much do you want?
2. How much are we getting?
3. How much more should we get and is that still safe?
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill - I think your problem is the use of meaningless words like "fluoridationist." What exactly does that describe?
Heath authorities are not as idiotic as you seem to wish them to be. When considering the introduction of health policies like community water fluoridation, etc., they rightfully consider a range of factors especially total fluoride intake - including dietary intake.
I cannot see what you comment has to do with Richard's mistaken attempt to attribute a claim to me.
You said, "Heath authorities are not as idiotic as you seem to wish them to be. When considering the introduction of health policies like community water fluoridation, etc., they rightfully consider a range of factors especially total fluoride intake - including dietary intake."
In many areas of Public Health, that is true. However, not with fluoride.
Name the "Health authority" (and link) who is responsible for determining the optimal dosage (mg/kg BW/day) of fluoride for humans.
You are such a trusting soul.
Perhaps you have not read my questions, but lets make it more simple for you.
How much total fluoride is needed to prevent dental caries?
You refuse to answer because you don't know, no one does.
The rest of fluoridation is a house of cards, built on a myth of unknown dosage, assumptions of benefit and assumptions of safety.
I have no idea why you would cling to such an obsurd concept as fluoridation which has no basis in quality science.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Bill, you are being disrespectful (or worse). I am not the authority to ask questions about dietary uptake of anything - not my field, not my interest.
I would simply look up the appropriate sources to find an answer to your question - and I suggest it would be more efficient for you to do this yourself. After all, I know you will reject any answer you get from me - so why don't you take the pleasure (for you) of rejecting the real experts instead of a chemist without any nutritional training, at all.
Conspiracy theorists surely can't get much please from rejecting me - can they?
In an attempt to imply that fluoride ingestion is no big deal because fluoride is ubiquitous naturally, the claim was made in the pdf that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water. You might want to read the pdf again. The other claims against Connett are for the most part misinterpretations of Connett's words that are not his fault. But who wants to spend their life correcting others' junk?
Furthermore, we have fought the San Diego city council for decades, both in a group setting, San Diegans for Clean water, and as many of us individually, and in public gropus at water district headquarters. So to say we need to do something about the overruling of the cities' two votes against fluoridation and the city ordinance against it, as though we haven't, is laughable.
Richard, you tell me "You might want to read the pdf again."
But a quick check on the Connett & Perrott (2014) document suggests to me that perhaps you need to read it yourself.
Nowhere in that article can I find the claim by me that there is"no such thing as naturally fluoride-free water."
So you appear to be arguing with a straw man.
In fact, checking through the document it is Paul Connett who refers mostly to natural fluoride in water or naturally fluoride-free water - not me.
Have a search for the word "naturally" to check that out.
Of course, if you can produce a quote of mine I am open to discussion - but as it stands there is nothing here to discuss.
You are telling us that, people are so brain damaged by fluorides in this country that they cannot discern facts from propaganda? You say that:“Voters make their decisions according to values - not science.” Ok, so what values? The value to be able to ingest clean water or the value imposed by the brainwashing of the fluoride disposing industry or the propaganda ministry of the milutary industrial complex?
Then you claim that: “The science is far too complex for even representatives to understand, let alone voters.” Really? The science is more than clear that all fluorides are neurotoxic endocrine disrupting enzyme poisons. What is so compkex about that?
“It comes down to where one lays one's confidence” - Yes, with valid science and not with venally interested “health experts” of the fluoride disposal industry. They can ingest their rat poison toorhpaste as much as they wish, but what right does any “health expert” have to poison the public water supply? Again, where is the informed consent that belongs to individuals and not to some unknown “health experts” that take no responsibility for any outcomes whatsoever!
This is a public forum and not a private “conversation” between you and Dr. Sauerheber. Thus, my reply is hardly an “intervention”. If you don’t want people to post on this public forum, then keep your opinions to yourself. The water fluoridation issue is a matter of public interest, since such policies are forcefully imposed on the public.
Then, I have heard your venally interested “health experts” make such idiotic statements as: “Fluoride is a natural mineral”. Omg! That right there makes it clear that these so called “health experts” know absolutely nothing about fluorides, since fluorine is a gas and not a mineral. Thus, fluorides are compounds of multiple different chemicals and metals, but these “health experts” obviously do not know that. Therefore, keep those parroting charlatan “health experts” out of the public water.
Again - your reply does illustrate my point.
You seek to offend and in the process display a complete lack of knowledge of the subject.
No one with an ounce of chemical knowledge describes fluoride as a "mineral." It is an anion. It occurs naturally in minerals (but in itself is not a mineral) and it is ubiquitous in surface waters as the hydrated anion.
Fluorine is the name of the element which is gaseous (as the F2 molecule) at normal temperatures and pressures. However, it is very reactive so easily convert to the fare more stable ionic form.
As a collective term fluoride can be used to describe chemicals and minerals, naturally occurring and synthesised, containing the fluoride anion in their structure. However, it is incorrect to use the term where the F atom is covalently bound as in many organic compounds and in natural minerals like apatites.
So Ken and Richard are at the fluoridation issue. Amazing how you two get around.
Ken, you wanted a "discussion" "debate" on fluoride and I agreed, sending you information about excess exposure. You were having email/computer problems and that is the last I heard.
Simple questions on exposure should be considered.
1. How much ingested fluoride is recommended to prevent dental caries?
2. At what age should the fluoride be ingested?
3. At the recommended dosage, what are the risks for all ages?
4. What label should be placed on the fluoride products?
5. How much fluoride is each person receiving from other sources than artificial fluoridation?
Of course there are more questions, but those seem to be the most basic.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH
Yes, Bill, you had agreed to a scientific exchange with me and actually sent me a pdf for your first contribution. I got back to you wanting your help in providing the references and one of the images to make it suitable for publication.
At that stage, my hard drives packed up and I lost most of my material. It has been a slow process recovering what I could from backups.
I am still waiting for your final version of the contribution (I think you were traveling or also having computer problems at the time so couldn't respond at the time).
Anyway, I can start the exchange as soon as I get the final version of your contribution with the references and proper images.
I look forward to this exchange as you were concentrating on dental fluorosis and I had been preparing something on that.
Except that the suffix "ide" is also used when naming any bnary compound which of course contains two types of elements. So this also includes organic fluorides such as CF4 being named carbon tetrafluoride, etc.
For a review of the meaning of fluoride you might want to read the endnote supplement to the article "Physiologic Conditions affect the Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride," Journal of Environrnental and Public Health 439490, 2013 availalbe online at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
Richard, I prefer a more exact nomenclature - especially as some people get confused about how covalently bound F is released to form the fluoride anion.
Anyway, I take it that from your inability to provide quotes and citations you no longer wish to pursue the arguments you were making about "inaccuracies" in Connett & Perrott - The Fluoride Debate.
But fluorinated drugs most certainly are partially metaobolized, typically about 10% releasing free fluoride ion. There is nothing wrong with the chemical recogtnized by IUPAc, nomenclature system that incluedes naming C-F compouinds as fluorides, such as ethyl fluoride, methyl fluoirde,etc. If you want to take up your desires with IUPAC, be my guest.
And no the arguments protecting Connett from the false claims in the pdf were not dropped. The posts already made are simply being ignored in order to conveniently attempt to drop them.
What I said stands.. There are waters that are naturally frree of fluoride, contrary to the claim in the pdf. And just because ingesting fluoridated water does not immediately lead to clnically detectable symptoms and signs does not justlfy the claim that fluoride causes no harm. That is insane. Bone accumulation begins with the first sip of fluoridated water and likewise the earliest pathologic abnormality is elevated calcitonin and PTH together, along with formation of bone of poor quality and altered crystal sturicture. At first for a chronic ttime periodr there are no associated symptoms or signs, either one.So what? That does not mean Connett is wrong, it means he is correct to criticize and denounce fluoridation of people even befroe there are clinically detectable abnormalities. We have no equipment or test that is noninvasive to assess the bone damage that occurs during the "subclinical' stage of bone fluorosis. Where do you get this stuff? It would be like claiming it is OK to eat pure cholesterol because for many years you will have no clinically detectable stroke symptoms or angina or other heart symptoms, all while one's carotids and heart artereis are becoming structurally abnormal due to atherosclerosis. Just because there are no symptoms or signs does not mean it is healthy. Quite the contrary. Fluorosis in the temporary absence of symptoms is nevertheless pathologic.
Whilst we welcome robust debate, we ask that everyone abides by the guidelines.
Please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.
A new study reporting the ranges of values for kidney and liver parameters in a healthy population is being actively misrepresented by anti-fluoride campaigners. The Fluoride Action Network’s (FAN) latest bulletin claims the study shows “that fluoride at commonly experienced doses can damage the kidneys and livers of adolescents.”
The study shows nothing of the sort. How could it – individuals suffering liver or kidney disease were specifically excluded from the study population. The reported parameter values are all for healthy individuals.
Anyone who argues for water fluoridation policy is a fluoride promoter! It is ridiculous to argue otherwise. Also, there is no demorcracy in the forced fluoridation policy, which is imposed on brainwashed inhabitants of fluoridated districts. As noted by Dr. Sauerheber, such unethical fascist policies have nothing to do with democracy. Not only have citicens of many of these locales voted against such unconsented mass poisoning, it is obvious that the will of the subjects makes no difference to the policymakers, as the forced poisoning continues. Thus, the US is not a democracy, as long as the forced fluoridation continues.
Finally, medicating individual bloodstreams with artificial industrial waste silicofluorides should never be a policy issue in the first place. The Nuremberg code and the Helsinki and Belmont declarations make it clear that forced medication is unethical and requires individual informed consent. If any single person refuses to consent to be forcefully medicated through the water supply, then they have a right to refuse, and such policy cannot be ethically imposed. Since fluoridation continues, regardless of individual right not to be forcefully medicated, it is obvious that water fluoridation is based on fascist dictatorship and not on any democratic principles or truth for that matter.
No I understand it. Thats why I am a Democrat.
But fluoridation misinformation and deception is so bad, especially on the pro side, that informed voting is rare..
In San Diego even though voters were well informed and voted twice, in two separate elections, against it, San Diegans are all forced to accept water infused with industrial fluoride anyway.
Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with fluoridation of water in So CA, where officials actually wrongly believe that it has some health benefit.
San Diego citizens voted and passed city ordinance section 67 that prohibits adding any fluoridation materials into our precious limited drinking water supply. And yet city officials accepted fluoridation against the voting public will anyway. Fluoridation is a forced police action and is as anti-Democratic as anything could get. I most certainly do "get it".
Being a Democrat is hardly an indication of democratic views when we consider recent history where Democrat leaders refused to accept an election result purely because their woman didn't win.
If you think a referendum in San Diego was not followed then do something about it. This is what we did in our city and we won - the council was forced to reverse its undemocratic decision to stop community water fluoridation and accept the overwhelming vote of the citizens.
Voters make their decisions according to values - not science. The science is far too complex for even representatives to understand, let alone voters. It comes down to where one lays one's confidence - with scientific and health experts or with alternative and "natural" health experts (who are often financed by big business anyway)
The term "Democrat leaders" is nonsensical. When the GOP began using the term Democrat Congress or Democrat party (as though there is only one democrat in it) they revealed their disdain for the Democratic Party. I recall the term was invented when president Obama was elected. Most republicans never got over it and vowed to make him a one term president the day he was inaugurated.
Please spare us. I've pointed out several false claims made in the provided link, like the claim that there is no such thing as a natural water that is fluoride free.
Dr. Connett does not do experimental research anymore So what? He is a teacher and sees his job is to explain the vast research that is done that demonstrates the fallacy of a worthless, harmful, un-Democratic procedure forced on people against their will. I applaud his efforts and oppose those who ridicule him and misrepresent the truth about "mass fluoridation".
Richard, if you question a claim made in Connett & Perrott (2014), The Fluoride Debate (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate) then, by all means, make your critique - but please provide a reference or citation (page numbers and quote will do.
Remember there are two authors and the chapters alternate between authors. (Paul Connett made many false claims and I spent most of my time showing where he was incorrect or simply promoting misinformation).
I cannot respond to your assertion that I "claim that there is no such thing as a natural water that is fluoride free." I need to know exactly what you are objecting to in my writing.
To say that fluoride is ubiquitous is not at all contradicted by the fact that in many waterways the F concentration is below the detection method of the methodology used. That is simple chemistry.
But, please can you back your claims with some sort of citation and quote. For example - you say without citation "In the Pacific Northwest such as Klamath Lake there is no measurable fluoride in the water naturally (below 0.05 ppm). The same is true for many fresh drinking water sources." Yet Klamath Blue Green Algae, which is harvested and sold by alternative health advocates as a beneficial supplement, contains 872 ppm F. (https://algae.uk/minerals.html).
Yes, Paul, no longer does any research or teaching. But we are peers in the sense we have both done research and taught, although in different relative amounts.
The fact is that however he, or you, might "see his job" he makes many unsupported assertions about the science - even promoted many distortions of the science. I have covered many of these in b my articles and The Fluodie debate contains both his incorrect claims (in his chapters) and their refutation (in my chapters).
And here is a typical misrepresentation of the science coming from a FAN press release (which of course will have been written by, or eat least approved by, Paul):
"Fluoride exposure may lead to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents, according to a study published by Mount Sinai researchers today, August 8, in Environment International. "
Yet the fact is the cited paper did not research harm to kidney and liver - it simply presented the range of values for 9 kidney and liver parameters in a healthy population.
I quote the authors of the cited paper:
"this study did not aim to determine whether fluoride exposure is associated with clinical decrements in kidney function among U.S. adolescents. Rather, this study aimed to examine subclinical changes in kidney or liver parameters associated with fluoride exposure
among a generally healthy population. For example, the lowest GFR estimated in this study was 84 mL/min/1.73m2, and therefore none were below the<75 mL/min/1.73m2 value considered reflective of abnormal kidney function. Future prospective studies including participants with and without kidney disease are needed to assess clinical changes in kidney or liver function."
This is just a single example of the misinformation and distortion of science promoted by Paul Connett that needs to be corrected. In this case, I consider that "my job."
Fluoridationists typically claim that fluoride ingestion does not harm bone because drinking it for years produces no clinical symptoms. What they overlook, as with kidney, brain and other organ altetations that are subclinical, is that fluoride accumulates its effects during lifelong consumption since fluoride is a calcium chelator. This causes in bone the formation of abnormal bone with an altered crystal structure which is not biochemically reversible. The NRC report summarized the effects by saying that clinical bone pain typically begins after F accumulates to about 3000 ppm in bone. But the data in the associated table demonstrate that bone pain occurs over a broad range, even in some cases at only 1700 ppm. Most people accumulate F to 2500 after about 20 years of ingesting fluoridated water.
The point is that fluoride is a contaminant that poisons bone, and the bone structure abnormality begins with the first sip of fluoridated water.
A low dose calcium chelator poison does not produce clinical symptoms at first, but the effects are nevertheless abnormalities. TSH and PTH and calcitonin levels in blood are all elevated in fluoridated water consumers where the hormones attempt to prevent clinical symptons, of thyroid deficiency and proper blood calcium levels, respectively. But the lack of clinical symptoms does not mean to go ahead and continue to let the abnormality progress.