Content starts here
CLOSE ×
Search
Reply
Bronze 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! 

392,403 Views
1518
Report
4 ACCEPTED SOLUTIONS
Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 

 

“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)

 

It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.

 

As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 

 

Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 

 

However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 

 

 

Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:

 

 

For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 

 

View solution in original post

56,580 Views
35
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 

 

 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)

 

If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 

 

They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 

 

WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"

https://live.childrenshealthdefense.org/chd-tv/events/fluoride-on-trial-the-censored-science-on-fluo...

 

MODERN SCIENCEhttps://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science 

View solution in original post

55,324 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial

 

My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 

 

Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 

 

Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 

 

Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 

 

  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 

 

When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.

 

Really!!!!! 

 

Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 

 

Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 

 

aaa.jpg

View solution in original post

47,001 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

 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.  

 

BMCLBMCL

 

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. 

 

 

View solution in original post

42,879 Views
1
Report
Conversationalist

Randy,

 

You wrote, "It is remarkable, based on my comments that you can conclude I am not in favor of evidence based science. . . ."

 

You are correct.  Because your questions and comments involve sponsors and endorsements of proponents and I do not remember when you quote science, I find no basis in your postings that you rely on science.   You are correct, your actions speak loudest.  

 

Please, if I am wrong, correct my missunderstanding by commenting on the two research articles I have just posted.  Or post your own research on which you rely for confidence that people are not ingesting too much fluoride, that the dosage they are receiving is beneficial and no risk to the tissues and cells of the body.     

 

If you favor evidence based science, as you suggest, provide the research.  Not advertisments or belief statements, primary research.   

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

7,427 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck, Dr. Johnson, Randy, et al,

 

Dental fluorosis and lower IQ appear to be related as is urine fluoride concentration and lower IQ, especially for the high IQ individuals. (Other studies evaluated low IQ). 

 

Fluoride lowers IQ and there does not appear to be a lower threshold for either dental fluorosis or urine fluoride concentration. 

 

Concensus of scientific studies, both human and animal, appears to be that excess fluoride causes brain damage.  Of the 60 human studies on fluoride and the brain, 53 report harm.   Naturally, "excess" has not been determined, is patient specific, includes age, amount of water consumed, other sources of fluoride, synergistic chemicals and health of the patient.  One size does not fit all.  Mean is not protective of all. 

 

 

Consider one of those studies by Yu et al.

Yu X, Chen J, Li Y, Liu H, et al. (2018). Threshold effects of moderately excessive fluoride exposure on children’s health: A potential association between dental fluorosis and loss of excellent intelligence. Environment International, Jun 2; 118:116-124.

 

Location of Study:  In endemic and non-endemic fluorosis areas in Tianjin, China.

 

Age of Subjects:  7 to 13 years

 

Size of Study:  2,886 resident children

 

Source of Fluoride: Drinking water

 

Water Fluoride Level: The water fluoride concentration ranged from 0.20 mg/L to 1.00 mg/L, with a mean value of 0.50 ± 0.27 mg/L in the normal fluoride exposure group, and from 1.10 mg/L to 3.90 mg/L, with a mean value of 2.00 ± 0.75 mg/L in the high-fluoride exposure group (Table 1).

 

Type of IQ Test:  We examined the dose-response effects of low-to-moderate fluoride exposure on dental fluorosis (DF) and intelligence quotient (IQ), and evaluated the potential relationships between DF grades and intelligence levels using piecewise linear regression and multiple logistic regression, respectively.IQ scores were measured using the second edition of Combined Raven’s Test–The Rural in China (CRT-RC2) (Liu et al., 2009) for children aged 7 to 13 years. The CRT-RC2 is a validated test for basic cognitive abilities, and has been widely adopted in China after modifications, as it is non-verbal and less affected by language, and cultural and ethnic differences (Sun et al., 2015).Dean’s fluorosis index (WHO criteria) (Molina-Frechero et al., 2015) was used to estimate the prevalence and severity of DF. Each participant was examined by two qualified and independent experts, who had rich experience on examination of dental fluorosis… The final diagnosis was made only when judgments from the two experts were in agreement; if not, a third expert would join in and offer suggestion. For repeatability, 10% of participants were double checked and the Kappa value was 0.82.

 

Results: The adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of DF were 2.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.02 to 2.48) for every 0.1 mg/L increment in the water fluoride concentration in the range of 0.80 to 1.50 mg/L, and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.32 to 2.93) for every 0.5 mg/L increment in the urinary fluoride level up to 1.80 mg/L. Every 0.5 mg/L increment in the water fluoride level was associated with a reduction of 4.29 in the IQ score (95% CI: -8.09 to -0.48) in the range of 3.40 to 3.90 mg/L, and a decreased probability of developing excellent intelligence (IQ ?130, OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.77) in the range of 0.20-1.40 mg/L, respectively. Every 0.5 mg/L increment in the urinary fluoride level was related to a decrease of 2.67 in the IQ scores (95% CI: -4.67 to -0.68) between 1.60 mg/L to 2.50 mg/L. Excellent intelligence decreased by 51% in children with higher urinary fluoride, and by 30% with each degree increment of DF.

 

Conclusions:In conclusion, chronic exposure to excessive fluoride, even at a moderate level, was inversely associated with children’s dental health and intelligence scores, especially excellent intelligence performance, with threshold and saturation effects observed in the dose-response relationships. Additionally, DF severity is positively associated with the loss of high intelligence, and may be useful for the identification of individuals with the loss of excellent intelligence. Thus, it is important to monitor water quality, and supply fluoride-free drinking water to safeguard children’s health.

 

(Emphasis added.)

 

Ethically, the promotion of adding fluoride to public water must stop.  We are frying our children's brains.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

7,267 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

Dr. Chuck,

 

Further to my question on total fluoride exposure, Erdal et al https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1253719/ in 2005 is over the 10 years I suggested, but is of interest.  "A Quantitative Look at Fluorosis, Fluoride Exposure, and Intake in Children Using a Health Risk Assessment Approach"

 

In their Figure 1, and assuming EPA's RfD, Infants are receiving excess fluoride from just water or formula made with fluoridated water.  And children 3-5  yr olds are receiving excess from toothpaste.

 

In the discussion the authors include, "a significant finding of our analysis is that, for both age groups living in nonfluoridated areas, although under the CTE scenario the cumulative intake is within the optimum range (0.06 mg/kg-day for children, 0.08 mg/day for infants), under the RME scenario the cumulative intake estimates are higher (0.21 mg/kg-day for children, 0.11 mg/kg-day for infants), exceeding the optimum range. This raises questions about the continued need for fluoridation in the U.S. municipal water supply to protect against the risk of fluorosis."

 

And I would dispute their assumption that "optimum" range is 0.06 mg/kg-day for children, 0.08 mg/day for infants.   After all, mother's milk has no detectible fluoride in most samples.

 

There is no evidence infants benefit with more fluoride than children or that the developing brain, thyroid, and bones are safe at those dosages.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6,745 Views
0
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You call three people liars.  Stop it.  We are not liars.

 

You sound like Trump, a bully.   Be professional.

 

And you "call out" Carry Anne because she changed her statement.  Well, read your statements.  You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list.

 

Then you change your statement and say "US Federal Agency. . . ."    Look in the mirror David.  You changed your statement.  OK, give others the space to change their statements if need be.  But that does not make anyone a liar.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

6,106 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

billo, your comment:  

 

"Well, read your statements.  You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list."

 

Response:  In the context of this discussion . . you guys are making up stuff about the EPA, the FDA, the CDC, NSF, even the USDPH . . in the context of this discussion, to respond with something like "Japan," is reaching for an answer.  I think you know that.

0 Kudos
5,989 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

And the next post was EPA legal counsel place responsibility for the addition of fluoride on the FDA.

 

 

 

You were clear, Federal Agency and did not specify USA. 

 

Now, give me one agency which acknowledges they have responsibility for determining the dosage, safety at that dosage and efficacy at that dosage? None exist, so you will remain silent again.

 

You have fun picking other people apart, but refuse to answer which agency accepts jurisdiction.   Remember, you want everyone to be given extra fluoride regardless of their choice, how much they get from other sources, regardless of any government Federal agency accepting responsibility for determining dosage, efficacy and safety.  Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence of safety, dosage, efficacy, not mine (the patient).

 

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

5,997 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Bill, your comment:  "And the next post was EPA legal counsel place responsibility for the addition of fluoride on the FDA."

 

Response:  I don't know what that means or how it is relevant.

 

Your comment:  "You don't acknowledge when you are wrong.  You have no intent to learn, just argue."

 

Response:  For some reason, you seem to believe you have a monopoly on knowledge.  You are condescending in your remarks.  You refuse to admit the reality that no Federal Agencey (and we know what this means) considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.  You are straining to make an argument against the face of reality.  Please, open your mind and get real.

 

Your comment:  "You were clear, Federal Agency and did not specify USA.  I'm not a mind reader.  Comments were specific and then you made a broad generalizing comment which was blatently wrong, and you know it.:

 

Response:  Dr. Bill, I have, in previous comments used the phrase "U.S. Federal Agency."  That is just a fact, and you are free to re-read my unedited comments to verify that fact.  You are harping on one instance in which I did not include the adjective "U.S."  That is pathetic, in the context of this discussion, in which no foreign entities have been mentioned, you are claiming that you believe the nation of Japan is a Federal Agency and that you are not a mind reader - How could you have known that I didn't mean "Japan" when I requested a Federal Agency that didn't consider optimally fluoridated water a "drug?"  

You accuse me of being "trump-like?"  There is no way, in the context of this discussion, that you could have interpreted my request for an example of a "Federal Agency" as meaning a foreign country.  And now, you are playing the victim who is "not a mind reader."  Pathetic.  Who are you trying to fool?

 

Your comment:  "Now, give me one agency which acknowledges they have responsibility for determining the dosage, safety at that dosage and efficacy at that dosage? None exist, so you will remain silent again."

 

Response:  Sure, I'll give you two.  1.)  The EPA has set the Maximum Contaminant Level for Fluoride in drinking water at 4 parts per million.  If any person were ever to have been harmed because they drank water with 0.7 ppm F (the optimal level - i.e., water fluoridation) the EPA itself would be responsible for that harm.  No question about it.  But there has never been even one authenticated, documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 ppm F. 

 

2.)  States.  In my state, The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality oversees and enforces strict guidelines for Community Water Fluoridation.  If a local municipality were to "overdose" its citizens with fluoride, a few things would happen.  First, the MDEQ would have to be notified . . It then would oversee proceedures for informing citizens and flushing water mains.  It would be illegal, per the SDWA, for citizens not to be notified.  This is in the SDWA.  Don't you know that?  

 

If any person was harmed, that municipality would be liable.  If negligence was found to be the cause, the guilty party would be held accountable.

 

Do you imagine this is just a Helter Skelter setup with no one in charge?  Because that's the picture you're trying to paint.  That's why I say you are "deceptive," to say the least.

 

Your quote:  "Therefore, it is YOUR responsibility to provide the evidence of safety, dosage, efficacy, not mine (the patient)"

Response:  Your comment implies that optimally fluoridated water is a "drug."  That's what you're saying.  You are being deceptive.  In fact you are lying.  In the United States of America, where this discussion is taking place, optimally fluoridated water is not considered a "drug," a "medicine" or anything that would prompt you to claim to be a "patient."  There is no reason for you to call yourself a "patient" because you drink optimally fluoridated water, other than your ambition to generate paranoia about safe tap water.  

 

I hope that clears things up for you.

 

 

0 Kudos
6,127 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill, really?

 

"You said there was no Federal Agency which called fluoridated water a drug.  So I gave you a list.

 

Then you change your statement and say "US Federal Agency. . . ." 

 

Response:  You gave me a list?  No you didn't.  Japan is not a federal agency.  The Netherlands is not a federal agency.  Isreal is not a federal agency.  Sweden is not a federal agency.  Finland, Austria, or Belgum are not federal agencies.  

 

By the way, I didn't edit my reply to cover up what I had originally said, and then attack someone. 

 

 

0 Kudos
6,341 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride trolls play with language for rhetorical deceits. My original was gramatically correct, but could be misinterpretted which DavidF did..... so I repeated the subject ' EPA' in the second part of of that phrase.

 

ORIGINAL:"...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF." 

 

FOR CLARITY: "...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

 

Now how about the documentation I provided about that timeline?

6,453 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Rhetorical deceits."  Hilarious.  You made a statement that was factually incorrect.  I called you out on it.  You edited your own comment - to cover up - and then attacked me for pointing it out.  

 

Get real.  And now you are re-writing history.  "ORIGINAL:"...they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."   --  i.e., they (the FDA, when taken in context of the entire sentence.)

 

I stand by my statement that you are dishonest, and it has been fully documented here.

 

Now what's the problem with your NSF timeline?  The NSF water additives program began in 1985 because that is when it was contracted by the EPA.  So what?  

 

As for the rest of your attachment.  I don't see the problem.  You are talking about what they didn't know in 1983 about the health effects of fluoride in water at over 4 times the optimal level.  4 times the optimal level of fluoride is not relevant to community water fluoridation.  That's like saying, my doctor prescribed 2 aspirin, so I took 8 instead - same thing, right?  Now why am I throwing up blood?  

 

Am I missing something?  If so, please explain.

 

 

0 Kudos
6,434 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

DavidF's default is always to call other people liars. 

 

NSF timeline from their own website shows they began working with the EPA on establishing standards for plumbing equipment in 1980 and assumed responsibility for water additives per EPA agreement in 1985: http://www.nsf.org/about-nsf/mission-values-history 

 

NSFtimeline1985wEPA.png

 

Another important thing to realize is that in 1983, the Surgeon General created a special committee to ascertain just how big a deal dental fluorosis was. The committee told him in May that yes, dental fluorosis is an 'adverse health effect' and confirmed the MCL should remain at 2.4. Yet, the Sept. report of those committee proceedings inexplainably said dental fluorosis was a 'cosmetic effect' and in 1984 the EPA process began to increase the 2.4 MCL/MCLG to 4 ppm, which wouldn't have been possible if dental fluorosis was listed as an adverse health effect. That change was implemented in 1985 without any scientific backing from the EPA who simultaneously contracted with the NSF to oversee water additives. http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/epa/timeline/

 

Here is an excerpt from that May 1983 report out that was altered in Sept 1983 by unknown parties order to facilitate changes that endangered public health but were politically expedient for players. Latest government figures confirm that over half of American teens have dental fluorosis, with 1 in 5 having moderate to severe dental fluorosis (est. 800,000 severe): 

1983toSurgeonGeneral.jpg

6,464 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Very good, Carrie Anne,  

 

This was your original comment:  

 

"Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. "

 

As I said, that is incorrect.  The FDA does not contract with NSF.

 

When I just took a look at your original comment I see that you have corrected yourself.  This is your edited comment:

 

" Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and the EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF."

 

That is correct.  EPA contracts with NSF.  I'm glad to see you listened to me and corrected your error.

 

 

 

0 Kudos
6,453 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Get some rest and let your false claims stand? In your dreams.

The Ketchikan hatchery is knowledgable about fluoride and salmon. And I've visited Sacramento many times and I stand by my posts on the problem.

Also Einstein was indeed wrong about time dilation. You always say you need links to prove a point. So check the links below to the articles published in Physics Essays and in Optick. If you don't believe the published studies then take it up with those two journals.

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324511962_Characteristics_of_Light_Velocity_Massless_Energy...

 

and http://physicsessays.org/browse-journal-2/product/147-12-richard-d-sauerheber-on-the-nature-of-light...

 

 

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,558 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The ketchikan hatchery spokesman knew of the decimated salmon population that chronically persists for the last many years during the fluoridation of sacramento. There are no salmon hatching eggs by the discharge tube where the ciry dumps its fluoridated wastewater.

So where is the lie?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
6,514 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, your comment is so garbled and so ridiculous that it doesn't merit a response.  Get some rest.

0 Kudos
6,421 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoridation is the dosing of municipal water with a drug that is harmful to millions of consumers.

 

Repeating: In 1995, the FDA wrote there was no consensus about fluoride as a nutrient, so "RDI should not be established for fluoride” plus in the case of consumption, FDA wrote fluoride is "regulated as drugs because of their intended use (to prevent disease) and, therefore are not subject to the food labeling regulations." https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-12-28/pdf/95-31197.pdf

FDA says fluoride may be listed as an ingredient in bottled water that "may" have dental benefit so long as that water is not marketed to infants. FDA  allows sale of prescriptions of fluoride as an "unapproved drug" which means it is not warranted by the FDA for safety or effectiveness. (Topical use of fluoride is handled separately.) 

 

Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and the EPA attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. 

 

So if the FDA won't allow fluoridated bottled water to be marketed to infants with claims of dental benefit and has all sorts of restrictions around other use, why should we believe fluoridationists who claim fluoridation is safe for babies and good for kids let alone safe for seniors who have been consuming it for decades and are suffering with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid and kidney diseases known to be caused or worsened by fluoride? 

 

 

5,596 Views
9
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

By the way, "Carry Anne," this comment from you is also wrong:

 

"Since the FDA has no jurisdiction over water additives, they stay out of the mess the EPA created with its politically motivated MCL/MCLG and attempt to shield themselves from liability by contracting with NSF. "

 

It was the EPA which outsourced some of its workload to NSF.  The FDA has nothing to do with community water distribution systems or anything that is added to its water.  Again - EPA.  FDA has nothing to do with NSF - Period.  That would be the EPA. 

http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-international-sustainability-standards-included-in-epa-recommendatio...

 

It must be a confusing world for you with all of these factual inaccuracies with which you try to impress the reader.

0 Kudos
5,624 Views
5
Report
Conversationalist

Slow down David,

 

EPA legal office says FDA is responsible.

 

Remember, I posted previously a quotation from the EPA's attorney, Steven M. Neugeboren, Associate General Counsel, Water Law Office, February 14, 2013, 

 

I can email you the entire letter if you give me your email address.  Too long to write it out here for you.   But let me quote more,

 

"EPA does not have responsibility for substances added to water solely for prevetative health care purposes, such as fluoride, other than to limit the addition of such substances to protect public health. . .  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) acting through the FDA, remains responsible fo rregulating the addition of drugs to water supplies for health care purposes."

 

 

Go to the FDA website and learn the definition of a drug.  

 

In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug.   One way is "INTENT" of use.  FDA considers a placebo a drug.  Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug.   

 

Even if the manufacturer does not make a health claim, if the public at large considers or it is well known to the public that a substance may cure, treat or prevent disease, then the FDA defines that substance as a drug.    

 

Read the FDA documents.  

 

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

5,599 Views
4
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

billo, let's take a look at what you just said:

 

Your quote:  "In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug.   One way is "INTENT" of use.  FDA considers a placebo a drug.  Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug."

 

This is a quote from a Mayo Clinic website:  

 

A high-fiber diet may also help reduce the risk of obesity, heart disease and diabetes."  

 

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/in-depth/high-fiber-foods/...

 

You say the INTENT makes something a drug.  The Mayo Clinic says if you eat Apples, Beans, Bran, Oranges, Carrots . . . as part of a high-fiber diet, you are helping yourself reduce the risk of diabetes.  

 

According to what you just said, if you want to stay heart-healthy, you're drugging yourself when you eat an apple, because your INTENT has medical consequences. 

 

Do you fully appreciate what a joke your argument is?  

0 Kudos
5,513 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

Two items here.  

 

A.  You raise the issue of "foods" vs "drugs" and reference an opinion of the Mayo Clinic rather than the FDA.  The FDA is more precise.  But lets look closer.  The FDA regulates industry claims and has given precise wording.  Read their web pages, many of them.  

 

And is a high fiber diet listed in the US Pharmacopea?  No.  

 

You are correct, there is a difference between foods and drugs and the fine line can be confusing.  For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison.  Fluoride is highly toxic and if not regulated under pesticide laws or drug laws is regulated under poison laws. 

And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral.  Read the toothpaste labels. 

 

You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods.  You think the FDA is funny because you have not read their web pages or gone through the approval process.  I have with an approved device and the FDA is excellent and fair.   They are not a joke.  You think they are a joke because you don't understand their rules.

 

Now to the second point.  Don't be a bully.  Be professional and use professional words.  Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar.  Derogatory personal attacks don't look well on you.

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

5,498 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Ah, no dr. bill, you have completely re-written history with your comment.

 

You originally said . . (you know, because you wanted to make the argument that optimally fluoridated water was a drug) . . you said, 

 

"In my last post I told you how Congress defines a drug.   One way is "INTENT" of use.  FDA considers a placebo a drug.  Makes no difference if it works or if it does not work, the INTENT is key to a drug."

 

That flawed statement is the only thing I was addressing in my comment.  

 

Now you say, "For one thing, a food is not a highly toxic substance defined in law as highly toxic or poison."

 

Irrelevant to your statement.  Toxicity was not part of your definition of the word "drug."

 

You now say, "And the FDA has determined fluoride is to be regulated as a drug, not a food or mineral.  Read the toothpaste labels."

 

Irrelevant.  Toothpaste is not optimally fluoridated water.

 

You say, "You call the FDA a joke, but you need to read and study how to indroduce a drug, the definitions of drugs and how the FDA regulates drugs vs foods."

 

No.  I called your argument a joke.  The FDA does not consider optimally fluoridated water - you know, what we are talking about here - to be a drug.

 

You say, "Several places I have pointed out you lack a full understanding, but I have not called you a liar."

 

Response:  You seem to have a problem with accepting reality.  It is you who lack understanding, and you have demonstrated it many times.  You don't understand the purpose of the FOIA, you don't understand clear statutes in the SDWA. And to this discussion, there is not one federal U.S. agency which considers optimally fluoridated water a drug - in any sense of the word, and you have not demonstrated anything to the contrary.

 

 

 

 

 

0 Kudos
5,362 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

billo, we were talking about "Carry Anne"'s false statement that the FDA outsourced its workload to NSF. Your comment here is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

 

Nevertheless, the EPA has never said that the FDA is responsible for adding fluoroscilic acid to water distribution systems.  What you just said is a blatant lie.  If you have some kind of problem with reality, or you think something illegal is going on, the correct forum for that is a Court of Law, not the comment's section of an AARP website.  

 

Oh, sure, it's easier to pull the wool over the eyes of an AARP website administrator, but not so easy in court where you would have to face informed parties.  

 

You know, I'm surprised that a legal genius like yourself would make such a laughable blunder as to lie about a supposed Freedom of Information Act Request that you made to clarify the meaning of a clear statute in the SDWA.  The FIOA doesn't exist to clarify law.  It exists to request documents which have been hidden from the public.  

0 Kudos
5,531 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Carry Anne," I asked you to provide one example of any Federal Agency which considers optimally fluoridated water - what we are talking about here - a "drug," or a "medicine." 

 

You provided none.  

 

No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.  

 

What you did was to provide evidence that people consider Fluoride itself is a drug.  So what.  Here is evidence that Oxygen is a drug:  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2688103/    or this, http://epmonthly.com/article/oxygen-is-a-drug-act-accordingly/  But no sane person considers optimally oxygenated air a drug.  

 

Again, please provide any example of any federal agency which calls optimally fluoridated water a drug or a medicine.  Again, the only people who do that are people like you who are attempting to generate paranoia.

0 Kudos
5,614 Views
2
Report
Conversationalist

David,

 

You stated, "No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug."

 

CONSIDER:

 

1.  Netherlands determined Fluoride added to water is a drug.

“. . . at present the addition of chemicals to drinking water is prohibited by law in the Netherlands. This law came into effect because it was widely perceived that drinking water should not be used as a vehicle for pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, fluoridation of drinking water would conflict with the freedom to choose for natural drinking water. This principle of freedom of choice is considered as an important basic principle in the Netherlands.”  (but not for David)

SOURCE: 2007 – RIVM report 270091004/2007 for the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports

 

2.  Supreme Court of Canada ruled fluoride a drug (regardless of dilution.)  

 

3.  US FDA has testified to Congress that fluoride is a drug.  Congressional Investigation 2001

 

4.  Read your FDA approved toothpaste label and www.FDA.gov on drugs.  FDA requires the warning "DO NOT SWALLOW."

 

5.  “21 U.S.C. 321 CHAPTER II—DEFINITIONS   (g)(1) The term "drug" means (A) articles recognized in the official United States Pharmacopoeia, official Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States, or official National Formulary, or any supplement to any of them;”  

 

Note:  there is no law which exempts FDA regulation of a drug because the drug is diluted in public water.  If so, drug dealers could dilute meth or any other drug in public water and bottle it exempt from FDA oversight.  Nothing about dilution is part of the drug laws.  Fluoride is listed in the US Pharmacopoeia, Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia.

 

“. . .there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended or suggested in its labeling. . . marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have, therefore, requested that marketing of these products be discontinued.”         FDA Letter to 35 Companies           DRUG THERAPY 1975

 

Congress defined drugs:  Articles INTENDED for use in the . . . prevention of disease. . .  " 21 USC 321 (g)(1)(B)

 

 

Austria REJECTED: "toxic fluorides" NOT added

Belgium REJECTED: encourages self-determination – those who want fluoride should get it themselves.

Finland STOPPED: "...do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." A recent study found ..."no indication of an increasing trend of       caries....“

Germany STOPPED: A recent study found no evidence of an increasing trend of caries

Denmark REJECTED: "...toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Denmark.“

Norway REJECTED: "...drinking water should not be fluoridated“

Sweden BANNED: "not allowed". No safety data available!

Netherlands REJECTED: Inevitably, whenever there is a court decision against fluoridation, the dental lobby pushes to have the judgment overturned on a technicality or they try to get the laws changed to legalize it. Their tactics didn't work in the vast majority of Europe.

Hungary STOPPED: for technical reasons in the '60s. However, despite technological advances, Hungary remains unfluoridated.

Japan REJECTED: "...may cause health problems...." The 0.8 -1.5 mg regulated level is for calcium-fluoride, not the hazardous waste by-product which is added with artificial fluoridation.

Israel SUSPENDED mandatory fluoridation until the issue is reexamined from all aspects.: June 21, 2006 “The labor, welfare and health Knesset committee”

 

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

 

 

 

 

5,594 Views
1
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Billo, your quote:  

 

"David,

 

You stated, "No Federal Agency considers optimally fluoridated water a drug.""

 

That is correct.  And nothing in your comment has disproven that.  The Netherlands is not a Federal Agency.   Nor is any foreign country a U.S. Federal Agency.

 

Toothpaste is not optimally fluoridated water.  Pure fluoride is not optimally fluoridated water . . . just as pure oxygen, an FDA approved drug, is not optimally oxyginated air.  Air is not a "drug" simply because 20.95% of it is an FDA approved theraputic drug.

 

Oh, by the way, as you people love to point out, endorsements don't prove a thing.  

0 Kudos
5,585 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

The better word choice is potable

 

Water additives should have the purpose of making the water potable, not of medicating the consumer. That is clearly the intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the mission of water workers. 
 

  • Water workers are not my pharmacist. 
  • Political bodies are not my doctor. 
  • Neighbors are not the boss of me. 

 

Each individual has the right to make his or her own medical choices. Fluoride is added to water with the intention of having a medical outcome. Water is consumed because it is necessary to live. I have the right not to have a drug added to my water, especially when I know that it is a substance that causes illness in me and members of my family. 

5,651 Views
2
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Carrie Anne" says, "Water workers are not my pharmacist. Political bodies are not my doctor.  . . .  Each individual has the right to make his or her own medical choices."

 

Folks, we are talking about optimally fluoridated water here.  There is not one Federal Agency that calls optimally fluoridated water a "drug," or a "medicine."  The only people who call optimally fluoridated water a "drug," are people like you who are trying to generate paranoia.  

 

Here's a label from a bottle of FDA regulated optimally fluoridated water.  https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beverages/9231/2  It's FDA regulated because it's considered a "Food."  You won't see the word drug, or medicine anywhere  on it.  

 

Again, not one federal agency considers this product a drug.  If I am wrong, please show me which Federal Agency calls water with 0.7 ppm F a drug.  Your comments are a complete denial of reality.

0 Kudos
5,576 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

Well said Carry Anne.  Why fluoridation promoters cannot understand the SDWA is mind-boggling. Thinking that fluoride is added to affect the quality of the water is nonsensical. Fluoride is added specifically to treat humans and has nothing to do with altering either the purity of, the pH of, the natural chemistry of pristine fresh drinking water, or the sterility or general potability of water that the SDWA is intended to protect. Maintaining the natural chemistry of our nation's water supply, when there are peple bull-headedly intent on fluoridating the world, has proven to be an unbelievable nightmare because such people do not understand the meaning of the SDWA.. 

 

Additives are allowed and in many cases necessary to attempt to normalize as best as possible the natural chemistry of the Nation's water supplies. But additives are not materials added to treat humans. The distinction is clear. The SDWA prohibits any national requirement for any such materials since they have no business being added and labeled as additives as though they purify, sanitize, re-normalize the chemsitry of, etc. the water. 

Fluoride is not an additive. It is infused for its presumed effect on teeth (but has no such significant effect), and sadly it indeed does irreversibly affect bone.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
5,676 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

"Words are but wind." - Italian proverb 

 

”The plausibility of the bladder as a target for fluoride is supported by the tendency of hydrogen fluoride (HF) to form under physiologically acid conditions, such as found in urine. Hydrogen fluoride is caustic and might increase the potential for cellular damage, including genotoxicity." - 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water, page 330

 

Asbestos was thought so great that not only did we stuff our school buildings full of it, we wove it into kids' pajamas. We did this at the recommendation of the same folks who at the same time were promoting fluoridation. It's the hard data that is meaningful, and we have plenty of data that the chemicals we use to fluoridate our waters convert to HF in our bodies where it is even more toxic than HFSA, FSA or NaF. 

 

Interesting read: HF becomes FSA but easily converts back: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch08/final/c08s07.pdf

 

Even in the human body: https://www.nap.edu/read/12741/chapter/6 Screen Shot 2018-10-30 at 3.00.59 PM.png

 

5,775 Views
0
Report
Bronze Conversationalist

It is easy enough for anyone to decline milk with or without vitamin D when there is a medical reason to avoid it, or simply because they dislike it, or if milk is contrary to their religion. Every classroom teacher knows she has a duty to protect her pupils from various exposures per parental instructions. 

 

No one can survive without water. When fluoride is added to water it permeates everything making it impossible to avoid for those of us with inflammatory, immune system, thyroid or kidney diseases caused or worsened by fluoride, inclusive of eczema & psoriasis which are inflamed by bathing in fluoridated water. 

 

The other side of that coin is that it is easy and cheap to use fluoridated toothpaste, buy fluoridated drinking water for a buck or less a gallon, or give your kids prescription fluoride drops for about $3 a month if you want it. I'm not trying to prevent your choice to use fluoride, just my choice to avoid consuming it and bathing in it.

 

5,748 Views
18
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Need to Know

"I downloaded AARP Perks to assist in staying connected and never missing out on a discount!" -LeeshaD341679

AARP Perks