Content starts here
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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


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


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


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


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



  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

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


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


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


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


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


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



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



For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 


View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

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


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


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


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


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



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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




Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 


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



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week:  


It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.


Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 


When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 


Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 


On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 




Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  




But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 



View solution in original post

Regular Contributor

Clearly fluoride can be .

A natural mineral in drinking water
A mineral nutrient
A water additive
An over the counter medication
A prescription medication
An industrial chemical
An industrial pollutant
A fumigant
A rat poison

Each of these statements is true. There are important, critical distinctions between each use, each concentration, and the purity standards which define the various incarnations of "fluoride." Different governmental bureaucracies have regulatory responsibility depending on the specific use.

The willful refusal to acknowledge these clear and easily understood distinctions is an important element in fluoridation opponents misleading the general public.
Regular Contributor

Here is the truth regarding your worry about arsenic added to water with fluoridation:Arsenic Intake Compared to fluoridation v4.jpg




What physiologic function reqires arsenic (or fluoride or lead)?  

What scientific evidence can you provide that arsenic is, as you say, "desirable?"


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor



1.  The cost-effectiveness of fluoridation is without question.  I will gladly cite the numerous peer-reviewed studies clearly demonstrating this fact. If you want to trot out Thiessen’s study as cherry-picked  “evidence” against these studies I’ll be glad to explain to you the fallacy of her study.


2.  The safety fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is without question.  In the 73 year history of this initiative, hundreds of millions having ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, there have been no proven adverse effects.  Zero.  There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at this level is, in any manner, unsafe.


3.  The effectiveness of fluoridation is without question.  It has been clearly demonstrated in countless peer-reviewed studies right up to the present.  I will be glad to cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.


4.  Opinions are opinions.  Justices are not health-care professionals or experts.  They issue rulings on legal points of law, not on science.  While they are as welcome to their personal  opinions as is anyone else, these opinions are  no more binding than those of the GSA or anyone else.  Your implication to the contrary is erroneous and dishonest.  


Rulings by the court are legally binding.  The reasoning they used to get to that point is not. 


5. I didn’t state that “Washington state is an ‘unknown state’ “.  You simply stated that “in all state laws I have reviewed”  without specifying which states, or which laws.  Therefore, whatever laws to which you refer were from some states unknown to readers.  Given that you now only mention Washington, it seems a safe assumption that your “in all state laws which I have reviewed” means you have read through a few of the laws of the state of Washington. 


6.  Consumable, retail fluoride under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration is labeled  by that agency under its drug classification,  as opposed to labeling  it under its food classification.  Fluoride in water supplies is under the jurisdiction of the EPA.  The EPA does not label such  fluoride as a drug.  Those are the facts.


7.  Sure the FDA classifies retail consumables under its jurisdiction as either food or drug, depending on what the FDA deems is their intended use.  


The EPA does not categorize substances under its jurisdiction in such manner.  Among many other responsibilities, the EPA determines safety levels of substances within drinking water supplies, and mandates adherence to those levels.  Fluoride in water is under the jurisdiction of the EPA, not the FDA.  It is therefore not subject to  FDA classification or labeling, any more than it would be subject to  the classification and labeling system of any other agency.    The laws and regulations of the FDA are irrelevant to fluoride under the jurisdiction of the EPA. 


The EPA  maximum allowable level of fluoride in drinking water is 4.0 pom.  

Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, well under that level.


8.  Arsenic is everywhere in nature.  Arsenic dissolved out of  rock formations  is added to water as  that water flows over rocks or when the ground water level sinks to a certain level.    It is added to water from industrial pollution, fertilizer and pesticides in runoff, and from rain and snow which removes it from the air.  Any arsenic added to water from hydrofluorosilic acid is in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety.  


A zero level of arsenic is neither attainable  nor likely to be desirable.  The EPA maximum allowable level of arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion.  Given strong evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient, a zero level would likely do more harm than good.  


9.  How you so desperately want the US Environmental Protection Agency to classify substances under its jurisdiction is meaningless and irrelevant.  


10.  The EPA does not add anything to water for the treatment of humans or animals.  Decisions to add additional fluoride to water  are not made at the federal level.  They are  made at the state and local level, with implementation at the local level.  


11.  Anything in drinking water supplies other than H20 is a contaminant.  The EPA regulates the levels at which contaminants may exist in drinking water for purposes of safety.  The maximum allowable level of fluoride in water is 4.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, far below this maximum. 


12.  Yes, let’s do look at the evidence....the valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence.  Your personal opinions, desires,  and speculation do not qualify as such.


Steven D. Slott, DDS





Last year, the European Union adopted a regulation banning amalgam use for children under age 15, pregnant women, and breastfeeding mothers beginning 1 July 2018.  Now that day is here!  


The amalgam manufacturer had a warning on its label with essentially the same warning 20 years ago.  


Steve,  scientists are more and more concerned about the mercury coming off of fillings and harming people.  You have suggested fluoride ingestion evidence is "settled" and many thought the same for amalgams.  But we are learning more and obviously the evidence on both is not settled.


Camping on speculation is risky.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor

Bill, I can’t even hazard a guess as to what you deem to be  the relevance of European dental amalgam to the public health initiative of water fluoridation.  Perhaps you can find a forum on dental amalgam somewhere else, let’s  but stay on topic here, okay?


Steven D. Slott, DDS




Please provide just one prospective peer reviewed randomized controlled trial on the cost effectiveness of water fluoridation.  


Most studies are estimates of assumptions, not measured evidence.  I call that hopeful guessing.


Just one study please.


And if fluoridation is cost effective, then countries, states, or counties with water fluoridation should have lower costs and lower prevelance of caries, but they don't.


Certainly costs for dental treatment should be lower in fluoridated communities and that should result in lower dental insurance rates?  But that's not the case.


And there should be fewer dentists per 1,000 population in fluoridated communities, but that is not what I've found.


Yes, if we assume fluoridation is effective, then we can estimate the savings, but measured evidence such as Maupome do not show evidence of cost savings.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor



1.  Apparently unbeknownst to you, the cause and preventive factors involved in dental decay are myriad.  Attempts to assess the overall and cost-effectiveness of but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on nothing but comparison of raw data on dental decay incidence which controls for none of the myriad other variables involved in this obviously ludicrous.


2.  Your obsession with RCTs is indeed bizarre, however, as  I have explained previously, randomized controlled trials are not necessary to assess the effectiveness of broad public health initiatives such as water fluoridation.  


Your unsubstantiated personal opinion of what constitutes valid evidence of cost-savings, is unqualified and irrelevant.


Peer-reviewed science demonstrating cost-effectiveness:


a.  “On the basis of the most current data available on the effectiveness and cost of fluoridation, caries increment, and the cost and longevity of dental restorations, we find that water fluoridation offers significant cost savings.”


J Public Health Dent. 2001 Spring;61(2):78-86.

An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation.

Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL.


b.  “These results clearly indicate that there is an association between

adequacy of water fluoridation and hospitalization due to dental infections
among children and adolescents. This effect is more prominent in populations of
lower socioeconomic status.”


Hospitalizations for dental infections
Optimally versus nonoptimally fluoridated areas in Israel

Amir Klivitsky, MD; Diana Tasher, MD;
Michal Stein, MD; Etan Gavron, BSc;
Eli Somekh, MD


c.  “Compared with the predominantly fluoridated counties, the mean number of restorative, endodontic, and extraction procedures per recipient was 33.4% higher in less fluoridated counties. The mean number of claims per child for caries-related services was inversely correlated with the extent of fluoridation in a county (Spearman's correlation coefficient = -0.54, p < 0.0001), but claims for non-caries related services were not.”


Kumar J.V., Adekugbe O., Melnik T.A., “Geographic Variation in Medicaid Claims for Dental Procedures in New York State: Role of Fluoridation Under Contemporary Conditions,”

Public Health Reports, (September-October 2010) Vol. 125, No. 5, 647-54.


d.  “We estimated that Colorado CWFPs [community Water Fluoridation Programs] were associated with annual savings of $148.9 million (credible range, $115.1 million to $187.2 million) in 2003, or an average of $60.78 per person (credible range, $46.97 to $76.41).”


Brunson D, O’Connell JM, Anselmo T, Sullivan PW. Costs and Savings Associated With Community Water Fluoridation Programs in Colorado. Preventing Chronic Disease. 2005;2(Spec No):A06.



Steven D. Slott, DDS














Have you considered taking some anger managment courses.  Wow.  Calm down.  


You have provided some studies reporting a benefit of fluoridation.  Thank you.  Yes, I have read them.  Yes they have value, but limited.


None of them are prospective RCT studies.  And yes, quality of study is important.    


None of them controled for nor mentioned the unknown which crushed dental caries prior to fluoridation.  


Studies of small subsets of the population are valid if the treatment is targeted to those subsets of the population.  


Fluoridation is treatment of the entire population, not a subset.


And evaluation of hospitalizations is important, but I think we agree there are multiple causes for caries.  And hospitalization is a major factor for socioeconomics.  


A friend took the 1986 NIDR survey of dental caries which included fluoride concentration, magnesium concentration and calcium concentration in the public water of each child.  The graph below is most interesting.  It is three snap shots of data with variations in those three elements, fluoride, magnesium and calcium.


The graphs clearly show caries rates vary with all three chemical concentrations and they are interdependent.  The software is cool because a person can adjust any one of the three chemicals higher or lower and see what it does to the dental caries rates.


Take the first graph where I chose 0.1 ppm fluoride in the water.  I then chose a low magnesium concentration and a low calcium concentration where caries were optimally low.   This is similar to soft water in Seattle.  If all three are at their "optimal" concentration for caries, the caries rate is 1.7 cavities per child.


The second graph I chose 0.7 ppm fluoride and and the third graph I chose 1.0 ppm F.    Those concentrations of fluoride also resulted in 1.7 cavities per child.


In other words, when the magnesium and calcium concentrations in the water were controlled, caries rates were the same regardless of fluoride concentrations at 0.1, 0.7 or 1.0 ppm.  


However, we can see a change in concentration of magnesium or calcium does make a huge difference and increased fluoride exposure over 1 ppm increased caries.   Any study which does not report magnesium or calcium exposure has limitations.


When total fluoride exposure increases, caries increases.  Excess total fluoride exposure as reported with increased dental fluorosis is a serious concern.   


NIDR 1986NIDR 1986Bill Osmunson DDS MPH





Periodic Contributor

WOW This is very interesting...I wish the pro-fluoridation people in this conversation...would just Stop and lay down their bias and look at the information in your posts. Thank you Dr Osmundson for taking the time to post these and other findings that shine light on the fact that drinking fluoride is a 20th century idea that needs to end!
Regular Contributor

Yes, “Conversationalist”, antifluoridationists constantly do wish fluoridation advocates would cease correcting the  misinformation supporting  the confirmation bias against fluoridation, of these antifluoridationists.  Exposing the misinformation posted by  those such as Osmunson and Spencer, holding them  accountable to provide valid evidence to support their claims, does indeed make it far more difficult for them to impose their personal ideology unto entire populations.  It would be decidedly simpler if they didn’t have to deal with such annoyances as facts and evidence.


However, as long as antifluoridationists keep posting their unsubstantiated claims and misinformation here, I, for one, will continue to correct it.  The readers of this forum deserve no less than truth and accuracy.


Steven D. Slott, DDS


Thank you for your comments.  Please spread the word,




Over a hundred million Americans are ingesting too much fluoride and promoters of fluoridation mistakenly want governments to continue giving us more fluoride without our consent, without an honest review of science, and knowing too much fluoride causes harm.  


The graph below based on Iida's data, peer reviewed by the Journal of American Dental Association, 2009, is powerful.  The data is not from the more recent NHANES 2011-2012 survey which reports 60% of adolescents have dental fluorosis.  This older survey reported 40% had dental fluorosis.


Iida's data shows an increase in dental fluorosis with increased fluoride concentration in the water.  Remember, when water fluoridation first started, the public was assured maybe 10-15% of the public would get dental fluorosis because such a small amount of fluoride was being added to the water.  In order to get dental fluorosis down to about 15%, the fluoride concentration in the water would need to be less than 0.3 ppm, the natural fluoride concentration for many in the USA.   Without question, increased fluoride exposure causes increased dental fluorosis in the population at large.



Now to the second major point in this data.  Note how the caries rate changes with increased fluoride exposure.  The amount of caries decrease is hardly detectable.   Governments are mass medicating (supplementing, administering without consent) the diet of everyone, young, unborn, old, those with kidney problems, those with cancer, those without teeth, everyone, with little or no evidence from this data of benefit.    Those most harmed are the very children promoters are trying to help, the poor.


Reasonable people looking at both sides of the fluoridation controversy would stop fluoridation simply because too many are ingesting too much fluoride.  Add the lack of benefit, the cost, the loss of freedom of choice and the known risks and we realize fluoridation is one of public health's greatest blunders.




Before you start calling me dishonest, please read what I have written.  I carefully said the "data" is from Iida.  We all make mistakes, but you are not reading things carefully and then disparage me publicly.  Slander is not professional.  Stick with the message, not the messanger.


  K Thiessen compiled the graph of data from Iida and my memory is Iida got the data from the 2000 NHANES.


You say the study is misrepresented, but again you misread my post.  I am not representing the study, I am representing the data from the study.  Just because Iida et al and reviewers and editor chose to spin the data to promote fluoridation, and omit the problems the data presents, is not the point of the discussion.


The point of the data is that most of us agree that with an increase in fluoride water concentration, indeed we see an increase in dental fluorosis.  If you dispute that fact, please provide your evidence.


The second point is that dental caries does not appreciably change regardless of fluoride concentration in water within those ranges unless a gee whiz graph is made.  If you dispute the NHANES data or Iida data, please explain.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor

No, Bill.  You’re the one not reading.  I stated that the claim was made  that the graph was based on IIda and Kumar, but that that you cited it in a manner misrepresenting it as having been taken directly from Iida and Kumar....i.e. the large citation directly over the graph.  You did the same with that graph “based on NHANES data”.  You are taking graphic analyses of data, put together by some unnamed sources,  and misrepresenting those graphs to be from sources you cite.  I stand by my original statement.  Your dishonesty is staggering.  


If you want to present information you believe supports your position, then cite it correctly and don’t misrepresent its origin.  Dishonesty is that which is not professional.  


You should also learn the difference between slander and libel.  I’ve been maliciously libeled by antifluoridationists so often that I am well aware of what constitutes both. 



Steven D. Slott, DDS



I am not misrepresenting the data and you have not shown that I am.


I have clearly presented where the data has come from and graphs have been made from the data to better illustrate the point.


Again, if you have a problem with the points I am making, please attack the points, the message, rather than me.


My point so far are:


Many are ingesting too much fluoride.  So far, you have refused to comment.  You don't like how I referece the data, but you don't explain how you disagree with the fact that too many are ingesting too much fluoride.


Instead, you and Johnny Johnson (and others) misrepresent water fluoridation as though it is the only source of fluoride.  May I repeat, no one has ever lived with water fluoridation as the only source of fluoride.  Your statements are unrealistic and anyone seriously listening to what you are saying will discredit your statement.  You must use TOTAL fluoride exposure, not just water fluoridation.


Once you agree that many have excess fluoride exposure, then lets move on to "how much total fluoride is optimal?"   And then we can move on to "is that optimal total fluoride safe?"


We have not agreed on the first step because you keep attacking the messanger rather than the message.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 

Regular Contributor

Bill, the dishonesty of your comments and posts are  self-evident, as I have amply demonstrated.  In accordance with your  bizarre Trump analogies, you seem to be playing by his playbook.....make outrageous claims enough times and people will begin to believe them, regardless of their lack of validity.  I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers of these comments to easily ascertain your dishonesty.  


I have not felt any need to comment on many of your personal opinions as they are completely unsubstantiated.  Your graphic analyses of data prepared by some unnamed sources are valid evidence of absolutely nothing.  It is neither my, nor anyone else’s, responsibility to disprove your unsubstantiated claims.


The bottom line is that there is no valid, peer-reviewed  scientific evidence of any adverse effects on anyone from total fluoride intake from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with that from all other normal sources of fluoride.  You have provided nothing to contradict  that fact.


Steven D. Slott, DDS




You attack the messanger but have no comment on the message.


Many, millions, are exposed to too much fluoride.  Your lack of response to that most critical point is evidence of the lack of science behind the continued addition of fluoride to public water.  Why give more fluoride when half of our youth have too much?


HHS lowered their recommendation.  Another government agency or the courts will lower it some more.  Where are the good scientists with responsible ethics calling for a reduction in total fluoride exposure?


I am not interested in going into the risks of excess fluoride exposure because you simply will not acknowledge the fact that too many are ingesting too much.  When you acknowledge that 60% of adolescents with dental fluorosis is too many, 20% with moderate/severe is too many, then we need to discuss the source of fluoride which needs to be reduced.


Topical has some benefit.


Systemic has mixed evidence of benefit.


The first step is for you and Johnny Johnson and the American Fluoridation Society to recommend a source of fluoride which needs to be reduced or stopped to reduce the rapid rise in dental fluorosis.  


What is your recommendation and the American Fluoridation Societies official position on excess exposure?   Stop Medications with fluoride?  Foods with fluoride?  Air with fluoride?  or fluoridation of public water?


The answer is obviously public water fluoridation.  All the other sources of fluoride have significant benefits (and risks), only water fluoridation is without a benefit.  


Too many are ingesting too much fluoride.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor

Bill, I notice that as antifluoridationists become more and more frustrated with the facts and evidence presented debunking their claims, they begin making inane personal comments and project their own personality traits unto the commenters who are  frustrating them.  If you need anger management courses, that’s your business, but try not to project your problems unto me.....okay?


Your unsubstantiated personal opinions on the peer-reviewed scientific evidence you have requested, and which I have provided, is unqualified and obviously of no relevance.  What value you seem to believe there to be to some uncited graphs of something or other will remain a mystery known only to you, I suppose.


The bottom line is that I can and do provide valid scientific evidence to support my claims.  You cannot, and do not, for your own.


Steven D. Slott, DDS





You asked for any peer reviewed evidence fluoride at 0.7 -1.4 ppm (Oh, that was lowered because HHS found it was not safe) now 0.7 ppm.


NHANES 2000 and 2011-12 showing 20% of adolescents have moderate/severe dental fluorosis.  Remember, all members of NRC 2006 report on fluoride for the EPA unanimously agreed severe dental fluorosis is an adverse health risk, in other words, harm.  


The question is not one of whether people are being harmed with the addition of fluoride in public water which is over exposing them to fluoride.   The question is "how many" are over exposed.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH



Regular Contributor

1.  No, Bill, I did not ask “for any peer-reviewed evidence fluoride at 0.7-1.4 ppm” whatever in the world you deem that to mean.


2.  The US DHHS did not lower anything, nor find anything unsafe, in regard to water  fluoridation.  These are yet more false claims to add to your ever growing list of such.


3.  A FAN claim as to what NHANES data has shown does  not constitute  proper evaluation of this data by any qualified, reliable entity.


4.  Yes, the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered severe dental fluorosis to be an adverse effect.  This is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.  As this same committe clearly stated in its final report, severe dental fluorosis does not occur in communities with a water fluoride content below 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that level.


5.  Neither you, nor anyone else, has provided any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that anyone, anywhere, is being “harmed by the addition of fluoride in public water”.  Your inexplicable unsubstantiated personal opinion to the contrary obviously does not qualify as such evidence.


Steven D. Slott, DDS






Your statements that the cost effectiveness and safety of fluoridation are without question is unprofessional and unscientific.  


For good scientists, everything is in question, even gravity and life itself.  When a person claims a theory and policy is "without question," that means the person is not looking at all the evidence.   


Science questions.  Religion is without question.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor

Invoking “religion” again, I see, Bill.  I fail to understand the constant attempt of antifluoridationists to mingle religion into water fluoridation, however, to each his own, I guess.


1.  Your personal opinion of what constitutes “unprofessional and unscientific” is obviously irrelevant and meaningless.


2.  Again, as I have clearly demonstrated, the cost savings and safety of water fluoridation are without question.  Constant  attempts by antifluoridationists to create “controversy” and “question” with unsubstantiated claims, false assertions, misrepresented science, and misinformation, does not constitute “good scientists”.


Steven D. Slott, DDS




There are so many flaws in your posts, it is hard to know where to start.


For example you state,  "A zero level of arsenic is neither attainable  nor likely to be desirable.  The EPA maximum allowable level of arsenic in drinking water is 10 parts per billion."


I agree zero level of arsenic is not likely.  However, the EPA has zero as the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG).  What scientific evidence can you provide the EPA is in error and some arsenic is desirable?  


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Regular Contributor

There are no flaws in my posts, as evidenced by your inability to to provide any valid evidence to demonstrate any such “flaws”.  Your unsubstantiated personal opinion obviously does not qualify as such.


The EPA, as a matter of policy, sets the MCLG at zero for substances  which can be carcinogenic, regardless the level at which carcinogenicity may occur.  Arsenic at high levels can be carcinogenic.  


In regard to the undesirability of a zero level of arsenic:


“Definition of specific biochemical functions in higher animals (including humans) for the ultratrace elements boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic still has not been achieved although all of these elements have been described as being essential nutrients. Recently, many new findings from studies using molecular biology techniques, sophisticated equipment, unusual organisms, and newly defined enzymes have revealed possible sites of essential action for these five elements.”


—Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.

 Nielsen FH.

FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7


Steven D. Slott, DDS






Please cut the derogatory comments.  Attacking the messanger rather than the message is a bully tactic used by Trump.  Or did you go to the University of Trump to learn how to be a bully?  If so, you must have a PhD in bully.


Speculation arsenic is an essential nutrient.  As long as you agree the quality of speculation evidence is just speculation, lets go more to the facts on fluoride and not speculate.  Don't get me wrong, speculation can lead to some great inovation, but speculation is not a strong scientific reason to eat arsenic.


I'll stick with EPA's "zero MCLG" until the evidence is stronger than speculation.     


And even if someday a physiologic function for arsenic is found, the beneficial and harmful dosage will need to be determined.   A great deal more research on arsenic needs to be done.


SPECULATION:  The need for fluoridation is stronger than the need for arsenic in the diet.  However, the same flawed logic that arsenic is essential is used to claim fluoride is essential.  


Speculation is low quality evidence, along with conspiracy theories.  I reject both and so should you.  


For efficacy, stick with RCT studies like the FDA does.


For risk, the precautionary principle and freedom of choice MUST be seriously considered.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH




Regular Contributor

Stop your childish whining, Bill.  Attempting to divert attention from exposure of your false claims and misinformation, with groundless, kindergarten complaints of “bullying” is a transparent tactic frequently employed by antifluoridationists who become frustrated with the facts and evidence, having nothing with which to counter them.  Now, please refrain from such tactics and stay with facts and evidence you can provide.


1.  “Stick with” whatever you please.  You asked for scientific evidence to support my claim that a zero level of arsenic is undesirable.  I provided it.  Live with it.


2.  Fear-mongering about arsenic is yet another diversionary tactic which has no merit.  The amount of arsenic in water at the tap which has been fluoridated with HFA is not even detectable unless 10 times the manufacturer’s recommended single use amount of HFA is utilized in order to get some sort of reading. 


Neither arsenic, nor any other contaminant in fluoridated water at the tap is in an amount to be of any concern, whatsoever.


3.  Yes, as I have been stating, your constant speculation and unsubstantiated personal opinions are valid evidence of nothing.    At some point you need to understand that science is evidence-based, not Bill Omunson personal opinion-based.


4.  The precautionary principle applies when there is no scientific consensus of the safety of an initiative.  Water fluoridation has been in effect for 73 years, hundreds of millions having ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, with no proven adverse effects.  The public health benefits of fluoridation are publicly recognized by the US CDC, the US National Academy of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world.  There is not one credible organization in the world which opposes fluoridation. Clearly there is scientific consensus of the safety of this initiative.


Obviously, the precautionary principle does not apply to fluoridation.


Steven D. Slott, DDS





Bronze Conversationalist

There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain.” - Dr. Mark Hyman MD, scholar, medical correspondent and author (2016)


Dr. Johnny Johnson, 


You miss the point. That is just the latest study in a series of studies going back to at least the 1950s that repeatedly prove that fluoride suppresses thyroid function even in low doses. Fluoride was used orally and in baths during the 1930s and 40s to treat hyper-active thyroids. Thyroid doctors frequently tell their patients to avoid fluoride in order to stabilize their thyroid health; at least once they become aware of the medical science. Thyroid disease is just one of several problems affecting the health of senior citizens that is associated with decades of fluoridation exposure.  


Thyroid doctor on fluoride studies: 


Regular Contributor

Hi Carry Anne,


I will refer you back to the information that I posted initially regarding the National Research Council's Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water; A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.


This panel of 12 unpaid experts, led by the top Toxicologist in the U.S., met for 3 1/2 years and reviewed all literature on fluoride in water for impacts that it may have on our health.  


The EPA maximum allowable fluoride content in water is set at a point where no adverse health effects are expected to occur and the margins of safety are judged "adequate".  That level is 4mg/L of fluoride in water.


This panel is assembled every few years to evaluate whether this level is still appropriate considering all available research.  Over 200,000 residents in the U.S. have drinking water that exceeds 4mg/L.  Fluoride is in almost all water at varying amounts.  Ground water picks up fluoride from igneous rocks as the water flows over them.  This study is conducted as part of responsible government looking out for the health of our residents.  The study cost over 4 million dollars.


All body organs and systems were evaluated in their 3 1/2 year review. NO adverse health effects were found in any organs or systems at 4mg/L of fluoride in water, except for severe dental fluorosis.

This included:

1. Endocrine system (thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary, pineal, adrenal, pancreas....)

2. Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral (IQ, other disorders)

3. Kidneys

4. Immune System

5. Gastrointestinal System

6. Cancer

7. Reproductive and Development

8. Genetic Damage

9. Musculoskeletal System

10. Liver


This comprehensive literature review answers all claims that are made by those that oppose community water fluoridation.


Community water fluoridation (CWF) contains 0.7mg/L of fluoride.  This is 1/6th of the maximum allowable level set by the EPA as safe to drink (4mg/L).  No adverse health effects have ever been shown to be caused by CWF.  Over 70 years of fluoridation in the U.S. and thousands of research and publications have shown CWF to be safe to drink and effective in reducing cavities by at least 25% over a person's lifetime. It benefits both children and adults.


Leading health and scientific organizations endorse community water fluoridation as safe and effective for all.  These include:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics

2. American Dental Association

3. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

4. American Medical Association

5. Mayo Clinic

6. World Health Organization


No credibly recognized health or scientific organization in the world opposes community water fluoridation.  Not one.


I hope this helps put this issue into perspective for my fellow AARP readers.  A list of credible references is listed below for further information on CWF.








Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry

President, American Fluoridation Society, non-profit organization of unpaid dentists and physician





American Academy of Pediatrics


American Fluoridation Society

American Dental Association


National and International Organizations that Recognize the Public Health Benefits of Communty Water...

Periodic Contributor

Dr. Johnson isn't telling you the whole story about the 2006 National Research Council's (NRC) Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water; A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards.


The NRC reports that there is clear evidence that small amounts of fluoride, at or near levels added to U.S. water supplies, present potential risks to the thyroid gland.


According to a co-author of the NRC Report “Many Americans are exposed to fluoride in the ranges associated with thyroid effects, especially for people with iodine deficiency,” says Kathleen Thiessen, PhD,  “The recent decline in iodine intake in the U.S could contribute to increased toxicity of fluoride for some individuals,” says Thiessen.

Robert Carton, PhD, an environmental scientist who worked for over 30 years for the U.S. government including managing risk assessments on high priority toxic chemicals, says “fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male.” (the levels recommended in public water supplies)

Among many others, the NRC Report cites human studies which show 

- fluoride concentrations in thyroids exceeding that found in other soft tissues except kidney

- an association between endemic goiter and fluoride exposure or enamel fluorosis in human populations

- fluoride adversely affects thyroid and parathyroid hormones, which affect bone health 

Further, Scientific American quotes John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee thusly, “The thyroid changes do worry me.” 

In fact, both the ADA and CDC have voiced concerns about fluoride's toxic thyroid effects.  And the National Kidney Foundation dropped its fluoridation endosement because of the evidence presented in the 2006 NRC report.

Regular Contributor

Doull's reply was in the context of the 4 ppm and greater fluoride concentrations which was the Committee's charge. They collected all of the available literature without regard to quality or relevance.

It is a straightforward fact that the final NRC opinion was that the EPA's maximal allowed fluoride of 4 ppm (nearly 6x higher than fluoridation) protects human health from disease save for severe enamel fluorosis.

Anyone who wants to verify exactly what the NRC concluded can listen to the summarization in this press conference:
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Need to Know

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

AARP Perks