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. 

[skanen144]

Spoiler

KenP.

So the words “rare” and “common” are based on your interpretation and not actually in the report? They are only as you say “described” and you should not put them in quotes, these words are your interpretation based on your assumption of the authors’ mistakes.

Why did you quote them as if they were in the report that clearly labeled compounds of fluoride as if to disprove that fluoride is involved in the lead corrosion process.

There are 10,000 data points of lead results from lead service lines (LSL) taken as part of this project from the same site in triplicate, from known LSL, repeatable sampling controlled by computer and analyzed at the same lab on site with identical techniques. Careful analysis of this excellent data shows temperature and pH have the greatest impact on lead levels. Addition of HFSA lowers the pH as seen in Sandy, Flint, in DC. (HFSA has acidity comparable to battery acid) To counter lower pH caused by industrial fluoridation chemicals, tons of caustic are added all over the country to neutralize the high acidity of HFSA to prevent increased lead leaching from LSL. After this study I linked,  DC started adding more caustic to control lead release as I recommended in my Inspector General Report on this study. The expense of this caustic should be included in the total cost of CWF.

Fluoride levels in the lead pipes were secretly varied during this experiment but since temperature and pH were the greatest contibuting variables, fluoridation’s contribution could be only be seen in sections of the data when F was varied and temperature and pH were having limited effect. Even if EPA doesn’t want to admit it, this project demonstrates HFSA increases lead leaching from LSL. It would be very easy to control variables and test this hypothesis directly but since EPA/CDC does not want this information, they will not set up experimentation to easily and conclusively document this.

I posted:

Still referring to pages C-104 to C-111 of https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

Your comment, “ I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

end your comment

Where in the report is this statement?

[KenP315323]

skanen144 - Did you miss my recent reply?

The words “rare” and “common” are not based on my interpretation - they are actually in the report? On page 28, Table 2.8.

You will need to look the table up yourself - the pdf will not allow me to copy it.

I also wrote about the real world nature of such compoiuns=ds where pure end member analogues would be very unlikely and how this makes analytical analysis important for identity - the XRD only determines the crystalline form.

[KenP315323]

Did you get my reply to this - I cannot find it and have trouble getting around this site.

[DavidF928895]

KenP, are you referring to this?

"02-20-2019 01:49 PM

skanen144 inTable 2.8, page 28.

In the real world, of course, the pyromorphite will be a chlorohydroxy analogue, with some F if there is any available for incorporation, rather than a pure end member.

That is why the chemical analyses are so important. XRD won't provide that information."

and

"02-20-2019 02:05 PM

Sorry skanen144, I missed this comment before. I have now answered your question about the location of the comment about rarity.

I am not speculating about what the authors intended - just drawing conclusions from the information they provided. The XRD pattern identifies the crystalline species present but not the composition. It especially would not identify the relative amounts of OH, Cl and F in the structure (although a fine structure analysis might go part way). The Chloro form is most common but one would expect a reasonable amount of OH in the real-life pyromorphite - and some F if any is present in solution.

But it would be completely unreasonable to attribute the XRD peak to just one pure end member analogue, and even more unreasonable to attribute it to a pure end member F analogue.

You are welcome to "stand by" your statement - no skin off my nose. I am just saying it is not warranted by the evidence. And I really have no interest in chasing up the authors - where would I have time to live if I followed up every vague statement in reports.

I am not sure what the whole point if this pointing to pyromorphite scales after phosphate treatment is, anyway."

[DavidF928895]

skanen144 inTable 2.8, page 28.

In the real world, of course, the pyromorphite will be a chlorohydroxy analogue, with some F if there is any available for incorporation, rather than a pure end member.

That is why the chemical analyses are so important. XRD won't provide that information."

and

"02-20-2019 02:05 PM

Sorry skanen144, I missed this comment before. I have now answered your question about the location of the comment about rarity.

I am not speculating about what the authors intended - just drawing conclusions from the information they provided. The XRD pattern identifies the crystalline species present but not the composition. It especially would not identify the relative amounts of OH, Cl and F in the structure (although a fine structure analysis might go part way). The Chloro form is most common but one would expect a reasonable amount of OH in the real-life pyromorphite - and some F if any is present in solution.

But it would be completely unreasonable to attribute the XRD peak to just one pure end member analogue, and even more unreasonable to attribute it to a pure end member F analogue.

You are welcome to "stand by" your statement - no skin off my nose. I am just saying it is not warranted by the evidence. And I really have no interest in chasing up the authors - where would I have time to live if I followed up every vague statement in reports.

I am not sure what the whole point if this pointing to pyromorphite scales after phosphate treatment is, anyway."

[DavidF928895]

Sorry skanen144, I missed this comment before. I have now answered your question about the location of the comment about rarity.

I am not speculating about what the authors intended - just drawing conclusions from the information they provided. The XRD pattern identifies the crystalline species present but not the composition. It especially would not identify the relative amounts of OH, Cl and F in the structure (although a fine structure analysis might go part way). The Chloro form is most common but one would expect a reasonable amount of OH in the real-life pyromorphite - and some F if any is present in solution.

But it would be completely unreasonable to attribute the XRD peak to just one pure end member analogue, and even more unreasonable to attribute it to a pure end member F analogue.

You are welcome to "stand by" your statement - no skin off my nose. I am just saying it is not warranted by the evidence. And I really have no interest in chasing up the authors - where would I have time to live if I followed up every vague statement in reports.

I am not sure what the whole point if this pointing to pyromorphite scales after phosphate treatment is, anyway."

[skanen144]

Ken P.,

Still referring to pages C-104 to C-111 of https://archive.epa.gov/region03/dclead/web/pdf/91229.pdf

Your comment, “ I also note that the report describes fluoropyromorphite as "rare" and the Chloro and Hydroxy analogues as "common."

end your comment

Where in the report is this statement?

[KenP315323]

skanen144 inTable 2.8, page 28.

In the real world, of course, the pyromorphite will be a chlorohydroxy analogue, with some F if there is any available for incorporation, rather than a pure end member.

That is why the chemical analyses are so important. XRD won't provide that information.

[rs5526]

Please. God most certainly did Create the universe.

And claiming this is false and lumping it in with being opposed to the bone fluoridation program endorsed by the CDC is pretty bizarre.

No I wish I did not have to speak with you.

[rs5526]

So now that we see who this person is, notice that the references he provides on fluoride appear to be most all self published opinion papers without peer review and not published in an actual scientific journal. Putting actual publications that have been peer reviewed on researchgate is OK.to enhance visibillty as long as permission is granted from the publisher. However those that have not been published are commonly opinion pieces .

[KenP315323]

Richard, do you use Researchgate?

I, like many scientists, find it very useful as a storage place for my publications. I can't find pdfs of all of them but have managed to put papers from as far back as the 60s and 70s. I find people actually do download them and read them and it really saves me responding to reprint requests.

I am aware copyright could be a problem - but have only ever had one of paper removed for this reason (Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits) because of a journal's actions. I suspect journals worry far less about older papers.

I guess most of what I have put on Researchagte is peer-reviewed - but it is also handy to place pre-publication articles or even just ideas. The journal which published Bashash et al (2017) no longer allows critiques so I put my critique on Researchgate (Predictive accuracy of a model for child IQ based on maternal prenatal urinary fluoride concentratio...). Similarly my critique of Hirzy and Connett's work *(Does drinking water fluoride influence IQ? A critique of Hirzy et al. (2016) and CRITIQUE OF A RISK ANALYSIS AIMED AT ESTABLISHING A SAFE DAILY DOSE OF FLUORIDE FOR CHILDREN).- the Journal Fluoride was not going to publish my critique and turned somersaults to avoid that.

Yes, I realise some people like Geoff Pain use the ability to just put anything on Researchgate as attempting to present their material as "published." As I always say - "reader beware."

Finally, I have a lot of experience as a peer reviewer and of being peer-reviewed and have no illusions about the process. Peer review is never a guarantee of quality and it is up to the reader to make their own assessment of a paper by reading it and considering the data and discussions.

[rs5526]

So my point has been made. I don't refer to critiques as publications. They are comments and opinions about publications.  And of course peer review is not necessarily enough to weed out junk, but it is the best we have at attempting to do so.

Anyone who calls himself a scientist and yet endorses the infusion of industrial fluoride into other people to purposely alter their bodily chemistry and then to tell them that it's for their own good is not anyone I would ever work with. Sorry.

[KenP315323]

Richard, you say " I don't refer to critiques as publications.."
That is weird. Publications are documents that are published. When it comes to scientific journals this usually involves peer review.

Anyway, when it comes to discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a published study it is inevitable that critiques will serve a purpose. Of course, it is up to the reader to approach the critiques in the same way they approach the original paper, intelligently and critically.

I have a thing about this - peer review is not limited to the publication process - it occurs pre-publication and post-publication. That is why it annoys me when a  journal does not accept critiques. That interferes with the whole peer review process.

[rs5526]

Phyllis Mullenix and others have analyzed samples of fluosilicic acid for toxic metal content and for radioactive nuclides, etc.  and their presence is significant. Here in America we have the safe drinkng water act that prohibits 1) requiring the addition of anything - harmless or not - into water other than to sanitize the water and 2) adding anything into water that is an EPA listed contaminant above its Maximum contaminant level MCL  So the fluosilicic acid additions are illegal. 1) They are endorsed and requested by the CDC.

Fluoridationists argue this legal because the final diluted level for arsenic and lead would be below the MCL of 15 ppb each from the preparations after dilution. But the problem is that some cities already have arsenic and lead contaminant issues near the EPA MCL. Fluoridation then puts that over the top and would be illegal even for those critics, but they ignore it anyway, In Carlsbad the EPA limit for lead was exceedced after fluoridation mostly because of the silicic acid that leaches lead from oxidized lead plumbing fixtures. The city said: too bad, it's not our fault because the lead leaving the water district is below the MCL. So it's your fault.

So fluoridationists have never had any intention of actually following our safe water laws.

The Toxic Substance Control Act forbids intentionally adding ANY toxic material into water supplies at ANY concentration (other than the exceptions made in the SDWA for agents that sanitize the water). This prohibits anyone from concluding the SDWA allows them to 'fill er up" with arsenic and lead as long as the final level is below the EPA MCL.

But fluoridationists don't care about following water laws or their intent. In fact, late additions were inserted into the SDWA to allow exceptions for fluoridation that were never part of the original statutes approved by Congress. Fluoridationists will not follow any law if it means they would need to give up fluoridation. They have their agenda and erroenous belief system, and that is that.

[DavidF928895]

Richard, I'm just going to come out and say this.  Either you are being purposely untruthful, or you lack the ability to comprehend the written word.

You write:   "Here in America we have the safe drinkng water act that prohibits 1) requiring the addition of anything - harmless or not - into water other than to sanitize the water" 

Let's do this again, because proving you wrong is just too easy.  WHERE IN THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT DOES IT SAY THAT?

(P.S.  Maybe if you say it enough, it might become true.)

[rs5526]

Are you serious? You've never read the SDWA statement? Why are we even in this conversation then?

No national requirement can be made for any substance to add into public drinking water other than to sanitize the water. 

The TSCA states the same thing only without the exception for sanitizing chemicals such as chlorine.

Where have you been?

[DavidF928895]

Richard, 

"No national requirement can be made for any substance to add into public drinking water other than to sanitize the water."

I know it is difficult for you, but this is not a prohibition.  All it says is that a Federal mandate cannot be enforced locally or upon states.  Anyone who can read can see that.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Richard, could you tell me how many samples of fluosilicic acid Phyllis Mullenix tested?  I am curious how comprehensive her analysis was.

[KenP315323]

I can not see the relevance of Mullenix's fluorosilicic acid paper anyway. It had nothing new in it - analyses of this compound are made and reported all the time as part of the required certification of purity. Her paper just seemed to be pointless except for getting something under the belt - and providing something for the religious anti-fluoride brigade which likes to have a limited selection of ideologically approved papers to use.

I have looked at many such analyses for New Zealand and Australia. Comparing our data with hers I would say the fluorosilicic acid used in New Zealand and Australia has a lower heavy metal content - the purity is probably a result of separation if the volatile heavy metal fluorides during manufacture of superphosphate.

The real critical thing is what the heavy metal concentrations mean when diluted into the final drinking water and how does this result compare with the heavy metal contaminants already present in the pure source water.

My calculations indicate, for New Zealand, the fluoridating chemical contributes less than 1% of the heaving metal contaminants in drinking water - the over 99% comes from the source water.

https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/06/12/chemophobic-scaremongering-much-ado-about-absolutely-...

[CarryAnne]

I apologize if I misintrepetted the content in the link you provided that said your experience is in "soil fertility, fertilizers and chemistry" to include pesticides, but it is hard to determine how I wouldn't assume you work with fertilizers since that's what you listed in your profile. 

I agree this AARP forum is not the place for a scientific debate. This is the place for American seniors to discuss their health issues & concerns in a 'safe environment in easy to understand language' and to engage with AARP as to the policy and advocacy these American seniors would like to see AARP pursue with our U.S. government.

Sharing some science with some discussion is helpful for that purpose, but the AARP forum is not a scientific conference and domination by a few is not in keeping with the 'community' intent of this platform. 

[DavidF928895]

aka "Carrie Anne" writes:  "I agree this AARP forum is not the place for a scientific debate. This is the place for American seniors to discuss their health issues & concerns in a 'safe environment in easy to understand language' and to engage with AARP as to the policy and advocacy these American seniors would like to see AARP pursue with our U.S. government." 

(Timestamp ‎02-19-2019 06:42 PM)

Response:  aka "Carrie Anne," please point out to me in the rules of this forum where that particular guideline is written.  

You're not making stuff up again are you?

[BillO538145]

David,

We have probably been far to scientific and intellectual.  

You have built your faith and trust like a religious fanatic.  

What dosage of fluoride is optimal for reducing dental caries?

What dosage of fluoride are people ingesting?

Very simple questions for the foundation of fluoride supplementation.

Hierarchical evidence is a house of cards.  Answer those two questions and the house of cards falls over.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill, your quote:  

"David,

We have probably been far to scientific and intellectual.  

You have built your faith and trust like a religious fanatic."

Response:  Bill, I completely agree that belief should not be based on faith alone.  Evidence is required. 

You said, "Can you guess what chemical they used to CAUSE the cancer to test their drug?

You guessed it.  SODIUM FLUORIDE."  ‎02-19-2019 11:57 AM

So, rather than just taking your word for it, like a religious fanatic would, please provide some evidence to support your comment.  I think KenP has asked you 3 or 4 times for a reference.  Is there some reason you can't answer his simple question - that you support your own statement with evidence?

And it is interesting that you compare people who just believe things without evidence to religious fanatics because right after you made your comment, with no supporting evidence, Sirpac said,

"Wow! Thank you for this insight, Dr. Osmunson!
Sodium fluoride, and probably other fluorides as well, are the chosen means to cause artificial cancer in test animals."   02-19-2019 01:05 PM

Are you saying Sirpac is like a religious fanatic?

[KenP315323]

I am probably on record somewhere as opposing high fluoride fertilisers. For a long time, I have thought the production of superphosphate in NZ was chemically not ideal. On the one hand, superphosphate is a mixture product - it would be more sensible to produce a pure calcium phosphate through complete acidulation which could be used to produce specialist fertilisers. And the fluorosilicic acid by-product should be used as source material in the fluorine chemical industry. it is a valuable by-product.

The fluorosilicic acid produced as a by-product is quite pure - don't believe the lies about "toxic cocktails." It seems a criminal waste that much of it is returned to the superphosphate fertiliser and applied to the soil. Very short-sighted.

Now, fluoride is being recognised as a contaminant on pasture soils in New Zealand becuase of use of superphosphate. Such a waste - and a new problem arising in high production agriculture.

[BillO538145]

Ken,

You say, "Now, fluoride is being recognised as a contaminant on pasture soils in New Zealand...."

The USEPA classifies fluoride as a contaminant in water.

Fluoridationists desire everyone to drink additional fluoride in public water regardless of the amount of fluoride they are receiving from other sources or whether they show signs of a toxic overdose of fluoride.

US FDA cautions everyone not to swallow a pea size of toothpaste which contains a quarter milligram of fluoride, about the same as a glass of fluoridated water.

US FDA has warned manufacturers of fluoride supplements to stop manufacturing fluoride supplements.

If people want to ingest fluoride, they can get fluoride from other sources.

Makes no sense.

Especially when most are ingesting too much fluoride.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[KenP315323]

Interesting reaction from you Bill - you completely ignored the elephant in the room - another commenter had claimed I worked ion developing high fluoride fertilisers and pesticides.

Are these sort of lies OK with you?

[RandyJ913440]

CarryAnne – You have a remarkable ability for embracing double-standards.   You question Ken Perrott’s credentials and his decision to wade into the anti-science quagmire you created. And yet, I have never seen you provide any of your own credentials.

Do you have any credentials besides a substantial aptitude to copy/paste?   All you have ever done in this comment section is copy/paste standard anti-F propaganda – including nonsensical images (like those of Ken in an apparently deleted previous post), quotes supporting your opinions from various anti-science sources, and excerpts from studies that have been “adjusted” to fit your agenda (example below).

Describe your scientific &/or health care training and experience so those reading your remarkably extensive comments will have a context to assess your opinions?

You didn’t just misinterpret Ken’s profile “to include pesticides” as you noted, You also misinterpreted and fabricated Ken’s expertise to claim his “job was to develop fluoride-intensive fertilizers and pesticides” (neither fluoride-intensive fertilizers nor pesticides was listed), but you also selectively extracted four of the seven skills in his profile to display. (02-19-2019 04:44 PM) I think I can see where you got confused though – In Ken’s profile the words Chemistry, Fluoridation and Fertilizers were close to each other, and it would be extremely easy to construct the phrase “fluoride-intensive fertilizers and pesticides”

Has anyone involved in agriculture ever tried to develop “fluoride-intensive fertilizers”? It appears you are exhibiting quite a talent for fantasy. Would you explain why that would be a product anyone would develop? You provide another excellent example of how anti-science activists (ASAs) not only read what they wish to see, they fabricate their “reality” to reflect their inflexible opinions and beliefs.

If you have actually read the fluoridation studies “in full” as you claim, it is almost certain that you have read them all (and interpreted them all) through the same anti-science filter you used to evaluate and describe Ken’s job and background – and that example didn’t even require any understanding of science.

You claimed (02-19-2019 06:42 PM) “This is the place for American seniors to discuss their health issues & concerns in a 'safe environment in easy to understand language' and to engage with AARP as to the policy and advocacy these American seniors would like to see AARP pursue with our U.S. government.”

I am an American Senior, and there is no place, particularly in an AARP discussion forum, for anecdotal discussions about “health issues and concerns” with a specific agenda that is not particularly well disguised by your discussion title, “Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action”. If there was any legitimate evidence supporting concerns that the “health issues” you and your “American seniors” believe were caused by community water fluoridation, you should engage with the scientific and health communities to change the scientific consensus. That is how science progresses – by providing legitimate evidence to the scientific community – not discussing personal, self-diagnosed health issues like you described in you “story” (below).

I have read around 200 of your comments in this thread, and Ken is correct in his assessment that “Yes, I see you download citations and make claims about them - in bulk. But no discussion.”

Your “references” consist of nothing but citations and what you consider relevant quotes – which are frequently taken out of context – as demonstrated in the US Public Health Service example referenced below (A).

Also, I thought you might be interested in contacting another very active anti-science activist, Karen Spencer, who spends considerable time on the Internet fighting against the scientific consensus and constructing threatening letters to health organizations like the American Thyroid Association referenced below (B) “suggesting” they stop supporting fluoridation or face a lawsuit. I am sure she has absolutely no relationship to you, but your stories – publically provided by both of you – are very similar to each other, so you might want to consider reaching out since you might be interested in her lack of concern for public health and employment of disingenuous anti-science tactics.

CarryAnne ‎07-07-2018 04:49 PM
https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2024156#M767

My Story (summarized):

• As a pregnant woman, I almost lost my child when my city began fluoridation.
• As a young woman, I experienced rashes, arthritis and gastrointestinal conditions that were untreatable.
• As a senior, I experienced chronic kidney pain and a liver crisis that scared me into abandoning my water filter in favor of no-low fluoride bottled water.
• Bottom Line: Now in my 60s, my arthritis of decades duration, as well as my chronic allergic cough, dry gums, IBS, nerve pain, etc., have all disappeared - and they did so in less than two weeks of my switch to no-low fluoride water. No more kidney pain and no more liver episodes, either.

Karen Spencer, Gloucester MA
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/SalemState2016.09.07.pdf

As to my involvement as an activist, it is personal.

• The city started fluoridating July 1, 1981 during my pregnancy. I became seriously ill during my second pregnancy in 1981 and almost lost my child.
• My illness continued after I gave birth. It was marked by rashes, hives, fatigue, and gastrointestinal problems resulting in drastic weight loss.
• In 2014, my “chronic Lyme” hobbled me and I was having kidney and liver problems.
• Nine days after being assiduously strict in my avoidance of fluoride, even using spring water to brush my teeth, my arthritis of 23 years disappeared. My kidney and liver trouble also disappeared. Even my painfully dry gums cleared up.

Examples:

1. You claimed, 02-19-2019 06:36 AM , that fluoridation supporters,“ share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.”- A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz
   
   I would like to remind you of your partial, biased quote from the US Public Health Service 09-13-2018 03:44 PM & 08-27-2018 07:12 PM .
   
   This provides an excellent example to expose and highlight a disingenuous, fear-mongering tactic regularly employed by anti- ASAs and bias-science activists (BSAs) to peddle their propaganda. They also help explain why ASAs & BSAs can come up with what appear to be long lists of references that appear to support their anti-science opinions – yet those opinions are dismissed by the majority of relevant scientists.
   
   The tactic: Extracting out of context content from published papers, which may appear to support their position, when the actual study design or conclusions of the study don’t. ASAs & BSAs not only cherry pick the studies they believe support their opinions (whether the study has anything to do with optimally fluoridated water or not), they cherry pick and present specific sentences out-of-context or cite studies completely irrelevant to in ongoing efforts to frighten the public.
   
   In the example below, your quote included everything in the paragraph from the US Public Health Service review EXCEPT the last two sentences, which you conveniently scrubbed out – and which actually support the scientific consensus that fluoridation does not cause adverse health effects. Here is the actual quote in context.
   
   “Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems. For most of these populations, there are very limited data to support or refute increased susceptibility to fluoride. Additionally, there are no data to suggest that exposure to typical fluoride drinking water levels would result in adverse effects in these potentially susceptible populations.” (Page 162-163) https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf
   
   
2. Communication to American Thyroid Association re fluoridation science, 11 Feb 2016
   “In closing, given the fluoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontario …, and other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be filed, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientific integrity and professional ethics.”
   https://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf
   https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Response-to-Letter-to-ATA-copy.pd...

[BillO538145]

Randy,

Focus on the facts, the science, rather than shooting arrows in other people's backs such as Carry Anne.

She brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted.  

Focus on facts.  Present your scientific research, prospective randomized controlled trials rather than consensus of those without jurisdiction.

For example, Dr. Chuck and I agree the EPA regulates the fluoride contaminant in water.  Do you agree?

We agree the CDC promotes increasing the fluoride concentration in public water but does not evaluate the risks.

We agree local water purveyors decide whether to fluoridation or not.  

Do you know of any water district that has reviewed both sides of the scientific literature by unbiased competent scientists and chosen to add more contaminant to their water?  What scientific evidence do they provide for dosage, efficacy and safety for all individuals?

Thanks,

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[KenP315323]

 you claim Carry Anne " brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted." But this is patently untrue.

What she does is harvest the literature for citations and then throw them out in forums like this. She possibly has not even read the papers cited - but she is certainly unable to discuss them.

After one of these bouts of citation throwing from her, I offered to provide space for her to discuss these in good faith scientific exchange - she refused.

Obviously, this is not the place to discuss in detail the screeds of citations she throws out but I did offer a scientific analysis on one she cited. She then withdrew -claiming this is not the place to discuss science and ran away. We haven't seen her since.

She is typical of a number of anti-fluoride activists who harvest the literature for citations and throw them out without understanding them.

Scientists are aware that all studies have their strengths and weaknesses so we don't simply accept studies (or more naively citations) as "proof" of anything. We analyse the studies intelligently and critically. Extract their positive features and become aware of their negative ones. This leads to a greater understanding of the science.

But scientific understanding is the last thing anti-fluoride trolls want.

[BillO538145]

Come on Ken.  Do you really want to shoot arrows into people or talk facts?

I have read many, many of Carry Anne's posts and indeed she "brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted."   

Do you want to go over the list of good evidence?   If I started, you would fail to respond.  Instead you try to do a character assassination.  Be professional.   You can be better than that if you try. . . I've seen you do better.

You criticize her for harvesting citations.  Indeed, so does everyone.  Every good researcher relies on other researchers.  You want discussion from her, but you fail to provide discussion on my questions.  

Part of the problem both sides have is the many many studies.  Low to moderate quality, but many studies.  For that very reason, fluoridation should stop until we know dosage, exposure, benefit and risks at that exposure.  We don't know what we don't know and should not force medicate when we don't know (or even if we do know.).   

I keep asking for your empirical evidence for dosage or even opinion and I have not seen any response for a couple years.  Because no one has that basic information.  Proponents talk about concentration rather than dosage because we don't know dosage.  Dosage has not really been studdied well.  

You say she does not understand the citations and this is not a place to discuss them in detail.    How do you know she does not understand?  Are you a mind reader?  Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't, but I know for sure, none of us fully understands all the studies and aspects of administering the fluoride contaminant as a medication/drug with the intent to prevent disease (probably due in part to excess sugar intake) to each person without their consent.  

Instead of a personal attack, attack the message with good evidence.

After all, it is you who wants to take away my freedom of choice and have me ingest more fluoride.  How do you know I need more fluoride?  You don't even know if I have teeth.  So how much more fluoride should each person ingest, at what stage of life is a benefit, and how much is a risk?  And what are the synergistic chemicals of harm and benefit.   Yes, caries is affected by other elements such as calcium in the water.   Prevention of caries is a complex issue.

Stick to facts and quit avoiding and evading responding to me by attacking Carry Anne.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[BillO538145]

Come on Ken.  Do you really want to shoot arrows into people or talk facts?

I have read many, many of Carry Anne's posts and indeed she "brings some very good evidence which has not been refuted."   

Do you want to go over the list of good evidence?   If I started, you would fail to respond.  Instead you try to do a character assassination.  Be professional.   You can be better than that if you try. . . I've seen you do better.

You criticize her for harvesting citations.  Indeed, so does everyone.  Every good researcher relies on other researchers.  You want discussion from her, but you fail to provide discussion on my questions.  

Part of the problem both sides have is the many many studies.  Low to moderate quality, but many studies.  For that very reason, fluoridation should stop until we know dosage, exposure, benefit and risks at that exposure.  We don't know what we don't know and should not force medicate when we don't know (or even if we do know.).   

I keep asking for your empirical evidence for dosage or even opinion and I have not seen any response for a couple years.  Because no one has that basic information.  Proponents talk about concentration rather than dosage because we don't know dosage.  Dosage has not really been studdied well.  

You say she does not understand the citations and this is not a place to discuss them in detail.    How do you know she does not understand?  Are you a mind reader?  Maybe she does, maybe she doesn't, but I know for sure, none of us fully understands all the studies and aspects of administering the fluoride contaminant as a medication/drug with the intent to prevent disease (probably due in part to excess sugar intake) to each person without their consent.  

Instead of a personal attack, attack the message with good evidence.

After all, it is you who wants to take away my freedom of choice and have me ingest more fluoride.  How do you know I need more fluoride?  You don't even know if I have teeth.  So how much more fluoride should each person ingest, at what stage of life is a benefit, and how much is a risk?  And what are the synergistic chemicals of harm and benefit.   Yes, caries is affected by other elements such as calcium in the water.   Prevention of caries is a complex issue.

Stick to facts and quit avoiding and evading responding to me by attacking Carry Anne.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[KenP315323]

Come on Bill, make up your mind. You block me on social media and think you now have the right to intervene in a discussion here with someone else. I am sure you and CarryAnne are colleagues - but why do you not let her speak for herself.

It has been me who has presented facts and have not employed a single arrow, character assassination or personal abuse, as you do. Nor do I block people or run away because I am losing an argument - If I am wrong I usually say so, apologise, and move on. I think that is the ethically correct response for a scientist

1: You admit CarryAnne harvests citations. And she does this in an extreme way - a long list of claims and citations she is completely unwilling to discuss.

2: I do not know if CarryAnne understands them or not - but her complete unwillingness to discuss her claims does suggest she has no confidence in her claims. This is a problem I find with many anti-fluoride activists who use barrages of citations. They can't discuss them because they have never read them. In many cases, they haven't even read the abstracts.

3: CarryAnne is the one who refused to have a reasonable scientific exchange on her claims. She refused my offer of a good faith, uncensored, exchange along the lines of the one I had with Paul Connett. And she refused to respond by discussing the one citation I did comment on - chosen as an example as one can have a reasonable discussion about one study but not a long list in forums like this. She just opted out saying this was not the place for such a discussion - which underlines that her citation harvesting and presenting a long list of claims had nothing to do with science or discussion, anyway.

4: I have not attacked this woman - I have simply asked for a discussion and pointed out she refused. To the extent she appears to have disappeared from this forum.

Pease, Bill, you need to stop interfering in other's discussions. It is up to CarryAnne whether she interacts with me, whether she takes up my offer of a good faith scientific exchange on even one of the claims she made. You haven't even bothered to enter into that exchange on her behalf - simply attacked me without any basis.

If I was CarryAnne I would consider your actions rude, intrusive and sexist. If she has the credibility to list a series of claims and citations then she should have the understanding to represent herself in a good faith scientific exchange. 

Has she asked you to speak for her or have you just rudely pushed in and taken it on yourself?