In response to the July 8 letter “Community Water Fluoridation Has Important Benefits for Oral Health,” Asheville’s decision to fluoridate our water is not only a health risk but may open the city up to civil litigation in the future.
Fluoride, in the form and quantity that our city adds to its drinking water, is not a “natural mineral” as the letter describes. In fact, the fluoride that our city adds to our drinking water is obtained from the air-pollution-control devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It comes from the inside the smokestacks of fertilizer factories.
Our city chooses to add a chemical to our drinking water that is described as “slightly less toxic than arsenic, slightly more toxic than lead” by the Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products.
Our city chooses to add a chemical to our drinking water that scientists from Harvard University, in 2012, found to reduce IQ scores of children.
Our city chooses to add a chemical to our drinking water that was found, in 2006 in a report commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency, to cause: increased bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, impaired glucose tolerance (diabetes), earlier sexual maturity, decreased IQ and possibly osteosarcoma.
Our city chooses to add a chemical to our drinking water that even our own toothpaste tubes will tell us “do not swallow.”
Even if our city refuses to believe studies from Harvard or the Environmental Protection Agency or the 97 percent of countries in Western Europe that refuse to fluoridate their water, why would we “medicate” our water supply to prevent tooth decay? Doesn’t it violate the doctrine of informed consent to medicate people without their consent?
Lawsuits are starting pop up against municipalities over fluoride causing injury. What else would the city expect when it chooses to medicate our entire population without informed consent with a toxic chemical that is known to cause serious and permanent injuries by reputable and authoritative scientists?
— Lakota R. Denton
Attorney
Minick Law Firm
Asheville
Ah, so now the ambulance chasers have joined the Flat Earth Society and Tea Party in their anti-science, conspiracy theory agenda.
Reminder: your tinfoil hat is for topical use only. Do not swallow tin foil.
How very funny that you choose to hide behind a moniker.
Be a proud person and own your comments and insults. Dr. Slott nor I hide who we are. Credibility speaks for itself.
Be a proud and scientifically credible representative of your facts. Use credible, widely known and respected scientific websites, not a biased website that is in total opposition to community water fluoridation.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist-UNC CH Alumnus
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
Pinellas County, FL
BIG MONEY — BIG MONEY.
As with tobacco, asbestos, vioxx, and other issues, the incorrect science took years to change. Each issue had tradition and big corporate money backing them. Likewise, it will take time to eliminate fluoride in drinking water.
But progress is occurring.
People all around the he world have learned the truth that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.
Consider this:
In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
In Europe, 3%.
In the world, 5%.
Also Israel banned fluoridation last year.
Over 150 communities have voted it out in the last five years.
Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe is as good or better than any fluoridated country. This shows how ineffective swallowing fluoride is for teeth. . As the CDC admitted in 1999, fluoride toothpaste is sufficient.
> Israel banned fluoridation
Ah, well, that settles the entire argument, of course…
Eyeroll
Yep. Such are the arguments of antifluoridationists. The funny thing is that even the Israel claim has no merit, as James Reeves well knows. The misguided Israeli Minister of Health who made the unilateral decision to cease fluoridation in that country, has been ousted. Her replacement has reinstated fluoridation.
Reeves provides an excellent example of the half-truths constantly disseminated by antifluoridationists as “support” for their unsupportable position.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
It is not certain that Steve Slott is employed to promote this industrial toxic waste, fluoride hydrofluosilicic acid. Many say so, and that he gets paid by the word.
What is certain: Follow the money to learn the truth.
There is certainly big money ($ billions) involved in selling it to communities. These industries have many lobbyists to ensure that the truth is not exposed that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.
Ahhh, yes, jwillie yet once again exhibits the caliber of antifluoridationists by posting his ridiculous fabrication about my being somehow “paid”. This is precisely what civic leaders need to see. When according credence to antifluoridationists, those such as jwillie are the ones to whom they are listening.
The jwillies of the world, or the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
Some good links to the toxic effects of fluoride.
http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/
“Fluoridealert” is nothing but the biased website of the New York antifluoridationist faction “FAN”. The filtered and edited “information” posted on it is evidence of nothing except the gullibility of anyone who accords it credence.
For those intelligent readers who desire accurate, authoritative information on fluoride, the websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of such information readily available to anyone.
Steven D. Slott
Burlington, NC
Steven D. Slott is nothing but a used-chemical salesman of Chinese waste products.
Steven D. Slott has the confidence in his comments to have no need to cower behind a pseudonym.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Not a single doctor or dentist would prescribe a medication to you without ever meeting you or knowing any specific details about you. This is uninformed consent!
When did government bureaucrats become qualified to dispense medication (Fluoride) without a license? It is illegal for a doctor or a dentist to force anyone to take a drug or a chemical. This should be illegal for the government as well.
Anyone desiring fluoride can add as much as they wish to their own glass of water, but it should not be added to drinking water, which forces everyone to consume it against their will. It affects the brain (lowered IQ), the bones (brittle bones, fractured hips & bone cancer), the thyroid gland, arthritis, etc. . It is linked with Alzheimer’s and Downs Syndrome,
To confirm that fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is dangerous, Google “Fluoride dangers” and read a few of the over 1,000,000 articles, many by M.D.’s, dentists and medical scientists.
1. There is not one, single scrap of valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support any of the unsubstantiated claims put forth by James Reeves in his ridiculous comment……..as evidenced by his inability to provide any such evidence.
2. Hydrofluorosilic acid does not exist in fluoridated water at the tap. It is not ingested. It is, thus, of no concern whatsoever.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
Urine does not exist in water, so you’re okay with pissing in our drinking water?
Good point. Steve has slott himself in the foot again.
Slott values statements and endorsements above scientific testing. That’s why he’s known as the bull slotter !
You “piss” in your drinking water every day. This is why we have water treatment plants.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Follow the money to learn the truth.
There is certainly big money ($ billions) involved in selling this toxic waste fluoride to communities. These industries have many lobbyists to ensure that the truth is not exposed that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.
Fluoride is “not a nutrient” but rather a hazardous chemical that’s damaging our communities’ youth, causing 60% of children in fluoridated communities to have enamel damage (dental fluorosis –data from CDC).
Bottle-fed babies may be exposed to 175 times the level of fluoride naturally found in breast milk. Even the American Dental Association (ADA), one of the biggest backers of water fluoridation, warned of the risks to infants.
James Reeves
1. Your conspiracy nonsense is irrelevant and meaningless.
2. Yes, fluoride is a nutrient.
“This report focuses on five nutrients—calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride, all of which play a key role in the development and maintenance of bone and other calcified tissues.”
—-Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1997. Preface.
“Fluoride is regarded as an essential nutrient now well known to be effective in the maintenance of a tooth enamel that is more resistant to decay.”
—-Fluoride as a Nutrient
American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Nutrition
Pediatrics, vol. 49, No 3, March 1972
“Fluoride is a normal constituent of the human body, involved in the mineralisation of both teeth and bones (Fairley et al 1983, Varughese & Moreno 1981). The fluoride concentration in bones and teeth is about 10,000 times that in body fluids and soft tissues (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, 1995). Nearly 99% of the body’s fluoride is bound strongly to calcified tissues. Fluoride in bone appears to exist in both rapidly- and slowly-exchangeable pools. Because of its role in the prevention of dental caries, fluoride has been classified as essential to human health (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, FNB:IOM 1997)8”
—–Australian Government
National Health and Medical Research Council
https://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/fluoride
3. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimal level fluoride “damages” anyone.
4. CDC data has not shown that 60% of children have dental fluorosis.
The “60%” is actually 41% and is in reference to a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar in which 41% of adolescents they examined were found to have signs of dental fluorosis.. This 41% was composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign effects which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth….with the other 3.8% being those with moderate dental fluorosis, attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste and/or exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth forming years of 0-8.
Your hypocrisy is clearly evident by your lamenting “concern” about benign, barely detectable mild dental fluorosis in order to impose your ideology on entire populations, while you ignore the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, loss of teeth, and life-threatening infection directly resultant of untreated dental decay which could be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.
Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
There is no condition in the body which is fluoride deficient. It cures nothing and heals nothing.
It is not prescribed to any ADULTS by doctors or dentists. No one you know has ever had such a prescription.
Why would they, when it is a deadly poison.
It is never included ln any ADULT multi-vitamin formulation.
Jwillie
“Exactly, neither the Salk vaccine or fluoride is included in multi-vitamins because only nutrients are included.”
As I clearly demonstrated in a previous comment, fluoride is a nutrient. Perhaps you should consider taking a reading comprehension course. You seem to have a lot of trouble with comprehension of the printed word.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
jwillie6
12 mins ago
1. “There is no condition in the body which is fluoride deficient. It cures nothing and heals nothing.”
Fluoride strengthens teeth both systemically and topically, against the lifelong devastating effects of untreated dental decay.
2. ” It is not prescribed to any ADULTS by doctors or dentists. No one you know has ever had such a prescription.”
Fluoride is routinely prescribed to adults to prevent dental decay, especially in those with rampant caries, those who are prone to root caries, those who are to undergo x-ray treatment for cancer of the head and neck, and those with overly sensitive teeth.
3. “Why would they, when it is a deadly poison.”
Because it prevents dental decay in all age groups, and if we eliminate from ingestion all substances which are a “deadly poison”, we could ingesr absolutely nothing, and would be dead within a week.
“It is never included ln any ADULT multi-vitamin formulation.”
continued….
4. “It is never included in any ADULT multi-vitamin formulation.” So what? Neither is the Salk Vaccine.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I repeat, no one knows of any ADULT who has had fluoride prescribed to them.
Enough said.
“I repeat, no one knows of any ADULT who has had fluoride prescribed to them.
Enough said.”
You can, and do, repeat nonsense as much you would like, “jwillie”. I have prescribed fluoride routinely to “Adults” for the reasons I stated previously, as have most other dentists, and large numbers of MDs.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Exactly, neither the Salk vaccine or fluoride is included in multi-vitamins because only nutrients are included.
So now Steve Slott wants vaccines as well as piss put in everyone’s drinking water. He gets more bizarre by the hour.
The commenter cowering behind the pseudonym “full of slott” now posts: “So now Steve Slott wants vaccines as well as piss put in everyone’s drinking water. He gets more bizarre by the hour.”
Hmm, seems this illiterate commenter should join jwillie in the elementary school remedial reading comprehension course. “FOS” seems to forget that he was the one inquiring about “piss” in the water, not I.
Truly comical.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Steven D. Slott, DDS
You did not address the main point. Putting fluoride in our water supplies is medication without consent.
Bruce Patin
Obviously you have not bothered to read my comments before electing to comment on them. I have addressed the question of “medication” all over this page. However, i will do so, yet once again.
1. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. Antifluoridationists have attempted the “forced medication” argument repeatedly through the decades, in US courts. It has been rejected each and every time by those courts. There is no medication. There is no force.
2. Informed consent is in regard to treatment rendered. Local officials are not required to have such consent before authorizing the contents of public water supplies under their jurisdiction. If, when you elect to drink a glass of water, you believe that you are somehow administering “treatment” to yourself requiring informed consent, then you will need to obtain such consent from yourself to give to yourself every time you decide to do so.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dr Slott if one of your patients declines fluoride treatments in your office do you go ahead and treat the patient regardless? Why or why not?
Brenda. I do not render treatment to patients when they decline my recommendation to do so. This, however, is of no relevance to water fluoridation. If you somehow consider drinking a glass of water to be a “treatment” of some sort, then you are rendering such “treatment” to yourself. Now, if you deem it necessary to obtain informed consent from yourself to give to yourself prior to rendering such “treatment” to yourself, that’s certainly your prerogative. However, to most intelligent people that would probably seem to be pretty ridiculous.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Wow, it is difficult to believe that an assumedly respected attorney would publicly post a litany of claims parrotted from antifluoridationist websites, without bothering to verify the validity of such claims prior to submitting for them publication.
So, okay…..
1. Attorney: “In response to the July 8 letter “Community Water Fluoridation Has Important Benefits for Oral Health,” Asheville’s decision to fluoridate our water is not only a health risk but may open the city up to civil litigation in the future.”
Antifluoridationists have made such hollow threats, and had their legal challenges rejected by the courts each and every time attempted, since the beginning of water fluoridation 70 years ago. Why? Because they do not bother to properly research the issue from proper sources, or to verify the validity of claims prior to attempting these frivolous challenges.
2. Attorney: “Fluoride, in the form and quantity that our city adds to its drinking water, is not a ‘natural mineral’ as the letter describes. In fact, the fluoride that our city adds to our drinking water is obtained from the air-pollution-control devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry. It comes from the inside the smokestacks of fertilizer factories.”
The fluoride ions added to water through fluoridation, are , indeed, identical to the fluoride ions which have existed “naturally” in water forever. As groundwater flows over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions leached from calcium fluoride and fluorosilicates in these rocks. Given the high level of igneous rock in the North Carolina mountains, the majority of these fluoride ions in the water of the Asheville area will be leached from fluorosilicates in this rock. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring” fluoride.
The substance most widely utilized to fluoridate public water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA), a fluorosilicate. HFA is derived from naturally occurring phosphorite rock. It is a co-product of the process which derives the other co-product, phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid co-product is utilized in the soft drinks we consume, and in fertilizers which become incorporated into the foods we eat. The HFA co-product is carefully diluted to a 23% solution and utilized to raise the level of already existing fluoride ions in water by a few parts per million, up to the optimal level of 0.7 parts per million, in those water systems which are not already at that level naturallyOnce HFA is added to drinking water, the pH of that water (~7) causes the immediate and complete hydrolysis (dissociation) of HFA into fluoride ions, identical to those which have existed in water since the beginning of time, and trace contaminants in minuscule amounts that fall far below EPA maximum levels of safety. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It us of no concern, whatsoever.
A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of whether the source compound is calcium, NaF, HFA, or any other compound.
3. Attorney: “Our city chooses to add a chemical to our drinking water that is described as ‘slightly less toxic than arsenic, slightly more toxic than lead’ by the Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products”.
There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water. The difference between safety and toxicity of any substance is concentration level. Fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated, is not toxic. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to the contrary.
4. Attorney: “Our city chooses to add a chemical to our drinking water that scientists from Harvard University, in 2012, found to reduce IQ scores of children.”
The Harvard study was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:
“–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”
–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author
As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study.
5. “Our city chooses to add a chemical to our drinking water that was found, in 2006 in a report commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency, to cause: increased bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, impaired glucose tolerance (diabetes), earlier sexual maturity, decreased IQ and possibly osteosarcoma”
A. This “report” was that of 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water. This Committee was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:
“I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
—John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
B. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimal level fluoride causes “increased bone fractures, decreased thyroid function, impaired glucose tolerance (diabetes), earlier sexual maturity, decreased IQ and possibly osteosarcoma”.
6. Attorney: “Our city chooses to add a chemical to our drinking water that even our own toothpaste tubes will tell us ‘do not swallow.’ ”
The concentration of fluoride in fluoridated toothpaste is 1200-1500 times the fluoride content of optimally fluoridated water. That’s the reason for the warning on the tubes.
7. Attorney: “Even if our city refuses to believe studies from Harvard or the Environmental Protection Agency or the 97 percent of countries in Western Europe that refuse to fluoridate their water, why would we “medicate” our water supply to prevent tooth decay? Doesn’t it violate the doctrine of informed consent to medicate people without their consent?”
A. The reasons that other countries may not fluoridate their water systems, are myriad, few, if any, related to any concerns with safety or effectiveness of fluoridated water. These reasons include such things as logistics of water systems rendering water fluoridation cost-prohibitive, employment of fluoridated salt and/or milk programs instead of fluoridated water, existing levels of fluoride in water already at, or above, the optimal level, and adequate access to comprehensive dental care by all citizens of a particular country.
B. As explained previously, the Harvard study has no credibility or relevance to water fluoridation in the United States……..with the “Environmental Protection Agency Study” presenting nothing which supports opposition to optimally fluoridated water.
C. There is no “medication” involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. The “forced medication” argument has been repeatedly attempted by antifluoridationists in US courts through the decades. It has been rejected each and every time by those same courts.
D. Informed consent is in regard to treatment rendered. If antifluoridationists consider drinking a glass of water to be administering “treatment” of some sort, then they will need to provide informed consent from themselves to themselves every time they elect to “administer” a glass of water to themselves.
8. Attorney: “Lawsuits are starting pop up against municipalities over fluoride causing injury. What else would the city expect when it chooses to medicate our entire population without informed consent with a toxic chemical that is known to cause serious and permanent injuries by reputable and authoritative scientists?”
There is nothing new starting to pop up” in regard to water fluoridation, and there is no valid evidence of any “injury” from optimally fluoridated water. Such frivolous legal action has been attempted by antifluoridationists since the very beginning of this initiative 70 years ago. There has been zero success of these actions, and there will continue to be zero success…..because as I have clearly demonstrated here, the arguments presented by each new generation of antifluoridationists have no validity, whatsoever.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
Still getting paid by the word?
Feel free to provide any valid evidence you believe refutes any onf my words. As none exists, I won’t hold my breath.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
This is epic. Thank you for bringing facts, science, and reason to the table.
………three things to which antifluoridationists are totally oblivious.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Even the CDC backed down about 2000 and admitted that any perceived benefit from fluoride was predominantly TOPICAL, as in toothpaste – not from swallowing it.
There are several negatives associated with drinking it that are also pretty universally agreed to:
– Fluoride is an enzyme poison and endocrine disruptor.
– Fluoride is a “potent adjuvant”… causes or worsens allergies
– Fluoride is a “proliferative agent”… causes or worsens inflammations
– Fluoride builds up in bones…. causing or worsening arthritis and brittleness
– Fluoride impacts thyroid functioning
– Fluoride is a “burden” to kidneys… causing increased retention and possible damage in those with renal inefficiencies or chronic kidney disease.
Brush your teeth with it if you want, but those of us with allergies or Celiac disease; arthritis or brittle bones; and/or kidney or thyroid disease would rather not subject our entire bodies to it.
Segments of the population are unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. They include “postmenopausal women and elderly men, pregnant woman and their foetuses, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems….Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” – USPHS Report (ATSDR TP-91/17, pg. 112, Sec.2.7, April 1993)
and The NKF advises it may be “prudent” to monitor the fluoride intake of “patients with chronic renal impairment, children, those with excessive fluoride intake, and those with prolonged disease.” – National Kidney Foundation, Fluoride Intake in Chronic Kidney Disease, April 15, 2008
Peter Thomas
1. The CDC has not “backed down and admitted” anything in regard to water fluoridation.
The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic. The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which is the only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with optimally fluoridated water. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically.
—-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long
Additionally, saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing if the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.
From the CDC:
“Fluoride works to control early dental caries in several ways. Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization (i.e., recovery) of demineralized enamel. As cariogenic bacteria metabolize carbohydrates and produce acid, fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface. The released fluoride and the fluoride present in saliva are then taken up, along with calcium and phosphate, by de-mineralized enamel to establish an improved enamel crystal structure. This improved structure is more acid resistant and contains more fluoride and less carbonate.. Fluoride is more readily taken up by demineralized enamel than by sound enamel.. Cycles of demineralization and remineralization continue throughout the lifetime of the tooth.”
——–Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
United States Centers for Disease Control
Recommendations and Reports
August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42
Additionally, in a 2014 study Cho, et al. found:
“Conclusions: While 6-year-old children who had not ingested fluoridated water showed higher dft in theWF-ceased area than in the non-WF area, 11-year-old children in theWF-ceased area who had ingested fluoridated water for approximately 4 years after birth showed significantly lower DMFT than those in the non-WF area. This suggests that the systemic effect of fluoride intake through water fluoridation could be important for the prevention of
dental caries.”
—Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence
Cho HJ, Jin BH, Park DY, Jung SH, Lee HS, Paik DI, Bae KH.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014; 42: 341–348. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimal level fluoride is associated with any of the laundry list of disorders you have listed.
3. Optimal level fluoride is odorless, colorless, tasteless, and causes no adverse effects. As it has always existed in water, those of you ” with allergies or Celiac disease; arthritis or brittle bones; and/or kidney or thyroid disease [who] would rather not subject our entire bodies to it” have, in all likelihood, been “subject[ing] your entire bodies to it” your entire lives….fluoridated water or not.
There is no good reason to remove fluoride from water, but if you simply need to satisfy an irrational phobia of it, you are entirely free not to drink or otherwise use it.
3. Let’s look at the entire sentence you plucked from the USPHS report, including the first part of the sentence, which you dishonestly omitted:
“There is evidence that daily doses of 34 mg fluoride (0.48 mg/kg/day) increases the risk of nonvertebral fractures in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (Riggs et al. 1990). Postmenopausal women (Danielson et al. 1992; Sowers et al. 1991) and elderly men (Danielson et al. 1992) in fluoridated communities may also be at increased risk of fractures.”
For every one liter of optimally fluoridated water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. The CDC estimates of the total amount of fluoride ingested, 75% is from water and beverages. A simple math equation demonstrates that long before 34 mg of fluoride could be ingested in a day’s time associated with optimally fluoridated water…..one would be dead from water toxicity.
4. As there is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, it is “prudent to monitor the intake” of every substance that goes into our bodies.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Mr. Denton seems to have missed the lawsuits filed and the failure of each in the court of last resort in U.S.
You may search every case you’d like to at http://fluidlaw.org
Fluoride has NEVER been deemed illegal.
Community water fluoridation (CWF) is:
1. Safe for everyone to drink. In over 70 years of CWF in the U.S., there has NEVER been an adverse health effect from CWF
2. Effective: Simply by drinking CWF, everyone, regardless of income, social status, race, religion, ethnicity, or level of education benefits from its cavity fighting properties. At least 25% of cavities are avoided by simply drinking fluoridated water:
• Fewer cavities.
• Less severe cavities.
• Less need for fillings and removing teeth.
• Less pain and suffering because of tooth decay.
3. Cost Saving: CWF saves money!! For a city the size of Asheville, every $1 invested in community water fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment needs per person per year.
The Credible Scientific Evidence overwhelmingly supports Community Water Fluoridation. None of it supports the claims being made here by those opposed to it.
see: CDC.gov/fluoridation for credible information
Rev. Gerald Durley will be honored on MONDAY at the White House. Rev. Durley is the former Dean of Clark Atlanta University and the former director of the Health Promotion Resource Center of the Morehouse School of Medicine. He is one of many Civil Rights Leaders & Consumer Advocates who are vocal opponents of fluoridation as an ENVIRONMENTAL INJUSTICE.
About Award Recipients: https://www.whitehouse.gov/champions
2011 Letter: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/durley_2011.pdf
(Note: There is an error in his bio on the White House website. Opposition is ONLY to fluoridation, not fluoridated toothpaste.)
Seabreezes
1. Yes, some such leaders have indeed succumbed to the misinformation fed to them by antifluoridationists. This lapse in judgment on their part does not in any manner contravene the overwhelming amount of valid scientific evidence which clearly supports fluoridation, however. It simply means that they are inadvertently harming the very ones whom they seek to protect.
2. “Fluoridealert” is nothing but the biased website of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. This skewed little organization exists for the sole purpose chasing fluoride. Its profit and existence are expressly dependent upon its ability to keep this issue alive. The filtered and edited misinformation posted on its website is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of any who accord it any credence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Burlington, NC
I doubt that the former Dean of one of the top 20 colleges in the countries, former health director of the School of Medicine at the ” #1 baccalaureate-origin institution of black male doctorate recipients” and colleague of Dr. Martin Luther King is easily taken in by anyone. Neither do I think he or the other Civil Rights leaders, such as former UN Ambassador Andrew Young & LULAC leadership, rely on anything other than their own research which includes CDC statistics, analysis of science, and face to face meetings with CDC leadership. FAN’s only role in this is they publish those documents generated by those leaders as you could hardly expect the CDC to publish rational opposition to their policy.
– CDC table racial disparity: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23
– 2014 FOIA article: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fluoridate-anyway#
– FAN uploads of Civil Rights Leader opposition: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/ej/statements/
Seabreezes
1. “I doubt that the former Dean of one of the top 20 colleges in the countries, former health director of the School of Medicine at the ” #1 baccalaureate-origin institution of black male doctorate recipients” and colleague of Dr. Martin Luther King is easily taken in by anyone.”
Obviously, he has been. Otherwise he would not be seeking to deprive those he seeks to protect, from the dental decay preventive benefits of fluoridation. If you wish to compare testimonials from the small handful of those with any semblance of respect, worldwide, who oppose fluoridation, with those from the volumes of such individuals and organizations, worldwide, who fully support this initiative, I will gladly do so.
2. “Neither do I think he or the other Civil Rights leaders, such as former UN Ambassador Andrew Young & LULAC leadership, rely on anything other than their own research which includes CDC statistics, analysis of science, and face to face meetings with CDC leadership.”
What you “think” is irrelevant. These leaders relied on misinformation fed to them by antifluoridationists. After having been properly educated on this issue from proper sources, Andrew Young, for one, has backed off on his public opposition to fluoridation.
However, if you wish to base your irrational opposition to water fluoridation upon the personal opinions of politicians and educators while discarding the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare…..please feel free to do so.
3. “FAN’s only role in this is they publish those documents generated by those leaders as you could hardly expect the CDC to publish rational opposition to their policy.”
“FAN” is well known as a New York antifluoridationist faction which disseminates a constant flow of misinformation on fluoridation.
5. “CDC table racial disparity: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm#tab23”
This table shows a disparity in mild to very mild dental fluorosis, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.
While you lament your “concern” about barely detectible, faint white streaks on teeth, you callously disregard the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection, all of which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.
6. “– 2014 FOIA article: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/19317-feds-blacks-suffer-most-from-fluoride-fluoridate-anyway#”
This is nothing but a biased article located on an activist website.
7. –”FAN uploads of Civil Rights Leader opposition: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/ej/statements/”
“Fluoridealert” is nothing but the biased little website of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”. The filtered and edited “information” posted on that site is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of any who accord it credence.
For intelligent readers who desire accurate information on fluoridation, the websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of such information readily available to anyone.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
This is pure baloney. The councilor should review the case law on this subject available in the legal database at http://www.fluidlaw.org
These ideas have lost in every court of last resort in which they have been heard.
The chemistry of fluoride ion removal from raw ore has nothing to do with “smokestacks.” Here is a photograph of the equipment used to create fluoride water additives.
http://photos.oregonlive.com/photogallery/2015/01/fluoride_scrubber.html
The purity of water additives exceeds that of medication (USP). See:
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/factsheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#a9
Advocates for better health in Ashville must step up, speak the truth and protect the oral health there which is bettered with fluoridation.
Steven, I know it can be disheartening to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous ignorance, so I just wanted to let you know that I’m reading your posts with great interest; they’re wonderfully informative and full of strong citations. When the folks who argue with you rely on so many logical fallacies (appeals to inappropriate authorities like church leaders, suggestions that arguments about finance trump arguments about science, namecalling, etc.), it’s frustrating, but you’re doing good work, and I thank you.
“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, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
SCIENCE REFERENCES
2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
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.):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25446012
http://braindrain.dk/2014/12/mottled-fluoride-debate/
2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
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);
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24999851
http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Mullenix%202014-2-2.pdf
2015 Cochrane Review. Gold standard review of dental literature purporting benefit (Finds high risk of BIAS, and no evidence of whole health safety, consistent with 2000 York Review)
http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-to-prevent-tooth-decay
http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
2015 in Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England….. (Fluoridated communities have more than double the rates of low thyroid) http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971
2015 in Environmental Health. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in US….. (even adjusted for SES in 84 regions of US, fluoridated communities have much higher incidences diagnosed of hyperactivity) http://www.ehjournal.net/content/14/1/17/abstract
http://www.newsweek.com/water-fluoridation-linked-higher-adhd-rates-312748
2015 in Toxicological Sciences. Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis…. (Gene predicts individuals sensitive to fluoride poisoning at lower concentrations in water which manifest as dental fluorosis and learning deficits) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
**************
“No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice ‘take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.” – Dr. Peter Mansfield, 2000 York Review panelist
ETHICAL ARGUMENTS, BACKED BY SCIENCE
– 2014 legal analysis by Prof. Rita Barnett-Rose: http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/
– 2014 Peel Canada legal memo and scientific affidavit: http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Fluoridation-Legal-Opinion-June-24-14.pdf
Thank you, Daniel. My comments are lengthy and tedious, but they do demonstrate what it takes to properly address the litany of false and unsubstantiated claims that antifluoridationists spew in a short paragraph or two. This is the reason that their “leader”, Paul Connett, pleads with people to debate him in public, oral debates, and shies away from written ones. He knows that he can cast doubt on fluoridation by tossing out numerous claims which cannot be properly addressed within the confines of such a debate.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I am wondering if the nice dentists who support fluoridation are concerned with the personal freedoms of others or the issue of informed consent? I am also wondering if they happen to know the number of prescription medications that contain fluoride as an active ingredient? Are they aware that fluoride is found in anti-depressants, anti-fungals, anti-biotics, cholesterol medications, steroids and a plethora of other drugs and that each one of these has side effects? Fluoride is not just used to strengthen tooth enamel teeth. It affects the entire body when taken orally.
Elizabeth
1. Water fluoridation has nothing to do with personal freedoms. You are free to drink ot ir not. Your choice.
2. Local officials are not required to have informed consent in order to authorize the content of public water supplies under their jurisdiction. Informed consent is in regard to treatment rendered. If you believe you are rendering treatment of some sort to yourself when you drink a glass of water, then simply put some consent forms beside your sinks, sign one and give it to yourself every time you “administer” a glass of water to yourself.
3. The properties of different fluoride compounds are irrelevant to water fluoridation. The active substance in atomic bombs is hydrogen. Plain water is two thirds hydrogen. Do you fear you will explode every time you consume water?
Fluoridation simply involves fluoride ions, identical to those which have existed in water forever. The “forced medication” argument has been repeatedlyattempted by antifluoridationists in US courts through the decades. It has been rejected each and every time because, obviously, it has no merit.
4. Those who support fluoridation understand what seems to have escaped the awareness of
antifluoridationists………the head is connected to the rest of the body. There is no substance ingested which does not affect the entire body. There is no substance prescribed or utilized by dentists which does not affect the entire body when ingested. This is a very elemental fact of which dentists and other healthcare professionals are acutely aware. If we were not, dentists and MDs would not be licensed and authorized by state and federal government to prescribe the full range of drugs and medications.
The question is not whether optimal level fluoride affects the entire body, but to what extent and in what manner. In the 70 year history of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects on any part of the “entire body” from optimal level fluoride. If you care to disagree then please produce such evidence, properly cited.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dr. Slott, what would happen if you were to administer a medication to one of your patients without telling them of the risks and benefits and without letting your patient make up his/her own mind about its use? Fluoride, according to you, is meant to treat tooth decay – a medication. You can argue all day and night about a perceived benefit of fluoride, but medicating people without consent is unethical and illegal.
This is one of many reasons that most of Europe refuses to fluoridate its water:
“This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” – Belgium
The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.” – Germany
“Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.” – Lexembourg
“forced medication” – Czech Republic
Lakota
As an attorney you should be expected do a far better job of educating yourself an on issue before publicly posting a lot of erroneous nonsense gleaned from activist websites and blogs.
To answer your questions:
1. “what would happen if you were to administer a medication to one of your patients without telling them of the risks and benefits and without letting your patient make up his/her own mind about its use?”
This has no relevance to water fluoridation. First of all, optimal level fluoride is not a medication. It is simply an ion, identical to that which has always existed in water. The courts have been clear on this. The “forced medication” argument has been attempted in US courts by fluoridation opponents repeatedly through the decades. It has been rejected each and every time. If you care to waste court time and resources by once again attempting it you are , of course, free to do so. However, I don’t much like your chances with that.
Second, the one rendering any such “treatment” would be the individual, to him or herself. Therefore, any informed consent required would be from the individual to give to him/her self……which is obviously ridiculous.
2. “Fluoride, according to you, is meant to treat tooth decay – a medication. You can argue all day and night about a perceived benefit of fluoride, but medicating people without consent is unethical and illegal.”
A. Fluoride is simply an ion which has existed in water forever. Humans have been consuming it in water since the beginning of time. In the early part of the 20th century it was observed in an area of Colorado with high levels of fluoride in the water, that the teeth of those living in this area were more resistant to decay. It was also observed that a great deal of these residents also had brown staining and pitting of their teeth. Once the cause of these effects was determined to be the high level of fluoride in the water, researcher set out to determine if there could be a balance between the amount of fluoride in the water which would still increase decay resistance, without causing the stains or pitting. They determined this level to be in the 1 part per million range. The areas which had existing fluoride content significantly higher than this level would need to reduce the existing fluoride content, while those with an existing level lower than the 1 ppm target, would need to increase fluoride content up to that level…..if they wished for maximum benefit with no adverse effects from a substance they were ingesting anyway.
The initial ideal, or “optimal” level of fluoride in drinking water was originally set by the US Public Health Service in 1962, as a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was set as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between different climates. Recent scientific evidence has demonstrated that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no longer exist any significant difference in water consumption due to climate differences. Thus, there is no longer a need for a range. In recognition of this fact and of the greater availability of fluoride now, than when the optimal was originally established, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal range be consolidated into simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. After several years of careful study and consideration as to whether this consolidation would significantly reduce the dental decay prevention of fluoridation, the US DHHS determined that it would not. Thus, in keeping with the original goal of providing maximum dental decay protection while minimizing any risk of adverse effects, the US DHHS recently announced that the optimal recommendation had been officially consolidated into the low end of the previous optimum range. The current optimal level is 0.7 ppm, the level at which most water systems have been fluoridating for years, anyway.
B. Increasing the existing level of fluoride, in water systems with an existing level less than the optimal, by a minuscule few parts per million up to the optimal level, is not “medicating” anyone………and local officials require no informed consent to authorize the content of public water supplies under their jurisdiction, in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
C. The only thing “unethical” in regard to water fluoridation is the actions of those such as you, who seek to deprive entire populations the very valuable benefit of optimally fluoridated water, based on nothing but false statements, out-of-context information, misrepresented study results, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation.
3. “This is one of many reasons that most of Europe refuses to fluoridate its water:”
The reasons other countries may not fluoridated their water systems are myriad and include such things as……technical logistics of existing water systems rendering fluoridation cost-prohibitive, existing levels of fluoride already at, or above the optimal level, utilization of salt and/or milk fluoridation programs, and equal and readily available comprehensive dental and medical care to all members of a population.
4. Quotes without proper citation are meaningless. If you wish for credibility of the quotes you post, then provide such citation to their original sources, so that they can be verified for validity, and viewed in complete and proper context. Bear in mind that the “Fluoride Action Network” and its website “fluoridealert” are not original sources.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Fluoridationists often use arguments that sound scientific and logical, but are neither:
1. “You are free to drink the water or not, no one is force feeding you.” – Water, like air, is ubiquitous. When water is fluoridated, it permeates food water with it and even our skin when we bathe in it. We cannot avoid it when its added to municipal supplies, and we must eat and drink to live. We banned smoking in public places because a SHARED resource needs to be safe for the most vulnerable among us. Eventually, we will ban fluoridation for the same ethical reason.
2. “An ion is an ion.” – Fluoridationists often argue that there is no difference whether the origin of the fluoride ion is calcium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride as a justification for artificial fluoridation policy. That statement is a distraction. Let’s make this easy by considering several different sodium compounds:
– Sodium chloride is salt
– Sodium hydroxide is lye
– Sodium azide is the explosive in airbag systems
– Sodium fluoride is usually an industrial waste product.
Only one of the sodium compounds has any dietary value. Ditto for the fluorides… and it’s not any of the types used to artificially fluoridate our water.
“The fluoride ion in the different compounds is identical, but fluoride toxicity depends on the total calcium and magnesium concentrations in the water. Calcium in water prohibits fluoride from being assimilated into the bloodstream after it is ingested. Industrial fluoride compounds do not contain calcium and are all listed poisons on registries because these are fully soluble in soft water. “Fluoridation” with industrial fluoride compounds has not been safety tested by the EPA. There are no MCL values for industrial fluorides used to artificially fluoridate communities. Instead the EPA relies on natural calcium fluoride in hard water and mistakenly applies that MCL to industrial fluoride even for soft water without calcium or magnesium.” – Dr. Richard Sauerheber, Chemist
2013 in Journal of Environmental Public Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/
Seabreezes
1. “Fluoridationists often use arguments that sound scientific and logical, but are neither:”
Because you do not comprehend the science which is constantly provided to correct the misinformation you post, does not mean that the science is not valid or logical. It means that you need to begin to properly educate yourself from legitimate sources of accurate information.
2. Water, like air, is ubiquitous. When water is fluoridated, it permeates food water with it and even our skin when we bathe in it. We cannot avoid it when its added to municipal supplies, and we must eat and drink to live”.
Of course you can avoid it. You can use and consume fluoride-free bottled water, use rain water, river water, or filter out the fluoride. Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate to force.
If you knew the public water was laced with cyanide, you would, of course, not consume it. You would find alternate sources to meet your needs. If antifluoridationists truly believed all of the unsubstantiated claims they make about fluoridated water, they would not get within a mile of it, much less freely consume and utilize it, as most of them do……..probably including you. As long as you have options, there is no “force”.
The “forced medication” nonsense is nothing more than a shameless attempt to exploit emotions felt for those unfortunate souls throughout history who did, indeed, undergo the horrors of forced medication.
3. ” An ion is an ion.’ – Fluoridationists often argue that there is no difference whether the origin of the fluoride ion is calcium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride as a justification for artificial fluoridation policy. That statement is a distraction. Let’s make this easy by considering several different sodium compounds:
– Sodium chloride is salt
– Sodium hydroxide is lye
– Sodium azide is the explosive in airbag systems
– Sodium fluoride is usually an industrial waste product.
Only one of the sodium compounds has any dietary value. Ditto for the fluorides… and it’s not any of the types used to artificially fluoridate our water.”
As this has been repeatedly explained to you, in the simplest of terms, it is a mystery why you keep posting this nonsense.
A. Yet once again, it is not an “argument” that there is no difference in fluoride ions, it is a scientific fact. Go consult an elementary level high school chemistry text if you are in doubt.
B. If you don’t understand the difference between an atom and a compound, then you will probably never be able to comprehend even the most elementary facts of the science of fluoridation.
We do not ingest fluoride compounds in fluoridated water. We ingest fluoride ions. The fluoride compounds utilized to transfer these ions into drinking water are immediately and completely hydrolyzed upon addition to that water. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety.
After this point, the fluoridating compounds no longer exist in that water. They do not reach the tap. They are of no concern, whatsoever. Fluoride ions and trace contaminants, that’s it.
As far as your irrelevant example, the Na ions in the compounds you list are all identical, just as are fluoride ions in fluoride compounds.
4. “The fluoride ion in the different compounds is identical, but fluoride toxicity depends on the total calcium and magnesium concentrations in the water. Calcium in water prohibits fluoride from being assimilated into the bloodstream after it is ingested. Industrial fluoride compounds do not contain calcium and are all listed poisons on registries because these are fully soluble in soft water.”
This is Sauerheber’s nonsense. There are too few fluoride and calcium ions at the minuscule optimal level, for calcium buffering to have any effect, whatsoever. I have repeatedly challenged Sauerheber to provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect from a lack of calcium ions with fluoride at the optimal level. He has as yet to provide any. Why? Because none exists. Again, a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion regardless of whether it is released from calcium fluoride, hydrofluorosilic acid, sodium fluoride, or any other compound. One fluoride ion is no more, or less, toxic than another.
5. “ ‘Fluoridation’ with industrial fluoride compounds has not been safety tested by the EPA. There are no MCL values for industrial fluorides used to artificially fluoridate communities. Instead the EPA relies on natural calcium fluoride in hard water and mistakenly applies that MCL to industrial fluoride even for soft water without calcium or magnesium.” – Dr. Richard Sauerheber, Chemist
A. Richard Sauerheber is an antifluoridationist who has absolutely no understanding of this issue. He the “scientific consultant” for an antifluoridationist attorney who maintains a website for the apparent sole purpose of trying to scare up lawsuits against fluoridation from which he presumably would profit.
B. There is nothing to be “safety tested” by the EPA. The fluoride compounds you claim should be tested, do not exist at the tap in fluoridated water. They are not ingested. There is no requirement, or any need, for “safety tests” of substances which are not ingested.
MCL stands for Maximum Contaminant Level. This is the EPA maximum level for contaminants that will be ingested in drinking water. There is no MCL for fluoridation substances because theses substances are not ingested. Calcium fluoride does not even exist in groundwater. It is not a contaminant and has no MCL.
6. “2013 in Journal of Environmental Public Health: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690253/”
This is nothing but Sauerheber’s paper published in an open access journal which charges $800 to those who wish to see their work in print, presumably because no respected journal will publish it.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The 2006 NRC committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water examining EPA regulations for pollution control made these statements:
– “Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.” They went on to state, that the renal system is at “higher risk of fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues” (p. 280)
– ”In patients with reduced renal function, the potential for fluoride accumulation in the skeleton is increased” (p. 172)
– The NRC also noted that elderly are at increased risk of high bone fluoride concentrations due to accumulation over time. (p 100-103)
– “Fluoride appears to have the potential to initiate or promote cancers…” (p. 336)
– “Impaired glucose tolerance in humans has been reported in separate studies at fluoride intakes of 0.07-0.4 mg/kg/day, corresponding to serum fluoride concentrations above about 0.1 mg/L. The primary mechanism appears to involve inhibition of insulin production.” ( p. 264)
– “…..the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor……” (p 268)
The NRC also repeatedly mentioned that tests on susceptible subpopulations and long term exposure were notable gaps. In the last chapter, they politely chided the EPA to provide scientific material to justify their regulations. The NRC included 800 scientific references in their 530 page report. I encourage you to read it, however their are a couple of other much shorter documents from two of the panelists that get to the heart of the matter regarding much more succinctly.
– 2006 NRC Report: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11571&page=R1
– 2006 Dr. Carton, EPA scientist, on NRC process: http://www.fluorideresearch.org/393/files/FJ2006_v39_n3_p163-172.pdf
– 2011 Dr. Thiessen, 2006 NRC panelist, comment to EPA in response to EPA non-responsive responce to NRC report: http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/thiessen.4-19-11.pdf
Seabreezes
Yet once again………
The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not. (Page 2-3)
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
——Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of
EPA’s Standards
Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council
ISBN: 0-309-65796-2, 530 pages, 6 x 9, (2006)
In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:
“I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
—John Doull, MD, PhD,
Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Steven D. Slott, DDS
From NRC panelists:
Expert in Preventative Dentistry: “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, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
Expert in Risk Assessment: “The available data, responsibly interpreted, indicate little or no beneficial effect of water fluoridation on oral health.” – Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2011)
Expert in Neuroscience: “When the possible benefits and possible dangers of fluoride are considered there really is no comparison. Consider the following: There is no known benefit of adding any form of fluoride to our drinking water. Who would want to increase chances of having a less than perfect child? Who would wish to take a chance on a possible reduction of their own mental capacity? Who would want to have their personality altered by fluoride induced alterations in their brain chemistry? Who would want to increase their odds of developing Alzheimer’s disease? Eliminating the addition of fluoride to our drinking water would remove these possibilities. The cost of doing this is zero. In fact it would enrich the communities now adding fluorides to their drinking water.”- Dr. Robert Isaacson, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)
And regarding the politically correct Dr. Doull, that statement SS quotes was extracted from Dr. Doull by the Pew marketing director and another ardent fluoridationist member of that NRC panel after Doull had been publicly quoted making two other public comments.
A Fluoridationist: “People tend to think that it’s settled: But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [water fluoridation] has been going on.”
– Dr. Doull, chairman of 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water (in Scientific American, 2008)
A Fluoridationist: “The thyroid changes do worry me.” – Dr. Doull, chairman of 2006 NRC on Fluoride in Drinking Water (in Scientific American, 2008)
Limeback: http://www.eidon.com/dr-hardy-limeback.html
Thiessen : http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Fluoridation-Legal-Opinion-June-24-14.pdf
Isaacson: http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Isaacson_My_Fluoride_position2.pdf
Doull manipulation: http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Doull-Email-on-CWF-March-2013.pdf
Doull original statements in context: http://www.waterloowatch.com/Index_files/Second%20Thoughts%20About%20Fluoride,%20Scientific%20American%20Jan-08.pdf
Seabreezes
1. Antifluoridationists such as you have constantly attempted to misuse Dr. Doull’s 2007 statement as “evidence” to support your unsupportable position. He made his most recent statement in March of 2013, to make clear his position on optimally fluoridated water. This statement was as follows:
“I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
—John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
2. Since you seem intent on using testimonials from a small handful of long time antifluoridationists to bolster your total lack of valid evidence, I will gladly provide a few from the volumes of highly respected members of the worldwide body of resoected science and healthcare:
“As Deans of Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Dental Medicine and the Harvard School of Public Health, we continue to support community water fluoridation as an effective and safe public health measure for people of all ages.”
“Numerous reputable studies over the years have consistently demonstrated that community water fluoridation is safe, effective, and practical. Fluoridation has made an enormous impact on improving the oral health of the American people. ”
“Our country is fortunate to have over 204 million Americans living in fluoridated communities and having access to the health and economic benefits of this vital public health measure.”
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Flier, MD
Dean of the Faculty of Medicine
Caroline Shields Walker Professor of Medicine
Harvard Medical School
R. Bruce Donoff, DMD, MD
Dean and Walter C. Guralnick Distinguished Professor of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Harvard School of Dental Medicine
Julio Frenk, MD, MPH, PhD
Dean of the Faculty, Harvard School of Public Health
T & G Angelopoulos Professor of Public Health and International Development,
Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Kennedy School
——————————————–
“With the development of fluoridated drinking water and dental sealants, Americans are less likely to experience tooth loss and gingivitis by middle age … Community water fluoridation continues to be a vital, cost-effective method of preventing dental [cavities].”
Dr. Regina Benjamin, Surgeon General (2009-current)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
“Water fluoridation has helped improve the quality of life in the United States by reducing pain and suffering related to tooth decay, time lost from school and work, and money spent to restore, remove or replace decayed teeth.”
Dr. Richard Carmona, Surgeon General (2002-2006)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
“More than 50 years of scientific research has found that people living in communities with fluoridated water have healthier teeth and fewer cavities than those living where the water is not fluoridated. … A significant advantage of water fluoridation is that anyone, regardless of socioeconomic level, can enjoy these health benefits during their daily lives — at home, work, or at school or play — simply by drinking fluoridated water or beverages prepared with fluoridated water.”
Dr. David Satcher, Surgeon General (1998-2002)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
“Data consistently have indicated that water fluoridation is the most cost-effective, practical, and safe means for reducing the occurrence of tooth decay in a community.”
Dr. Audrey Manley, Surgeon General (1995-1997)
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Fluoridation is “the single most important commitment a community can make to the oral health of its children and to future generations.”
Dr. C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General (1982-1989)
————————————
The American Dental Association
“Studies conducted throughout the past 65 years have consistently shown that fluoridation of community water supplies is safe and effective in preventing dental decay in both children and adults.”
————————————
The American Academy of Pediatrics
“Fluoride plays a very important role in the prevention of dental [decay]. Although the primary mechanism of action of fluoride in preventing dental [decay] is topical, systemic mechanisms are also important.”
————————————
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“For many years, panels of experts from different health and scientific fields have provided strong evidence that water fluoridation is safe and effective.”
————————————
The American Academy of Family Physicians
“Fluoridation of public water supplies is a safe, economical and effective measure to prevent dental [decay].”
——————————————–
The Institute of Medicine
“Evidence continues to reaffirm that community water fluoridation is effective, safe, inexpensive, and is associated with significant cost savings.”
—————————————
The American Public Health Association
“Much of the credit for the nation’s better oral health can be attributed to the decision in the 1940s to begin adding fluoride to public drinking water systems.”
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The problem with the fluoride level in water is that it medicates everyone with the same dose, regardless of specific medical needs or consent. Dr. Slott says that this is a safe amount. But what about babies and infants? Is the same amount safe for a 200 pound man as for an 8 pound baby? Aren’t babies going to have a harder time excreting fluoride through their kidneys than adults? You wouldn’t give a baby an adult dosage of any medication. If Fluoride helps your teeth, than put it on your teeth. Obviously, there is enough scientific controversy about health effects that we can at least agree not to add it to everyone’s water regardless of need, desire, health, size, etc.. And don’t say you have the option to drink bottled water – obviously not everyone can afford, or is willing to pay for bottled water. No, you have the option to add it to your water if you feel that your toothpaste and mouthwash is not enough.
Lakota, you did not make it through undergraduate and law school by being as poorly prepared and uninformed on issues as you are on this one. What you are doing is assuming that a little activist organization, Connett’s “Fluoride Action Network”, knows more about science and healthcare than the top researchers, educators, and healthcare experts in the world. You are assuming that the issues you raise have not been long since been known, considered, and addressed by those who make decisions in regard to this initiative.
There is a reason that fluoridation opponents have had zero success in court through the decades, and will continue to have none. It is not because of “corruption”, conspiracy nonsense, or any other reasons these little activist groups proclaim. It is because of facts and evidence. There is no argument that you can make that I have not seen and rebuked dozens of times each….with facts and evidence.
So, once again…..
1. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have existed in water forever. The courts have been clear on this issue.
2. Local officials are not required to have “consent” prior to authorizing routine additives to public water systems under their jurisdiction. Any “consent” for them to do their jobs is conveyed by their election to office.
3. The only risk to babies and infants from optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild dental fluorosis, nothing else. If you want to dispute this then provide the valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects on infants, children, or anyone else from optimally fluoridated water. I’ll save you some time….there is none.
The US Institute of Medicine has established the daily upper limits for total fluoride intake from all sources, before adverse effects to be:
0-6 mos 0.7 mg
7-12 mos. 0.9 mg
1-3 yrs. 1.2 mg
4-8 yrs. 2.3 mg
8 years and above 10 mg
The reason it jumps after 8 yrs is because the teeth developing years are 0-8. During teeth development is the only time that dental fluorosis can occur. After age 8, there is no further risk of this, so, the upper limit jumps to 10 mg per day.
There is no other risk to infants and children.
4. There is no “scientific controversy” about water fluoridation. As I have demonstrated all over this page, there is only the peer-reviewed science which fully supports fluoridation, and the unsubstantiated claims, out-of-context quotes, misrepresented study results, and misinformation disseminated by irresponsible antifluoridationists who seek to create “controversy” where none exists.
5. If there are options, there is no force. If you knew there was a high level of cyanide in your water you, obviously, would not drink it. You would drink rain water, river water, or whatever other water that is readily available. It would be highly inconvenient, but you would do it. Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force. If antifluoridationists truly believed all the unsubstantiated nonsense they claim about fluoridated water, they would no more consume it than if they knew it contained cyanide. That they freely consume and otherwise utilize fluoridated water is clear demonstration that even they don’t believe their absurd claims.
Now, given all of this, do you still believe you would have any chance, whatsoever, in court having the misinformation of the “Fluoride Action Network” as your support, with the peer-reviewed science and worldwide body of respected science and healthcare sitting across the aisle?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I am somewhat conflicted by all the statistics and research that seem to discount, or negate entirely, the claims made by the opposition. Of most concern to me, however, is the innocuous reference to fluoride ions that naturally exist. Couldn’t the same be said of arsenic, barium, cesium, strontium…..? The dangers are directly proportionate to the amounts present. I’m not attempting to inflame the already raw sensitivities, just trying to get my head around the argument.
Yes, the same could be said about any substance known to man, including plain water. Concentration level is the difference between safety and toxicity for all substances. There actually is strong evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient at the level found in nature, and people have died from water toxicity.
Fluoride ions are no different. First, contrary to the proclamations of fluoridation opponents, there is no difference between “naturally occurring” fluoride ions, and those added through fluoridation. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. One negatively charged atom of fluorine is no different from any other negatively charged atom of fluorine. Second, fluoride ions, like any other substance, are toxic at improper levels. This is the reason that we carefully monitor the concentration level of fluoride and all other substances we ingest.
Finally, there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the concentration level at which it exists in fluoridated water is, in any manner, toxic. They are the same fluoride ions, in the same concentration range, as those fluoride. ions which humans have been ingesting in water since the beginning of time. There is no valid evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dr. Slott – below are quotes from a 1982 PA case which granted a preliminary injunction against adding fluoride to the water supply. The decision was later overturned, not on substantive grounds, but on procedural grounds.
“Over the course of five months, the court held periodic hearings which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared the cancer mortality of 10 cities which fluoridated their water systems with 10 cities which did not fluoridate over a period of 28 years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities.” (Aitkendead v. Borough of West View, 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 213 – Pa: Commonwealth Court 1982. )
“[p]oint by point, every criticism made of the Burk-Yiamouyiannis study was met and explained by the plaintiffs. Often, the point was turned around against defendants. In short, this court was compellingly convinced of the
evidence in favor of plaintiffs.” (Id)
1. Lakota, no court of last resort has ever upheld antifluoridationist claims. It is highly doubtful that any such ruling by a lower court, as in your uncited quote, was dismissed on procedural grounds. The paper by Yiamouyiannis and Burk has been so debunked that any decision based on it would unquestionably be overturned in short order.
2. Yiamouyiannis was a long-time antifluoridationist/antivaxxer who also publicly proclaimed AIDS is not caused by HIV. He died in 1995 while seeking discredited Laetrile treatment for his colorectal cancer, in Mexico, instead of trusting mainstream medical treatment in the US.
The Yiamouyiannis/Burk paper was one published in the journal “Fluoride” of the antifluoridationist faction, “International Academy for Fluoride Research”. This journal is so biased toward poor quality, antifluoridationist literature that PubMed does not even list it in its extensive database of respected scientific literature.
From a critique of this paper:
“One of the many arguments offered in the never-ending manufactroversy surrounding water fluoridation is that it causes cancer. This unsupported claim is nothing new and while it has been addressed many times it continues to periodically pop up and make the rounds again and again. In the age of the internet misinformation spreads quickly and myths die hard. The “natural health” blogosphere often capitalizes on this cycle of misinformation, dredging up outdated scare stories and spinning them as accepted fact. One such article from Natural Society reads,”
” ‘In 1977, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis.’ ”
“This extraordinary claim originated with a paper on the subject of fluoride and cancer, titled “Fluoridation and cancer, age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation”, which was originally put forward in 1975 and then again in 1977 by Dr. Dean Burk and fellow fluoridation opponent John Yiamouyiannis¹. However, the paper was not well received by the majority of scientists at the time and the paper’s methodology was criticized, such as for failure to adjust for important variables. Numerous subsequent scientific studies from the US, Ireland, Taiwan, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, including a review of over 50 published studies contradicted Burk’s conclusion and found no evidence to support such an outrageous claim. The CDC has since been quoted saying,”
“‘at this time, the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review of the findings of individual studies does not support an association between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma.’ ”
“The American Cancer Society has also gone on record stating, ‘Scientific studies show no connection between cancer rates in humans and adding fluoride to drinking water.”
——-http://skepticalvegan.com/2012/07/11/fluoride-cancer-quackery/
3. If you would like me to cite some of the volume of science concluding no association of optimally fluoridated water with cancer, I will gladly do so.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dr. Burk appeared to convince the PA court. Dr. Burk was not a fringe scientist. He was the head of the National Cancer Institute’s Cytochemistry sector. The court opinion was written by Judge John Flaherty, who later served a justice of the supreme court of Pennsylvania from 1978-2001 and Chief Justice from 1996-2001. The appellate court in fact reversed an injunction against fluoridation based on procedural grounds. The case is: AITKENHEAD ET AL. v. W. VIEW BORO. ET AL., 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 213 – Pa: Commonwealth Court 1982. The opinion states: “We therefore reverse the determination of the common pleas court, and sustain the appellant’s preliminary objections to jurisdiction in that tribunal because (1) the appellees failed to exhaust their administrative remedy in appealing the adverse decision of DER to the Environmental Hearing Board, and (2) DER is vested by statute with the duty to administer the Water Supply Law, and any objections to the decisions concomitant to that administration are reviewable by appeal to the Environmental Hearing Board, the Commonwealth Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, but not the common pleas courts of this state.” In normal english this means: (1) Your injunction against fluoride is reversed because you should have gone through the DER first, and (2) the DER has jurisdiction as an administrative body so the injunction is reversed. This is called being reversed on procedural grounds. It’s also called “punting” when a court clearly wants no part of the substantive argument.
Another interesting case is from Illinois in 1982, where Judge Niemann specifically found, “[This legislation] exposes the public to the risk, uncertain in its scope, of unhealthy side effects of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, is unreasonable, and [is] a violation of the due process clause of the Illinois Constitution of 1970.”179 He added with disappointment, “This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislature’s determination that fluoridation of public water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.” Illinois Pure Water Comm. v. Director of Pub. Health, No. 68-E-128, Final Decree, Feb. 24, 1982, at 29 (Madison County Circuit Court, Ill.).
This was of course overturned by the Illinois supreme court, not on the substance of the arguments about health and safety, but based on “police powers” of the state.
There is also this Texas case where the judge opined: [That] the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530 may cause or contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man.” Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston.
However, “police powers” is a very broad and powerful thing: The appellate opinion included the following language: “the injection of fluoride into the City’s water system would be
harmful,” but, the court ultimately held that such proof of harm was not enough to overcome an exercise of “police power”.
These cases are like the Defendant with blood all over his hands at the murder scene but the case gets thrown out because the police screwed up the arrest procedure. It doesn’t mean that Fluoride has never been determined harmful by the courts – it means that courts have found ways to avoid the issue with other justifications. What judge wants to say to the general public that their water has been poisoned for 60 years? Not to mention answer to the lobby groups who profit from fluoride.
Again, no court of last resort has ever ruled in favor of antifluoridationist claims. Dean Burk went off the deep end with his support of Laetrile and his ridiculous claims in regard to fluoridation. If you want to go to court armed with opinions of Yiamouyiannis and Burk as published in the antifluoridationist publication “Fluoride”, feel free. I don’t much like your chances with that, especially in view of the overwheming amount of science which contradicts them.
1. A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.
——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982
2. The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma
—— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005,
3. Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.
——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999. Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.
4. The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.
——-McDonagh M S, et al., Systemic review of water fluoridation. BMJ, 2000. 321.
5. A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).
——Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.
6. In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.
——-Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.
7. A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.
——European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.
8. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study provide no evidence that higher levels of fluoride (whether natural or artificial) in drinking water in GB lead to greater risk of either osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma.
—–Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Jan 14. [Epub ahead of print]
Is fluoride a risk factor for bone cancer? Small area analysis of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma diagnosed among 0-49-year-olds in Great Britain, 1980-2005.
Blakey K, Feltbower RG, Parslow RC, James PW, Gómez Pozo B, Stiller C, Vincent TJ, Norman P, McKinney PA, Murphy MF, Craft AW, McNally RJ.
9. Conclusion
Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence.
—-Cancer Epidemiology
April 2012, Vol.36(2):e83–e88, doi:10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008
Fluoride in drinking water and oseosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United astates among children and adolescents
Michael Levy, Bernard-Simon Leclerc
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877782111001822
10. The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that osteosarcoma incidence in the island of Ireland is significantly related to public water fluoridation. However, this conclusion must be qualified, in view of the relative rarity of the cancer and the correspondingly wide confidence intervals of the relative risk estimates.
—-Osteosarcoma Incidence on the Island of Ireland
Harry Comber, Sandra Deady, Erin Montgomery, Anna Gavin
Cancer Causes & Control
June 2011, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 919-924
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10552-011-9765-0
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Yup – it does come down to someone has to be lying, doesn’t it?
Professor Trevor Sheldon, chair of the 2000 York Review has something to say about that manipulation.
Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2007/oct/05/health.politics
Science Article: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/
Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study-shows-348251
EPA NTEU 280 also has something to say about it: http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/fluoridesummary.htm
And includes more of Sheldon’s comments in its timeline: http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/flouridelist.htm
However, you may find a better explanation in these articles . Follow the links for more detail.
Corporate Trolls: http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/computers/blog/gadgets-on-the-go/astroturfing-corporate-trolls-are-the-new-spam-20120327-1vo9s.html
2014 CDC orgs: http://www.cdcfoundation.org/FY2014/organizations
2015 CDC corruption reported in BMJ: http://www.naturalnews.com/050024_CDC_corruption_bribery_Big_Pharma.html
2015 CDC coalitions: http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/state_programs/infrastructure/activity4.htm
2014 CDC emails: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fluoridegate-deepens-with-release-of-2000-pages-of-foia-documents-277749561.html
2015 article by the editor of The Lancet: http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
I just want to clarify, I do not believe that most of the dentists and others supporting fluoridation are intentionally lying, although some are lacking in professional integrity and courage, and others have motivations I can only guess at. However, there are psychological drivers in this polarized conversation that are typical to most polarized situations that need to be considered.
1) Dentists and doctors do not choose their vocations because they want to harm. They choose these professions because they want to HELP people. To be faced with evidence that what they have been doing, what they were taught by professors they revered actually HURTS people is a difficult truth to face. Consequently, they refuse to examine it closely and do everything they can to reject it.
2) No one likes to admit they are wrong, and especially not people in power. It is a challenge to their identity and belief in their role. I am THE DOCTOR or THE CDC, you will do as I say because I DEMAND OBEDIENCE based on my status.
3) People get committed to a “side”….. and then it becomes about winning. Evidence is used by both sides to supposedly support their position. (See references to Prof Sheldon and the York Review above for an example.) Much of this is unconscious confirmation bias, but some of it is intentional “the ends justify the means” thinking. This is why I am upset about the infiltration of YES! by a group committed to fluoridation who is using a variation on the “bait and switch” psychology to turn high school students into unwitting shills.
“I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory.” – Dr. John Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer of New Zealand (1998)
See last chapter of this treatise on fluoridation polarization by social scientists: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/91skic.pdf
This is another interesting 1st person account: http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/96ce/3_Diesendorf.pdf
Personal attacks are not OK on this forum.