- AARP Online Community
- Ideas, Tips & Answers
- AARP Rewards
- Home & Family
- Work & Jobs
- ITA Archive
- Health Forums
- Brain Health
- Conditions & Treatments
- Healthy Living
- Medicare & Insurance
- Health Tips
- Ask for a Health Tip
- Leave a Health Tip
- Retirement Forum
- Social Security
- Retirement Archive
- Money Forums
- Budget & Savings
- Scams & Fraud
- Travel Forums
- Solo Travel
- Home & Family Forums
- Friends & Family
- Introduce Yourself
- Late Life Divorce
- Our Front Porch
- The Girlfriend
- Home & Family Archive
- Politics & Society Forums
- Politics, Current Events
- Technology Forums
- Computer Questions & Tips
- About Our Community
- Entertainment Forums
- Rock N' Roll
- TV Talk
- Let's Play Bingo!
- Leisure & Lifestyle
- Writing & Books
- Entertainment Archive
- Grief & Loss
- Share and Find Caregiving Tips - AARP Online Community
- Ask for a Caregiving Tip
- Leave a Caregiving Tip
- Work & Jobs
- Work & Jobs
- AARP Rewards
- AARP Rewards Tips
- Earn Activities
- AARP Rewards Connect
- AARP Help
- Benefits & Discounts
- General Help
Support for AARP to take action on Fluoridation
I was reading with interest the dozens of posts about fluoridation and the call for AARP to take action.
I am a Canadian senior. I'm a retired professor of dentistry with years of funded research experience and publications on fluoride in teeth and bones. I served on the 2006 US National Academies of Sciences Fluoride in Drinking Water Committee, was head of Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, worked as the fluoride expert of the Canadian Dental Association, was president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research and wrote the textbook "Comprehensive Preventive Dentistry".
I am worried about the health of my fellow seniors, both in my country and south of the border in yours. Readers of the AARP forum should be alerted to the health threat from fluoridation practice.
Fluoridation a serious issue. We in Canada are slowly weaning ourselves off of adding fluoride to the drinking water. It is a toxic waste product (not purified additive) with cancer causing contaminants. Fluoridation policy is unconscionable and immoral. When I discovered, through my own research and review of the literature, how much fluoride harms humans, I simply had to speak out.
I have been attacked publicly by my profession (other dentists) and by members of the self-proclaimed America Fluoridation Society (AFS), who have recently joined AARP. They are relentless in making claims of 'safe and effective', shooting down every single post on fluoridation across Canada and the United States when it shines a bad light on the practice.
Proponents of fluoridation rarely if ever voiced their criticism of distinguished scientists overseas opposed to fluoridation in Europe, such as the Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson. (1923-2018) https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/01/obituaries/arvid-carlsson-who-discovered-a-treatment-for-parkinso...
In his later years, Dr. Carlsson was an outspoken critic of fluoridating water supplies to prevent cavities. He said that fluoride produces side effects, such as mottled teeth, and that fluoridation was contrary to the principles of modern pharmacology because there was no way to regulate the amount of fluoride individuals received.
Although there are pros and cons to the practice from a scientific viewpoint, in my estimation, the cons have it. Here are my top 10 cons. I can support all of these with science (don't worry, I won't cut and paste and throw reams of complex studies at you)
- Human Rights Violation: In many states in the US, fluoridation is compulsory. When it's not mandatory, local city councils sometimes make the decision to fluoridate when grants are made available without consulting their communities. And when communities vote for it, the vote is often split, so half the community is forced to accept fluoridation whether they like it or not - a violation of individual informed consent to medical treatment, a human right.
- Medical Mandate: You cannot avoid fluoride once it is the water. You have to install expensive filtration equipment in the home, not eat processed foods, and never eat out at restaurants again.
- Contamination of Water: Fluoridation is mass medication. Although proponents will say it's 'adjustment' of natural fluoride levels - that's incorrect. The fluoridation additives are industrial waste chemicals contaminated with cancer-causing elements.
- No Dose Control: The dose of the drug cannot be controlled when it is in water supplies. Some people may take in very little, others way too much.
- Ineffective: If it works (it might save one filling per person over 40 years) it works topically, not by swallowing it. Rinse with fluoridated water then spit it out (of course you need to drink water for hydration so that's not practical). Well, you could buy bottled water to drink and use tap water to rinse if you think it works to reduce dental decay. There are no studies to show that fluoridation works in older adults.
- Contraindications: People with extra sensitivities to fluoride cannot avoid fluoridated water. You develop more sensitivities as you get older because there is more fluoride in your body and bones as you age, mostly from drinking water.
- Unmonitored Effect: The side effects of administering this drug (fluoride) to the entire population are never monitored. Ask your MD next time you see him or her to do a fluoride analysis on you and you will likely get a blank stare.
- Cumulative Damage: If you live in a fluoridated area your bones will accumulate more fluoride and as you get older fluoride accumulation is associated with arthritis and brittle bones. We all know what that means!
- Neurotoxic: If you have grand-kids on the way, discourage expectant moms from drinking fluoridated tap water. Prenatal exposure to fluoride has been shown to be associated with lower IQs in the offspring in multiple studies over the past 25 years.
- Dental Damage: Fluoridated tap water added to infant formula has been shown to increase dental fluorosis in kids (white streaks and splotches), and this condition, which includes more severe dental fluorosis (brown staining an dental enamel flaking) is increasing in the US.
I refuse to engage with the members of the AFS in this thread or any other thread on this forum. They have been insulting and abusive here and in many other online venues.
I offer my advice as an expert, freely and without prejudice but I cannot give dental advice online. I have no financial interest whatsoever in this fluoridation 'fight'. I simply want the truth to come out and for people to not to be unduly influenced by self-proclaimed spokespersons for fluoridation.
I will be informing the Canadian counterpart to the AARP that the AARP is being asked to look at the fluoridation in light of modern science. It will be a real service to seniors in both Canada and the United States if they both issue a condemnation of that practice.
In the meantime, I can be found on Twitter if anyone wants to message me. https://twitter.com/@Drlimeback
Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochem) DDS
Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto
In January, the Alzheimer's Association quietly demanded its name be removed from the list used by ADA & CDC to promote fluoridation, apparently in the face of a half dozen studies finding fluoride exposure even in relatively low doses causes brain damage and interferes with the effectiveness of drugs used to treat dementia. See Feb 7 letter to editor mentioning this and other January news.
But let's make this simple. Calculating the individual dosage for any person is impossible because fluoride is in everything. One thing we have some control over is we can demand our cities & towns stop adding it to our water. Take the quiz below and watch this short video from one group of dentists & scientists opposed to the poisoning of people & planet with an enzyme poison.
The weight of modern scientific evidence, evoloving medical opinion and bioethics supports an immediate cessation of fluoridation policy.
To seniors new to this AARP topic who don't have the inclination to read through the arguments of the fluoridationists, I suggest checking out Dr. Hardy Limeback's orginal July 2 comment and last Aug 10 comment.
For brevity, alllow me to suggest this comment.
For a summary comment, see my comment.
I never thought I’d live to see the day that the United States would become so steeped in propaganda. God bless the truth-speakers like Robert F. Kennedy Jr whose legal successes include getting General Electric to clean up the pollution it caused in the Hudson River and winning a lawsuit against Monsanto who colluded with the U.S. EPA to hide scientific evidence of the cancer causing properties of its leading weed killer, Round-up.
it is agailn necessary to explain the FDA position on dietary fluoride. The FDA ruled that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods in 1975. In 1966 the FDA banned the sale of all fluoride comounds ilntended to be sold for ingesiton by pregnant women in the Unied Staes. The FDA ruled that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapprove drug (1963). The FDA ruled that fluoridated water at1 ppm cannot be used in kidney dialysis equipment because of increased morbidity when such water is used chronically.
The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion.The FDA regulates sodium fluoride and makes it available only by prescription and only in those areas where water fluoride is less than 0.6 ppm and probibits giving fluoride to children under 6. The FDA allows fluoride in bottled water up to 1 ppm because it is difficult to remove from water and because water is an essntial dietary ingredient that nevertheless must be consumed to survive and because so much water now is fluoridated. Again, fluoride is not a food, it is not an essential mineral, it has not been proven in controlled clinical trials to reduce caries, and its incorporation into bone was ruled by the FDA as not strengthening bone as proponents had claimed without proof.
The FDA does not endorse, request, or support fluoridation of people by treating water. This would violate all rulings the FDA has ever made on fluoride.
The FDA prohibits foods and beverages from being labled for fluoride content. This was instituted by Dr. Groth then at the FDA who argued that doing so would give consumers the impression that fluoride belongs in water when it does not. It is a contaminant in water.
Fluoridated toothpaste is prohibited by theF DA from being swallowed and prohibited from being used by children under 6, where such labels on toothpaste containers are required by law..
References for these statements are in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 2013 article online at: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
An expanded updated version of this article is now in press at AVID Science, Berlin.
Richard Sauerheber – How does your comment (09-07-2018 12:44 PM), “it is agailn necessary to explain the FDA position on dietary fluoride” and “The FDA has never approved any fluoride compound for ingestion” relate to community water fluoridation? As noted earlier, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a Food For Human Consumption, not a medication.
In your 09-06-2018 04:31 PM comment about the FAN petition you stated, “I was accused of believing in a strange society because that society denounced fluoridation, simply because I denounce fluoridatuon. Quite bizarre.” If the “strange society” you referenced was indeed FAN, then I give you credit for one accurate observation. I checked, however, and I could not find any post that accused you of any FAN affiliation – would you cite who posted it and when so your claim can be verified?
OK, you, “never stated that the scientific consensus opposes fluoridation” but you did claim (09-07-2018 12:22 PM) that, “No one has any way of knowing this”. Actually, the way those who are not an anti-science activists (ASAs) know that the scientific consensus does not oppose fluoridation is precisely because the major science and health organizations in the world continue to recognize the benefits and safety of fluoridation, and their hundreds of thousands of members have either publically agreed with the consensus or they have not mutinied and demanded that the consensus be changed.
If the majority of members who represent the organizations that millions of people in the world depend on for protecting their health are completely unable to accurately examine or understand the evidence from over 70 years of research of fluoridation, or don’t care enough to personally evaluate it, or believe fluoridation causes significant harm and remain silent, how can they be trusted with any other health-care-related decision? Do you have any other explanations?
The evidence that you and other FOs embrace a fringe, outlier position is the fact that the scientific consensus does not support claims that fluoridation is ineffective and harmful. Another piece of evidence that you and other FOs embrace a fringe, outlier position is that none of the major science or health organizations responsible for protecting and improving the health of people around the world support the anti-F opinions. Last count I saw was a list of 6 alternative health organizations and 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations posted by FOs in these comments.
Your statement, “Opposition to fluoridation is vast even if it were not a majority consensus--but we have no idea what fraction of the population opposes fluoridation.” Is completely irrelevant. The number of non-scientists, non-health care professionals worldwide who accept the propaganda of ASAs is only a measure of how effective the fear-mongering campaigns are. That only has relevance when a well-meaning majority of non-experts are successfully duped by ASAs and vote to end effective public health measures.
Sorry but I never stated that the scientific consensus opposes fluoridation. No one has any way of knowing this. I said opposition to fluoridation of people is vast, and that it is false to claim there are 7 million health professionals who do not oppose it, simply based on the idea that if they didn't sign a FAN petition then they must not be opposed to it. What is so hard to understand?
Many are accused of being "fringe" because they voted for Hillary Clinton who is believed not to be "mainstram" or "consensus" because her opponent was inaugurated. But that is false. Clinton received nearly 3 million more votes than her opponent. Calling such voters "fringe" has no meaning. Likewise, a policy in place such as fluoridation, if it were a minority opposing view is not "fringe" either. In the U.S. we have a democracy that supports and considers and assists those of the opposite party, or the minority party (in number of people). The minority party are citizens of the U.S. just like the majority party.
Opposition to fluoridation is vast even if it were not a majority consensus--but we have no idea what fraction of the population opposes fluoridation. it is possibly a majority consensus opposed to fluoridaiton but we don't know. One state did have a full vote, Nebraska, and the vast majority of th epopulaitno rvoted agaisnt fluoridation. How would all others States do? No one can know. There has never been a Nationwide vote on the subject to even estimate such a tihng. I don't claim a consensus of opposition, and niether can anyone else claim a consensus in support of fluoridaitn people. This is so, even though oave 60% of water districts now fluoridate their own people.
And by the way, fluoride is a halogen ion, and like the other toxic poisonous halide bromide, has no function in the human being and is a contaminant of the bloodstream. On the other hand, chloride is an essential ion that regulates water balance in man and animals, and iodide is an essential dietary ingredient because without it the thyroid would not be able to function. Adding a useless, nonessential fluoride ion into water to treat people is unethical and harmful, and adding it for reasons other than sanitizing the water is illegal, regardless of how many people do so, and regardless of whether it actually were a "consensus" view (though we have no accurate way of ascertaining that).
Please understand that I am being called an extremist and that partly why this is claimed is because those professionals opposed to fluoride are only those who signed the FAN petition. If one doesn't sign it then that is presumed to be one who does not oppose it. Hence 7 million professionals are assumed not to oppose it, when in reality many oppose it but have no intention of aligning with FAN. The percent opposed then is small and hence argued to be fringe.
This is another example of how to use math to support a false claim. Vast mmions of people oppose being fluoridated and opposition to the false useless procedure has existed S sin e its inception.
I was accused of believing in a strange society because that society denounced fluoridation, simply because I denounce fluoridatuon. Quite bizarre.
Richard Sauerheber - So you are claiming that a majority of scientists and health professionals support the anti-F propaganda? So far I have seen a list of about 13 organizations that support the anti-F opinions - 6 six alternative health organizations and 7 environmental, spiritual and cultural groups.
On the other hand, the current scientific consensus, based on the an evaluation of the entire body of fluoridation evidence, is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their many hundreds of thousands of members) continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation, and none, as far as I am aware, recognize anti-F opinions.
~> Search on “ada fluoridation facts compendium” and “I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say?”
How do you explain those facts?
Explain why, exactly, the so-called “evidence” presented by FOs has been completely unable to change the scientific consensus?
Explain why, FOs must use fear-mongering tactics to try and scare the public into accepting their opinions instead of using their alleged wealth of legitimate and conclusive evidence of harm to convince the relevant science and health expert that their conclusions are valid? That is how science evolves.
There is no consensus that can be protected against new, conflicting evidence for long by biases, convictions, stubbornness, commitment to a belief or special interests –– except, of course, in the case of water fluoridation where, for over 70 years, hundreds of thousands of experts and professionals (represented by the science and health organizations referenced earlier) have been too ignorant to correctly evaluate the evidence, completely duped by the reptilian elite, bought off by “big money schemes”, beaten into submission, or they just love to watch people suffer as hundreds of millions of people drink it daily.
Can you think of any other explanations for why a fringe handful of paranoid anti-science activists who claim to have valid evidence sufficient to change the fluoridation consensus have failed to do so?
Good letter, Dr. Limeback ! I agree with this 100% ! I've read about flouride issues many times before.
I've heard about cities refusing to flouridate their drinking water but somehow, it was 'forced' on them to do so. Why would the dental profession want this poison at all ? It brings them more patients with ruined teeth, of course.
I agree AARP should take up the fight against flouridation. Let's do this !
Fluoride added to drinking water to prevent cavities is a drug. The idea of putting a drug - any drug - in the drinking water simply doesn't make sense.
In several management positions with non-profit health and environmental organizations, I've worked with physicians most of my life. When you go to a doctor's office and he/she recommends a drug, there are standard safety protocols. It is prescribed for you only. It is a specific dose and prescribed for a specific period of time. It is pharmaceutical grade, meaning approved by the FDA. The doctor must tell you its potential benefits and potential harmful side effects. Finally, armed with all this information, it is up to you - the patient - to decide if you will take the drug or not. This is informed consent and it's your right.
When you add fluoride to the water - a known toxin with many proven harmful health risks - every one of these safety protocols is violated. This is absurd and it is wrong.
This is one main reason that so many European nations will not allow fluoridation.To see their statements, go to http://fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/.
I hope AARP will strongly consider opposing fluoridation.
Rick North – This is a reply I submitted to your entire opinion piece in the Lund Report - not the excerpt posted here.
According to your “logic” –– Putting a poison – any poison – in drinking water is absurd. To illustrate your “reasoning” a similar practice can be described as: Putting chlorine – a known chemical weapon that creates a toxic brew of disinfection byproducts (DBPs) – in water is unconscionable. And, unlike fluoride ions, which strengthen tooth enamel (reducing the risk of decay), there are no beneficial health effects to ingesting DBPs at any level.
The arbitrary labeling of community water fluoridation (CWF) as a drug is one of the many distractions and deceptions employed by fluoridation opponents (FOs). Since CWF, like community water chlorination, is effective, and the benefits far outweigh any risks, most rational individuals would not care whether the substances added were called poisons or medicines or additives or water treatment chemicals.
The FDA actually regulates fluoridated bottled water as a “Food For Human Consumption”, not a drug. Apparently it does not matter to FOs that the levels of residual disinfectants, DBPs, fluoride ions and other potentially harmful chemicals are regulated to be within safe levels.
Also, consider the fact that, according to the FDA, “If a supplement contains iodine [which is also a halogen like fluorine and poisonous at high exposure levels], the Supplement Facts label must list iodine as a nutrient ingredient” – not a medicine. How can one halogen that is added to protect health be labeled a nutrient and another a medicine - oh, and chlorine (yet another halogen) added to treat water and protect health is a poison?
Your accusation that alleges "every one of these protocols is violated" is based entirely on an irrational, deceptive attempt to fabricate definitions that will fuel your anti-science campaign.
FOs invent irrelevant distractions (like your “FSA“ and “dose” diversions - in the Lund opinions) to obscure the fact they have no legitimate evidence to support their opinions. The scientific facts on “FSA” are; fluoride ions are identical regardless of source, FSA contaminant levels are carefully regulated (and typically not measurable in treated water) and all water treatment chemicals are toxic and hazardous when concentrated. The facts about “dose” are; no doctor is responsible for monitoring the dose of DBPs or instructing you on their potential harmful side effects based on your personal medical history. The dose of fluoride ions, like the dose of DBPs and other chemicals in public drinking water, is controlled by the amount of water it is possible to drink – ingesting harmful “doses” of fluoride ions or DBPs (or other regulated chemicals) would require drinking toxic amounts of H2O.
These and other extraneous distractions are designed to focus the attention of their target audience – conscientious members of the public – away from the fact that there has been no “wealth of research demonstrating fluoride’s [alleged] harmful effects” in over 70 years that has been sufficient to change the scientific consensus that CWF is a beneficial and safe public health measure (like all water treatment processes) to reduce the risk of tooth decay (and related health issues) in communities.
Rational, caring individuals are concerned with an impartial evaluation of overall benefits vs. risks of public health measures by relevant experts, not on arbitrary definitions and conclusions fabricated by anti-science activists (anti-fluoridation, anti-chlorination, anti-vaccination, anti-evolutionist, anti-climate change, etc.) with specific agendas that are completely contrary to the relevant accepted scientific consensus and damaging to the health of citizens and our planet.
Can you provided a logical explanation of why, if FOs actually have any legitimate scientific evidence to support their claims of obvious and serious harm, the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure has not changed in over 70 years?
By scientific consensus, I mean that the majority of relevant experts in a given scientific field agree on the interpretation of the available body of evidence. This consensus is the reason the public health benefits of CWF are publicly recognized by the U.S. CDC, the U.S. 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.
~> Search on “ada fluoridation facts compendium” and “I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say?
The fact that the hundreds of thousands of members representing those science and health organizations have not rebelled over the last 70+ years as those organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF (as new evidence continues to accumulate) is a clear example of a scientific consensus. When legitimate, compelling evidence that supports different interpretations of the evidence is presented, the consensus changes – that is how science and health care have continued to evolve over the last few hundred years.
In contrast, I have recently seen a list of about 13 alternative health, environmental, spiritual and cultural organizations posted by FOs that oppose CWF. That is a clear demonstration of the fact that there are always minority, outlier opinions whose proponents have been unsuccessful at providing credible scientific evidence to change the majority consensus.
What is your perspective on the scientific consensus and the fact that virtually no reputable science or health organizations support the anti-F opinions?
Do you agree with how two FOs recently described organizations that support CWF? I am still trying to obtain answers from them on whether their libelous accusations are directed only at members of the listed organizations or at all representatives of all organizations in the world who continue to support (or do not denounce) CWF. What do you think?
Dr. Osmunson: "CDC references the ADA and AAP, and the ADA and AAP reference each other and the CDC. Circular referencing." and " 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."
CarryAnne: “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” and “I have it on good authority that they [American Thyroid Association] don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards.” Fact: The ATA was bullied into modifying its position on CWF by the threat of a lawsuit as evidenced by a 2016 letter to the ATA prepared by CarryAnne which states, “In closing, given the ﬂuoridation lawsuit pending in Peel, Ontario [and] other anticipated American lawsuits yet to be ﬁled, we suggest that the ATA leadership and directors should be prepared to demonstrate their scientiﬁc integrity and professional ethics.”
The 2015 Cochrane Fluoride Review concluded that studies (which met their inclusion criteria) that were performed before the widespread introduction of fluoridated toothpaste, dental fluoride treatments, etc., “…found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth.” The review also listed no health concerns from drinking optimally fluoridated water.
The 2006 NRC Fluoride Review committee (which included at least three dedicated FOs) “was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects”. The review listed absolutely no harmful health-related finding or recommendation for water containing fluoride ions at the SMCL of 2.0 mg/l – three times the optimal level for CWF. Provide the exact citation in the 2006 NRC review that concluded CWF had “the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and body” and required an adjustment of the SMCL.
How do you explain the conclusions of these additional references? Since 2000, there have been a number of scientific reviews that have concluded that CWF reduces dental decay, and none of these reviews reported any health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water, only an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis. They include:
the 2018 Water Fluoridation and Dental Caries in U.S. Children and Adolescents review;
the 2018 Water Fluoridation Health Monitoring Report for England;
the 2018 Food Safety Authority of Ireland Fluoride Report;
the 2017 Swedish report, Effects of Fluoride in the Drinking Water;
the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health;
the 2016 Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council Fluoridation Report;
the 2015 Manual of Dental Practices, Council of European Dentists;
the 2015 U.S. Public Health Service Recommendation for Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water for the Prevention of Dental Caries;
the 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review (as referenced above);
the 2014 Royal Society of New Zealand, Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence;
the 2013 Congressional Research Service, Fluoride in Drinking Water Review;
the 2006 NRC Fluoride Review (as referenced above);
the 2000 York Water Fluoridation Review;
the 2000 Community Preventive Services Task Force, Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation;
and the 2018 National Toxicity Program fluoride study found no evidence of harm.
Thank you Rick for your letter to AARP. I really hope they do promote the fight against Flouride in our drinking water..It needs to be removed. There are many counties in Tn. who have quit using flouride and I pray that more will. Thank you for standing up against Flouride.
"There is No Flour in Fluoride... Why Does That Always Get Written That way? Most Studies that I have read over the years about the dangers of Fluoride, have
been with the pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride but No Studies Yet with the artifical grade fluoride aka HFSA Hydrofluorosilicic Acid... I hope in time, there will be some test and essays written on the www.NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov site.
I was looking for some studies done that involved exposure to Fluoride and other chemical cocktails.. "Conspiracy Proven " look at some of the dates on the NCBI.NLM.NIH.gov that were written to show causation This particular pic shows about the Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral aspects of not just vaccines with aluminum, and other toxicants..
News Flash : 3:40 a.m. In Detroit, School Sytems Are Saying That "Lead and Copper " found In drinking fountains. Conventional Wisdom Bull Crap ! But , Have You Ever Noticed Fluoride is Never Mentioned ~ Why ? Even with bottled water, or those costly water coolers that will still have traces of Arsenic, Lead, and Fluoride, and who knows what else in bottled water... These are toxic wastes and fluoride is a reactive ionic compound that will pull out lead in old pipes and copper tubing, & that it was thought to be safer than galvanized pipe that was used in plumbing back then in the 1930's and 40's and 1950's The only way to remove this bone seeking element in filtering media is filtering water thru....special fluoride filters with "Bone Char " Yes, Cremated Bone Fragments supposedly from cattle and animal bones was found to be a filtering media to effectively remove 98% of fluoride and is not found in popular commercially produced water filters over the counter may help reduce the some toxic chemicals,mostly chlorine...but the fluoride ion bonds with the water and filters are not cheap either. I can only afford to buy the Zero Water Filter and use my other filters to filter my drinking and cooking water and for my dog's water too.. Oh, by the way, Fluoride in the water never shows up as itself ..it was derrived from industrial wastes from the fertillizer industry and shows up as elevated phosphate levels, lead, arsenic, and is actually mined in Florida and is what could have caused the recent algae bloom or "Red Tide" in lakes, river discharges of waste water.. In nature, phosphate rock or cryolite was extracted to make alumium
“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D. (2014)
To seniors new to this AARP topic who don't have the inclination to read through the long multiple comments from DavidF, I suggest checking out Dr. Hardy Limeback's orginal July 2 comment and last Aug 10 comment.
For brevity, alllow me to suggest this comment.
For a summary comment, see my comment.
DavidF writes: "please cite one documented case of any human being who has ever been harmed in any way by drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime. A documented case, then, would be agreed upon and supported by the medical community. That’s what documentation does."
In his multiple insulting responses, DavidF dismisses my personal testimony, questions my trust-worthiness and reveals that he is stalking me on AARP (he criticizes me for giving a kudo to another post). That’s all in addition to demanding a documented case of someone harmed by fluoridated water that is "agreed upon and supported by the medical community” which he implies means the CDC or their fluoridation promoting associates.
Fluoridation of community water was initiated on short term correlation information with an agenda and with biased information and researchers. Every “study” DavidF mentioned is correlation, not scientific evidence. He even used the word correlation. Those randomized studies he requests following personal testimony are the real hard core, costly studies. These randomized studies were NEVER initiated to justify water fluoridation, nor were any performed to test the ingestion of toxic by-product, HSFA, and the like. Ask any dentist: even the pharmaceutical grade fluoridation products used in the dentist office are not approved for ingestion.
Each year, the evidence gets stronger against stopping water fluoridation while those who support it just keep changing their rhetoric. Take dental fluorosis as an example.
Prior to 1980s, all dental fluorosis was considered an adverse dental or health effect. Then, at some point in the 1980s the language used was changed to “cosmetic effect" over the objections of EPA scientists (1999 NTEU Paper). In 2006, after what seems to have been a heated debate, the NRC again listed severe dental fluorosis as an adverse health effect. It appears to be a compromise with a 10 to 2 committee split. Most of the committee apparently wanted to list moderate fluorosis as an adverse health effect, but settled for listing moderate fluorosis as an adverse dental effect.
The CDC acknowledges that there is more dental fluorosis in fluoridated communities so it is not only a function of kids swallowing toothpaste. In the 1993 NRC report, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride,” that committee documented doubled the rate of dental fluorosis in fluoridated communities. I know of no young adult who is pleased with their ‘spotted’ tooth enamel and ironically, their dentist does not tell them what it is. Both incidence and severity of dental fluorosis has been increasing with every government surveillance report published by the CDC. The latest data found 61% of teens have dental fluorosis and 23% of American teens have moderate to severe dental fluorosis, brown mottled disfigured teeth regarded as either an adverse dental effect or adverse health effect according to the definitions of the medical community. Dental fluorosis is worse in environmental justice communities which is why LULAC, CHEJ and other human rights organizations oppose fluoridation policy. This should satisfy the conditions DavidF tries to put around his rhetoric.
Beyond teeth, read the sworn 1993 testimonies of 23 experts including doctors. These scientific and medical experts document harm caused to patients and a few testify to personal adverse health effects from fluoridated water supplies. The judge found fluoridation was harmful to health but legal. Incredible! What is harmful to health should not get a legal pass.
Examples from the 23 expert affidavits: https://firewaterfilm.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/affidavits-safe-water-assn_plaintiff-vs-fond-du-la...
The sworn testimony of George W. Kell, Esq. (pg58) includes both his personal medical history and documents having received medical records from the doctor of his client, Mr. Riggins. Mr. Riggins was sickened by artificially fluoridated community water. His doctor documented that fluoridated water was a known risk to those who have reduced kidney function or a history of nephritis or hepatitis and harmful to Mr. Riggins. 15% of Americans have kidney disease. Reduced kidney function is part of aging which puts senior citizens at increased risk of suffering from fluoride intoxication. This is potentially life threatening medical harm documented by the medical community that is supported by recent science. (Perera et al. 2018; Martín-Pardillos et al. 2014; Agalakova et al. 2012; Barbier et al. 2010)
John R. Lee, MD (pg76) also offers compelling testimony in 1993 about health risks and the "tortured reasoning" in government agencies that admit fluoride is a health risk but continues to protect fluoridation policy. Dr. Lee was well published and a member of several health associations and committees in California.
Many, many more compelling testimonies offered in these affidavits will provide good reading for AARP, senior citizens and physicians today.
I implore AARP to respond to the testimony of their constituents.
Fluoridation is a health hazard for so many, but especially for vulnerable senior citizens.
A Registered Nurse
KF, I would like to clear up this little error of fact that you made regarding your Affidavits. Your quote:
"The sworn testimony of George W. Kell, Esq. (pg58) includes both his personal medical history and documents having received medical records from the doctor of his client, Mr. Riggins."
No, his testimony doesn't include these things. The only paragraphs which even mention Mr. Riggins are paragraphs 8 & 9. The only paragraph which even mentions a doctor is paragraph 9. This is paragraph 9 in its entirety.
"Nevertheless, I refused to accept his self diagnosis until, after several months, he brought in a report from a doctor which stated that persons who had previously experienced nephritis or hepatitis were known to be more susceptible to chronic fluoride poisoning because those organs, once damaged by infection, did not produce adequate enzymes. These enzymes are needed to combat low level toxicity. Deprived of that first line of defense, these people sustained losses of calcium which, on combining with fluoride, took the form of calcium -fluoride. This substantially reduced the toxicity of the fluoride so that it could be expelled from the body. As a child I had suffered from a very grave case of hepatitis. At this point Mr. Riggins' argument struck home."
Please note in the first line of that paragraph: “ . . his self diagnosis . . “ There is no “personal medical history” of Mr. Riggins which is ever mentioned.
The Fifty Year Old report which Mr. Kell mentions describes a condition called "chronic fluoride poisoning." There is no mention of how much fluoride would be necessary for this condition to occur. “At this point Mr. Riggins’ argument struck home.”
What we have here is a guy who was sick for whatever reason. We know it wasn’t from drinking optimally fluoridated water. He met another guy who was sick & said it was the fluoride in his water. He had no documentation, but a few months later he brought in a 1968 report that described symptoms. Then it all made sense.
KF, Wow! Stalking? Not really. You criticized one of my comments for focusing on the law so I went back & took a look at Dr. Sauerheber's comment . . you know, the guy who brought it up in the first place, and I noticed that he had 5 "Kudos." Since there are only about 5 of you (and two of you may be the same person for all I know), I thought I'd check. And by golly, sure enough. The same person who criticized me for dwelling on the SDWA, "Kudo'd" another guy who was guilty of the same "crime," simply because he was helping you push your agenda. I just brought that up to illustrate your hypocricy. And I thank you for providing a reason for me to bring it up again.
Ok, I had asked for one documented case of any human being who was harmed in any way from drinking optimally fluoridated water, even for as much as a lifetime. And I said that it would be nice if you could provide the successful lawsuit that would have naturally followed from a local government intentionally poisoning its citizens by putting something harmful in their drinking water.
Well, at least you tried. You provided a link to sworn affidavits from a lawsuit, which was not successful, in which “Safe Water Association” sued Fon du Lac County. And you had to go back to the Last Century to find this one.
You directed my attention to Page 58, the sworn testimony of Attorney, George W. Kell, who said that he suffered from a kidney tumor because he drank overly-fluoridated water for several years. (That sounds like correlation to me.)
The following is from Mr. Kell’s testimony:
4.) “ . . Monterey Park's water, however, contained approximately two to three parts per million of fluoride because Monterey Park water supplies were drawn from deep wells which brought Page | 59 the water up from an area of former volcanic activity.”
So, at the start we know that Mr. Kell had not been drinking optimally fluoridated water, 0.7 – 1.0 parts per million F. He had been drinking water containing much higher concentrations. I point this out because, even though 2 – 3 ppm is within the allowable limit, no one who fluoridates their water puts that much fluoride in it. Community water reports are all over the internet. I challenge you to find one community that artificially fluoridates its water and has that much fluoride in it.
The water that Mr. Kell was drinking was checked for fluoride one time per year. If Mr. Kell had been drinking water from an artificially fluoridated community, his water would have been analyzed on a daily basis, and the fluoride concentration would have been much less.
Moreover, Mr. Kell provided no documentation that fluoride in his drinking water caused his health problems. This is Mr. Kell’s statement:
19.) “ Based upon the fact that Dr. Dean Burke, PhD, former head of the Cytochemistry Section of the National Health Institute found that there was a 30% increase in gastrointestinal and urinary tract tumors in fluoridated cities, as compared to the demographics of unfluoridated cities; and based upon the fact that it is known that any irritant may cause cancer if it is present in the body long enough, and the further fact that the fluoride used for fluoridation of water is not a natural substance to the body, I believe that it is quite likely that fluoridation is also the cause of my tumor.”
A few things about Dr. Burk (misspelled in the affidavit) Dr. Burk is famous for saying, “In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical.” In point of fact, tobacco causes more cancer than any other substance, according to the World Health Organization. http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer Moreover, the American Cancer Society doesn’t even list fluoride as a known or probable carcinogen. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/general-info/known-and-probable-human-carcinogens.html Moreover, The National Health Institute, Dr. Burke’s former employer, supports & endorses community water fluoridation.
So what we have here is an attorney, with no medical training, who has provided no medical documentation to support his own belief that his drinking water with several times the optimal level of fluoride caused his health problems.
Moreover, his belief is based on the comments of a once great scientist, Dr. Burk, who, sadly, made some mistakes in his later life. For example, he also supported the use of Laetrille, which is now known to be ineffective and dangerous.
According to the Affidavit, Attorney Kell had a client, Mr. Riggins who wanted to sue the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (and Mr. Kell says) “for allegedly poisoning him.” And once again, Mr. Riggins provided his own diagnosis. He did, however, bring in a Dr.’s report about “chronic fluoride poisoning” from 1968, Fifty Years Ago in the middle of the Last Century!! But this was the science of the time.
Neither of these two men had ever been diagnosed as having been “poisoned” by fluoride by a real physician!!
This was the Best You Could Do??
Moreover, at the top of this list of Affidavits is this statement: “Judge Grimm found fluoridation harmful but did not have the power to “enjoin” (forbid) the practice.”
This begs the question, if Judge Grimm knew that he did not have the power to “enjoin” the practice, why did he waste everybody’s time and money? Was there some kind of monetary settlement? I’m sure if there was you would have presented that as evidence also.
Come on, Karen. I asked for one documented case of any human being who was ever harmed in any way because they drank optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. You didn’t even give me a medical diagnosis. Nothing from a real physician even saying these men ever touched fluoride. This was your best.
The short answer is, there are no documented cases of any human beings who have ever had their quality of life diminished because they drank optimally fluoridated water even for their entire lives.
But you go ahead and keep imploring the AARP. It seems to be your little pet project . . and everybody needs something.
I am on vacation in Alaska and only have limited sporadic access to this conversation. The accusation that I am avoiding answering questions is incorrect.
The SDWA was written with the intent to halt the spread of fluoridation (Graham and Morin, Fluoride litigation, Pace law review FOOTNOTE) Key provisions in the act are 1) no national requirement may be made for any substance added into water other than to sanitize water. And 2) the States can be no less restrictive.
F is not added to purify water. It is added to increase the F level in blood to affect teeth. It is added to treat humans and it is now a national program authorized or at least recommended by the Federal CDC (who cannot require it) .
The SDWA was based on the original Water Pollution Control Act whose mission (section 101A) is to maintain the natural chemistry of U. S. drinking water. Removing natural arsenic when high is ailowed of course and other toxic substances. But adding any nonessential chemical (unrelated to sanitizing water) into water is a crime.
The original congressional approved statutes in the SDWA did not make any allowance for F and in fact were written to halt the spread of fluoridation. F is an EPA recognized contaminant, not an essential nutrient, has no physiological role in man, and instead accumulates during lifelong ingestion in bones as a contaminant that alters the structure of bone in a pathological manner.
”Fluoridation is against all modern principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete.…. Nations who are using fluoridation should feel ashamed.” - Dr. Arvid Carlsson, neuropharmacologist. 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and official scientific advisor to the Swedish Government (1923-2018)
Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate. Fluoride is added to the water with the intention of preventing dental decay. Yet, reviews of old fluoridation studies proved them both flawed and biased while modern studies show that any benefit from fluoridation is tiny - maybe some people have one less cavity over their lifetime. Toothpaste is much more effective.
Worse, dental fluorosis which is the staining of teeth due to fluoride poisoning during early childhood now affects over half of American teens per 2011-12 U.S. NHANES surveillance data. Worse still, one in five teens (23%) has brown stains on at least two brittle teeth which will require costly veneers & crowns in young adulthood. Dental fluorosis at the outset of fluoridation policy was predicted to only affect 10% of the population and only manifest as mild. Dental fluorosis has grown in lock-step with fluoridation policy from 22% in the 1980s, to 41% circa 2000, to 61% today (Wiener et al. 2018; Racz et al. 2017; Beltrán-Aguilar et al. 2010; Agustina et al. 2018; Khandare et al. 2018; Waidyasekera et al 2010; Whitford 1990)
But this isn't about teeth. Modern science proves that fluoride consumption causes or worsens arthritis, kidney disease, thyroid disease, inflammatory bowel disease, neurological disease, etc. This science is supported by testimony of affected individuals, including many senior citizens who have had fluoride build up in the bodies, brains, and bones over decades of consumption, as well as many professionals such as Dr. Hardy Limeback who began this thread.
To add insult to injury, the vast majority of fluoridation chemicals added to water supplies goes directly into the environment where they persist for a million years and adversely affect some aquatic species (plants, fish, birds). Moreover, fluoridation chemicals are contaminated with aluminum, lead, barium, cadmium, etc. and fluoride enhances absorption of toxic metals into human tissue (Mullenix 2014; Camargo 2003; Sawan et al. 2010).
This forum is not the place for arguing wording of dental studies or laws. This forum is a place for sharing experiences and advocating for justice!
AARP should advocate for its constituency and craft a policy statement opposed to fluoridation, which is mass medication using municipal water.
If AARP’s goal is to support the public good, then it will support safe, medical research based measures that are scientifically proven to be effective. It should not be supporting emotionally driven myths that have no double blind medical research proven facts to support them. So, 50 plus years of anti fluoride myths have their believers still actively seeking to inflame the emotions of the uninformed.
If the antifluoridationists are successful in pulling wool over the eyes of more people, it will enrich more dentists and subject more children to more dental treatment.
My educated parents gave all their children Fluoride tablets as children, and our current dentists can see the benefits to this day. Zero cavities as kids.
Thanks JG for your concern. Would it surprise you that "no double blind medical research proven facts to support them" applies to fluoridation benefits? And there are no studies to show fluoridation has any benefit for adults or seniors.
You Said: "If the antifluoridationists are successful in pulling wool over the eyes of more people, it will enrich more dentists and subject more children to more dental treatment." Well, not really. Studies show that the benefits, if there are any (because there are no double blinded clinical trials) are so low that you have to fluoridate for 40 years to save maybe one filling per person. So dentists will not be 'enriched' with ending fluoridation. In fact the opposite is true. They are doing a LOT of expensive cosmetic dental treatment to treat dental fluorosis (white spots and mottling of teeth). Check out: "dental fluorosis before and after" using Google Images. Dental fluorosis has become epidemic in the US.
Finally you said "My educated parents gave all their children Fluoride tablets as children, and our current dentists can see the benefits to this day. Zero cavities as kids.". There could be many reasons for no cavities. The cavity-free rates nowadays are now at about 50% whether kids are living in fluoridated areas or not. Besides, you wanted double-blinded research and yet offer an anecdotal example of your own family. We need good research. You're quite right.