- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Rewards for Good
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Good News
- Entertainment Archive
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
I trust the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.
CarryAnne – As noted previously, you are demanding that AARP “Take Action” and oppose community water fluoridation (CWF) based on outlier interpretations of the 70+ year body of scientific evidence and your so-called “civil dialogue”.
You seem to believe that challenging your outlier conclusions is unacceptable.
My claim is that if fluoridation opponents (FOs) were able to produce legitimate scientific evidence that proved the risks of harm from CWF were greater than the benefits of reducing the risk of dental decay – and known health problems decay can cause – the scientific consensus would change. That is how science works – no consensus is protected from challenge and possible change. However, if the consensus were subject to change Demanded by individuals who do not have relevant training and experience (or by a minority of individuals who do have scientific training and experience), or by random change (basically the same thing), science would cease to be an effective tool for understanding the universe or providing safe, effective health care.
As with virtually any scientific or health issue with a massive body of evidence (vaccinations – or nearly any other health issue, climate change, evolution, etc.), it is possible to produce “evidence” and “opinions” that apparently support completely contradictory conclusions. The fact is that all of these issues are extremely complex and listing “evidence” and “opinions” proves nothing.
Individuals and groups that support either conclusion can try to convince members of the public (most of whom do not have the training or experience to actually understand and evaluate the evidence for themselves) by publishing their interpretation of the evidence, or they can provide legitimate evidence that will change the conclusions of their peers – other scientists. Which method do you believe is an effective method for formulating reliable conclusions?
The primary issue, as I see it, is that you and a small minority of FOs with training and experience in relevant areas of science and health (represented by the IAOMT and roughly five other alternate health organizations) have examined the 70+ year body of evidence on fluoridation (thousands of studies and reviews) and concluded that the health risks from CWF are extremely obvious and significantly greater than any benefits.
However, your outlier conclusions are completely contradictory to the scientific consensus reached by a very significant majority of relevant experts worldwide, who have evaluated exactly the same body of evidence, and concluded that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure to protect the health of citizens by reducing the incidence of dental decay and related health problems in optimally fluoridated communities. That is part of a wider consensus that the benefits of all water treatment processes are significantly greater than any known risks. Those conclusions are also recognized by most relevant science and health experts as a scientific consensus.
Actually, challenging the current Scientific Consensus (or Expert Consensus) with new, legitimate evidence is a critical element of the scientific method. That is how science, in all areas, evolves. But the challenge requires convincing most experts that the new evidence is legitimate and actually requires the consensus be changed.
Naomi Oreskes: Why we should trust scientists:
Trying to change public opinions by presenting opinions, biased interpretations of their carefully selected “evidence”, fabrications and fear-mongering tactics is the only recourse of those who do not have the legitimate scientific evidence to present to the majority of experts and change the consensus.
Several Questions about the scientific consensus:
~> What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF?
~> If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?
~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative?
~> What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?
~> Can you explain more clearly your apparent accusations of the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"? (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM)
~> Do you believe those are also accurate descriptions of all members of the 100+ organizations in the world who either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not publically spoken out against it?
~> Do you accept as true Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished. They 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”?
If you accept Dr. Osmunson’s explanation, how would his additional claim “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation” be even remotely justifiable?
~> If the representatives of those health organizations that publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation have not publically denounced CWF, and they have completely ignored &/or misinterpreted the body of evidence you believe proves CWF to be a dangerous practice, and they have followed each other like lemmings, how can any of them possibly be considered the best in their field and experts in any other areas of their practices?
~> Do you believe Dr. Osmunson’s explanations apply to the other 100+ organizations that do not publically denounce fluoridation and their hundreds of thousands of representatives? These organizations 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), and so on…
I trust the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
1.) Your symptoms have never been diagnosed as being caused from the drinking of optimally fluoridated water.
2.) You never answered the question. Have you ever walked along the beach in the ocean (which has twice the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water)? You said bathing in fluoridated water gives you a rash. Does walking in the ocean?
3.) Ah, you've given me Waldbott. What took you so long? These are anecdotal stories from the 1950s through the 1970s. Blood fluoride levels were never measured. Fluoride in urine was never measured. Waldbott himself admitted that he was guessing at the cause of these symptoms.
Is this the "Current Science" that you anti water-fluoride folks are always bragging about that you have on your side? Got anything from this Century?
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
"The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence.” - Wiener RC, et al. (2018)
“Infants, children and adolescents are at high risk of diseases due to over intake of fluorides, through drinking water and/or fluoridated milk, as the deterioration of health is proportional to the dose and time of exposure... avoid the fluoridation of drinking water and fluoridation of milk in all regions of the country.” - Romero et al. (2017)
Case Studies (Waldbott, 1998)
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Carry Anne, your quote: “The purpose of this forum thread started in February 2015 that had 60 supportive comments from about 20 seniors”
Response: I didn’t get the memo. Please show me where the rules for this thread are written so I can review them. All I see is a title indicating that you are “Demanding” the AARP do something for you. Should I be demanding something also? Is that what this is about?
Ok, Carry Anne, since you want to talk about this again, There is not one documented case of any human being who has ever suffered harm because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.
Your quote: “DavidF's reply that attacked RossF misrepresented a reply that provided 23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s) which included one from a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation. The lawyer reported that those client medical records struck a chord in him regarding his own health issues.”
When I click on “a reply,” it takes me to kf’s comment which says: “The sworn testimony of George W. Kell, Esq. (pg58) includes both his personal medical history and documents having received medical records from the doctor of his client, Mr. Riggins.”
And here is the link that KF provided: https://firewaterfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/affidavits-safe-water-assn_plaintiff-vs-fond-du-la...
Let’s look at Page 58 and see if it says what you say it says. Again, this is what you said that it says: “a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation.”
Really? Here’s what the Affidavit actually says: “he brought in a report from a doctor which stated that persons who had previously experienced nephritis or hepatitis were known to be more susceptible to chronic fluoride poisoning.” That’s all it says. There are no personal medical records which are ever mentioned. And this report was from 1968!! That was the science of the time.
There is no mention of “documented medical records.” I didn’t misrepresent anything. You, in your attempt to demand that the AARP does what you want them to do, are lying about what the Affidavit says.
Moreover your quote: "23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s)"
Response: The incident we are discussing happened in 1968. From the Affidavit: "8.) In the early part of 1968 a Mr. Riggins, alleging total disability, consulted me, "
Moreover, George Kell, the guy who is giving the testimony didn’t suffer any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. He himself says that the water he drank had several times the amount of fluoride in it than optimally fluoridated water. Moreover, he provided no documentation attributing any of his problems to fluoride, water, fluoridated water, or anything for that matter. He diagnosed himself!!
You also say that I ignore personal stories of harm, including yours. That’s because you provide no documentation of anything either. You could be a simple hypochondriac, you could be suffering from chlorine sickness, you could be suffering from any number of things. Who knows. The bottom line is that you diagnosed yourself, and you are not a doctor, and there is no documentation of anything you say.
Question: How many doctors have you seen, given them your “fluoridated water” hypothesis, had them tell you that you were wrong, before you just decided to go with your own non-professional diagnosis?
You say that fluoridated water inflames your rashes when you bathe. Really? Have you ever walked in the ocean on the beach, since the ocean has twice the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water. Were your rashes inflamed by that water?
By the way, none of the links to studies that you provided shows that salmon are harmed by cities who fluoridate their water and discharge treated effluent into rivers. All irrelevant to the discussion, unless you are trying that age-old tactic of gish galloping.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
We've already gone over this. Eating and drinking fluoride cannot and does not reduce dental decay (Teotia; Ziegelbecekr; Yamouyiannis; Sutton) . The levels in saliva bathing teeth (0.016 ppm) are 94,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste.
What I defend pepole for is bone health. Fluoride accumulates in bone during lifelong eating/drinking where it alters the crystal structure of bone. In only 15-20 or so years in a fluoridated city fluoride is in bone at levels above that added into toothpaste, all in bone where it does not belong. Bone is living tissue that is a repository for blood calcium.
I defend people's rights to healthy bone tissue.
Adding fluoride into water that fluoridationists deem is somehow created deficiently is ineffective, harmful, and in violation of Federal water law.
The FDA has never approved of fluoride ingestion and ruled that added fluoride in water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug.
The Christian thing to do is to defend the rights of the needy
Richard Sauerheber – One of your claims is actually partly correct (09-02-2018 04:16 PM), "The Christian [or any honorable] thing to do is to defend the rights of the needy, not to find fault and judge them." So my support for community water fluoridation is an attempt to defend kids, elderly, and in particular the poor based on the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.
It is pretty clear to me.
For the record, fluoridation opponents, utilize reckless, anti-science, paranoid tactics to demand that a safe, effective public health measure which reduces dental decay in communities be abandoned. They appear to believe there are no negative consequences to their actions. Scientific studies from over 70 years, however, clearly show that dental decay rates in low-fluoride areas are higher than in communities with optimal levels of fluoride ions – particularly among those with lower, socioeconomic backgrounds.
Associations of Community Water Fluoridation with Caries Prevalence and Oral Health Inequality in Children: (2017, Kim, et al.) “These results suggest that CWF programmes are effective in the prevention of caries on permanent teeth and can reduce oral health inequalities among children. The implementation of CWF programmes should be sustained to overcome oral health inequalities due to socio-economic factors and improve children's overall oral health.”
Hospitalizations for dental infections: optimally versus nonoptimally fluoridated areas in Israel. (Klivitsky, et al., 2015) “These results clearly indicate that there is an association between adequacy of water fluoridation and hospitalization due to dental infections among children and adolescents. This effect is more prominent in populations of lower socioeconomic status.”
Comparative effectiveness of water and salt community-based fluoridation methods in preventing dental caries among schoolchildren: (2016, Fabruccini A, et al.) “CONCLUSION: Fluoridated water appears to provide a better protective effect against dental caries than fluoridated household salt among schoolchildren from developing countries.”
The benefits of water fluoridation across areas of differing socio‐economic status: (2008, Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health) “The results confirm that there is strong evidence of the effectiveness of water fluoridation across SES groups, even when using an area‐based measure of SES split into 10 categories of disadvantage. Both area‐based SES and the concentration of fluoride in the tap water where children live were related to child oral health outcomes.”
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series: (2013, Kamel, et al.) “Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.”
The costs and benefits of water fluoridation in NZ: (Moore, et al.) “Community water fluoridation remains highly cost-effective for all but very small communities. The health benefits-while (on average) small per person-add up to a substantial reduction in the national disease burden across all ethnic and socioeconomic groups.”
Water Fluoridation: Health Monitoring Report for England, 2018: "Children from all areas benefited from fluoridation, but children from relatively deprived areas benefited the most. PHE results do not provide convincing evidence of higher rates of hip fracture, Down’s syndrome, kidney stones, bladder cancer, or osteosarcoma due to fluoridation."
Effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of dental caries across adult age groups: (2017, Do, et al.) “Access to FW was associated with caries experience in Australian adults. The magnitude of associations varied between age groups, dependent on the natural history of caries and its measurement by DMFS.”
The differences in healthcare utilization for dental caries based on the implementation of water fluoridation in South Korea: (2016, Cho MS, et al.) “The implementation of water fluoridation programs and these periods are associated with reducing the utilization of dental health care. Considering these positive impacts, healthcare professionals must consider preventive strategies for activating water fluoridation programs...”
A 4-year assessment of a new water-fluoridation scheme in New South Wales, Australia: (2015, Blinkhorn AS, et al.) “Fluoridation of public water supplies in Gosford and Wyong offers young children better dental health than those children who do not have access to this public health measure.”
Community water fluoridation and health outcomes in England: (2015, Young, et al.) “This study uses the comprehensive data sets available in England to provide reassurance that fluoridation is a safe and highly effective public health measure to reduce dental decay. Although lower rates of certain nondental outcomes were found in fluoridated areas, the ecological, observational design prohibits any conclusions being drawn regarding a protective role of fluoridation.”
Summary of: An alternative marker for the effectiveness of water fluoridation: hospital extraction rates for dental decay, a two-region study: (2014, Chestnutt, G.) “After ranking by IMD, DSRs of hospital admissions for the extraction of decayed or pulpally/periapically involved teeth is lower in areas with a fluoridated water supply.”
Water fluoridation in the Blue Mountains reduces risk of tooth decay: (2009. Evans, et al.) “Tooth decay reduction observed in the Blue Mountains corresponds to high rates reported elsewhere and demonstrates the substantial benefits of water fluoridation.”
Community water fluoridation and health outcomes in England: a cross-sectional study: (Young, Et al., 2015) “This study uses the comprehensive data sets available in England to provide reassurance that fluoridation is a safe and highly effective public health measure to reduce dental decay.”
Repeat of unanswered questions from 08-30-2018 & 08-26-2018
CarryAnne – You still have not answered the questions I asked you on 08-26-2018 & 08-30-2018 or adequately addressed my three observations on 08-21-2018 of how you continually and disingenuously manipulate and misrepresent information. You are certainly better at not answering questions than you are answering them.
These are shortened questions – my original questions were posted on 08-26-2018 05:47 PM, and again on 08-30-2018 04:12 PM after your failure to address them.
I find it remarkable that you seem to believe a public. anti-science thread with the sole stated purposes, “to share personal testimony [anecdotal observations] and advocate for a ban on fluoridation”, by disseminating flawed interpretations of the scientific evidence would not be challenged by individuals who actually care about accurate evaluations and presentations of scientific evidence.
It is my obligation as a scientist to challenge false, dangerous, anti-science propaganda.
Back to the questions you are avoiding, starting with your inability to understand various logical fallacies, yet you have apparently mastered employing them:
Explain how my asking you a series of questions designed to examine your publically posted statements and positions and my requests for clarifications can, in any way, be defined as “A straw man fallacy” where “statements and positions are misrepresented by opponents” (08-30-2018 07:46 AM)? I actually requested that you explain more clearly your statements and positions so I don’t misrepresent them. Specifically:
Q1) Do you accept the fact that the support of CWF by virtually all nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations constitutes the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – YES or NO – and the related sub-questions posted previously.
Q2) Do you accept as true Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim about the CDC, ADA and AAP, “Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished. They 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”? And do you believe that it applies it to the other 100+ organizations that do not publically denounce fluoridation and their hundreds of thousands of representatives?
Q3) Since you have gone out of your way to bring vaccination into the fluoridation conversation, do you also believe vaccination policies (to use your 08-24-2018 10:07 AM language) are also “an immoral medical mandate that forces contaminated product into bodies of convenient consumers regardless of impact on individuals in vulnerable populations who include senior citizens”? Or do you accept the scientific consensus that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh any risks?
Q4A) You still have not addressed my 08-21-2018 01:00 PM correction to your blatant misrepresentation of the precautionary principle.
Q4B) You also did not provide an answer to my question, “If your claim ‘The evidence of harm caused by fluoridation is substantial and definitive’ is even remotely valid, how can you possibly explain the fact, which has been brought up and ignored by FOs 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.” Oh, that’s right – you have listed six alternative health organizations…
Q5) Did you actually describe in your comments (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as (corrected version) -- “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths" Note: I corrected my original use of the term greedy. If I am still misrepresenting your statements, please explain what you actually meant by those comments.
Update: It is interesting to observe that in your “correction” comment 08-30-2018 11:03 AM, you don’t reference or highlight your 08-22-2018 06:59 comment “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA & EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt.”
Instead you reference your 08-19-2018 01:05 PM post in which you only accuse some dentists who “intentionally support fluoridation for this purpose [financial benefit]” and continue with “Most are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks.”
Q6) Do you also extend your description of fluoridation supporters in Q5 to all the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are members of all the other science and health care organizations that continue to recognize the benefits of CWF and have not publically denounced CWF? Or do you have another explanation for why those professional health care providers choose to remain silent – or publically support the practice?
Q7) Another of my questions (08-21-2018 09:36 PM) I don’t remember you answering: ”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 mass poisoning because toxic chemicals are used and there may be health risks from overexposure to disinfection byproducts?”
You are still dodging my questions and providing additional false &/or irrelevant comments, opinions and conclusions.
You still have not provided a rational explanation of why, if fluoridation opponents (FOs) actually have legitimate scientific evidence to support their claims of harm, the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure has not changed in over 70 years. Or, if you believe the scientific consensus on fluoridation is irrelevant, you have not explained what your alternative would be. It appears your alternative is to do whatever it takes to convince the public to blindly trust and accept fear-based, minority, outlier opinions.
Also, you have not provided a rational explanation of why you would trust or accept any claims made by any health professionals who supported or did not denounce CWF:
- If, as Dr. Osmunson’s apparently believes, those professionals who accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective “are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.“
- And, as you apparently believe, they are “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"
Q8 - New) Are all these science and health professionals selectively lemmings, willfully blind, greedy (sorry, [affected by] financial benefit), corrupt, etc., only when it comes to their understanding of the science related to fluoridation?
~> If so, how would Dr. Osmunson’s 07-09-2018 09:09 PM claim “Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation” be even remotely justifiable?
As noted elsewhere, the IAOMT Position Paper Against Fluoride Use with “over 500 citations”, your lists of studies and articles FOs have interpreted as supporting their cause, dozens of opinions from other FOs, and what you accept as “inconsistencies between policy & scientific data” are completely irrelevant to any scientific discussion of the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.
All the tactics of anti-science activists (ASAs) are nothing more than marketing strategies designed and implemented to try and scare the public (most of who are not trained and experienced in science or medicine) into believing the anti-F arguments and interpretations of the evidence have some legitimate credibility. If the interpretation of “evidence” by anti-F, ASAs was even remotely legitimate and credible, FOs would have been able to change the scientific consensus in discussions with relevant experts and there would be no need to try and scam the public.
Environmental References & Sinful Trolls: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz (1995)
DavidF last comment, per usual, is not only not factual but also uses a mix of logical fallacies in order to achieve his goal of burrying useful information under a mountain of rhetoric.
The purpose of this forum thread started in February 2015 that had 60 supportive comments from about 20 seniors prior to the troll invasion is to share personal testimony and advocate for a ban on fluoridation. The fluoride 'rapid response' team that overhelmed the thread in June 2018 has disrupted the conversation with flights into every possible distraction, one of which was arguing over environmental harm (another about Einstein's theories). RossF responded to the environmental issue first with an appropriate abstract documenting that yes, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Services knew in 1980s that salmon are harmed at fluoride concentrations of 0.5 ppm.
DavidF's reply that attacked RossF misrepresented a reply that provided 23 affadavits on harm from 1993 (not the 1960s) which included one from a lawyer who said he did NOT accept the client's word of fluoride poisoning, but was subsequently provided with the medical report from his client's physician that indeed, it was well documented that some people including the client, Mr. Riggins, are harmed by fluoridation. The lawyer reported that those client medical records struck a chord in him regarding his own health issues. In addition to the 1993 affadavits from doctors, scientists and lawyers that attested to human harm from fluoridation, this forum includes personal testimony of harm which David ignores, including mine.
But as to environmental harm from fluoridation which at least is relevant if a little off topic, since I can't find my earlier comment with a list of a dozen environmental citations on harm cause plants & animals due to fluoridation waste water, here they are again (I have more):
- Mullenix PJ. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2014 Apr-Jun;20(2):157-66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
- Camargo, J.A. 2003. Fluoride toxicity to aquatic organisms: a review. Chemosphere, 50:251-264. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12656244
- Pacific Northwest Pest Management Handbook (2018) “Fluorine Toxicity in Plants” by J.W. Pscheidt, Extension Plant Pathology Specialist, OSU. https://pnwhandbooks.org/plantdisease/pathogen-articles/nonpathogenic-phenomena/fluorine-toxicity-pl...
- Karina Caballero-Gallardo, Jesus Olivero-Verbel and Jennifer L. Freeman. (2016) Toxicogenomics to Evaluate Endocrine Disrupting Effects of Environmental Chemicals Using the Zebrafish Model. Current Genomics. 17:6. 515-527.
- Jianjie C Wenjuan X, Jinling C, Jie S, Ruhui J, Meiyan L. Fluoride caused thyroid endocrine disruption in male zebrafish (Danio rerio). Aquat Toxicology. 2016 Feb;171:48-58.
- Huan Zuo. Liang Chen. Ming Kong. et al. Toxic effects of fluoride on organisms. Life Sciences. Volume 198, 1 April 2018, Pages 18-24.
- AW Burgstahler, RF Freeman, PN Jacobs. Toxic effects of silicofluoridated water in chinchillas, caimans, alligators, and rats held in captivity. Research report. Fluoride 41(1)83–88 January-March 2008. http://www.fluorideresearch.org/411/files/FJ2008_v41_n1_p083-088.pdf
- Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714
- Richard G Foulkes & Anne C Anderson. Research Review: Impact of Artificial Fluoridation on Salmon Species in the Northwest USA and British Columbia, Canada. Fluoride Vol.27 No.4 220-226 1994. Included: http://fluoridation.com/enviro.htm
- Kausik M and Sumit N. Fluoride Contamination on Aquatic organisms and human body at Purulia and Bankura District of West Bengal, India. Bull. Env. Pharmacology. Life Sci., Vol 4  June 2015: 112-114. http://bepls.com/june2015bepls/18.pdf
- Sauerheber R. Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride. Journal of Environmental and Public Health. 2013:439490. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/
- Sauerheber R. Disabled Horses: Racehorse Breakdown and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles. Fluoride 46(4)170–179 October-December 2013. http://www.academia.edu/6508850
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
Thanks Ross. This is a great example of what they call “Gish Galloping.” You had originally brought up an incident about an aluminum plant which had harmed the environment with discharge into a river. You saw the word “Fluoride” and therefore, in your mind, it must be a valid argument against Community Water Fluoridation, and you presented it as such.
After I pointed out that this factual incident was completely irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water, rather than attempt to defend your comment, you simply move on to a bunch of other arguments which also have the word “Fluoride” in them.
Ok, the 2006 NRC. There is nothing in that report which says drinking optimally fluoridated water is harmful to anyone. If there is, I’d like to see it. (It’s nice to say stuff, but it’s better when you can actually prove it.)
To the contrary. Dr. John Doull was the Chair of that committee. This is his quote: “"I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level." https://ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Doull-Email-on-CWF-March-2013.pdf
He was asked about it, and that’s what he said. So, again, please show me where, in the 2006 NRC, that committee agreed with anything you just said. Just because it may have appeared in some junk literature doesn’t mean the NRC agreed with it.
You bring up Grandjean & Choi and “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Question: Do you even know what that was, or are you just parroting anti-CWF propaganda that you read somewhere?
What we are talking about here is a Review of 27 non-peer-reviewed papers that came from Central Asia & China, Mongolia, Iran, etc. In China, atmospheric fluoride levels are as much as 100 times higher than they are in the U.S. In other places in Asia, fluoride levels in water are higher than 33 times the optimal level. In other words, we are talking about what might happen from high levels of environmental fluoride exposure.
But you saw the word “Fluoride,” therefore, somehow this is relevant to Community Water Fluoridation.
Anna Choi herself said, “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.,” the researchers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Eagle. https://www.kansas.com/news/article1098857.html
And you brought up a study from Mexico, where, again, Community Water Fluoridation is not practiced.
And you bring up the “Precautionary Principle” (which you have parroted perfectly. You say, “The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientiﬁc near-certainty about its safety.”
Ok, in that case all transportation should end immediately, since millions more people are harmed and killed from automobiles & air travel than have ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. . there is harm to the global environment from mass transportation. Or are you going to be hypocritical about this & say, ‘No, I need my car.’
You also say, “The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of firm evidence and the incompleteness of scientiﬁc knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society.”
I don’t know what kind of “firm evidence” you are asking for. Since hundreds of millions of people drink this stuff every day, they have been for over 70 years now, and there has never been one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed in any way from drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.
There has never been one other study which has looked at so many people over so great a time span. So, just what kind of "firm evidence" are you looking for?
I asked another writer on this AARP webpage for even one documented example of harm, and the best she could come up with was a sworn affidavit from 1968 in which a lawyer diagnosed himself because one of his clients, who also diagnosed himself, wanted to sue the EPA.
But again, I thank you for all of your irrelevant comments and I look forward to the next batch of gish galloping from you.
Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
DavidF references an April 2005 letter from Joe Carroll and highlights “…we have numerous supported and documented examples that demonstrate the excellent health value in community drinking water fluoridation . . . “.
A year from that Carroll letter the major National Research Council report ‘Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards’ (2006) provided evidence that endocrine systems and thyroid functions are impaired at exposure levels to fluoride below the consumption levels expected from drinking what is described as optimally fluoridated water.
NRC (2006) also says that kidney patients and diabetics are susceptible subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides as low as 1ppm concentration.
The U.S. National Kidney Foundation says that kidney patients should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposures.
NRC (2006) also states that fluorides accumulate over time in the pineal gland but at the time of the report, whether fluoride exposure causes decreased nocturnal melatonin production or altered circadian rhythm of melatonin production in humans had not been investigated.
As a calcifying tissue that is exposed to a high volume of blood flow, the pineal gland is a major target for fluoride accumulation in humans with the calcified parts of the pineal gland containing the highest fluoride concentrations in the human body - higher than either bone or teeth.
The 2006 report did, however, state that fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans.
Grandjean and Landrigan in their paper ‘Neurobehavioural eﬀects of developmental toxicity’ in the March 2014 issue of the The Lancet stated that epidemiological studies since 2006 had identified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant i.e. a chemical that can injure the developing brain. They warned that untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development and that chemicals in existing use, like fluoride, and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
Choi et al. in their Environmental Health Perspectives paper ‘Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ showed results that supported the possibility of an adverse effect of fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment and that future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure adn neurobehavioral performance.
A recent study, Bashash et al. ‘Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico’ published last September in the peer-reviewed journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, by a team of investigators at the University of Toronto, McGill, the Harvard School of Public Health, and other institutions found an association between prenatal exposure to fluoride and cognitive development disorders in children.
In this study, higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and non-pregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 years.
The study’s findings, combined with evidence from existing animal and human studies, reinforce the need for additional research on potential adverse effects of fluoride, particularly in pregnant women and children, and to ensure that the benefits of population-level fluoride supplementation outweigh any potential risks.
The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public domain (affecting general health or the environment globally), the action should not be taken in the absence of scientiﬁc near-certainty about its safety. The burden of proof about absence of harm falls on those proposing an action, not those opposing it.
The precautionary principle is intended to deal with uncertainty and risk in cases where the absence of firm evidence and the incompleteness of scientiﬁc knowledge carries potentially serious implications for society.
AARP members will be interested to know that the independent Cochrane Collaboration, which provides high-quality information informing decisions on health issues, found that searching for ‘before and after’ studies did not ﬁnd any on the beneﬁts of ﬂuoridated water for adults.
Fluoridation of community water fluoridation is well outdated. There are safer, more effective and cheaper ways of implementing sound community oral health programmes.
- healthy brain
- AARP Global Council on …
- Alzheimer's Disease
- Brain booster
- brain food
- brain health experts
- Clean water
- Corrupt Law Enforcement
- dental costs
- dental fraud
- dental health
- Diet and memory