55 Comments

  1. Pretty long winded diatribe doc. I don’t care what you and your reports claim, It is up to the individual to decide what they consume, including fluoride. Not some pointy headed jackass that thinks they know better what is good for us than we. If they have to add it, it is not natural. There is no sound reason to add fluoride to public drinking water.

    1. Yes, Chuck, uninformed antifluoridationists characteristically consider peer-reviewed science to be nothing more than “long-winded diatribe” or some equally ignorant comment to that effect.
      You seem to believe that because water flows from your faucet, you somehow have no choice as to whether to consume it or not. This is a problem with your own cognitive deficiency, not with water fluoridation.
      The fluoride ions added to water systems which have an existing fluoride content below the optimal level, are identical to those existing fluoride ions. This is just elementary chemistry.
      Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. In the 7 decade history of this public health initiative, there have been no adverse effects. Optimal level fluoride is odorless, tasteless, and colorless. Given these facts, obviously, there is no sound reason not to raise the level of fluoride ions up to the optimal level in those systems which have an existing level below the optimal. We ingest fluoride anyway. Fluoridation simply ensures that we obtain maximum benefit while so doing.
      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      1. I am quite aware of my choice as to what to consume. That is why I drink purified water from a trusted source, not my faucet. The point you are missing is that you or anyone else does not have the right to make such decisions for others. Maybe if you were not so consumed by your own diatribe you would see this too. Free yourself doc, reject your indoctrination. Thalidomide was peer reviewed too. Should I make a list?

        1. Steve Slott says:

          You contradict yourself. First you admit that you have freely chosen to drink “purified water”, then state that I don’t have the right to make such decisions for others.
          You are free to consume whatever water you wish, which you have admitted you do. Soooo, how exactly does that translate into my making decisions for others?
          Hypocrisy and contradiction are part and parcel of antifluoridationist tactics.
          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          1. Jan Sammer says:

            You keep talking about an optimum level of a substance that has not been shown to have any essential function in the human body, even in trace amounts. What exactly is your point about “optimum level fluoride” being “odorless, tasteless and colorless”? So is radon gas. How are those qualities in any way relevant to fluoride’s safety? Methinks you are trying to mislead the gullible with such specious argumentation. Furthermore, your claim of “no adverse effects” in seven decades is precisely the point at issue, but you simply assert as self-evident the very thing that requires proof. Your claim of free choice is ludicrous, and in complete contradition to the intent of fluoridation, which is to to expose the uninformed public to this chemical substance at unknowable dosages in individual cases (unknowable due to the wide variation in the average amount of water consumed on a daily basis by different individuals and due to the wide range of body mass of exposed individuals). Yes, there are ways to avoid exposure, but they involve further risks, such as BPA leaching from low-density polyethylene bottles. Likewise I can avoid being exposed to second-hand smoke by wearing an oxygen mask. But pure air and pure water are legitimate public expectations. The fact that fluoride occurs in water naturally cannot be construed to mean that it is beneficial, as you try to do. In some parts of India the concentration of naturally occurring fluoride causes enormous health problems, especially to the bones. Where is the evidence for the safety of your “optimal level” and where are the seven-decades long double-blind studies proving safety and efficacy of chronic fluoride consumption at any level?
            What is of concern medically are not “optimal levels” but average daily intake, as well as cumulative lifetime exposure. Someone who runs seven to ten miles a day in a warm climate may absorb five times or more fluoride by rehydrating with fluoridated water than someone who does not exercise at all. Please answer this: What is the maximum safe daily dose of fluoride per kg of body weight and what is the safety margin for exceeding it? Is double the “safe” dose still safe? Is eight times the “safe” dose still safe? And if the safety margin is less than eight times, as it surely is, how can a physically active person in a warm climate be sure not to exceed the safety margin, if he/she happens to drink eight times more fluoridated water than the average person?

          2. You have diminished this conversation to a point of boredom with your circular reasoning and your refusal to accept rational, intelligent rebuttals. Time to go back to stacking cans or sweeping floors or whatever it is you really do for a living.

          3. Steve Slott says:

            Yes, you have made it blatantly obvious that this discussion is out of your realm of comprension…….precisely my goal in exposing the fallacies of antfluoridationist “arguments”.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          4. Jan Sammer says:

            I have exposed at least two fallacies in your arguments:
            1) it is ok to add fluoride to the water supply because it is colorless, tasteless and odorless.
            2) it is ok to add fluoride to the water supply because it has been in the water supply since the beginning of time.
            Both are fallacious for reasons I have explained; both could be used to argue for adding arsenic to the water supply for example, yet you refuse to admit your fallacy and keep on crowing about how you won the debate. An honorable man would admit to them and withdraw them.

          5. ummm, no, sorry, I don’t make “arguments”, and there is nothing in the facts and evidence I’ve presented in which you have “exposed at least two fallacies”. Seems like all you’ve done is produce your garbled “interpretation” and half-truths of my comments.
            1. I’ve not said that it’s “okay to add fluoride to the water supply because it is colorless, tasteless, and odorless”, or because “it has been in the water supply since the beginning of time”. I have said that it is okay to raise the level of fluoride up to the optimal level in drinking water because optimal level fluoride is colorless, odorless, tasteless, has been clearly demonstrated effective in the prevention of dental decay, and causes no adverse effects.
            2. Although there is strong evidence that arsenic is an essential human nutrient in the minuscule amounts in which it occurs abundantly in nature, there is no added benefit to adding more to water than already exists in that water. On the other hand, there is clear benefit to adding fluoride ions to those systems in which the existing fluoride level is below the optimal.
            3. Obviously, in regard to water fluoridation, I have no “fallacy” to which to “admit”, and I don’t see anywhere that I have “crowed” about winning some debate about which you speak. I don’t debate fluoridation. I simply present facts supported by valid evidence.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          6. Jan Sammer says:

            1. What you call the “optimal level” is indeed a level defined on the basis of a lack of clear evidence of harm as well as an alleged dental benefit, but since fluoride has not been determed to be essential to human nutrition, a zero level would be optimal on the precautionary principle of “first do no harm“. The harm of fluoride exposure at 4 ppm and above is clearly documented. At 1 ppm, which until recently was considered safe, there may be more subtle effects that take longer to manifest themselves, and when they do may not be recognized as being linked to the long-term exposure. Since fluoride has no nutritional benefit to humans it is prudent to avoid it altogether, rather than reducing dosage to a level at which its toxicity is difficult to conclusively demonstrate. There are other ways of ensuring dental health, including adequate levels of dietary boron, calcium, magnesium, vitamin D3 and K2, all of which are, unlike fluoride, essential nutrients.
            2. I objected to your use of the fact that fluoride is colourless, tasteless and odourless as somehow related to its being harmless, and pointed to other substances with the same qualities that are not harmless at all. No one claims that fluoridated water smells or tastes or looks bad. Your argument was illogical and clearly intended to mislead.
            3. This is entirely wrong, as proof of a negative (does not harm, is not carcinogenic or mutagenic, etc.) is a standard requirement for the approval of any new substance intended for human consumption. Effectiveness is the second standard requirement. Fluoride fails on both counts. “No proven adverse effects” is a poor criterion for advocating the chronic ingestion a substance of no known nutritional value and of known toxicity for a putative benefit (dental health) that is attainable in multiple other ways. At best you’re weighing an unknown risk against a dubious benefit. That fluoride has existed in water since the beginning of time is not a valid argument for its being beneficial to human health, you know that very well, so why use such specious arguments?
            4. You’re arguing against something that no one has claimed. No one has claimed that people are being forced to drink tapwater; but you know as well as I do that the whole point of fluoridating the water supply is that the population in general is expected to ingest fluoride and of course does so, most often totally unaware of the risks involved.
            5. On the contrary, adverse effects have been demonstrated at 8 mg/day and more subtle effects may occur at lower doses. There is very little solid data on chronic, decades-long exposure. If there is known harm at 8 mg/day, the harm at 4 mg/day may be present but more difficult to detect or take longer to manifest itself. The etiology of many conditions is unknown, and linking cause to effect is not at all easy, especially over the length of a human lifespan. Hence the precautionary principle should apply.
            6. The data from India is relevant for the purpose of extrapolation from clearly observable adverse effects at high levels of exposure to more subtle, not so easily observable adverse effects at low levels.
            7. There are many other ways of promoting oral hygiene that do not involve the ingestion of a known toxin of no nutritional value, even at “presumably safe” doses.
            Finally some advice to the readers of this website: to protect yourself against the harmful effects of fluoride, make sure you are not deficient in iodine.

          7. John Hall says:

            In numerous cities where flouridation has been stopped, caries have been reduced. Either you’re drinking the kool-aid or you have an agenda here. The science is in, you’re going to be seen as a laughing stock in a few years. I am starting to believe you have a real stake in selling off Flouride instead of paying to dispose of it safely like they had to do before they bought the EPA.
            You are hurting people. Stop being evil. Just stop. Look in the mirror. Who are you? Do you really believe that drinking water, putting flouride in your stomach and intestines, is helping your teeth? Your comments are bordering on lunacy at this point. In one comment you ignore/minimize science, but then embrace without question any small scientific tidbit which seems to support your extant viewpoint. You are not acting like a scientist, more like a zealot or a propagandist. Please stop.

          8. Steve Slott says:

            John, you seriously need help, man. Find some quickly.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          9. I do not contradict myself. My point would be obvious to even a simple mind, sorry you are not Included. You cannot be that obtuse and be a doctor. Phony!

          10. Steve Slott says:

            You seem not to realize that your previous comment is in plain site for all to view. I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers to ascertain your obvious contradiction.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          11. Jan Sammer says:

            An individual may choose not to drink fluoridated water, however fluoridated water is also contained in reconstituted fruit juices, soups and many other products. It is difficult to avoid. But even if Chuck and I decide to make the effort and go to the expense of buying bottled water with no or negligible fluoride content, avoid reconstituted fruit juices, canned soups and countless other products, all contaminated with fluoride thanks to people such as you, we will inevitably be exposed to BPA from the low density polyethylene, while having to drink stale water that may have been sitting in a warehouse for weeks. All because fresh tapwater is being deliberately contaminated with a known toxin, on your advice no less. Chuck’s concern is for the population at large. The whole point of adding fluoride to the water supply is to expose the population as a whole to this substance, yes or no? While individuals can opt out and are indeed not literally forced to drink tapwater (no one argued that, that is your strawman), however your clear intent is that the population at large be exposed, otherwise why bother to fluoridate at all? So you really are making decisions for the population at large, namely that fluoridation, of which the target population is largely and blissfully unaware, is beneficial for them. Who is being disingenuous here?

          12. You have nothing here but the same garbled nonsense you’ve been presenting in your other comments.
            1. No one is forced to do anything in regard to water fluoridation.
            2. There is nothing toxic about fluoride at the optimal level.
            3. Chuck’s concern is for Chuck’s personal ideology, not the “population at large”.
            4. I’ve presented no “strawman”, you simply have not seen the thousands of antifluoridationist copy/paste “arguments” about being “forced” to consume fluoridated water, as have I.
            5. Responsible community leaders “bother to fluoridate at all” in order to uphold their obligation to act in the best interests of their entire citizenries.
            6. I’m not making decisions for anyone in regard to water fluoridation. I’m simply presenting facts supported by valid evidence such that any intelligent readers who seek accurate information on this public health initiative, will not mistake the nonsense presented by you and other such uninformed antifluoridationists as having any semblance of credibility.
            7. I have no idea who is “being disingenuous here”, unless it is you and the other antifluoridationists who refuse to perform proper research on this issue from legitimate sources instead of simply blustering forth with the same junk regurgitated from the same antifluoridationist websites as every other uninformed antifluoridationist.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          13. Jan Sammer says:

            I see, so when you cannot refute the points that have been made, you refute points that you yourself make up.
            1. “No one is forced to do anything in regard to water fluoridation.” Neither Chuck nor I have mentioned force, this is your construction. The fact is that minimising fluoride exposure in a fluoridated community is difficult, time-consuming and costly. Pure unadulterated running water is a legitimate expectation; stale bottled water in BPA leaching PET bottles is not an adequate substitute. Very few people in fluoridated communities are even aware that their water is fluoridated, and if they become aware and concerned, they are silenced by arrogant ignoramuses such as you. The vast uninformed majority is being fluoridated involuntarily and the few individuals trying to avoid this toxin have to resort to costly, unwieldy and unsatisfactory alternatives.
            2. Read “Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity,” Chemico-Biological Interactions 188 (2010) 319–333), which discusses the abundant and growing literature on cellular damage caused by fluoride at what you would call suboptimal levels of exposure.
            3. Chuck’s concern was clearly for the right of the population at large to pure, safe and unadulterated running water.
            4. Whether I have seen such arguments or not, I did not use such an argument and neither did Chuck, so there was no point in your trying to refute it in this forum.
            5. That is surely their intent, however it is the outcome that is in dispute, not the intent.
            6. You personally are not making decisions for others but others make decisions to expose their fellow citizens to higher levels of fluoride based on the advice of people such as yourself.
            7. You are being disingenuous because on the one hand you claim that no one is being forced to imbibe fluoride-contaminated water, while advocating the addition of this toxic chemical to the water supply, making it as difficult as possible for the target population to avoid exposure.

          14. John Hall says:

            Whoah man you are clearly not making good logical responses here. Your position seems to vacillate and you have not adequately responded to many points. I think you need to get your meds adjusted, you’re not making rational sense.

          15. Steve Slott says:

            John, yes, I am not making “good logical responses”……. by antifluoridationist thinking.
            Antifluoridationist “Good logical responses” would be defined as anything that agrees with garbled, antifluoridationist nonsense. If my comments seemed “logical” to you, or any other uninformed antifluoridationist, I would be extremely worried.
            To intelligent people, obviously, my comments are not only logical, but exactly on point.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          16. Lacy Wooten says:

            I think that you are insane. If you really believe all of the things that you are saying, I am praying for you. Just exactly how can I possibly collect enough rainwater to cook with, drink, bathe me and my children, wash clothes, and everything else that water is necessary for on a daily basis? Yes, public water is a privilege THAT I PAY FOR. So why in the world should I, or anyone else, be forced to spend excessive amounts of time and money to be able to turn on the faucet and get a glass of water without having to worry about it affecting my health? Just so you know, I have been researching this issue and both sides are saying two entirely different things! I will agree that fluoride can be beneficial for developing teeth, that is not the issue at hand. An educated man such as yourself cannot possibly believe that a toxic chemical in any amount being put into your body over an extended period of time, could not in any way harm ones body. No one needs a peer-reviewed journal or even a doctor to tell them that. It is common sense! If you put bad things into your body, eventually it will effect your health. The point that I made about the vitamins in water was not to say that I wish they would do it. It was to say if the people in charge are so concerned about the well being of our teeth, why do they not care enough about our bodies to mass-medicate us for other concerns as well? I am sure that you have an answer for all of this, and I am sure it will have something to do with no one presenting enough peer-reviewed evidence for anything that we say to matter. But if fluoride is in no way harmful to people’s health why have so many other countries banned water fluoridation?

          17. Lacy Wooten says:

            There is obviously no point in anyone trying to even say anything to you. Everything that you say in response to anyone questioning the safety of fluoridation is just you turning around whatever they said to make them feel stupid. If this is such a non-issue, why are their so many people on here with genuine concerns and facts that just aren’t good enough for you? And why is there no one but you responding on the pro-fluoride side? Oh I’m sorry, I forgot that there are no “sides”, just people who are worried about their health and tired of being lied to, and pompous, close minded people like you who think they are really doing something great for people. I’ll just say it like this, WE DON’T WANT OR NEED YOUR HELP!! Nor do we need people like you to tell us what is good for us. If people want fluoride so badly, it is readily available in most toothpastes, mouthwashes, and other oral hygiene products. I have been to every website that you suggested in regards to me not being able to perform non-biased research and, like I said, they all say the same thing. There are most definitely sides to this, whether you choose to see them or not.

          18. Steve Slott says:

            Yes, there is no point in attempting to present unsubstantiated claims, personal opinions, and misinformation to me. It has no place in scientific discourse, and easily refuted. Science and healthcare are evidenced-based. What I present are facts which are fully supported by valid scientific evidence. That you don’t understand the importance of valid evidence is an excellent example of why recommendations on science and healthcare issues must be left to those qualified to render proper ones.
            I have told what you need to do to begin properly educating yourself on this issue. If you want to instead keep lazily relying upon antifluoridationist websites, that’s entirely up to you.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

  2. You gotta excuse Slott. He has an abnormal oral obsession.

  3. Edward W Lynn says:

    Somehow, Mr. Slott forgot to mention the 2012 Harvard University meta study of 27 other studies which “found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.”
    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
    With but a few minutes research anyone can find dozens of official statements from the health departments of western european nations such as Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg and Switzerland deriding the idea of adding fluoride to an entire water system for the purported goal of reducing dental cavities. Either they’re all wrong or the DDS is wrong.

  4. Legal Scholar: Is Fluoridation an Illegitimate Human
    Experiment?
    “The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers and informed citizens,” argues Rita Barnett-Rose, Chapman University Associate Law Professor, (online August 2014),
    Evidence of fluoride’s harm is ignored, downplayed or not studied; benefits exaggerated and informed consent disregarded. “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive,” she writes.
    After scientists disproved the 1945 theory assuming ingested fluoride was essential for healthy teeth, fluoridation promoters newly speculate, without evidence, that fluoridation benefits low-income children who have the most decay and least access to dental care – a problem that persists today despite 7 decades of fluoridation. In fact, dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.
    The National Research Council acknowledges significant fluoride
    health research has yet to be done – especially fluoride’s effect on the young
    brain.
    Using case law, legal opinions and scientific reports, Barnett-Rose argues that fluoridation schemes allow public health officials to experiment on human subjects without their informed consent.
    “Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies, supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment,” she writes.
    “Continued imposition of
    compulsory water fluoridation schemes violates numerous legal and ethical human
    subjects’ research protocols,” argues Barnett-Rose.
    “It is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious health consequences,” she
    writes.
    Barnett-Rose writes: “Taking politics and long-entrenched agendas out of the mix, the risks of tooth decay, while perhaps still significant for a minority of individuals, are significantly outweighed by the human rights burdens, economic costs, and risks of other bodily harm for the majority of those affected.”

    1. Steve Slott says:

      So, nyscof cannot provide any respected healthcare or healthcare-related organizations which oppose fluoridation, so she quotes a lawyer who spouts the same nonsense as do all uninformed antifluoridationists??
      Ummm, okay……..
      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      1. “dr” slott, your credibility is like a tooth with severe fluorosis. pitted and crumbly. an embarrassment to your profession. a lost cause.

        1. Steve Slott says:

          Oh, gee, Amy. Coming from someone who has no clue about this issue, or of science and healthcare in general, this opinion of my “credibility” is just devastating……
          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          1. Googled your name. Seems you have a 1.5 out of 5 rating from your patients. I was surprised because I thought it would come up ‘troll’.

  5. I’d like to quickly address your claims with the hope that you can shore up your argument.
    1. It doesn’t matter where the chemical comes from. What matters is whether it causes harm in the amounts that are in the water. What evidence is there that Hydrofluorosilicic Acid causes harm in the amounts used in water?
    2. The number of countries that have banned Fluoridation is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is toxic in the amounts in the water supply. Recall that at one time, nearly everyone believed the world was flat. This is called the argument from popularity fallacy. What we need are the reasons that the countries don’t fluoridate their water.
    3. Fluoride may be a neurotoxin. The question is whether it is toxic in the amounts used in fluoridation programs. Salt is also toxic. But not in the amounts we normally eat.
    4.”In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. ” This is a CLAIM. We need to see the evidence that he used to justify this claim. If it’s true, it shouldn’t be hard to find.
    5. “why in the world does it need to be added to the water supply if millions of Americans still brush their teeth with fluoridated products? ” I honestly don’t have any idea. However, one such response might be that American’s don’t get enough in their toothpaste and could benefit from more. It might also be argued that the amount that Americans receive is not toxic.
    I’m not advocating for fluoridation. I’m just trying to encourage you to shore up your arguments and get rid of the irrelevancies. Cheers.

    1. Jan Sammer says:

      What you’ve witnessed, Edward, are the pitiful efforts of a clueless defender of the status quo, wrapping himself up in the cloak of authority, arrogantly dismissing any doubters, using sophomoric arguments of the type if it’s always been in the water, it must be good for you, if you can’s see it, smell it or taste it, it can’t hurt you, etc. By contrast, please read these excerpts from a fairly recent peer-reviewed publication, “Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity,” Chemico-Biological Interactions 188 (2010) 319–333):
      “Fluoride exerts diverse cellular effects in a time-, concentration-, and cell-type-dependent manner. The main toxic effect of fluoride in cells consists of its interaction with enzymes… Metabolic, functional and structural damage caused by chronic fluorosis have been reported in many tissues. Research data strongly suggest that fluoride inhibits protein secretion and/or synthesis and that it influences distinct signaling pathways involved in proliferation and apoptosis …Fluoride alters the activity of many mitochondria-rich cells such as those of the human kidney and the rat liver and pancreas. However, information about the mechanism of fluoride-induced mitochondrial damage is scarce… Old and recent studies have shown that fluoride exerts different effects on the cell machinery leading to cell death, apoptosis and/or necrosis both in vivo and in vitro…. many works have concluded that fluoride induces apoptosis by elevating oxidative stress-induced lipid peroxidation, thus causing mitochondrial dysfunction…. All of these results confirm that fluoride induces apoptotic cell death through the modification of gene expression and protein activity by mitochondrial dysfunction.”
      This is what real science reads like, in contrast with the arrogant pronouncements from our resident DDS. The authors describe effects observed at the cellular level, at very low levels of exposure. The take-home point is that the jury is still out, and one has to weigh the unequivocal evidence of harm against the claimed benefit. Even if cavities are in fact reduced (quod est demonstrandum), is the cost in terms of mitochondrial dysfunction and lipid peroxidation worth it? And I have given just a few examples of the cellular damage induced by fluoride as described in the cited article.
      What we should be asking is this: are there no safer ways of reducing cavities than ingesting a known toxin which, unlike salt, for example, has no known nutritional benefit at any concentration?

      1. Here’s a newsflash………..ready?…………now read carefully……….There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels. Let me repeat this so that you may somehow comprehend………There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels. This includes plain water.
        So, if your intent is to bar from ingestion all toxic substances, then you will be able to ingest absolutely nothing, and will be dead within a week.
        Let’s stick to that which is relevant to fluoride at the optimal level. Okay? If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal level, then present it, properly cited.
        Steven D. Slott, DDS

        1. Jan Sammer says:

          “Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity,” Chemico-Biological Interactions 188 (2010) 319–333).

        2. Steve Slott says:

          Oh, gee…an uninformed antifluoridationist has deemed me to have “disgraced” myself. How utterly devastating.
          You agree that substances cannot be eliminated from ingestion simply because they are toxic without regard to use levels. Good, you are making progress. However, you still seem to believe that an article discussing properties of fluoride at high levels is relevant. It is not. If you wish for credibility on this issue then cite valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence in regard to optimal level fluoride, properly cited from its original source.
          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          1. Jan Sammer says:

            Try reading for meaning, Steve. The article is an overview of numerous peer-reviewed publications over recent decades that have demonstrated the cellular damage induced by exposure to fluoride at very low concentrations, much lower than your claimed “optimal level”. Did you actually read the entire article, as I have, or just skim the abstract? Have you at least looked it up? I can email it to you if you like.

          2. Steve Slott says:

            What you have cited is an open access article for which authors pay a fee to have published. This review provides no valid evidence of adverse effects arising from “cellar damage” of fluoride at the minuscule optimal level of 0.7mg/liter.
            The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water performed an exhaustive, three year review of all pertinent fluoride literature for the purpose of assessing the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect the public against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was that the primary MCL should be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole stated reasons for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. No other reasons. If this committee had any other concerns with fluoride at this level it would have been obligated to so state and recommend accordingly. It did not. Additionally, this committee made no recommendation to lower the EPA secondary fluoride MCL from its current 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level that the 2006 NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower.
            Once again, if you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects of optimal level fluoride, then present it, properly cited from its original source.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          3. Steve Slott says:

            Predictable. Antifluoridationists inevitably become frustrated at having their personal ideology thwarted by facts supported by valid scientific evidence, resort to personal attacks, and leave in a huff.
            That you consider the presentation of valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, to be an “abysmal performance” is precisely the point. It makes no difference how much valid, scientific evidence is presented to antifluoridationists such as you, as long as it disagrees with your personal ideology as it always will, you will reject it…..obviously.
            Steven D. Slott, DDS

      2. Jan, your article discusses the toxic effects of fluoride on cells. But it doesn’t say how much is toxic. Are there any peer reviewed studies that demonstrably conclude that fluoride is toxic at the levels found in drinking water?

        1. Jan Sammer says:

          Edward, given that fluoride has been shown to be toxic to the mitochondria in cells, it is toxic in any amount, though in small concentrations and over short periods of exposure any clinical effects may be very hard to detect. In a similar way the harmful effects of exposure to mercury in trace amounts are notoriously difficult to demonstrate on a clinical level, even though the harm at the cellular level is readily apparent. At least nobody claims that there is an “optimal“ level of mercury we should be ingesting. The body requires trace amounts of various metals and minerals, such as copper and manganese, which can be toxic in larger doses. But nobody has yet demonstrated any such need for fluoride, even in trace amounts. I would have no objections to putting magnesium in the water, as that is an essential mineral, often naturally present in water, in which large sections of the population are deficient. Magnesium deficiency is a known public health issue, but there is no such thing as a fluoride deficiency. So any talk of optimal levels of fluoride in the water supply are by definition bunk.

    2. Uh, I don’t think we need more Fluoride in the toothpaste. Note the warning on the tube that says if it’s accidentally swallowed seek medical attention or call Poison Control Center. Interestingly, the actual physical amount of fluoride cannot be determined, with the given facts on the tube. Do you use a little dab? Do you cover the whole toothbrush? Do you brush 3 times a day? I don’t know that it’s a big deal or not. What I do know, is that it is said that the topical use of fluoride on the teeth may be beneficial, but certainly not drinking it. Google fluorosis and see pictures of what teeth can look like. Incidence of fluorosis in the US is 41%, largely because of fluoridated water used in mixing baby formula…and some bottled water labeled For Baby contains fluoride to this day! The older we get, fluoride doesn’t adversely affect the enamel so much, but not so when teeth are forming. Regardless, Fluoride is a toxic waste from the mining industry, so whether we pay for it or not (I can’t find info on that) the industry is surely saved the expense of disposing of its toxic waste properly. Another victory for big business.

  6. If you shower, you are showering, or bathing, in fluoridated water. The skin is our largest organ, and the fluoride is absorbed through it while bathing or even swimming in a pool that uses city water sources. Salt water pool are the best, If your city fluoridates the water, you can purchase a system for the entire house that removes the fluoride, chlorine and other harmful chemicals. For drinking water, you can buy systems that also do this. The best one is Beyond Oxygen, which removes ALL harmful things from the water, including pharmaceuticals, while adding healthy minerals. It is an alkaline water system. I have tried them all, and this one is the best, removing toxins that none of the others can.

  7. LilaSincere says:

    Fluoride is in the Santa Barbara County, California drinking water.

  8. Mr Slott has convinced me! Fluoride is a substance to be avoided at all costs if it can be defended only by arguments such as those raised by Mr Slott.

  9. Mike Mitchell says:

    I recently became concerned with fluoridation of water, and also recently started using a new portable filter that removes it from the water I drink.

  10. Why should I have to pay for a Reverse Osmosis system (which also removes healthy minerals) to eliminate something I never wanted in the first place? This is insanity on steroids.

  11. AS a dentist Mr. Slott you understand the effects of fluoride on teeth. Do you understand the effects fluoride has on the stomach lining, bones, or pineal gland? Did you know that most of the fluoride ingested is accumulated in the pineal gland? I just don’t understand why you could possibly think that’s ok

  12. E Stoneback says:

    I’m no scientist, so I am limited to what I read. But here’s a novel idea. Since their is evidence both ways, and it serves no purpose other then for teeth, Then use a fluoride tooth paste, This is an easy find at any store. But stop putting it in water if for nothing more then to stop wasting taxpayers money. But if proof later down the road as science evolves that it is harmful that can’t be debated then its a double win. We call this proactive and I’m not talking about the “keep you regular” stuff either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *