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. 



  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞
  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.😞 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞

  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); 

  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.):



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. 



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.

  • 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. 



  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: 
    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:
    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): 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999):
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011):
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015):
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015):


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Bronze Conversationalist

Me calling attention to fluoride discharges in rivers during a salmon collapse is claimed here to be extremist and out of the mainstream. But finding something others have nor noticed is not being extremist. It is simply being attentive. 

There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have  nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem. None. 

And yet I am argued to be wrong and extremist?

This discussion is quite amusing. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Richard, this is a joke:  "There is not a single scientist who has published in journals or the media that the fluoride discharges in the Sacramento have  nothing to to with the decimated ongoing almon population problem."


Response:  Yeah.  There is also not a single scientist who has published that Sunspots have nothing to do with ongoing salmon population problems either.  


Love your reasoning.


Show me a scientist who agrees with your fringe position that water fluoridation caused this.  As of now you are a fringe minority of One.  

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation. This is a typical mistake people make when analyzimg population data.

I don't mind being labeled fringe by one who knows my results are unconventional but correct. I of course am not fringe when the definition means being an extremist who is incorrect. 

The study in JEPH was first conceived  after the fluoridation overfeed killed a coastguardsman in Alaska in 1992. The analysis. and the writeup took a very long time to complete and by the time  it was published finally after lengthy reviews and discussions and encouragement from my mentor and collaborator Dr. Benson was published 2013. So from conception to finish it took my spare unpaid time over a 19 year span to finish. So what? 


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

By the way, for the 5th time now, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works as though he was affiliated with that institution? . . as though they funded the paper? . . . as though they published the material?    Anybody?

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Sauerheber, your quote:  "Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to, or that all seven million endorse or promote fluoridation."


Response:  First of all, I never said they endorse or promote fluoridation.  They are not opposed to it.  You are.  You are fringe.  


You say, ""Not signing an antifluoridation position for a group you csll extremist does not mean those 7 million were even asked to,"  


Response:  If somebody is opposed to water fluoridation in this country, they are familiar with the Fluoride Action Network, or Fluoridealert.  They just are.  That is were almost all of the misinformation & paranoia comes from.  So, if somebody is visiting that site, they have been asked to sign the statement.  


That 4500, or maybe it's up to 5000 now, represents the sum total of those whom FAN calls "professional" & "health care" workers.  It includes some doctors, some nurses, a few dentists, aromatherapists, chiropractors, among others, lawyers (for obvious reasons).  That's it.  


Face it, you are fringe, and your "Demand" of the AARP here is nothing more than a lame attempt to make you look more mainstream.  


You call optimally fluoridated water a "drug" in your attempt to generate paranoia.  No U.S. health agency agrees with you on that.  Not the CDC, not the FDA, not the EPA, not the USDPH, nobody.  


You have actually said that the Safe Drinking Water Act was originally written to halt the spread of fluoridation across the country.  (this thread ‎07-13-2018 12:46 PM)



0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

For anyone reading these posts, there are two key definitions of the term fringe. I would refer to a few of my 51 research articles published in scientific journals since 1972 as fringe, with a first definition, that is, the data are "unconventional, but correct." 


I do not however publish articles that are classed with the second definition of fringe, which is being used here as a criticism, to mean "extremist and false." I have no such articles. I stand by all the data I have published and yes there are several that are fringe because the results surprise many people in the field. 1. It is true that insulin stimulates glucose transporters present in the plasma membrane, rather than an opposing 'recruitment' view held by many in power at the NIH. 2. It is true that type II diabetes does not require drugs to correct the condition in all classical cases, in spite of the widespread use of drugs to treat it in the U.S. 3. It is true that time passes continuously, regardless of human acitvities or motion of observers, as revealed by real experiments published, in spite of widespread teachings otherwise. 4. It is true that swallowing  fluoride from industrial sources, including from fluosilicic acid and sodium fluoride, without plentiful calcium, causes the protonation of all fluoride ion into hydrofluoric acid HF in the acidic stomach in man, as published in the JEPH article to which is being labeled here with the false definition of fringe, when the data are nevertheless correct. 


I've already addressed the reference to UCSD in some of my articles, and it has nothing to do with what has been claimed. It is proper, not improper, to list an institution where work was initiated or completed even when it is published later when the author also works at a different institution. Taylor & Francis publishing group reviewed this and also agreed. The four articles on the Calculus were completed after initial work was done at UCSD. The two articles on time dilation were only able to be published, with heavy arguments from 5 physicist editors, because of the original concept that germinated to completion at UCSD. The fluoride toxicology articles were only published because Benson, my collaborator at UCSD, asked me to do so. My letters to institutions and to anyone who asks scientific questions usually list UCSD as the location where my degrees were earned, along with the institution where I now work.


I challenge any critic to describe any error in any work I have published, including the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490, 2013 article to which these posts mostly refer.


Publishing accurate scientific research is tedious, time consuming, and difficult, where the peer reivew process is rigorous and demanding. It is precisely for this reason that I have not published any information in scientific peer-reviewed journals on the likelihood that fluoridation chemicals discharged by cities into rivers where salmon spawn are deleterious to salmon. Even though I am confident that this is the case based on deduction and other published work, I cannot prove the specific point for the Sacramento River because much more work would be required to prove it beyond doubt, where all other environmental variables are so difficult to control. This does not mean however that dumping fluoride into a particular river be harmless to salmon simply because it harm has not been proven beyond doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is required to publish in science journals that are well peer-reviewed, as for all the articles that I have in the end actually published. Scientists are all human and all very different from each other. OK?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Gosh, Dr. Sauerheber, I didn’t realize you would be so defensive about being called a fringe activist.  If you don’t like being called fringe, don’t be fringe. 


“Fringe:  adjective

not part of the mainstream; unconventional, peripheral, or extreme.”


You publish papers that oppose community water fluoridation.  Opposing Community Water Fluoridation is unconventional, peripheral, and extreme.  Why do I say this? 


The Fluoride Action Network, the foremost contributor to misinformation about water fluoridation in the U.S., has a list of professionals who have signed their “Opposition to Fluoridation Statement.”  The list has about 4500 signatories. 


In the U.S. there are over 860,000 physicians, 2.8 million nurses, nearly 170,000 dentists and about 3.2 million PhD’s, or about 7 million.  If the list is accurate, then 0.064% or 1 in every 1555 oppose fluoridation.  In other words, 99.936% of Health Care and other Professionals are not opposed to water fluoridation enough to take 10 seconds to sign a statement. 


I understand that about 25% of the US list of Professionals Opposed to fluoridation are from outside the US, so the actual percentages opposing fluoridation might be even lower if that is the case. 


99.936% of all Health Care & Other Professionals don’t consider water fluoridation enough of a hazard to bother to sign a statement opposing it, which would take all of 10 seconds.   If your extreme minority position isn’t fringe, nothing is. 


But it goes beyond that with you.  You believe Einstein got it all wrong about time dilation.  You come up with weird stuff about the FDA & the EPA which is all provably wrong.  And not one other environmentalist attributes the salmon collapse in Sacramento to water fluoridation.  Not one.  You are a minority of one.  You are fringe my friend. 


And you never answered the question.  For the 4th time, do you know of any other scholar who puts his alma mater on his scholarly works?


Your quote:  “Publishing accurate scientific research is tedious, time consuming, and difficult, where the peer reivew process is rigorous and demanding.”


This is what another scientist, one of your peers, had to say about your time consuming work.  You’ve seen it before: 


“19 year study? Really. Surely the data you presented could have been produced in an afternoon in a high school chemistry lab. It is essentially just a school project to confirm already known relationships between Ca, F and pH. What took you 19 years?”


I am surprised you would challenge any critic to find errors with your work. 

0 Kudos
Regular Contributor

Is it not utter cracpottery for fluoridation opponents to allege that America's Family Physicians (who did their own independant systematic review) oppose community water fluoridation as part of a financially based perversion on the part of dentists (ie the ADA).  


Ditto the Australia New South Wales Dept of Health,  the British Dental Assn, the Canadian Medical Association, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, just a few of the 150 or so prestigious organizations who have clearly advocated that drinking water be fluoridated.


Fluoridation opponents believe that state and federal health agencies aided by organizations such at these are, for some mysterious reason, hiding the truth and helping to poison more than 200 million citizens.


Rather than a far reaching and 100% effective disinformation campaitn opponents allege Isnt' it more likely that fluoridation receives such support is because it does exactly what it's supposed to -  It decreases cavities.

Bronze Conversationalist

But it is completely rational to oppose a fluoridation promoter who continues to endorse increased fluorosis incidence in U. S. children if he is discussing  treatments for the fluorosis he endorses. This is a gross conflict of interest. 

And it is rational to not oppose a man who  discusses treating fluorosis who also fights against fluoridation that causes it. 

If you can't see that then I can't likely help you. 

It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than  that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber, you say:


"It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than  that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts."


Yeah.  For the third time now:   Do you know of any other scholar who does it?  When Dr. Sagan published work he listed Cornell as his affiliated University.  That is because Cornell paid him, funded his work, and published his material.  That's the norm.  


Carl Sagan graduated from the University of Chicago, yet on none of his work (other than his dissertation) did he cite the U. of C.  That's because the U. of C. had nothing to do with his work.  You, on the other hand, think this practice is ok.  It kind of implies that your alma mater, the UCSD, stands behind your work.  But the UCSD has no idea what you are writing or publishing, does it.


I only raise this point to show the AARP what kind of people are making "Demands" of them.

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Sauerheber, your quote again:  


""It is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned higher level math when publishing a math discovery. And it is wrong not to acknowledge where I learned that synthetic fluorides are all listed poisons (Dr. Benson, UCSD) and the scientist I collaborated with on fluoride toxicology research that I published at his request.  I believe in giving credit where credit is due. If you argue that it is something other than  that, that is your belief. It doesn't change the facts."


Let me explain to you why this is wrong with one example.  Ted Kaczynski, the Unibomber, earned his B.A. in Math from Harvard in 1962.  


Do you seriously believe that it would have been ok for Ted to list Harvard as his affiliated university at the bottom of his "Manifesto," simply because he graduated from there.  That's pretty much what you're doing with the UCSD & your fringe papers. 


For the record, nobody is saying you are the Unibomber, you are like the unibomber, or you resemble the unibomber in any way . . because I know that's how you're going to try to spin it. 


I'm saying he had the good sense not to list "Harvard University" at the top of his Manifesto, and you don't seem to have that high of an ethic. 


It kind of makes you look more important than you really are when you imply that a major university stands behind your work, possibly funds it, maybe publishes it . . but none of that is true of your relationship with UCSD.  You just imply it by citing them on your papers.

0 Kudos
Trusted Contributor

Richard Sauerheber – Several questions which you seem to be dodging…


~> Do you accept CarryAnne's and Dr. Osmunson's specific claims listed below against the specific organizations they referenced -- and also against all members of the 100+ respected organizations and their representatives who have not publically embraced the anti-F opinions?


Actually CarryAnne and Dr. Osmunson are dodging the same questions...


~> Specific claims by CarryAnne:

(08-22-2018 06:59 AM) “Willful blindness and financial benefit affect both organizations [ADA and EPA] and individuals and are eminently rational rationales for refusal to change, although also morally corrupt” and ”vested interests are doing their part to protect a profitable program that causes misery to millions” and ”Agnotology: Culturally induced ignorance or willful blindness, particularly the promotion of misleading scientific data and anecdotes by a biased group

You also claim (08-19-2018 01:05 PM) that, “Most [dentists] are either ignorant or willfully blind. Others are either cowed into silence per my previous comments or are indeed sociopaths motivated by power, prestige and paychecks

(07-25-2018 11:30 PM) “the malignant medical myth of fluoridation persists because not only is there a profitable business model built on fluoridation, fluoridation promotion is profitable to many advocates

(07-03-2018 07:35 AM) “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.”


~> And comments To Dr. Johnson by Dr. Osmunson (07-09-2018 09:09 PM):

"CDC references the ADA and AAP,  and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC.  Circular referencing."

"Johnny, the credibility of those so called "scientific" organizations has been seriously tarnished.  They do not protect the public.  They are lemmings, followers, part of a herd, not scientists.  Scientists question and do not assume and base their science on trust."

"I do not call those organizations following the herd scientificlly credible, when it comes to fluoridation.  Yes, they are the best in their field and experts, but not in fluoridation."

"Joining the herd is much easier than spending the time to critically evaluate the science and stand on the science rather than endorsements/popular opinion."


~> If you answer yes, explain how you can trust any science or health conclusion or procedures accepted by anyone in those organizations?  If all professionals who support community water fluoridation are mindless lemmings who are willfully or ignorantly blind when it comes to the issue of fluoridation – and are willfully or ignorantly subjecting their patients to the allegedly obvious and damaging harm from fluoridation, how on earth can they be trusted to make any beneficial decisions?


Several Questions about the scientific consensus: 
~> What is your opinion of the importance of the scientific consensus in making science and health related decisions – both in general and specifically with respect to CWF? 

~> If you don’t accept the scientific consensus as a legitimate representation of the majority position on relevant issues, what is your alternative explanation and terminology?

~> What do you accept as the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) on CWF?
~> If the anti-F claims are actually supported by legitimate scientific evidence, why have FOs been completely unsuccessful for 70+ years in changing the scientific consensus (or majority conclusions) that CWF is a safe and effective public health initiative? 
~> What is your explanation for the fact that virtually all the major science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – and their members & representatives have not mutinied?

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

But you have not apologized for the false claim that since Deal doesn't list organic gardening on his website then I have no right to claim he is good at organic gardening.

And I already answered my affiliations with UCSD (alma mater, alumni association, the late Dr. Benson coworker, and the Chemistry department faculty). I also described why letters I write list UCSD as the location of my degrees. I wasa asked to do that and there is nothing wrong with it.


Why would I argue with a person who already understands the truth, that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis? Those opposed to fluoride are already tryinhg to halt dental fluorosis properly. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. S.,


Yes you "explained" it.  The question was, "Do you know of any other scholar who deceptively does it?"


I never said you "have no right to claim he is good at organic gardening."  Maybe you should apologize to me.  


RS:  "Why would I argue with a person who already understands the truth, that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis?"


Answer:  So that we don't think of you as a hypocrite.  You jumped all over Dr. Johnson about that because of your inability to read what he had written.  You said, "A fluoridation promoter requests that dental enamel fluorosis, which is abnormally thin enamel, be treated with abrasion."  ‎09-05-2018 06:51 PM


I guess it doesn't matter What is said.  The only thing that matters to you is Who says it.  That makes you a hypocrite.  If Dr. Johnson says it, you "can't believe what you are hearing."  If Dr. Limebeck says the same thing, he "understands the truth."  


Frankly, I can't remember ever reading more blatant hypocricy. 

Bronze Conversationalist

I don't believe what I'm hearing. A fluoridation promoter requests that dental enamel fluorosis, which is abnormally thin enamel, be treated with abrasion. In other words, don't bother fixing the cause of this problem by halting fluoridated water ingestion in childhood, but instead let's just treat the symptoms after they appear so the teeth will visibly look better while even losing more enamel.

Similar illogic is used when prescribing certain drugs to achieve a normal level of a body component such as high glucose from overeating sugar, so then you have two problems, the original cause of the high glucose plus the drug side effects. 

When a cause can be corrected, correct it. Don't leave it there and treat its effects. In other words,  eat less sugar and one won't need the drug. And stop eating fluoride and no one would need the treatment for fluorosis.

What a sick joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Dr. Sauerheber,


Your inability to read is manifesting itself again.  Dr. Johnson was referring to a Dr. Limebeck's (a fluoride opponent) paper on microabrasion.


Perhaps you should criticize your fellow anti-fluoridationist who wrote a paper on the subject in the first place.  


By the way, you never answered the question.  On this paper you list your affiliation with UCSD. 


UCSD was simply your alma mater.  They did not publish your work and they did not fund your research.  I had asked you if you knew of any other scholar who listed his place of graduation as his affiliated university.


For example, Carl Sagan listed Cornell on his work because Cornell published his material and funded his research.  He graduated from the University of Chicago, but we don't see this on any of his work.  


So, do you know of any other scholar who deceptively lists his alma mater on scholarly material as though that institution funded & was responsible for the work?


0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

What nonsense. The United States Constitution guarantees rights of free speech to all citizens. Our government is [supposed to be] a government of, by, and for the people. Lay persons in the U.S. are totally enitled to enter into the realm of public policy and to debate health "experts". 


And health "'experts" do not exist when it comes to artificial fluoridaiton of people. If they were experts we would not have rampant dental decay, rampant bone pathologies, etc. All people are biochemically very different. Neither the policy of, nor the toxicology of, fluoridation of people is taught in any U.S. or foreign medical school. It is a government policy, mentioned in U.S. dental schools, that was started by misguided dentists who saw a mistaken correlation that also had nothing to do with causation (fluoride in water does not affect dental caries even up to 6 ppm but indeed does cause dental enamel hypoplasia in children).


We now know with certainty that fluoridation of the bloodstream has nothing to do with dental caries and is in fact harmful, causing permanent, pathologic accumulation of bone fluoride during lifelong consumption. And infusing chemicals into any public water supply that do not purify (or prevent contamination of) the water is illegal. Ignoring these facts, although this is widespread and very common, is absurd.  



Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

  1. If they do not, I recommend that you stop urinating in your bathwater - if it's the chloramines. 

You are telling someone to stop urinating in their bathwater but don’t even know if they do such a thing in the first place. And it is none of anyone’s business in spite of fluoridationists presuming it is, as they do when presuming fluoridation of all people will harm none.


  1. Why don't you put calcium & magnesium in your bathwater if you're getting hives and you know this will help?

Of the many students I know, several complained about rashes when showering after silicofluoridation started in their city. One was helped by using a calcium-rich gel quickly after showering. There is no mechanism by which calcium and magnesium could be added to the bathwater in our modern society where water districts determine what water to supply to a home and how it is piped onto one’s property. Construction of a metal-infusing tank for bathwater that is also heated is an expensive proposition and I know of no one ever doing it. And why should this be required when all the city need do is stop purchasing and adding useless fluoridation chemicals that do not sanitize water (and do not prevent corrosion of metals into water) and are thus illegal?


  1. You don't drink seawater.  – Irrelevant

It is most certainly relevant. Fluoridation of water supplies is conducted, not to treat human skin, but to be ingested, to elevate fluoride levels in peoples’ bloodstream where it is a contaminant (that fluoridationists argue can somehow by some unknown mechanism affect dental caries). Any rash caused by contact with silicofluoridated water on the skin, after ingestion, can also affect intestinal epithelia. But seawater contains 412 ppm calcium and 1,292 ppm magnesium, both of which minimize fluoride assimilation.  AND sea water is not consumed as a beverage anyway, so any internal effects in artificial fluoride-allergic or sensitive people would not be a concern (fish consumption could also be avoided if it were necessary). But fluoridated water with little calcium ion most certainly is consumed, where fluoridationists demand it be piped into homes as their paid-for source of water for drinking, bathing, cooking, etc., regardless of fluoride sensitivity or whether anyone has kidney or bone disease, or other pathologic issues.


And seawater averages 1 ppm fluoride (along with the hghly concentrated divalent metals). That is only 1.4 times the recommended fluoride level of 0.7 ppm. Cities now allow however 1 ppm fluoride because it is dififcult to maintain levels at precisely 0.7, and this is the same as in seawater.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

TROLL DEFINITION: In Internet slang, a troll  is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll's amusement.... Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment.


ASTROTURFING DEFINITION: Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s). It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection. 


I never, ever, ever said I get hives from bathing in fluoridated water. 


I got hives primarlly in the early stages of fluoridation poisoing when my city began fluoridation, concurrent with a resurgence of childhood eczema subsequently diagnosed as psoriasis. In my instance, bathing in fluoridated water when I had open lesions was extremely painful. I know others who have problems bathing in fluoridated water even without open lesions. I filter my bathing water to reduce exposure to fluoride and other chemicals and have done so for decades. 


Regardless of my personal experiences, the scientific literature documents that the skin conditions are common in those who are intolerant of or who have low tolerance for fluoride. Moreover, since fluroide is an inflammatory drug, it is biologically plausible as well as documented in medical science that fluoride aggravates inflammatory conditions whether it's eczema, irritable bowel disease or arthritis




Bronze Conversationalist

Carry Anne, you accused the AARP of Criminal Behavior if they don't submit to your demands.


Your quote:  ""Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics."


Most normal people would consider that "inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community."  That would make you the troll wouldn't it.


Under your attack on me, your definition of "Astroturfing," because you would never go off topic, you are accusing me of "masking the sponsors of a message or organization." 


I'll tell you right now, that is a slanderous lie against me.  I will accept your apology anytime.


I am commenting under this thread because I don't like bullies.  Your "demand" of the AARP, and your accusation of criminal behavior against them is nothing short of extortion. 


Moreover, I think it is incredibly dangerous to allow a bunch of self professed experts to hijack a proven health initiative.  "Experts," like yourself, who have graduated from the University of Google, who probably suffer from extreme hypochondria, and definitely paranoia, have no business pushing their way into the domain of health experts and public policy.  






Fluoride is capable of producing any number of symptoms. They include drowsiness, profound desire to sleep, dizziness, nasal congestion, sneezing, runny nose, sore throat, coughing, wheezing (asthma), chest pain, hives, and various intestinal symptoms. Most of the information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication. - Hobart Feldman, MD, American Board of Allergy and Immunology (1979)


Although I have answered every one of the questions posed by DavidF & RandyJ here and elswhere, I have been giving more thought to the specious distraction about seawater and fluoride provoked skin reactions and have expanded my answer to that question: 


  1. I don't drink seawater. 

  2. The type of fluoride in seawater is different from the types used to artifically fluoridate community tap water. (Sauerheber 2013)
  3. The mineral make up of seawater is quite high. We know that minerals including calcium and magnesium diminish the toxic impact of fluoride. 

  4. The fluoridation chemicals added to municipal water are highly polluted with other substances. (Mullenix 2014

  5. Municipal water typically includes chlorine and often includes ammonia laced chloramine. The toxic impact of fluorides is multiplied when in the presence of chlorine and even more so with chloramine. (Naidenko 2009)

  6. Eczema and other rashes or skin lesions such as stomatitis are an accepted adverse reaction to fluoride that have been noted as such in physician manuals and dental product inserts since at least 1950. Chizzola maculae is a fluoride-specifc autoimmune reaction, a type of hives that some women and children experience in the early stages of fluoride poisoning. I've previously offered a number of citations on these and don't need to repeat them again. 


Consequently, attacking any individual who reports any skin condition from fluoridated water which has a totally different composition from seawater by distracting the conversation with comments about the ocean in an attempt to discredit either the science or the individual is a political deception. Insisting that senior citizens with psoriasis or other inflammatory skin conditions bathe in fluoridated water because of dental dogma is sadistic

Bronze Conversationalist

Carry Anne,


Thank you, for giving the question so much thought. 


So that's a "Yes."  You have walked barefoot in the ocean . . And that's a "No."  You didn't get hives on your feet, even though the ocean has twice the level of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water.


You bathe in optimally fluoridated water, you get hives.  You walk in the ocean, you don't.  


To rationalize this paradox you offer several reasons. 


1.)  You don't drink seawater.  -- Irrelevant


2.)  The "type" of fluoride is different in seawater.  Hmm, That's odd.  Any high school chemistry student should be able to tell you that a fluoride ion is the same as any other fluoride ion regardless of the source.


3.)  "The mineral make up of seawater is quite high. We know that minerals including calcium and magnesium diminish the toxic impact of fluoride."  --  Why don't you put calcium & magnesium in your bathwater if you're getting hives and you know this will help?


4.)  "The fluoridation chemicals added to municipal water are highly polluted with other substances."  --  Ah yes, Phillis Mullenix.  This is from the study you cite:  "Metal concentrations were analyzed in three hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS) and four sodium fluoride (NaF) samples .."  


So, what she did was look at a whopping 7 samples total of fluoroscilicic acid & Sodium Fluoride, and I imagine this was supposed to be a comprehensive overview of every batch going into the hundreds of billions of gallons of water flowing throughout U.S. water distribution systems. 


What she doesn't tell you, or you could figure it out for yourself, is that any contaminants which may exist in the raw products she tested, already in the parts per million, are diluted down even further when HFS & NaF are added to water at about 2 parts per million.  So, in the end, you have parts per million of parts per million.  The levels of contaminants in her study are so low in drinking water that they are below detection level.  Astronomically lower than EPA guidelines. 


Here's the part I like best.  The ocean has far greater levels of every contaminant cited in the Mullenix study than you will find in your drinking water which has been fluoridated to the optimal level.  


Are you sure you don't get hives on your feet when you walk on the beach? 


5.)  "Municipal water typically includes chlorine and often includes ammonia laced chloramine. The toxic impact of fluorides is multiplied when in the presence of chlorine and even more so with chloramine."


It's true, chloramines, which are a combination of organic material and chlorine, does give people hives.  Public pool water, which can be chlorinated as high as 5 - 10 ppm Cl2, can contain very high levels of chloramines.  And low levels of chloramines are used by some cities for water sanitization.  This is because they last longer in the distribution system.  I, personally, disagree with the practice.


You may be onto something there.  I don't know enough about it to be sure, but you can easily find out if your city uses chloramines as a tool for water sanitization by asking.  If they do not, I recommend that you stop urinating in your bathwater - if it's the chloramines. 


6.)  "Eczema and other rashes or skin lesions such as stomatitis are an accepted adverse reaction to fluoridethat have been noted as such in physician manuals and dental product inserts since at least 1950."  --  Ah yes, Waldbott found cases of this stuff from the 1950s through the 1970s. 


Is that what you mean when you say, "there is considerable emerging scientific evidence against fluoridation .?"  Stuff from the 1960s that has never been repeated by anyone?  


"I've previously offered a number of citations on these and don't need to repeat them again."  --  And for some odd reason, nobody else can repeat Waldbotts results today either.  


Carry Anne also says, "attacking any individual who reports any skin condition from fluoridated water . . . . .  is sadistic."


Response:  Of course they are.  And in your mind the AARP is guilty of criminal acts if they don't submit to your demands.  ("Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics.")


Of course they are, dear.




Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne – You claim that you, "have answered every one of the questions posed by DavidF & RandyJ here and elswhere", and you "have been giving more thought to the specious distratction about seawater and fluoride provoked skin reactions"


If that is your claim, then all you have to do is copy/paste your specific answers (you are a master copy/paste artist) from "here and elsewhere" to the specific questions I just repeated.  Once you do that, I will not be in jeopardy of misinterpreting your comments, and I'll re-ask my other specific questions I have net seen answered.


Your Feldman quote pretty much summarizes the anti-fluoride "evidence" as claims based on "information concerning specific reactions to fluoride, as seen in private practice, never reach publication"

Randy Johnson
0 Kudos

Fluoridation is a medical mandate. Medical mandates are politics pretending to be science. Fluoridation forces contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of adverse individual or environmental impact in order to protect prestige, power and paychecks. The politicized narrative that supports fluoridation policy acts to suppress scientific evidence, silence medical opinions and stifle victim voices.


Consensus is not synonomous with majority, despite what those in the majority claim. Consensus is a political construct that means there are no substantial objections to a position. There are not only considerable professional, organizational and public substantial objections to the medical hypothesis of fluoride ingestion using municipal water as an appropriate dental treatment, there is considerable emerging scientific evidence against fluoridation policy that adds to the weight of the evidence that fluoridation damages the health of millions. 


Similarly, a simple majority is nothing more than mob rule. The United States is a constitutional federal republic with a Bill of Rights that uses democratic principles which supposedly employs  safeguards to protect minority rights and individual human rights


Nevertheless, emerging scientific evidence, evolving medical opinion and voices of victims do not deter astroturfers or fluoride trolls who attempt to use political deceits and misrepresentation of fact in an attempt to intimidate people into ignoring the immorality and harmfulness of fluoridation policy, especially to vulnerable subgroups who include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies and young children, the elderly and those with chronic illness


Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics. 


"Adding fluoride to water to prevent cavities is as nonsensical as putting statins in water to lower cholesterol, Prozac to treat depression, or even aspirin to relieve headaches. Prescribing drugs isn’t one-size-fits-all. Virtually any can have harmful side effects, especially to vulnerable sub-populations like children, pregnant women and those who are medically fragile." - Rick North in "Water Fluoridation is an Emperor Without Clothes" (Lund Report, Sept 4, 2018)


Bronze Conversationalist

These are good arguments, Carry Anne. 


You say, "Failure of organizations such as AARP, medical associations and the media to condem fluoridation based on their principles and on the evidence presented them is as criminal an act as is the drugging of the population with an enzyme poison and neurotoxin because of politics."


Wow!  Now in your "Demand" that AARP submit to your wishes, you threaten them with being guilty of "criminal" acts.  This sounds vaguely familiar.  The same tactic was used by anti-fluoride Attorney Robert Reeves in his extortion of the National Kidney Foundation, threatening them with a "Public Relations Disaster," even if they weren't guilty of anything.  


"Individual Human Rights."  Good argument.  However, since there has never been one documented case of harm to any person who drinks optimally fluoridated water, no one is ever harmed by drinking it, you are literally arguing for the "right" to have poorer oral health.  That is not rational.  Moreover you are attempting to impose your irrational mindset upon those individuals who could truly benefit from this health initiative.  That's not cool, man.  


By the way, you never answered the question.  You said your rashes are inflamed when you bathe in optimally fluoridated water.  The question is, have you ever taken a walk along the beach at the ocean and walked in the water?  


Since ocean water has twice the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, I'm wondering if your feet broke out in hives if you did.



Trusted Contributor

CarryAnne - I am trying very hard to get your specific answers to specific questions precisely so I don’t misrepresent your views and come to a conclusion like “it seems like your personal opinions replace the Scientific Consensus”   That’s how I would interpret your most recent tirade, but since you have not actually answered my questions, I will try again.  I certainly don’t want to misrepresent your opinions.  


~> Your continual reference to fluoridation as a “medical mandate” is irrelevant, and your claim that fluoridation is implemented “in order to protect prestige, power and paychecks” is unsupportable and libelous.  I ask you – do you apply this accusation to every member of the organizations worldwide that publically recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation who have not publically disagreed with the consensus?


~> You have apparently stated you don’t believe in the concept of a Scientific Consensus as it relates to the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.  What exactly is your alternative?  It seems from your statement, you believe that anything anyone with any level of training accepts as true is equally legitimate under the law (as long as it agrees with your beliefs), with no group of relevant experts needed to evaluate the evidence for quality, relevance,  accuracy, etc.  – correct me if I am wrong.


~>  Who, exactly do you trust to evaluate this “emerging scientific evidence” and determine the “evolving medical opinion”?  So far, as mentioned repeatedly, there have been no recognized science or health organizations that have recommended changing the scientific consensus – or whatever you believe replaces it – based on the most current evidence.


~> Do you accept application of Scientific Consensus to the evaluation and acceptability of conclusions in any other field of science or health – Climate change, vaccines, drinking water disinfection, etc.?  If not, what exactly is your alternative?


~> Can you explain more clearly your apparent accusations of the ADA, EPA and ATA and their members as “[affected by] financial benefit, ignorant, willful blindness, morally corrupt, cowards &/or sociopaths"? (08-22-2018 06:59 AM), (08-19-2018 01:05 PM), (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) & (07-25-2018 11:30 PM) 


~> Do you believe those accusations are also accurate descriptions of all members of the 100+ organizations in the world who either publically recognize the benefits of CWF or have not publically spoken out against it?

Randy Johnson
Periodic Contributor

The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation citing the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report indicating that all kidney patients, not just those on dialysis, are more susceptible to fluoride’s bone and teeth-damaging effects


The kidney-impaired retain more fluoride and risk skeletal fluorosis (an arthritic-type bone disease), fractures and severe enamel fluorosis, which may increase the risk of dental decay, reports the NRC.



The National Kidney Foundation’s (NKF) former fluoridation position statement also carried surprising cautions.  The NKF advised monitoring children’s fluoride intake along with patients with chronic kidney impairment, those with excessive fluoride intake, and those with prolonged disease.


But NKF now admits, "exposure from food and beverages is difficult to monitor, since FDA food labels do not quantify fluoride content."  


The NKF’s April 15, 2008 statement goes further: "Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk of fluoride exposure."


"There is consistent evidence that impairment of kidney function results in changes to the way in which fluoride is metabolized and eliminated from the body, resulting in an increased burden of fluoride," concludes Kidney Health Australia. in a paper NKF recommends reading  


On June 20, 2008, it was reported that the ADA was forced to finally drop the NKF as a fluoridation supporter


However, even the ADA reports in its Fluoridation "Facts" booklet  that "decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis."


Even the CDC has expressed concern about fluoride's adverse effects to those with impaired kidney funciton.


Bronze Conversationalist



Just out of curiosity, where exactly do you get your information?  


Oh . . wait a minute, I see the link at the bottom of your comment.  "fluoride dangers blog spot."  Got it.  


Question:  When exactly did you get your diploma from the University of Google, and what is that worth in the job market?


RandyJ, this is the part of Attorney Reeves' letter that I like the best:


(paraphrased) 'Even if it is determined that the National Kidney Foundation is not liable or guilty of anything, this could still be a Public Relations disaster for them.'


That sounds like a threat against innocent people to me.


Another area for further study is fluoride's effect on KIDNEY, BLADDER, RENAL, PELVIS

LUNG CANCER AND LIVER CANCER.                                                                                   


There are many sources of fluoride and increasing the dosage of fluoride for at high risk individuals, makes no sense.



Kidney & Renal Pelvis Cancer

                                                                                       White (includes Hispanic), Male, All Ages

Comparing the 10 least fluoridated states Incidence Rates 2007-2011 with the 10 most fluoridated states, Kidney Whole Population Fluoridated 2002 CDC and USGS and Renal Pelvis Cancer we do find an increased cancer rate of cancer,  graphed here.   CDC reporting for race is not complete, yet.

Grandjean[1] 2004 reported on an extended followup on cancer morbidity for 422 male workers exposed for at least six months at a cryolite mill in Copenhagen.

Over 90% of the workers have since died. 10 Least 10 Most The authors conclude that “fluoride should Fluoridated States be considered a possible cause of bladder cancer and a contributory cause of primary lung cancer.

Tohyama [2] “The Okinawa Islands located in the southern-most part of Japan were under U.S. administration from 1945 to 1972. During that time, fluoride was added to the drinking water supplies in most regions. The relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality rate was studied in 20 municipalities of Okinawa and the data were analyzed using correlation and multivariate statistics. The main findings were as follows. (1) A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities (r = 0.626, p < 0.005). (2) Even after adjusting for the potential confounding variables, such as tap water diffusion rate, primary industry population ratio, income gap, stillbirth rate, divorce rate, this association was considerably significant. (3) Furthermore, the time trends in the uterine cancer mortality rate appear to be related to changes in water fluoridation practices.”  The study includes, “"Uterine cancer mortality rate in fluoridated municipalities appears to have declined rapidly subsequent to cessation of fluoridation."

An animal study by Patel (1998)[3] should be considered.   Ranking the states based on fluoridation did not demonstrate greater uterine rates in more highly fluoridated states.

More definitive search of literature will turn up more research on fluoride, renal, pelvis and lung cancer.   A great deal of research uses 18-Fluoride PET/CT for diagnostic imaging purposes.  Almost no research considers potential effects of fluoride increasing cancers in these tissues.  A great deal of money is spent searching for profitable treatments and little for the orphaned concept of prevention.  However, one of the reasons 18-F is used for diagnostic purposes is fluoride caries rapidly throughout the body to all tissues.



Hepatic Neoplasm: Toft (1988) “CONCLUSION: The feeding of sodium fluoride to B6C3F1

mice in their drinking water for 104 weeks at the stated doses resulted in the formation of an infrequently encountered hepatic neoplasm which, for purposes of this study, was diagnosed as hepatocholangiocarcinoma. ”[1]

Anamika (2012) “From the present findings conclusion can be drawn that sodium fluoride can induce damage to the nucleic acids and protein content in mice liver, which can be effectively reversed by black tea infusion.”[2]

Yiamouyiannis  comments on the NTP rat and mouse studies of the ’80’s.  “The most

significant finding was the occurrence of an extremely rare form of liver cancer, heptocholangiocarcinoma in fluoride-treated male and female mice. . . . Using historical controls and doing a binomial analysis of this, the odds of these results occurring by chance are less than one in two million.  Normally, we consider it significant one in twenty; this is one in two million.”


[1] J.D. Toft, II, D.V.M., M.S., Manager, Pathology Section, Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final Report to National Toxicology Program, October 28, 1988.

[2] Anamika JHA, Komal S, RAMTEJ JV, Effects of Sodium Fluoride on DNA, RNA and Protein Contents in Liver of Mice and Its

Amelioration by  Camellia Sinensis, Acta Poloniae Pharmaceutica - Drug Research, Vol. 69 No. 3 pp. 551-555, 2012



Fluoride 2004;37(3):231–238 Abstracts 231

[2] Tohyama, Relationship between fluoride concentration in drinking water and mortality rate from uterine cancer in Okinawa prefecture, Japan. J Epidemiol 1997 Sep;7(3):184.  See also J Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;6(4):184-91.

[3]Chinoy NJ, Patel D,  Ameliorative role of amino acids on fluorde-induced alterations in uterine carbohydrate metabolism in mice. Fluoride 1996; 29(4):217-226.

0 Kudos

Another area where research is needed is fluoride and Oral Cancer.




Research into the potential contributing factor of fluoride with oral and pharyngeal cancer is minimal.  The thought of our toothpaste or ingested fluoride causing cancer is difficult for dentists to consider.  We are trying to do good, not bad.  The research focuses on using fluoride to reduce dental caries during cancer treatment rather than asking whether the fluoride is increasing cancer risk.


Plotting the percentage of the whole population and

oral cancer in the population at large for the 43 reporting states, we again see an increase trend, the higher the percentage of fluoridation, the higher rate of oral cancer.  When consideration is given to the high fluoride concentrations in fluoridated toothpaste and fluoride varnish, the modest concentration of fluoride in water would seem insignificant.  However, the fluoride in water is systemic and represents an additional chronic dosage.  


Dentists frequently have office policies to give everyone additional fluoride without diagnosis, irregardless of whether the patient has dental fluorosis, the science, FDA approval, total exposure, or any considerations other than the dental insurance company pays. “Never want to put a rational thought in the way of a lucrative procedure.” 

NTP (1990) “A second potential target site for sodium fluoride when given in drinking water is the upper digestive tract and oral cavity. Squamous cell neoplasms of the oral mucosa (tongue, palate, or gingiva) occurred with marginally increased incidences in dosed males and female rats over the rates in controls. The increased incidences of these neoplasms were not statistically significant when compared with the incidences in concurrent controls; however, the incidences in the high-dose groups were significantly higher than the incidences observed in historical control animals (0.7% male rats; 0.6% female rats).

“As with lesions of the bone, a direct comparison with the historical rates for oral cavity neoplasms is not completely accurate because of the increased attention given to the oral cavity and teeth in the sodium fluoride studies compared to previous NTP studies. Rates for oral cavity neoplasms similar to those observed in high-dose male and female rats in the sodium fluoride studies (4%) have been observed twice for males and once for females in the historical control database of 42 dosed feed or water studies. Neoplasms of the oral cavity were observed in control male and female rats in the current studies; one was observed in an age-matched control male rat and one occurred in a control female rat in the main study.

An argument could be made for combining the male and female rat studies for analysis of oral cavity neoplasms because a marginal increase occurred in both groups. An analysis for significance of the combined P values for the logistic regression trend tests for males and female rats resulted in a nonsignificant P value of 0.065.

“In contrast to osteosarcomas, for which there are no recognized benign or preneoplastic counterparts (Litvinov and Soloviev, 1973), squamous cell hyperplasias of the oral cavity are considered preneoplastic precursor lesions of squammous cell neoplasms of the oral cavity (Brown and Hardisty, 1990). Squamous cell hyperplasia occurred in no more than one animal in any of the dosed or control groups in the current studies. Thus, based on the absence of statistical significance versus the concurrent controls, the occurrence of these tumors in control animals, and the lack of a dose-related increase in non-neoplastic precursor lesions, it is concluded that there is insufficient evidence to relate tumors of the oral cavity with administration of sodium fluoride to male or female rats. Glattre and Wiese (1979) reported an association between a decrease in human mortality due to oral cavity neoplasia and increasing fluoride content in water over the range of 0 to 0.5 ppm.”[1]

Research animals were not given fluoride varnish, fluoride toothpaste, fluoride medical and dental products and these other sources need to be included in research on a possible connection between oral cancer and fluoride.


[1] National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health ...ces, Research Triangle Park, N.C. p. 73-74.

0 Kudos