Sauerheber Debates Parkland Dentists

Print Friendly

Parkland will lose fluoridated water soon

KARI PLOG; STAFF WRITER

Published: June 28, 2013
Water in Parkland soon will lack a fluoride additive that a local company has been providing customers for 10 years.

Board members for Parkland Light & Water, a private cooperative system that serves about 7,500 customers in the unincorporated community south of Tacoma, voted this month to stop fluoridation, which is used to reduce tooth decay and prevent oral health problems.

The practice will stop after inventory runs out, which general manager Mark Johnson said Friday could be around the end of summer.

The board was not opposed to fluoridation; the decision was a cost-saving effort, Johnson said.

“We’re stopping because the process is not cost-effective,” he said.

An analysis by Parkland Light & Water found it spent about $350,000 to carry out water fluoridation over five years. In that time, Johnson said, an estimated 0.03 percent of the fluoride was consumed by children ages 2 to 14, the target group for fluoride.

“It doesn’t make sense to use our membership’s money for that kind of return,” he said.

The decision will primarily affect those from low-income families who don’t have access to dental care, said Mary Jennings, dental director for Parkland’s Lindquist Dental Clinic for Children.

“It takes away a brick in our safety net,” she said.

Johnson said he and the board are concerned about low-income families, but he thought it was wasteful to spend $70,000 a year on an ineffective process. Money should instead benefit programs that provide fluoride directly to those who need it, he said.

That is a difficult goal to achieve, Jennings said.

“We can’t go into every home like water does,” she said.

The decision to cease fluoridation came after a contract with the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department expired in March. The agreement came after the Health Department tried to mandate utilities to fluoridate water in 2002. After lengthy court appeals in 2003, the Washington State Supreme Court sided with the cooperatives.

By then Parkland Light & Water had entered into a contract that arranged for about $250,000 in infrastructure improvements to accommodate fluoridation. The company would have had to pay back that amount had it terminated the contract, Johnson said.

Health Department spokeswoman Edie Jeffers said Parkland has been fortunate to receive a critical public health benefit through fluoridation and that the agency is disappointed the practice won’t continue.

“Fluoridation is one of the most cost-effective ways to enhance oral health,” Jeffers said. “We’re happy they were partners in that for 10 years.”

The company held public meetings on the issue, Johnson said. No mailers were sent out, he said.

Pacific Lutheran University, a company member, has about 3,500 students who use the water. The student government passed a resolution urging Parkland Light & Water to continue fluoridation, and many other members, residents and businesses that use the utility sent letters for and against it over several months.

The Campaign for Dental Health said fluoridated water is available to a growing number of Americans. About 74 percent of homes nationwide are connected to public water systems that receive fluoridated water, according to the organization’s website.

The group said it is the cheapest way to provide fluoride to communities. The per-person annual cost of fluoride rinse programs is about double the cost of fluoridated water, according to the website.

Johnson said he doesn’t disagree with the health benefits of fluoridated water, but he thinks there needs to be a more cost-effective, less invasive way to provide it.

Feedback from members over the years, he said, shows they don’t want fluoride forced on them.

“(The board members) have to take into account what their members want,” Johnson said.

Jennings said she doesn’t understand the decision to stop the process.

“I just want fluoride in the water for everybody,” she said. “I think it’s one of the best ideas we’ve ever had.”

Kari Plog: 253-597-8682
kari.plog@thenewstribune.com
@KariPlog

A summary of the debate:

Parkland will lose fluoridated water soon

Water in Parkland soon will lack a fluoride additive that a local company has been providing customers for 10 years. Board members for Parkland Light & Water voted this month to stop fluoridation, which is used to reduce tooth decay and prevent oral health problems.

KARI PLOG; STAFF WRITER

Published: June 28, 2013 at 10:40 p.m. PDT — Updated: June 28, 2013 at 10:40 p.m. PDT

114 Comments

Water in Parkland soon will lack a fluoride additive that a local company has been providing customers for 10 years.

Board members for Parkland Light & Water, a private cooperative system that serves about 7,500 customers in the unincorporated community south of Tacoma, voted this month to stop fluoridation, which is used to reduce tooth decay and prevent oral health problems.

The practice will stop after inventory runs out, which general manager Mark Johnson said Friday could be around the end of summer.

The board was not opposed to fluoridation; the decision was a cost-saving effort, Johnson said.

“We’re stopping because the process is not cost-effective,” he said.

An analysis by Parkland Light & Water found it spent about $350,000 to carry out water fluoridation over five years. In that time, Johnson said, an estimated 0.03 percent of the fluoride was consumed by children ages 2 to 14, the target group for fluoride.

“It doesn’t make sense to use our membership’s money for that kind of return,” he said.

The decision will primarily affect those from low-income families who don’t have access to dental care, said Mary Jennings, dental director for Parkland’s Lindquist Dental Clinic for Children.

“It takes away a brick in our safety net,” she said.

Johnson said he and the board are concerned about low-income families, but he thought it was wasteful to spend $70,000 a year on an ineffective process. Money should instead benefit programs that provide fluoride directly to those who need it, he said.

That is a difficult goal to achieve, Jennings said.

“We can’t go into every home like water does,” she said.

The decision to cease fluoridation came after a contract with the Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department expired in March. The agreement came after the Health Department tried to mandate utilities to fluoridate water in 2002. After lengthy court appeals in 2003, the Washington State Supreme Court sided with the cooperatives.

By then Parkland Light & Water had entered into a contract that arranged for about $250,000 in infrastructure improvements to accommodate fluoridation. The company would have had to pay back that amount had it terminated the contract, Johnson said.

Health Department spokeswoman Edie Jeffers said Parkland has been fortunate to receive a critical public health benefit through fluoridation and that the agency is disappointed the practice won’t continue.

“Fluoridation is one of the most cost-effective ways to enhance oral health,” Jeffers said. “We’re happy they were partners in that for 10 years.”

The company held public meetings on the issue, Johnson said. No mailers were sent out, he said.

Pacific Lutheran University, a company member, has about 3,500 students who use the water. The student government passed a resolution urging Parkland Light & Water to continue fluoridation, and many other members, residents and businesses that use the utility sent letters for and against it over several months.

The Campaign for Dental Health said fluoridated water is available to a growing number of Americans. About 74 percent of homes nationwide are connected to public water systems that receive fluoridated water, according to the organization’s website.

The group said it is the cheapest way to provide fluoride to communities. The per-person annual cost of fluoride rinse programs is about double the cost of fluoridated water, according to the website.

Johnson said he doesn’t disagree with the health benefits of fluoridated water, but he thinks there needs to be a more cost-effective, less invasive way to provide it.

Feedback from members over the years, he said, shows they don’t want fluoride forced on them.

“(The board members) have to take into account what their members want,” Johnson said.

Jennings said she doesn’t understand the decision to stop the process.

“I just want fluoride in the water for everybody,” she said. “I think it’s one of the best ideas we’ve ever had.”

Kari Plog: 253-597-8682
kari.plog@thenewstribune.com
@KariPlog

 

JLSS:

Dear Dr. Slott and Dr. Johnson,

As such highly respected and well educated dentists I am sure that you are very well aware that certain of your patients are allergic and/or sensitive to certain drugs and/or materials that are used in dentistry. Please answer each and every question–

1. When a new patient comes to your office for treatment do you have them fill out a questionnaire first so you can identify which drugs and/or materials a patient is allergic and/or sensitive to? Yes or No

2. Would you just go ahead and treat them without having this vital information in advance? Yes or No

3. If you answered “Yes” to 2., what would the legal and moral implications of your doing this be? Please Explain

4. If you answered “No” to 2, why you would not do it? Please Explain

5. If a patient discloses to you that they are allergic and/or sensitive to a certain drug and/or material what do you do? Would you go ahead and use it anyway since most of your other patients tolerate the drug and/or material? Yes or No

6. If you answered “Yes” to 5, why would you think it would be legally and ethically all right for you to do so? Please Explain

7. If you answered “No” to 5, is it because you could inflict harm and even possibly kill the allergic/sensitive patient? Yes or No

8. If you never met me would you come to my house and without knowing my medical history and which drugs and/or materials I am allergic and/or sensitive to force me to ingest or apply to my skin a drug and/or material? Yes or No

9. If you would do such a thing why would you think it was safe or ethical to do so? Please Explain

10. If you would not do such a thing why wouldn’t you? Please Explain

11. Would you urge anyone else to come to my house and do that to me? Yes or No

12. If not why not? Please Explain

13. As dental professionals are you aware that allergic/sensitive reactions to various drugs and/or materials can vary from individual to individual and that different people can exhibit different reactions. For example one person could get nauseated or another could become dizzy or another may suffer a fatal episode of Anaphylaxis? Yes or No

14. Considering that approximately 1% of the population is allergic/sensitive to fluoride do you think that segment of the population ought to be forced to ingest artificially fluoridated water and to apply it to their skin which results in dermal absorption–for example every time they wash their hands or take a shower? Yes or No

15. I am one of those people who are deathly allergic/sensitive to fluoride. In my case exposure to artificially fluoridated water results in serious and potentially fatal reactions. I do not have to drink it to suffer these symptoms–simple dermal exposure results in my suffering the same reactions because it is absorbed directly through the skin and is disseminated systemically. Do you think I should be forced to have fluoridated water? Yes or No

16. If you answered “Yes” why do you think so? Please Explain

17. If you answered “No” why do you think so? Please Explain

18. Knowing that a certain segment of the population is allergic/sensitive to fluoride do you believe that it is ethically and legally permissible for you to publicly proclaim that artificial fluoridation is safe without providing a qualifying statement that it is harmful to a certain segment of the population? Yes or No

Of course artificial fluoridation has numerous other detrimental systemic health effects–for instance on the thyroid, kidneys, brain, bones etc. However I want to confine my questions and your answers to just this one specific aspect–that of allergy/sensitivity to fluoride.

I do not want my time wasted with proclamations of the prevalence of fluoride such as the amounts of calcium fluoride found in nature. Nickel is also a common naturally occurring and widely prevalent element yet is well known to be a strong allergic sensitizer. For example almost all of us know someone who cannot wear jewelry which contains nickel. Hopefully neither of you would be so incompetent so as to place a nickel based crown, for example, into the mouth of a patient with nickel sensitivity and then when the patient reacted badly proclaim that it did not matter that you had acted in such a reckless manner because nickel is such a prevalent element that the patient could not avoid it completely.

Thus please confine your answers to the specific above questions which I have numbered for your convenience. I am looking forward to reading the responses both of you will provide.
Johnson:

If you are allergic to fluoride, and have had this tested and verified by an MD, you will be written up in medical journals my friend.

Allergies to fluoride are rare to non-existent when you speak of anaphylactic reactions.  Fluoride is omnipresent.  You are getting it in all foods, drinks, and almost all toothpastes that are available.

Your statement of 1 out of 100 people being allergic to fluoride is very amusing.  Would you have a reference for this statement?

reference: ___________________

Sauerheber:

Your questions JLSS are good ones. The response is lacking. “Almost all toothpastes” is not all toothpastes, and rare allergies are not nonexistent allergies. Johnson has not accepted references in this discussion–he has demanded them and then denounced them. He refused to discuss the Sutton textbook. He denounced the work of Spittle, and of Waldbott, and of others who have published that 1% of people generally have fluoride allergy. Because he insists optimal fluoride causes zero adverse health effects, he does not accept that small chemical species can bind to larger biological molecules such as albumin and can become antigenic in those allergic to it. He denounced my 19 years of research work recently published in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health last week but without a single discussion of the actual data. He provided no scientifically valid reasons to denounce virtually any study that opposes his viewpoint, that fluoridation cannot possibly harm anyone or anything, the infirmed or healthy, at any time under any condition during lifelong exposure.  He ignored the increased morbidity documented to occur in kidney dialysis patients due to use of fluoridated water at “optimal” concentrations in hemodialysis units. He claimed to have superior knowledge about all things related to industrial fluoride ingestion. But yet any person in a fluoridated city who perishes, he defines as having not been perturbed adversely in any way possible from the industrial fluoride accumulated during its lifelong consumption, all without proof and in spite of data indicating: fluoride increases aluminum absorption, resides in bone permanently, and incorporates into atherosclerotic plaque in coronary arteries of cardiovascular disease patients (Yuxin, et al., Veterans Administration Hospital, Los Angeles, Nuclear Medicine Communications, Jan., 2012) . You can supply references and data, but they are routinely dismissed even though he provided no research data that he has conducted himself to back up the sweeping claim of zero adversity during lifelong ingestion in everyone at any time. He did not acknowledge and in fact denounced the difference between natural fluoride’s chemical potential in hard water compared to that in soft calcium-deficient water. He thus also argues that dental fluorosis is not an abnormal condition, but could even be a desirable one (even if you yourself want to strive to avoid it since it is unsightly and is abnormal enamel hypoplasia). You can send all the references and data you wish, but I encourage you to do so for the benefit of the readers, not for someone who routinely denounces data without stating exactly why the data are somehow incorrect.

 

 

Sauerheber

First you say fluoridation doesn’t treat people (it treats the water). Now you say its effective in prevention of decay. Soaking teeth in 0.7 ppm fluoride water cannot prevent decay. (If it replaced  soaking with soda pop, then I would have agreed with your claim). Swallowing fluoride water where fluoride enters the blood and organs of people does not prevent decay, but can cause abnormal enamel formation during teeth growth (not in adults) and bone fluorosis with weakening after lifelong accumulation.
Fluoridation affects people, it is ineffective in preventing decay, and it is harmful. That’s what everyone needs to know.
The chlorine/fluoride comparison that many fluoridationists use to claim fluoridation only treats water, not people, you still think somehow is MY misunderstanding? You simply ignore without comment the explanation I just gave. You as a dentist just happen to know more about it than I, as whatever you call me?
I don’t expect a dentist to talk about horses and I did not bring that up to “talk”. Re-read the context to see why the facts were stated–no talking is necessary or asked for.

If you want to talk about human fluoridation, and not horse fluoridation, fine. Doull dismisses Senator Kennedy’s son born in Boston after fluoridation started who later developed lethal bone cancer. As one of the rare lucky ones his leg was removed and he is still alive to tell about it. But of course you, Doull and the Boston water works all proclaim that this has nothing to do with fluoride ingestion because after all, everyone would have developed it. Biologic variability and genetic variation? Ignore it. Why did he contract it then you ask? None have an answer other than “it can’t be the ingested fluoride”. That’s like saying no car driver ever got killed by optimal driving or else everyone would have been killed.  So eat fluoride without fear of any harm to ANYONE, regardless of genetic makeup or infirmity. We as dentists, not lowly chemists, guarantee it.

Fluoridationist: The optimally fluoridated water used when kidney dialysis patients were killed (blood fluoride levels match that in the water for hemodialysis) was not the fault of water fluoridation. Fluoridation doesn’t treat people–it merely treats the water, like chlorination only treats the water (these are the words of dentists in this discussion). So those cases don’t count as strikes against fluoridation.

Rational human being: With your definition, that fluoridation doesn’t treat people, any adversity from ingesting treated water is thus defined as not being the fault of fluoridation.
Quite convenient.
Therapy? Here is what YOU, not me, introduced, the notion that somehow chlorination may be compared to fluoridation:

Steve:  “There is no fluoride treatment of people occurring as a result of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. Just as there is no chlorine treatment of people occurring as a result of water chlorination.”

Here is my response:  The two procedures are not related in the slightest. Yes, chlorine does not treat people.  But fluoride is added for the purpose of treating teeth in humans. It may be compared to the use of Luride sodium fluoride tablets also swallowed to treat teeth. The latter requires a prescription and yet is not approved by the FDA and is not considered necessary by Medicare.

Now you say I have a hangup comparing chlorine to fluoride. What?

You constantly say I’m not a dentist but a “chemist” and so I cannot speak about fluoridation.  Ridiculous.

Even though you are a dentist, not a medicinal chemist or internist, I in turn could claim you have no right to speak about the internal effects of swallowed fluoride.

Between the two of us, I think I know which one needs the mental therapy that you claim is needed.

I didn’t have time to answer the challenge posed by Johnson until now on holiday time. And the denigration of Dr. Connett by dentist Steve.
The Johnson challenge cannot be answered because the question is a false trap. There is no publication that could ever prove that a fluoride ion in one compound is not identical to that in another compound. Everyone knows they are structurally identical. So you again misunderstand like Steve does. It’s not the identical structure to which I refer but the difference in function, the activity of the ion always being determined by the electrostatic forces from the ions that coexist in the solution. For that there are references, such as any Physical Chemistry text. Calcium does not eliminate absorption, it reduces it commonly around 4 fold over the varying degrees of hardness in U.S. water supplies. Those who develop significant fluorosis on calcium fluoride water do so only when the level of fluoride is correspondingly higher, above 2 ppm, than that for industrial fluoride in soft water. which occurs even below 1 ppm, because calcium minimizes uptake. Ingesting 25 grams of industrial fluoride causes the same stage of bone fluorosis as 120 grams of natural fluoride. OK now?
Steve, Paul Connett is a personal friend of mine and what you may not know is that he does the very best possible that anyone could do to assess the whole truth about fluoride toxicology in this mess we are in where we have no controlled clinical trials data.  He does a fine job in his book. Do you also denounce his two coauthors, one a good physician with knowledge in his head that you are unaware of by your own admission having not read the book? Just like the Sutton book you denounce without reading it?  Peer review is fine but often overrated because peers can also be biased. We have the same problem with NIH grant applications. Peer review is the system we must use, but far too many grants go unapproved unjustly from hatred and personal biases in the peer review system. It’s not immune I can assure you.
One hour ago I was kindly invited to be a reviewer for the British Journal of Medicine. That’s quite an honor I think. But I’ve been considering your thoughts Steve about me not being a dentist and thus “unable” to comment on many issues. After some reflection I have decided that I will accept the invitation because we all need to understand that it is not lack of effectiveness on caries that is the reason people everywhere oppose “fluoridation”. If it were that, I wouldn’t bother. The issues are exclusively medical that provide the defining necessity to oppose it, unrelated to its dental ineffectiveness.  It will take much of my free time but it is something that should be done for England (nonfluoridated mostly) as well as us here in the ex-colonies. After all, we are no longer enemies as on the original July 4th and in fact we are great allies now as you know.    But thanks nevertheless Steve for your interesting thoughts.

Europe other than Southern Ireland does not fluoridate their precious plain water supplies, so I expect to be treated more objectively by the British journals than here. Most journal editors here believe what fluoridationists claim regarding lifelong safety through intimidation and anecdotal evidence and do not wish to enter into discussions on the F word. I know of no NIH grants for example studying bone fluoride incorporation mechanisms, regions where it deposits, or how potentially reversible it might be to treat people with osteomalacia or osteosclerosis, etc. And yet fluoridationists controlling our water districts still cause people to continue accumulating the foreign material.
A rational human and a fluoridationist choose opposite choices when given the choice of drinking water from a clean pristine source, or from a city water supply treated with industrial fluoride lacking calcium.  It is interesting also that horses in Pagosa Springs consistently chose to eat snow when available rather than fluoridated city soft water. They were killed anyway after nine years from fluorosis caused by the treated soft water because horses in the heat consume 30 gallons of water daily and when it’s all soft treated water with zero protective calcium and grazing is not available, that’s what happens to your “harmless optimal fluoride” when in soft water. Pagosa Springs of course halted “optimal fluoridation” by order of the citizens thereafter. Other cities are not so fortunate and remain subject to taking toothpaste chemicals internally lifetime under the cover of sweeping absurd claims of Doull of ‘safety for all’. And horses by the way have no outer layer of enamel so neither Doull nor any dentist can claim water fluoride is required in a horse, all while horses consume it in So CA when residing in cities if well water is unavailable. Thank God for at least a little hardness at 60 ppm calcium here.
Sadly, the claim that no one has been harmed from optimal fluoridation practiced in the U.S. is an absurdity.  The early fluoridationist Newbrunn in his textbook Fluorides and Dental Caries discussed the rate of accumulation of fluoride from 1 ppm in water (without fluoride toothpaste) into bone over the age of the consumer (data in humans, not beakers).  Doull and you have decided this is acceptable and should not be classified as harmful, though none of you realize that calcium mobilization from bone that is fluoridated differs from mobilization from normal bone. And you are making a serious claim when for example a mere 1% lowering of plasma calcium ion causes a 100% increase in parathyroid hormone to help maintain normal calcium levels to avoid heart malfunction.

Words have consequences. Millions are now continuing to accumulate bone fluoride even though heart disease is our nation’s number one lethal disease entity. So you as promoting advertisers for your cause are responsible for determining answers to questions that have not been answered, while bone fluoride accumulates, and our elderly are perishing from hip fractures that won’t heal. Who are you to proclaim that these deaths are NOT related whatsoever to the fluoride accumulated into their bone? You are claiming that fluoride somehow magically hides and exerts absolutely zero pathology in anyone during its accumulation. Wow. Where precisely then does the fluoride incorporate– is it in only the spongy bone anatomic regions where the bony trabeculae are interspersed with marrow? Or does it accumulate instead into compact bone that is not as readily exchangeable with plasma calcium for heart function maintenance?  No one has answers to these questions, but suddenly you guys are taking full responsibility by providing medical advice online by claiming fluoride ingestion has zero side effects. You are responsible for providing those answers, otherwise that’s what snake oil salesmen do–all talk, no answers or consideration of detail.  No one has any right to proclaim that morbidity from bone disease and bone weakness is unaffected by the fluoride that has accumulated inside them, typically now to 5,000 mg/kg in U.S. citizens after lifetime fluoridation.
Bush declared “mission accomplished” before bin Laden or even Hussein were captured. Doull also makes the nonsensical proclamation ‘the lifelong safety of fluoridation for everyone is safe’. What?
You call me a chemist as though I’m not a medical research scientist. What pray tell did I go to medical school for? To work with beakers so you won’t be upset?  You say beaker chemistry is not related to human biology, but I mentioned an example of the biologic cell to help you. Calcium levels inside cells are sub-micromolar because any higher and the cell is killed, any cell, liver, fat, muscle, you name it. But calcium levels outside cells in extracellular fluid must be thousands of times higher than that to maintain normal membrane function–even though all calcium ions are identical!

My 30 year research career did not center on “chemistry”. My publications were on the structural/functional properties of plasma membranes, the insulin stimulation of glucose transport, and diabetes (read just one please in Current Therapeutics, vol 44, 1988 for one of the best discoveries– in humans, not in beakers).  And yet because I’m merely “a chemist ” all my 40 publications in biology and medicine are worthless? In your wildest dreams. When a dentist makes sweeping proclamations with the single stroke of a pen about internal medicine — look out.
It saves folks pain and suffering? That’s insane. How did the American Indians ever survive without your industrial fluoride?  6,000 years of human history America’s waters were all deficient until suddenly 68 years ago 1945 the deficient water became corrected and saved us all from pain? You honestly believe that only the last 65 years have kids been able to have normal mouths because before that they didn’t have fluoridated water? Where are you from? This is a free country, the U.S.A., were people are supposed to be free especially from your useless fluoride in water and harmful fluoride in blood. My kids brains are more precious to me than to you, a set of dentures or otherwise. Yes you can fill the air with every false claim you want, but it doesn’t make it right. Freedom reigns sir.
Stick with dentistry, and you are not my friend. Fluoridated water has only been consumed for 68 years (which is less than a full lifespan) in a handful of people, those born in 1945 in either Grand Rapids, MI or Newburgh, NY who actually remained there at least until moving to another fluoridated city as they became available and only if they actually drank the water offered by the city. As Sutton pointed out in Fluoridation, the Greatest Fraud, Newburgh, the “gold standard” fluoridation trial, contained over 3 times more protective calcium in the water as did Kingston used as the theoretic control city. This is necessary information for the public because Health and Human Services still references that study as the reason why fluoride is allowed at 0.7 ppm. Absurd.

There is not one person in the U.S. who has consumed fluoridated soft water for 68 years unless it was done intentionally themselves or in a lab somewhere.  I do know of the fluoridationist who wanted to prove its safety by treating himself with sodium fluoride Luride tablets daily for many years without a prescription. On his death bed when his stage III fluorosis caused total immobility he opined “see, I’ve proven my point–and whatever this condition is I have now can’t be the fault of fluoride because after all, I’ve been taking that for years.” (Bryson, The Fluoride Deception).

I’m not saying stage III fluorosis is possible from drinking water–it only could be if other sources of exposure added to it. But what I am saying is that this is the mental thinking behind Doull. Drinking fluoride water for decades in most people produces nothing visibly obvious other than enamel hypoplasia, so when you eventually die it is assumed it had to be from something else–never related at all to the fluoride that you accumulated during lifelong consumption of treated water supplies. It’s as illogical and magical a claim as that made in Bryson–it is baseless.
I don’t enjoy any of these posts. It’s shameful that they’re even necessary. I didn’t back off anything. Eating fluoride all day won’t decrease dental caries. It has no human function and can’t possibly “do a body good.” There is no scientific agency in the world that claims systemic fluoride helps the body. This country wastes billions yearly on infusions that do nothing of the sort. I didn’t say there is a conspiracy. It’s simply people believing something that is actually false. Fluoridated bone breaks easier than normal bone. When you try to rehab and die of pneumonia is it not the fault of the fluoride? Thinking otherwise is a gross lack of understanding, but not a conspiracy. Get another life? With millions of innocent people accumulating contaminant fluoride? That’s OK. Have you even seen a human fluorotic leg bone?

 

Steve: Again, I’m not sure what is your obsession with the difference between the water additives chlorine and fluoride, but be that as it may, the evidence for the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation is abundant and clear. It is a shame that the citizens of Parkland will soon be deprived of its proven benefits, presumably due to the unfortunate circumstance of Board members of Parkland Power and Light having fallen prey to antifluoridationist misunderstanding and misinformation such as what you have displayed. Hopefully, those in the healthcare community there will be able to eventually overcome this irrationality and properly educate the Board members on the safety, effectiveness, and importance of water fluoridation for the good of all its constituents.

 

Johnson: Stick with Chemistry my friend.  Humans aren’t a beaker or a rat.  It’s a wholly different set of parameters when you look at a beaker full of atoms than when we look at a human body full of physiological interactions.

The big picture is where fluoridation comes into play:

1. Fluoride aids the teeth in fighting cavities.

2. It causes no health effects in anyone at optimal levels that we use in the United States.

3. It saves folks pain and suffering by reducing the severity and number of cavities that they’ll get without drinking fluoridated water.

Fluoridated water has been used in the U.S. safely for 68 years.  If there were any problems at all with it, we’d have known about it long before now.  So says the WHO, CDC, AAP, AMA, and ADA.

Not a single health effect has been found to be associated with Optimally fluoridated water in the United States.  68 years of fluoridated water in the U.S.  No health effects. Only benefits to those who simply drink it.

Fluoridation is endorsed or recognized by most major credible, scientific organizations in the world, including the WHO, AAP, AMA, ADA, AAPD, CDC, Mayo Clinic, and the Institute of Medicine.

Claim what you like.  Throw conspiracy theories at every passerby.  But the simple TRUTH and FACTS are that not a single credible scientifically recognized group in the world supports a single claim that you make about OPTIMALLY fluoridated water.  Not one.  Nada.

Enjoy your posts here Richard.  I’ll let you have your moment in the lights.  To “debate” you is to engage you.  That translates into your information being credible and on equal footing with the sound science that overwhelmingly supports Optimally fluoridated water.  And that is just not accurate.  Your group is based in science-fiction.  The science that’s fit for books, but not for peer reviewed scientific literature.

Fluoridation….It does a Body Good 🙂

 

Slott: Rich, I have no idea as to your hang-up with the difference between chlorine and fluoride water additives. I’ll leave that to be between you and your Therapist.

There have been no proven adverse effects of water fluoridated at the optimal level in it’s entire 68 year history. For clear demonstration of its effectiveness, one only has to look at the list of peer-reviewed studies in one of my previous comments for a sampling of those that are readily available to anyone who cares to make the effort to read them.

Fluoridation is safe and it is effective in the prevention of dental decay. That’s all that anyone needs to know.

Look, you brought up the nonsense of fluoridation and Medicare. All, I’ve done is point up how utterly ridiculous that was. Take it any way you want, i really don’t care. Again, the fluoride ions which are ingested, whether released from CaF, or from HFA are indistinguishable from one another. If you want to continue to make the argument that they are different from each other, fine with me. I don’t think you will convince many of that idea, though, as a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion.

 

Sauerheber: 1) Of course fluoride ions from calcium fluoride are identical to fluorides ion from sodium fluoride. Read my posts. And again, what is your point?

Perhaps you might grasp this: Calcium ions in one solution are identical to calcium ions in another solution. Correct sir? Of course it’s correct.

But what does calcium do inside the cell with the ionic environment there, compared to what calcium ions do outside the cell with the extracellular ionic environment that is out there? Do you know?.
Answer: calcium inside a cell is lethal when up to millimolar concentrations. BUT this same concentration outside cells are an absolute requirement for membrane structure and function for the cell to survive. They are identical calcium ions in both solutions. But so what? The toxicity is completely different in the two differing environments. Outside is albumin, inside there is none. Please try to grasp this.
2) The intent of fluoridation is NOT for the purpose of altering water. The intent IS to alter teeth that reside in humans. As you know teeth do not reside in water. On the opposite, chlorination kills bugs that DO reside in water. It does not sterilize bugs in people. Fluoride is ingested to be swallowed to affect teeth. Do you need proof? Fine–If all humans had dentures would it be necessary to fluoridate to alter the water?
Do you understand now why it is false to say that fluoridation may be judged the same way that chlorination is judged? A logics class might help.

Please clear your thinking. You claimed (not me) that chlorination which is justified can be used to claim that fluoridation is also justified. This is nonsense. You said fluoridation doesn’t treat people and is thus like chlorination that doesn’t treat people. What I said was the truth, that they are in fact polar opposites. Chlorination does not treat people, it kills bugs. Fluoridation does not sterilize water, it is added to affect peoples’ dental caries. Understand the difference now?  Fluoride IS intended to be swallowed. Chlorine is NOT added to be swallowed and is only added by necessity to make water potable. Fluoridation is NOT required to make water potable. And yet you attempt to claim they are comparable–that fluoridation is justified because chlorination is justified. That is a logic fallacy (of yours, not mine).

If you don’t take a PChem class you will get nowhere with understanding that free fluoride ion in solution when surrounded with calcium ion in solution has different toxicity than fluoride ion surrounded by silicate ions. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you but you’ll just have to try harder, I’m sorry.

Sslott: Look, you brought up the nonsense of fluoridation and Medicare. All, I’ve done is point up how utterly ridiculous that was. Take it any way you want, i really don’t care. Again, the fluoride ions which are ingested, whether released from CaF, or from HFA are indistinguishable from one another. If you want to continue to make the argument that they are different from each other, fine with me. I don’t think you will convince many of that idea, though, as a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion.

richsauerheb

Perhaps this example can reach you where you are.
A sodium fluoride solution with 1 ppm fluoride in one beaker contains spherical fluoride ions identical in structure to fluoride ions at 1 ppm in a solution of
calcium fluoride.  Correct? Correct.

Now, what is the motional speed of fluoride ions in the two solutions from Brownian motion?
Answer: the tendency for fee fluoride ions to be electrostatically attracted by
divalent calcium ions in solution is far greater than to monovalent sodium ions, causing motional speed to be far faster in the sodium fluoride solution.  Get it now?
Two identical cars, one speeding and the other at slow speed, which one can cause damage, remembering as you always insist that the cars are absolutely identical?
Does it now click? ionized sodium fluoride zooms and is assimilated well from the
gut.  Ionized calcium fluoride  at the SAME concentration of free fluoride ion does not assimilate well.  Calcium is the antidote to fluoride toxicity.
For two days you have changed the truths I wrote into falsehoods in order to have the luxury of denouncing not only me but my research article in JEPH, the whole point of which was to demonstrate this truth. Please help yourself and thus the rest of us who are subject to the demands of fluoridationists.

Fluoride is not the answer to caries. When you swallow fluoride you now have two problems instead of one, the caries and the ingested fluoride.

Thank you and again happy July 4th everyone.

I might send  some of these comments to the FDA in support of the fluoridation ban petition with comments from these dentists being anonymous of course.  The FDA needs to know how fluoridationists’ minds work.

Steve, continuing, the point of the Medicare statement is to make it clear that Medicare correctly does not consider fluoride ingestion to be a requirement for health maintenance. If only plain water is available, Medicare does nothing to pay for the desire of dentists that insist one must ingest fluoride. This is because fluoride is not a supplement as you have argued. Supplements are taken for metabolic health. If a person was dying of scurvy, Medicare covers treatment with vitamin C to spare him.  Medicare will not cover treatment with fluoride if a person has caries, because fluoride lack does not cause caries. Absence of vitamin C however is specifically the cause  of scurvy.  .

Oh please. The claim you just made that chlorination treats people is simply outlandish.  No one treats anyone with chlorine with the intent it be swallowed to achieve a blood level of a comonent in chlorination chemicals to affect tissue.

On the opposite extreme, everyone who injects fluoride into water has the express purpose of it being swalloed into the Gi tract where it is assimilated for the purpose of affecting teeth. Chlorine does not treat any human condition, it is a disinfectant that kills organisms outside the human so as to avoid them being consumed as live organisms.

Please use common sense.  The head of the CA Dept. of Health and Human Services, an outspoken ffuoridationist swore under oath in court in Escondido, 2005 that the purpose of adding fluoride into water is to elevate the fluoride ion in the blood of the consumer where it will drain into saliva for purposes of caries reduction.

The intent of chlorine is NOT for it to be swallowed to kill bacteria in the GI tract. It IS to kill foreign organisms  in the water before it is ingested, period. All who use it wish it could disappear afterward to avoid the ingestion of chloramines. No one who sterilizes water actually WANTS the sterilant to enter the human bloodstream.

But that IS the express intent of fluoridationists who forced Metropoplitan Water Los Angeles 2007 to infuse it for mass consumption–not mass sterilization, but mass swallowing.
Perhaps I was wrong, maybe you also need to take a class from the CDC offered by the fluoridation engineers on how and why “fluoridation”–ingestion of fluorides added into water– is still recommended by them.
The CDC removed from their public website the original claim that using natural calcium fluoride is the same as using fluorosilicic acid for fluoridation (after repeatedly informing them that this is false–calcium minimizes fluoride assimilation even at levels below the solubility product constant). They nevertheless still recommend fluorosilicic acid, NOT calcium fluoride in their quest to affect caries.
Of course the fluoride ion is identical wherever it resides–what is your point? The claim fluoridationists make at the OHD of the CDC is that there is “thus” no difference betweeen using fluorosilicic instead of calcium fluoride to fluoridate. You may have missed the pine cone analogy. Two idientical pine cones, one on a broken branch, one on a strong branch, which one do you sit under? They’re both identical so the fluoridationist logically sits under either one, they’re both identical. Can you some day get the picture?

Sslott:

No, Rich, again, you’re veering off into the nonsensical. I did not make the statement that “chlorination treats people”. Here is what I said: “Why would anyone think that EPA regulated water additives would be covered as a “treatment”? That would be as ridiculous as stating that “chlorine treatments of people through public water supplies is NOT covered by Medicare”. I couldn’t agree with you more. Raising the issue of Medicare coverage in regard to EPA regulated water additives IS simply outlandish. That’s exactly my point. But you brought up that nonsense, not me.Again, to my knowledge, the EPA has never said that “using natural calcium fluoride is the same as using fluorosilic acid for fluoridation” except in relation to the fluoride ions released by CaF and HFA, which are identical to each other, as are all fluoride ions. That’s the whole point. Fluoride ions from HFA which are ingested, are identical to fluoride ions from CaF which are ingested. This is where you still seem confused. While there is a difference in the amount of fluoride ions released into groundwater by CaF, due to its insolubility, versus the amount released by HFA, those which are released from CaF and ingested are identical to those released from HFA and ingested. The amount from HFA is adjusted in dilution such that the total concentration of the fluoride in the water is 0.7 ppm. As there is no way to differentiate which of the ingested fluoride ions are from HFA and which from CaF, and there is no differentiation in the behavior of any of the fluoride ions either before or after ingestion, regardless of from which source they were derived, your analogy of the pine cones is just more nonsense that makes no sense.

Richsauerheb: Cite the Kumar study?   If we look at the children say the 13 year olds after most all teeth have probably finally erupted, even for the children exposed to fluoride that delays teeth eruption, notice the typical result.  The decay rate values chosen for low fluoride vs. high fluoride were:
1.58 ± 2.13 (0.3 ppm fluoride) vs. 1.18 ± 1.89 (0.7 ppm fluoride). There is not a rat’s chance I would refer to an article containing data interpreted like this, as a “19 % decay reduction”. I’m a trained scientist, not a propagandist with pipedreams. I would never make a claim that two means were significantly different, unless the standard deviations do NOT overlap—period. I was trained by the best (Hastings, Benson, Wick, exceptional careful scientists). Destroy my own reputation and join you? No thanks. Read every one of my 40 research publications mostly in the diabetes and insulin action field and that is what you will find—no extrapolated claims from insignificant differences in means. Plus this study here is anecdotal where the author described the impossibility of calibrating the dental examiners who as Sutton always pointed out usually do not even realize they automatically know which kids were from fluoridated regions by grouping. It has no meaning to me. Try reading Teotia and Teotia if you like epidemiologic rather than controlled clinical trials (which could be done with volunteers mind you) or Sutton or Yiamouyiannis referenced in this article or especially the excellent analysis by the great statistician Ziegelbecker who correctly describe the Dean original error with natural fluoride in water.  Get a grip. Me cite this?  These error bars nearly COMPLETELY overlap and the “difference” has zero meaning.

Billy Budd   The first point, assuming you are talking about Kumar’s recent study was that it didn’t seek to compare caries with fluoridation status.  It showed that molars with fluorosis had fewer cavities than those without. See:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…
J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62.  The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren.  Iida H, Kumar JV.  New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY

This is an enormously important point regarding fluoridation.  As Kumar concludes:  “The results highlight the need for those considering policies regarding reduction in fluoride exposure to take into consideration the caries-preventive benefits associated with milder forms of enamel fluorosis.”

When Kumar’s paper came out NYSCOF and Connett infamously denounced it with press releases stating (for the reasons you give above) that the study shows fluoridation is “money down the drain.”Your similar citation of “decay rates” is merely a rehash of the 20 year old mistaken interpretation conceived by John Yiamouyiannis whereby the insensitive metric DMFT (Decayed Missing or Filled Teeth  the score used to measure “decay rates”) was combined with nationwide averages to pretend that fluoridation is ineffective.The averages from the underlying data in Kumar’s fluorosis is beneficial paper hide the truth of fluoridation’s effectiveness.The Pacific region then was fluoridated at 20%; the same amount as Oregon today.  In fact, the Pacific Region showed a whopping 61% fewer cavities in fluoridated towns.  There was a 0% difference in the Mid-West where most communities fluoridate. This geographic variation is explained by the Halo Effect.  Where most locations are fluoridated, small non-fluoridated pockets derive benefit from the neighbors it is in the food, beverages etc.The overall results were also age averaged.  The study only reported on the effect of fluoride upon permanent teeth yet included children as young as 5 years.  The so called 0.6 surface calculation was done assuming that all of the study kid had the full 128 tooth surfaces.   The 5 and 6 year olds had near zero tooth surfaces saved.  The data graphed  by age, shows about 1.5 tooth surfaces saved at age 17.   Sadly we don’t know the difference for 17 year olds in the Pacific Region.Clearly, by only considering the nation-wide and age average tooth surface saved, the truth of fluoride’s effect is obscured.  By using the DMFT or “decay rate” you use there is no difference.To know about this you must read the entire Brunelle and Carlos paper.  The Pacific Region results are in Table 9, p 726.  The clearest display of the dramatic increasing effect with age is in famous published debate between Dr. Howard Pollick and Dr. Paul Connett on p 323.  Connett says that 0.6 surfaces saved isn’t important.  Dr. Pollick discusses the matter in greater detail than can be done here.  Dr. Connett is the principal person behind the Fluoride Action Network.See: Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005 Jul-Sep;11(3):322-6.  Scientific evidence continues to support fluoridation of public water supplies.  Pollick HF.Please let me know if there is anything here I’ve not clearly explained.  This is a very important point in the fluoridation debate.  Time after time DMFT data (decay rates) are used to claim fluoridation is ineffective.This is a naive mistake made by those who have not taken the trouble to learn more about oral public health before opposing.

Sslott: It’s not of any concern to me what you do with Kumar’s study. I simply gave you the cites because you mentioned an interest in it. Whatever is your opinion of it is of no consequence to me. Take up your concerns with Kumar if you’d like. There are always varying opinions in scientific study and I imagine he would note yours, as I’m sure he does all who may contact him.

Richsauerheb Good, but you specifically asked me why I didn’t cite it and you also claimed that i must have “missed it”.  Now you say that is of no concern. Which is it? i get the impression you are not trying to get anywhere but instead are just stealing my available  time.

SslottAsked you why you didn’t cite it?? Rich, that’s almost as nonsensical as wondering why Medicare doesn’t cover water additives. Here is what I said: “Here is the Kumar study in which you expressed interest, followed by a sampling of the countless studies demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation. Evidently you must have overlooked these efficacy studies during your research of the issue.” As you can see, I stated that you must have missed the efficacy studies, not Kumar’s. and I did not state that Kumar’s study was of no concern. I stated that it is of no concern to me what you do with it. I’m getting worried about you, Rich. Your comments are getting more and more nonsensical.

Richsauerheb Surely you jest. A dentist is now arguing chemistry with a research scientist, OK.
Legal, useful chlorination has nothing to do with illegal useless “fluoridation”. Chlorine efficiently kills bacteria in water and is used for that purpose to sterilize water so it is potable. Water is fully potable without fluoride. Furthermore some product chloride is a normal blood electrolyte that has a required range in the blood for survival. But fluoride is not a mineral nutient or blood electrolyte, has no bodily function, does not sanitize water, and is not addded to make water potable. It is added to treat humans by order of fluoridationists in their quest to fight dental caries.

Where do you get your stuff that fluoride is like chlorine in order to justify its infusion? From fluoridationist literature?  The OHD at the CDC also claims calcium fluoride is “the same” as fluorosilicic acid in toxicity at dilute levels. Insane. I thought one of you dentists earlier admitted that fluoride “reacts differently with calcium than with sodium”. That was correct–fluoride is assimilated well in the presence of only sodium but is not assimilated well in the presence of calcium. Again, 25 grams of fluoride from sodium fluoride taken over a many-year period produces 6,000 mg/kg in bone. But 120 grams of fluoride from calcium fluoride over many years are required to achieve the same accumulation level in bone. And for any amount swallowed (including from “optimal fluoridation”) 95% of that retained is in bone indefinitely. No one yet knows its distribution between spongy bone with trabeculae and some marrow vs. compact bone but it is pathologic, not physiologic in spite of an extrapolation one would make from the Doull claim of “zero adversity”. Do you understand?

Sslott No, I’m not jesting, Rich. Not sure what would have given you that idea. No, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your statement that “Fluoride treatments of people through public water supplies is NOT covered by Medicare”. Why would anyone think that EPA regulated water additives would be covered as a “treatment”? That would be as ridiculous as stating that “chlorine treatments of people through public water supplies is NOT covered by Medicare”. Well, yeah, given that these are both simply water additives under the control of the EPA…….why would anyone have the nonsensical idea that Medicare WOULD cover them? Medicare is a government sponsored medical assistance program for US citizens at the age considered to be “senior citizens”. It is not a program to pay for water additives. Too, I believe if you will check local, state, and federal statutes, you will find that there is nothing “illegal” about properly administered water fluoridation. The EPA would not allow it if it were “illegal” in any manner. I’m not aware of the CDC claiming calcium fluoride to be the same as fluorosilic acid in toxicity in dilute levels. The only thing of which I am aware they have said in that regard, as have I on numerous occasions, is that the fluoride ion released by the complete hydrolysis of HFA at the ph of drinking water, is identical to the fluoride ion released by calcium fluoride into groundwater….which it is. Again, there are no proven adverse effects attributable to water fluoridated at the optimal level. I’m not sure what else there is to understand about that.

Richsauerheb Yes, as a non-dentist and very proud to be, I am able to analyze data objectively that many dentists who want fluoride to “work” cannot, as in your case Steve. The bone cortical defects in Newburgh were observed, absolute fact, not a “hypothetical idea that needs to be disproved” as you suggest.
The adverse biochemisry that fluoride induced in Newburgh residents also caused delayed teeth eruption, a fact. Dentists of course were delighted with this because missing teeth were counted as absence of cavities, the intended goal for fluoride ingestion. And voila–the false conclusion that “fluoride decreases caries” when it intrinsically does not and cannot. It’s the same as the claim that Cheerios “decreases cholesterol levels” when it doesn’t intrinsically. But it “does” if you replace hamburgers with the Cheerios. And voila, Cheerios is advertised that it can lower cholesterol, even though it actually doesn’t. Fluoride is advertised by fluoridatonists as though it can cause fewer caries but it actually doesn’t (Teotia and Teotia; Sutton; Yiamouyiannis; Ziegelbecker, etc.) It’s advertised as able to lower dental bills but it doesn’t because 1) it doesn’t prevent caries and canot directly affect caries (accidentally when causing delayed teeth eruption or tooth loss in elder years or enamel fluorosis where the bacteria commonly reside with an altered preference 2) it cannot lower dental bills if a person has no cavities that would require a bill, and 3) for parents who don’t want fluorotic enamel hypoplasia, to correct thier childrens’ teeth is expensive with all proceeds of course going to the dentists that caused fluorosis in the first place.
If to a parent fluorosis is not desirable, then why do they have to have water adulterated with fluoride and then pay as well to restore the hypoplasia they do not desire? And it IS an adverse effect because it is always accompanied with abnormal fluoride accumulation into bone where it does not belong and deserves the name given for the abnormal hypoplasia condition, enamel fluorosis, because the enamel is so thin there that it doesn’t even transmit light as normal crystalline enamel does. Who cares if it has a different cavitation rate than if it had been left alone to be normal enamel? (Do fluoridationists want all teeth to have mild fluorosis because then bacteria will have to live only there to cause a “slower” caries rate? Any caries that do occur (and they can) in such “Kumar-lowered caries incidence teeth” you love are far more diffcult to treat in many cases because of the fluoridated pulp that goes along with it. This is not speculation or a hypothesis that “needs to be disproven” either. Would you like me to send written testimony from dentist Dr. Heard of the famous fluoride-rich “town without a cavity” myth?  It’s just that typically-instructed dentists have chosen viewpoints of fluoridationists and can become fluoridationists at all cost even when though it always includes bone incorporation, blood fluoride where it does not belong, and enamel hypoplasia.
I, as an affirmed non-dentist and medical research scientist, do not adopt views of fluoridationists and most certainly enjoy plain clean water when it can be found (rarely possible though in our country since so many water districts are controlled by fluoridationists).

You and the OHD at the CDC would benefit greatly by taking a course in physical chemistry to learn the difference bewteen concentration of an ionic species and its actual chemical activity in hard water. And a course in clinical chemistry to know the actual components that belong in human blood. And a toxicology course with an actual lab section.

Sslott Well, again, Rich, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, as a non dentist attempting to speak to a dental condition about which you have such superficial knowledge as to not understand the effects of the different levels of that condition. As a dentist, I again tell you that mild to very mild dental fluorosis, the only dental fluorosis which may occur below the EPA secondary MCL for fluoride, 2.0 ppm, is barely detectable, has no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth and is not considered an adverse effect. As far as desirability of mild dental fluorosis, again, that would depend on the opinions of the parents of infants or children in the tooth development age range. For those parents who view the benefit of increased decay resistance of mildly fluorosed teeth, to carry more weight than any concerns they may have about mild dental fluorosis, then the effect would be desirable. For those parents who hold the opposite view, it would not be desirable. In neither instance would mild dental fluorosis be considered an adverse effect, however. Here is the Kumar study in which you expressed interest, followed by a sampling of the countless studies demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation. Evidently you must have overlooked these efficacy studies during your research of the issue. ——-J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62.
The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren.
Iida H, Kumar JV. Source. Bureau of Dental Health, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY 12237, USA. 1). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm… 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 2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu… 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. 3). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu… 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. joej.mullen@hse.ie 4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu… Abstract

The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars. —-Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8. Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation. Murray JJ. Source Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. 5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu… CONCLUSIONS:
Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities. —-Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.  Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR. Source Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. jrlauris@fob.usp.br 6) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…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. Source Newcastle University, UK. andrew@rugg-gunn.net 7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm… 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 8) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu… 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.
Source Oral Health Services Research Centre, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland. 9) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…  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.
Source Oral Health Research Institute, Indianapolis, IN 46202-2876, USA. 10). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu… 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.
Source Department of Preventive Dentistry, Fukuoka Dental College, Fukuoka, Japan. tutuia@college.fdcnet.ac.jp

Richsauerheb  Of course they do. They trust the word of dentists. But none of these organizations has conducted trials or critically examined even the Sutton textbook that anlalyzed in detail the uncontrolled anecdotal “trials” such as in Newburg to determine any effectiveness of swallowed fluoride on caries or that health effects are nonexistent for all consumers, even the infirmed.  They are relying on fluoridationist dentists for that, who they trust must have excercised due diligence in doing so. Hence the endorsements. Endorsements are not data of proof. The National Kidney Foundation and the National Research Foundation once endorsed fluoridation. They most certainly do not now, knowing what is happening to the fluoridated  population.

So what exactly is your point? None of these agencies forces water district officials to dump fluorides into water supplies, corrupting water with the claim that somehow God’s water is not good enough.

Fluoride ion from synthetic compounds designed to be taken internally is appropriately NOT approved by the FDA. Fluoride treatments of people through public water supplies is NOT covered by Medicare.  One day the use of this unapproved chemical, intended to treat people through ingestion to elevate this contaminant in the blood to 0.21 ppm where it is not a normal blood electrolyte, will be litigated properly and to the full extent of Federal law. All monies collected because of false advertising– claims of effectiveness with total lack of any adverse health effects of any kind in anyone (again, Wow) — will be returned to American citizens who paid to have their own bony skeletons fluoridated. The casual and completely imprecise amateurish proclamation of Doull has no bearing whatsoever on what is actually happening and what will occur one day when justice takes place.   Happy July 4th to our country.

Sslott  The most common compound utilized to increase the level of fluoride in drinking water by a few parts per million, is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is extracted from naturally occurring phosphorite rock as a co-product of the process used to extract the other co-product, phosphoric acid, from that same rock. Once extracted, 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 diluted to 24% and utilized to raise the concentration of already existing fluoride ions in water up to the optimal level of 0.7 ppm, at which concentration will occur significant dental decay prevention to those who ingest it, while causing no adverse effects. At the ph of drinking water, HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated) into fluoride ions identical to those fluoride ions already existing in groundwater as a result of release from CaF, and trace contaminants in barely detectable concentrations so miniscule as to pose no risk whatsoever of adverse biological effect. After hydrolysis, HFA no longer exists, is thus not present at the tap, is thus not ingested, and is thus of no concern whatsoever. A miniscule few parts per million of fluoride ions indistinguishable from those already existing in water. That’s it. Fluoride added to drinking water at 0.7 ppm is not a drug. It is simply a mineral identical to that which already exists in water, which the FDA must classify as a drug due solely to its stated purpose as a therapeutic rather than as a disinfectant. As the EPA, not the FDA, controls and regulates mineral additives to water, it is the EPA, not the FDA that controls and regulates fluoride additives at the optimal level. As such, there is neither a requirement nor a need for FDA approval of use of fluoride water additives at 0.7 ppm. The FDA has no jurisdiction over any such mineral additives to water. There is no “fluoride treatment of people” occurring as a result of water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. just as there is no “chlorine treatment of people” occurring as a result of water chlorination. Thus it would be as ridiculous to expect Medicare to cover water fluoridation as it would be to expect it to cover water chlorination. The antifluoridationist tactic of intimidation through casting the spectre of impending legal litigation is unconscionable, and totally without merit. Antifluoridationists have repeatedly attempted the “forced medication” gambit in frivolous lawsuits filed by antifluoridationist attorneys, only to have had them summarily rejected each and every time by the courts. John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the 2006 National Research Council Committee on Fluoride, being called “amateurish” by a college science instructor is certainly laughable, but….to each his own opinion.

Richsauerheb Wrong again. The EPA relinquished all oversight of water additives decades ago. Additives are chemicals added to treat water for sanitation, not supplements that treat people through ingestion. Read the Federal Register. The EPA regulates contaminants, including fluoride when naturally present or when accidentally spilled into water. EPA does not have jurisdiction to regulate chemicals intentionally infused into water to treat humans. EPA cannot request any such infusion because of the Safe Drinking Water Act (you can contact the Office of Water, U.S. EPA yourself), but does have employees that are unaware of this and advise water chemists on how to fluoride (everyone knows this).  But nevertheless supplements taken internally for any health purpose in humans, whether sprayed in the air, mailed to homes, or added into foods or water, are by Congressional decree the jurisdiction of the FDA.  Again, where do you get your stuff, the trade organization known as the American Dental Association, where?

Sorry Steve, but what you say is incorrect. Mottling is not at zero incidence in regions with less than 2 ppm. Even the original studies in Texas written by McKay disagree with that and the last I checked he was a dentist. It is not Webster who is being misinterpreted. Detectable fluorosis is abnormal at any level and it is a condition because it is abnormal no matter how mild. This is old news, known since 1943 as published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Sept 18,1943) stating abnormal enamel hypoplasia labeled mottling occurs at 1 ppm fluoride in water. Do you have something against JAMA so they “must be wrong” and you and Doull are “right”?

What you don’t understand as a dentist is that supplying a single dose of a toxic agent causes variable effects even in a controlled setting with caged mammals. Giving the LD50 of a poison leaves 50% that do not perish and perhaps 1/3 of that present with no readily observable symptoms. Likewise, adding 1 ppm fluoride in water affects groups very much differently with some being significantly affected, some less so, and others where no detectable effect may even be seen or known. But no one has the right to claim that in those without visible symptoms that there is no adversity at all as though you just happen to be a magician. That is a false claim that is beyond the capability of the test, even though it is well controlled.
Below 2 mottling is not zero. More importantly, you have no right to claim that no other adverse health effects occur at an “optimal” level when you do not and cannot know it. People who do not present with visible symptoms does not demonstrate that. Bone uptake is substantial before even X-rays can detect its abnormal presence (known since the Roholm papers).

And by the way have you ever been to a kidney ward? Did you or Doull witness the events that occur when people without kidneys were infused with fluoridated water directly into their dialysis unit for chronic periods? I think not, or Doull would not left common sense to proclaim that there are zero adverse health effects with fluoridated water for everyone.

Happy July 4th. I believe it stands for our freedoms which include the right to have access to plain clean drinking water. Freedom to have plain water though is gone in most U.S. cities because of false information spread on industrial fluorides. July 4th is not freedom to have a free-for-all to fluoridate the American bloodstream with a non-nutrient contaminant of the blood where it does not belong and then also have freedom to claim it is not harming anyone, anywhere, at any time because after all it is “optimal” contamination of the blood, which averages 0.21 ppm in 1 ppm fluoride cities (NRC 2006 p. 91).
You wish to claim I’m wrong and Doull is right. But not on July 4th you don’t. Most every voting God-fearing American knows the truth (Portland 5 times, 61 cities in Nebraska, and San Diego twice freely voted against fluoridation of citizens through water supplies) and the truth is being offered here free of charge for anyone who wants to hear it.

Sslott Again, Rich, you, a non-dentist, can continue to attempt to argue a dental condition with a dentist if you please, but mild to very mild dental mild fluorosis is a nearly undetectable condition that has no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or overall health of teeth. As Kumar has demonstrated that mildly fluorosed teeth are more resistant to decay, it is not even a surety that mild fluorosis is undesirable, much less an adverse effect. As a dentist, I can tell you that in 32 years of practicing in a fluoridated community, surrounded by fluoridated communities, I have as yet to see any detectable cases of dental fluorosis that can be in any way attributed to the miniscule amount of fluoride ions in fluoridated water. Two pediatric dentists who practice in my same area say exactly the same as does one in a large city to my South. Anecdotal sure, but anecdotal coming from a dentist with 32 years of experience treating tens of thousands of patients. Dental fluorosis is simply not an issue of concern with fluoridated water, in spite of the best efforts of you and other such unqualified antifluoridationists to make it so. Absent any concrete evidence that there is an adverse effect at the optimal level, your attempting to argue that this has not been proven, is a ridiculous absurdity. This tactic of demanding proof of a negative has been a favorite tactic of antifluoridationists for decades, and it holds no validity whatsoever. Prove there to be evidence of a problem at the optimal level, and your demands for proof may then take on a measure of credibility. Until then, that nonsense is nothing more than another transparent attempt to mislead. Also, again, you may continue to argue that your opinions on fluoride supercede those of John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride, if you wish. Readers are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions on that.

Richsauerheb First, enamel hypolasia induced by fluoride ingestion is not a desirable goal for any dentist I know. All the dentists I know banned synthetic fluoride from their practices decades go. Any dentist that holds the view that fluorosis enamel defects are of “no concern” miss the point and I would never frequent their establishments.  Second, the claim that bone incorporation of fluoride that always accompanies enamel fluorosis is acceptable is an opinion, it is not a fact. Dentists are not quailfied or authorized to provide health information that only an internist can legally offer. Doull’s and your interpretation of the Newburgh fluoridation trials is dental opinion, not medicine. Sutton demonstrated clearly that the calcium level in Newburgh is 300% higher than the city used as a control, Kingston, NY. This is the very reason the bone cortical defects observed in fluoridated Newburgh children were not more extensive than they were. And the reason that fluorosis was not more extensive than it was.   Oh but I forgot, fluorosis to you in teeth is merely cosmetic and of no concern and in bone ‘does not exist’ because Duoll said there are ‘no adverse health effects’ from consuming fluoride water lifetime in anyone (Wow). So bone alterations due to fluoride-induced micro-canals of osteoclastic action are of little concern to you or Doull. But I am on a very different wavelength because it is a definite problem for victims of fibromyalgia, osteoporosis, and osteomalacia.   I am not a dentist–of course. Why should I be?  And you are not a physician or a medical research scientist. I fail to see your point.

Sslott Well, Rich, in the 68 year history of water fluoridation, there has been no proof of any of the hypotheses you present, to be attributable to water fluoridated at the optimal level. Your position of raising different possibilities then demanding proof that they do not occur is, of course, ridiculous, in the absence of valid evidence of their occurrence at the optimal level. But, this is typical of the nonsensical arguments that antifluoridationists have been attempting to make for decades. Certainly continue to make them if you wish. Again, you, a non-dentist, may continue to argue about a dental condition, with a dentist. As a dentist, I tell you that mild to very mild dental fluorosis, the only dental fluorosis which may occur below the EPA secondary MCL for fluoride, 2.0 ppm, is barely detectable, has no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth and is not considered an adverse effect. As far as desirability of mild dental fluorosis, that would depend on the opinions of the parents of infants or children in the tooth development age range. For those parents who view the benefit of increased decay resistance of mildly fluorosed teeth, to carry more weight than any concerns they may have about mild dental fluorosis, then the effect would be desirable. For those parents who hold the opposite view, it would not be desirable. In neither instance would mild dental fluorosis be considered an adverse effect, however. Please feel free to continue to argue that your opinion supersedes that of John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride. Intelligent readers can make their own assessments on that.

Richsauerheb The Doull statement is incredibly weak and a simplistic summary of the issue.  Fluoride ingestion is always accompanied with uptake into bone by ion exchange, the extent determined by water hardness since calcium inhibits fluoride assimilation. That is a pathologic effect and osteoblasts are stimulated unaturally as a result of the insult. Doull has no right to claim that no adverse health condition results as though this is the case for all persons, even those with bone disease such as osteoporosis, osteomalacia, or other metabolic bone disease with abnormal PTH and calcitonin with abnormal osteoclast and osteoblast activity already. He cannot claim that patients lacking kidneys have no adverse effects from optimal fluoride. In fact the statement is of very little clinical use.

I work with health care gives for patients with terminal cancers who cannot have blood exposure to any fluoride and in a fluoridated city this is a significantly difficult undertaking. I feel for kidney physicians at dialysis wards who after fluoridation started had to take time to become water purification experts to protect patients from excess morbidity. Dull mentions  nothing of this in his sweeping claim.
Blood electrolytes can remain normal at “optimal fluoride” levels in water except for the fact that fluoride is not a blood electrolyte– it is a contaminant ion. Calcium levels can remain normal but only at the expense of activated mechanisms to maintain it, including alterations in microstructure of bone and activity of PTH.  Doull proclaims by inference that since electrolytes are within normal ranges, that there are no adverse health consequences of optimal fluoride ingestion. Nonsense. He fails to appreciate the work required by organ systems to achieve this normality in the face of dilute fluoride poisoning of the bloodstream.
I chose not to be a dentist. So what? You claim this proves I have no useful understanding of dental effects of fluoride? I know many people who are not physicians who know far more about diabetes than many diabetologists. They are human beings themselves and can study the issue like any human can when they want the truth. And I am a human being and have the same rights to discuss fluoride induced abnormality whether on teeth or any other organ.  I am not forcing the chemical treatment of anyone–industrial fluoridationists are, who then hide behind the non-interpretable vague claim by Doull for protection, regardless of who is harmed or affected. No one can take a theoretic average person and claim that absence of gross disease caused by fluoride in an average man means that the entire spectrum of billions of people on earth will all exert zero adverse health effects as well. Biologic variability among humans is vast and even includes allergy to the miniscule fluoride ion in a small fraction of people. I deal with people daily who have reactions to fluoride in water particularly when the source water is soft and calcium deficient. The Doull claim that there are no adverse health effects whatsoever from industrial fluoride ingestion from optimal treated water? Nuts.

Sslott If you will reread my comment you will note that I stated that you “are certainly welcome to your opinion on mild dental fluorosis”. If you, a non-dentist, want to argue with dentists about a dental condition, please go right ahead. I’m telling you that mild dental fluorosis is not an adverse condition. If you can convince readers that you know more about dental conditions than dentists, then fine. Same with Doull. If you want to attempt to convince readers that you know more about fluoride than John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the 2006 NRC committee on Fluoridation, well, then go for it.

Richsauerheb There are no “experts” and that includes me and that includes Doull. Every person who has ever lived knows things that no other person knows- – that’s nothing new– it’s human. There are things in his head he knows that I don’t and vice versa. I adequately commented on his statement and on what fluorosis is. Even Webster’s knows what it is and I quote: “fluorosis is  a condition caused by excessive exposure to fluorine and marked by mottling of the teeth and damage to the bone”  (College Dictionary, 2nd edition, 2005).  You can always pick a fight with Webster’s.

 But note the inaccurate part of the definition is that fluorine does not exist in nature or in anyone’s teeth or bones. Fluorine is the toxic reactive pure element. They mistakenly use the term fluorine for fluoride as many references commonly do. But at least they realize it is a condition that you and Doull apparently have decided not to acknowledge. I have a relative who has had to live with your “non-condition” his entire life because of Luride tablets administered by those like sheep who listen to claims that Doull and most Surgeons General have copied for 60 years now, followed by others who claim it was somehow “his fault”. How many jobs do people lose because of unsightly teeth? Where are Doull’s data for his “non condition” anti-Webster’s claim?   Good day.

Sslott Well, again, Rich, you, a non- dentist are certainly free to argue with dentists over a dental condition if you wish. However, also again, the only dental fluorosis which occurs attributable to water fluoride concentrations below 2.0 ppm is mild to very mild, neither of which rise to the level of being an adverse condition. It is only when you get into the moderate range of dental fluorosis that any “mottling of the teeth” may begin, and this will not occur at or below 2.0 ppm. Actually, it is of no consequence to me whatsoever as to how Webster’s Dictionary defines dental terms, as I rely on more knowledgeable and authoritative sources than that for my professional knowledge. However, even so, it is not Webster’s fault for your misunderstanding of dental fluorosis. It is your inability to understand the difference between the levels of dental fluorosis, and which levels constitute an adverse effect. But again, if you, a non-dentist want to continue to argue a dental condition with a dentist….feel free. The same for fluoride. If you want to continue to argue that your opinion on fluoride supercedes that of John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride…..then please feel free.

Richsauerheb To both of you dentists who feel you somehow know more than toxicologists about water quality: You have in one evening dismissed a detailed text without reading it (Sutton) and you now attempt to dismiss even my research data as being “not peer reviewed”. Where do you invent these fantasies? You are actually asking me to alter the results of the experiments and somehow fudge the data to your liking?  In your dreams – I’m a scientist, not a propagandist like the OHD of the CDC who claim they have rights to control every water districts’ water in the U.S. with an ineffective fluorosis-inducing additive. Again, every city that adds industrial fluoride to water supplies has increased incidence of enamel fluorosis hypoplasia in children who consume the water. Again, there are no exceptions. The act of “fluoridation” is thus an overexposure to ingested fluoride.  There is nothing I can do to help you understand that other than the statements already made. Twisting it into acceptability for you is mental machination to justify the infusions you request that waste money on an ineffective procedure. I’m not interested in your desires, sorry.
My JEPH article was of course peer-reviewed. I also like open access journals since copyright ownership is retained by the author. This means I have the right to reprint the contents in whole or in part as needed, for example to help people such as you who doe not grasp its content. Much of the discussion was inserted because of the fact that the editors asked for information on the topic to be discussed. And yet you invent the story that it is somehow “not peer reviewed”. Dismiss the article all you want, it’s a free country. But I’m also free to announce the truth about the data and to correct your lie that it is “not peer reviewed”. And your false beliefs that somehow sodium fluoride and  HFSA have the same toxicity as calcium fluoride. What nonsense. Again, have you even read the JEPH article for its content?  There is a huge difference between concentration and activity or chemical potential for ions in solution. Take a chemistry class and inform the kindergarten child you refer to that equal concentrations of fluoride from sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride can easily be made in solution–but the activity of the fluoride is not going to behave the same because calcium in solution as a double positive charge (that fluoride more readily binds to than sodium when the solution is evaporated) interferes with the chemical potential of fluoride, its conversion to HF and its assimilation from the GI tract. The effect is huge. Sodium fluoride however is ineffective in altering the activity of fluoride. No difference in toxicity of calcium fluoride and sodium fluoride? Utter nonsense. Read your own dental journals you claim are scientific. In them you will see many articles indicating sodium fluoride uptake ingested with calcium-rich milk is up to 4 fold lower than fluoride assimilation into the bloodstream for the same amount ingested in the absence of milk, all at levels below which calcium fluoride precipitates. This is chemical activity vs. concentration in action. For someone who lacks this knowledge to control our public water supplies is absurd.

Your sweeping proclamation that claims that all stomach cancers in the U.S. and all ulcers in the U.S. have no relationship whatsoever to the HF bathing the mucosa in fluoridated cities is pure fantasy with zero data to back it up. I normally do not discuss science with people that make things up.  The information on this site was presented not for your benefit but for readers who need exposure to the truth. I need to get back to actual work.

Billy Budd  Actually Doull’s statement is clear and straightforward.   He is a prestigious toxicological scientist who led the most exhaustive analysis ever done on the impact of fluoride on human health.  I’ll just repeat it:

“I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.”   . . John Doull PhD

Sslott Ok, Rich, out of fairness I’ve accessed your article and am in the process of reading it. I think that what you are saying about calcium and fluoride solubility is not relevant at the miniscule concentrations utilized in water fluoridation, though. But your paper does have more credibility than Connett’s non-reviewed nonsense, and I will give it fair reading.

Billy Budd Dr.John Doull an internationally famous toxicologist whose reputation was sufficient for the National Academy of Sciences to choose him for the 2006 study on the safety of 4 ppm fluoride in drinking water when he found out about the egregious out of context statements made by anti-fluoridationists stated the truth very clearly:  “I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.”  That is how toxicological science views the risks of 0.7 ppm fluoride in drinking water.
The toxicologist’s opinion is part of the overwhelming consensus that community water fluoridation is safe, beneficial and affordable.

Richsauerheb Doul provided no explanation for his implied viewpoint that fluoride belongs in human blood. It doesn’t. Therefore the statement may be referring to gross pathology or disease only as being absent, not abnormality in general. You would have to inteview Doull to explain his statement. The FDA, Dept. of Agriculture, and the National Kidney Foundation do not make such claims.
He provides no explanation for his viewpoint that fluoride accumulation into bone in an irreversible pathologic manner is somehow fully acceptable to him. The FDA ruled that fluoride does not strengthen bone after experimental data became available from NIH investigators. Claims from fluoridationists that fluoride in bone somehow “strengthens” bone were false.   He did not explain why he views that it is acceptable or even “normal” to have unsightly enamel fluorosis hypoplasia due to systemic blood fluoride from allowed levels in water.  He makes no statement about fluoride from other ingested sources–only fluoride from water. So the claim of absence of any adverse condition is an ideal theoretic only because multiple sources exist for fluoride. Moreover, in today’s very newspaper nutritionists are now strongly recommending at least 4 liters of water be consumed daily, not 2. The Doull statement was based on 2 and does not apply to any consumer who follows the new recommendation.
Tooth fluorosis is an abnormal condition so the statement is blatantly false regardless.  Neither Doull nor anyone else can change the definition of enamel fluorosis to be somehow not abnormal.
Of course Thiessen is opposed to artificial fluoridation. That’s because that decision was made by a scientist based on all available data. For example glutamine synthase is inhibited significantly at known blood levels of fluoride from 1 ppm fluoridated water supplies. The absence of a gross provable disease from the inhibition is not required for a scientist to choose not to ingest the material. The NRC publication merely confirmed that choice. And it’s a free country and she is allowed to make that choice in spite of the Doull claim.

Sslott Rich, Doull made that statement in direct response to a request from the Pew Foundation to clarify his position since antifluoridationists have so skewed his original statement to seem as if he is against water fluoridation. His statement is not for you to analyze, it is a statement that he sees no valid scientific reason to fear water fluoridated at the optimal level. Antifluoridationists have attempted to make their case based on theoretical “what ifs” and the effects of fluoride at high levels, rather than accepting the fact that there have been no proven adverse effects at the optimal level, and the “what ifs” have not occurred in the 68 year history of the initiative. Doull states exactly what we are saying….there is no reason to fear water fluoridated at the optimal level. As far as dental fluorosis…. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a nearly undetectable, benign condition that affects neither the cosmetics, form, function, nor health of teeth. As Kumar has demonstrated that mildly fluorosed teeth are more resistant to decay, it is not a surety that this is even an undesirable condition, much less any sort of adverse one. You are certainly welcome to your opinion on mild dental fluorosis, but given that you’re a non-dentist attempting to argue with dentists about a dental condition….. well, your opinion on this probably carries very little weight. You are talking about the properties of calcium and sodium, not those of the fluoride ion. Fluoride ions will react differently to sodium and to calcium, but the point is that they are the same fluoride ions regardless of whether they are released from Calcium, sodium, or HFA. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. It is the fluoride ion, not the calcium or the sodium, with which we are concerned in water fluoridation. See if you can somehow comprehend this.

Richsauerheb References abound showing industrial fluoride has caused acute lethality in man and animals but not natural calcium fluoride at comparable levels (Teitz, Clinical Chemistry, Blakiston’s Medical Dictionary, my JEPH article, Goodman and Gilman, the Merck Index). So could you please forward your reference that all fluoride compounds have the same toxicity when they ionize in water to the same fluoride ion particular concentration? I need to see a data set that demonstrates toxicity with natural calcium fluoride that compares to that from industrial fluoride in order to be fair here please. Data can be from acute, semi-acute, or chronic toxicity studies, you choose.

Sslott You are still in a fog about this. I’ll do my best to simplify it so that maybe, by some stretch of the imagination, you can comprehend. Water fluoridation is not about compounds. It is about the fluoride ion. Calcium fluoride (CaF, for short) gets into the groundwater by runoff over the rocks, in nature. It is in the water, naturally. We ingest the fluoride ions that are released into that water from the compound CaF. The toxicity of CaF is irrelevant. Humans have been ingesting the fluoride ion from it from the beginning of time. It does not kill us. Hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA, for short) is extracted from naturally occurring phosphorite rocks, diluted to 24% and utilized as a water additive to increase the concentration of the fluoride ions already present in water,, up to the optimal level of 0.7 ppm. Once the HFA is added to water, the ph of that water causes the HFA to immediately and completely dissociate. After that point, HFA DOES NOT EXIST IN THE WATER. Again: HFA…..DOES……NOT……EXIST…….IN……FLUORIDATED……..WATER……..ONCE…..IT…….HAS………COMPLETELY………..HYDROLYZED (dissociated). HFA DOES NOT EXIST IN FLUORIDATED WATER AT THE TAP. Now, as something DOES NOT EXIST, it’s toxicity is totally, 100%, completely…irrelevant. No HFA comes out of the tap because HFA DOES NOT EXIST, at the tap. As there is NO HFA at the tap, there is NO HFA ingested. As there is NO HFA ingested, its properties including its toxicity, are totally, 100%, completely, IRRELEVANT!! The only substances remaining in the water as a result of the hydrolysis of HFA, are fluoride ions and trace levels of contaminants in such miniscule concentrations that they pose no risk, whatsoever, of causing any adverse effects. Thus, the only substances of any significance, ingested, as a result of fluoridation, are the fluoride ions. As a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of its source, these fluoride ions are identical to those released by the “naturally occurring” CaF. The toxicity of CaF and the toxicity of HFA are totally, 100%, completely irrelevant. If this is still not clear to you, then please find a kindergartener to explain it to you.

Richsauerheb To J. Johnson,   I am not a “mathematics professor” although I have published articles that were necessary on the Calculus.  I am a medical research scientist that also has expertise in other areas. So what?
There are many false, poor articles in good quality reputable journals and there are excellent well done articles in open access journals. The data I published in JEPH would have also been unjustly criticized by you if I published it in the journal Fluoride or any other journal.  If it was in a dental journal you would have still denounced it even thought the experimental results are mine, done by me, and they are accurate.
Fluoride lethal endpoints occur at blood concentrations known to exceed the solubility of calcium fluoride. And fluoride converts to hydrofluoric acid in the acidic stomach. This disproves the EPA fluoridation fact sheet that water” fluoridation is safe” since HF does not form in water above pH 4. The EPA did not tell the whole truth, which is that at acid stomach pH 1.5-3 all the fluoride is in the form of HF after ingestion and is the reason fluoride gains entry into the bloodstream. I don’t care that the water district water doesn’t have HF, what matters is HF forms after ingestion. Like you, dental officials at the CDC don’t discuss that and instead broadly proclaim without proof that ‘fluoride is safe’ –even for people with ulcers or stomach cancer, safe for all even longterm, an incredible proclamation without credible evidence since no American has even been exposed to industrial fluoride water for an average human lifespan yet.
Who cares if the data are in an open access journal or not? I put it there so the general public free of charge can read it. Why is that wrong in your mind?

Sslott So, now, Rich, you are saying that everyone is wrong about HFA except you?? The CDC, the EPA, the WHO. the ADA……all are wrong because you deem them to be so? And you cite an article you wrote and submitted to an open publication, as a source??? At the miniscule concentrations involved, any HF which forms in the gastrointestinal tract,…if any does indeed do so at those concentrations……is of such a miniscule concentration that it is totally negligible. Were it not, then humans would have had enormous gastrointestinal destruction since the beginning of time from fluoride ions released by CaF into groundwater. CaF is not as soluble as is HFA, however, the amount of fluoride ions released by CaF into groundwater are at comparable levels to those which exist in fluoridated water as a result of the complete hydrolysis of HFA. Thus, were there any significant harm occurring due to any formation of HF in the gastrointestinal tract, there would be massive evidence of it. There is not. Again, water fluoridation is simply the addition of a few parts per million of fluoride, identical to that existing already in water, to water in order to raise the level of this fluoride to that which will aid in the prevention of dental decay.

Johnny Johnson Two things:  1.  Please present your literature on optimally fluoridated water that has been published in peer reviewed, credibly recognized scientific journals, like the JAMA, JADA, JAAP, Caries Research, etc. 2.  Calcium Fluoride, by your own statements made here, release at equilibrium approximately 8ppm Fluoride ions. Since fluoride ions are not different from any other fluoride ions (there’s only 1 type; you’ve not produced credible scientific evidence to the contrary), fluoride ions would hypothetically cause the same damage to individual no matter the source. Be it from food, water, fluoride supplements, toothpaste, mouth rinses, or varnish. Supply a single CREDIBLE, scientific, peer reviewed article by anyone which supports a single claim against OPTIMALLY fluoridated water that you claim.

They don’t exist, Richard.  That’s why you continue to ramble the same junk. Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS Pediatric Dentist
Diplomate, American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
Published author in the Peer Reviewed, Credible, Scientific journal of Pediatric Dentistry 🙂

Water Fluoridation is the Gold Standard for delivering fluoride to everyone in a community.  All that you have to do to reap its benefits is to drink the water. Fluoridation is Safe, Effective, and Cost Saving. Fluoridation is endorsed or recognized by the World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Dental Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, Mayo Clinic, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Please keep fluoridation in your town.  It benefits everyone from all SES groups, color, or education.   Fluoride.  It does our bodies good 🙂

Richsauerheb  Fluoridation is ineffective (Teotia and Teotia, Hileman, Ziegelbecker, etc.), unsafe (my JEPH article for one) and is expensive and wastes money–there is no dental cost savings if there is no caries reduction from swallowing the ion. I’m sorry.  Congratulations Parkland–I wish Southern CA would follow suit and stop wasting public money to get 0.02 ppm in saliva when toothpaste  is cheaper and systemic fluoride does NOT decrease caries but DOES cause dental fluorosis that is permanent or expensive to reconstruct.

Sslott Rich Provide specific citations for your claims that fluoride at the optimal level is unsafe and ineffective. Your “article” does not qualify as scientifically accepted evidence, no do any other non peer-reviewed article s by Connett, Waugh, or anyone else. Specific citations of peer-reviewed work that supports your claims, please.

Richsauerheb Nor can I let you get away with the claim that the NRC committee concluded there are no adverse health effects when water is below 2 ppm. What nonsense. Read the mere introductory lay summary on page 6 stating that bone fluoride levels after lifetime drinking water at 2 ppm is 4-5,000 mg/kg that exceeds the range typically causing stage II and stage III fluorosis. Stage II is very painful and stage III can cause total immobility.  And you denounce my claim that fluoridation contributes to our current pandemic of hip fractures in our elderly? You’ve got to be joking.
And why cite one NRC Committee member only to try to persuade your viewpoint? Why not also mention the opposite view held by another committee member Thiessen who emphatically states that even at 1 ppm, fluoride overexposure occurs in infants.

And Paul Connnett was given a very warm thank you by the NRC Committee on page xiv because Connett is a good chemist who knows what he is talking about and did his best to convey necessary information in the limited time available to the NRC.

Sslott Rich, here is the rest of that NRC statement: “The models estimated that bone fluoride concentrations resulting from lifetime exposure to fluoride in drinking water at 2 mg/L (4,000 to 5,000 mg/kg ash) or 4 mg/L (10,000 to 12,000 mg/kg ash) fall within or exceed the ranges historically associated with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis (4,300 to 9,200 mg/kg ash and 4,200 to 12,700 mg/kg ash, respectively). However, this comparison alone is insufficient for determining whether stage II or III skeletal fluorosis is a risk for populations exposed to fluoride at 4 mg/L, because bone fluoride concentrations and the levels at which skeletal fluorosis occurs vary widely. On the basis of the existing epidemiologic literature, stage III skeletal fluorosis appears to be a rare condition in the United Sates; furthermore, the committee could not determine whether stage II skeletal fluorosis is occurring in U.S. residents who drink water with fluoride at 4 mg/L” What this states is that lifetime exposure to fluoride AT OR ABOVE 2.0 ppm falls within the range ASSOCIATED with stage II and stage III skeletal fluorosis. It does NOT state any causation of these effects, simply that these levels are in the range ASSOCIATED with these skeletal fluoroses. This is one of the reasons for their recommendation that the primary be lowered from 4.0 ppm. They made NO recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Thus, again, there are NO adverse effects known to occur below the level of 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level of the maximum threshold (2.0 ppm) below which no adverse effects are known to occur. If you have any scientifically acceptable proof to the contrary please provide it. As far as Thiessen, she was an outspoken antifluoridationist long before her involvement with the 2006 NRC Report. Thus, it is of absolutely no surprise, whatsoever, to anyone familiar with her views, that she would remain so afterward.
Nevertheless, she, along with the other 11 members of this committee, signed off on the final report and its final recommendation. Thiessen’s concerns about “overexposure” of infants to fluoride are completely blown out of proportion. The only consequence of infants’ slightly exceeding the maximum exposure level as determined by the Institute of Medicine, due to fluoridated water, is the development of mild to very mild dental fluorosis. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable condition which has no effect on the cosmetics, form, or function of teeth. As Kumar has demonstrated that mildly fluorosed teeth are more resistant to decay, it is not even a surety that this condition is undesirable, much less adverse. However, for those parents who are concerned with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, regardless of the tooth strengthening benefit, the CDC and the ADA have suggested that they use non-fluoridated bottled water to reconstitute powdered infant formula, or to simply use premixed formula, the majority of which are produced with low-fluoride water. This is hardly a major area of concern.

Johnny Johnson Richard, 1.  Fluoride levels used in fluoridation in the U.S. have NEVER been set higher than 1.2ppm.  The current range is 0.7-1.2ppm 2.  The NRC Report evaluated fluoride levels that occur NATURALLY in the water in the U.S.  They did not study, nor were they supposed to study, fluoride added to water as is done in fluoridation. 3.  I you or I had appeared before the committee, we too would have gotten a very warm thank you.  That’s human kindness and respect. 4.  There have only been 5 cases of skeletal fluorosis in the United States in the last 40 YEARS.  5 Richard.  And it’s not clear if any of those can be attributed to fluoride levels in the water.    Trying to scare the readers here with those tactics aren’t going to be effective.  The science is crystal clear.

Richsauerheb The Connett thank you was published in their official report, and not necessarily simply a ‘courtesy’–such published ‘courtesies’ are not required.
Why do you insist on restating what the whole country already knows about fluoride levels? What you don’t seem to get is that adjusting the level with industrial fluoride has differing toxicity in hard water vs. soft water (without protective calcium) which is the whole point of publishing the data in the JEPH article and also why the Waugh discoveries in Southern Ireland cannot be denounced as you do. In fact common kindness and respect is appropriate particularly since he slaved over all that work for a very long time in an attempt to get to some truth in the absence of any data on caged humans in clinical trials that are unavailable.
The NRC report examined water with fluoride ranging from less than 1 to around 4 ppm and in some analyzed data on even higher levels to try to get some truth from observational human studies and from direct experiments in man and animals.  It has direct bearing on fluoride in water added to 0.7-1.2 ppm even if it was not the stated goal, because 1) many subtle effects at that level are elevated to be detected with significance at higher levels and 2) many of the studies were with 1 ppm fluoride water. All the data on saliva at 0.02 ppm and blood at 0.21 ppm and levels in bone and dentin are from 1 ppm fluoride water.
5 cases known, not 5 cases, there’s quite a difference when medical schools are not trained at all in fluoride toxicology and have no way thus to distinguish “fibromyalgia pain” from fluoride loaded joint pain such as is endemic in regions in other countries from naturally high calcium fluoride water. Again industrial fluoride is assimilated far more efficiently after ingestion into bone than is natural calcium fluoride –even though you choose to disbelieve that fact.    I am not trying to scare anyone. I  hate when anyone is getting lied to and that’s that.  Everyone in the U.S. has had enough internalized fluoride.Please give them a break in the uptake, OK? Is it simply too hard for you to leave Parkland and the rest of the world for that matter alone to load themselves as they wish with fluoride under your request, rather than requesting that everyone continue to accumulate more when most everyone has had plenty already?

Sslott Rich, if you and other antifluoridationists would cease posting unsubstantiated misinformation about water fluoridation, there would be no need for those such as Dr. Johnson and I to constantly correct it. Yes, of course you would like us to go away such that you can state anything you please without being held accountable for it. This is exactly what I keep stressing about Connett, Waugh, you, and most other antifluoridationists. You all publish or post anything you would like without being held accountable for accuracy. This is the reason for peer-review. It provides that accountability and forces those who wish their work to be taken seriously to be accurate and truthful. Connett and Waugh have sought to circumvent that accountability by publishing their opinions with no peer-review, although the only place Waugh has had his published is on his FB page. That you want to give Waugh a pass on accuracy is inexcusable, and is precisely the type of behavior which I constantly try to expose. Your willingness to accept Waugh’s non peer-reviewed compilation of misinformation calls all your claims and statements into question, thus destroying any credibility you have hoped to accrue. Acceptance of such sloppy nonsense as Waugh’s means that you are willing to say anything, regardless of accuracy.

Continue to pay heed to junk science and those who fear having their work properly reviewed, if you wish. But, until you begin to understand what constitutes valid, acceptable science you will remain uninformed and void of credibility. As long as you continue to post misinformation I will continue to correct it with facts and valid evidence.

Richsauerheb Of course the science is crystal clear. No Clinical Chemistry text, or the Merck Medical Manual, or any Nursing texts list fluoride ion as a normal blood component because it is a contaminant in blood that has no physiologic purpose. I’m a physiology instructor for God’s sake. And yet you want people to put it in their blood. It’s simply incredible to me knowing some of the most famous calcium research physiologists in all history including C. Baird Hastings who immediately instructed that any industrial fluoride has full solubility and is a toxic calcium chelator because it lacks calcium (God rest his soul). Why are you trying to label it as natural calcium fluoride? Just because a bullet outside a gun is identical to that inside does not mean any possible harm is the same.  LIkewise just because “fluoride is the same” does not mean its potential for harm is unrelated to where it is located.  That’s the same illogic idea promulgated by the OHD of the CDC on their fluoridation website, a rant promoting fluoride without evidence. In the natural case fluoride is not attracted to calcium in bone, in the industrial compound the same fluoride ion binds bone and irreversibly too. The ion is identical in both compounds but the toxicity is most certainly not the same. Why is this so difficult to grasp?

Sslott Rich, again, the fluoride ion is released into groundwater by CaF BEFORE ingestion. The fluoride ion is released by HFA into water BEFORE ingestion. The fluoride ion from CaF is identical to that from HFA, and has been ingested by humans since before the beginning of time. The fluoride ion from CaF and the one from HFA are indistinguishable from each other both before and after ingestion. Once inside the human body they both behave exactly the same as they are IDENTICAL to each other. One does not somehow go into attack mode while the other sits idly behind, or attaches to anything different from the other. Both are identical fluoride ions which behave identically. That you are a teacher of one of the sciences makes it even more inexcusable that you do not understand the difference between valid, peer-reviewed science and non peer-reviewed junk science. Get an education….PLEASE!

Johnny Johnson Wow, Richard.  And all I asked for was a credible, scientific, peer reviewed published work.   What did I get?  A gun with a bullet. Let’s try something a bit more wholesome……just give me the research that meets the criteria I listed above and then we can have a civil conversation. Lacking that, supply us with a single credible, scientific organization like the World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, or American Dental Association that supports a single claim that you make about optimally fluoridated water. Reference:  ___________________________________________

Richsauerheb  Fine. Try thinking of a pine cone that is on a broken branch above your head vs a pine cone that is on a healthy branch. One can fall and hurt, the other won’t.  Calcium fluoride protects from  fluoride assimilation, industrial fluoride does not. One is protected, the other is not. Why is this so hard?
Sorry but fluoride infusions are publicly NOT supported or are opposed by the National Kidney Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and the NRC committee members who have written such opinions. No one, not one?  The other complainer here thinks others deserve some respect. These guys don’t?   These are listed because you like authority by agency, but I don’t. i am a scientist and know full well where “science by authority or endorsement” can typically lead. I’m too experienced for such nonsense, sorry.

Richsauerheb I would trust a family member without an education far more than an educated person claiming I can’t have normal teeth unless I eat industrial fluoride. And I am not a “mathematician and chemist” simply because I have published in those fields.  I am a Christian who trusts that we should not tamper with plain God-given water supplies unless they are naturally contaminated with something like arsenic or high calcium fluoride levels that can have chronic toxicity over lifelong drinking.  My medical research for the last 42 years published in various journals has little to do with math or chemistry but involve the fields of diabetes and insulin action so I’m afraid you are barking up the wrong tree with your accusation. And what pray tell does this have to do with scientific fact regarding fluoride ingestion?

Johnny Johnson Richard, God made the earth, the stars, and the heavens above.  That I think we both agree on. I recently re-read Genesis in the Old Testament.  I specifically looked to see if God made more than one ion of Fluoride.  In the 7 days that he created all that is on the earth, there wasn’t a single mention of more than one ion of any type. If you’ve have in your possession a single piece of credible, published, peer reviewed scientific literature on OPTIMALLY fluoridated water that implicates it in even ONE (1) of your multitudes of claims, it’s time to put up: reference(s): [BTW, FAN’s websites aren’t credible, scientific, nor are they peer reviewed.  So let’s just avoid that conversation here and now.  Thanks 🙂  ]

Richsauerheb  I read Genesis quite regularly thank you. Of course it doesn’t mention two forms of the fluoride ion–there’s only one fluoride ion and Genesis doesn’t even mention that either. Why should it? There were no chemists creating industrial compounds that contained the fluoride ion back then.  Do you know what fluoride means? Read my JEPH article where the definition is provide for you.  I’m referring to the compounds calcium fluoride which in water are only ionized to maximum 8 ppm fluoride vs. sodium fluoride which is fully soluble to acutely lethal concentrations and beyond, that when swallowed are lethal, as in Gessner New Eng J Med 330, 1994 or in kidney dialysis wards where patients were killed from industrial fluoridated water that could not have happened with natural calcium fluoride –even though God Himself will testify that there is only one fluoride ion. It is the compound in which it is present that matters.  The ion is the same but the toxicity is totally different when in natural vs industrial compounds.  Please understand the importance of calcium. You want a reference?  Read Goodman and Gilman, The Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics, stating that natural fluoride minerals are not absorbed after ingestion but industrial fluorides of course are fully  assimilated and are toxic. Notice that is not me saying that– you have denounced me, but it is Goodman and Gilman.  OK?

Sslott Rich try to grasp this…, Fluoride ions are fluoride ions are fluoride ions…….REGARDLESS OF THEIR SOURCE. They do NOT behave differently once released from the compound in which they were bound. HFA is carefully adjusted by water treatment specialists such that it will provide the correct amount of fluoride ions to raise the concentration level of fluoride to 0.7 ppm. This 0.7 ppm is composed of fluoride ions released from HFA and from CaF. They are indistinguishable from each other. Once they are ingested, those from HFA do not mysteriously cause a spike in fluoride levels within the body while those from CaF do not. They both behave identically with neither causing any adverse effects at that concentration.

Johnny Johnson Additionally, no one is asking you to hook up a nipple to a bottle of HFSA.  That’s just plain foolish to imply that someone would be ingesting pure HFSA. Would you suggest the same foolishness for the chlorine additive that’s placed in our water? How about drinking pure ascorbic acid or phosphoric acid?  Think that those might harm you? Of course the straight products can harm.  Everything in too high of amounts can be poison, including milk. However, in the correct amounts, all of these things do us a world of good. The WHO, AAP, AMA, ADA, and CDC all endorse or recognize fluoridation for its benefits. NOBODY recognizes your claims.  Not a single credible scientific group in the world of the caliber of those above supports a single claim you make about optimally fluoridated water.  NO ONE. 1.  All of the materials that we have on earth were placed here by God.
2.  Calcium Fluoride.  God.
3.  Sodium Fluoride.  God.
4.  Hydrofluorosilicic Acid.  God.
5.  Acetic Acid (vinegar/salad dressing). God
6.  Ascorbic Acid (vitamin C). God.
7.  Phosphoric Acid (used in soft drinks). God. If fluoride isn’t absorbed as you say, how did we discover the benefits of fluoride in the early 1900’s?  Remember the history?  People had been exposed to the fluoride from the Colorado River in the concentrations that you refer to from CaF rock.  Their teeth had severe fluorosis. If they couldn’t absorb this “natural” fluoride as you state, then how pray tell did they end up with Severe Fluorosis? Please provide me with credible scientific, peer reviewed literature to support your claims.  Reference:  __________________________

Richsauerheb That is false, sorry.  There is no fluorosilicic acid anywhere on the natural earth. You’re big on references, so show me. And yes there is ocean water with 1 ppm fluoride and with sodium but it is accompanied with massive levels of antidote calcium. Salmon in ocean 1 ppm fluoride are unphased by it–that’s the way God Created it. But salmon are narcotized and cannot navigate upstream in fresh soft water in the Columbia when industrial fluoride from a smelter averaged only 0.3 ppm fluoride. It’s different between soft and hard water. The starting materials are here, but not the compounds formed by rearrangement by man. God does not request synthetic compounds be made and then diluted into water for human consumption, as though His water is deficient when it isn’t. And neither does the FDA approve any fluoride compounds for human ingestion in the U.S. thank God.    Of course fluorosilicic acid is not directly consumed or you would be dead. It’s LD50 is 125 mg/kg single oral acute dose. It is diluted into water and dissociates into free fluoride ion without calcium plus silicic acid which is the likely ingredient that dissolves lead form lead based plumbing. But in soft water the fluoride ion is assimilated more efficiently than from hard water with calcium.

Why do you think I claimed that intact fluorosilicic acid was being swallowed? Do you even read the posts?

Richsauerheb And do you really think the Merck Index is lying? You claim that fluoride from any source is the same as from any other source. Please consult the Merck which correctly labels all industrial fluorides including sodium fluoride and fluorosilicic acid as very poisonous and useful as rodenticides and insecticides, while of course making no such declaration for natural calcium fluoride. That is because calcium is the antidote to fluoride poisoning and the Merck Index makes statements based on experimental facts using the scientific method in all its rigor, not claims based on wishes and pipe-dreams from those who want science fact to be what they want. Fluoride is the Patty Hearst of chemicals. She without family, and fluoride without calcium its natural co-ingredient, are toxic. She in the presence of family, and fluoride with calcium, are not toxic. Why do you expect me to state otherwise and allow the general public to think for a moment that your claim has merit, that because fluoride is fluoride that all fluoride compounds must have the same toxicity? Absurd. Arsenic fluoride has an acute toxicity about the same as sodium fluoride (probably because sodium fluoride is more soluble but arsenic has additional toxicity of its own) and are you planning to defend that arsenic fluoride toxicity is identical to sodium fluoride because “fluoride is fluoride”?  Please spare us.

Johnny Johnson Conspiracy.  It’s a very nice way to wrap up what you don’t know and to use it to scare the beJesus out of unsuspecting people. Provide PROOF that fluoride ions are different.

Richsauerheb So I’ve proven my point.  You dismiss the superior Sutton text without examining it and without knowing it even exists.  This fits in with dismissing data assembled by anyone with less than a Ph.D. (Waugh) and yet also dismissing data published by a biochemist who on the other hand has a Ph.D. (Yiamouyiannis). Methinks you protest too much and that what we have here is a strong desire to reject data if it doesn’t fit a particular paradigm. My point was indeed this, that providing references would have been irrelevant, and indeed it appears to be the case.  Now you claim that below 2 ppm fluoride there are no adverse health effects at all according to the EPA SMCL. What?  There is dental fluorosis at any level added into water–even 1 ppm at which fluoride incorporation into bone is unavoidable. The very reason why HHS requested the level be lowered below 1, to 0.7 ppm was to help minimize just this obvious observable adverse effect. You can call it “not a health effect”, but it reflects systemic fluoride poisoning and is undesirable particularly since fluoride loading of bone occurs in anyone who has fluorotic teeth at any level mild or otherwise. And it demonstrates that even rock hard enamel falls prey to the ravages of fluoride. Expert bone physiologists and pathologists are not wrong and neither is the NRC report indicating that bone weakening occurs at 3,000 mg/kg, bone pain about 6,000, and severe skeletal fluorosis (rare as of yet in the US) at 9,000. Since fluoride does not belong in bone and is a contaminant of bone, any level of incorporation is pathologic, not physiologic and lowering it to 0.7 ppm will not prevent that. Parathyroid hormone levels double for a mere reduction in blood calcium from 2.5 to 2.3 mM (Guyton, Textbook of Medical Physiology) and thus ingested fluoride is not recommended for anyone particularly those with calcium deficient diets. Lifelong incorporation affects calcium homeostasis. Regardless of advice from dental officials or the EPA allowed MCL, I want to have any fluoride in my plain drinking water in my kitchen sink, particularly from un-natural compounds lacking calcium. And yet because of false information forced onto water officials I am denied that right in any fluoridated city.  Neither the EPA, CDC or even the NRC have noticed that 120 grams of fluoride ingested from natural calcium fluoride in water are required over a 60 year period to accumulate into bone to 6,000 mg/kg. This level of loading for unnatural industrial fluorides such as sodium fluoride is achieved with a mere 25 grams over several years because calcium is absent to minimize assimilation (NRC tabulated data). Your interpretation of the meaning of the MCL which is skewed. I care about people who are accumulating fluoride lifetime into their skeleton from not only water but also from other sources who need help in stopping it, regardless of an MCL that was set with the assumption it would still magically apply even after new sources of fluoride exposure were developed.   Of course you have also likely dismissed the largest study we have by Teotia and Teotia demonstrating that teeth decay is lowest in incidence in populations that have lowest fluoride levels in water with calcium sufficient diets and the highest incidence is where fluoride water levels are high with calcium-poor diets.  Am I correct about that?

Sslott My goal with you and all other antifluoridationists who post uninformed nonsense on these sites is to correct your misinformation such that readers, particularly decision makers, will be able to understand the fallacies of your arguments. I’m pretty well satisfied I’ve accomplished this with you. If and when you want to stop regurgitating misinformation you glean off of antifluoridationist websites, and properly educate yourself on the issue, then I’ll certainly be glad to have an intelligent discourse with you. Until then, you’re doing nothing more than wasting my time.

Richsauerheb  I am not opposed to natural calcium fluoride in fresh water as long as it is not above 2 ppm, for which the EPA MCL was actually developed.  But your requested brand of industrial fluoride I most certainly oppose and has very little to do with the EPA MCL. I put on my chemistry hat anytime one makes such an absurd claim as does the OHD at the CDC that all fluorides are  identical. Bizarre.
And why are you allowed to request that masses of people have their kitchen sinks contain fluoride-added water, when I am not allowed to request plain water be left alone? You can add all the fluoride you want to that which is consumed. Luride tablets are plentiful, go for it. I don’t alter your natural playground so why do you insist on mine being altered? President Kennedy insisted on the Clean Water Act mission section 101a, to maintain the natural chemistry of ALL U.S. waterways. Why do you fight against our Federal water laws?

Johnny Johnson Prove that all fluoride ions aren’t the same.  Prove it with credible, scientific research that’s been published in peer reviewed journals. FYI, open access “publications” for the information you’re presenting here isn’t peer reviewed, credible, nor is it scientific. reference(s):  Fluoridation…….It make your smile happy and healthy 🙂 Look at yourself, Richard.  You’re so hung up on the math, as a mathematician that you are, that you have no earthly idea of the scientific data that you’re speaking about. Try looking at credible scientific journals that reviewed the data by their peers.  Forget the textbooks.  Texts are for history and perhaps math.  But not dynamic science. Fluoridation is endorsed or supported by the World Health Organization, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Dental Association, and the American Medical Association. I think anyone with their faculties would trust these organizations before they’d place their health in the hands of a mathematician and chemist.

Richsauerheb  The data in the Connett text is not his. He didn’t do the experiments. Perhaps you should read it before denouncing it. It is actually a compendium of research work done by and published by scientists. Sodium fluoride is most certainly a drug–called Luride. The water district in Encinitas TODAY began adding useless sodium fluoride. Sodium fluoride is a drug, as listed in Goodman and Gilman, Pharmacologic Basis of Therapeutics, and in the PDR, and in the U.S. Pharmacopeia.  You cite the FDA incorrectly. The FDA ruled in 1963 correctly that fluoride added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug where dosage cannot be controlled. FDA ruled it is not a mineral nutrient. FDA ruled water used in hemodialysis units must not exceed 0.3 ppm because of elevated osteomalacia-type structural effects it causes in bone. Luride tablets are given by prescription only and without FDA approval and are not to be used by children when fluoride in water exceeds 0.3 ppm. FDA banned the sale of fluoride for ingestion by pregnant women in 1966. You speak of Connet without knowing much about him. You speak of the FDA likewise. FDA ruled that fluoride does not strengthen bone as fluoride promoters had hoped and even claimed. Read Newbrunn’s textbook, the fluoride promoter, to see the studies proving that fluoride accumulates into bone to over 4,000 mg/kg with 1 ppm natural fluoride in water over 60 years of time. It is far higher after lifetime drinking synthetic fluoride coupled with fluoridated toothpaste use as well. Then read the NRC report to see that fluoride induced bone weakening occurs at any level above 3,000 mg/kg. Please read critically, and then comment, not the other way around.

Sslott You have so much ridiculous nonsense in this comment that it would be useless to even try to address it all. Read my other comments, and try to gain some level of intelligent comprehension of this issue. Just suffice it to say that fluoride at the optimal level is not a drug, that Connett’s “book” is a non peer-reviewed meaningless compilation of his opinions, and that you are totally confusing fluoride at 0.7 ppm utilized in water fluoridation, with fluoride in much higher concentrations utilized in other manners. I know as much about Paul Connett as I care to know. I have told him on several occasions, the last being earlier today, that if he is so desperate for me to read his little “book” he can send me a copy. I’m willing to waste time reading it, but I am not willing to pay him for the “privilege”. If and when you might decide to properly educate yourself on this issue, I will gladly steer you in the right direction where you may obtain accurate information.

Richsauerheb When it comes to fluoride I don’t mislead, but dental schools most certainly do. Facts mean little to them and I will prove it. Respond to the vast detailed facts proving lack of effectiveness of drinking water fluoride written by the dentist and statistician Phillip Sutton in the large textbook Fluoride, the greatest fraud, 1986. The final edition’s factual statements have never been rebutted by any fluoride promoter to date.  Try reading the level of bone loading that occurs in 2 years from water with 1 ppm fluoride on average on p. 91 in the NRC 2006 report and examine the amount present in dentin where it does not belong and the useless amount in saliva seen on the table listing it. Try reading Connett The case against fluoride, 2010, and Spittle, Fluoride Fatigue, and Bryson The Fluoride Deception and Buck The Grim Truth About Fluoride and Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride the Aging Factor.  Try reading the original statutes of the Safe Drinking Water Act that prohibit adding any substance into water other than to sanitize water. Read Gessner, New Eng J Med 330, 1994 on fluoride lethal poisoning from a public water supply where 300 people were life-flighted because of an overfeed with industrial sodium fluoride where only 1 fatality (and luckily no more) occurred that would NEVER have happened with natural calcium fluoride because of solubility differences.  All fluoride compounds are NOT the same. But please do yourself a favor and start reading–but reading critically, not with side commentary provided by fluoridation promoters who deny fluoride allergy in 1% of humans and deny ANY adverse effect whatsoever from fluoridated water. Read the site by Declan Waugh in Ireland with massive references correlating adverse health effects from fluoridated soft water. Dental officials in the US should apologize immediately for what has been done to Ireland.  And you sit there and tell me I’m the one not being honest? . You are dismissing evidence without just cause and without proof.

Sslott You’re the one not being honest with yourself. As long as you continue to rely on misinformation you glean off of antifluoridationist websites, you will remain totally uninformed on this issue. First…… Declan Waugh is an Irishman who holds no degree above that of undergraduate college level. His “paper” has not been peer-reviewed, has not been published in any scientific journal, and has been totally refuted and discredited by his own Irish Government through its Irish Expert Body on Fluoride and Health. If you would care to see this refutation, it can be found: http://www.ilikemyteeth.org/wp…  Second…… I have neither the time nor the inclination to read unsubstantiated non peer-reviewed opinions of Sutton, whomever he may be, Connett, or anyone else. I obtain my information from reliable, respected and original sources. If any of the sources on whom you depend desire to have their work properly reviewed then I will take them seriously. In the absence of that, I have far more interesting works of fiction, than theirs, to read when I have the time. The reason that Sutton’s “work” has not been rebutted by anyone to date is, in all likelihood, because no one deems it worth the time to dust off any such obscure nonsense, much less read or “rebut” it. The same applies to the other antifluoridationists, Dr. “Y”, “investigative reporter” Bryson, and Spittle. Third……The 2006 NRC Report was an evaluation of the EPA primary and secondary MCL standards for fluoride, 4.0 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L respectively. This study was NOT an evaluation of water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm. The final recommendation of the 2006 NRC Committee was that the primary EPA MCL for fluoride be lowered from 4.0 mg/L, due to only one stated reason….to reduce the risk of moderate dental fluorosis, nothing else. The EPA secondary MCL for fluoride is that concentration below which no adverse effects are known to occur. This secondary MCL is 2.0 ppm. There was no recommendation of the 2006 NRC Committee in regard to the EPA secondary MCL for fluoride. Thus, even though all the disorders claimed by antifluoridationists to be a danger with fluoridation were exhaustively reviewed by this 2006 NRC Committee, the ONLY reason stated to lower the primary Mg/L from the current level of 4.0 mg/L was to reduce the risk of moderate to severe dental fluorosis, nothing else. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. or one third the secondary EPA MCL safety threshold for any adverse effects to occur. Additionally, below is a quote from Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee which generated this 2006 report. “I do not believe there to be any scientifically valid reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.” —–John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair 2006 NRC Committee Report of Fluoride in Drinking Water Fourth……Again, water fluoridation is NOT about compounds. It is about fluoride ions, and fluoride ions are identical regardless of the source. I don’t how to simplify this for you any further. Lastly…..there is no “denial” of adverse effects attributable to water fluoridated at the optimal level….. it is a fact. If you have scientifically acceptable evidence to the contrary, then please produce it.

James Reeves Of course, the power structure with the big money is the same in Ireland as this country. They quickly try to demonize anyone who dares to tell the truth about fluoride such as Dr. Connett and Mr. Declan Waugh, an author who has worked in a professional capacity as a senior environmental scientist in Ireland for over twenty years in management positions for industry, in research and development and in environmental consultancy. He has previously been employed by the EPA as a senior research scientist. He shows the increase in disease and death with fluoride. Just read the study here and you decide:
http://www.enviro.ie/Feb2013.p… look at pages 6,10 and 12. These 3 graphs will give you a good overview of the study.

Sslott Oh, save it, James. Why don’t you go paste that nonsense on Waugh’s Facebook page, or something? The two you belong together anyway.

Richsauerheb Try reading my published peer reviewed article in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2013 #439490. Your denunciations will be forthcoming I’m sure. And just because Waugh is a “mere” environmental science graduate does not mean the correlations found are all incorrect. We all must examine data with a grain of salt and make the most rational sense of it because no one can ethically experiment on humans in cages. And that is precisely why the FDA cannot approve fluoride compounds to be taken internally. The question is why dentists are allowed the liberty to order water districts to treat humans with artificial fluorides lacking antidote calcium without the proof that you so demand of Waugh. You demand absolute proof of harm knowing full well we cannot experiment with controlled humans. Why then cannot we demand absolute proof of lack of harm (especially in the infirmed) and proof of effectiveness of ingested fluoride–BEFORE it is experimentally added to whole populations, not after?  Waugh is doing the best he can and is compiling published data, which is far better a steward of public health than water districts who dump in the industrial fluoride without proof it even works and is safe longterm.

Johnny Johnson Seriously, an open access publication?  One that solicits people to publish something they’ve written, oft times charging the author for the privilege? There’s not a peer reviewed bone in that “publication’s” body.  It is nothing more than your opinions published online. These same people solicited me to submit a article I wrote about the anti-fluoridationist’s failed plot to end fluoridation in Pinellas County, FL. Why would I submit an article that I penned to an Open Access website “publication” for others to read?  The only reason I could guess was for self-recognition. Do you have any works as a healthcare professional that have been published in Credible, PEER REVIEWED, Refereed Scientific Journals?   As a Mathematics professor, I would think you’d be uniquely qualified to critically evaluate a dental education and those who’ve completed their MS and PhD in dental science.  Having been there yourself, who else could better tell us what we don’t know?  Please……..Come on, Richard.  I promise not to tell you how to do your calculus lessons if you promise not to try to tell us what we don’t know.  We didn’t order our educations out of a National Enquirer.

Sslott Look,richsauerheb, if Waugh wants to compile a proper paper, submit it for proper peer-review, and seek publication in a respected scientific journal, he certainly has that option. There is a reason for peer-review in scientific discourse. It is to assess credibility for that which people desire to be taken as serious science. For someone to compile a mound of totally inaccurate, refuted, and discredited information and expect it to be accorded any credibility whatsoever is an absurdity. If you don’t understand that, then you are exhibiting your ignorance of accepted scientific method and certainly have no more credibility than does Waugh. Water fluoridation is simply the increasing of the concentration of existing fluoride ions in drinking water by a miniscule few parts per million for the purpose of strengthening teeth against decay, with no adverse effects. Nothing more. Attempts to make it a complicated process of “forced medication” requiring “gold standard, double blind, randomized studies” and any other such absurd nonsense, are nothing but antifluoridationists doing the same thing they have been doing for the entire 68 year history of the initiative…..trying anything they can to stop a public health initiative they deem an infringement of their “personal freedoms”.

Richsauerheb 0.7 ppm fluoride in water is useless to decrease dental caries. Dental caries are not caused by absence fluoride. And neither systemic or 0.02 ppm topical have any bearing on tooth decay. If controlled trials could be done, that is what would be found. There is endless literature proclaiming the opposite based on observations that are not controlled. The biochemistry is sufficient to disprove it. Calcium fluoride does not precipitate or ‘remineralize’ enamel at 0.7 ppm fluoride with calcium levels in saliva. It does not and in fact cannot. The solubility product constant is known.

How by the grace of God can you claim to people that they are “saving money” by having the city spend millions to artificially fluoride all water most of which goes down drains?  That is the belief of a Congress person with an agenda. Most people who live their lives without cavities are found to have done so from eating little sugar or brushing well afterward and by having plenty of calcium and vitamin D in their diet, all without industrial fluoride in water.  My uncle is a prime example, not one cavity in 80 years living on his farm in the absence of artificially added fluoride. Thus, money is wasted in the billions in the U.S. to fluoridate water by order of dental officials that produces a mere 0.02 ppm fluoride in saliva, compared to 1,500 ppm in toothpaste for a dollar, and doesn’t work anyway. Swallowing it does not decrease caries, so how does this “save” dental bill money?  I do not want to eat dental chemicals and I don’t want to pay for them either. But yet most all of us not permitted to dig wells are forced to drink the treated water we have and also forced to pay for its infusion as well. How does that work in a free society? I can cite all the scientific publications and texts in the world that proved the practice is useless but when it comes to the F word, facts are usually simply irrelevant (as per the comment that it doesn’t matter how it works, we just “know” it works). Excuse me but if you don’t know how it works and you don’t have clinical trials with variables under control, then you don’t know it works. And people have every right to object to being blocked from their simple desire to have God-given plain drinking water without added artificial industrial fluorides that are calcium chelators listed as poisons on all poisons registries for that reason with and their known LD50’s. Fluoride from calcium fluoride is not a listed poison because of lack of acute poisoning since calcium is the antidote to fluoride poisoning. All industrial fluorides are listed toxics on registries because they are fully soluble, fully assimilated and are all calcium chelators. The fluoride ion is identical of course in all fluoride compounds but the toxicity of the ion is determined by its co-ingredient. Kids lethally poisoned from swallowing dental sodium fluoride gels had blood levels of 3 ppm. Such an endpoint cannot occur with natural calcium fluoride–or in the absence of accidental fluoride overfeeds. But the point is that all fluoride compounds do NOT have the same toxicity after ionizing in water even though it is the same fluoride ion in all (Merck Index).

Sslott You have not one clue as to what you’re talking about. First, provide your dental credentials to make such such absurd statements as “dental caries are not caused by absence fluoride”, and for your “expert” opinion on the best methods of prevention of dental decay. Second, CaF is a compound which releases the fluoride ion into groundwater. It is not a substance which prevents dental decay. The fluoride ion released by CaF and the fluoride ion released by hydrolysis of HFA are identical, and are those which are involved in the mechanism of dental decay prevention. “Fluoride works primarily via topical mechanisms which include (1) inhibition of demineralization at the crystal surfaces inside the tooth, (2) enhancement of remineralization at the crystal surfaces (the resulting remineralized layer is very resistant to acid attack), and (3) inhibition of bacterial enzymes. Fluoride in drinking water and in fluoride-containing products reduces tooth decay via these mechanisms. Low but slightly elevated levels of fluoride in saliva and plaque provided from these sources help prevent and reverse caries by inhibiting demineralization and enhancing remineralization.” —–Prevention and reversal of dental caries: role of low level fluoride
John D. B. Featherstone Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology
Volume 27, Issue 1, pages 31–40, February 1999 Do you have any concept whatsoever of what the dental expenses are to restore one tooth damaged by decay that could have been prevented by fluoridation? Thousands. And that’s only if it is caught before it causes serious medical consequences. Then you are into tens of thousands, or possibly hundreds of thousands. The 12 year old African-American child who died tragically in 2007 as a direct result of one untreated cavity in one tooth? The medical bills incurred in trying to save his life were in excess of $250,000. In all likelihood these bills were paid in total or in part by taxpayers. This is just one case. Multiply those kind of expenses by the millions of people in this nation who suffer with untreated dental disease, and maybe you’ll have some comprehension “by the grace of God” that the $1 per person per year spent on water fluoridation is such an insignificant amount in comparison that it is not even on the radar when considering fluoridation. As far as “going down the drains” again, this is a public health initiative. It’s effectiveness is measured in terms of exposure to it by the whole population. How much of that $1 per person per year goes down the drain is irrelevant as long as it is shown to be effective, which it has been repeatedly in study after study after study over its 68 year history. Were a community to eliminate fluoridation in favor of an “alternative” such as fluoride supplements, consider this…..In a moderate sized community where 20,000 people would require fluoride supplements in the absence of fluoridation, at $1 per person per day is $20,000 per day X 365 days = $7,300,000. And this would not provide the same amount of protection as water fluoridated water, nor would it provide it for everyone, as would fluoridation. Are you getting some remote idea of the economics, here? As far as your citing “all the scientific publications and texts in the world that proved the practice is useless”……then cite them. Anecdotal statements such as this and stories about your Uncle’s teeth are totally meaningless in the absence of scientifically accepted, documented evidence. Do everyone a favor, richsauerheb. Either properly educate yourself on the issue of water fluoridation such that you can discuss it intelligently, or stop posting meaningless diatribe that serves only to mislead.

Richsauerheb It is good to see another city allow their citizens to have access to
plain water. Good and regular fresh water is a scarce commodity in the
U.S. because of the false belief that ingesting fluoride is somehow
helpful when the truth is that industrial fluoride
is a calcium chelator. Ingested fluoride does not affect dental caries
and of course no such claim was ever made in the entire NRC 2006 report.
Instead the report correctly describes the truth, the incorporation of
fluoride where it does not belong in dental
pulp and the ugly abnormal dental fluorosis enamel hypoplasia that
increases in incidence in all fluoridated cities. Fluoride in saliva
that bathes teeth topically from drinking water is only 0.02 ppm unable
to affect caries at 75,000 times less concentrated
than in toothpaste. This country is wasting billions of dollars yearly
to infuse artificial fluorides to achieve nothing. Fluoride is not a
mineral nutrient  and is not a constituent of normal human blood. The
sale of fluoride to be ingested by pregnant women
was banned in the U.S. in 1966 by the FDA. And yet vast numbers of
people ignore this and allow consumption of fluoride even during
pregnancy when neural development of the fetus can be affected and for
no good purpose since teeth that develop later are not
affected when the mother consumes it. Fluoride accumulates abnormally
into bone during lifelong consumption, weakening bone in elder years.
The 1/3 million hip fractures we have in the U.S. annually is a direct
result of internalizing this poisonous waste where
it does not belong. Natural calcium fluoride found as a contaminant in
some waters has calcium to minimize assimilation but all fluorides
dumped into public water supplies lack protective calcium. It is
fortunate for residents that the city will finally terminate
this false practice. It is sad though that so many do not care about our
existing water laws designed to protect our water. The Safe Drinking
Water Act prohibits any chemical from being added to any water in the
U.S. other than to sanitize the water.  Why pray
tell are our good

TYactive If its so darn harmful and illegal, why do most American cities provide this benefit?  You lie.

Richsauerheb Water officials blame toothpaste fluoride for the endemic of unsightly abnormal tooth fluorosis in the U.S. This is because fluoridation of water was done long before toothpaste fluoride was developed. But toothpaste makers blame water fluoride for the problem because toothpaste fluoride is not intended to be swallowed like water fluoride is. But they are both at fault for providing industrial soluble fluorides that are substantial sources for fluoride in the bloodstream where it does not belong (NRC, Fluoride in Drinking Water, 2006).

Sslott Richsauerheb, you’ve posted so much misinformation that it’s difficult to even know where to begin, but I’ll try. First, the only dental fluorosis that may be attributable to water with fluoride levels below the EPA secondary MCL (maximum contaminant level) of 2.0 ppm is mild to very mild. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a nearly undetectable condition that causes no adverse effects on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar has demonstrated that mildly fluorosed teeth are more decay resistant to decay, it is not a surety that this condition is even undesirable. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the EPA secondary MCL for fluoride. —-J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62.
The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren.
Iida H, Kumar JV. Source Bureau of Dental Health, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY 12237, USA. Second, hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is simply a vehicle utilized to increase the existing level of fluoride in water to that optimal level of 0.7 ppm, at which there will be significant dental decay prevention with no adverse effects. It is not an “industrial or a toxic waste” but a co-product of the process which also extracts phosphoric acid from naturally occurring phosphorite rock. Phosphoric acid is the co-product utilized in fertilizers which become incorporated in the foods we eat, and is utilized in the production of the soft drinks we consume. HFA is the co-product utilized to increase the level of fluoride in our water by a miniscule amount. At the ph of water, HFA is completely hydrolyzed (dissociated) into fluoride ions and silica (sand), both of which already exist in the water. The fluoride ion released from HFA and the fluoride ion released from CaF into water, are identical. There is no “protection” accorded by CaF, nor is any needed at the miniscule level of 0.7 ppm. Regardless of the source: a fluoride ion= a fluoride ion= a fluoride ion. Once hydrolyzed, the HFA no longer exists in that water at the tap. As it no longer exists, it is not ingested, and is therefore of no concern whatsoever. —–Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Apr 15;40(8):2572-7. Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement. Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Department of Chemistry, University of
Michigan, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…  Hopefully this will clear up some of your confusion on this issue, anyway.

Richsauerheb Having dental enamel hypoplasia in 40% of U.S. teenagers is not a benefit. In fact this thinned enamel makes teeth more susceptible to cavities. Endemic dental fluorosis is why HHS requested it be lowered to not exceed 0.7 ppm in 2011.  It is endorsed by many agencies merely from word of mouth, but no one has done controlled clinical trials testing with humans for the efficacy of ingested fluoride. In fact cities that have 1 ppm fluoride in water average only 0.02 ppm fluoride in saliva that bathes teeth topically. This is unable to affect caries at 75,000 times lower than the concentration in toothpaste. And the CDC published that fluoride does not work from blood where it averages 0.21 ppm (where it does not belong).

Sslott  Richsauerheb, if you would obtain your information on water fluoridation from reliable, respected, and original sources instead of relying solely on that which is filtered and edited through antifluoridationist websites such as “fluoridealert.org” and others, you would understand that fluoride is not a drug. You are discounting accurate information from knowledgeable, authoritative sources such as the CDC, the EPA, the ADA, the WHO, and others of equal caliber in favor of non peer-reviewed opinions of Paul Connett. How absurd is that? If Connett had any confidence in his opinions he would have compiled them in the proper format for submission to proper peer-review and possible publication in a respected scientific journal. That he chose to circumvent this process and instead publish his opinions in a non peer-reviewed “book” should speak volumes about the total lack of credibility it should be accorded. Fluoride is a mineral that must be classified as a drug by the FDA due solely to its stated use as a therapeutic rather than as a disinfectant when added to water. As the EPA controls and regulates mineral additives to water, it is the EPA, not the FDA which controls and regulates fluoridated water. Were it a “drug” it would be under full control of the FDA. The “forced medication” gambit has been repeatedly attempted in frivolous lawsuits filed by antifluoridationists, and has been repeatedly rejected, every time, for the reasons I just stated. Any scientifically acceptable evidence that you have documenting hip fractures or the necessity of joint replacements, attributable to water fluoridated at the optimal level….produce it, or stop posting irresponsible, unsubstantiated nonsense. Connett’s non peer-reviewed “book” or links to “fluoridealert.org” do not qualify as scientifically acceptable evidence.

Johnny Johnson ~97% of 12-15 yo U.S. teens have fluorosis that is not noticeable except by a dental professional.  These types are called: 1.  Questionable
2.  Very Mild 3.  Mild fluorosis ~3% have moderate fluorosis.  This type can be noticed in some people. See the photos in the middle of the page on the CDC’s website: http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridatio… When the level of fluoride is below 2ppm, SEVERE FLUOROSIS DOES NOT OCCUR in the U.S.  This is the type that you are referring to here. Nice try to scare these readers.  But completely false and misleading.  For Shame.  Tisk tisk risk.

Sslott  As I said previously, the only dental fluorosis that may be attributable to water with fluoride levels below the EPA secondary MCL (maximum contaminant level) of 2.0 ppm is mild to very mild. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a nearly undetectable condition that causes no adverse effects on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar has demonstrated that mildly fluorosed teeth are more decay resistant to decay, it is not a surety that this condition is even undesirable. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the EPA secondary MCL for fluoride. —-J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62.
The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren.
Iida H, Kumar JV.
Source Bureau of Dental Health, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY 12237, USA. As far as testing, it is impossible to provide the “double blind random testing” for which antifluoridationists are so fond of requesting. There are far too many variables which cannot be controlled to obtain any valid results from this type testing. Thus, we are left to the next best form of testing of such an initiative, which is observational. Just tell me how many pages you would like me to fill with peer-reviewed observational studies demonstrating the effectiveness of water fluoridation and I will be glad to accommodate. Water fluoridation is a public health initiative. As with all public initiatives its effectiveness is measured on the population as a whole. Whether the effect is topical, systemic, or any combination of the two, is irrelevant. Studies have shown that the constant exposure of the teeth to low concentrations of fluoride all during the day is a very effective means of enhancing the teeth to be more resistant to decay. Fluoridating the water supplies is the most effective and inexpensive means of providing this constant exposure. No matter how much effect comes from the saliva or how much from strictly topical, there is no more more effective means of getting this protection to the entire population. When considered in terms of the astronomical costs involved in dental treatment over the course of a lifetime, the less than $1 per person per year it costs to fluoridate is a bargain that will not be realized through any other means of prevention. And, this not simply individual savings. The costs to taxpayer supported assistance programs such as Medicaid, and Healthchoice are astronomical when untreated dental decay turns into life-threatening medical problems. Add to this the loss of productivity of employees or students, absenteeism, emergency room costs…..and the $1 per year per person becomes even more attractive. As far as alternative means of providing fluoride, well, at $1 per person per day for fluoride supplements it can easily be seen that this would certainly not be cost effective, even if it would provide equivalent protection to fluoridation, which it won’t. Patient compliance issues, as well as logistics of getting the supplements to everyone on a daily basis, make this a totally inviable substitution for fluoridation. There simply are no other means of obtaining the amount of protection as does water fluoridation, with no adverse effects, at such a ridiculously low cost.

Richsauerheb I’m talking about  controlled clinical trials as with any drug–with volunteers– so confounding variables are controlled such as how much sugar one eats, how much toothpaste one uses. And yes since it hasn’t been done, non one can claim that effectiveness from ingested fluoride has been somehow “proven”. Read the Ziegelbecker detailed analysis in Connett, The Case Against Fluoride, 2010 and you will find truth, that ingested fluoride does not affect tooth decay. The original theory was merely scatter in the data chosen. Read the massive textbook by the dentist statistician Phillip Sutton, Fluoridation: the greatest fraud, 1986. Ingested calcium can build strong teeth enamel, not fluoride. Fluoride is a contaminant without functional purpose in man and animals. Natural calcium fluoride is not assimilated well and can be tolerated at low levels, but purposely ingesting soluble industrial fluorides leads to unacceptable bone loading after lifelong consumption.We have 1/3 million hip fractures in U.S. elderly yearly now and high incidence of hip, elbow and knee replacement surgeries. Industrial fluoride from treated water supplies is playing a substantial role in this.

TYactive You can’t do a clinical trial on a community water system – that would require that random houses not receive water with the benefit while the rest get and over the course of years – First, how can you rip up pipes, did a separate wells, without the people knowing about it?  You can’t.  Second, how can you knowingly provide some people a proven benefit and others not? That is unethical. You can do population based studies – which they have. The most recent study on cost effectiveness, 2010 reports that $24 per child in taxpayer dollars were saved per year in fluoridated areas – and those savings are just for the kids – adults also benefit. The CDC supports helping teeth through waters system calibration of fluoride. The right amount of fluoride makes enamel stronger – that is what we are talking about here.

Fugio Good points. And at 20 parts per billion, a liter of ductal saliva would contain 20 micrograms of fluoride – the whole reason for swallowing fluoride in water. It’s estimated we produce 0.75 to 1.5 liters of ductal saliva per day, so that’s about 1 microgram of fluoride per hour, which the fluoride eaters believe is powerful enough to disrupt caries-causing bacteria in the mouth and remineralize 100+ tooth surfaces. They also believe that same fluoride at 700 ppb miraculously has no bioactivity anywhere else in the body and brain.

TYactive The Centers for Disease Control, the American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Academy of Family Physicians, the World Health Organization, the American Dental Association all support fluoridation.  They continue to do so even as new research is developed because it works – heck, even the water district here didn’t doubt its that its harmless – they just are underestimating the benefit.

Lalahulu Even if the decision was a cost savings one, Parkland will be healthier as a result. Fluorosilicic acid in any amount is toxic to the body and especially harmful to infants, young children, the elderly, post-menopausal women, and sensitive subgroups (renal patients, for example).

Several scientists from the National Research Council who researched for 3 years and produced the 500 page report for the EPA: “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review” 2006, have called for a ban on water fluoridation because of known and anticipated health damage. Senior scientists from the EPA have also called for a ban. Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, National Research Council panel member for the 2006 EPA report has written specifically on the topic in her report “General Comments on Fluoridation of Drinking Water for Prevention of Dental Caries” 2011. Here is an excerpt:

“The proposed HHS recommendation for water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L is not adequate to protect against known or anticipated adverse effects and does not allow an adequate margin of safety to protect young children, people with high water consumption, people with kidney disease (resulting in reduced excretion of fluoride), and other potentially sensitive population subgroups….

…It is irresponsible to recommend addition of fluoride, or a particular concentration of fluoride to be added, without a comprehensive review of the substances (H2SiF6 or Na2SiF6,) that are actually added. In addition, fluoridation chemicals often contain impurities such as lead and arsenic, for which EPA has set MCLGs of zero (EPA 2006), such that a water supplier is actually adding contaminants for which the ideal maximum amount in drinking water is zero.

In summary, it is irresponsible to promote or encourage uncontrolled exposure of any population to a drug that, at best, is not appropriate for many individuals (e.g., those who do not want it, those whose water consumption is high, formula-fed infants, people with impaired renal function) and for which the risks are inadequately characterized and inadequately disclosed to the public. Elimination of community water fluoridation at the earliest possible date would be in the best interest of public health.”
http://fluorideinformationaust…

Sslott Ialahulu, as has been explained to you previously, hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA ) is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated) at the ph of drinking water. It does not exist in fluoridated water at the tap. It is not ingested. It will not come into any contact whatsoever to ” infants, young children, the elderly, post-menopausal women, and sensitive subgroups (renal patients, for example).” As far as Thiessen……Drs. Thissen and Limeback were outspoken antifluoridationists long before their involvement with the 2006 NRC Report. Thus, it is of absolutely no surprise, whatsoever, to anyone familiar with their views that these two antifluoridationists would remain so.  Drs. Thissen, Limeback, and Isaacson were but three members of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoridate. Nevertheless, they, along with the other 9 members of this committee signed off on the final report and its final recommendation. This 2006 NRC Report was an evaluation of the EPA primary and secondary MCL standards for fluoride, 4.0 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L respectively. This study was not an evaluation of water fluoridation at 0.7 ppm. The final recommendation of the 2006 NRC Committee was that the primary EPA MCL for fluoride be lowered from 4.0 mg/L, due to only one stated reason….to reduce the risk of moderate dental fluorosis, nothing else. The EPA secondary MCL for fluoride is that concentration below which no adverse effects are known to occur. This secondary MCL is 2.0 ppm.  There was no recommendation of the 2006 NRC Committee in regard to the EPA secondary MCL for fluoride. Thus, even though all the disorders claimed by antifluoridationists to be a danger with fluoridation were exhaustively reviewed by this 2006 NRC Committee, the ONLY reason stated to lower the primary Mg/L from the current level of 4.0 mg/L was to reduce the risk of moderate dental fluorosis. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. or one third t the secondary EPA MCL safety threshold for any adverse effects to occur. Additionally, below us a quote from Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 Committee on which sat Drs. Thissen, Limeback, and Isaacson: “I do not believe there to be any scientifically valid reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level.”—-John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair 2006 NRC Committee Report of Fluoride in Drinking Water

Mark Colman If you think “It takes away a brick in our safety net,” you are several bricks shy of a load!

Read “Fluorides, Fluoridation and Environmental Quality” 1979 report prepared for the Minister of the Environment in Quebec by the Advisory Committee on Fluoridation of Water Supplies. Because of this report, a moratorium was placed on mandatory water fluoridation. In part it states that artificially fluoridated water (what is used in 90% of community water fluoridation, hydrofluorosilicic acid) contains mutagens—through “full-scale retrospective epidemiological studies whose scientific value has been demonstrated before the courts have revealed that there is a marked correlation between increased cancer mortality rates and the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies.”

I also suggest reading “2006 EPA report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review” if you haven’t already, which states that hydrofluorosilicic acid causes dental and skeletal fluorosis, thyroid and pineal gland depression, heightened risk for those with renal disease, neurotoxicity resulting in behavioral changes (Including hyperactivity or lethargy, diminished brain cognition). Other studies have concluded there is a 7 fold increase in osteosarcoma in young boys in areas with artificial water fluoridation. Dr. Roger Masters (Dartmouth College) found that artificial fluoridation chemicals double the blood lead levels in children. Might I also recommend reading “Fluoridation: Autopsy of a Scientific Error” by Dr. Pierre-Jean Morin, it is very complete scientific evidence and history of fluoridation, with citations.
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/…

Sslott There is no correlation between water fluoridation and cancer…period.  “Overall, the findings of studies of bone fracture effects showed small variations around the ‘no effect’ mark. A meta-regression of bone fracture studies also found no association with water fluoridation.” “There is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence and mortality. This was also true for osteosarcoma and bone/joint cancers. Only two studies considered thyroid cancer and neither found a statistically significant association with water fluoridation.” ——The York Review – A systematic review of public water fluoridation: a commentary
E T Treasure, I G Chestnutt, P Whiting, M McDonagh P Wilson & J Kleijnen “Published data fail to support the view that fluoride, in doses recommended for caries prevention, adversely affects the thyroid.” -Fluorine and thyroid gland function: A review of the literature
H. Bürgi, L. Siebenhüner, E. Miloni. 1984
http://link.springer.com/artic…   “Numerous human descriptive and case-control studies have attempted to address the controversy, but this study of using actual bone fluoride concentrations as a direct indicator of fluoride exposure represents our best science to date and shows no association between fluoride in bone and osteosarcoma risk.” ——Douglass CW, Joshipura K. Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes Control. 2006;17:481–482. “Optimal fluoridation of drinking water does not pose a detectable cancer risk to humans as evidenced by extensive human epidemiological data available to date, including the new studies prepared for this report.” —United States Public Health Service. Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. 1991. Accessed atwww.health.gov/environment/Rev… on May 7, 2013. Next, hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated) at the ph of drinking water. After the hydrolysis, the HFA no longer exists in that water. The only products of this dissociation are fluoride ions identical to those released into ground water by CaF, and trace levels of heavy metal contaminants in such miniscule amounts that they fall well short of EPA maximum levels of safety for each and are incapable of causing any adverse biological effects. There are no harmful “mutagens”, no HFA, nothing ingested except the fluoride ions we ingest whether water is fluoridated or not, and trace contaminants in levels at which they exist anyway in water. Next, the 2006 NRC Report was not charged with and did NOT evaluate water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. I would suggest that YOU read it before attempting to misapply its findings to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. Had the NRC Committee had any concerns for the myriad of disorders you have copy/pasted off of “fluoridealert.org“, they would have stated so in their final recommendation. They did not. The final recommendation of this report was that the primary EPA MCL (maximum contaminant level) for fluoride be lowered from its current level of 4.0 ppm. The only stated reason for this recommendation was to reduce the increased risk of moderate to severe dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis which may occur over time at or above. 4.0 ppm. They made no reference to any other disorders in this recommendation, and they made no recommendation to reduce the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, below which no adverse effects occur. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third the level below which no adverse effects occur. Dr. John Doull, Chair of this 2006 NRC Committee stated in March of 2013, “I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level” —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water As far as the lead……Masters is an antifluoridationist and Professor of Government Emeritus and Research Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth. His attempts to tie lincreased lead uptake to fluoridated water have been completely refuted by Urbansky and Schock. “Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(I1) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.” “Recent reports on the possible effects of water fluoridating agents, such as hexafluorosilicic acid, sodium hexafluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride are inconsistent with accepted scientific knowledge, and the authors fail to identify or account for these inconsistencies. Many of the chemical assumptions are scientifically unjustified, and alternate explanations (such as multiple routes of Pb” exposure) have not been satisfactorily addressed. At present, there is no evidence to suggest that the common practice of fluoridating drinking water has any unto- ward health impacts via effects on lead(II) when done properly under established guidelines so as to maintain total water quality. Our conclusion supports both EPA and PHS/CDC policies on water fluoridation.” —–CAN FLUORIDATION AFFECT LEAD(I1) IN POTABLE WATER? HIEXAFLUOROSILICATE AND FLUORIDE EQUILIBRIA IN AQUEOUS SOLUTION*
EDWARD T.URBANSKYt and MICHAEL R.SCHOCKS
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Ofice of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory, Water Supply and Water Resources Divisiov, Treatment Technology Evaluation Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 USA
(Received 10 January 1999)

Jeff Schroeder just what we need….fewer teeth in Parkland….

Fugio According to CDC data, seniors living in the most fluoridated states average 14% more tooth loss than seniors in the least fluoridated states: http://photos.oregonlive.com/p…

Johnny Johnson Maybe I’m stupid, but wouldn’t you want to know how many seniors have lost teeth in fluoridated vs non-fluoridated areas within the SAME STATE? Not to mention that MORE seniors have their natural teeth now than ANY time in the past history.  The seniors that were exposed to fluoridated water as kids, and/or fluoridated water as adults, absolutely have more and healthier teeth than those that grew up without it.  The following NEW study confirms this fact: http://uncnews.unc.edu/content… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu…

TYactive Because seniors are keeping their teeth longer?  Its hard to loose teeth that you’ve already lost

James Reeves After several decades of fluoridation, dental disease is still the NUMBER ONE CHRONIC DISEASE!!! Maybe we should start addressing the CAUSE of dental decay rather than push industrial grade fluoridation chemicals that clearly are not working?? If you wonder why only 5% of the world and 3% of Europe fluoridates their water, they know it is ineffective, dangerous to health and fluordide is a waste of tax money because 99 1/2% of the water people use goes directly down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc. That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink. It is much cheaper to give out fluoride tablets free, which would also allow freedom of choice. Hispanic and Black leaders are now aware that fluoridation is a scam on the public. Poor children are harmed by fluoride more than other children because diet and dental hygiene is more of a cause for decay than lack of fluoride.

Sslott James, please explain how it is “much cheaper to give out fluoride tablets for free” when these tablets would cost $1 per person per DAY, and not provide nearly as effective prevention as does water fluoridation at $1 per person per YEAR? Would these tablets fall from the sky at no cost to anyone, or do you think maybe taxpayers would bear the expense of $1 per person per DAY, instead of $1 per person per YEAR?

James Reeves Not many tablets would be needed because not many people want to take fluoride.
A much cheaper method to distribute fluoride is to purchase one tanker truck of this toxic waste fluoride (Hexafluorosilicic acid, which is waste material flushed directly from industrial smokestacks) for a few dollars and instead of putting it in drinking water, park the truck at city hall and give out fluoride free to anyone who wants it. When 99 1/2% of this poison is no longer wasted down the drain in showers, toilets, dishwashers, etc., one truck would probably last 5 to 10 years or more. Then use all of the $ millions in savings to help the community.

Sslott James, Put this nonsense on Waugh’s FB page along with your other equally ridiculous nonsense.

Johnny Johnson Once again James, I am so very impressed with your last sentence above:

“….because diet and dental hygiene is more of a cause for decay than lack of fluoride”. You have finally gotten it James!!  Fluoridation reduces cavities by 25% or more by simply drinking the water. 75% of the cavities will still occur.  By controlling diet, improving oral hygiene, use of topical fluorides, regular preventive dental care, and application of sealants, we can just about get anyone to nearly 100% protection against cavities. Bravo!  You are now seeing the entire picture!  I admire your switch in your position.  🙂

Richsauerheb Of course fluoride ions from calcium fluoride are identical to fluorides ion from sodium fluoride. Read my posts. And again, what is your point?
Perhaps you might grasp this: Calcium ions in one solution are identical to calcium ions in another solution. Correct sir? Of course it’s correct.
But what does calcium do inside the cell with the ionic environment there, compared to what calcium ions do outside the cell with the extracellular ionic environment that is out there? Do you know?.
Answer: calcium inside a cell is lethal when up to millimolar concentrations. BUT this same concentration outside cells are an absolute requirement for membrane structure and function for the cell to survive. They are identical calcium ions in both solutions. But so what? The toxicity is completely different in the two differing environments. Outside is albumin, inside there is none. Please try to grasp this.  2) The intent of fluoridation is NOT for the purpose of altering water. The intent IS to alter teeth that reside in humans. As you know teeth do not reside in water. On the opposite, chlorination kills bugs that DO reside in water. It does not sterilize bugs in people. Fluoride is ingested to be swallowed to affect teeth. do you need proof? Fine–  If all humans had dentures would it be necessary to fluoridate to alter the water? Do you understand now why it is false to say that fluoridation may be judged the same way that chlorination is judged? A logics class might help.

Please clear your thinking. You claimed (not me) that chlorination which is justified can be used to claim that fluoridation is also justified. This is nonsense. You said fluoridation doesn’t treat people and is thus like chlorination that doesn’t treat people. What I said was the truth, that they are in fact polar opposites. Chlorination does not treat people, it kills bugs. Fluoridation does not sterilize water, it is added to affect peoples’ dental caries.Understand the difference now?  Fluoride IS intended to be swallowed. Chlorine is NOT added to be swallowed and is only added by necessity to make water potable. Fluoridation is NOT required to make water potable. And yet you attempt to claim they are comparable–that fluoridation is justified because chlorination is justified. That is a logic fallacy (of yours, not mine).

If you don’t take a PChem class you will get nowhere with understanding that free fluoride ion in solution when surrounded with calcium ion in solution has different toxicity than fluoride ion surrounded by silicate ions. I don’t know why this is so difficult for you but you’ll just have to try harder, I’m sorry.

Sslott Look, you brought up the nonsense of fluoridation and Medicare. All, I’ve done is point up how utterly ridiculous that was. Take it any way you want, i really don’t care. Again, the fluoride ions which are ingested, whether released from CaF, or from HFA are indistinguishable from one another. If you want to continue to make the argument that they are different from each other, fine with me. I don’t think you will convince many of that idea, though, as a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion.

Richsauerheb Perhaps this example can reach you where you are.
A sodium fluoride solution with 1 ppm fluoride in one beaker contains spherical fluoride ions identical in structure to fluoride ions at 1 ppm in a solution of calcium fluoride.  Correct? Correct. Now, what is the motional speed of fluoride ions in the two solutions from Brownian motion?
Answer: the tendency for fee fluoride ions to be electrostatically attracted by
divalent calcium ions in solution is far greater than to monovalent sodium ions, causing motional speed to be far faster in the sodium fluoride solution.  Get it now?
Two identical cars, one speeding and the other at slow speed, which one can cause damage, remembering as you always insist that the cars are absolutely identical?
Does it now click? ionized sodium fluoride zooms and is assimilated well from the
gut.  Ionized calcium fluoride  at the SAME concentration of free fluoride ion does not assimilate well.  Calcium is the antidote to fluoride toxicity.
For two days you have changed the truths I wrote into falsehoods in order to have the luxury of denouncing not only me but my research article in JEPH, the whole point of which was to demonstrate this truth. Please help yourself and thus the rest of us who are subject to the demands of fluoridationists. Fluoride is not the answer to caries. When you swallow fluoride you now have two problems instead of one, the caries and the ingested fluoride. Thank you and again happy July 4th everyone. I might send some of these comments to the FDA in support of the
fluoridation ban petition with comments from these dentists being
anonymous of course.  The FDA needs to know how fluoridationists’ minds
work.

Steve, continuing, the point of the Medicare statement is to make it clear that Medicare correctly does not consider fluoride ingestion to be a requirement for health maintenance. If only plain water is available, Medicare does nothing to pay for the desire of dentists that insist one must ingest fluoride. This is because fluoride is not a supplement as you have argued. Supplements are taken for metabolic health. If a person was dying of scurvy, Medicare covers treatment with vitamin C to spare him.  Medicare will not cover treatment with fluoride if a person has caries, because fluoride lack does not cause caries. Absence of vitamin C however is specifically the cause of scurvy.

Oh please. The claim you just made that chlorination treats people is simply outlandish.  No one treats anyone with chlorine with the intent it be swallowed to achieve a blood level of a comonent in chlorination chemicals to affect tissue.

On the opposite extreme, everyone who injects fluoride into water has the express purpose of it being swalloed into the Gi tract where it is assimilated for the purpose of affecting teeth. Chlorine does not treat any human condition, it is a disinfectant that kills organisms outside the human so as to avoid them being consumed as live organisms.

Please use common sense.  The head of the CA Dept. of Health and Human Services, an outspoken ffuoridationist swore under oath in court in Escondido, 2005 that the purpose of adding fluoride into water is to elevate the fluoride ion in the blood of the consumer where it will drain into saliva for purposes of caries reduction.

The intent of chlorine is NOT for it to be swallowed to kill bacteria in the GI tract. It IS to kill foreign organisms  in the water before it is ingested, period. All who use it wish it could disappear afterward to avoid the ingestion of chloramines. No one who sterilizes water actually WANTS the sterilant to enter the human bloodstream.

But that IS the express intent of fluoridationists who forced Metropoplitan Water Los Angeles 2007 to infuse it for mass consumption–not mass sterilization, but mass swallowing.
Perhaps I was wrong, maybe you also need to take a class from the CDC offered by the fluoridation engineers on how and why “fluoridation”–ingestion of fluorides added into water– is still recommended by them.
The CDC removed from their public website the original claim that using natural calcium fluoride is the same as using fluorosilicic acid for fluoridation (after repeatedly informing them that this is false–calcium minimizes fluoride assimilation even at levels below the solubility product constant). They nevertheless still recommend fluorosilicic acid, NOT calcium fluoride in their quest to affect caries.
Of course the fluoride ion is identical wherever it resides–what is your point? The claim fluoridationists make at the OHD of the CDC is that there is “thus” no difference betweeen using fluorosilicic instead of calcium fluoride to fluoridate. You may have missed the pine cone analogy. Two idientical pine cones, one on a broken branch, one on a strong branch, which one do you sit under? They’re both identical so the fluoridationist logically sits under either one, they’re both identical. Can you some day get the picture?

Sslott No, Rich, again, you’re veering off into the nonsensical. I did not make the statement that “chlorination treats people”. Here is what I said: “Why would anyone think that EPA regulated water additives would be covered as a “treatment”? That would be as ridiculous as stating that “chlorine treatments of people through public water supplies is NOT covered by Medicare”.  I couldn’t agree with you more. Raising the issue of Medicare coverage in regard to EPA regulated water additives IS simply outlandish. That’s exactly my point. But you brought up that nonsense, not me. Again, to my knowledge, the EPA has never said that “using natural calcium fluoride is the same as using fluorosilic acid for fluoridation” except in relation to the fluoride ions released by CaF and HFA, which are identical to each other, as are all fluoride ions. That’s the whole point. Fluoride ions from HFA which are ingested, are identical to fluoride ions from CaF which are ingested. This is where you still seem confused. While there is a difference in the amount of fluoride ions released into groundwater by CaF, due to its insolubility, versus the amount released by HFA, those which are released from CaF and ingested are identical to those released from HFA and ingested. The amount from HFA is adjusted in dilution such that the total concentration of the fluoride in the water is 0.7 ppm. As there is no way to differentiate which of the ingested fluoride ions are from HFA and which from CaF, and there is no differentiation in the behavior of any of the fluoride ions either before or after ingestion, regardless of from which source they were derived, your analogy of the pine cones is just more nonsense that makes no sense.

Richsauerheb Cite the Kumar study?   If we look at the children say the 13 year olds after most all teeth have probably finally erupted, even for the children exposed to fluoride that delays teeth eruption, notice the typical result.  The decay rate values chosen for low fluoride vs. high fluoride were:
1.58 ± 2.13 (0.3 ppm fluoride) vs. 1.18 ± 1.89 (0.7 ppm fluoride). There is not a rat’s chance I would refer to an article containing data interpreted like this, as a “19 % decay reduction”. I’m a trained scientist, not a propagandist with pipedreams. I would never make a claim that two means were significantly different, unless the standard deviations do NOT overlap—period. I was trained by the best (Hastings, Benson, Wick, exceptional careful scientists). Destroy my own reputation and join you? No thanks. Read every one of my 40 research publications mostly in the diabetes and insulin action field and that is what you will find—no extrapolated claims from insignificant differences in means. Plus this study here is anecdotal where the author described the impossibility of calibrating the dental examiners who as Sutton always pointed out usually do not even realize they automatically know which kids were from fluoridated regions by grouping. It has no meaning to me. Try reading Teotia and Teotia if you like epidemiologic rather than controlled clinical trials (which could be done with volunteers mind you) or Sutton or Yiamouyiannis referenced in this article or especially the excellent analysis by the great statistician Ziegelbecker who correctly describe the Dean original error with natural fluoride in water.  Get a grip. Me cite this?  These error bars nearly COMPLETELY overlap and the “difference” has zero meaning.

Billy Budd  The first point, assuming you are talking about Kumar’s recent study was that it didn’t seek to compare caries with fluoridation status.  It showed that molars with fluorosis had fewer cavities than those without.See:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu… J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):855-62.  The association between enamel fluorosis and dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren.  Iida H, Kumar JV.  New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY This is an enormously important point regarding fluoridation.  As Kumar concludes:  “The results highlight the need for those considering policies regarding reduction in fluoride exposure to take into consideration the caries-preventive benefits associated with milder forms of enamel fluorosis.” When Kumar’s paper came out NYSCOF and Connett infamously denounced it with press releases stating (for the reasons you give above) that the study shows fluoridation is “money down the drain.” Your similar citation of “decay rates” is merely a rehash of the 20 year old mistaken interpretation conceived by John Yiamouyiannis whereby the insensitive metric DMFT (Decayed Missing or Filled Teeth  the score used to measure “decay rates”) was combined with nationwide averages to pretend that fluoridation is ineffective. The averages from the underlying data in Kumar’s fluorosis is beneficial paper hide the truth of fluoridation’s effectiveness. The Pacific region then was fluoridated at 20%; the same amount as Oregon today.  In fact, the Pacific Region showed a whopping 61% fewer cavities in fluoridated towns.  There was a 0% difference in the Mid-West where most communities fluoridate. This geographic variation is explained by the Halo Effect.  Where most locations are fluoridated, small non-fluoridated pockets derive benefit from the neighbors . .it is in the food, beverages etc. The overall results were also age averaged.  The study only reported on the effect of fluoride upon permanent teeth yet included children as young as 5 years.  The so called 0.6 surface calculation was done assuming that all of the study kid had the full 128 tooth surfaces.   The 5 and 6 year olds had near zero tooth surfaces saved.  The data graphed  by age, shows about 1.5 tooth surfaces saved at age 17.   Sadly we don’t know the difference for 17 year olds in the Pacific Region. Clearly, by only considering the nation-wide and age average tooth surface saved, the truth of fluoride’s effect is obscured.  By using the DMFT or “decay rate” you use there is no difference. To know about this you must read the entire Brunelle and Carlos paper.  The Pacific Region results are in Table 9, p 726.  The clearest display of the dramatic increasing effect with age is in famous published debate between Dr. Howard Pollick and Dr. Paul Connett on p 323.  Connett says that 0.6 surfaces saved isn’t important.  Dr. Pollick discusses the matter in greater detail than can be done here.  Dr. Connett is the principal person behind the Fluoride Action Network. See: Int J Occup Environ Health. 2005 Jul-Sep;11(3):322-6.  Scientific evidence continues to support fluoridation of public water supplies.  Pollick HF. Please let me know if there is anything here I’ve not clearly explained.  This is a very important point in the fluoridation debate.  Time after time DMFT data (decay rates) are used to claim fluoridation is ineffective. This is a naive mistake made by those who have not taken the trouble to learn more about oral public health before opposing.

Sslott Rich, it’s not of any concern to me what you do with Kumar’s study. I simply gave you the cite because you mentioned an interest in it. Whatever is your opinion of it is of no consequence to me. Take up your concerns with Kumar if you’d like. There are always varying opinions in scientific study and I imagine he would note yours, as I’m sure he does all who may contact him.

Richsauerheb Good, but you specifically asked me why I didn’t cite it and you also claimed that i must have “missed it”.  Now you say that is of no concern. Which is it? i get the impression you are not trying to get anywhere but instead are just stealing my available  time.

Sslott Asked you why you didn’t cite it?? Rich, that’s almost as nonsensical as wondering why Medicare doesn’t cover water additives. Here is what I said: “Here is the Kumar study in which you expressed interest, followed by a sampling of the countless studies demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation. Evidently you must have overlooked these efficacy studies during your research of the issue.” As you can see, I stated that you must have missed the efficacy studies, not Kumar’s. and I did not state that Kumar’s study was of no concern. I stated that it is of no concern to me what you do with it. I’m getting worried about you, Rich. Your comments are getting more and more nonsensical.

Richsauerheb Surely you jest. A dentist is now arguing chemistry with a research scientist, OK.
Legal, useful chlorination has nothing to do with illegal useless “fluoridation”. Chlorine efficiently kills bacteria in water and is used for that purpose to sterilize water so it is potable. Water is fully potable without fluoride. Furthermore some product chloride is a normal blood electrolyte that has a required range in the blood for survival. But fluoride is not a mineral nutient or blood electrolyte, has no bodily function, does not sanitize water, and is not addded to make water potable. It is added to treat humans by order of fluoridationists in their quest to fight dental caries.

Where do you get your stuff that fluoride is like chlorine in order to justify its infusion? From fluoridationist literature?  The OHD at the CDC also claims calcium fluoride is “the same” as fluorosilicic acid in toxicity at dilute levels. Insane. I thought one of you dentists earlier admitted that fluoride “reacts differently with calcium than with sodium”. That was correct–fluoride is assimilated well in the presence of only sodium but is not assimilated well in the presence of calcium. Again, 25 grams of fluoride from sodium fluoride taken over a many-year period produces 6,000 mg/kg in bone. But 120 grams of fluoride from calcium fluoride over many years are required to achieve the same accumulation level in bone. And for any amount swallowed (including from “optimal fluoridation”) 95% of that retained is in bone indefinitely. No one yet knows its distribution between spongy bone with trabeculae and some marrow vs. compact bone but it is pathologic, not physiologic in spite of an extrapolation one would make from the Doull claim of “zero adversity”. Do you understand?

Sslott No, I’m not jesting, Rich. Not sure what would have given you that idea. No, I was simply pointing out the absurdity of your statement that “Fluoride treatments of people through public water supplies is NOT covered by Medicare”. Why would anyone think that EPA regulated water additives would be covered as a “treatment”? That would be as ridiculous as stating that “chlorine treatments of people through public water supplies is NOT covered by Medicare”. Well, yeah, given that these are both simply water additives under the control of the EPA…….why would anyone have the nonsensical idea that Medicare WOULD cover them? Medicare is a government sponsored medical assistance program for US citizens at the age considered to be “senior citizens”. It is not a program to pay for water additives. Too, I believe if you will check local, state, and federal statutes, you will find that there is nothing “illegal” about properly administered water fluoridation. The EPA would not allow it if it were “illegal” in any manner. I’m not aware of the CDC claiming calcium fluoride to be the same as fluorosilic acid in toxicity in dilute levels. The only thing of which I am aware they have said in that regard, as have I on numerous occasions, is that the fluoride ion released by the complete hydrolysis of HFA at the ph of drinking water, is identical to the fluoride ion released by calcium fluoride into groundwater….which it is. Again, there are no proven adverse effects attributable to water fluoridated at the optimal level. I’m not sure what else there is to understand about that.

Richsauerheb Yes, as a non-dentist and very proud to be, I am able to analyze data objectively that many dentists who want fluoride to “work” cannot, as in your case Steve. The bone cortical defects in Newburgh were observed, absolute fact, not a “hypothetical idea that needs to be disproved” as you suggest.
The adverse biochemisry that fluoride induced in Newburgh residents also caused delayed teeth eruption, a fact. Dentists of course were delighted with this because missing teeth were counted as absence of cavities, the intended goal for fluoride ingestion. And voila–the false conclusion that “fluoride decreases caries” when it intrinsically does not and cannot. It’s the same as the claim that Cheerios “decreases cholesterol levels” when it doesn’t intrinsically. But it “does” if you replace hamburgers with the Cheerios. And voila, Cheerios is advertised that it can lower cholesterol, even though it actually doesn’t. Fluoride is advertised by fluoridatonists as though it can cause fewer caries but it actually doesn’t (Teotia and Teotia; Sutton; Yiamouyiannis; Ziegelbecker, etc.) It’s advertised as able to lower dental bills but it doesn’t because 1) it doesn’t prevent caries and canot directly affect caries (accidentally when causing delayed teeth eruption or tooth loss in elder years or enamel fluorosis where the bacteria commonly reside with an altered preference 2) it cannot lower dental bills if a person has no cavities that would require a bill, and 3) for parents who don’t want fluorotic enamel hypoplasia, to correct thier childrens’ teeth is expensive with all proceeds of course going to the dentists that caused fluorosis in the first place.
If to a parent fluorosis is not desirable, then why do they have to have water adulterated with fluoride and then pay as well to restore the hypoplasia they do not desire? And it IS an adverse effect because it is always accompanied with abnormal fluoride accumulation into bone where it does not belong and deserves the name given for the abnormal hypoplasia condition, enamel fluorosis, because the enamel is so thin there that it doesn’t even transmit light as normal crystalline enamel does. Who cares if it has a different cavitation rate than if it had been left alone to be normal enamel? (Do fluoridationists want all teeth to have mild fluorosis because then bacteria will have to live only there to cause a “slower” caries rate? Any caries that do occur (and they can) in such “Kumar-lowered caries incidence teeth” you love are far more diffcult to treat in many cases because of the fluoridated pulp that goes along with it. This is not speculation or a hypothesis that “needs to be disproven” either. Would you like me to send written testimony from dentist Dr. Heard of the famous fluoride-rich “town without a cavity” myth?  It’s just that typically-instructed dentists have chosen viewpoints of fluoridationists and can become fluoridationists at all cost even when though it always includes bone incorporation, blood fluoride where it does not belong, and enamel hypoplasia.
I, as an affirmed non-dentist and medical research scientist, do not adopt views of fluoridationists and most certainly enjoy plain clean water when it can be found (rarely possible though in our country since so many water districts are controlled by fluoridationists).

You and the OHD at the CDC would benefit greatly by taking a course in physical chemistry to learn the difference bewteen concentration of an ionic species and its actual chemical activity in hard water. And a course in clinical chemistry to know the actual components that belong in human blood. And a toxicology course with an actual lab section.

Good luck to you.

 

Sslott Well, again, Rich, you are certainly welcome to your opinion, as a non dentist attempting to speak to a dental condition about which you have such superficial knowledge as to not understand the effects of the different levels of that condition. As a dentist, I again tell you that mild to very mild dental fluorosis, the only dental fluorosis which may occur below the EPA secondary MCL for fluoride, 2.0 ppm, is barely detectable, has no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth and is not considered an adverse effect. As far as desirability of mild dental fluorosis, again, that would depend on the opinions of the parents of infants or children in the tooth development age range. For those parents who view the benefit of increased decay resistance of mildly fluorosed teeth, to carry more weight than any concerns they may have about mild dental fluorosis, then the effect would be desirable. For those parents who hold the opposite view, it would not be desirable. In neither instance would mild dental fluorosis be considered an adverse effect, however. Here is the Kumar study in which you expressed interest, followed by a sampling of the countless studies demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation. Evidently you must have overlooked these efficacy studies during your research of the issue.

Johnny Johnson The following credible, scientific, and reliable Nationally & Internationally recognized experts endorse or support fluoridation as a Public Health benefit (partial listing):

1.  World Health Organization
2.  American Academy of Pediatrics
3.  American Medical Association
4.  American Dental Association
5.  American Academy of Pediatric Dentists
6.  Mayo Clinic
7.  Institute of Medicine
8.  March of Dimes
9.  Alzheimer’s Association
10. National Down Syndrome Society
11. National Head Start Association

Full list:
http://www.ada.org/4051.aspx

Richsauerheb  Of course they do. They trust the word of dentists. But none of these organizations has conducted trials or critically examined even the Sutton textbook that anlalyzed in detail the uncontrolled anecdotal “trials” such as in Newburg to determine any effectiveness of swallowed fluoride on caries or that health effects are nonexistent for all consumers, even the infirmed.  They are relying on fluoridationist dentists for that, who they trust must have excercised due diligence in doing so. Hence the endorsements. Endorsements are not data of proof. The National Kidney Foundation and the National Research Foundation once endorsed fluoridation. They most certainly do not now, knowing what is happening to the fluoridated  population.    So what exactly is your point? None of these agencies forces water district officials to dump fluorides into water supplies, corrupting water with the claim that somehow God’s water is not good enough.

Fluoride ion from synthetic compounds designed to be taken internally is appropriately NOT approved by the FDA. Fluoride treatments of people through public water supplies is NOT covered by Medicare.  One day the use of this unapproved chemical, intended to treat people through ingestion to elevate this contaminant in the blood to 0.21 ppm where it is not a normal blood electrolyte, will be litigated properly and to the full extent of Federal law. All monies collected because of false advertising– claims of effectiveness with total lack of any adverse health effects of any kind in anyone (again, Wow) — will be returned to American citizens who paid to have their own bony skeletons fluoridated. The casual and completely imprecise amateurish proclamation of Doull has no bearing whatsoever on what is actually happening and what will occur one day when justice takes place.
Happy July 4th to our country.

 

One thought on “Sauerheber Debates Parkland Dentists

  1. Ron Eheman

    Fluoride advocate declines debate
    Hernando Today-Jul 19, 2013
    BROOKSVILLE – Dr. Johnny Johnson, a retired pediatric dentist, has declined Mayor Lara Bradburn’s invitation to debate a nationally known fluoride opponent.
    Bradburn announced Monday Dr. Paul Connett, author of “The Case Against Fluoride,” would attend an Aug. 27 budget workshop at Brooksville City Hall.

    Bradburn is planning a “presidential-style debate,” and invited Johnson to speak in favor of fluoride.

    In an email sent Wednesday night to Bradburn and City Council members, Johnson said he had already explained the community benefits of fluoridated drinking water during a May workshop.

    “You and I discussed scientific research which isn’t peer reviewed, credible nor published in reputable journals,” Johnson wrote, referencing studies Bradburn discussed during the workshop. “While that type of literature may appear on the surface to be legitimate, that same literature has failed to meet the standards that the scientific community demands for credibility. Unfortunately, that is the kind of flawed, incomplete or irrelevant information that is circulated by Paul Connett – the man you asked me to ‘debate.'”

    Johnson called Connett “fringe and disreputable,” and respectfully declined Bradburn’s invitation.

    In an email sent to reporters and Brooksville City Manager Jennene Norman-Vacha on Thursday morning, Bradburn wrote she was “disappointed that he (Johnson) seems unwilling once again to have a open and honest discussion on this matter.”

    “Instead, he chooses to lob disparaging remarks against anyone who disagrees with him,” Bradburn wrote. “That approach serves no one.”

    Bradburn said she hopes Johnson will reconsider debating Connett. If not, Braburn wrote she has asked the Hernando County Health Department to recommend a replacement.

    “If they truly believe water fluoridation is safe and necessary for our community’s consumption, they’ll jump at the opportunity,” Bradburn wrote.

    The workshop is planned for 6 p.m. on Aug. 27 at Brooksville City Hall, 201 Howell Ave. The talks will be broadcast on the county’s television channel.

    Fluoride was added into Brooksville’s drinking water from 1986 through 2011.

    If added back in to the community water supply, fluoride would cost the city about $7,000 a year.

    During a July 1 City Council meeting, Joe Bernardini, previously undecided on the contentious issue, announced he would be in favor of adding fluoride back into drinking water but would also like city residents to decide during election time.

    Council members Frankie Burnett and Joe Johnston III have said in the past they favor fluoride.

    Bradburn is a staunch opponent of the additive, as well as Vice Mayor Kevin Hohn, who works as an account manager for a company that sells fluoride products and believes there is a better way to fight cavities than fluoridated water.

Leave a Reply

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

eight − five =