Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

[CarryAnne]

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

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

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

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

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

SCIENCE REFERENCES

1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
    
2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012  
2. http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/ 
   
   
3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
   
   
4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
2. http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
   
   
5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):  http://www.hindawi.com/journals/tswj/2014/293019/

RACIAL INEQUITY (FOIA)

Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 

• 1. Black Americans disproportionately harmed: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fl...
• 2. CDC, ADA and Pew inappropriate relationships: http://benswann.com/do-newly-released-emails-reveal-conflict-of-interest-between-the-cdc-and-the-ada...
• 3. Kidneys, Civil Rights & Ralph Nader: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2014/10/428383.shtml

2015 LEGAL ARGUMENT (GROSS DISPROPORTIONALITY) 

There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.  http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/peel.june2014.pdf

• a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
• b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 

POPULATION WITH LOW CHEMICAL THRESHOLD

1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: http://www.va.gov/rac-gwvi/docs/committee_documents/gwiandhealthofgwveterans_rac-gwvireport_2008.pdf 
1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-moolenburgh.pdf
1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1707853 
2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9892783
3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): http://www.hindawi.com/journals/iji/2010/823710/ 
4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708902
5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

[BillO538145]

Dr. Johnny Johnson,

I'm still waiting for your apology for slander.   And what about 60% of adolescents (20% moderate/severe) having dental fluorosis a biomarker of excess fluoride, is safe?

Stop ignoring research, such as:

Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Wo...

Study: Fluoride levels in pregnant women in Canada show drinking water is primary source of exposure...

A new study led by York University researchers has found that fluoride levels in urine are twice as high for pregnant women living in Canadian cities where fluoride is added to public drinking water as for those living in cities that do not add fluoride to public water supplies.

The study “Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada” was published today in Environmental Health Perspectives. It is the first study in North America to examine how fluoride in water contributes to urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women. The research was conducted as part of a larger study funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigating whether early life exposure to fluoride affects the developing brain.

“We found that fluoride in drinking water was the major source of exposure for pregnant women living in Canada. Women living in fluoridated communities have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in non-fluoridated communities,” said Christine Till, an associate professor of Psychology in York’s Faculty of Health and lead author on the study.

The Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study recruited 2,001 pregnant women between 2008 and 2011. The women lived in 10 large cities across Canada. Seven of the cities (Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Sudbury, Halifax, Edmonton and Winnipeg) added fluoride to municipal water while three (Vancouver, Montreal and Kingston) did not.

Urine samples were collected during each trimester of pregnancy for over 1,500 women. Fluoride levels in municipal water treatment plants that provided water to each women’s home were obtained. Information about each woman’s demographics, lifestyle and medical history was also collected.

In addition to fluoridated water, sources of fluoride can include toothpastes, mouth rinses, as well as processed beverages and food, especially those made with fluoridated water. Beyond water, products such as tea have previously been found to have high concentrations of natural fluoride.

In this study, fluoride level in water was the main determinant of fluoride level in the women’s urine. Higher consumption of black tea was also correlated with higher levels of urinary fluoride in pregnant women.

The levels of fluoride among pregnant women living in fluoridated communities in Canada were similar with levels reported in a prior study of pregnant women living in Mexico City where fluoride is added to table salt.

“This finding is concerning because prenatal exposure to fluoride in the Mexican sample has been associated with lower IQ in children. New evidence published today in Environment International also reported an association between higher levels of fluoride in pregnancy and inattentive behaviours among children in the same Mexican sample,” said Till.

The research team, including experts from Simon Fraser University, Université Laval, Indiana University, University of Montreal and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, is investigating whether prenatal exposure to fluoride in Canadian children results in IQ deficits, similar to the Mexican study.

Fluoride has been added to public drinking water in Canadian and American communities since the 1940s as a means of preventing tooth decay. Today, about 40 per cent of Canadians and 74 percent of the U.S. population on public water supplies receive fluoridated water.

 Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DrChuckHaynie]

this is utter baloney. Only approved water additives which meet NSF/AWWA Standard 60 criteria of purity and physical properties can be used as an additive in water treatment plants.

It is an easily verifiable fact that this author's opinions are opposite to the the support of fluoridation from America's Pediatricians, Family Physicians, Internal Medicine specialists and public health experts.

Readers must choose between a lone-wolf opponent and mainstream scientific opinion.

It is this opponent's wishful thinking that the California (and other state mandates) law is not actionable.

[rs5526]

For anyone interested:  While we are on the subject of being fraudulent, let's review what happened to force CA to fluoridate all cities with more than 10,000 water connections.

As mentioned, David Nelson helped write the fluoridation mandate law that was not put up for public vote and was passed by the State Legislature anyway. Nelson in discussions with us citizens in L.A. responded to complaints about the Hooper Bay, AK fluoride water poisoning disaster by saying "that was not the fault of water fluoridation."  I said why?  He said "because the wife of the man killed, it was her fault". Why?  "Because she is a nurse and should have known that when he vomited the water he drank, that it must have had too much fluoride and she should not have given him more water when he asked for it". 

Note: Dominic Smith, the deceased Coast Guardsman at the time, was very thirsty when the fluoride overfeed (to about 100 ppm) occured from a fluoride-corroded valve, and there are many causes of vomiting besides high fluoride in water, and Nelson always claims that fluoridation is totally safe for all consumers at all times.

So as the author of an article on the incident, I responded by saying "do you mean this event that poisoned 300 people was the wife's fault, not the fault of the water district for a fluoridation overfeed? Did she go around town and purposely give water to all these victims, really?"  He caught himself in his own false story and pulled the usual reponse "Richard, I just do what the CDC tells me to do" and abruptly ended the discussion.

This of course does not mean the CDC wanted the man to be killed. It does though mean that people are harmed from the operations required for water fluoridation and that officials in charge are the first to invent fraudulent stories to protect the bone fluoridation program which itself causes harm, is useless in preventing caries, and is illegal.

I found that Nelson truly believes in his heart that whole body fluoridation of kids is good for them. He even accused us, for opposing fluoridation, as hating children for depriving them of good dental care.  I'm not kidding!  (And no, this is not a tirade, it is a summary of facts). Nelson is now retired after taking 1 million yearly to force cities in CA to fluoridate. He had been convicted of dental malpractice and after leaving dentistry he took a job with the CA DPH to promote fluoridation of the State of CA, as desired for the country by dental officials in the Oral Health Division of the CDC..

Get the picture?

[DrChuckHaynie]

Citing an incident in a remote Alaskan Yup'ik Eskimo village which does not serve individual homes; has no fresh water distribution system and no sewer system is hopefully clearly irrelevant to modern water utility plant operation. This is a good example why undecided readers investigating fluoridation should look to legitimate credible mainstream expert opinion rather than misleading arguments

[rs5526]

For the readers, please examine this link:

https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/sodium_fluoride#section=Top

This describes fluoride as a drug that is used in water fluoridation. Fluoride of course is actually a poison, but when it used to try to treat people for dental caries through ingestion, it is then defined as a drug by the government. 

Also in there you will find that the CDC website is packed with false ilnformation that contradicts the information in PubChem. For example, eating fluoride along with milk or a calcium rich breakfast reduces fluoride assimilation substantlally.  When I informed the CDC of this fact, the CDC hired their own study which was sloppily done to allow themselves the luxury of concluding that industrial fluoride ingestion (which does not contain calcium) is no different than natural fluoride ingestion when calcium is present.  

I personally don't care if a fluoridation advocate calls fluoride a drug, supplement, an ingestible oral dentifrice, or something else. It simply doesn't matter. The fact is that it is illegal to not only add drugs, or supplements, or foods into water, it is illegal for the National CDC to request that States (which mandate it) add ANYTHING into public water supplies (Clean Water Act and Water Polllution Control Act), other than specific allowances made for agents that sanitize the water (SDWA). . 

[DavidF928895]

There has been no response from your alleged FOIA Request which stated that water fluoridation is illegal.  For one thing, FOIA Requests exist to make previously undisclosed documents available to the public.  That department of the EPA would not waste its time re-interpreting a very clear statute for you.  That's not what they do.

For another thing, I have searched the entire catalogue of EPA FOIA Requests for the response which you claim exists.  It doesn't exist.  It wasn't there.  You don't have it.  You can't find it.  You can't provide a link to it - and there should be a link to it.  

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

[BillO538145]

David,

Stick to the facts rather than attacking people.  Just because you don't know something doesn't mean the other person is a liar.  Try to be professional.  Try to be factual and scientific.  Everything you don't know, is not automatically a lie.

Contact the EPA with the FOIA number.  Ask them.

And what does your fluoride toothpaste label say?   "Drug Facts."

Fluoride added to water did not go through the regulatory process.  Rather a health claim was permitted based on other agencies, not the science.

Contact the FDA and ask if ingesting fluoride with the intent to prevent disease is a drug.  And ask if it is diluted in water with the same intent, is it a drug?

Ask.  Do your homework.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[RossF715288]

The FDA defines a drug as a product intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease and as a product intended to affect the structure or body of a person or an animal.

However it is delivered to a body does not alter the fact that fluoride, which is intended to affect the structure of teeth, is a drug by this authoritative definition.

Delivering fluoride to a population by way of community water fluoridation (CWF) should not conflate the drug (fluoride) and method of delivery (by water) into a new entity called ‘optimally fluoridated water’ and ludicrously assert, as does DavidF, that no federal U.S. agency considers ‘optimally fluoridated water’ a "drug."

It is also wrong to assert that no federal agency considers any of the ingredients of CWF as a drug, e.g. the FDA classes sodium fluoride – a sometimes ingredient of CWF – as a drug.

Iodine is the drug ingredient of some salts and folic acid the drug ingredient of some breads.  

[rs5526]

Please understand that the Safe Drinking Water Act, prohibiting any National requirement for substances placed into water, includes not only drugs, but any and ALL substances that do not sanitize the water--period.

The CA Dept. of Pub. Health officer David Nelson, who forced L.A. to fluoridate, knew full well of this stipulation in the SDWA. When asked why he thought mandatory fluoridation in CA and other States, as requested by officials in the Oral Health Division of the CDC, was legal, he said "we don't force people to drink the water, that is up to them". In other words this fluoridationist thinks he is not violating the SDWA because everyone has the freedom to NOT drink the treated water if they wish.

What this argument fails to grasp is that the SDWA prohibits a National requirement for the very addition itself into water. It does not stipulate a prohibition on forcing people to drink. It does not stipulate whether anyone drinks the water or not. It prohibits adding substances into water by National decree.

Officials in the CDC OHD request State Depts. of Public  Health inform cities of the need to fluoridate in their long quest to fluoridate the country. Now that 70% of water districts participate in this bone fluoridation program, and many states such as CA have laws making it a mandate, this National program violates the SDWA , whether people avoid ingesting the water or not. The water is being tainted daily and in violation of the law.

Nelson refused to discuss this any further and gave his typical reply "I just do what the CDC tells me, Richard."

There were 200 people attending the official public input session the day before fluoridation was to start. Only one person was there to endorse it and that was Nelson, who participated in drafting the CA mandate law and who ordered the Met.Water Dist. to follow that law.

Must be nice to break Federal law and then argue that you followed it, because after all if people drink the treated water and get dental fluorosis, that was their decision. Nelson is now retired.

The LA basin along with North San Diego County all became fluoridated by the MWD the following day in 2007.  A total con job, and totally against the intent of the SDWA which fluoridationists have also altered over the years to fit what they want, not what the country wants.

And yet I'm the one accused of being outside reality?

[DrChuckHaynie]

There are about 45 water additive, many of which have functions other than sanitizing the water.

The operation of water plants, including the regulation of water additives, falls principally to state regulations. The EPA defines the maximum allowable concentrations for contaminants. It is specifically the responsibility of water systems to determine the mineral content of their product.

Again, I believe if you think there is a legal mandate to disallow community water fluoridation you should pursue that theory in a court of law. I utterly disagree that there is lawlessness in the United States. Your position on national law and fluoridation has simply not been upheld. Any decisions against fluoridation have been reversed on appeal.

[rs5526]

Of course. There are corrosion inhibitors for example that minimize metal ions in water. And aluminum salts that remove solid  contaminants, etc.

But there is ony one chemical added for the purpose of treating people, human tissue,  and that is fluoride.

It is illegal to add therapeutics into public water. It is even illegal to add foods into public water. Please get some understanding.

[DrChuckHaynie]

Notwithstanding your view, the courts have ruled time and time again that fluoride is a normal mineral constituent present to some degree in most water sources, that optimizing the fluoride concentration is within the proper powers of governments, that the regulation of fluoride used for fluoridation as water additives is legal and sufficient, and that the practice is not mass medication.

Here is a database of court cases: http://fluidlaw.org/

Presumably the parties in at least some of these many cases were aware of relevant federal and state laws.

[rs5526]

The Coshow vs Escondido case was ruled correctly by the judge. The verdict was on that fluoridation alters the bodily composition of humans. That is a fact.  In all fluoridated cities blood and urine fluoride levels in consumers are  elevated compared to before fluoridation. We now know from published, stidies that dental fluorosis is increased in incidence in,all fluoridated cities --there are no exceptions. the problem is judges,who dont understand,and believe the CDC that  fluorodatupn is harmless except it alters teeth and such a judge overruled the case appealed by fluoridation advocates.

The truth being suppressed in courts is nothing new.

[DrChuckHaynie]

Escondido's fluoridation program prevailed in the case you cite.

Specifically: " However, the right to be free from forced medication is not a fundamental constitutional right in the context of adding fluoride or other chemicals to public drinking water.   City's use of HFSA to fluoridate its drinking water does not force Coshow to do anything. " This is but a small part of the judge's ruling in about the forced medication theory under which Coshow sued the city.

It beats me how fluoridation opponents choose to make claims so at odds to reality.

Here's the decision if anyone wishes to read it all

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1492563.html

[CarryAnne]

“While four out of five dentists may be enough to pick a gum, all should agree before we force-medicate the public.” - Judge Peter Vallone, Jr., former Chair of the NYC Public Safety Committee (2012)

First, it shouldn't matter a whit if it is legal if it has been proved harmful, but there is money involved. Fluoridation has been ruled harmful but legal under 'police powers' using rational basis in courts of last resort. Judges and legal academics have suggested that fluoridation needs to be settled at the legislative level. Specifically judges and legal scholars have written:

"By [fluoridating the water] the municipal authorities...arrogate to themselves the sole right to decide what medicine is good for the health of the water consumers, and thereby the municipal water system becomes a direct conduit for the transportation of medicine from the apothecary's pestle to the patient, without the latter's consent. Thus will the people be deprived of a very important part of their constitutional liberty under our republican form of government and the police state will be substituted for the police power of the state." - Justice Donworth, dissenting opinion  in KAUL vs. CITY OF CHEHALIS before Supreme Court of Washington (1954) 

”That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies… may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in

man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." - Judge Anthony Farris, District Court, Houston, TX (May 24, 1982)

“Nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that in depth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.” - Judge John P. Flaherty, Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1988)

”My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water  supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue...That the practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility doubted." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

"Over the course of five months (in 1978), the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities." - Judge John P. Flaherty, Chief Justice in the Supreme Court of PA (1996)

"Marginal benefit in exchange for significant risk is the sine qua non of gross disproportionality…the stronger the scientific evidence of risk of harm, the greater the gross disproportionality.” - Nader R. Hasan, esq. (2014)

“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D.  (2014)

[rs5526]

Any American who forces the ingestion of a substance by treating the nation's water supplies is in violation of the SDWA, not just Federal employees. All americans are obligated to follow the law.

[DrChuckHaynie]

This is simply mistaken, there is no such law. . My challenge remains . . if you believe this is the law go to court and have it inforced. The last time I checked, courts are obligated to follow whatever the law actually is and if any disagrees, the decision can be appealed.

100% of the time such actions in the US have lost.

Here are some quotations from the decision which currently governs the matter in Oregon: (Baer v City of Bend).

"the fluoridation measure passes the test of reasonableness."

(fluoridation is) "no more practicing medicine or dentistry or manufacturing, preparing, compounding or selling a drug, than a mother would be who furnishes her children a well-balanced diet."

"But the liberty secured by the Constitution ..does not import an absolute right in each person to be ..wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good."

"Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy."

"Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own regardless of the injury that may be done to others."

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

A couple good responses to your good questions on "legal" and "NSF."

I would agree with you, most US court cases have ruled in favor of fluoridation, but not all.  And certainly international courts have not been as good to fluoridation.  But they have not wrestled and ruled on the science.

Those two issues of (A) courts and (B) NSF are too big to cover here, but I will touch on both with a few more points from others.

(A)    Courts generally support governments, so those harmed with excess fluoride have a higher standard to gain.  

1.   As you may know, like a scientific study, courts try to focus on one variable and often it ends up to be a war of court terms rather than the benefits and risks.  Only one case I know of, considered the science and that court ruled in favor of the science and opposed to fluoridation.  On appeal the science was not reviewed.

2.   The EPA approved SF for a post-harvest fumigant with residual concentrations up to, for example, dried egg of 900 ppm, similar to toothpaste.  Most dried egg is fed to children and seniors in schools and retirement homes. . . the most vulnerable.  On petition, an administrative judge ruled against the EPA on all counts.  Seeing the serious loss, Dow Agro went around the EPA and had Congress approve SF as a post-harvest fumigant.  Doesn't mean it is safe, just means money makes laws.  The politicians I talked to did not realize what they had signed.

3.   The court is currently reviewing fluoride in a TSCA suite.  We shall see how that plays out in a year or so. 

(B)  Regarding NSF.   

1.  NSF is a private company and documentation is not available to the public.  We don't know how "honest" NSF presents their data.

2.  NSF had a rule that permitted contaminants in a product, limiting the contaminant to 10% of the EPA's MCL added to the water.   Sounds simple enough.  10% of EPA's 4 mg/L MCL for fluoride would be 0.4 ppm.   NSF would therefore permit fluoridation up to 0.4 ppm.  

So I called NSF and asked them about the rule.  They agreed and explained it to me as I have to you.  I then asked why NSF permitted fluoridation to 1.2 ppm?   Silence.  They said they would call me back and did not.  I called a week later and asked again.  The person I talked to said the 10% applies to contaminants in the product, not the product itself.

I asked, "if we called fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by a different name, would it be limited to 0.4 ppm?"  NSF responded, "well yes."

Since then, NSF has made an exeption to fluoride.    And exceptions for fluoride are what we see with all regulatory agencies, such as the EPA, CDC, FDA, and others.  The rules are written and changed not based on science alone, but on politics and money.   When it comes to fluoride, NSF protects the fluoride manufacturers and those purchasing the fluoride.   Their decision is not based on science or health.  Their data is not open for public review.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH  

[BillO538145]

Dr. Chuck,

A couple good responses to your good questions on "legal" and "NSF."

I would agree with you, most US court cases have ruled in favor of fluoridation, but not all.  And certainly international courts have not been as good to fluoridation.  Few have wrestled and ruled on the science.

Those two issues of (A) courts and (B) NSF are too big to cover here, but I will add to other posts.

(A)    Courts generally support governments, so those harmed with excess fluoride have a higher standard to gain.    (Courts took years to rule against tobacco, long after science was firm.)

1.   As you may know, like a scientific study, courts try to focus on one variable and often it ends up to be a war of court terms rather than the benefits and risks of fluoride.  Only one case I know of, considered the science and that court ruled in favor of the science which is opposed to humans ingesting more fluoride. . . fluoridation.  On appeal the science was not reviewed.

2.   The EPA approved SF for a post-harvest fumigant with residual concentrations up to, for example, dried egg of 900 ppm, similar to toothpaste.  Most dried egg is fed to children and seniors in schools and retirement homes. . . the most vulnerable.  On petition, an administrative judge ruled against the EPA on all counts.  Seeing the serious loss, Dow Agro went around the EPA and had Congress approve SF as a post-harvest fumigant in the Farm Bill.  Doesn't mean SF is safe, just means money makes laws.  The politicians I talked to did not realize what they had signed.

3.   The court is currently reviewing fluoride in a TSCA suite.  We shall see how that plays out in a year or so.   The neurotoxicity of fluoride is central.

(B)  Regarding NSF.   Do not trust NSF to evaluate the safety or efficacy of fluoride ingestion.

1.  NSF is a private company and documentation is not available to the public.  We don't know how "honest" NSF presents their data.  And what we know is a concern.

2.  NSF had a rule that permitted contaminants in a product, limiting the contaminant to 10% of the EPA's MCL added to the water.   Sounds simple enough.  10% of EPA's 4 mg/L MCL for fluoride would be 0.4 ppm.   NSF would therefore permit fluoridation up to 0.4 ppm.  

So I called NSF and asked them about the rule.  They agreed and explained it to me as I have to you.  I then asked, "why NSF permitted fluoridation to 1.2 ppm when 10% of 4 ppm MCL is 0.4 mg/L?"   Long pause.  Finally, NSF said they would call me back and did not.  I called a week later and asked again.  The person I talked to said the 10% applies to contaminants in the product, not the product itself.

I asked, "if we called fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by a different name such as lead or silicate or arsenic, would the dilution of the product be limited to 0.4 ppm of fluoride?"  NSF responded, "well yes."  

NSF makes no sense.  Change the name and the product cannot be added to the water at current concentrations?   Nothing about a name change will change the toxicity of the product.

Since then, NSF has made an exeption to fluoride.    And exceptions for fluoride are what we see with all agencies and fluoridationists, such as the EPA, CDC, FDA, and others.  The rules are written and changed not based on health and safety, but on politics and money.   When it comes to fluoride, NSF protects the fluoride manufacturers and those purchasing the fluoride.   Their decision is not based on science or health.  Their data is not open for public review.  

Do NOT rely on NSF for the health and safety of fluoridation.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH  

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Bill,

In your comment, timestamp 0-13-2018 02:37 PM, you said:

"For clarity, I asked the EPA and EPA in a FOIA request responded,

“The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

                                                                 FOIA Request HQ-FOI-01418-10"

That seemed odd to me, since Freedom of Information Act Requests are designed to make undisclosed or hidden documents available to the public.  FIOA Requests are not intended to provide clarity on existing laws.  

So I went to this EPA / FIOA Website:  https://www.epa.gov/foia

On the right-hand side of the page is this column:  "Resources for FOIA Requests," and the Fourth Item in that column is "Search Existing FIOA Requests."  

I clicked that link and was redirected to this page:  https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home

Unable to find any reference to your FIOAR on any of the 3 search engines on that page, I then went to this Advanced Search Page:  https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/search/advancedSearch

In that search engine I searched by Requester's Name, your name "Osmunson."  No results found.  Then I tried Bill Osmunson.  .  .  No Bill Osmunson.  Then I tried Dr. Bill Osmunson. . . No matches.  Then I tried Dr. William Osmunson.  Nothing.  

Then I tried looking under Search Criteria: Tracking Number.   I copy/pasted  HQ-FOI-01418-10.  No Results Found.  Then FOI-1418-10.  Then 01418-10.  Nothing.  Nothing.  No Results Found.  

Dr. Bill, perhaps you could tell me the date of this request of yours, and perhaps you could tell me the "Received Date,"  the "Perfected Date," the "Due Date,"  or the "Closing Date" of your alleged FIOA Request so that I could search by any of those criteria.  

That shouldn't be too difficult for you.  

And Thank You in advance of your normally prompt response.

[BillO538145]

David,

Thank you for doing homework and looking.  

My suggestion is to contact EPA and ask them for a copy.

I did the research for myself and no longer have a copy readily accessable.  And if I did, you would probably say I faked it.  So. . . contacting the EPA yourself is the best way to get a copy from them.

Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

[DavidF928895]

Billo,  your comments defy belief.

Quote:  "My suggestion is to contact EPA and ask them for a copy. . . I did the research for myself and no longer have a copy readily accessable."

First of all, you are saying that you no longer have a copy of their reply?  Yet, for some reason you have the FOIA identification number?  You saved that, but not the actual reply?  

If you weren't going to save the reply, why did you go to the trouble of obtaining it in the first place?

Now, after I have searched the entire catalogue of EPA FOIA Requests using the identification you provided, you are telling me to contact them directly.   What are they going to do if not search the entire catalogue of FIOA requests.  More likely they would simply direct me to the website that they have already provided, so that they wouldn't have to waste their time with questions such as these. 

They would direct me to a website that I have already used to search for FOIA Requests.  So, when I went to "Search Existing FIOA Requests,"  there was no evidence to support anything you said.  I invite any readers of this thread to look at the EPA sites I have looked at.  I list them in this comment:  Timestamp 10-17-2018 07:56 PM.  .  . 

My conclusion is that you were untruthful about your claim that the EPA ever said:  “The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the deliberate addition of any substance to drinking water for health-related purposes other than disinfection of the water.”

Surely something of this importance would be readily available on an EPA website.

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

[rs5526]

When I wrote to the EPA, asking them to place an injuctiuon on fluoridaiton by water districts, the EPA Office of Water replied in writing that the EPA does not endorse or request or regulate water fluoridation--that is the responsibility of the FDA. So my response was about that sent to Dr. Osmunsen.

Although these statements are correct (since the EPA regulates accidentally spilled and naturally present contaminants in water, not materials added intentionally for some putative health purpose) nevertheless the EPA could place an injunction since an NPDES permit is required by any entity to intentionally discharge EPA contaminants into public water supplies.

.

Meanwhile, behind the scenes the EPA  works with water districts for the purpose of helping them set up fluoridation equipiment so as to help ensure the systems don't allow water to exeed 2-4 ppm fluoride. 

Pretty wierd, no?

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, get your facts right.  You just said:

"When I wrote to the EPA, asking them to place an injuctiuon on fluoridaiton by water districts, the EPA Office of Water replied in writing that the EPA does not endorse or request or regulate water fluoridation--that is the responsibility of the FDA. "

The FDA has nothing to do with community water fluoridation.  This is the FDA reply when asked about water fluoridation:

"Please know, the FDA does not regulate the quality of water, including water fluoridation, as this is regulated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). You may find information on their website about water purification processes,

http://water.epa.gov/drink/standardsriskmanagement.cfm and fluoride in drinking water,

http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm.

The EPA Office of Water may also be contacted directly by mail at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Water (4100T)

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Best regards,

Drug Information Specialist, LK |Division of Drug Information

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research |Food and Drug Administration"

Mr. Daniel Ryan in New Zealand asked these questions to both the EPA and the FDA.  His exchanges can be found here.  http://msof.nz/infomation/is-fluoride-a-drug-or-medicine-epa-and-fda-reply-to-our-questions/

They completely contradict your stories, and unlike you, he has presented the exchanges in full.  His conclusion was that neither the FDA nor the EPA will classify optimally fluoridated water as a "drug."

falsus in uno falsus in omnibus

[rs5526]

Everyone knows that the FDA does not regulate water fluoridation. They are mandated to do so (because it is used as a drug or supplement) but they don't, and they assume the EPA does (becaue fluoride is an EPA regulated contaminant in water).

Neither the EPA nor the FDA actually regulates fluoridation. No Federal Agency does.

No Agency (including the private  NSF) is now measuring the fluoride levels in blood or urine of people in fluoridated cities. No Agency is monitoring bone disease incidence in fluoridated cities, including hip, knee, and elbow replacement surgeries. No Agency is monitoring the incidence of infant mortality in fluoridated cities. No Agency enforces Good Manufacturing Practices from fertilizer plant waste that is required under law for any substance used for human ingestion. 

Everyone should know the FDA is responsible, and everyone should also know the FDA does nothing to regulate the intentional discharge of fluosilicic acid  materials obtained from fertilizer industrial scrubbers that is discharged into public water supplies for the purpose of treating human tissue without FDA approval. What is so difficult to understand? 

No one wants to take resonsibility or accept any liability for the insane act known as "fluoridation".  Who wants to pay for the millions of U.S. teens that have dental fluorosis? Who wants to make the inane claim that fluoridation of bone to thousands of ppm, which alters the crystal structure and forms bone of poor quality, somehow has nothing to do with the increased incidence of bone fractures and bone replacement surgeries in the  U.S.? Who wants to claim that although infant mortality was reduced in Chile when Dr. Schatz convinced Pres. Allende to halt fluoridation of poor neighborhoods, that poor neighborhoods in the U.S. are somehow magically immune to the effects of whole body fluoridation of infants in the womb?

Of course the FDA AND EPA are negligent in their duty. This is not a news flash.

[DavidF928895]

Dr. Sauerheber, I really have to wonder what is in this for you.  Either you are completely out of touch with reality, or you are purposely trying to make a relatively simple, easy to understand issue, confusing as hell.

Your quote:  "Neither the EPA nor the FDA actually regulates fluoridation. No Federal Agency does."

Resonse:  Not exactly true.  The FDA has nothing to do with water fluoridation because optimally fluoridated water is not considered a "drug" by any Federal Agency.  

There is no Federal Agency which considers water with 1 ppm F in it a "drug."  Wrap your head around that.  Either water with 1 ppm F isn't a drug, or there is some massive conspiracy of silence between all U.S. Federal Agencies.  Which is it?

Optimally fluoridated water is no more a drug than bread fortified with folic acid, . . . than milk with Vitamin D added, . . . . than cereal fortified with vitamins.  Sometimes people put stuff in stuff we consume for our own good.  

Now, is this a massive conspiracy between all U.S. Federal Agencies, or is optimally fluoridated water really not a drug?

[rs5526]

Well said Dr. Osmunsen.

When an EPA listed contaminant is added on purpose into water for some believed "useful" purpose, then the NSF ignores its own rules on contamianants and relabels it as a product. This is the same rationale the EPA's Rebecca Hamner used when she signed the ruling that fluosilicic acid, an EPA hazardous waste, could be relabeled a water additive IF someone were to want to purchase it for such a purpose.  Since then, fluosilicic acid hazardous waste has been used as a cheaper source material for fluoride than sodium fluoride used before. Then the EPA asked the private group the NSF to do the regulating work that the EPA should have done.

The first step toward accepting oppression and double-speak is to reject facts. To counter the bone fluoridation program that has spread across the country, it is necessary to believe in and to present the truth. Labeling a non-nutrient contaminant of water and blood as something that is useful to ingest, to elevate in the blood, is not truth--it is opppression. And when Federal agencies like the CDC and NSF change laws to accomodate it, that becomes a National mandate and an abrogation of truth where those who actually speak truth become re-labeled as extremists.

[rs5526]

Sue to what end?  When people presume fluoride is a mineral nutrient, the case is lost before you begin.

Two court cases were tried with much detail already and concluded that fluoridated water consumption increases the incicdence of cancer mortaltiy. But a higher PA court overruled the decision to halt fluoridation because, ironically, it was ruled that "no one has a right to tell anyone else what to drink"  This thought meant to that judge that the people had no right to tell the water district to stop putting fluoride in the water. But such thoughts should mean that no water district has the right to force fluoride into anyone's water. Again, when people imagine that fluoride is harmlesss mineral or even a "nutrient" added at levels far below that already in toothpaste, then the case is incorrectly lost before it even begins.

Everyone has to drink water to remain alive. So the choice for many in fluoridated cities where well drilling is not allowed is to either be harmed chronically with a bone fluoridation program in the water that is supplied to you, or be harmed acutely by not drinking the fluoridated water supplied to you. This false choice should not exist. The U.N. declaration of human rightrs guarantees that all persons have rights to access to fresh drinking water (i.e. without added bone altering agents or unnecessary chemicals).

This is simply too difficult for fluoridation promoters to grasp.

[rs5526]

Every federal agency including the CDC is obligated to abide by the SDWA. The CDC has everything to do with the law. That is precisely why they use the word recpmmend instead of require for fluoridation. Water districts that bow to CDC demands are not free of the law either and know full well that the cdc has no rights to force districts to comply.

[CarryAnne]

It is interesting to see how the fluoridationists have modified their language in the past few years. Whereas they had steadfastedly insisted fluoride was a nutrient, a mineral, and essential - in fact, claiming dental disaster and deformed teeth if children didn't consume it (see Myths & Manpiluation 2015), they are now choosing their words more carefully.

Chuck Haynie says fluoride is "generally believed to be of benefit" and admits that the fluoridation chemicals we use are contaminated with arsenic and other poisons but calls them "micro-contaminants" and are perfectly acceptable because of a stamp from NSF.  Erin Brockovich describes NSF as having a 'corrupt pay to play' business model.

Independent analysis of samples of fluoridation chemicals sold to communities have found alarming levels of contamination that demonstrate the testing criteria is not protective (Mullenix 2014). In fact, Erin B. has said, "Regulatory gaps are lobbyist created Grand Canyons designed to cheat the system.”

Let me make this clear. No "micro" amount of this poison or the tramp contaminants that accompany each and batch of fluoride is necessary or even beneficial to teeth or any other part of body, bone and brain. 

Expert in Nutrition: “Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority on DRV  (2013)

DHHS: “No essential function for fluoride has been proven in humans.” - The Report of the Department of Health and Social Subjects, No. 41, Dietary Reference Values, Chapter 36 on fluoride (HMSO 1996)

Textbook: “Fluoride has not been shown to be required for normal growth or reproduction in animals or humans consuming an otherwise adequate diet, nor for any specific biological function or mechanism.” - Applied Chemistry - 2nd edition by Wm. R. Stine (1994)