- AARP Online Community
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Invest, Diversify, Integrate Your Financial Life
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Reveal Your Travel Secrets Sweepstakes
- Home & Family Forums
- Dogs, Cats and Pets
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Love, Sex & Dating
- Our Front Porch
- Random Thoughts and Conversations
- Singles Perspective Revisited
- Comunidad Hispana de AARP
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Rewards for Good
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Caregiving Forums
- Grief & Loss
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
07-28-2015 10:00 AM - edited 08-22-2015 06:55 PM
"....infants fed formula made with fluoridated water suffer higher rates of dental fluorosis."
- Dr. Paul Connett, former Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry and founder of the Fluoride Action Network (see post on infant exposure)
NysCof posted a link in a comment above to a blog post that describes how the f-lobby got the mandatory California fluoridation on the books, then bragged about their secretive tactics to avoid public input and debate. In that post, it mentions a CA team led by Howard Pollick that studied 2,520 California preschool children. A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.They report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.
Pollick also reports in the "International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health" that "infant formula made with optimally fluoridated water might create brown and pitted permanent teeth." That is consistent with many studies that show children's teeth will grow in stained if fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.
Yet, Pollick remains committed to fluoridation, even when his own dental research proves it has no benefit, and causes permanent harm to infants and young children. Pollick assidiously avoids exploring any of the neurological, thyroid, or kidney damage science attached to childhood exposure. Pollick is also committed to back room dealings of questionable ethics, both on a state and national level. See following extracted from Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) email communications released this year.
- CDC Clearance Chain: 2010 email collaboration between Steven Levy and Gary Whitford of IFS, Jay Kumar of NY DOH and ADA staff with CDC regarding wording of a 2011 ADA report on infant formula supposedly based on IFS data revealed a less than scientific approach to decision making. The collusion softened the language and obfuscated findings so as to remain supportive of CDC fluoridation policy. A concern voiced in the email trail was not to provide “fodder to antifluoridationists.” This biased “wordsmithing” by individual authors and ADA with CDC input calls into question the scientific integrity of dental researchers, IFS project and ADA. The peer review of the report by JADA found the report to be too confusing. The JADA editor suggested that the authors focus on major findings, include less data, and articulate clearer conclusions, which ironically was what the group was trying so hard not to do.
- I particularly like the comment by Howard Pollick of the University of California, San Francisco on June 4, “We should say something about why we are recommending fluoridated water, even though there has been no or little research on the benefits of fluoridated water in infant formula in the prevention of dental caries.” This led to discussion about the inclusion of endorsements of fluoridation to justify recommendations not supported by data, a puzzling action for a panel claiming to promote an “evidence-based approach” to care for national implementation. Including any of those endorsements, like the one from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), provides the textbook example of circular logic. The AAP based their endorsement on PHS/CDC endorsements of dietary fluoride from the discredited 1940s and 1950s trials…. trials that IFS was trying, unsuccessfully, to substantiate.
- Also in this email trail, Krishna Aravamudhan, the Asst Director of Evidence-Based Dentistry, on 2/22/2010 suggested it might be better to phrase the report so as to let the reader wonder if there was a connection between formula and fluorosis rather than imply it, although he stated on 3/2/2010 that there was a statistically significant association between elevated fluorides and reconstituted formula. On 5/3/10, Krishna states the thorny questions of the group on a call included, ‘How can we say mostly mild dental fluorosis in the report when 3% of the fluorosis cases in the Iowa study are moderate to severe?’ It seems that Krishna was personally fine with using “mostly” as the qualifier.
- Another email trail in these FOIA documents concerned the ADA and CDC co-sponsoring recommendations for topical fluorides, a continuation of the ‘successful ADA-CDC collaboration on many project over the last few years.’ Krishna Aravamudan of the ADA specifically complimented CDC staff, Dr. Barbara Gooch, Dr. Eugenio Beltran and Dr. Jennifer Cleveland of the CDC for their assistance to the ADA in their endeavors, most of which seem to be for the purpose of fluoride promotion. Jane McGinley, ADA Manager of Fluoridation and Dr. Wm Bailey of the Chief Dental Officer of the PHS were other primary stakeholders in these collaborations.
- 2011 Infant Formula Report: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21243832
- 2001 CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/Mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm
- 2007 Over 80% dentists got it wrong: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899898
- 2015 FOIA: http://nidellaw.com/wp-content/uploads/FOIA2.pdf (formula exchange near end)
Baby Boomers, if you figure it's too late for you..... consider your grandchildren.
Tell the AARP you want a Position Paper in opposition to fluoridation, now!
07-28-2015 09:57 AM - edited 08-22-2015 02:09 PM
“Community water fluoridation is a malignant medical myth!” - Dr. Joel Kauffman, Professor Emeritus in Chemistry (2006)
Fluoridation is unfair:
- 1. Since fluoridation causes approximately double the dental fluorosis in non-white populations, it is a Civil Rights and Environmental Justice issue.
- 2. Since fluoridation is harmful to susceptible populations that include the elderly, the very young, those with prolonged illness, and those with insufficient protein, calcium or vitamin C in their diets (the poor), it is a Human Rights issue.
- 3. Fluoridation ignores our rights & freedoms that include freedom of choice & informed medical consent.
- a. When fluoride is in municipal water, it is ubiquitous in our food supply making it impossible for us to avoid this drug.
- b. Fluoride is also absorbed through skin, and is an irritant for those with eczema and other skin conditions.
- 4. Fluoridation is NOT necessary to provide fluoride to the public. Saying so creates a false choice, i.e is flawed logic.
- a. If someone wants to ingest fluoride, they still have that option by adding drops to their own drinking water.
- b. Since fluoride is available in toothpaste and the only confirmed actual science of benefit states that high concentrations as in toothpaste make cavity causing bacteria “less sticky,” the 1940s justification for fluoridation is no longer valid.
- c. The argument about fluoridation benefiting poor children has been rejected by both the 2000 York Review and 2015 Cochrane Review of dental literature purporting SES benefit.
2015 Cochrane Review featured in Newsweek:
AARP, now is the time to take action. The science this century proving harm is robust and staggering. The 2014 and 2015 science alone is justification for writing a position paper opposing fluoridation.
07-21-2015 02:26 PM - edited 07-21-2015 02:32 PM
Thanks. Yes the media do not often report fluoridation overfeeds. I recall one newspaper reporting an overfeed in Wisconsin where the water official said, "it's only 50 ppm, so it's not a big deal if people drink it because when they do they will just vomit it up anyway." Nevertheless since the water was deemed unsuitable for drinking, the entire treated amount, scores of thousands of gallons, were dumped into a local field. The casual treatment of industrial fluoride ingestion is amazing. Also, in drought-laden CA, water waste like that would result in a huge fine.
Well, the FDA wrote to me last week and stated that the fluoridated water ban petition FDA-2007-P-0346 and its supplemental letters of support (83 in total) will, rest assured, be carefully evaluated -- and that no further comment can be made until the reveiw committee reaches a decision. The petition was accepted for review in 2007 and we have not given up hope that it will, at least in part, be honored.
Thus far, the FDA remains the only U.S. government body that has made a number of official rulings against fluoridation of water supplies. One ruling was that it must not be used in kidney dialysis equipment because whole body dialysis in kidney disease patients results in too high a blood fluoride level which is associated with increased morbidity in those who have been so treated. We are hoping this nonsense can all be disposed of with a formal ban on the sale or production of industrial fluoride compounds intended to be ingested. Fluoride compounds have of course never been FDA approved for ingestion, but we hope the FDA can help us a little bit more, with a ban.
The Erin Brockovich legal group has officially come out against fluoridation, but we are asking AARP and other organizations to also examine the evidence in full.
And congratulations to the people of Juneau and also Fairbanks, AK. My sister lives in Anchorage where help is still needed to halt this ineffective, harmful, illegal waste of taxpayer dollars.
07-21-2015 08:21 AM
That's interesting. I watched on the internet as the San Diego City Council voted to fluoridate even though they didn't want to, didn't understand it and the voters rejected it several times. The reason they voted in favor was that they were told if they didn't, they would be fined daily or weekly for not doing so.
Fluoridation was foisted on Californians in a stealthy manner - deliberately avoiding notification so citizens couldn't object and then they bragged about it in the California Dental Association journal
Nelson was one of the nastiest of fluoridationists.
07-21-2015 02:11 AM
Richard, our overspill was in Juneau and was never publically acknowledged. It took me about 2 years to put two and two together and figure out what happened to us. I did eventually get private confirmation from a contact at the water utility who was a friend of a friend. They have since stopped fluoridation there after a long battle.
I don't think most toxic overspills of fluoride are ever publically acknowledged, and they are a lot more common than people think. After all, fluoride is extremely corrosive and eventually all fluoridation equipment malfunctions for that reason. Small towns with small municipal budgets have difficulty keeping up with the maintenance, but instead of stopping the fluoridation until they can maintain the equipment properly - they just keep on putting it in the water. It's crazy!
07-20-2015 03:42 PM
My understanding is that the litigation over the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed is still not resolved. The city blames the State for making them fluoridate, and the State blames the city for doing the fluoridating.
It should be noted that in CA, the State chief fluoridaiton officer David Nelson (now retired) helped write the CA fluoridation law and forced Los Angeles to fluoridate in 2007. He actually told me that the Hoper Bay accident was not the fault of the water treatment facility. He claimed it was the victim's wife's fault! This is because she is a nurse and "should have known that the first sign of fluoride overdose is vomiting, so she should not have given him more water when he asked for more after vomiting."
I responded by saying there are many causes of vomiting, and why would anyone suspect the water supply when you tell cities that fluoridation is perfectly harmless? And are you telling me the wife went around the whole town of Hooper Bay and gave them fluoride poisoned water to drink so that all 302 people would be poisoned by it?
He realized how foolish he was being, stopped discussing it, and then said, "I only do what the CDC tells me to do."
Hence CA remains a state where fluoridation is an attempted mandate. But remember that there is no law that can mandate what violates Federal water law. And the CA law does not mention the source of fluoride material to be used, so the law is not actionable and is null and void. Further, the first line in the law makes the assumption that fluoride in water decreases incidence of caries. This has been fully disproven in vast studies, so the mandate has no actual meaning, is not legally binding, and is basically a worthless historical anecdote.
In fact, the CA Department of Public Health has written that no city is litigated if it does not fluoridate, and in their view it is the city itself that decides whether to fluoridate.
So all you CA city councils out there, go ahead and halt fluoridation, and nothing wrong will happen. Caries will not increase, because they were not reduced in the first place, and there is no State law that forces you to infuse this industrial hazardous waste.
07-20-2015 02:40 PM
07-20-2015 09:53 AM - edited 07-21-2015 10:10 AM
"Early researchers had it backwards." - Lahey Clinic and Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital
Websites of several major hospitals include this phrase about fluoridation, "Early researchers had it backwards." They go on to state that fluoride works topically as in toothpaste, not by ingestion, and that fluoridation is unncesssary for dental health. Research out of the IFS longitudinal studies have also found that despite the best efforts of dental researchers, "Current evidence strongly suggests that fluorides work primarily by topical means through direct action on the teeth and dental plaque. Thus ingestion of fluoride is not essential for caries prevention,” but does cause dental fluorosis. This is consistent with the 2015 Cochrane Review and 2000 York Review that both noted the poor quality limited evidence in dental studies purporting benefit. They both went on to note that those studies demonstrated more BIAS than benefit, and SELECTIVE SAMPLING rather than safety. (Also see 20th century analysis by Dr. Philip Sutton, Dr. John Colquhoun, and Dr. John Yiamouyiannis)
So why are we taking these risks:
Hooper Bay Alaska was just one example of all too common accidents, albeit one of the more dramatic poisoning examples (see comments by lm89599076 and rs5526.)* In my state of Massachusetts, just this century:
- 1. Wakefield 2000 fluoride overfeed that resulted in gastrointestinal distress and neurological symptoms, i.e. extreme dizziness.
- 2. Marlboro 2003 fluoride overfeed that resulted in warnings not to use the water, even for washing, as it could irritate skin and even cause chemical burns.
- 3. Westminster 2005 fluoride spill at water treatment plant that resulted in hospitalization of several workers.
- 4. Amesbury 2011 fluoride clogs in the equipment and related costs prompted the process that led to the discontinuation of water fluoridation
Also, consider the health impact on water workers who handle fluoride, many if not all of whom, develop fluoride illnesses before reaching retirement, such as Susan Kanen who has commented in this thread.
From the manual, Water Fluoridation Principles and Practices, 5th Ed (2011):
- “Always wear protective safety gear when handling fluoride chemicals. In particular, full face shield, splash-proof goggles, rubber gloves and boots, and acid proof aprons should be worn….” Workers are also warned to never eat near fluoride and that the disposal of fluoride bags and other containers are “usually a problem.”
So since it is UNNECESSARY for preventing cavities, inflicts life long damage to teeth of approximately half the children in fluoridated communities, has the potential for serious accidents causing debilitating illness or death, and poisons water departments staff ..... why are we fluoridating our water?
AARP - It is time for you to write a Position Paper opposing fluoridation!
See AAEM for examples:
FLUORIDATION RESOLUTION: https://www.aaemonline.org/pdf/FluorideResolution.pdf
CHEMICAL SENSITIVITIES POSITION PAPER: https://www.aaemonline.org/chemicalsensitivity.php
* Richard Sauerheber and I assumed that lm89599076 was referring to the Hooper Bay, AK overspill that resulted in a death and hundreds of life threatening illnesses in a very small community. However, lm89599076 tells us later in this thread that her experience that resulted her child's severe dental fluorosis and tooth loss was actually in an unreported extended duration overfeed in Juneau, Alaska.
07-20-2015 12:19 AM - edited 07-20-2015 12:20 AM
Thank you so much for your comments on the overfeed in Alaska. It was the overfeed in Hooper Bay AK that inspired me to investigate the mechanism of acute fluoride toxicity in those poisoned in that event, which is probably the worst poisoning disaster fron use of fluoridated water in the country. This after 15 years led to the published article in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490. It is available free online (due to kind donations from private persons) at:
07-19-2015 11:53 PM
- brain health
- lifelong learning
- good news
- good news daily
- healthy brain
- healthy habits
- Healthy Living
- positive news stories
- brain games
- cancer rates declining
- Diet and memory
- Do you play brain games…
- Dogs Against Fluoridat…
- Family Genealogist