Reply
Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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. 

 

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! 

30,684 Views
1449
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill O, 

 

This comment is addressed to you.  It begins with your name.  You may chime in on this:

 

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

0 Kudos
1,496 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

The insanity is mind boggling. Promote dental fluorosis thin enamel, to attempt to fght dental caries, when enamel is what protects underlying dentin ftom caries in the first place.

A cavity is the destruction of enamel by bacterial acid. Enamel does not cause a cavity. It is the absence of enamel that is a cavity.

So absence if fluoride doesn't cause a cavity. It is not brushing after eating sugar that does. This is,ancient news.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
844 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

How convoluted can one person be? Here we have a fluoridation advocate blaming toothpaste for dental  fluorosis, but who then admits that "mild fluorosis" is caused by water fluoridation without toothpaste. What?  Both toothpaste and fluoridated water contribute together to cause the current fluorosis endemic. That is precisely what I have been saying all along.  And that is precisely why you cannot sue and win against a water district because they will say the straw that broke the camel's back was toothpaste which came later (as this person here claims). While toothpaste people continue to sell their wares by assuming as long as you don't intentionally or accidentally swallow it, then water fluoridation is the main culprit. Again, they are both contributors, and it's mainly water, as published by the NRC. The toothpaste people are correct. Why argue with the exposure data the NRC tabulated and published? Original studies by Ziegelbecker indicate that fluoride in drinkng water causes dental fluorosis which increases progressively as the fluoride a concentration in water increases. Even fluoridationists accept that all fluoridated cities have increased incidence of dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia. There are no exceptions.

And the data on fluorotic teeth and caries are dismal. The notion that they have fewer caries is ludicrous because the studies published are limited, and the means have standard devations that always overlap. There is no significnat decrease in caries due to fluorotic enamel hypoplasia (as one would expect with thinned enamel.) This is a waste of time since we've gone over this stuff over and over.It's a joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
828 Views
6
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard,

 

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias.  Some scientist.

0 Kudos
837 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

IidaIida

David,  

 

You said,

"CONCLUSION:

This study's findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis."  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049

 

No doubt you won't accept this study, you will have some problem with it, because it contradicts your pre-established bias."

 

Iida's data does show an increase in dental fluorosis with increased water fluoride concentration.  However, when the data is graphed (see above), the claim of benefit you make is hard to detect.

 

Your claim of benefit lacks serious consideration, based on this study.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

1,254 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

I accept studies that present good data. I reject those that don't. So what?

Another fact that dentists seem to not consider is that people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding since people can mistakenly think that it was poor dental care that led to the spots in the first place, or that if better care were used perhaps the teeth would be improved or at least will not worsen in structure. So the study you presented, where fluorotic teeth had a lower average caries incidence than nonfluorotic (but with error bars that overlap) is also degraded because brushing habits and diet do affect caries incidence. It is not the fluorosis, but the brushing habits and frequency of consuming sugars, etc. that actually affect caries incidence. Neither of these were controlled. or are controllable since humans cannot be caged like animals to conrol these variables. Animals have so been examined in perfectly controlled experiments, and fluorosis does not lower caries incidence. Fluoridated water is useles in fighting caries. It is great at causing bone fluorosis. One need not be a scientist to understand..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
869 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,

 

I love how you just say things without presenting a shread of evidence to support your claims.  This for example:  " . . people with fluorotic spots on teeth usually brush their teeth more rigorously and thoroughly than those who do not have fluorosis. Thiis is a common finding . . . "

Well, you said it so it must be true.  That's good enough for me.

 

Why am I not shocked that you have problems with the Kumar Study.  But this was the unexpected part that I liked the best which perfectly demonstrates the odd lengths you will go to for some kind of argument that supports your viewpoint:

"And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals."

 

Yes, that is a great observation, because as everyone knows when studies were conducted that proved Asbestos leads to Lung Cancer, the first thing they checked was bone strength and the IQs of the subjects.

0 Kudos
878 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed ten comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

0 Kudos
1,133 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

  Yes I'm happy to be an actual scientist. And I can tell you that the biased views of fluoridation promoters cause gross misinterpretation of data. The study you cited is one I've looked over before and it proves nothing. The confidence intervals for caries incidence in the fluorotic and nonfluorotic molars grossly overlap. The lower end of the interval for the nonfluorotic is 0.74 and the uper interval end for the fluorotic is 0.89. The profluoride ingestion comments are therefore insignificant. As always.

  And by the way no discussion is made of the overall health, bone strength, IQ, thyroid status, etc. of these individuals. Of course, because of the pre-occupation of those who agree with fluoridation to convince others that fluoridation works.  It does not work, nevr has,and neer will. Fluorosis develops in childhood from the blood-borne ion interfering with normal enamel formation. Normal enamel is devoid of fluoride, which is a contaminant of the bloodstream. It is entirely possible that fluoridationists might never understand this. A total mess.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
847 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Yet another website by Crest toothpaste manufacturers arguing that dental fluorosis spots on childrens' teeth are from drinking water

https://crest.com/en-us/oral-health/life-stages/kids/white-brown-spots-baby-teeth

Need more?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
663 Views
3
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, please . . . 

 

Your quote:  "Excuse me? On what basis does this person claim a "lie"?"

 

Excuse me. this is where I used the word lie:  "Either admit you were mistaken, you misspoke, or you lied.  And then we can move on."  

 

I know it must be enjoyable to play the injured victim . . but it is not warranted in this case.  

So, you said:   'Toothpaste makers argue the bulk of blame goes to fluoridated water.'   No they don't.  You made the original claim in the context of lawsuits - toothpaste manufacturers blame water distributors, water distributors blame toothpaste . . and no one can get sued.  That was the context of your mis-statement. 

 

This is from the link you just provided:  "Another possible culprit of white spots on baby teeth is fluorosis, the white staining that develops when children’s developing teeth are overexposed to fluoride via drinking water or oral care products such as toothpastes and rinses."

 

Again:  "Oral care products such as toothpastes and rinses."  Crest is taking responsibility.  Crest is not "putting the bulk of the blame" on fluoridated water.  

 

Now either admit that you misspoke, you were in error, or you lied, and then we can move on.

Your link also says, "However, there’s a surprising silver lining to excess fluoride intake. According to the American Dental Association (ADA), experiencing fluorosis as a child can actually make your teeth better equipped to avoid future decay."

As you know, teeth with mild and very mild fluorosis are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Your own link says that.  Mild fluorosis, which is associated with CWF, does not diminish quality of life.  Dental decay does.  So this paranoia that you want to generate is meaningless.   One can only surmise what your reasons for doing it are.

0 Kudos
707 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard,

 

Thank you for looking up the links.  On how to prevent the white spots, Crest suggests,

 

" Fostering proper brushing habits with Crest Kids Cavity Protection Sparkle Toothpaste, paying attention to fluoride intake, curbing the consumption of sugary liquids, and maintaining a balanced diet will all contribute to keeping your child’s smile healthy and beautiful for years to come."

 

Vague platitudes.  "Paying attention to fluoride intake."   Exactly what does that mean?  No practical advice and one step above worthless advice.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

707 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Allow me to illustrate the type of deceptive behavior that anti-fluoridation folks employ.  In another thread on this AARP website I asked your own Dr. Hardy Limeback: 

 

“This is a link to an article which can be found on the Fluoride Action Network webpage, written by Michael Connett which features a photograph taken by you.  http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis04b/

“Beneath the second photograph it says, ““Mild” Fluorosis — Photograph by Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD”

 

“Will you publicly go on the record now and state that your diagnosis of these teeth is that they have Mild Dental Fluorosis, as the article says they do?”  End quote.

 

Now this is important because Mild Dental Fluorosis can be associated with water fluoridation.  The second photograph on that link, by Dr. Limeback, shows discolored, brown or orange, teeth which is not characteristic of Mild fluorosis. 

 

Mild fluorosis is characterized by barely noticeable white spots; so unnoticeable that teeth are dried and put under special lighting for the condition to be photographed.  And these teeth are healthier and more resistant to decay.  Mild fluorosis does not diminish quality of life.   

 

So the implication from Dr. Limeback’s photo is:  This is what happens from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

 

Dr. Limeback’s first response was that he didn’t use the widely accepted Dean’s Index Scale but instead used his own “VAS.”

 

He also said, “There is a history behind that case to which you refer on the Fluorideaction.net website. That young man had fluoride supplements because he grew up in a non-fluoridated area. He may have used toothpaste as a toddler and swallowed some but he had no recollection of that. That's all the fluoride exposure he had.  . . .  BTW, no one as yet has determined what the orange colour represents. My expert opinion is that it is extra iron incorporation into the enamel (Canadian beavers and many rodents have iron in their teeth and the teeth have orange 'stains'- that has nothing to do with fluoride). I hope that answers your concerns. Dr. Hardy Limeback”  https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Support-for-AARP-to-take-action-on-Fluoridation/m-p/20407...

In other words, these brown-orange teeth had never touched optimally fluoridated water.  Dr. Limeback believed the orange stains - the most distinguishing features of those teeth - were Iron, and had nothing to do with fluoride exposure.   And this photo was being used to represent a case of Mild Dental Fluorosis. 

 

When I see this kind of deception, which is WAY past not being science, it tells me immediately that these are the folks who aren’t telling the truth because of some agenda they are pushing.

0 Kudos
831 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

The facts are that 85% of the fluoride in the bloodstream of a fluoridaed community of consumers comes from fluoridated water consumption, not from toothpaste. Toothpaste use accounts for about 15%, as published in detailed exposure studies published by the NRC in 2006. Or are the NRC reviewers lying too?.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
667 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Continuing, there is no link or paper or official statement anywhere I know of that states water fluoridation ends up being a bone fluoridation program. But that is, indeed what water fluoridation is because 98% of  swallowed fluoride ends up permanently in peoples' bones. So I refer  to water fluoridation as actually bone fluoridation. Is there a link I can provide for that? Of course not. It is a factual deduction..no links, and so what?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,842 Views
8
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard and David,

 

You both raise interesting concepts which I would like to consider further.

 

For benefit, the manufacturers always say, "look at me."

For risks, the manufacturers almost always say, "not me, someone else is responsible."   No one likes to take responsibility for harm, risks, damage, hurt.

 

Obviously, if fluoride toothpaste is not swallowed, the toothpaste would not be a highly significant source of excess fluoride.  Unfortunately, research (Dec. 2010 HHS) indicates the directions are not usually followed and children swallow their toothpaste.   

 

However, David, the question also screams, what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?

 

What is/are the source or sources in the population at large for the excess fluoride causing so much dental fluorosis for most children?

 

And the more important question, "what do we do to reduce the excess exposure of fluoride for children?"   Where do we cut back on the fluoride exposure? 

 

The clear, obvious answer is to stop water fluoridation and cut back on other sources of fluoride.

 

However, bias prevents metacognition and critical thinking. 

 

Market the benefits, blame others for the risks. 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

683 Views
0
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

Richard and David,

 

You both raise interesting concepts which I would like to consider further.

 

I have not seen advertisements of toothpaste with a full brush of paste on them for a long time.  Advice to use smaller amounts of toothpaste are more clear.  And the advice not to swallow is clear.  If people actually did not swallow the toothpaste, they would have limited absorption of fluoride.  And research on the benefits of topcial fluoride treatment from toothpaste is certainly stronger than ingested fluoride.  And FDA has approved fluoride in toothpaste but not fluoride supplements.

 

If the directions are followed, which research shows is usually not followed and children swallow their toothpaste, then toothpaste should not be a significant source of fluoride exposure.   And it follows that water would be the greatest source of fluoride. 

 

However, David, the question also screams, what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?

 

What is/are the source or sources for the excess fluoride causing so much dental fluorosis?

 

And the more important question, "what do we do to reduce the excess exposure of fluoride for children?"   Where do we cut back on the fluoride exposure?  

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

1,833 Views
6
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Two things, Dr. Bill.  First this from you:  "If the directions are followed, which research shows is usually not followed and children swallow their toothpaste, then toothpaste should not be a significant source of fluoride exposure.   And it follows that water would be the greatest source of fluoride."

 

You are saying if you brush your teeth with toothpaste, which has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, spit it out, . . . then you won't be exposing yourself to a significant amount of fluoride.  Correct?  

 

By "significant" I think we can agree that we mean - not enough to cause any effect, negative or positive.  Correct?

 

Ok.  Try this.  Brush your teeth with something that has 1500 ppm arsenic in it, spit it out, do it two times a day, every day for your entire life, and let me know how you feel in ten years - if you're still alive.

 

You also asked, "what do you think about the latest research that 60% of adolescents in the 2011-2012 NHANES survey had dental fluorosis, 20% moderate/severe?"

I think we are seeing something that we have never seen before.  We didn't see it in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s . . . we didn't see it during the period of growth for water fluoridation in the U.S., which doesn't support what you were getting at.

 

What is different today than during those decades is that now toothpaste manufacturers and marketers make toothpaste flavors that cater to the tastes of kids.  Why?  So that they will brush their teeth. 

 

So now we have grape flavored, cotton-candy flavored, bubble-gum flavored toothpaste.  It stands to reason that an unsupervised 2-year old who gets his hands on a tube of this stuff will think it is some kind of candy and eat the entire tube - because it tastes good.  And it stands to reason that no parent can watch their toddler every minute of every day, and some parents are likely to leave a tube of toothpaste on a bathroom sink within reach of a toddler.  

 

That's what I think about it.  I hope this answers your question.

0 Kudos
1,753 Views
5
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

David,

 

Sorry for double posts.  My computer said it did not go through the first time.

 

Thanks for asking for futher elaboration.  Yes, the FDA requires the label to say, "Do Not Swallow" fluoride toothpastes.  Seems clear.  And the amount of fluoride absorbed from the toothpaste without swallowing is minor.  However, some chemically sensitive people will have bad reactions to fluoride toothpaste touching their skin or mouth, but the FDA considers the risk for most to be acceptable.  The problem is spitting all the toothpaste out.   Is that reasonably possible?  Research shows most people swallow some or most.   

 

David, you asked, "You are saying if you brush your teeth with toothpaste, which has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, spit it out, . . . then you won't be exposing yourself to a significant amount of fluoride.  Correct?"

 

Bill:  Yes, FDA has approved toothpaste.  

 

David continues, "By "significant" I think we can agree that we mean - not enough to cause any effect, negative or positive.  Correct?"

 

Bill: No.  For some there might be a positive effect with mitigation of dental caries.

For some there will be risks such as swallowing, skin irritation (achne), apoptosis of cells, and for chemically sensitive individuals more problems.  In science, the words "always" and "never" are red flags and should not be used.  

 

Your illustration of arsenic is interesting.  I'm not an authority on arsenic absorption through the oral mucosa.  Nor has the FDA approved arsenic, but I would expect the arsenic would reduce dental caries.  Mercury does.    So my answer to your statement is, "I don't know."

 

Regarding your response to excess exposure, I agree.  Flavored toothpastes are highly suspect.  Unsupervised use of toothpaste is a serious concern.  I lean towards all fluoride toothpaste to be by prescription only. 

 

And I don't see where you bring up the fluoride added to water.   Do you think the toothpaste is a problem but not fluoridated water?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

684 Views
4
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

BillO, your quote:  "Yes, the FDA requires the label to say, "Do Not Swallow" fluoride toothpastes.  Seems clear."

 

Not quite.  My tube of Crest says, "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.

 

So the question is:  Why would someone swallow more than the amount that would be on a toothbrush?  Because they wouldn't be taking it off of a toothbrush.  They would be taking it directly from the tube.  And if a parent walked in on his or her toddler with an empty tube of toothpaste, then you might have an overexposure to fluoride . . since toothpaste has about 2000 times the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water.  

 

"And I don't see where you bring up the fluoride added to water.   Do you think the toothpaste is a problem but not fluoridated water?"

 

I've already addressed that.  Since we weren't seeing the sharp increases in moderate fluorosis in the 1960s - 1990s, a period in which water fluoridation was on the rise, but we do see more moderate fluorosis now, when toothpaste marketers are catering more to the tastes of children, with bubble-gum or cotton-candy flavored toothpaste, then, no, fluoridated water does not appear to be a contributing factor to the rise in moderate fluorosis.  

0 Kudos
733 Views
3
Report
Reply
Conversationalist

David,

 

You are so obsessed with proving me wrong, you don't read carefully.  

 

Please, slow down.  Think.  If your Crest toothpaste does not say, "Do Not Swallow" then I'll buy it from you.  Read it again.

 

Yes, the FDA permits variable wording, such as  "If more than the intended amount used for brushing is accidentally swallowed . . "  More than the intended amount, which is a pea-sized drop.  

 

Now THINK, David.   The amount used for brushing is a different concept than "Do Not Swallow."  Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.  The reason for a small amount is so that if the person swallows, it will not be so much.  

 

Would you agree, neither Crest nor the FDA suggest it is safe to swallow toothpaste?  No.  I think we agree.  

 

Now take the next step in reasoning.  How much fluoride is in a pea size of toothpaste?

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

839 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill O.  Thank you for your condescing remarks.  Did it ever occur to you that you might be the one who needs to slow down and think?  Go back, re-read my comment stating what it actually says on a tube of Crest toothpaste, why it would say that, and what it means.  

 

Then before you act on your knee-jerk reaction to prove me wrong, reflect.

0 Kudos
826 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

I would love to see someone try to defend Dr. Hardy Limeback's deceptive behavior which I discussed six comments down.  It is always entertaining to watch biased people try to defend the indefensible.

0 Kudos
861 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

I looked for a mere 5 minutes and found the website for Crest toothpaste. It says when teeth are developing  a child can avoid dental fluorosis by not drinking fluoridated,water.

What more do you want? Toothpaste makers argue the bulk if blame goes to fluoridated water. To get the truth you need to find it. It doesn't come out of a link that spoonfeeds it to you. the site is https://crest.com/en-us/oral-health/conditions/enamel/dental-fluorosis-causes-treatments-prevention

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,818 Views
2
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, you say, "I looked for a mere 5 minutes and found the website for Crest toothpaste. It says when teeth are developing  a child can avoid dental fluorosis by not drinking fluoridated,water.

What more do you want? Toothpaste make4s arg7e the bulk if blame goes to fluoridatedxwater."

 

I believe your last sentence is saying, 'Toothpaste makers argue the bulk of blame goes to fluoridated water.'  Correct?  

 

No they don't.  Do you mean this link from Crest?  https://crest.com/en-us/oral-health/conditions/enamel/dental-fluorosis-causes-treatments-prevention

It says, "Is fluoride bad?  No."  

 

It also says, "Infants can contract dental fluorosis due to the fluoride that is found in water (usually ingested when mixed with infant formula) or due to ingesting fluoride toothpaste."  

 

And:  "For older children, remember to only apply a pea-sized amount of toothpaste and monitor their brushing to help them remember to spit toothpaste out after use."

 

Why spit after use?  So that the child doesn't swallow it.  Why not swallow it?  Because, according to Crest, ingesting fluoride toothpaste can lead to dental fluorosis.  Nowhere on that link does it say the bulk of any problem is because of fluoridated water. 

So, No, Crest does not argue that "the bulk of the blame goes to fluoridated water."  You made that up.  Crest fully admits that swallowing toothpaste can lead to fluorosis.  

 

Please, Dr. Sauerheber, like so many people today, you seem to double-down on a lie once you've been discovered.  

 

Either admit you were mistaken, you misspoke, or you lied.  And then we can move on.

0 Kudos
1,758 Views
1
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Excuse me? On what basis does this person claim a "lie"? Has he seen every posted link on the entire internet and every statement ever made by toothpaste reps/makers and happens to know the statement I read does not exist?  Wow. Between that person and me I know who is lying.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
649 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

It is a fact that Hillary Clinton's landslide victory was prevented in part because u.s. citizens aided russians tied to the kremlin to undetmine the 2016 election. . Where is the link to that statement? I dont know.  I know the,truth. And speak the truth without links.

Understand?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,819 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Just because I don't have a link handy that has  the claim, this does not make the claim false.

Many statements on this,site in fact have provided onlne materials intimating that eating and drinking water infused with 0.7 ppm industrial fluoride is totally harnless after lifelong consumption. This, no matter hoiw many links are submitted that attempt to provide proof of this claim, iis completely false. Lifelong consumption of artificially fluoridated water and foods made from it  causes formation of abnormal bone and the,sequela that exist from it. There is no escape.  

Online Links do not disprove the truth. The truth, that bone fluoridation is harmful, and that toothpaste makers continue to make fluoride pastes at ever increasing F levels because dental fluorosis is attrubuted to water fluoridation which is swallowed, rather than pastes which instruct not to be swallowed, does not exist in links.  If one can't understand these truths without an online link, no wonder so many false beliefs are rampant . 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
1,999 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

This link is from the Columbia College of Dental Medicine. Notice the blame for fluorosis is not on toothpaste, but it is on using fluoride toothpaste if one's water is also fluoridated. .https://www.colgate.com/en-us/oral-health/basics/fluoride/fluorosis

Does this clear things up for all you readers? Toothpaste makers do not accept blame for dental fluorosis. It is the use of toothpaste in a city that has community water fluoridation that is the cause. Get it now? Both are culprits that cause the abnormal thin enamel. Both need to be sued together, but how do you do it?

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
2,051 Views
0
Report
Reply
Bronze Conversationalist

Toothpaste makers know that dental fluorosis,is caused only by bloodborne fluoride and that 80% of the fluoride in the bloidstream in thos3 in a fluoridated community comes from the fluoride,swallowed from municipal fluoridated  drinkimg water. This,was analyzed in,detail,and published in the NRC Report 2006. I dont know if there is a limk indicating water distrcts blaming the advent of toothpaste F for the fluorosis emdemic but i have seen and read such complaints because toothpaste F came out in the 50's after water fluoridation in the 40's. Bu5 what does it matter? Both sources,are guilty for not fully researching its side effects before mass marketing the calcium chelator.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
2,384 Views
3
Report
Reply