- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action
“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t.
However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans.
Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water.
Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing. Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation.
- 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
- 2015 in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞
- 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
- 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium);
- 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/
RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)
Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011.
- 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
- 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
- 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml
2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY)
There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf
- a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
- b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities.
POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD
- In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf
- EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008
- Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
- Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.”
- PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response:
- a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853
- b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
- c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/
- d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
- e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
- f. Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
AARP - STAND UP on our behalf!
CarryAnne you express concern about people who "who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance" And then you post a long list of claims related to scientific studies which would be interesting to discuss and discuss in a respectful way.
I am prepared to offer you full right of reply in an ongoing exchange of scientific opinion on all the claims you make here (they are far too extensive to discuss rationally in this forum). This could be done by alternating articles on my blog Open Parachute.
Paul Connett and I carried out such a good faith scientific exchange 5 years ago and covered these sort of claims in detail. it was well received by readers and is available as a pdf to download - Connett & Perrott (2014) The Fluoride Debate - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298124881_The_fluoride_debate
Would you agree to a similar exchange with me? I think this would overcome charges of science denial, denigration and bullying. And the formal scientific nature of the exchange will encourage it to be respectful.
Please let me know here if you are willing to participate in such a scientific exchange - and if so, some way of contacting you to make the arrangements.
Well, "Carrie Anne," this is an interesting comment from you:
"What we are talking about is the arrogance of fluoridationists who deny science and denigrate opponents in an attempt to bully professionals, politicians & politics into compliance."
It is interesting in light of the fact that you began this thread which you yourself dubbed, "Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action."
Please don't tell me you don't see the irony here.
Excuse me but we need more of Carry Anne, not less.
The city of San Diego voted in two separate elections -- yes, twice-- not to add fluoridation chemicals into our pbulic water supplies. Eating fluoride should be a choice, not a police-forced mandate. And yet all SanDiego is forced to make payments for water in their kitchen sinks that is fluoridated, regardless of whether you want it or not.
Yes I see the irony.
Really, Richard? San Diego voted twice to end CWF? I wonder if they were dishonestly influenced by people like you.
You, for example, who have said in an email to me, " in 1988 EPA published in the Federal Register that it terminated the agreement it made in 1979 (1979 MOU) with FDA to regulate water additives. This was effective in terminating the1979 MOU (53 FR 25586-89 to be forwarded later)."
That is your quote. You were trying to say that nobody is in charge of Community Water Fluoridation in the United States.
As evidence, you presented this document: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/wp-content/uploads/53-FR-25586.pdf
I invite any readers of this thread to fully read this document. It is about the EPA outsourcing some of its responsibilities to NSF and the private sector, which was formalized in 1988. It has nothing to do with ending a Memorandum of Understanding between the FDA and the EPA about the authority over water fluoridation in the U.S.
Since you have the unwaivering habit of never admitting you are wrong about anything, I'm sure you will stand behind your ludicrous statement.
So, did you, personally, have anything to do with the San Diego vote? If so, they were misled.
The absurd and impossible claim that fluoride remineraluzes teeth is false advertising. Healthy normal rock hard translucent crystallinw teerh enamel contains no fluoriide. So how could fluoride cause it to be mineralized again? It cant. If one said calcium phossphate remineralizes teeth at least you would have a chemical argument to make..
Yes, of course, phosphate and calcium, together with fluoide, are involved in remineralising teeth, as well as inhibiting acid attack. The scientific observation that acid attack is moved to lower pH values when fluoride is present underlines how the involvement of fluioide in saliova helps reduce acid attack but calcium and phosphate are also involved in the chemical reactions occurring at the tooth surface.
There is a natural concentration on fluoide, but there are similar research reports of calcium levels in drinking water influencing the prevalance of tooth decay. In my own research, I have seen how calcium contrations in soil solution have a dramatic effect on the solubility of fluorapatite in soil.
Tooth enamel contains a small amount of fluoride in its chemical structure. But the important fluoride for existing teeth is at the surface of the tooth and in the saliva where it is involved, together with calcium and phosphate, in the surface reactions.
That important fluoride is in the surface layer of only a few nanometres. Read my recent article on this describing the recent research showing how that surface fluoride inhibits acid attack - https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2018/11/26/protection-of-teeth-by-fluoride-confirmed-yet-again/
Your article suggests that fluoride is a peripheral contaminant on the surface of teeth when it is applied at 500 ppm. This has nothing to do with water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm that produces 0.016 ppm fluoride in saliva bathing teeth topically.
Further, one would need to brush teeth with 500 ppm fluoride every 20 minutes to actually retain this effect. It would be more efficient to paint teeth with white paint.Atleast theprote4citon from acid erosion would last for a while.
All this to justify increased cancer mortality, increased thyroid impairment, lowered IQ, and permanent bone accumulation forming bone of altered crystal structure and poor quality.
Count me out. .
Richard, you are being purposely obtuse. The study I referred to was with a model apatite system, not teeth but designed to answer the question of whether the very thin surface layer with high fluoride content could provide the correction required. They used the 500 ppm solution to create the surface layer in their model - but this surface layer in existing teeth has been recognised before.
You continue to refer back to the 0.016 ppm F in saliva from INGESTED F - freshly excreted saliva without any interaction with food and beverage. You purposely attempt to confuse the issue because you know very well I have been discussing saliva with fluoride, calcium and phosphate levels which are far higher because of exposure to beverage and food during eating. Also to F released from CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity.
Please stop attempting this confusion - which seems quite common from people trying to deny the science. Paul Connett got to the stage of arguing that when one drank water there was no way it made contact with saliva in the mouth!!
Yes, the level of salivary chemical species like fluoride, calcium and phosphate does decline quite rapidly - that is why research shows that drinking fluoridated water has a protective effect above and beyond the use of fluoridated toothpaste once or twice a day
I just hope you can reduce these deliberate attempts at diversion and confusion as they make good faith scientific exchange impossible.
Richard, your quote: "All this to justify increased cancer mortality,"
Response: While water fluoridation is increasing in this country, https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/FSGrowth.htm
cancer mortality is declining. https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.html
No doubt you will try to defend your comment, even in the face of reality. Poor Richard.
I am not "poor". I am merely aware of the data from the text Fluoride the Aging Factor by biochemist John Yiamouyiannis. I do not dispute the data like fluoridationists do. It is valid and was used in several court cases to demonstrate that cities before fluoridation had diminishing cancer mortality at a much faster rate than after fluoridation began..
What else do you want me to say? Denounce the data?
Richard . . Richard . . Richard.
" I am merely aware of the data from the text Fluoride the Aging Factor by biochemist John Yiamouyiannis. I do not dispute the data like fluoridationists do. It is valid and was used in several court cases to demonstrate that cities before fluoridation had diminishing cancer mortality at a much faster rate than after fluoridation began..
What else do you want me to say? Denounce the data?"
Response: John Yiamouyiannis? Isn't he the guy who said HIV doesn't cause Aids? Yes, he was.
Do I want you to denounce the data? No. I would like you to look at the data of this century. "Fluoride the Aging Factor," was published in 1983.
It is a fact that Cancer Mortality is declining in this country https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2019.html . . . And it is a fact that water fluoridation is increasing in this country. https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/statistics/FSGrowth.htm
Yiamouyiannis' skewered data of more than 35 years ago is irrelevant.
And, as expected, you have looked truth in the face and denied it because your own biases outweigh your slipping grasp of reality. What a great scientist you must be.
Fluoridation of major cities in the U.S. did not occur in 1945. Only two cities were force drugged back then and the bone thickening observed,on xrays,was ignored because the examiners already decided they wanted fluoridatuon to be aporoved.
The major spread started in the 1960s. The entire LA basin began in 2011 and,san duego ca in,2013.
So cancer mortality needs to be studied in a proper selective,way. Yiamouyiannis had the best data demonstrating that fluoridation blocked the decrease in cancer mortality in all fluoridated cities examined pre and post fluoridation.
Richard, if this comment is a response to my comment, it is moot.
Your quote: "Fluoridation of major cities in the U.S. did not occur in 1945. Only two cities were force drugged back then and the bone thickening observed,on xrays,was ignored because the examiners already decided they wanted fluoridatuon to be aporoved.
The major spread started in the 1960s. The entire LA basin began in 2011 and,san duego ca in,2013. . . . . "
Richard, I was responding to Sirpac who was implying that life expectency in the United States had been declining over the past 3 years because of water fluoridation.
Sirpac provided this link to support his comment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-science/us-life-expectancy-declines-again-a-d...
This quote is from Sirpac's own link:
"Drug overdoses set another annual record in 2017, cresting at 70,237 — up from 63,632 the year before, the government said in a companion report. The opioid epidemic continued to take a relentless toll, with 47,600 deaths in 2017 from drugs sold on the street such as fentanyl and heroin, as well as prescription narcotics. That was also a record number, driven largely by an increase in fentanyl deaths."
This was also from his link:
"Other factors in the life expectancy decline include a spike in deaths from flu last winter and increases in deaths from chronic lower respiratory diseases, Alzheimer’s disease, strokes and suicide. Deaths from heart disease, the No. 1 killer of Americans, which had been declining until 2011, continued to level off.
Deaths from cancer continued their long, steady, downward trend."
Richard, you also said,
"So cancer mortality needs to be studied in a proper selective,way. Yiamouyiannis had the best data demonstrating that fluoridation blocked the decrease in cancer mortality in all fluoridated cities examined pre and post fluoridation."
No. Death from cancer is decreasing. Suicide and drug overdose are why life expectency in this country is declining. Death from the Flu also contributed to this trend. Let's not forget to include our anti-vaccine fanatic friends who made their own small contribution to the increase of death in the U.S.
Again, this country has bigger problems than water fluoridated at the optimal level of 0.7 parts per million.
Compact bone and,spongy bone are completely different structures and turnover in compact bone is extremely slow and not known for any given individual. If you want to disagree with the,assesment by the NRC with an estimated floirude half removal rate of 20 years, go ahead and good luck with that. .i choose to stick with facts.. and 20 years,is hardly the feature of a nutrient. It is an accumulative poison that causes formation of bone of poor quality. At uncertain levels perhaps around 1700 mg/kg it forms exostoses that are not reversible. Im sorry to burst your bubble but the trurh is what matters..
If you want you can read the fluoride toxicology chapter in the recent text top ten contributoons in environmentsl health or the original article in the journal of environmental and publuc health 439490.
Yes, the plea to "get real" always comes up when attempting to carry out a scientific exchange with those people ideologically opposed to community water fluodiation. People who characteristically misrepresent and distort the science.
In this case, pointing out how fluoride, phosphate and calcium in food and beverages contribute to increased concentrations of these chemical species in saliva gets a common response by distorting the issue. The small increase if F- concentration of excreted saliva may or may not confer a health benefit - but we are not talking about that. We are discussing the increased saliva concentration of these chemical species because of inputs from food and beverage (and also F from CaF2 reserves in the oral cavity).
I just wish people would stop misrepresenting the issue and face up to a good faith scientific exchange.
It is amazing how some people still insist that there is some 'benefit' from artificial water fluoridation with toxic industrial waste silicofluorides, when there is absolutely zero valid science to support such ridiculous assertion. Not only is there no benefit, regardless of what some authoritative bodies may claim, fluorides are category 6 toxins by law. It is abviously not a large leap to think that people, who continue to sponsor this "dilution is solution to pollution" policy, have some alterior motives that have nothing to do with health whatsoever.
In comparison to the fluoridated US, where life expectancy continues to drop and cancer rates soar, the Hunza live up to 120 years on average, with no modern medical or chemical interventions. What is wrong with this picture? https://www.shughal.com/health-secrets-hunza-people-live-100-years-cancer-free/
Sirpac, More about the Hunza --
In 1996, John Tierney wrote:
"When I went there seven years ago to write about the fabled ''Hunza health secrets,'' I understood why everyone called it Shangri-La.
"It was the most beautiful place I'd ever seen. The valley's lush green terraces were shielded from the outside world by a 25,000-foot pyramid of snow shaped just like the mystical mountain in Hilton's novel, and there seemed to be a remarkable number of old people as hale as the monks of Shangri-La. But my enchantment didn't last. The great Hunza secret to old age turned out to be its absence of birth records. The illiterate elders didn't know how old they were, and they tended to overestimate their ages by a decade or two, as I discovered by comparing their recollections with known historical events. Hunza didn't have an unusual number of centenarians, it turned out, and its traditional way of life was not a formula for good health.
"The mountain air did seem pristine, but the people spent most of their time inside mud huts breathing horribly polluted air from open fires. They suffered from bronchitis and a host of ailments like tuberculosis, dysentery, malaria, tetanus and cancer. An iodine deficiency in their diet caused mental retardation. Children went hungry in the spring as food stores dwindled. . . " https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/magazine/the-optimists-are-right.html?pagewanted=2
Interesting observations, Sirpac. If only any of it were true.
My google search showed me that life expectency in the U.S. has been on a steady incline since 1970. At about 2010 it leveled off. And for 3 years now it has begun to drop off. https://www.google.com/search?q=Life+expectancy+rates+in+the+u.S.&rlz=1C1GIWA_enUS592US594&oq=Life+e...
Since Water Fluoridation has been around since before the 1950s, and life expectancy has steadly gone up until 2010, your theory doesn't make much sense.
Moreover, it appears that suicide and drug overdoses are responsible for the current drop in life expectncy in this country. We've got bigger problems than water fluoridation. https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/29/health/life-expectancy-2017-cdc/index.html
Your comments about the Hunza are a myth. Aside from the fact that birth records were not kept in remote villages of Pakistan 100 years ago, Dr. John Clark stayed with these people for 20 months and recounts his experiences in his book "Lost Kingdom of the Himalayas."
"I wish also to express my regrets to those travelers whose impressions have been contradicted by my experience. On my first trip through Hunza, I acquired almost all the misconceptions they did: The Healthy Hunzas, the Democratic Court, The Land Where There Are No Poor, and the rest—and only long-continued living in Hunza revealed the actual situations".
Regarding the misconception about Hunza people's health, Clark also writes that most of his patients had malaria, dysentery, worms, trachoma, and other health conditions easily diagnosed and quickly treated. In his first two trips he treated 5,684 patients.
Furthermore, Clark reports that Hunza do not measure their age solely by calendar (metaphorically speaking, as he also said there were no calendars), but also by personal estimation of wisdom, leading to notions of typical lifespans of 120 or greater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burusho_people#Influence_in_the_Western_world
But don't let me stop you from gleaning the wisdom of snake-oil alternative medicine. Who knows, your own fantasy may add to your own longevity.
Absurd. Fluoride is not a mineral nutrient. Physiologic mineral nutrients,exert actions that are saturable,and fully reversible with dilution. Fluoride incorporation into bone is not saturable (stage 3 fluorisis has over 12,000 mg/kg in bone) and the incorooration is not reversible biochemically as for actual nutrients The estimated,half life for fluiride in bone is over 20 years, after removal from fluoridated,water exposure (N4C 2006)
This is,all old news. You can find it in the FDA fluoridation ban petition.
The FDA after 11 years finally concluded that fluoride which has never been FDA ,approved for ingestion is, a toxic substance andcshoyld be regulated under the toxic, suubstances control act by the EPA. Sadly the EPA,refuses and expects the FDA to regulate it because it is intentionally added by request of CDC dentists.