It’s been called one of the ten greatest public health achievements of the 20th century by United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2012, 74.6% of the U.S. population had access to fluoridated water.
The arguments for doing so seem clear: fluoridated water reduces the demineralization of tooth enamel and increases remineralization, thereby reducing tooth decay. In low concentrations, fluoride is naturally present in food and drinking water, and the practice of increasing levels of fluoride through water fluordation, which began in 1945, has been shown to smooth inequalities in the health care system by reducing the incidence of cavities by as much as 40%.
But a curious thing is happening in communities across Canada, where the decision to fluoridate or not fluoridate is a municipal one. The number of Canadians that have access to fluoridated water has now fallen to less than a third. Places like Waterloo, Thunder Bay, Quebec City, and Calgary have all recently decided against the practice.
Opponents of water fluoridation are a vocal and mobilized faction here. The group Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation has successfully lobbied councils across the country, arguing that fluoridation is a dangerous practice that may cause “Alzheimer’s like symptoms”, an “epidemic of hypothyroidism”, Cancer, and a decline in I.Q.
“I’m a writer and a broadcaster, not a medical man, dentist, nutritionist, or anything else that qualifies me as an expert,” declared Sinclair. “But I am a mature citizen who opposes the dumping of this chemical into the water”.
The trouble is, there is no peer reviewed study backing these claims up. Not for hyperthyroidism. Not for Alzheimer’s. And not for Cancer, Down’s Syndrome, mortality, senile dementia, goitre and IQ levels, either.
The anti-fluoride crew has been remarkably successful in spooking municipalities across the country, but not all of them. In Red Deer, Mayor Morris Flewwelling notes that the city spent two years and $75,000 reviewing the issue before deciding to keep the practice of water fluoridation, even though nearby cities bowed under the pressure of special interest groups.
“I think we looked at Calgary and we felt their process was hurried and flawed,” he told Macleans.
The main thing anti-water fluoridation backers play fast and loose with is dosage. Fluoride is toxic, they will tell you. And they are right, at high levels it is toxic. But so is iron. And salt. And oxygen. And water. There is simply no scientific evidence that the concentrations used in water fluoridation, 0.7 to 1.2 ppm, are toxic.
Still, groups like Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation are part of a long history of skepticism behind the science associated with the practice.
In 1958, journalist Gordon Sinclair railed against the practice, referring to fluoride as “rat and bug poison”.
“I’m a writer and a broadcaster, not a medical man, dentist, nutritionist, or anything else that qualifies me as an expert,” declared Sinclair. “But I am a mature citizen who opposes the dumping of this chemical into the water”.
About The Author /
Cantech Letter founder and editor Nick Waddell has lived in five Canadian provinces and is proud of his country's often overlooked contributions to the world of science and technology. Waddell takes a regular shift on the Canadian media circuit, making appearances on CTV, CBC and BNN, and contributing to publications such as Canadian Business and Business Insider.
Comment
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
RELATED POSTS
Share
Tweet
ShareTRENDING
All Trending →
TTNM keeps “Buy” rating at Haywood
March 20, 2024
NEO stock has price target chopped at Paradigm
March 18, 2024
Groupon’s turnaround is accelerating, Roth says
March 18, 2024
Data from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe with 3% fluoridation is as good or better than any fluoridated country including the U.S., with over 70% fluoridation. This shows how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.
Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride.
The solution for the fluoridation issue is very simple.
SIMPLE SOLUTION:
1. Take the toxic waste fluoride chemical out of the drinking water.
2. It is still legal and available, so those who wish to take it can then put fluoride in their own glass of water (as much as they wish).
3. Leave the rest of us out of it, giving everyone the freedom of choice.
PROBLEM SOLVED.
Okay Nick let’s play fast and loose with dosage for a little.
According to the Canadian Dental Association the upper dosage threshold for infants in order to minimize the risk of moderate or worse dental fluorosis is between 50 and 70 micrograms per Kg of bodyweight per day. (Use of Fluorides in Caries Prevention -2012)
That mean a 5 Kg (2-3 month old) baby should consume no more than 250 to 350 mcg of fluoride per day. Water is typically fluoridated in Canada to about 650 Mcg per litre.
A baby consuming infant formula from birth (about 10-15% of babies) might consume 1 litre of fluid every 24 hours. If that is in the form of dry formula mixed using fluoridated water, the baby will be consuming about double the level which the the CDA endorses as minimizing the risk of fluorosis. The CDA hasn’t warned the public. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Health Canada both claim fluoridation is “safe and effective” for everyone. Health Canada even sets an upper limit for fluoride in well water at 1500 mcg/litre. At that level formula-fed babies would consume about 4 times the level that the CDA(and others) say is allowable. So the organizations who promote fluoridation either can’t do simple math using their own numbers, or they are just telling mothers who formula feed that preserving government policy is more important than preserving the health of their babies.
By the way, my picture is of Mild Dental Fluorosis according to the Dean Index. That means the damage has to be worse than that before the CDA considers it a negative health effect instead of just a cosmetic problem. Please refute my math. The CDA hasn’t. Neither has Health Canada. How about doing some real research?
Case histories and peer reviewed research shows that fluoride can cause harm even at
low levels. Some people can experience toxicity symptoms from drinking fluoridated water or using fluoride tablets. Symptoms include neurological problems, headaches, skin irritation, gastrointestinal pain, and symptoms (Waldbott 1956, 1958, Feltman 1956, Feltman and Kosel 1961, Grimbergen 1974, Petraborg 1977, NRC 2006, Spittle 2008,). Patients were often unaware that their drinking water contained fluoride. Symptoms improved with avoidance of fluoridated water and returned with consumption of fluoridated water or with experimental challenge with fluoride and confirmed by double blind testing. Doctors aren’t trained to suspect fluoride, so patients may be treated for side effects when all that is needed, is avoidance of fluoridated water. These side effects experienced by some people at low levels are the same as those that are experienced by most people at high levels of exposure indicating that the symptoms are toxicity or poisoning symptoms.(Confirmed in the Physicians’ Desk Reference) This makes sense when you consider that the fluoride ion is more toxic than as lead and only slightly less lethal than arsenic (Clinical Toxicology of Commercial products, LD50 data – 1984), yet only 10 ppb (0.01 ppm) maximum is allowed for lead and arsenic in our drinking water. Now with fluoride they are adding 700 to 1000 ppb (0.7 to 1.0 ppm). There are going to be problems. Fluoride is the active ingredient in many rat poisons and insecticides. Do your own research. Don’t listen to opinions and endorsements.
The Feltman and Kosel study was published in the Journal of Dental Medicine and
received funding from the US Public Health Service, Department of Health
Education and Welfare, Washington DC.
“Fluorine and fluorides can act as direct cellular poisons by interfering with calcium metabolism and enzyme mechanisms.” (Handbook of Poisoning: Prevention, Diagnosis and Treatment, 11th Edition, 1983.)
“Fluoride is an enzyme poison, in the same class as cyanide, oxalate, or azide … it is
capable of a very wide variety of harmful effects, even at low doses.” (James B. Patrick, Ph.D., antibiotics research scientist.)
“Yes, fluoride is an (enzyme) inhibitor. You are right in the implication that when it comes to certain patients, it is important that they do not have fluoride in the water.” (Dr. Harold Loe, National Institute of Dental Research, to a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, 1989.)
With fluoridation a near perfect (actually perfect?) public health measure, it’s hard to believe people would deny themselves, their children and neighbors of this unique protection for their teeth.
The science is solidly behind fluoridation, with five independent systematic reviews confirming its safety and benefits.
Maybe you can refute the limits set by the CDA and the math that flows from those limits which clearly shows harmful exposure by formula-fed infants. Or do you not care about that group either?
Would You Drink Shampoo to Clean Your Hair?
Or sunscreen to protect the skin?
Fluoride toothpaste applied to the surface of teeth is sufficient.
In November 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) sent out an email to its members, recommending parents to use no- or low-fluoride water to make infant formula. This was a very reasonable recommendation, because an average glass of fluoridated water contains 250 times more fluoride than breast milk.
A few days later, the CDC followed suit, but neither of them openly warned the public.
With only opinion or endorsement as your authority, any comment for fluoridation promotion is arrogant propaganda. Science requires only one facet of a theory to be proven wrong and the whole theory gets scrapped. Fluoridation suffered this fate long ago, but powerful white coated self interests persist in perpetuating the public health myth. The sad part is when a flawed “policy” is proven wrong, lemming bureaucrats and spineless lawmakers continue to defer to incompetent medical-dental authorities who rehash the same tripe as you have proffered.
The five systematic reviews were not new science, but opinion. However, there are five compelling Canadian studies from the medical-dental cadre that prove no fluoridation benefit. So why just comment on one side? Spin or deceit?
The 2015 reality is Canada is less than 30% fluoridated today, down from a high of 45.1% a decade ago. No new fluoridation scheme has been implemented since the mid 1990’s. Fortunately some courageous citizens and lawmakers have done the homework on their own time and dollar. I’m one of them and proud to have contributed to making Canada Fluoridation Free. See how at COFCOF.ca
Peter Van Caulart, Director
Environmental Training Institute
How about you tell us how much accumulated fluoride in the body you think is safe, Nick? You don’t have a clue, do you? Your article is full of outright lies, by the way. Unlike you, I have a science education and some respect for the truth.
http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/
Waldbott was the founder of the antifluoridationist faction, the “International Academy For Fluoride Research”. The journal of this group, “Fluoride”, is highly biased toward antifluoridationist literature and is not even listed on PubMed. A review of Waldbott’s book may be found:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z5rX0Q0WAL4C&pg=PA1108&dq=%22Fluoridation:+The+Great+Dilemma%22&cd=8#v=onepage&q=%22Fluoridation%3A%20The%20Great%20Dilemma%22&f=false
Grimbergen and Petraborg were 40 year old studies from the journal “Fluoride”, and antifluoridationist biased publication which, as stated previously, is not even listed on PubMed.
Feltman’s half century old study was completely refuted by the American Academy of Allergies in 1971:
“The reports of fluoride allergy reviewed (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) listed a wide variety of symptoms including vomiting, abdominal pain, headaches, scotomata, personality change, muscular weakness, painful numbness in extremities, joint pain, migraine headaches, dryness in the mouth, oral ulcers, convulsions, mental deterioration, colitis, pelvic hemorrhages, urticaria, nasal congestion, skin rashes, epigastric distress and hematemesis.
The review of the reported allergic reactions showed no evidence that immuno- logically mediated reaction of the Types I-IV had been presented. Secondly, the review of the cases reported demonstrated that there was insufficient clinical and laboratory evidence to state that true syndromes of fluoride allergy or intolerance exist.
As a result of this review, the members of the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy have adopted unanimously the following statement:
‘There is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.’ ”
——-A Statement On The Question Of Allergy to Fluoride As Used In The Fluoridation Of Community Water Supplies
American Academy of Allergy 1971
Feltman and Kosel were #’s 4 and 5 of the reports reviewed by the AAA.
Before heeding the healthcare “suggestion” of an online commenter who has no qualifications to be rendering medical recommendations, readers should consult with their own healthcare providers.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The causes and preventive factors involved in dental decay are myriad and diverse. An attempt to assess the effectiveness of but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on snapshots of WHO data, is ludicrous and clearly indicative of a profound lack of understanding of science and hralthcare,
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Hmmm, someone with a “science education and some respect for the truth” prefers “information” from an outfit that calls itself “forced fluoridation freedom fighters”, over that from the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, the National Sanitary Foundation, and the American Academy of Pediatrics?
Uh, yeah….”science education and some respect for the truth”…..
Actually “some respect for the truth” is an excellent characterization of antifluoridationists. They have “some” respect for the truth. That “some” is obviously a very small amount.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
It is notable that Peter provides no valid evidence, whatsoever, to support his litany of unsubstantiated claims. Instead, he insidiously attempts to steer readers toward “cofcof”, just one more in a long list of little antifluoridationist websites where is located nothing but filtered and edited nonsense. Instead of succumbing to this deceit, intelligence readers would be far better served by obtaining accurate information of fluoridation from legitimate sources. The websites of
the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, the National Sanitary Foundation, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate information readily avaiable to everyone.
In regard to effectiveness of fluoridation, the following are but a few of the countless scientific studies clearly demonstrating such:
1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998306
CONCLUSIONS:
Fewer studies have been published recently. More of these have investigated effect at the multi-community, state or even national level. The dmf/DMF index remains the most widely used measure of effect. % CR were lower in recent studies, and the ‘halo’ effect was discussed frequently. Nevertheless, reductions were still substantial. Statistical control for confounding factors is now routine, although the effect on per cent reductions tended to be small. Further thought is needed about the purpose of evaluation and whether measures of effect and study design are appropriate for that purpose.
—–Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012 Oct;40 Suppl 2:55-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00721.x.
Effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries prevention.
Rugg-Gunn AJ, Do L
Newcastle University, UK.
andrew@rugg-gunn.net
2). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543717/
Conclusions:
The results of this study support existing work suggesting water fluoridation together with the use of fluoridated dentifrice provides improved caries prevention over the use of fluoridated dentifrice alone. The social gradient between caries and deprivation appears to be lower in the fluoridated population compared to the non-fluoridated population, particularly when considering caries into dentine, demonstrating a reduction in inequalities of oral health for the most deprived individuals in the population.
—-The association between social deprivation and the prevalence and severity of dental caries and fluorosis in populations with and without water fluoridation
Michael G McGrady, Roger P Ellwood, […], and Iain A Pretty
3). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15074871
CONCLUSIONS:
Caries levels are lower among children with fluoridated domestic water supplies. Decay levels are much lower in 2002 than they were in 1984 and in the 1960s. The oral health of the less well off is worse than that of the rest of the population. The prevalence of dental fluorosis is higher amongst children and adolescents with fluoridated water supplies. Comparisons with 1984 data show an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis since that time.
—-Community Dent Health. 2004 Mar;21(1):37-44.
Dental caries and enamel fluorosis among the fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations in the Republic of Ireland in 2002.
Whelton H, Crowley E, O’Mullane D, Donaldson M, Kelleher V, Cronin M.
Oral Health Services Research Centre, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
4). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7643331
CONCLUSIONS:
The ingestion of water containing 1 ppm or less fluoride during the time of tooth development may result in dental fluorosis, albeit in its milder forms. However, in these times of numerous products containing fluoride being available, children ingesting water containing 1 ppm fluoride continue to derive caries protection compared to children ingesting water with negligible amounts of fluoride. Thus, the potential for developing a relatively minor unesthetic condition must be weighed against the potential for reducing dental disease.
—–J Public Health Dent. 1995 Spring;55(2):79-84.
Dental fluorosis and caries prevalence in children residing in communities with different levels of fluoride in the water.
Jackson RD, Kelly SA, Katz BP, Hull JR, Stookey GK.
Oral Health Research Institute, Indianapolis, IN 46202-2876, USA.
5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11109211
RESULTS:
The prevalence of dental caries was inversely related and the prevalence of fluorosis was directly related to the concentration of fluoride in the drinking water. The mean DMFS in the communities with 0.8 to 1.4 ppm fluoride was 53.9 percent to 62.4 percent lower than that in communities with negligible amounts of fluoride. Multivariate analysis showed that water fluoride level was the strongest factor influencing DMFS scores. The prevalence of fluorosis ranged from 1.7 percent to 15.4 percent, and the increase in fluorosis with increasing fluoride exposure was limited entirely to the milder forms.
—–J Public Health Dent. 2000 Summer;60(3):147-53.
The prevalence of dental caries and fluorosis in Japanese communities with up to 1.4 ppm of naturally occurring fluoride.
Tsutsui A, Yagi M, Horowitz AM.
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Fukuoka Dental College, Fukuoka, Japan.
tutuia@college.fdcnet.ac.jp
Steven D. Slott, DDS
So why do the “studies” you rely on ignore nearly all of those factors? It’s because they are really just advertisements, isn’t it?
Any respect for the truth is more than you have. That is my website, and I wrote the article, so of course I prefer it to the corrupt nonsense you are referring to.
And when someone does provide evidence you refuse to reply. Go ahead and try to explain how formula fed infants are not being put at risk by water fluoridation. I have given you the evidence many times. It comes from the limits acknowledged by pro-fluoridation groups.
You also still haven’t explained the mechanism for the formation of dental fluorosis. I thougth the dental profession were supposed to be the experts about such things. How much time did you actually spend in dental school studying the effects of fluoride?
The International Society of Fluoride Research and its journal Fluoride were founded by George Waldbott, a renowned allergist who was the first to document anaphylaxis from penicillin, and the first to make the link between smoking and emphysema. The authors of the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards didn’t have any problem with referencing papers from Fluoride, which is peer reviewed. James Sumner, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1946, was another early opponent of forced-fluoridation. Two of the most prominent early promoters of forced-fluoridation were Harold Hodge and Robert Kehoe. Harold Hodge was the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, working in a new annex of the University of Rochester’s Strong Memorial Hospital funded by the US Army. He oversaw fluoride, uranium, and plutonium experiments on unsuspecting child patients at the hospital. This is partially documented in Pulitzer Prize winner Eileen Welsome’s book The Plutonium Files, and Christopher Bryson’s The Fluoride Deception. It was also investigated by President Bill Clinton’s Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments in the mid-1990s. Hundreds of tons of fluoride were required to produce the enriched uranium for the Manhattan Project, and thousands of workers were poisoned in the process, with some dying on the spot. Robert Kehoe was a research scientist at the industry-funded Kettering Laboratory. He did research on fluoride and lead, and was a leading promoter of both the forced-fluoridation experiment and the leaded gasoline experiment.
“Advertisements”? No, advertisements are promotional pieces for which the promoters pay a hefty fee to put out in media outlets….kind of like the “studies” for which antifluoridationists pay hefty fees to have published in open access publications.
The studies I provided were peer-reviewed and published in respected scientific journals. They, as a matter of routine, control for such variables as age, residential location, and socio-economic status which in turn provide statistical control for other variables.
The snapshots of data misused by antifluoridationists, provide controls for no factors. They are simply rote statistics.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
No……I have a full respect for the truth, which is evidenced by the fact that in spite of your constant, ridiculous claims that I, and others, are lying, you are never able to provide any valid evidence of such lying….because none exists. This is in stark contrast to your obvious respect for only “some” of the truth.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Yet once again, the “International Society for Fluoride Research” is nothing but a fringe, antifluoridationist faction. Its publication “Fluoride” is so biased toward poor quality antifluoridationist “literature” that PubMed does not even index it in the vast PubMed database.
“There are some periodicals that pose as peer-reviewed scientific journals but are not. One such is the journal “Fluoride.” This quarterly publication, which is also available also on the Internet, appears biased toward anti-fluoridation opinion and presents experimental work of questionable quality. Whereas their instructions to authors (found at http://www.fluoride-journal.com/papers.htm) suggest a review process, an examination of a few dozen articles reveals that the same authors appear repeatedly (and tend to cite each other) and the experimental work is poorly describeand executed. There may be quality science aired in this journal, but ALL articles we examined have an anti-fluoride theme, and many contained significant technical or scientific errors.”
“For example one study (Chlubek et al., 1998) attempted to assess the fluoride levels of maternal plasma, and the marginal- and central-placentas of 30 pregnant women, ages ranging from 19 to 40 years old, living in an area with relatively low water and air fluoride (fluorine) content. They concluded that the placenta could accumulate fluoride in healthy women who are exposed in pregnancy to relatively low fluoride concentrations in water and in the air. However, an examination of their data show that in Table 1 and Table 2, they shift units between “m M/L” (a meaningless unit: it should be either m mol/L or m M) and m g fluoride/g of tissue ash (a unit that is not comparable to exposure data in their publication) makes their findings meaningless, and makes one wonder whether these workers are competent in elementary chemistry. Moreover, their study included no controls that are critical to interpreting the results as they intended.”
Impact of Fluoridation of the Municipal Drinking Water Supply:
Review of the Literature
Prepared for:
Escambia County Utilities Authority
Prepared by:
The Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation
University of West Florid
Joe Eugene Lepo & Richard A. Snyder. May 2000
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“Full respect for the truth”-except when it doesn’t support your position. Then you put your hands over your ears and hope it will go away-which it won’t.
Would You Drink Shampoo to Clean Your Hair?
Or sunscreen to protect your skin?
Drinking fluoride to protect teeth? Really?
As the CDC reported in 1999, Fluoride toothpaste applied to the surface of teeth is sufficient.
As the toothpaste tube instructs, “if swallowed, call the poison control center.”
“Where is the physician who will impose a lifelong prescription for an untested potentially toxic substance (fluoride), without proven clinical benefit, on a patient he/she has never met, interviewed or examined? Such dubious behavior would extract appropriate censure from the licensing authority of the physician involved, on the basis that it is unscientific, unscrupulous, unethical, and therefore unacceptable.”
James Reeves seems once again to be drinking shampoo to clean his hair, and sunscreen to protect his skin. While inexplicable as to why he would do this, nothing which derives from the bizarre mindset of antifluoridationists is really surprising any more.
In that vein, I suppose its no surprise that he misrepresents the CDC, and does not understand that toothpaste contains 1200-1500 times the fluoride concentration fluoridated water….
Steven D. Slott, DDS
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Fluoridation efficacy claims remain invalid syllogisms. More than 70% of Canadians reject water fluoridation. No refutation is required because there is no contest. Continued ad hominum attacks only demean the medico-dental professions. Evolve, then go in peace.
Hmmm, very telling that Peter terms peer-reviewed science to be “invalid syllogisms”, exposure of his lack of evidence as being “ad hominem attacks”, and can provide no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any sort, whatsoever, to support his personal opinions.
Such is the nearly universal case with antifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Wow, Slott, how underwhelming can your evidence get? Congratulations, though, you’re making progress. After years of doing so, you did not cite studies that as you recently admitted, “deceptively used DMFT.”
Problem is, the DMFS study (Tsutsui et al. 2000) you cited used deceptive relative differences to imply that fluoridated water had a benefit of about 58% – a ridiculous claim.
Yakati yak from those who promote adding this toxic waste fluoride to our drinking water.
“Where is the physician who will impose a lifelong prescription for an untested potentially toxic substance (fluoride), without proven clinical benefit, on a patient he/she has never met, interviewed or examined? Such dubious behavior would extract appropriate censure from the licensing authority of the physician involved, on the basis that it is unscientific, unscrupulous, unethical, and therefore unacceptable.”
Hmmm, James, wonder why no “licensing authority” has ever censured a physician, dentist, or anyone else for advocating for fluoridation? Think maybe its because a prerequisite for being a member of such a board is that one must actually have a functioning brain?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Dentist Slott now wants us to believe that fluoride does not accumulate in the placenta. Did somebody say, Quackpot?
A doctor or a dentist would never prescribe a drug or chemical to someone they have never met, with a dose they can’t control, and with no way to determine side effects. Fluoridation violates all good medical practices, making it unethical and immoral.
It is immoral to pursue with such vigor a public health practice as foolish as putting a known toxic substance (i.e. fluoride) into the public water supply (and at levels which are approximately 200 times the level that occurs in mothers’ milk).
Oral Health Division of the CDC – finally admitted in 1999 that the predominant action of this substance as far as any benefits are concerned is topical not systemic (CDC, 1999). Toothpaste is sufficient.
Waldbott was a highly acclaimed and recognized doctor who blew the whistle on smoking dangers, fluoridation and raised the flag on penicillin allergies.This at a time when doctors and dentists appeared in cigarette adverts promoting it, and said lead, asbestos and mercury were safe. How did the fluoridationists react to the information on fluoride toxicity Waldbott provided? Not in a way you would expect. They attacked him with a vengeance instead of stopping fluoridation and doing more study. Waldbotts findings have been confirmed by dozens of further researchers and thousands of people reporting toxicity symptoms worldwide. The most startling one is the Feltman and Kosel study. They were supporters of fluoridation but were honest people, unlike today. They received government funding. As soon as stories of side effects came out they withdrew funding ! Then they got the AAA to issue the statement Slott refers to without doing any research into fluoride themselves. This statement is now used by fluoridating authorities around the world. Using this statement to negate bona fide research publications without doing careful scientific testing or trials themselves is a derrecction of duty. At the same time the AAA statement was released the PHS announced research grants to 4 of the board members worth $800,000 (worth over 4 million dollars in today). Most of the other board memebrs had previously received funding from the PHS.Contrast this with the PHS withdrawing funding to Feltman and Kosel. In conclusion your health is of no concern to the fluoride pushers. It’s the defence of a belief system and delaying the inevitable lawsuits that must come as this shocking and dangerous practice is exposed. They fear losing prestige, fear losing credibility and fear liability.
Steve Slott has been so completely discredited; it is a mystery as to why any intelligent person accords him any credibility whatsoever. Slott is a fluoridationist on the “editorial board” of a dubious fluoridationist organization pretentiously named “Fluoride Science” that’s so biased toward fluoridationist literature of questionable value that they believe every human on earth should imbibe toxic waste. Nice conflict of interest there.
See how Slott and others mislead the public:
http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/
See Slott’s below average ratings:
http://www.healthgrades.com/dentist/dr-steven-slott-2wgl4#tab=patient-ratings&scrollTo=TopOfMain
Yeah what a bull slotter! lol
Yet once again…….
Waldbott was the founder of the antifluoridationist faction, the “International Academy For Fluoride Research”. The journal of this group, “Fluoride”, is highly biased toward antifluoridationist literature and is not even listed on PubMed. A review of Waldbott’s book may be found:
http://books.google.com/books?id=z5rX0Q0WAL4C&pg=PA1108&dq=%22Fluoridation:+The+Great+Dilemma%22&cd=8#v=onepage&q=%22Fluoridation%3A%20The%20Great%20Dilemma%22&f=false
Grimbergen and Petraborg were 40 year old studies from the journal “Fluoride”, and antifluoridationist biased publication which, as stated previously, is not even listed on PubMed.
Feltman’s half century old study was completely refuted by the American Academy of Allergies in 1971:
“The reports of fluoride allergy reviewed (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) listed a wide variety of symptoms including vomiting, abdominal pain, headaches, scotomata, personality change, muscular weakness, painful numbness in extremities, joint pain, migraine headaches, dryness in the mouth, oral ulcers, convulsions, mental deterioration, colitis, pelvic hemorrhages, urticaria, nasal congestion, skin rashes, epigastric distress and hematemesis.
The review of the reported allergic reactions showed no evidence that immuno- logically mediated reaction of the Types I-IV had been presented. Secondly, the review of the cases reported demonstrated that there was insufficient clinical and laboratory evidence to state that true syndromes of fluoride allergy or intolerance exist.
As a result of this review, the members of the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy have adopted unanimously the following statement:
‘There is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.’ ”
——-A Statement On The Question Of Allergy to Fluoride As Used In The Fluoridation Of Community Water Supplies
American Academy of Allergy 1971
Feltman and Kosel were #’s 4 and 5 of the reports reviewed by the AAA.
Before heeding the healthcare “suggestion” of an online commenter who has no qualifications to be rendering medical recommendations, readers should consult with their own healthcare providers.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The anti-fluoridationists and their propaganda have been the subject of study:
“When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature,” Jason M. Armfield, Australia and New Zealand Health Policy, 2007 Dec 9; 4:25.
http://www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/4/1/25
Yet once again……
Slott is a Village Idiot who prefers overdosing a fetus with a developmental neurotoxicant – rather than having a pregnant woman stop consuming fluoride for 9 months.
HAHAHA. So Slott is resorting to repeating the same slott over and over again as if repeition will somehow make it magically come true!
Absolutely hilarious.! lol
Steve Slott , “Don’t bother me with facts man, my minds made up ! “
Probably gets paid by the word.
Its getting pretty sad when the only so valid evidence you can find is your own website That shows the quality of the anti fluoride arguments
Speaking about untested potentially toxic substances You dont say anything about your mate Mercola ,who funds Fluoride Action Network And fought tooth and nail to stop natural health products being tested
Quack lobby groups got a clause inserted into Obamacare that will make any
attempt to evaluate whether a treatment actually works will leave insurance
companies open to legal action for “discrimination”.
“Discrimination? Yes! We
must not allow the government to exclude health care providers just because
those providers don’t cure anything.”
The latest piece of well-organised corporate corruption by well-funded
lobbyists is revealed by Steven Salzberg, in Forbes Magazine. The chaos in the US health system makes
one even more grateful for the NHS and for the evaluation of effectiveness of
treatments by NICE.
These are the people who say fluoride is bad!!!
There is no confusion about fluoride, there have been 15
major investigations into its use, and it is one of the most intensely studied
minerals known to man
After 70 years of trying there has never been a peer reviewed paper that states
fluoride is a danger to human health at the .7-1.5 PPM level, that does not
contain the words may, .could, and the statement” more research is
required”
End of
Fluoridation of water supplies, where possible,
is the most effective public health measure for the
prevention of dental decay. Water fluoridation is a multi-professional activity
in which engineers,
chemists, physicians, nutritionists and dentists all play important roles. The
efficiency of fluoridation
programmes, and their acceptability to the communities, depends on the general
state of dental
health and whether there is good access and attendance for free dental health
care for children and
young people, as well as high standards of diet and oral hygiene.
World Health Organisation
You dont have to dig to deep to find the anti fluoride lobby is tied to the anti vaccine lobby Just look at the major funding outfit for the activists Mercola
Dentists and dental hygienists are seeing an increase in child
tooth decay and Dr. Sarah Hulland says the decision to remove
fluoride from Calgary’s water supply three years ago is playing a big
role.
Calgary stops adding fluoride to water
Dental impact of no fluoridation in Calgary’s water studied
“I’m seeing a lot more children having a lot more cavities,” she said. “I’m seeing a lot of decay on 19- to 20-month babies, and this is even before they’ve got all the teeth in.”
More than half of the children treated at the Alex Dental Health Bus have tooth decay, officials say. (Alex Dental Health Bus)
Hulland said the system is getting stressed.
“We frequently have to put them to sleep to rehabilitate them. We
don’t have enough anaesthetists that actually help us to put them to
sleep. We don’t have enough OR time. We don’t have enough manpower to
actually do the care that needs to be given.”
is that right ,and how many times have we seen your misquotes post on comment blogs ??
The BIG MONEY made by the industries which sell their toxic waste fluoride to communities instead of having to process and dispose of it ($ billions) drives the promoters and all of the lobbyists hired to conceal the truth with government and national groups.
Big money drove many issues for years like the “science” of tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline, thalidomide, and asbestos, which were all wrong. The “Vioxx” science resulted in 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths ( FDA data). The diabetes drug, Avandia, caused 150,000 patients to suffer stroke, heart failure, bone fractures, vision loss and death.
Remember when the health professionals advertised, “a pack a day keeps cancer away?”
Over time the science corrects itself. It is time to correct fluoridation.
The 70 year old “science” of fluoride is outdated, discredited and wrong as well, but it will take time to reverse this mistake.
Fluoridation is the biggest scam in human history netting industry over a hundred billion dollars from sales and disposal cost savings.
I,m sure 1875 does
The big money made by the industries which sell their toxic waste fluoride to communities instead of having to process and dispose of it ($ billions) drives the promoters and all of the lobbyists hired to conceal the truth with government and national groups.
Big money drove many issues for years like the “science” of tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline, thalidomide, and asbestos, which were all wrong. The “Vioxx” science resulted in 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths ( FDA data). The diabetes drug, Avandia, caused 150,000 patients to suffer stroke, heart failure, bone fractures, vision loss and death.
Remember when the health professionals advertised, “a pack a day keeps cancer away?”
Over time the science corrects itself. It is time to correct fluoridation.
The 70 year old “science” of fluoride is outdated, discredited and wrong as well, but it will take time to reverse this mistake.
Fluoridation is the biggest scam in human history netting industry over a hundred billion dollars from sales and disposal cost savings.
Perhaps that is because you can’t affix a dose to a concentration unless you know the volume. I gave you the dose that the CDA admits is a problem and clearly showed that formula-fed babies are exceeding that dose by a wide margin. Are you disputing that the CDA recommendation is valid or that a 5KG infant would consume at least 1 litre of formula in 24 hours? Those are the only points of debate.
shall we talk about money shall we
The following is what I know to be true about Connett, his
family, and his cronies as far income from keeping this issue alive. No telling
how much more they may be taking in from their little cottage industry, “FAN”.
I do know that Connett is in the midst of fundraising for the “FAN” 2015 budget
of $150,000. I generally post this when hypocrites trot out their idiotic money
and conspiracy nonsense. It is always comical to see how quickly they start
backpedaling about how Connett is “due” compensation, how “little” is the
$1,000 per month that he and the missus are each paid every month, and other
such hogwash.
1. Paul Connett, the Director of the antifluoridationist
group, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), long time antifluoridationist zealot-
Paul’s non peer-reviewed book, which he pushes at every conceivable
opportunity, sells for $25 per copy. Paul claims that he donates all
royalties he receives from his book sales, to his non-profit group, FAN.
Given that FAN presumably pays all or part of Paul’s fluoride chasing
trips all over the United Stated, to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, and
anywhere else he chooses to visit, this “donation” would seem to be little more
than a tax strategy.
Additionally, both Paul and his wife receive monthly payments of
$1,000 each from the umbrella organization under which FAN operates.
Now tell me about the money!!
For infants
and children 0-8 years, the daily upper limit is considerably less, but only
due to the risk of development of mild to very mild dental fluorosis during
these teeth forming years. No other
reason. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect that
has no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. Have demonstrated mildly
fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, this effect is considered by many
to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.
Compare this to the black discoloration, extreme pain, and life-threatening
infection of untreated dental decay.
http://iom.edu/Activities/Nutrition/SummaryDRIs/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/Nutrition/DRIs/ULs%20for%20Vitamins%20and%20Elements.pdf
$$$$$ BILLIONS for the toxic waste industry.
How stupid to refer to Dr. Connett, who is exposing fluoridation for the fraud it is. We all know how promoters despise him.
Paul Connett has no healthcare education, training, or
experience. He portrays himself to be an “authority” on fluoridation, yet has
not one, single, peer-reviewed piece of scientific research or literature on
fluoridation to his name. Those who wish to a accept his opinions as
authoritative, for whatever reason, are certainly free to do so. However it
must be kept in mind that in accepting his opinions on fluoridation, one is
rejecting the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of highly respected
healthcare organizations, healthcare experts, healthcare providers, U.S.
Surgeons General, esteemed healthcare educators, public health experts, and
respected regulatory agencies….all of which fully support the public health
initiative of water fluoridation.
Typical chris price collection of words: a 25% error rate.
Yes, a repeat posting of misinformation gets a repeat of my reply to it. Since that seems to offend you, you might want to consider not repeating the same nonsense over and over again. Either way is fine with me.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The CDA and Health Canada use moderate or worse dental fluorosis as the endpoint in judging risk of harm. If the IOM uses Very Mild as their endpoint then why do the both show the same recommended intake? (the IOM shows 60 mcg per day compared to the CDA range of 50 -70). It’s hard to take seriously the claims of an organization which says Mild Fluorosis is barely detectable. They need some help from the Institute of Optometry
PROGRESS. Another admission from Slott. The list is getting quite long now. Thanks for the help Steve. You’re the best we’ve got. Have you been taking lessons in academic integrity or something lately?
It’s simple nutrition. Fluoridation = More Teeth
That depends who.s piccys you look at If you look at the activist sites the images are a lot different from the CDC or the ADA ,And I know who,s one I would trust
In
many cases information is misrepresented in order to support the
anti-fluoride argument. Misrepresentation involves taking information
out of the context in which it is presented in order to make it support a
viewpoint which the author or authors did not intend. Statements are
taken out of context, and results are selectively reported. In
Australia, for example, opponents of water fluoridation make the false
claim that the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
recommends “that NO additional fluoride be given to children under three
years” [59].
It is argued that there is a contradiction between this claimed
recommendation and support by the NHMRC for water fluoridation. However,
the NHMRC actually recommends that no fluoride supplements be given to
children under three years of age [62].
Fluoride supplements are tablets or drops, often available from a
chemist, used to increase intake of fluoride in non-fluoridated areas.
There is, therefore, no contradiction with the NHMRC supporting water
fluoridation. Yet, such misrepresentations continue to be made.
I just go by the Dean Index which defines Mild as “Opaque white areas covering less than 50% of the tooth surface.”
When Steve was still talking to me he tried to say that my picture was Moderate which is defined as “All tooth surfaces affected; marked wear on biting surfaces; brown stain may be present”
He based his argument on the presence of brown staining but the problem is that clearly all tooth surfaces are not affected and there is no marked wear on the biting surfaces, at least on the teeth that can be seen. Since there is no exclusion for brown stains in the definition of Mild it appears my picture meets more of the criteria for Mild than for Moderate.
It should also be kept in mind that the Dean Index is biased in the direction of minimizing the perception of the severity of the damage. There are two categories using the word “Mild” and only one for Severe. Why is that?
And maybe you can explain how a condition that is diagnosed visually can have “no effect on cosmetics”. I guess if people keep their lips closed that might be true and I suppose if one is self-conscious about their fluorosis that could be one way they hide it.
The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to water fluoridation
is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect
on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have
demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider
this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.
—-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S.
Schoolchildren
Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long
I’m not clear why you felt reposting the same thing has any purpose. Are you trying to emphasize that it wasn’t you making the silly statement about a visually diagnosed condition “having no effect on cosmetics”?
The first sentence is just as absurd. It is the total dose that causes fluorosis and water fluoridation contributes to that total. Therefore if water were not fluoridated some people who developed mild fluorosis would have been bumped into the Questionable range. Some mild cases would be bumped into very mild and so on all the way along. If you are trying to demonstrate that Kumar and Iida are not very thoughtful people who are only interested in proving their bias then you have done so.
Since you are now mostly cutting and pasting Steve’s comments, does that mean you are going to stop responding to my posts too?
Anecdotal evidence is something that has been shown to have little value except to stand-up comics. You folks say you are backed by science but then you pull out this sort of speculation. I still can’t forgive you for trying to bluff me about the amount of formula a 2-3 month old baby would consume in a day but if you apologize, I might consider it..
It is simple. Better nutrition = more teeth. And fluoride is not a nutrient.
You lot know all about that. That is the only evidence you can post ,because the real scientific stuff all says fluoride is no danger to human health at .7-1PPM So you have to stretch the truth to post something
If there were any valid arguments against fluoride they would have been tabled years ago and the real scientists would have stopped it , But no, the silence is deafening
And all we get is misquotes,obscure papers from dubious sources and nothing of substance
If your argument are so great tell the government about the real dangers.
You wont because you have nothing
The Institute of Medicine’s Food and Nutrition Board issued a 1997 report that
included fluoride and provided a recommended daily intake for fluoride.
As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explains,
“These guidelines describe the dietary reference intakes for specific nutrients
known to be beneficial to health including fluoride.”
2. Through the years, a number of highly respected health
officials have identified fluoride as a nutrient. In the Surgeon General’s
Report on Nutrition and Health (1988, pp. 368-369), former U.S.
Surgeon General C. Everett Koop wrote, “Although fluoride is present in foods,
the most efficient source of this nutrient for the general public is community
drinking water … to which fluoride is added to reach the optimal level.”
3. The National Institutes of Health classifies
fluoride among the “minerals and essential trace elements.”
4. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient
Data Laboratory includes fluoride in its database of nutrients.
People mistakenly calling fluoride a nutrient do not make it one. Check the Oxford Dictionary definition and you will see the word essential is there. Fluoride may be a mineral if it is found in nature in a solid and stable form or it may be an ion but please find me a source that calls it an essential element or essential nutrient. When I first started reading about fluoride I found all sorts of attempts at deception by the promoters. That was the first thing that caused me to doubt what they were saying. Do you think you can fool the public forever by lying to them that fluoride is a nutrient?
Well you seem to keep trying to tell people fluoride is a poison,at .7-1PPM, without any scientific data to back it up
The most complete science is presented in the following book.
New York scientist Dr. Paul Connett offers the most complete scientific proof of the ineffectiveness and health dangers of fluoride in his recent book (with two scientists co-authors, one an M.D.);
· “The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There”
· It contains over 1200 scientific references (over 80 pages), showing that fluoride is ineffective for teeth and causes cancer, thyroid & pineal gland damage, broken hips from brittle bones, lowered IQ in children, kidney disease, arthritis and other serious health problems.
And you don’t seem to understand the difference between acute toxicity and cumulative toxicity. It is well accepted that fluoride accumulates in the body. It is well accepted that at certain levels there is a negative effect on various enzyme activity and other cellular functions. The only question is how long it takes to get to that level. Every time someone consumes a fluoride ion they get a little closer. Dental fluorosis is a marker for both acute and chronic poisoning ( assuming that a person’s habits remain constant over the course of their life) If you want to convince me that dental fluorosis is just a cosmetic problem you are going to have to explain the mechanism for it’s formation. Steve couldn’t do it and he is a dentist, a member of the ADA, and someone who should have access to all the research. I keep asking him but his lips are sealed. I think he is too embarrassed to admit that he doesn’t know.
Unfortunately, the fluoridation debate is being driven by scientifically illiterate people who very aggressively push their point of view to the point of cramming it down the rest of our throats. These are people who seem to believe anything that is thrown their way as long as it fits with their preconceived notions.
There is a mountain of scientific evidence that fluoride in the amounts that are put into drinking water is not in the slightest bit harmful. Anybody who knows anything about toxicology will know that any substance, if ingested in high enough concentrations, will be harmful or lethal. Even drinking too much water, known as water poisoning or dilutional
hyponatremia, can kill you by upsetting the electrolytes in your body. The amount of
fluoride in drinking water is trivial, but effective in preventing tooth decay.
The other problem along with the above-mentioned scientifically illiterate people are local city councils whose members are very pliable and will do virtually anything to maintain their vote in the next election. A very bad combination.
Sorry, but your cheap attempt at slagging Dr. Slott has no credibility
Anyone who uses their paranoia over pharmaceutical companies
as an excuse for rejecting fluoridation has no credibility.
All a big pro-fluoridation conspiracy, eh James??
Another tangential argument with no scientific support by an
anti-fluoridation quack. You are entitled to your views, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.
Big money drove many issues for years like the “science” of tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline, thalidomide, and asbestos, which were all wrong. The “Vioxx” science resulted in 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths ( FDA data). Remember when the health professionals advertised, “a pack a day keeps cancer away?”
The 70 year old “science” of fluoride is outdated, discredited and wrong as well, but it will take time to reverse this mistake.
Fluoridation is the biggest scam in human history netting industry over a hundred billion dollars from sales and disposal cost savings.
Its not rocket science Just look at the people of Grand Rapids.After 70 years.If there medical conditions are any worse than the rest of the USA ,I,m sure you lot would have checked, and once again the silence is deafening
What is the connection to Pharma in James’ post?
The Region of Peel is in the middle of being told all about it.
I have notified the CDA who said they would discuss it. We’ll have to wait and see how they respond. They could arbitrarily raise the limit recommended, since the number is more or less picked from the air anyway. Or they could issue a warning to new mothers. Maybe they will re-think their endorsement of fluoridation, but I don’t expect that. Too much potential legal liability.
If you give me the money, I’ll set up the research. It should be pretty simple to correlate incidence and severity of dental fluorosis with various health outcomes. Interesting that you try to transfer the responsibility to us to prove there is a problem instead of to those assuring that fluoridation is safe, to show there isn’t. Normally it is the responsibility of those claiming a benefit to also prove there isn’t harm. You are acknowledging that wasn’t and hasn’t been done in Grand Rapids
The burden of proof rests on the claimant. It’s
a science thing. You clearly don’t understand science.
I dont know ,But I bet you have done some research to prove a point and found nothing You would have loved to find zombies walking the streets or people crippled with bone disease but as usual you have nothing
/FAN claims that fluoride poses a “risk” for young children, but this fear-based message
ignores the broader evidence. The American Dental Association concludes that “it is safe
to use fluoridated water to mix infant formula” and encourages parents to discuss any
questions they may have with their dentists and pediatricians. 21
A 2010 study of infants and fluoride concluded that “no general recommendations to
avoid use of fluoridated water in reconstituting infant formula are warranted.”And while we are on this the legal side
Now if the arguments against fluoride were so good , you would
think they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own ,without legal help.
If they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are not
The burden of proof does rest on the claimant. You are claiming that fluoridation is safe. I gave you evidence that, using your own numbers, there is significant risk of harm. You have not disputed that my math is correct or based upon faulty assumptions.
Prior to fluoridation being introduced the people claiming it worked and was safe had no clinical trials and no tox studies. Incredibly, after 70 years they still don’t. They were the ones making a claim who had the burden of proof. Where is it?
I know a few scientists. They would never be so arrogant to say “It’s a science thing”.
Read the January 2007 issue of JADA.
Have you not noticed the public finding out about the issue on their own? Wait a year and watch what that turns into.
In
Dr. Franklin Garcia-Godoy and colleagues’ April JADA article,
“Potential Inhibition of Demineralization In Vitro by Fluoride-Releasing
Sealants” (JADA 2007;138[3]:502–6),
differences in demineralization were attributed to the differences in
leaching of fluoride from the materials. Their results agree with
numerous other investigations that show that fluoride-treated enamel is
more resistant to acid dissolution than enamel that has not been exposed
to fluoride.
© 2007 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Thanks for that
http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Proof-Around-the-Globe.pdf
What does this have to do with the ingestion of fluoride and the risk to formula-fed infants? You’re replying like a politician who doesn’t have an answer to a reporter’s question, so starts talking about something completely different.
you posted the link!!!
I didn’t post any link. Do you know what a link is? I referred you to the issue of JADA where the information about infant formula is found. That is what the discussion was about, remember? You picked a random article from that issue and posted it. Don’t take this the wrong way but you appear to be suffering from ADD.
The right amount of fluoride is needed to help protect teeth and
prevent caries. Fluoride intake above optimal amounts, however, creates a
risk of developing enamel fluorosis in teeth during their development
before they erupt through the gingivae (gums). Most cases of enamel
fluorosis result in faint white lines or streaks on tooth enamel that
are not readily apparent to the affected person or the casual observer.
So whats new??
You fluoride eaters are a hoot. Hawkman whines because people who don’t want fluoride crammed down their throats are aggressively cramming their “point of view” down the throats of people like him who are aggressively trying to fluoridate everyone’s drinking water.
Tell you what, Mr. Gullible, if you seriously believe you need to swallow fluoride in your water, then by all means: Go Fluoridate Yourself.
Get a bottle of sodium fluoride drops from your pharmacist. Add 7 drops to one cup of water.
Or get a box of sodium fluoride powder from your exterminator. Add a pinch to a gallon of water.
Demanding proof a negative is not valid science.
In order to credibly demand proof that a problem does not exist, there first
must be valid evidence that one does exist. Fluoride has existed in water since
the beginning of time. The public health initiative of water fluoridation has
been in existence for the past 70 years. There has never been any proven
adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal level utilized in water.
James… you have the solution… and since it makes perfect sense I never seen any of the pro-fluoride lobby respond to it. It is simple… remove it from the system, and if you believe in fluoride you have the freedom to use the toothpaste and mouthwash, and drink as much as you feel is good for you. Adding it to the water supply takes away the choice of dosage to everyone. No one is saying that it should be illegal and removed from toothpaste or dental practice etc.. just don’t force it on everyone at random doses for our entire lives well after our teeth have been formed!
To follow the same 1950’s argument.. why not add a ‘smallish’ amount of anti-depressant to the water during the winter? Or add vitamins and minerals… surely if they are good in some way we should impose them to all in a random dose? It is all so ridiculous, and yet that is what we do with this one substance. Amazing how in this instance we cling to the 1950’s approach of one solution for all…. Why is the EU at 3%? Are they so unscientific.. or simply health conscious and giving consumers the right to choose?
I am please to say that last year my region in Ontario voted 11-10 to not force their municipalities to add it. The deciding vote was Huntsville mayor Claude Doughty, a DDS who said he saw valid arguments on both sides, but now that fluoride was available in so many products that he felt it was unnecessary to add it for all, as everyone could choose to use as much as they want. He did not ‘decide’ on whether it was good or bad, he decided to give the choice to each individual. We all deserve to have that choice. I believe strongly in certain things, but I believe more strongly not to force it literally down the throats of my fellow citizens.
“needed” implies essential which fluoride is not. Why do you keep posting things off topic? The issue I brought up was harm to formula fed infants. Are you disputing that my math is correct or agreeing there is a problem?
I gave you the evidence for formula fed infants and neither you nor Steve has disputed the ingestion limits or the math. Why is that? You sound a little silly saying there has never been any proven adverse effects when your own organizations admit there is a limit and it is easy to show that their limit is being exceeded by a significant sub-group who also happen to be the most vulnerable.
Guess you don’t care much about babies or the future.
Paul—- You have presented a well stated opinion. Certainly, a common sense solution is to give everyone freedom of choice. Government should not add any drug to drinking water thus forcing people to consume it without consent. A doctor or a dentist cannot legally do so.
AAP Recommends Fluoride to Prevent Dental Caries
In a new clinical report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) “Fluoride Use in Caries Prevention in the Primary Care Setting,” published online Aug. 25 in the September 2014
Pediatrics,
the AAP states that fluoride is effective for cavity prevention in
children. Dental caries – or tooth decay — is the most common chronic
disease in children in the U.S., a silent disease that disproportionally
affects poor, young, and minority populations.
The AAP is issuing the following new recommendations:
Fluoridated toothpaste is recommended for all children starting at tooth eruption, regardless of caries risk.
A smear (the size of a grain of rice) of toothpaste should be used up to age 3. After the 3rd
birthday, a pea-sized amount may be used. Parents should dispense
toothpaste for young children and supervise and assist with brushing.
Fluoride varnish is recommended in the primary care setting every 3–6 months starting at tooth emergence.
Over-the
counter fluoride rinse is not recommended for children younger than 6
years due to risk of swallowing higher-than-recommended levels of
fluoride.
Fluoridation levels of fluoride (0.7 ppm) are not classified
as a drug, but as a nutrient, just like other nutrient minerals in water, e.g.
iron and calcium.
From the Linus Pauling Institute which specializes in nutrition research:
“Although its role in the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay) is well
established, fluoride is not generally considered an essential mineral element
because humans do not require it for growth or to sustain life. However, if one
considers the prevention of chronic disease (dental caries) an important
criterion in determining essentiality, then fluoride might well be considered
an essential trace element.”
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/minerals/fluoride/
Note that FSA is more precisely termed a co-product with the manufacture of
fertilizer — both being made from earth minerals.
By whom is it classified as a nutrient? And don’t give me a speculation based on a pre-supposition as evidence of anything. The method of determining essentiality of a substance is to limit it in the diet, which otherwise contains all known nutrients, and document that a disease occurs. Show me the evidence of that for fluoride, not someone’s opinion. HFSA is a by-product due to it’s lesser value than the primary product. If there weren’t a market for it to dump in the water supplies, it probably wouldn’t be worthwhile recovering it. It didn’t use to be until the farm animals around the fertilizer plants started suing because their livestock and crops were being poisoned.
The topic was formula-fed infants. Are you planning a run for public office?
At the time they decided to put fluoride in water, personal hygiene was not at it’s height. Brushing your teeth regularly and showering daily wasn’t routine. Society are very hygienic these days and we have fluoride in our tooth paste. Why in the world do we still need fluoride in our water? Hopefully Tara Veer, the new mayor of Red Deer, will put this back on the agenda because there is no reason whatsoever to have fluoride in water to prevent cavities when the majority of us brush our teeth on a regular basis!
Per volume, yes toothpaste has more fluoride than your average city drinking water. But than again, who is drinking a litre of toothpaste?
Let’s use some common sense here and take a more sensible approach:
In a pea sized amount of toothpaste, you would only find 0.3 mg of fluoride.
How Much Fluoride is in Fluoridated Water?
Most fluoridated water contains about 1.0 ppm. That means that in 1 liter of water, you would find about 1 mg of fluoride.
Let’s say, for arguments sake, most people use 3 pea sized amounts of toothpaste (a strip). You’d get 0.9 mg of fluoride. So again, 1 litre of your typical water contains more fluoride than what you’d intake if you ate your toothpaste.
This information is based on the majority of toothpastes that are on the market. They contain about 0.15% fluoride ion, which comes out to 1500 ppm (parts per million.)
So, considering that we all brush our teeth anyways…why the heck do we need our drinking water (in which we ingest and bath in) to be fluoridated?
1. Toothpaste has 1200-1500 more fluoride per volume than does fluoridated water.
2. I personally know of no one who drinks a liter of toothpaste. The warning on the tube is to deter people from so doing.
3. We don’t “all brush our teeth anyways”.
4. Fluoride works topically and systemically to prevent dental decay.
5. One shot fluoride ingestion, such as with toothpastes and mouthrinses, causes a spike in salivary content which lasts an hour or so, then is gone. Fluoridated water provides a consistent elevation in salivary fluoride content, which provides a consistent bathing of the teeth in a low level of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay protection.
6. I don’t “twist” facts. I state them.
7. We all need in increase in the level of existing fluoride in our drinking water up to the level where obtain maximum benefit with no adverse effects. Fluoridation simply ensures that we get maximum benefit from a substance we ingest in our water anyway, fluoridated or not.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
The pro fluoridationists have more respect for the money. What do the anti-fluoridationists have to gain?
But how are the fluoride providers going to make any money then? Right Steve?
Sounds a little desperate Steve, perhaps he has some shares in his portfolio.
the sad part is regardless of the arguments the people the pro fluoride crew are trying to help are not drinking the water,ever! Unless it was bottled by the popular brands of wild turkey, acua velva, Listerine of salon selectives
Unbelievable how uneducated this author is…major research facilities all over the world have shown this practice to be extremely damaging to children. He is suggesting that Harvard’s 3 studies showing the neurological damage to children in the from of ever decreasing IQs are not independent and not science!
90% of the treated water ends up in the environment. The release into the environment of hydrofluorosilsic acid (the product used to fluoridate) is universally banned, except when it is released in municipal water…see the corruption and moral bankruptcy at work here?
NO INDEPENDENT, peer-reviewed studies have shown it to have the benefits he claims. If you believe anything that Health Canada, WHO and others of that ilk that are all fronts for pharmaceutical cartels and eugenicists, you are as good as dead already.
Imagine how much deficiency in conscience an author must have to completely ignore the fact that anti-fluoride protesters have a CONSTITUTIONAL right not to be force fed medications against their wishes. Fluoride pills can be made readily available in pharmacies…no need to force millions to take it when they don’t want to, except that it makes the cosmetic dentistry billions in profits to fix the dental fluorosis this practice causes. Medical doctors love the extra illness it causes their patients… millions being prescribed pharmaceutical thyroid supplements for life due to ruined thyroid glands.
So sad that people like this author are actually parading around as ‘journalists’, while openly being part of the medical/pharmaceutical propaganda machine.