Though fluoride remains in the drinking water served to millions of people around the world, many communities and even entire countries have removed fluoride from their water as a way to protect public health.
Fluoride is continuously being removed from water nationally and globally as more people start to question practices that were once accepted without a true safety assessment. These bans are a great example of how consciousness is raising on the planet and people are more cognizant of what can harm or help their overall health.
Here are a 5 things you should know about fluoride.
1. Many Municipal Water Systems are Polluted with Hydrofluorosilicic Acid
Our governments have allowed this toxic industrial waste by-product to be in our water systems for more than 60 years. But why would anyone want to add a substance that is the byproduct of the aluminum, fertilizer, steel, and nuclear industries to the water? Hydrofluorosilicic acid comes primarily from the Phosphate Mining & Production Industry, a byproduct of strip-mined rock that is placed in large vats of sulfuric acid to get rid of contaminates in the rock.
This practice resulted in not only polluting our drinking water, but also harming the environment and harming many habitats and the animals that lived in them. Industrial toxic waste was placed into our drinking water as a sneaky way for mega-corporations to get rid of pollutants they didn’t know what to do with (like arsenic, lead, mercury, and silicofluoride, among others) When the aluminum, fertilizer, steel and nuclear industries couldn’t meet certain environmental regulations imposed upon them, they looked for a creative way to get rid of this waste – and guess where it ended up?
As more people learn what fluoride is, and that it is not the ‘naturally occurring fluoride’ that fluoridation supporters try to promote, then they realize it has no business in our drinking water.
2. Fluoride has Been Banned in Numerous Countries for Good Reason
The U.S. Center for Disease Control once propagandized fluoridation of the water supply as ‘one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century.” The U.S. has more fluoridated water than any other country in the world due to this deceptive campaign.
Most industrialized nations do not fluoridate their water. This includes Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, many communities in Australia, Iceland, 90 percent of the UK, Spain, Scotland, Norway, Switzerland, Windsor, Canada, and numerous others who know that fluoridation is toxic to human health.
3. Fluoride is a Pollutant to the Air You Breathe – Not Just the Water You Drink
The Former VP and Senior Chemist at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Headquarters, Dr. William Hirzy, has called fluoride a pollutant. “If this stuff gets out into the air; it’s a pollutant; if it gets into a river it’s a pollutant: if it gets into a lake it’s a pollutant, but it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing.”
One of the most prestigious peer reviewed medical journals has admitted that fluoride is a neurotoxin. This substance can cause all sort of developmental delays in children and dementia in older adults. The publication abstract reads:
“Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence.
In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methyl mercury (common in vaccines), polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants – manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated dihenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered.
To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.”
In addition to this, a major Harvard study has confirmed that fluoride lowers IQ.
4. Fluoride Impedes Presence of Important Compounds
A famous American biochemist, Dr. Dean Burk, discovered that a chemical necessary for proper cell growth, the production of fatty acids, and the metabolism of fats and amino acids (cellular respiration) – biotin – is impeded by the presence of fluoride and other toxins. Dr. Burk was the head chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institute of health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
He was also chief of cytochemistry at the institute’s laboratory. He even won a Hilderbrand Prize in 1952 for his work on photosynthesis, and the Gerhard Domagk Prize in 1965 for his development of procedures for distinguishing the difference between a normal cell and one damaged by cancer. He was no scientific slouch.
In a paper he wrote on the subject of enzyme dissociation, he commented:
“In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical.When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions. Fluoride amounts to public murder on a grand scale. It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.”
5. Fluoride is Already in Your Toothpaste, Mouthwash, and Other Products
I personally choose fluoride-free toothpaste, but 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? Fluoride also naturally occurs in water, but at a much lower rate.
One of the best ways to get this nasty substance out of your drinking water is through a process called ‘reverse osmosis.’ There are multiple home-filtration systems that purify water in multiple stages, taking fluoride and other toxins out of it before you drink it. You can also purchase bottled water at many health food stores that has been filtered to get rid of fluoride.
Going fluoride-free is easier than you think!
1. Fluoridation in the US is increasing. The latest report from the CDC shows 74.6% fluoridation in 2012, up from 73.4% in 2011.
2. Hydrofluorosilic acid (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 naturally.
Once 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.
From the CDC:
“Most fluoride additives used in the United States are produced from phosphorite rock. Phosphorite is used primarily in the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer. Phosphorite contains calcium phosphate mixed with limestone (calcium carbonates) minerals and apatite—a mineral with high phosphate and fluoride content. It is refluxed (heated) with sulfuric acid to produce a phosphoric acid-gypsum (calcium sulfate-CaSO4) slurry.
The heating process releases hydrogen fluoride (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4) gases which are captured by vacuum evaporators. These gases are then condensed to a water-based solution of 23% FSA with the remainder as water.
Approximately 95% of FSA used for water fluoridation comes from this process. The remaining 5% of FSA is generated during the manufacture of hydrogen fluoride or from the use of hydrogen fluoride in the manufacturing of solar panels and electronics.
Since the early 1950s, FSA has been the chief additive used for water fluoridation in the United States. The favorable cost and high purity of FSA make it a popular source. Sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride are dry additives that come largely from FSA.
http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm
http://www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_flouride.pdf
3. The United States Centers for Disease Control is one of the most highly respected healthcare organizations in the world. It does not “propagandize”.
4. The reasons that different countries may or may not fluoridate their water systems are myriad and diverse, few having anything to do with concerns of safety or effectiveness of fluoridated water.
The following is an outline of the situation with fluoridation throughout the world taken from a recent issue of the newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:
Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Israel, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea.
Several countries are unable to introduce water fluoridation programmes due to technical, financial or sociocultural reasons. As an alternative, both salt and milk have been found to be reliable and convenient vehicles for increasing fluoride intake to an optimal level for hard to reach and low socio-economic communities. Studies have found them to be as effective as community water fluoridation schemes.
Some European, Latin American, and Caribbean countries, including France, Switzerland, Germany, Costa rica, Colombia and Jamaica currently use fluoridated salt schemes. Mexico and most Latin American and Caribbean countries (apart from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and French Guyana) have or have had salt fluoridation programmes.
A smaller number of countries currently have fluoridated milk programmes, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom
Some country regions have optimal amounts of naturally occurring fluoride which provides good protection for oral health. examples of countries supplied with naturally fluoridated water at or around the optimum level needed to prevent dental decay include the United Kingdom (estimated 329,000 people), United States of America (estimated 10,078,000 people) Canada (estimated 300,000 people) and Australia (estimated 144,000 people).
It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total.
5. William Hirzy is the current paid lobbyist for the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. His opinion on what what he terms “stuff” is neither scientific, objective, nor credible.
6. The journal “Lancet” does not “admit” anything. It simply publishes articles. In the article to which is referred in this piece, there is nothing new. Fluoride has been on the list of neurotoxins for years, along with 150 or so other substances. Along with fluoride on that list are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (artificial sweetener),
ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), tetracycline (antibiotic), caffeine, and nicotine.
Fluoride at the optimal level as utilized in fluoridation is no more toxic than any of these other substances at their proper use level.
A complete rebuttal of the Lancet article in question may be found in a subsequent issue of the Lancet:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(14)70119-X/fulltext
7. The paper of Dean Burk’s is from 1934. The references he cites in the paper are from 1913, 1926, and 1930. His opinion contradicts that of the overwhelming consensus of respected science and healthcare of today.
Is the author of this article seriously reliant upon scientific opinion from a century ago?
8. There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to ANY cancer.
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
• 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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9. “Fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash, and other products” does not offer the preventive protection to entire populations, as does fluoridation. At less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, there is no other dental decay preventive measure which even comes close to the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation.
Toothpaste, mouthwash, and other products are valuable sources of fluoride. However, they are only single applications. Fluoride from fluoridated water becomes incorporated into saliva which then provides a consistent bathing of the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of decay prevention. This is in addition to the which becomes incorporated into the developing teeth, strengthening them against decay, for a lifetime.
10. Optimal level fluoride is colorless, tasteless, odorless, and identical to that which has existed in water since beginning of time. In the 69 year history of this public health initiative there have been no proven adverse effects.
There is no sound, scientific reason to warrant filtering fluoride out of fluoridated water.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. Fluoridation in the US is increasing. The latest report from the CDC shows 74.6% fluoridation in 2012, up from 73.4% in 2011.
2. Hydrofluorosilic acid (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 naturally.
Once 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.
From the CDC:
“Most fluoride additives used in the United States are produced from phosphorite rock. Phosphorite is used primarily in the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer. Phosphorite contains calcium phosphate mixed with limestone (calcium carbonates) minerals and apatite—a mineral with high phosphate and fluoride content. It is refluxed (heated) with sulfuric acid to produce a phosphoric acid-gypsum (calcium sulfate-CaSO4) slurry.
The heating process releases hydrogen fluoride (HF) and silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4) gases which are captured by vacuum evaporators. These gases are then condensed to a water-based solution of 23% FSA with the remainder as water.
Approximately 95% of FSA used for water fluoridation comes from this process. The remaining 5% of FSA is generated during the manufacture of hydrogen fluoride or from the use of hydrogen fluoride in the manufacturing of solar panels and electronics.
Since the early 1950s, FSA has been the chief additive used for water fluoridation in the United States. The favorable cost and high purity of FSA make it a popular source. Sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride are dry additives that come largely from FSA.
3. The United States Centers for Disease Control is one of the most highly respected healthcare organizations in the world. It does not “propagandize”.
4. The reasons that different countries may or may not fluoridate their water systems are myriad and diverse, few having anything to do with concerns of safety or effectiveness of fluoridated water.
The following is an outline of the situation with fluoridation throughout the world taken from a recent issue of the newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:
Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Israel, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea.
Several countries are unable to introduce water fluoridation programmes due to technical, financial or sociocultural reasons. As an alternative, both salt and milk have been found to be reliable and convenient vehicles for increasing fluoride intake to an optimal level for hard to reach and low socio-economic communities. Studies have found them to be as effective as community water fluoridation schemes.
Some European, Latin American, and Caribbean countries, including France, Switzerland, Germany, Costa rica, Colombia and Jamaica currently use fluoridated salt schemes. Mexico and most Latin American and Caribbean countries (apart from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and French Guyana) have or have had salt fluoridation programmes.
A smaller number of countries currently have fluoridated milk programmes, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom
Some country regions have optimal amounts of naturally occurring fluoride which provides good protection for oral health. examples of countries supplied with naturally fluoridated water at or around the optimum level needed to prevent dental decay include the United Kingdom (estimated 329,000 people), United States of America (estimated 10,078,000 people) Canada (estimated 300,000 people) and Australia (estimated 144,000 people).
It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total.
5. William Hirzy is the current paid lobbyist for the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. His opinion on what what he terms “stuff” is neither scientific, objective, nor credible.
6. The journal “Lancet” does not “admit” anything. It simply publishes articles. In the article to which is referred in this piece, there is nothing new. Fluoride has been on the list of neurotoxins for years, along with 150 or so other substances. Along with fluoride on that list are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (artificial sweetener),
ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), tetracycline (antibiotic), caffeine, and nicotine.
Fluoride at the optimal level as utilized in fluoridation is no more toxic than any of these other substances at their proper use level.
A complete rebuttal of the Lancet article in question may be found in the July, 2014 issue of the Lancet:
7. The paper of Dean Burk’s is from 1934. The references he cites in the paper are from 1913, 1926, and 1930. His opinion contradicts that of the overwhelming consensus of respected science and healthcare of today.
Is the author of this article seriously reliant upon scientific opinion from a century ago?
8. There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to ANY cancer.
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
• 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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
9. “Fluoride in toothpaste, mouthwash, and other products” does not offer the preventive protection to entire populations, as does fluoridation. At less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, there is no other dental decay preventive measure which even comes close to the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation.
Toothpaste, mouthwash, and other products are valuable sources of fluoride. However, they are only single applications. Fluoride from fluoridated water becomes incorporated into saliva which then provides a consistent bathing of the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of decay prevention. This is in addition to the which becomes incorporated into the developing teeth, strengthening them against decay, for a lifetime.
10. Optimal level fluoride is colorless, tasteless, odorless, and identical to that which has existed in water since beginning of time. In the 69 year history of this public health initiative there have been no proven adverse effects.
There is no sound, scientific reason to warrant filtering fluoride out of fluoridated water.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
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.
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
I am quite aware of my choices. I don’t drink the water out of my faucet. I drink purified water from other sources. What you fail to understand is that governments have no right to force fluoride or anything else on people, especially when the people are providing the money to conduct such activity. This small point might be easy for you to understand if your brain was not stuffed full of pointless bullshit. Free yourself doc, reject your indoctrination and start thinking for yourself. Peer reviews are for people who fear having an original thought and live to be a slave to fraternal order.
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?
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
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?
1. As is easily ascertained from proper research on this issue, the optimal level of fluoride is, by definition, that level established by the US Public Health Service at which maximum dental decay prevention occurs with no adverse effects. The current optimal level is a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was established as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between climates. Recent studies are now showing that, due to air conditioning and other modern amenities, there is no significant difference in water consumption due to climate. Due to this fact, as well as the recognition of greater availability of fluoride now than when the optimal was originally set, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal be reset to simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. The USDHHS has as yet to officially adopt this recommendation, but is expected to do so in the near future.
2. In addition to being odorless, colorless, and tasteless, I also noted that there are no proven adverse effects of optimal level fluoride. There are adverse effects of radon gas.
3. It is invalid science to demand proof of a negative. Constantly putting forth unsubstantiated claims then demanding that these claims be proven meritless is demanding such a negative. In order to credibly demand proof that fluoridation is unsafe, there first must be valid evidence that it is not. There is no such evidence. If you would like to see peer-reviewed studies debunking the usual antifluoridationist claims of thyroid, IQ, bone fracture, kidney, and cancer, I will gladly provide them. However, there is no way to prove absolute safety, from now through all of eternity, of any substance known to man. Such absolutes do not exist on this planet.
The fluoride in fluoridated water is nothing more than fluoride ions identical to those which have existed in water since the beginning of time. You needn’t waste your time and mine by attempting to argue that they are not. They are, which I will gladly explain if you so desire. In the 69 year history of water fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects of the addition of this minuscule amount of fluoride ions to drinking water. Given that there is no change to the water quality, taste, color, or odor, and that there are no adverse effects, there is no good reason not to adjust the fluoride content of those water systems which have an existing fluoride content below the optimal. We ingest fluoride in our water anyway. Fluoridation simply ensures that obtain maximum while so doing.
4. Because water flows from your faucet does not mean that you are forced to consume it. There are no “freedom of choice” issues with water fluoridation. You are entirely free to choose to drink it or not. Inconvenience, no matter the degree, does not equate with “force”.
5. There are no “dose” issues with optimally fluoridated water. Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let’s go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg “dose” of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or “dose” from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day.
The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.
The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf
6. Excessively high levels of fluoride in well-water of India is irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water in the US.
7. Due to the halo and other effects, RCTs for fluoridation are all but impossible to perform with any degree of accuracy. Given this, high quality observational studies are the next best thing and are entirely acceptable by standards of respected science and healthcare. There are countless, peer-reviewed observational studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. I will gladly cite as many as you would reasonably care to view.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. As is easily ascertained from proper research on this issue, the optimal level of fluoride is, by definition, that level established by the US Public Health Service at which maximum dental decay prevention occurs with no adverse effects. The current optimal level is a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was established as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between climates. Recent studies are now showing that, due to air conditioning and other modern amenities, there is no significant difference in water consumption due to climate. Due to this fact, as well as the recognition of greater availability of fluoride now than when the optimal was originally set, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal be reset to simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. The USDHHS has as yet to officially adopt this recommendation, but is expected to do so in the near future.
2. In addition to being odorless, colorless, and tasteless, I also noted that there are no proven adverse effects of optimal level fluoride. There are adverse effects of radon gas.
3. It is invalid science to demand proof of a negative. Constantly putting forth unsubstantiated claims then demanding that these claims be proven meritless is demanding such a negative. In order to credibly demand proof that fluoridation is unsafe, there first must be valid evidence that it is not. There is no such evidence. If you would like to see peer-reviewed studies debunking the usual antifluoridationist claims of thyroid, IQ, bone fracture, kidney, and cancer, I will gladly provide them. However, there is no way to prove absolute safety, from now through all of eternity, of any substance known to man. Such absolutes do not exist on this planet.
The fluoride in fluoridated water is nothing more than fluoride ions identical to those which have existed in water since the beginning of time. You needn’t waste your time and mine by attempting to argue that they are not. They are, which I will gladly explain if you so desire. In the 69 year history of water fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects of the addition of this minuscule amount of fluoride ions to drinking water. Given that there is no change to the water quality, taste, color, or odor, and that there are no adverse effects, there is no good reason not to adjust the fluoride content of those water systems which have an existing fluoride content below the optimal. We ingest fluoride in our water anyway. Fluoridation simply ensures that obtain maximum while so doing.
4. Because water flows from your faucet does not mean that you are forced to consume it. There are no “freedom of choice” issues with water fluoridation. You are entirely free to choose to drink it or not. Inconvenience, no matter the degree, does not equate with “force”.
5. There are no “dose” issues with optimally fluoridated water. Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let’s go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg “dose” of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or “dose” from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day.
The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.
The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
6. Excessively high levels of fluoride in well-water of India is irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water in the US.
7. Due to the halo and other effects, RCTs for fluoridation are all but impossible to perform with any degree of accuracy. Given this, high quality observational studies are the next best thing and are entirely acceptable by standards of respected science and healthcare. There are countless, peer-reviewed observational studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. I will gladly cite as many as you would reasonably care to view.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
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.
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
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.
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
I suppose you have also endorsed mercury amalgam dental filling all of your DDS life? Tell me “doc”, what is the “optimal level” of mercury in the human body? One of the strangely UNmentioned characteristics of fluoride in your “analysis” is the fact that it makes people more passive and obedient to authority. It was for this reason that Herr Hitler’s Nazi Party had it added to the Third Reich’s municipal water supplies in Germany prior to WW2. Could you be a gummint troll, “doc”?
Yes, Gordon, of course I endorse dental amalgam. Evidently, you are one of those gullible souls who has spent a fortune having his amalgam restorations replaced with less durable material which will require expensive replacement far more often…..in spite of there being no valid scientific justification for so doing.
Say, I’ve got this bridge in Brooklyn I’ll sell you at a good price. Some land in Florida at low tide? How bout if I put you in touch with this nice Nigerian fellow who keeps trying to find people to accept large sums of his money?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Well, I do at least proofread my emails before I send them, “Dr. Sslott” [sic]. I will let Dr. Mercola respond for me. Read it if you dare!
http://tinyurl.com/MercolaVsMercury
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.
1. Hmmm, you seem to be really struggling with the fluoride optimal level. Tell you what I would suggest….the US Department of Health and Human Services oversees the water fluoridation initiative in the US and is the final determinant of the optimal level. So, I would contact this department and tell them that based on your personal speculation as to what could, possibly, somehow, potentially occur somewhere in the infinite future in regard to this fluoride ion humans have been ingesting since the beginning of time, you have deemed that the optimal level of fluoride should be zero. Be sure and include these “subtle effects” which have not occurred in 7 decades but could, in your learned opinion, at any time. They might get a little nit-picking and ask if you have any valid, peer-reviewed science to support your speculation, but just tell them that they don’t need any, that your personal opinion is all they need to know. I’m sure they will hold some top level meetings to enlighten everyone on these startling new revelations of yours that no one in the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare has ever considered….and then will certainly accede to your demand of zero optimal level. Who knows, they might even rename it to the “Online commenter Jan Sammer Optimal Level of Fluoride.
In the meantime, here is an example of the nit-picking little things on which they normally like to base their decisions.
“lowered IQ’? No.
“Results. No significant differences in IQ because of fluoride exposure were noted. These findings held after adjusting for potential confounding variables, including sex, socioeconomic status, breastfeeding, and birth weight (as well as educational attainment for adult IQ outcomes).
Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the
context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.”
—Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence:
Prospective Study in New Zealand
Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD, Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
(Am J Public Health. Published
online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)’
—————————————————————————————————
“fractured hips and bone cancer”? No.
“Overall, we found no association between chronic fluoride exposure and the occurrence of hip fracture. The risk estimates did not change in analyses restricted to only low-trauma osteoporotic hip fractures. Chronic fluoride exposure from drinking water does not seem to have any important effects on the risk of hip fracture, in the investigated exposure range.”
—–Estimated Drinking Water Fluoride Exposure and Risk of Hip Fracture
A Cohort Study
P. Näsman, J. Ekstrand, F. Granath, A. Ekbom, C.M. Fored
Journal of Dental Research
Received April 19, 2013.
Revision received August 23, 2013.
Accepted August 30, 2013.
“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.
——————————————————————————————————-
“Thyroid”? No.
“The available medical and scientific evidence suggests an absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders.
Many major reviews of the relevant scientific literature around the world support this conclusion. Of particular importance are:
* an exhaustive review conducted in 1976 by an expert scientific committee of the Royal College of Physicians of England;
* a systematic review in 2000 by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York; and,
* a 2002 review by an international group of experts for the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), under the joint sponsorship of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
None has found any credible evidence of an association between water fluoridation and any disorder of the thyroid.”
——-BRITISH FLUORIDATION SOCIETY STATEMENT (January 2006) on the absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders.
This statement has been reviewed and endorsed by the British Thyroid Association (BTA); however, the BTA would recommend that appropriate monitoring of thyroid status should be considered in areas where fluoridation is introduced to enable an ongoing epidemiological evidence base for thyroid status with fluoridation to be created.
————————————————————————————————-
“Kidney”? No.
“Because the kidneys are constantly exposed to various fluoride concentrations, any health effects caused by fluoride would likely manifest themselves in kidney cells. However, several large community-based studies of people with long-term exposure to drinking water with fluoride
concentrations up to 8 ppm have failed to show an increase in kidney disease.”
——
https://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf
“People exposed to optimally fluoridated water will consume 1.5mg of fluoride per day. Available studies found no difference in kidney function between people drinking optimally fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. There is discrepant informNo ation in studies relating to the potential negative effects of consuming water with greater than 2.0ppm of fluoride.”
“Available literature indicated that impaired kidney function results in changes in fluoride retention and distribution in the body. People with kidney impairment showed a decreased urine fluoride and increased serum and bone fluoride correlated with degree of impairment; however, there was no consistent evidence that the retention of fluoride in people with stage four or stage five CKD, consuming optimally fluoridated water, resulted in negative health consequences.”
—–Ludlow M, Luxton G, Mathew T. Effects of fluoridation of community water supplies
for people with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007; 22:
2763-2767
2. Okay, with that problem solved, I would next contact the American Dental Association, the US Centers for Disease Control, the US DHHS, and the American Academy of Pediatrics and tell them what you personally deem are “other ways of ensuring dental health”. Again, they might get a little nit-picky and ask you what are your qualifications for making such a proclamation, but don’t sweat that….just tell them that you don’t need any qualifications, your personal opinion is all they need to know. I’m sure that after some top level meetings, they will come around to your way of thinking.
Okay! We’re on a roll, so let’s move on down your list!
3. So, you object to something or other….well, that’s okay, facts are facts, object away.
4. I’m “arguing against something that no one has claimed”? Hmm, that’s funny, I don’t argue, I simply present facts supported by valid evidence. But that aside, I could have sworn that antifluoridationists constantly claim that they are being “forced” to drink water simply because it comes out of their tap. And this, in spite of the fact that US courts have rejected the “forced medication” claim each and every time antifluoridationists have attempted it through the decades. Maybe I’ve just been dreaming or something.
5. So now, we’re down to these “risks” of which you claim people are unaware. Again, that’s funny…..I’ve not seen any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of “risks” having been presented by you. But, perhaps you just haven’t gotten around to trying to find such non-existent evidence yet.
6. Hmmm, you speculate that “harm” has been demonstrated at 8 mg fluoride per day…. and you speculate that it may even happen at 4 mg per day! By all means, let’s invoke the “precautionary principle” based on your personal speculation! Who needs all that boring old peer-reviewed science anyway……
7. Oh, Wait a sec!! I see I’ve overlooked one of your points!! OMG! So, let’s go back! You deem that demands of a negative are indeed valid science? Wow! That means that any time anyone, anywhere disagrees with anything, whatsoever, all they have to do is throw out a claim or two, demand that there be absolute, irrefutable, 100% guaranteed proof that their claim has no merit, and will never have any merit throughout infinity, and presto, changeO! Their concern is eliminated! NEAT! I can’t wait to try this out!!
But, in regard to carcinogenicity, there is a bit of evidence that should alleviate your hand wringing in that respect. Let me see if I can ease your mind a bit.
There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to any cancer.
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
• 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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
———————————————————————————————-
“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.
8. Okay, so where were we……oh, I see we’re back to India again. Once again, the effects of high levels of well-water fluoride in India are irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water in the United States.
9. Oops, it seems like I’ve overlooked your pleas for evidence of effectiveness of fluoridation. Sorry, Let me correct this. The following are but a few of the countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation. I’ve got plenty more if you are in a reading mood:
A) Results
Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively.
——Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease
Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD
B) CONCLUSIONS:
Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.
——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Source
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
C). CONCLUSIONS:
The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.
—–Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
Source
Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland.
10. Now, “promoting oral hygiene” is not the purpose of water fluoridation. The purpose of this public health initiative is to prevent some of the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, loss of teeth, and life-threatening infection, directly resultant of very preventible dental decay. As antifluoridationists are far, far more “concerned” with benign, mild dental fluorosis than with such effects of dental decay, it is understandable that you would be confused here.
10. “Finally”, there are no “harmful effects” of optimally fluoridated water, as is blatantly obvious in your inability to provide one single scrap of valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your uninformed speculation and personal opinions.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
1. Hmmm, you seem to be really struggling with the fluoride optimal level. Tell you what I would suggest….the US Department of Health and Human Services oversees the water fluoridation initiative in the US and is the final determinant of the optimal level. So, I would contact this department and tell them that based on your personal speculation as to what could, possibly, somehow, potentially occur somewhere in the infinite future in regard to this fluoride ion humans have been ingesting since the beginning of time, you have deemed that the optimal level of fluoride should be zero. Be sure and include these “subtle effects” which have not occurred in 7 decades but could, in your learned opinion, at any time. They might get a little nit-picking and ask if you have any valid, peer-reviewed science to support your speculation, but just tell them that they don’t need any, that your personal opinion is all they need to know. I’m sure they will hold some top level meetings to enlighten everyone on these startling new revelations of yours that no one in the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare has ever considered….and then will certainly accede to your demand of zero optimal level. Who knows, they might even rename it to the “Online commenter Jan Sammer Optimal Level of Fluoride.
In the meantime, here is an example of the nit-picking little things on which they normally like to base their decisions.
“lowered IQ’? No.
“Results. No significant differences in IQ because of fluoride exposure were noted. These findings held after adjusting for potential confounding variables, including sex, socioeconomic status, breastfeeding, and birth weight (as well as educational attainment for adult IQ outcomes).
Conclusions. These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the
context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.”
—Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence:
Prospective Study in New Zealand
Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD, Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
(Am J Public Health. Published
online ahead of print May 15, 2014: e1–e5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857)’
—————————————————————————————————
“fractured hips and bone cancer”? No.
“Overall, we found no association between chronic fluoride exposure and the occurrence of hip fracture. The risk estimates did not change in analyses restricted to only low-trauma osteoporotic hip fractures. Chronic fluoride exposure from drinking water does not seem to have any important effects on the risk of hip fracture, in the investigated exposure range.”
—–Estimated Drinking Water Fluoride Exposure and Risk of Hip Fracture
A Cohort Study
P. Näsman, J. Ekstrand, F. Granath, A. Ekbom, C.M. Fored
Journal of Dental Research
Received April 19, 2013.
Revision received August 23, 2013.
Accepted August 30, 2013.
“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.
——————————————————————————————————-
“Thyroid”? No.
“The available medical and scientific evidence suggests an absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders.
Many major reviews of the relevant scientific literature around the world support this conclusion. Of particular importance are:
* an exhaustive review conducted in 1976 by an expert scientific committee of the Royal College of Physicians of England;
* a systematic review in 2000 by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York; and,
* a 2002 review by an international group of experts for the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), under the joint sponsorship of the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the International Labour Organisation (ILO).
None has found any credible evidence of an association between water fluoridation and any disorder of the thyroid.”
——-BRITISH FLUORIDATION SOCIETY STATEMENT (January 2006) on the absence of an association between water fluoridation and thyroid disorders.
This statement has been reviewed and endorsed by the British Thyroid Association (BTA); however, the BTA would recommend that appropriate monitoring of thyroid status should be considered in areas where fluoridation is introduced to enable an ongoing epidemiological evidence base for thyroid status with fluoridation to be created.
————————————————————————————————-
“Kidney”? No.
“Because the kidneys are constantly exposed to various fluoride concentrations, any health effects caused by fluoride would likely manifest themselves in kidney cells. However, several large community-based studies of people with long-term exposure to drinking water with fluoride
concentrations up to 8 ppm have failed to show an increase in kidney disease.”
“People exposed to optimally fluoridated water will consume 1.5mg of fluoride per day. Available studies found no difference in kidney function between people drinking optimally fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. There is discrepant informNo ation in studies relating to the potential negative effects of consuming water with greater than 2.0ppm of fluoride.”
“Available literature indicated that impaired kidney function results in changes in fluoride retention and distribution in the body. People with kidney impairment showed a decreased urine fluoride and increased serum and bone fluoride correlated with degree of impairment; however, there was no consistent evidence that the retention of fluoride in people with stage four or stage five CKD, consuming optimally fluoridated water, resulted in negative health consequences.”
—–Ludlow M, Luxton G, Mathew T. Effects of fluoridation of community water supplies
for people with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007; 22:
2763-2767
2. Okay, with that problem solved, I would next contact the American Dental Association, the US Centers for Disease Control, the US DHHS, and the American Academy of Pediatrics and tell them what you personally deem are “other ways of ensuring dental health”. Again, they might get a little nit-picky and ask you what are your qualifications for making such a proclamation, but don’t sweat that….just tell them that you don’t need any qualifications, your personal opinion is all they need to know. I’m sure that after some top level meetings, they will come around to your way of thinking.
Okay! We’re on a roll, so let’s move on down your list!
3. So, you object to something or other….well, that’s okay, facts are facts, object away.
4. I’m “arguing against something that no one has claimed”? Hmm, that’s funny, I don’t argue, I simply present facts supported by valid evidence. But that aside, I could have sworn that antifluoridationists constantly claim that they are being “forced” to drink water simply because it comes out of their tap. And this, in spite of the fact that US courts have rejected the “forced medication” claim each and every time antifluoridationists have attempted it through the decades. Maybe I’ve just been dreaming or something.
5. So now, we’re down to these “risks” of which you claim people are unaware. Again, that’s funny…..I’ve not seen any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of “risks” having been presented by you. But, perhaps you just haven’t gotten around to trying to find such non-existent evidence yet.
6. Hmmm, you speculate that “harm” has been demonstrated at 8 mg fluoride per day…. and you speculate that it may even happen at 4 mg per day! By all means, let’s invoke the “precautionary principle” based on your personal speculation! Who needs all that boring old peer-reviewed science anyway……
7. Oh, Wait a sec!! I see I’ve overlooked one of your points!! OMG! So, let’s go back! You deem that demands of a negative are indeed valid science? Wow! That means that any time anyone, anywhere disagrees with anything, whatsoever, all they have to do is throw out a claim or two, demand that there be absolute, irrefutable, 100% guaranteed proof that their claim has no merit, and will never have any merit throughout infinity, and presto, changeO! Their concern is eliminated! NEAT! I can’t wait to try this out!!
But, in regard to carcinogenicity, there is a bit of evidence that should alleviate your hand wringing in that respect. Let me see if I can ease your mind a bit.
There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to any cancer.
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
• 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,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
———————————————————————————————-
“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.
8. Okay, so where were we……oh, I see we’re back to India again. Once again, the effects of high levels of well-water fluoride in India are irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water in the United States.
9. Oops, it seems like I’ve overlooked your pleas for evidence of effectiveness of fluoridation. Sorry, Let me correct this. The following are but a few of the countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation. I’ve got plenty more if you are in a reading mood:
A) Results
Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively.
——Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease
Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD
B) CONCLUSIONS:
Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.
——Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Source
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
C). CONCLUSIONS:
The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.
—–Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
Source
Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland.
10. Now, “promoting oral hygiene” is not the purpose of water fluoridation. The purpose of this public health initiative is to prevent some of the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, loss of teeth, and life-threatening infection, directly resultant of very preventible dental decay. As antifluoridationists are far, far more “concerned” with benign, mild dental fluorosis than with such effects of dental decay, it is understandable that you would be confused here.
10. “Finally”, there are no “harmful effects” of optimally fluoridated water, as is blatantly obvious in your inability to provide one single scrap of valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your uninformed speculation and personal opinions.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Your mockery is misplaced. You are obviously cherry-picking the evidence to suit your position. That’s not science, that’s advocacy. The evidence of damage caused by fluoride is abundant and I have cited a review of the available evidence in my previous posting. Here I only cite a passage from the abstract, to put it in context:
“Until the 1990s, the toxicity of fluoride was largely ignored due to its “good reputation” for preventing caries via topical application and in dental toothpastes. However, in the last decade, interest in its undesirable effects has resurfaced due to the awareness that this element interacts with cellular
systems even at low doses. In recent years, several investigations demonstrated that fluoride can induce
oxidative stress and modulate intracellular redox homeostasis, lipid peroxidation and protein carbonyl
content, as well as alter gene expression and cause apoptosis”.
I rest my case.
“Cherry-picking”? Oh, now that’s truly comical!! The volume of evidence I’ve presented here is “cherry-picking”! Quick, notify Webster’s that they need to change their definition of “cherry-picking” before they send the next edition to print! If nothing else, you provide excellent entertainment!
Your “review of the available evidence” is your unqualified, uninformed, personal opinion and garbled interpretation of the “evidence”. Once again, you have provided not one, single scrap of valid evidence to support your unsubstantiated nonsense.
The quote you provide is nothing more than opinion from some unnamed, uncited source. If you wish for any credibility, you need to provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, properly cited from it’s original source.
Yes, I believe your decision to “rest my case” is a prudent one. As much as you have entertained me, there is no sense in your continuing to make such a fool of yourself on an issue of which you have so little knowledge and understanding.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
I cited the publication in my reply to Edward (below).
It is: “Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity,” Chemico-Biological Interactions 188 (2010) 319–333) by O. Barbier, L. Arreola-Mendoza and LM Del Razo. It is a review article containing numerous references to other peer-reviewed publications, none of which you seem to be aware of. The cellular damage induced by fluoride even at low levels of exposure is well known to real scientists, though evidently not to propagandists such as yourself.
Literature on the properties of fluoride without regard to proper use level are irrelevant to water fluoridated at the optimal level. If you desire credibility then provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence in regard to optimal level fluoride.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The entire point of the review article, which you still seem not to have read, is that there is no “proper use level” for fluoride, to use your jargon; any level of exposure to fluoride is harmful to mitochondrial functioning, causes cellular apoptosis and necrosis especially in the liver and kidneys, and the damage increases in a dose-dependent manner and also in combination with other contaminants, especially heavy metals, such as aluminum and lead. There are unfortunately substances that have no useful function in the human body at all, and are harmful at any concentration, among them fluoride, bromide and many metals, such as mercury, aluminum and lead.
There is nothing in this article which demonstrates adverse effects of optimal level fluoride.
Ironic that you personally consider the volume of peer-reviewed evidence that I have posted, to be “cherry-picking”, while you present one, single open access review which demonstrates nothing in regard to optimal level fluoride, as your “evidence” of harm. Typical.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“Volume of evidence”
No, you have cited the same information numerous times, and often have cited irrelevant information which does not specifically address concerns. If you really believe you have provided more data, and more valid data in your arguments, you are delusional.
You seem to be struggling with maturity or egomania related issues. This is not how you debate.
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.
John, you seriously need help, man. Find some quickly.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
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!
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
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?
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
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.
Sigh……again with the unsubstantiated nonsense and personal opinion.
Okay, sooo….
1. No one is forced to do anything in regard to water fluoridation. This is simply a fact. Nothing is being done to anyone “involuntarily” in regard to water fluoridation. This is simply a fact.
2. Please provide your definition of “pure, unadulterated running water”.
3. A “legitimate expectation” is water from a public water system, which meets all local, state, and national water quality standards in compliance with all applicable regulations and statutes. Fluoridated water does so.
4. I have no need to read irrelevant literature on the toxicity of fluoride. Once again, there is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of adverse effects of optimal level fluoride, then present it, properly cited from its original source.
5. Chuck’s “concern”, as is yours and most other antifluoridationists, is for his own, personal ideology. Antifluoridationist objections are not grounded in science, they are grounded in personal ideology. Thus, it makes no difference how much valid scientific evidence is presented, as long as it does not agree with that ideology, as it never will, it will be rejected. This is obvious in your own comments here.
6. It is of no concern to me what arguments you may or may not have seen.
7. There is nothing “disingenuous” in stating a fact. That fact is that no one is forced to do anything in regard to water fluoridation.
You, on the other hand are, indeed, being disingenuous by fear-mongering about a “toxic” chemical, when it has been fully made clear to you that the only substances ingested as a result of water fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which humans have been ingesting in water since the beginning of time, and trace contaminants in amounts far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. None of those substances are “toxic” at the level at which they are ingested.
If you truly were concerned with the best interests of the public, you would seek to properly educate yourself on this issue rather than continuing to post irrelevant, inflammatory, and uninformed personal opinion.
8. There is nothing “in dispute” about fluoridation being in the best interests of citizenries. This public health initiative has been clearly demonstrated by countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies, to be effective in the prevention of dental decay. In the entire 69 year history of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects.
9. Yes, responsible civic leaders base their decisions on the best available information and the recommendations of those individuals and organizations most qualified to render appropriate ones.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Steven D. Slott, DDS
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.
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
What about the people who cannot afford to buy bottled water or a filtration system for their house? Do you or anyone else have the right to force them to consume something they do not wish to? I am certainly not a doctor or a dentist, but I am not an idiot either. Why in the world would you want to give something to people that has the potential to be so harmful to their health? I believe the most compelling argument that I could make to such a pro-fluoridation person would be, should we not at least have the choice of whether or not we want to take this medicine? I, for one, do not. You can say that we are free to consume whatever we wish, but that is just not true. The people who fluoridate our water have taken that away from the average American. I am a single mother doing my best to raise four healthy little boys, and while I do buy bottled water for us to drink I simply can’t afford a filtration system for my house to protect them from their bathwater!
Lacy
1. Fluoridated water is colorless, tasteless, odorless, and causes no adverse effects. You drink and bathe in water with fluoride in it whether your water is fluoridated or not. Fluoridation simply ensures that you and your family receive maximum benefit while so doing. There is no valid reason to oppose fluoridation, and you are doing a disservice to your boys by denying them the dental decay preventive benefit of fluoridated water. That is your choice. However the cost of so doing is your responsibility.
2. No one is forced to consume anything in regard to fluoridated water. Because water flows from your faucet does not mean you must drink, or otherwise utilize it. Having water piped directly into your home from a public water supply is a convenience, not a right. It saves you from having to go out, bring water in, and store it for use. However, if you don’t like the contents of the public supply from which you draw your water, you are certainly free to not utilize it. You can collect rainwater for free, if nothing else. Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force. If the water from the public supply of your community was a dangerous as antifluoridationists try to claim, they would not go within a mile of it, much less drink it. That they do drink and otherwise use it speaks volumes about the hypocrisy of their fear-mongoring efforts.
3. There is nothing harmful about optimally fluoridated water. Antifluoridationists have tried their utmost, for seven decades, to find something, anything, they could claim is an adverse effect of fluoride at this level. They have been entirely unsuccessful. There have been no proven adverse effects in the entire history of fluoridation.
4. Science is evidence-based, not speculation and personal opinion-based. Denying entire populations the benefits of any public health initiative such as fluoridation, based on nothing but unsubstantiated claims, speculation, and personal opinion would be unconscionable.
If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of “health risks” of optimally fluoridated water, then I will be glad to look at it. Hundreds of millions of people having chronically ingested fluoridated water over seven decades, with no proven adverse effects, could not be any more definitive demonstration of the safety of this initiative.
5. Your distrust of government is unfortunate for you, but you need to realize that it is this distrust which fuels your objection to fluoridation, not a fear of “health risks”. The distrust of government by antifluoridationists is not reason to deny entire populations the benefits of water fluoridation.
6. If you want vitamins added to the public water supply in your area, you will need to make this request of the local officials eho have authority over this supply.
7. The “one size fits all” argument copy/pasted from antifluoridationist websites, has no validity. Before adverse effects could be incurred from fluoridated water in conjunction with all other sources of fluoride ingestion, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride. I will be glad to explain this to you in detail if you so desire.
8. There are no “growing concerns all over the world” about fluoridation. With the advent of the internet, antifluoridationist factions have simply been able to trumpet their nonsense to far more people, and create the illusion of “growing concerns”. In actuality, the arguments they present are the exact same ones they have been attempting since the beginning of this initiative seven decades ago. According to the latest CDC report, fluoridation in the US is increasing, not decreasing as antifluoridationists mislead people to believe. In 2012, the US was 74.6% fluoridated, up from 73.4% in 2011.
9. If you, or anyone else doesn’t like my being “dismissive and arrogant” you are certainly free to provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your opinions. However, in order to so you will need to properly educate yourself on this issue from legitimate sources. Relying solely on misinformation posted on antifluoridationist websites and blogs will not get you there.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
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?
Lacy
1. Yes antifluoridationists do consider valid science to be “insane”. This is precisely why science and healthcare decisions must be left to those qualified to render appropriate ones.
2. If you do not like the contents of the public water supply from which water is delivered directly into your home for the sake of your convenience, no one forces you to utilize it. How you collect rainwater or whatever sources you choose to utilize instead of the water offered to you by your community, is entirely up to you.
3. Whatever problem you have with payment of your utility bill should be taken up with the accounting department of your local utilities department.
4. That you worry about fluoridated water affecting your health is due to your own irrationality, not a problem with fluoridation. If this is a significant problem then you should seek appropriate help for this irrationality.
5. Your “research” of this issue has obviously been limited to perusal of antifluoridationist websites and blogs. If you had, indeed, researched the issue from legitimate, respected and reliable sources, you would understand that there are no “sides” to water fluoridation. There is simply science, which fully supports fluoridation, and “junk science”, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation dessiminated by antifluoridationists.
If you truly want to perform proper research on this issue, the websites of the CDC, the EPA, the ADA, the World Health Organization, the National Sanitary Foundation, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation, readily available to anyone.
6. You put a “toxic chemical” into your body every time you ingest anyyhing, whatsoever, including plain water. If you are not going to take into account proper use levels of these chemicals then you can ingest absolutely nothing, and will be dead within a week.
7. Yes, antifluoridationists see no need for peer-reviewed science, or recommendations from qualified personnel. They believe their own, personal opinions are all that should be required in order to deprive entire populations the benefit of a very valuable public health intiative. Fortunately civic leaders are far more intelligent than that.
8. If you wish to be “mass medicated” by the public water supply of your community you will need to address that with the local officials under whose authority are decisions regarding that supply. This is irrelevant to water fluoridation.
9. “So many other countries” have not “banned” fluoridation. If you care to argue this point then provide a list of countries you believe to have “banned” fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
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.
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
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.
You gotta excuse Slott. He has an abnormal oral obsession.
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.”
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
“dr” slott, your credibility is like a tooth with severe fluorosis. pitted and crumbly. an embarrassment to your profession. a lost cause.
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
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’.
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.
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?
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
You are disgracing yourself, Steven, with your misplaced sarcasm. The review article I cited discusses the effects of low level fluoride exposure, suboptimal in your parlance, at the cellular level, fluoride’s interaction with trace amounts of heavy metals present in the body, such as aluminum and lead, and the resultant damage to mitochondrial function and other cellular processes caused by fluoride alone and in combination with other substances with which it interacts. It goes without saying that such damage eventually results in clinically observable effects, even though these may be difficult to observe, as they generally take a long time to manifest. The challenge then is to identify the primary causes of chronic conditions of unknown etiology. Once the manner by which fluoride and other toxins affect cellular processes is clarified, it may be possible to link chronic conditions of unknown etiology to the mentioned toxins. That fluoride damages human cells at low levels of exposure has been an established fact for quite some time, but the clinical manifestations of this damage remain to be clarified. The copious research cited in the review article indicates where real science is heading.
You are being disingenuous in your argument that any substance is toxic in excessive amounts. This is something that no one would dispute, a good example being selenium, which is an essential mineral, but harmful at doses in excess of c. 800 mcg/day (exact level varies based on body weight and other factors). You are forgetting the crucial fact that unlike selenium, for example, fluoride is not an essential substance for the body, and there is therefore no need to consume fluoride in any amount.
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
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.
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
DDS: “This review provides no valid evidence of adverse effects arising from “cellar damage” of fluoride at the minuscule optimal level of 0.7mg/liter.”
For once I must agree with you, the article really does not provide valid evidence for damaged cellars. It’s time to stop this non-debate; you have amply demonstrated your imperviousness to real science and just keep regurgitating EPA regulations ad taedium. The fluoridation lobby will surely draw its conclusions from your abysmal performance on this forum and hire another more competent hack.
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
“Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity,” Chemico-Biological Interactions 188 (2010) 319–333).
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?
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.
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.
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.
Fluoride is in the Santa Barbara County, California drinking water.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.