DMWA plan to stop fluoride addition delayed

Pin It

State DEP requires public comment on move; local dentists say health at risk

By Mike McGann, Editor, The Times

IMG_2747

The water treatment plant for the Downingtown Municipal Water Authority. Plans to end adding fluoride to the system’s water have been put on hold, pending state Department of Environmental Protection approval.

DOWNINGTOWN — A plan to stop adding fluoride to water in the Downingtown Municipal Water Authority on April 15 has been put on hold after the state’s Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) said that the move will have to wait to face a public comment period and then state regulatory approval.

The sudden change in plans comes a couple of weeks after the local chapter of the Pennsylvania Dental Association, the Chester/Delaware County Dental Society said they had been caught by surprise at the March 9 notice that the Downingtown Municipal Water Authority planned to stop fluoridation of its water in mid-April.

The DMWA sent notice out earlier this month that it planned to end fluoridation on April 15, but that date has been put on hold by the DEP. The authority serves 3,621 customers mostly in Downingtown, but with a small number of users in Caln, West Caln, West Bradford and East Brandywine.

“The Downingtown Municipal Water Authority notified their customers of their intent to discontinue fluoride treatment and submitted their application to DEP on March 8, 2016,” said Virginia Cain, Community Relations Coordinator for the DEP’s Southeast Regional Office. “Notice of receipt of the application was published in the PA Bulletin for public comment on March 19th, 2016; comments will be received for 30 days.”

The local community will be allowed to comment, she said, and those comments will be part of the permit evaluation process.

“If anyone objects or has comments on this application, DEP will consider all comments and concerns with equal weight and consideration before making a final decision on the application,” Cain said. “(The) Downingtown Municipal Water Authority has been informed by DEP that their current fluoride treatment must continue until they receive a permit approval from the department.”

The managers of the water system said that the removal had been in the works for nearly two years and argued that the savings, some $40,000 yearly or about $12 per household, would allow the DMWA to modernize equipment, including water meters more quickly, while removing an additive most people now get through toothpaste and other daily substances.

“I think there were a number of different factors (in making the decision)” said DMWA Executive Director David L. Busch said. “One of them is the idea of putting things in the water that are not their naturally.” Busch noted the pride his authority takes in using clean water from the Brandywine Creek — some of the best water in the region.

The notice sent to local residents also suggested that there was a potential for adverse health effects from overexposure to fluoride.

“People use different amounts of water,” Busch said, noting that some might be overexposed unwittingly.

But local dentists — backed by data from the American Dental Association and the U.S. Centers For Disease Control — say fluoride is very safe at the levels being used, 7 parts per billion, and studies have shown an immediate and direct impact on the dental health of people, especially children, when fluoride is removed from water systems.

“Drinking fluoridated water keeps the teeth strong and reduces tooth decay, which is one of the most common chronic diseases in children,” said Dale Scanlon, President of the Chester/Delaware Dental Society. “Having fluoridated community water is one of the best means to help prevent tooth decay since it is a readily available source of fluoride.”

Busch, though, argues the DMWA is just following the path of many local water systems in dropping fluoride, seen as unneeded now.

“We are going toward the majority (of water systems), not the opposite,” he said.

The county’s dental community say they are frustrated by what they see as a penny-wise, pound foolish decision by the water authority. That has them questioning whether this is a public health decision, or as has been seen in recent months in Flint, Michigan, an ill-considered move by a public body to save money on a public water system.

Scanlon notes that not just dentists or the American Dental Association (ADA) advocate for water fluoridation, but numerous national and international health organizations.

“According to the Center for Disease Control, community water fluoridation is recommended by nearly all public health, medical, and dental organizations including, the American Academy of Pediatrics, US Public Health Service and World Health Organization, in addition to the ADA,” he said. 

The dental health community is united in arguing for the overall benefit of water fluoridation — the ADA cites a very recent study done in Canada as immediate proof of the impact of removing fluoride from community water supplies. That study showed the immediate impact on a group of second grade students in two Canadian cities: Edmonton and Calgary. In Calgary, the water system stopped fluoridation, while Edmonton continued it.

Within two years, the study said, the average number of cavities in that group of some 5,000 students in Calgary was 3.8, while the number in Edmonton was 2.1, suggesting a direct and immediate impact on dental health from removing fluoride from the water supply.

The Centers for Disease Control is even stronger in its support of public water fluoridation:

“Fluoridation of community drinking water is a major factor in the decline of tooth decay in the United States,” according to the CDC’s Website. “Although other fluoride-containing products are available, water fluoridation remains the most equitable and cost-effective method of delivering fluoride to all members of most communities. CDC has recognized community water fluoridation as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.”

Still, others question the need for it in public water supplies, suggesting that modern toothpaste and other products supply more than enough. According to the notice sent out by the DMWA, the move was being made to reduce the exposure to fluoride as a public health concern and to save money.

Although many have claimed that fluoride and over exposure to it is hazardous, the CDC said that no correlation has ever been found, citing an independent 2013 report by the Community Preventive Task Force, that showed no negative health impact beyond white spots being formed on the teeth of some who were overexposed to fluoride. Additionally, fluoride is found naturally in the water of a number of southwest states — at about four times the level used in the DMWA system — without negative impact to the health of the people of that region.

Scanlon notes that even the DWMA’s Web site includes links highlighting the benefits of fluoridating water from drinktap.com http://www.drinktap.org/water-info/questions-about-water/fluoride-in-water.aspx). 

With some time before a final decision is made, Scanlon suggests that residents who are concerned make their opinions known.

“Downingtown residents affected by the proposed action of the DMWA should plan to attend the DMWA’s public meetings and show their support for the fluoridating the community water supply as an essential public health measure which is necessary for the prevention of tooth decay,” he said. 

PDF24    Send article as PDF   

Share this post:

Related Posts

166 Comments

  1. John Mueller says:

    Steve Slott,
    I dare suggest you are indeed worthy of taking your own advice: “Pack up, take your toys and go home with your tail between your legs.”

  2. James Dean says:

    What is the Difference Between Natural Fluoride and the Kind That is Artificially Added to Our Water Supply?

    On the heels of recent news that the fluoride in North American drinking water supplies is considered to be a neurotoxin according to a recent study in the top peer-review medical journal The Lancet, on par with some of the most notorious environmental toxins out there, many people are becoming more interested in the truth about fluoride.

    Specifically, most people still do not know the difference between the naturally occurring calcium fluoride and other industrialized forms that are added to water supplies in North America (but not throughout most of Europe, and many other high-tech countries).

    That’s because the term “fluoride” is often thrown around without making a distinction between these substances.

    There are three types of fluoride used to “fluoridate” water supplies: Fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate and sodium fluoride.

    Fluorosilicic acid is the type most often used for cost reasons, and it is derived from phosphate fertilizers according to the CDC’s website.

    The other two are created by adding either table salt or caustic soda to the mix.

    Fluoride Corrodes Town’s Pipes

    These types of fluoride can be quite corrosive, as one town found out the hard way when the fluoride they used to add to their water supply began corroding pipes and damaging city vehicles. Officials from the town, Buffalo, Missouri, voted to stop fluoridating the water supply recently due to these issues.

    In contrast with these types of fluoride is calcium fluoride, which is a much safer version of fluoride.

    Calcium fluoride is considered the “least toxic” and in some cases “relatively harmless,” that’s because of its high insolubility.

    Magnesium and especially calcium are known as minerals that counteract the effects of fluoride, an example of how nature often pairs antidotes with poisons or designs complete foods that mitigate harmful substances for the most part.

    This type of fluoride is often found in natural waters, while the above industrial byproducts are added to water supplies, a highly controversial practice that more and more people are asking to be changed.

  3. James Dean says:

    Sodium fluoride in drinking water has also been linked to various cancers. It is functionally different than the naturally-occurring calcium fluoride.

  4. James Dean says:

    The movement to remove industrial sodium fluoride from the world’s water supply has been growing in recent years, with evidence coming out against the additive from several sources.

    Now, a report from the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, has officially classified fluoride as a neurotoxin — in the same category as arsenic, lead and mercury.

  5. James Dean says:

    There are safe ways to provide fluoride to your teeth if your teeth are deficient. A simple one time gel treatment lasting fifteen minutes is good enough to last a lifetime.

    What is hardly safe according to this work is chronic exposure. From the above it is also clearly unnecessary. This is an out of control marketing scheme with dentists providing uninformed testimonials back in the day.

    It needs to be shut down and public health needs to test teenagers and young adults for dental fluoride deficiency although it will likely be already dealt with by dentists. .

  6. Siru Cossaboon says:

    Fluoridation or ingesting fluorides, has a dismal record in the U.S. There is no correlation in states between fluoridation and teeth health.
    The CDC reports that Kentucky, 100% fluoridated for over 60 years, has the worst total loss of teeth in the country (42.3%). Compare that to Hawaii with the least fluoridation (10.8%) and the best record of total teeth loss in the U.S. (13.1%). Similar poor results are found in Maine (79.4% and 30.4%), Delaware (86.3% and 25.8%) and other states.
    Fluoridation is not only a waste of tax money but is slow poisoning in every glass of water over a lifetime resulting in serious health problems; damage to bones, brain, thyroid and much more.

  7. James Dean says:

    The public health precautionary principle essentially says to err on the side of caution and has not been considered with fluoridation. “When in doubt, take it out.” For the American Fluoridation Society to promote the use of fluorosilicic acid by calling it fluoride is disingenuous at best and a recipe for failure that can contribute to the loss of the patients’ trust in their dentists.

    • Steve slott says:

      James Dean

      1. The Precautionary Principle applies when there is no scientific consensus of the safety of an initiative. With water fluoridation having the support of those such as the last 5 US Surgeons General, the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health, the US CDC, the US Institute of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and over 150 others of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world…….there is obvious overwhelming scientific consensus of the safety of fluoridation. The Precautionary Principle does not apply to water fluoridation.

      2. The American Fluoridation Society has never called either “fluorosilicic acid” [sic], or fluorosilic acid….fluoride. This is your patently false claim based on:

      A. Your clear and total lack of understanding of this initiative
      B. Your clear disregard for truth and accuracy
      C. Your clear, sole dependence on blurbs you have copy/pasted from “fluoridealert”, obviously not having read nor understood any of them.

      Thank you. You have very nicely exhibited the reprehensible actions of antifluoridationists in a manner that is far more demonstrative than any description I can offer.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  8. James Dean says:

    Public drinking water is a basic human right and the FDA calls fluoride a drug. To drug our municipal water with a hazardous waste product to benefit “poor children” when kidney patients, children, diabetics, seniors and the chronically ill are “susceptible sub populations” (EPA quote) who are vulnerable to harm from ingesting this poison. We should never have allowed a drug in our drinking water in unregulated dosage without informed consent. The EPA has acknowledged that fluoride does not work by putting it in our water. Both sides in this debate promote fluoridated toothpaste, good diet and dental hygiene, and regular visits to the dentists.

    • Steve slott says:

      James Dean

      1. There is no “basic human right” to fluoride free water.

      2. There are no drugs involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water.

      2. The FDA has no jurisdiction over optimal level fluoride in drinking water. This jurisdiction falls entirely under the EPA. What the FDA, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, or the Girl Scouts of America “calls fluoride” is of no relevance to water fluoridation.

      3. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride on “kidney patients, children, diabetics, seniors, and the chronically ill”…….as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

      4. There is no “unregulated dosage” in regard to optimally fluoridated water. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter. Thus, for every one liter of fluoridated water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. The US CDC estimates that of the total fluoride intake from all sources, 75% is from water and beverages. The US Institute of Medicine established daily upper limit of fluoride ingestion before adverse effects is 10 mg. A simple math equation demonstrates that before this daily upper could be attained in association with fluoridated water, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

      5. There is no informed consent required for local officials to establish the concentration of naturally occurring minerals in public drinking water supplies under their jurisdiction.

      6. The EPA has never “acknowledged that fluoride does not work by putting it in our water” as you falsely claim.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  9. James Dean says:

    Fluoridationists led by the American Dental Association wrongly call this manmade chemical natural. Fluorosilicic acid, is a hazardous waste harvested from the smokestacks of the fertilizer industry and never meant for human consumption. How fluorosilicic acid is metabolized in the body is very different from calcium fluoride found naturally in our ecosystem. Many are not aware that this water contaminant is being used to fluoridate water. Calling fluorosilicic acid fluoride appears to be an attempt to whitewash this toxic chemical as safe for public consumption.

    • Steve slott says:

      James Dean

      1. Fluoride is the anion of the naturally occurring element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. One such atom of fluorine is identical to all other such atoms of fluorine. This is is just elementary chemistry. The fluoride ions added to water during fluoridation are identical to those which are already in the water.

      2. Calcium fluoride is a compound, not an atom, and does not exist in groundwater. As groundwater flows over rocks it picks up fluoride ions which have been leached from calcium fluoride and fluorosilicates in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring fluoride”. They are identical to those fluoride ions added through fluoridation.

      The only ones who are “calling fluorosilic acid fluoride” , and claiming that it is consumed by humans, are uninformed antifluoridationists.

      3. Fluorosilic acid does not reach the tap in fluoridated water. It is therefore not ingested. As FSA is not ingested, it is not “metabolized in the human body”.

      4. Fluorosilic acid is not “harvested from the smokestacks of the fertilizer industry”. This is a laughable depiction that uninformed antifluoridationists constantly attempt to put forth.

      The substance most widely utilized to fluoridate water systems is fluorosilic acid, otherwise known as hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA).  HFA is a co-product of the process which extracts the other co-product, phosphoric acid, from naturally occurring  phosphorite rock.  Phosphoric acid is used in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into foods that we eat.  The HFA co-product is carefully diluted to an 23% aqueous solution which is utilized to fluoridate water systems.  To irrationally fear one co-product of this process is to irrationally fear the other.

      Once introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water (~7), the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated).  The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts that are so far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainly that those detected aren’t that already exist in water naturally.  

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • James Dean says:

        Given that many studies have shown adverse effects due to the consumption of fluoride, people should have a right to opt out from ingesting this chemical. It should not be forced on the people.

        • Steve slott says:

          James Dean

          1. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride……..as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

          2. As fluoride has always existed in water, you will ingest it in your water, fluoridated or not.

          3. Nothing is forced on anyone in regard to water fluoridation. People are entirely free to drink the water or not. Their choice.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

        • James Dean says:

          There is a difference between consuming low levels of naturally occurring fluoride, and consuming hydrofluorosilic acid which is added to the water. If people want to consume this industrial by-product they can do it at their will. But don’t force people to consume a chemical which is listed as a neurotoxin.

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            If you are consuming hydrofluorosilic acid, your problem is a cognitive deficiency, not one with fluoridation.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

  10. James Dean says:

    The establishment swears that the only downside to fluoridation is dental fluorosis; however, not to worry — fluorosis is simply “cosmetic,” a “sparkle” that enhances the smile of about one-third of our population, which Wikipedia attributes to “excessive fluoride ingestion” in early years. Dental fluorosis is, in fact, the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning; ask Harold — he knew.

    After decades of pushing supplements to infants (a crime in Belgium), agencies now agree that limiting fluoride in early years reduces dental fluorosis. Nary a whisper of rats with issues or children with lower IQ even as fluoride is linked to multiple diseases in multiple studies (“Fluoridation may not prevent cavities, scientific review shows,” June 29, and “Water fluoridation linked to higher ADHD rates,” March 10, Newsweek).

    Fetuses and infants are, by far, the most vulnerable. Surrounded by fluoride, mother’s milk is essentially free of this developmental neurotoxin. Until we wake up and end this debacle, it is imperative that parents not mix baby formula with fluoridated water or allow their infant to drink it.

    • Steve slott says:

      James Dean

      1. The only dental fluorosis attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered moderate, mild, and very mild dental fluorosis to be nothing more than cosmetic. Readers are free to assess the difference between the opinion of the 2006 NRC Committee and that of “Wikipedia”.

      There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that mild dental fluorisis is “a sign of fluoride poisoning”……as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

      “Agencies” have always agreed that limiting fluoride in early years reduces dental fluorosis. This was the foundation for the whole water fluoridation program, and the reason that the optimal level of fluoride is set at 0.7 ppm, rather than 4.0 ppm.

      There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of optimal level fluoride on IQ, or assiciated with “multiple diseases”…….as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

      The Newsweek articles to which you refer are little more than erroneous opinion pieces written by freelance writer/antifluoridationist, Douglas Main who is well known for his anti fluoridation pieces in the dubious online publication, “Natural News”. Why the once proud Newsweek has sunk to the depths of publishing such shoddy journalism is anybody’s guess.

      The study which Main misrepresents in his first article (June 29) is the Cochrane Review. Any readers who care to read this study should do so from its original source, and not rely on Main’s erroneous “interpretation” of it. Cochrane may be found:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract

      The second Main article (March 10) is in reference to the Malin, et al. ADHD study. This study has been so widely discredited in the scientific literature that it is a wonder that anyone still attempts to use it. The main criticisms of this study are for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and stating conclusions not supported by the peer-reviewed science. Clear demonstration of Malin’s poor control for confounders is the 2015 Huber study which, using the same data as did Malin, concluded the reported cases of ADHD to be due to elevation at which the children resided, not fluoridated water.

      —J Atten Disord. 2015 Mar 25. pii: 1087054715577137. [Epub ahead of print]
      Association Between Altitude and Regional Variation of ADHD in Youth.
      Huber R, Kim T, Kim N, Kuykendall MD, Sherwood SN,  Renshaw PF, Kondo DG.

      “It’s an ecological study design with 51 observations (50 states & DC), and is not appropriate to test a hypothesis. ADHD prevalence was based on self-reported data, and hence had a potential of misclassification of disorder status. State-wide fluoridation measures were used. Individuals’ exposure to fluoridation were not measured. Due to ecological assessment of exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the use of prevalence data of self-reported ADHD and water fluoridation from different years, the findings are at high risk for ecological fallacy. Authors did not adjust for important confounders (smoking, low birth weight, age, sex etc.). Moreover, authors’ poor literature review and skewed interpretation of literature concerning fluoride and neurodevelomental defects may have introduced bias.”

      ——http://www.fluoridescience.org/articles/exposure-to-fluoridated-water-and-attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-prevalence-among-children-and-adolescents-in-the-united-states-an-ecological-association/#sthash.tQUCMKJi.dpuf

      2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on “fetuses and infants” from optimally fluoridated water…….as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

      3. “Mother’s milk” is deficient in iron, Vitamin K, and Vitamin D, to the point of requiring supplements for breast-fed infants. By your “logic”, it appears that nature intends for infants be anemic free-bleeders who develop Ricketts.

      4. There is no good reason to avoid mixing infant formula with optimally fluoridated water, or not allow infants to drink it. The only “risk” of so doing is that of barely detectable mild dental fluorosis. This is simply due to the fact that powdered infant formula already contains fluoride. The addition of additional fluoride from optimally fluoridated water risks mild dental fluorosis in the developing teeth of the infant. That’s it.

      As a dentist knowledgrable about fluoridation, who has practiced in a fluoridated community surrounded by fluoridated communities for the past 35 years, I fed my own infant children powdered infant formula reconstituted exclusively with fluoridated water, and then raised them on fluoridated water. I strongly recommended that they do the same with their own infants and children, which they now do. Knowing the difference between a risk of barely detectable faint white streaks on teeth versus the destruction of dental decay, I knew better than to deny my children and grandchildren the benefits of water fluoridation based on illiterate nonsense of activists.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  11. James Dean says:

    The first fluoride “authority” was Dr. Robert Kehoe. Preaching from the industrial-funded Kettering Institute, his mantra was, “The question of the public safety of fluoridation is nonexistent from the viewpoint of medical science.” Simultaneously Kehoe advocated for the safety of leaded gasoline. He successfully obscured lead’s horrendous effects for decades, causing incalculable damage, especially to children.

    • Steve slott says:

      James Dean

      Question: What do leaded gasoline and little green men from Mars have in common?

      Answer: They both have the same relevance to water fluoridation.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  12. Siru Cossaboon says:

    Do not listen to this South Carolina Fluoride pusher. I live in Chester County, I use the restaurants in Downingtown and many of my friends live in Downingtown. I don’t want fluorides in the water. I am sick of having to worry about ingesting fluorides, that damaged my thyroid, pelase remove it!

    Fluoridation is obsolete, neither safe, nor effective, regardless what the industry PR organizations, such as the ADA say. Dental heath is better protected by dental hygiene and not ingesting fluorides. It is like ingesting sun screens to avoid skin cancer. No thank you! Please stop this decades old fraud.

    In comparison, here are some STATEMENTS FROM EUROPEAN OFFICIALS:

    Austria:

    “Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.”
    SOURCE: M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000.

    Belgium:

    “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
    SOURCE: Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000.

    Denmark:

    “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.”
    SOURCE: Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999.

    To read the Danish Ministry of the Environment’s reasons for banning fluoridation, click here.

    Finland:

    “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.”
    SOURCE: Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000.

    “Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force-feeding” was also mentioned.

    Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.”
    SOURCE: Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.

    France:

    “Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.”
    SOURCE: Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August 25, 2000.

    Germany:

    “Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.”
    SOURCE: Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999.

    Luxembourg:

    “Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.”
    SOURCE: Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000.

    Netherlands:

    “From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn.”
    SOURCE: Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000.

    Northern Ireland:

    “The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland.”
    SOURCE: C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000.

    Norway:

    “In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.”
    SOURCE: Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000.

    Sweden:

    “Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.”
    SOURCE: Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000.

    See statement by Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the Nobel Laureate in Medicine, who helped lead the campaign to prevent fluoridation in Sweden in the late 1970s.

    Czech Republic:

    “Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:

    uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
    unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
    unethical (“forced medication”)
    toxicologically and physiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor.”
    SOURCE: Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999.

    • Steve slott says:

      Siru

      Interesting that you seek to identify yourself as a resident of Chester County, then funnel misinformation and nonsense directly from the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. The list of quotes you provide are nothing but claims by utility personnel in various countries which “FAN” has posted on its little website “fluoridealert”. You can find utility personnel in the US who will provide the same opinions, based on the same misinformation. However, these opinions have little to do with the actual reasons why different ateas, or different countries may, or may not fluoridate their water systems.’

      Yet once again, the reasons that different countries may not fluoridate their water ststems are myriad with few, if any, being due to concerns with safety or effectiveness. These reasons include such things as logistics of water systems rendering fluoridation cost-prohibitive, use of fluoridated salt and/or milk programs in lieu of water fluoridation, existing fluoride levels in water already at or above the optimal level, and equal access to comprehensive dental care by all citizens of a country.

      So, the question for Chester County citizens is whether they want to heed accurate facts and evidence that are fully verifiable, regardless of whom provides them…….or whether they want to accord credence to misinformation from New York antifluoridationist factions simply because the one insidiously funneling it into the county claims to be a resident?

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Infomation Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Siru Cossaboon says:

        That was an outright lie, Steve Slott, that these statements are by “water utility workers”!! My family for the most part lives in clean water Europe and they would never accept toxic water fluoridation. Dr. Arvid Karlsson in Sweden is famous for keeping Sweden away from this toxic practice. Also Kaj Roholm in Denmark did entensive fluoride research in the 1930’s and the Danish are well aware of what neurotoxins fluorides are. They would never in their wildest dreams add such poisons in their water supply!
        Again stop trolling this site and let the local people decide what is good for them! I am local, you are not. I pay Chester County taxes and live here. I do not want any toxic fluoridation chemicals in my water that are added to treat the end user, causing brain damage and endocrine disruption. How dare you advocate this mass medication/ poisoning which violates the Clean Water Act, The Unesco Code of Bioethics, and the Nuremverg code?

        Further, according to the CDC, Kentucky ranks number one among U.S. states with 99.8 percent of its population receiving fluoridated water. Yet, the CDC ranks Kentucky as the state with the second highest missing teeth rate, falling only a few percentage points behind West Virginia. This is good and obvious evidence that fluoridation is not effective for its stated purpose let alone being safe (which it is not). It is an obsolete outrageous practice that belongs to the hall of shame!

        http://ukhealthcare.uky.edu/health-info/publications/advances-insights/pediatrics/Kentucky-rates-second-in-US-in-poor-oral-health/

        • Steve slott says:

          Siru

          Sure, I’m all for local citizens deciding the issue. However in doing so they deserve accurate information on which to base that decision. You are doing nothing but parrotting erroneous nonsense from the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. That I won’t allow you to do so unchallenged obviously frustrates you.

          As soon as antifluoridationists understand that it is not acceptable to discard truth and accuracy whenever they please, cease copy/pasting nonsensical junk from antifluoridationist websites, and begin to properly educate themselves on this issue from legitimate, respected sources……I will gladly go away. As this will obviously never happen, you probably should just get used to me.

          So, yet once again…….the question for Chester County citizens is whether they want to heed accurate facts and evidence that are fully verifiable, regardless of whom provides them…….or whether they want to accord credence to misinformation from New York antifluoridationist factions simply because the one insidiously funneling it into the county claims to be a resident?

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            Siru

            In regard to your continued “FAN” nonsense about Europe:

            The following is an outline of the situation with fluoridation throughout the world taken from a recent issue of the newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:

            Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Israel, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea.

            Several countries are unable to introduce water fluoridation programmes due to technical, financial or sociocultural reasons. As an alternative, both salt and milk have been found to be reliable and convenient vehicles for increasing fluoride intake to an optimal level for hard to reach and low socio-economic communities. Studies have found them to be as effective as community water fluoridation schemes.

            Some European, Latin American, and Caribbean countries, including France, Switzerland, Germany, Costa rica, Colombia and Jamaica currently use fluoridated salt schemes. Mexico and most Latin American and Caribbean countries (apart from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and French Guyana) have or have had salt fluoridation programmes.

            A smaller number of countries currently have fluoridated milk programmes, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom

            Some country regions have optimal amounts of naturally occurring fluoride which provides good protection for oral health. examples of countries supplied with naturally fluoridated water at or around the optimum level needed to prevent dental decay include the United Kingdom (estimated 329,000 people), United States of America (estimated 10,078,000 people) Canada (estimated 300,000 people) and Australia (estimated 144,000 people).

            It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

        • Steve slott says:

          Siru

          In regard to your copy/paste blurb about Kentucky. What “FAN” does not seem to understand is that attempting to use snapshots of statistics about tooth loss in order to further their ideology, could not be any more ridiculous. Chronic tooth loss is a lifetime process. What are the causes of the tooth loss? How many of the citizens have lived in Ky since birth? How many have just moved in from other states or countries? What are the diets of the citizens? What are the genetics of the citizens? What is the socio-economic status of the citizens? What is the educational level of the citizens?

          That “FAN” keeps putting out snapshot of data with no control for variables, as “evidence” against fluoridation is clear demonstration as to how little they understand this issue. That you continue to copy/paste their nonsense, having no idea as to the fallacy of it all is clear demonstration of your own callousness, disregard for the truth, and intention to willfully mislead your fellow citizens.

          So, yet once again……the question for Chester County citizens is whether they want to heed accurate facts and evidence that are fully verifiable, regardless of whom provides them…….or whether they want to accord credence to misinformation from New York antifluoridationist factions simply because the one insidiously funneling it into the county claims to be a resident?

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

  13. Steve slott says:

    Siru

    In regard to the ‘EPA Scientist” claims copy/pasted from “fluoridealert”….

    The EPA has no authority under law to oppose or endorse fluoridation. But they can, and have, stated that “Fluoride in drinking water at levels of about 1 ppm reduces the number of dental cavities” (51 Fed Reg 1140, 1986). They have also stated that “There exists no directly applicable scientific documentation of adverse medical effects at levels of fluoride below 8 mg/l,” (62 Fed Reg 64297, 1997). In effect, U.S. EPA has gone on record that there are no adverse medical effects from fluoridation even at eight times the optimum concentration for reduction of tooth decay. The basis for an allegation that the EPA opposes fluoridation occurred on July 2, 1997, when 20 EPA employees who opposed fluoridation attended a meeting of Chapter 280 of the National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE). At that time, EPA had approximately 18,000 employees, and Chapter 280 of NFFE represented 1000-1600 of them. Because those 20 EPA employees constituted a majority of the union members attending the meeting, they were able to adopt a resolution opposing California’s mandatory fluoridation law. At a subsequent press conference they claimed that NFFE adopted the resolution. Within a few days, Chapter officers issued an official statement declaring that the press conference was held without their knowledge or consent. Subsequent to that, two employees implied that EPA opposed fluoridation. Neither NFFE nor its successor, the National Treasury Employees’ Union, has published an official position on fluoridation. The lack of all pertinent details, has mislead some of the public into thinking that EPA is opposed to water fluoridation.

    Questions and Answers About Fluoridation
    Indiana State Department of Health

    http://www.in.gov/isdh/24525.htm#Does_the_US_EPA_oppose_water_fluoridation

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Information Director
    American Fluoridation Society

  14. Siru Cossaboon says:

    Here is a letter by EPA scientist to oppose water fluoridation in 1999. http://www.nofluoride.com/epa_hirzy_letter.htm

  15. Sharon says:

    Any problems with conceiving a child? Fluoride has been shown to damage sperm: fluoride doesn’t just go to teeth it effects the endocrine system so it effects everything.

    http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/fertility/

    • Steve slott says:

      Sharon

      1. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimal level fluoride “damage[s] sperm”, or that it in any manner adversely affects the endocrine system.

      2. ‘Fluoridealert” is nothing but the biased website of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. The filtered and edited nonsense posted on that site is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of any who accord it credence.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  16. Sharon says:

    Over 4000 scientists and other health professionals are against water fluoridation.
    Ask ourselves do we really want Dentists to dictate what drug goes into our children’s bodies? They are not toxicologists, they are not medical doctors. Many studies have shown that areas fluoridated have more cases of fluorosis – over 40% of kids now have Fluorisis so dentists can make more money from us. Brush and floss and reduce sugar intake – that’s what respectable dentists should be telling us to do – not drink a drug that is more toxic than lead.

    Full disclosure – I don’t live in your town. But I don’t make money off kids and adults who don’t like having brown or bright white spots on their teeth caused by fluoride. Not do I profit from selling bottled water. I love science and I can’t stand by watching science being distorted by misguided or even corrupt dentists.
    See http://www.fluoridealert.org to make up your own mind.
    And if the ADA was so ethical why are they trying to trick us by bothering to buy the URLs http://www.fluoridealert.com AND http://www.fluoridealert.net to redirect us to their website promoting water fluoridation.

    Not exactly honorable.

    See the National Academies of Science 2006 report on fluorides adverse effects
    See the Cochrane Review 2015 on how fluoride does not work in adults and how all the research is poorly done even though it’s been around since the end of WW2.

    • Steve slott says:

      Sharon

      1. Of that “FAN” worldwide list of “4000 scientists and other health professionals” are but 375 dentists and 550 MDs. In the US alone, there 175,000 dentists and 850,000 MDs. That list could not provide any more vivid example of the negligible amount of opposition to fluoridation which exists within respected healthcare.

      2. There are no drugs involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. However, the fact that you allow your children to freely consume a substance in water that you are convinced is a detriment to health is a reflection of your parenting skills, not of any problem with water fluoridation. If I believed even a portion of the nonsense of antifluoridationists, I would not allow my children within a mile of fluoridated water or to consume substances with fluoride in them. I most certainly would not whine about somebody or other dictating what goes into the bodies of my children, while freely allowing anyone to do so.

      3. Cases of dental fluorosis occur roughly the same in non-fluoridated areas as they do in fluoridated ones. Your “40%” is actually “41%” and is in reference to a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar in which 41% of adolescents they examined were found to have signs of dental fluorosis. This 41% was composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign effects requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth….with the other 3.8% being those with moderate dental fluorosis, attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste and/or exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth forming years of 0-8.

      —-Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
      Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H. 

      Your hypocrisy is clearly evident by your attempt to induce unwarranted fear about benign, barely detectable mild dental fluorosis while you callously ignore the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, loss of teeth, and life-threatening infection directly resultant of untreated dental decay which could be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.

      Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is the only level of this effect which may be attributable to fluoridated water. It requires no dental treatment. There is thus no money for dentists to make from this barely detectable effect. Dental decay however, which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation, provides dentists with hefty income over lifetimes of their patients.

      4. Your personal opinion as to how best to prevent dental decay is unqualified and meaningless.

      5. If you “love science” then you should cease denying it, cease your sole dependence on skewing of that science by antifluoridationists, and begin to properly educate yourself on this issue from legitimate, respected sources of accurate information.

      6. ‘Fluoridealert” is nothing but the biased website of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. The filtered and edited nonsense posted on that site is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of any who accord it credence.

      For those intelligent individuals who desire accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation, unfiltered through antifluoridationist websites, the websites of the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Society, the World Health Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of such information readily available to anyone.

      7.  The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects.  The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm.  The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater.  Nothing else.  Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly.  It did not. 

      Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

      In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:

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

      —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

      8. The 2015 Cochrane Review did not state, as you falsely claim, that “fluoride does not work in adults and how all the research is poorly done even though it’s been around since the end of WW2.”

      The Cochrane Review was an update of the 2000 York Review.  As such, Cochrane set narrow parameters for fluoridation studies it would review, consistent with the parameters originally set by York. It then culled the scientific literature and found 155 studies, out of 4,600 fluoride studies considered,  which fit within its parameters. This immediately excluded well over 4,000 quality, peer-reviewed fluoridation studies. Within the 155 studies Cochrane chose to review, it deemed the majority to fall within the parameters it had established for them to be considered at high risk of bias. It did not state that the studies were biased, nor invalid.

      The Cochrane Review deemed that within the 155 studies it chose to review, there was insufficient data for Cochrane to assess the effectiveness of fluoridation on adults, its effective across SES, or the effect of cessation of fluoridation. It did not state that the science did not support any of this, simply that within the restricted number of studies it chose to review, there was insufficient data for Cochrane to offer an assessment of these aspects.

      “The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population’s oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.”

      Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries
      (Review)
      Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R,
      Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny AM
      The Cochrane Collaboration

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  17. Steve slott says:

    K. Spencer

    1. Yes, David Kennedy is a past president of the fringe group, the IAOMT

    “The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the ‘smoking tooth’ video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson’s and autism. They sell filling removal kits for ‘dentists’ along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed ‘research,’ and supports ‘health freedom.’ ”

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology

    Nothing more need be said about his personal opinions.

    2. All contaminants in drinking water are EPA regulated.

    3. There is no substance known to man which does not “kills or harms plants, livestock, and humans” including plain water.

    4. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Fluoride ions are found in the compound calcium fluoride and fluorosilicate compounds in rocks. As groundwater flows over these rocks, it picks up fluoride ions which have been leached from these compounds. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring fluoride” and are identical to those fluoride ions which are added through fluoridation. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the complund from which it is released. Elementary chemistry.

    In areas of igneous rock, fluorosilicates compounds, much like those which are used in fluoridation, are plentiful, and are the source of most of the “naturally occurring” fluoride ions in the groundwater. Ironically, in Spencer’s own state of Massachusetts, igneous rock is plentiful. Thus, she has probably been drinking water containing fluoride sourced from fluorosilicates her entire life, fluoridated or not……being blissfully unaware.

    5. The amount of contaminants in fluoridated water at the tap are in such barely detectable, minuscule amounts, so far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that those detected aren’t those that already exist in the water naturally.

    For intelligent readers who desire an accurate, detailed list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the EPA maximum allowable level for each, this may be found on the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals” on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation . For all others, undoubtedly, K. Spencer will be glad to spin some more fabrications for you.

    6. The theory of lead leaching by fluoridation substances was rebuked by Urbansky/Schock in 2000, and Macek in 2006. While that theory obviously has no merit, it is, nevertheless, continued to be put forth by unscrupulous antifluoridationists seeking to exploit the unfortunate situation of the citizens of Flint, in order to further their personal ideology against fluoridation.

    7. Antifluoridationists constantly attempt to portray “chemicals” as a negative. In actuality, there is nothing that is not a chemical, including plain water. So while K. Spencer seeks to invoke undue fear by referencing “adding even more chemicals to our water” she obviously fails to understand the elementary fact that even the water itself is a chemical.

    8. As do antifluoridationists constantly, K. Spencer notes all of these phantom studies which she claims to support her position. Yet, she fails to produce any of them. Even when she does attempt to do so, she simply copy/pastes a laundry list of invalid and/or irrelevant studies from “fluoridealert” none of which she has even read, much less understood in any manner.

    The fact is that there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of optimal level fluoride on “susceptible subpopulations which include pregnant women and their fetuses, infants and young children, the elderly and those with prolonged health conditions such as kidney disease or diabetes.”…….as evidenced by K. Spencer’s inability to provide any such evidence.

    9. In regard to Spencer’s misrepresentation of the 2015 Cochranre Review:

    The Cochrane Review was an update of the 2000 York Review.  As such, Cochrane set narrow parameters for fluoridation studies it would review, consistent with the parameters originally set by York. It then culled the scientific literature and found 155 studies, out of 4,600 fluoride studies considered,  which fit within its parameters. This immediately excluded well over 4,000 quality, peer-reviewed fluoridation studies. Within the 155 studies Cochrane chose to review, it deemed the majority to fall within the parameters it had established for them to be considered at high risk of bias. It did not state that the studies were biased, nor invalid.

    The following is precisely what is stated in the Cochrane Review:

    “The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population’s oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.”

    Adfitionally, Cochrane recognized that the “gold standard” randomized controlled trials against which it measured the observational studies, are not feasible for large public health initiatives such as water fluoridation, and will therefore never be done for these initiatives.

    “However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.”

    and

    “However, we accept that the terminology of ’low quality’ for evidence may appear too judgmental. We acknowledge that studies on water fluoridation, as for many public health interventions, are complex to undertake and that researchers are often constrained in their study design by practical considerations. For many public health interventions, the GRADE framework will always result in a rating of low or very low quality. Decision makers need to recognise that for some areas of research, the quality of the evidence will never be ’high’ and that, as for any intervention, the recommendation for its use depends not just upon the quality of the evidence but also on factors such as acceptability and cost-effectiveness (Burford 2012).”

    —–Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries (Review)
    Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R,
    Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny AM
    Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

    10. In claiming the effects of fluoride to be topical only, antifluoridationists clearly exhibit their lack of knowledge of not only the mechanism of fluoride, but of the current scientific literature which clearly demonstrates the topical and systemic actions of fluoride.

    The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic.  The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which is the only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with optimally fluoridated water.  Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.  As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.  Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically. 

    —-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
    http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long

    Additionally, saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing if the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.

    From the CDC:

    “Fluoride works to control early dental caries in several ways. Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization (i.e., recovery) of demineralized enamel. As cariogenic bacteria metabolize carbohydrates and produce acid, fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface. The released fluoride and the fluoride present in saliva are then taken up, along with calcium and phosphate, by de-mineralized enamel to establish an improved enamel crystal structure. This improved structure is more acid resistant and contains more fluoride and less carbonate.. Fluoride is more readily taken up by demineralized enamel than by sound enamel.. Cycles of demineralization and remineralization continue throughout the lifetime of the tooth.”

    ——–Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
    United States Centers for Disease Control
    Recommendations and Reports
    August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42

    Additionally, in a 2014 study Cho, et al. found:

    “Conclusions: While 6-year-old children who had not ingested fluoridated water showed higher dft in theWF-ceased area than in the non-WF area, 11-year-old children in theWF-ceased area who had ingested fluoridated water for approximately 4 years after birth showed significantly lower DMFT than those in the non-WF area. This suggests that the systemic effect of fluoride intake through water fluoridation could be important for the prevention of
    dental caries.”

    —–Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence
    Cho HJ, Jin BH, Park DY, Jung SH, Lee HS, Paik DI, Bae KH.
    Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014; 42: 341–348. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

    Additionally:

    “Evidence also supports fluoride’s systemic mechanism of caries inhibition in pit and fissure surfaces of permanent first molars when it is incorporated into these teeth pre-eruptively.”

    —Buzalaf MAR (ed): Fluoride and the Oral Environment. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel, Karger, 2011, vol 22, pp 97–114
    (DOI:10.1159/000325151)G

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Information Director
    American Fluoridation Society

  18. Siru Cossaboon says:

    Here is a great response to fluoride pushers to counteract their claims. See http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/proponent_claims.pdf

    • Steve slott says:

      Siru

      ‘Fluoridealert” is nothing but the biased website of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. The filtered and edited nonsense posted on that site is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of any who accord it credence.

      If you desire for your claims to be taken seriously you will need to cite legitimate sources of accurate information which has not been filtered through antifluoridationist websites.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  19. Siru Cossaboon says:

    This is my stumping ground. I do NOT want any artificial fluorides added to our water. I only developed a thyroid disorder after ingesting fluoridated water, which I did not have growing up in clean water Europe. Due to this fluoridation insanity, I had to invest in whole house fluoride filter, and I avoid fluorides by all means. I do not even use sodium fluoride or any fluoride toothpaste, and I have not had any cavities in 20 years. However, it is difficult trying to live fluoride free in an area that fluoridated water. Please take it out! It does nothing for the teeth, but wreaks havoc in the rest of the body. I am much better since avoiding fluorides. It should be considered a crime to add any chemicals in the water that does not treat the water but the end consumer.

    • Steve slott says:

      Siru

      1. The internet is the “stomping ground” for anyone who so desires.

      2. There is no such thing as “artificial fluorides”. Fluoride is the anion of the naturally occurring element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. There are no artificial atoms of fluorine.

      3. Anecdotal claims about your ailments are meaningless. If you wish credibility for such claims you will need to provide valid, documented medical records to support your unsubstantiated claims. This will, of course, need to include clearly documented diagnoses of your disorders by credentialed, licensed healthcare providers, including the cause of these disorders.

      4. How you choose to waste your money is certainly your prerogative. However, optimal level fluoride is odorless, tasteless, colorless, and causes no adverse effects. There is no valid scientific reason to remove fluoride from your water unless the concentration exceeds 2.0 ppm. Even then, the decision to remove it is debatable, until the concentration reaches 4.0 ppm.

      5. It is wonderful that the placebo effect is helping you with your ailments. However, this is irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water, and is certainly no reason to deprive your entire community the very valuable benefits of this public health initiative.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  20. K Spencer says:

    “Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and they’ll make the kid sick, too.” – Dr. David Kennedy, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)

    Fluoride is an EPA regulated contaminant and a poison that kills or harms plants, livestock and humans. It originates as a poisonous volcanic gas and is naturally found bound with CALCIUM and includes magnesium and phosphorus, minerals which are good for teeth.

    The fluoride acids and salts that are added to our water are sourced from the slurry of phosphate and aluminum industry. They are invariably bound with ALUMINUM, and contains arsenic, lead, cadmium, etc. Industrial fluorides are also very acidic. They leach lead out of plumbing and into our water supplies, despite pH balancing that involves adding even more chemicals to our water.

    Despite dental marketing material, there are hundreds of high quality peer reviewed studies published in credible journals proving fluoridation is harmful to susceptible subpopulations which include pregnant women and their fetuses, infants and young children, the elderly and those with prolonged health conditions such as kidney disease or diabetes.

    The international panelists of the 2015 Cochrane Review agreed with findings of the equally prestigious 2000 York Review, that the fluoridation studies purporting benefit were low quality with high risk of bias, had NO evidence of safety, and any benefit was small in absolute terms which is possibly not relevant in the 21st century given the prevalence of fluoridated toothpastes. You see, the 1940s hypothesis that fluoride needed to be ingested has been discarded. Any benefit is from brushing….. that’s because fluoride is a POISON, it poisons cavity producing bacteria.

    • Steve slott says:

      K. Spencer

      1. Yes, David Kennedy is a past president of the fringe group, the IAOMT

      “The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a quack organization based in Canada that promotes dental woo.[1] They were responsible for the ‘smoking tooth’ video that frequently gets passed around in altie circles. Their main issue is mercury amalgam fillings, which they claim can cause all sorts of neurological illnesses such as Parkinson’s and autism. They sell filling removal kits for ‘dentists’ along with various other nature woo, mostly vitamin supplements. The organization also opposes water fluoridation, claims to put out peer-reviewed ‘research,’ and supports ‘health freedom.’ ”

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/International_Academy_of_Oral_Medicine_and_Toxicology

      Nothing more need be said about his personal opinions.

      2. All contaminants in drinking water are EPA regulated.

      3. There is no substance known to man which does not “kills or harms plants, livestock, and humans” including plain water.

      4. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Fluoride ions are found in the compound calcium fluoride and fluorosilicate compounds in rocks. As groundwater flows over these rocks, it picks up fluoride ions which have been leached from these compounds. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring fluoride” and are identical to those fluoride ions which are added through fluoridation. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the complund from which it is released. Elementary chemistry.
      In areas of igneous rock, fluorosilicates compounds, much like those which are used in fluoridation, are plentiful, and are the source of most of the “naturally occurring” fluoride ions in the groundwater. Ironically, in Spencer’s own state of Massachusetts, igneous rock is plentiful. Thus, she has probably been drinking water containing fluoride sourced from fluorosilicates her entire life, fluoridated or not……being blissfully unaware.

      5. The amount of contaminants in fluoridated water at the tap are in such barely detectable, minuscule amounts, so far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that those detected aren’t those that already exist in the water naturally.

      For intelligent readers who desire an accurate, detailed list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the EPA maximum allowable level for each, this may be found on the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals” on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation . For all others, undoubtedly, K. Spencer will be glad to spin some more fabrications for you.

      6. The theory of lead leaching by fluoridation substances was rebuked by Urbansky/Schock in 2000, and Macek in 2006. While that theory obviously has no merit, it is, nevertheless, continued to be put forth by unscrupulous antifluoridationists seeking to exploit the unfortunate situation of the citizens of Flint, in order to further their personal ideology against fluoridation.

      7. Antifluoridationists constantly attempt to portray “chemicals” as a negative. In actuality, there is nothing that is not a chemical, including plain water. So while K. Spencer seeks to invoke undue fear by referencing “adding even more chemicals to our water” she obviously fails to understand the elementary fact that even the water itself is a chemical.

      8. As do antifluoridationists constantly, K. Spencer notes all of these phantom studies which she claims to support her position. Yet, she fails to produce any of them. Even when she does attempt to do so, she simply copy/pastes a laundry list of invalid and/or irrelevant studies from “fluoridealert” none of which she has even read, much less understood in any manner.

      The fact is that there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of optimal level fluoride on “susceptible subpopulations which include pregnant women and their fetuses, infants and young children, the elderly and those with prolonged health conditions such as kidney disease or diabetes.”…….as evidenced by K. Spencer’s inability to provide any such evidence.

      to be continued……..

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Steve slott says:

        K Spencer continued……..

        9. In regard to Spencer’s misrepresentation of the 2015 Cochranre Review:
        The Cochrane Review was an update of the 2000 York Review. As such, Cochrane set narrow parameters for fluoridation studies it would review, consistent with the parameters originally set by York. It then culled the scientific literature and found 155 studies, out of 4,600 fluoride studies considered, which fit within its parameters. This immediately excluded well over 4,000 quality, peer-reviewed fluoridation studies. Within the 155 studies Cochrane chose to review, it deemed the majority to fall within the parameters it had established for them to be considered at high risk of bias. It did not state that the studies were biased, nor invalid.

        The following is precisely what is stated in the Cochrane Review:

        “The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population’s oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.”

        Adfitionally, Cochrane recognized that the “gold standard” randomized controlled trials against which it measured the observational studies, are not feasible for large public health initiatives such as water fluoridation, and will therefore never be done for these initiatives.

        “However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.”

        and

        “However, we accept that the terminology of ’low quality’ for evidence may appear too judgmental. We acknowledge that studies on water fluoridation, as for many public health interventions, are complex to undertake and that researchers are often constrained in their study design by practical considerations. For many public health interventions, the GRADE framework will always result in a rating of low or very low quality. Decision makers need to recognise that for some areas of research, the quality of the evidence will never be ’high’ and that, as for any intervention, the recommendation for its use depends not just upon the quality of the evidence but also on factors such as acceptability and cost-effectiveness (Burford 2012).”

        —–Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries (Review)
        Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R,
        Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny AM
        Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

        10. In claiming the effects of fluoride to be topical only, antifluoridationists clearly exhibit their lack of knowledge of not only the mechanism of fluoride, but of the current scientific literature which clearly demonstrates the topical and systemic actions of fluoride.

        The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic. The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which is the only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with optimally fluoridated water. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically.

        —-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
        http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long

        Additionally, saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing if the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.

        From the CDC:

        “Fluoride works to control early dental caries in several ways. Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization (i.e., recovery) of demineralized enamel. As cariogenic bacteria metabolize carbohydrates and produce acid, fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface. The released fluoride and the fluoride present in saliva are then taken up, along with calcium and phosphate, by de-mineralized enamel to establish an improved enamel crystal structure. This improved structure is more acid resistant and contains more fluoride and less carbonate.. Fluoride is more readily taken up by demineralized enamel than by sound enamel.. Cycles of demineralization and remineralization continue throughout the lifetime of the tooth.”

        ——–Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
        United States Centers for Disease Control
        Recommendations and Reports
        August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42

        Additionally, in a 2014 study Cho, et al. found:

        “Conclusions: While 6-year-old children who had not ingested fluoridated water showed higher dft in theWF-ceased area than in the non-WF area, 11-year-old children in theWF-ceased area who had ingested fluoridated water for approximately 4 years after birth showed significantly lower DMFT than those in the non-WF area. This suggests that the systemic effect of fluoride intake through water fluoridation could be important for the prevention of
        dental caries.”

        —–Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence
        Cho HJ, Jin BH, Park DY, Jung SH, Lee HS, Paik DI, Bae KH.
        Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014; 42: 341–348. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

        Additionally:

        “Evidence also supports fluoride’s systemic mechanism of caries inhibition in pit and fissure surfaces of permanent first molars when it is incorporated into these teeth pre-eruptively.”

        —Buzalaf MAR (ed): Fluoride and the Oral Environment. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel, Karger, 2011, vol 22, pp 97–114
        (DOI:10.1159/000325151)G

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

  21. Turk182 says:

    Honestly, it’s not the fluoride we have to worry about — it’s the highly dangerous dihyrogen oxide, which kills thousands yearly, that we need to be concerned about. It’s high time that the DMWA remove this dangerous substance from their system. There’s even Internet data supporting this! And Facts!

    http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

    • Steve slott says:

      Turk

      Yes, this insidious compound is two thirds composed of the active ingredient in the H-bomb. I agree…..it must be completely eradicated from our planet.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Siru Cossaboon says:

        It takes a lot of fluorides to enrich uranium. Yes, the hydrogen bomb takes a lot of fluorides! So does the Sarin gas. Sarin gas is a fluoride compound. So is Sodium fluoride. All fluorides are compounds of Fluorine (F9) + other chemical = Fluorides. All toxic! Sodium fluoride makes a great insecticide and a rat poison and was used as such for decades. We don’t need these toxic fluorides which are Verboten in Germany and not allowed in most of European countries, China, and the rest of the world (other than mostly English speaking countries) in our water supply. Fluorides work only topically (because they kill everything on their way) and not systemically.

        • Steven Slott says:

          Situ

          1. Your inexplicable obsession with Europe is bizarre, but the fact is that fluoride is not disallowed in most of Europe as you continue to falsely claim. Fluoride exists naturally in water. If countries were to ban it as you ridiculously claim, they would all have to spend a fortune constantly filtering it out……needlessly.

          2. In regard to the irrelevant nonsense about fluoride compounds……do you fear that you will disappear in a mushroom cloud when you drink a glass of water? If not, why not? Water is two thirds hydrogen, the active component in the H-bomb.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

  22. John Mueller says:

    Steve slott,

    As a licensed professional engineer with water treatment plant operator certification (both for more than 20 years), I have professional experience with the addition of arsenic-contaminated fluorosilicic acid (FSA) to the otherwise already substantially purified public drinking water. In my experience in Tulsa, OK, the Certificates of Analysis of the FSA delivered from the Mosaic Company, under a contract for which I prepared technical specifications, typically show arsenic levels from 35 to more than 50 parts per million (ppm). The first limit setting step by the EPA for a regulated contaminant is to establish the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), which is the unenforceable “level of contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected health risk.” The enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is then established based on the economic and technologic feasibility of treatment – what current water treatment plant processes can realistically achieve without breaking the bank – while minimizing those known health risks. The MCLG for arsenic is zero. The MCL for arsenic is 10 parts per billion. Analytitical methods approved by the EPA for arsenic leaving treatment plants typically cannot detect concentrations below about 4 ppb, so the arsenic that we know is being added typically goes unreported to the public in a utility’s annual report to its customers because of its dilution down to the neighborhood of 0.15 ppb. Nevertheless, fluoridation with FSA knowingly adds the carcinogen arsenic to the drinking water in which results in concentrations at the tap above the EPA’s established MCLG of zero.
    Mr. Slott you can comment all you like on this to rationalize your position, but these are indisputable facts. How much treatable and curable tooth decay which you claim is eliminated altogether by fluoridation justifies one cancer death?

    • Steve slott says:

      John Mueller

      Here are the actual “indisputable facts” which are relevant to water fluoridation:

      The EPA, as a matter of policy, sets the MCLG of carcinogenic substances at zero, regardless the level at which carcinogenicity may occur. Exposure to high levels of arsenic may cause cancer. Thus, the MCLG for arsenic is, by policy, set at zero. The levels at which arsenic has been correlated with cancer are many times higher than that found in drinking water in the US, fluoridated or not.

      “Studies of people in parts of Southeast Asia and South America with high levels of arsenic in their drinking water have found higher risks of cancers of the bladder, kidney, lung, skin, and, less consistently, colon, prostate, and liver.”

      “In most of these studies, the levels of arsenic in the water were many times higher than those typically seen in the United States, even in areas where arsenic levels are above normal.”

      “There have not been as many studies looking at arsenic in drinking water and cancer in the United States. This is largely because for most Americans who are on public water systems, drinking water is not a major source of arsenic. The studies that have been done have generally not found a strong link between cancer and the lower levels of arsenic exposure typically seen in the US.”

      —American Cancer Society
      http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/intheworkplace/arsenic

      Given the ubiquity of arsenic throughout nature, and evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient, it is likely that a zero level of arsenic is neither attainable, nor desirable.

      —-Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.
      Nielsen FH.
      FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7.

      to be continued………

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Steve slott says:

        John Mueller, continued……….

        2. As you stated, the EPA MCL is that level set as close to the MCLG as is feasible, which is considered safe, and which can actually be attained with current technology. The EPA MCL for arsenic is 10 ppb.

        Water quality standards begin with water at the tap. The EPA mandated maximum allowable level of contaminants in water at the tap, under Standard 60 of the NSF, is 10% of the EPA MCL for that contaminant. Thus, the maximum allowable level of arsenic in water at the tap is 1.0 ppb.

        Under NSF testing of random samples of fluoridated water, the maximum amount of arsenic detected is 0.6 ppb, only 60% of the maximum allowed under Standard 60, which is only 10% of the EPA MCL for arsenic. The mean level of arsenic detected in these samples is only 0.17 ppb.

        Additionally, in order to detect any contaminants at all, including arsenic, it takes 10 times the single use amount of fluoridation substance. Even in this 10 times amount of substance, arsenic is only detected in less than 50% of the random samples.

        As arsenic is the most prevalent contaminant detected in fluoridated water, obviously, neither arsenic, nor any other contaminant, is of any concern in fluoridated water at the tap.

        You may find a detailed listing of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the EPA maximum allowable level for each, in the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Substances” on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation:

        http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

        3. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any association of optimally fluoridated water with cancer. There is, however, ample documentation of the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection, directly resultant of untreated dental decay which can be, and is prevented by the public health initiative of water fluoridation. In 2007, a 12 year old child died as a direct result of but one untreated cavity in one tooth.

        Given the above facts, the real question is……..how much of your personal ideology against fluoridation cloaked under the guise of nonsensical fear-mongering about a non-existent “risk” of cancer, justifies just one single lifetime of the devastating effects of untreated dental decay which is preventible with water fluoridation?

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • John Mueller says:

          Mr. Slott,
          The bottom line in this argument is that we all believe what we choose to believe based on the moral code each of us lives by, and not necessarily based on “the best available evidence,” which, if we choose to believe everything coming from our highest levels of government, will win our favor for fluoridation. Many of us, however, choose to question certain proclamations from that authority, and for very good reason, again based on that moral code.
          Have a good day.

          • Steve slott says:

            John Mueller

            Ahhh, so in other words, it’s not “indisputable facts”, or scientific evidence on which you base your opposition. It’s some sort of “moral code”. Exactly what I said. Your opposition, like that of the overwhelming majority of antifluoridationists is based on skewed personal ideology, not science.

            You probably should rethink that “moral code”. Seeking to deprive entire populations the benefit of a very valuable public health initiative based on nothing but your own, self serving personal ideology demonstrates dubious morality at best.

            Go volunteer in a free medical/dental clinic a few times and take a good look at the devastating effects of untreated dental decay. You will quickly ascertain how meaningless is your “moral code”.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • John Mueller says:

            Those free clinics exist as much in fluoridated communities, do they not? Does WHO data lie when shown comparing declining decay rates in fluoridated vs nonfluoridated countries?

          • John Mueller says:

            . . . continued
            Mr. Slott,
            Two simple questions – yes or no to each, please. Any further ad hominem diatribe will be dismissed as simply that.
            Again, have a good day.

          • Steve slott says:

            Sure, there are free clinics in fluoridated communities. Contrary to your apparent belief, water fluoridation was never meant, nor expected, to completely eradicate dental decay.

            The “WHO data” to which you refer is not WHO data. It is a skewed misrepresentation of WHO data by the “Fluoride Action Network”. ‘FAN personnel plucked a couple of cherry-picked points out of a cluster of points for each country, connected the dots, and claimed that to be a trend. If you want a detailed explanation of this dishonest manipulation of WHO data by ‘FAN”:

            https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/fluoridation-connetts-naive-used-of-who-data-debunked/

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • John Mueller says:

            Contrarily, my true belief is that fluoridation was in fact marketed to convince the new TV viewership that it WOULD eradicate tooth decay, with the knowledge that there was not enough evidence to confirm that projection. I was born in 1950 and easily recall the bombardment with the “Crest has been shown to be an effective decay preventive dentifrice that can be of significant value when used in a conscientiously applied program . . . [etc.]” and the attendant “Look Ma, no cavities!”
            When I first started researching the issue seven years ago, with an open mind since I was writing specifications for the FSA being purchased for our plants, I first relied on the ADA’s Fluoridation Facts. I tried to verify the $1 spent saves $38 claim and went to endnote 355. Going further, digging deeper, I never was able to find that $38 figure, but did find only one paragraph documenting 44 communities in Florida as the source of information in cost, Mosaic’s front yard and back yard. That raised a red flag that has been flying ever since, confirming that publications by the USPHS (Susan Griffin, for example) will show their predetermined results as they so choose to promote policy. Five years later, Ko and Theissen fleshed it out to my satisfaction, debunking endnote 355 in Fluoridation Facts.
            I have come to realize there is spin on both sides, and conscientiously try to filter it as best I can.
            The money spent on fluoridation can be better spent when targeted on those who really need the treatment and on our deteriorating water and sewer infrastructure.

          • Steve slott says:

            John, as one born in 1953, who has spent 35 years providing dental services primarily to the underserved population, both in my private practice and in a large portable free dental clinic I founded and operated all over my state and in 5 others, I can tell you that the problem with untreated dental decay is completely overwhelming in this country and most others.

            Contrary to what you have picked up in your research of antifluoridationist websites, at less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, there is no more cost-effective means of providing significant dental decay prevention to entire populations.

            You, like most antifluoridationists, have cherry-picked Thiessen’s flawed study as evidence for your position while discarding the volume of peer-reviewed science which clearly demonstrates the opposite.

            Thiessen is a long time, outspoken fluoridation opponent. She was one of three such opponents placed on the 2006 NRC committee in order to give representation on that committee for fluoridation opponents. Her confirmation bias was clearly demonstrated by her endorsement of William Hirzy’s erroneous 2014 study which the EPA rejected. I’ll be glad to further detail that debacle if you so desire, but given that you and Hirzy, the current paid lobbyist for “FAN” push the same nonsense about arsenic in fluoridated water, I imagine you are fully aware of his work.

            Thiessen discredited her own study when she claimed exorbitant costs for treatment of dental fluorosis as part of the expense of water fluoridation. The only dental fluorosis attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild. This level of dental fluorosis requires no tretment and therefore incurs no expense. That Thiessen’s study was to your “satisfaction” is clear demonstration of your own confirmation bias. I have already provided on this page numerous peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate the cost savings of fluoridation, but will gladly do so again, if you so desire. I will also cite as many peer-reviewed studies demonstrating effectiveness of fluoridation, as you would reasonably care to read.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • John Mueller says:

            Tulsa is spending $400,000 at one of our two plants this year to replace one of its two FSA storage tanks in a ventilated controlled storage room due to the high corrosivity of the FSA. One plant operator I know was restricted from entering that room after she experienced burning in her nostrils whenever she entered there on routine shift rounds to check on the metering pumps and other equipment, even wearing the required personal protective equipment. She is an excellent operator with no objection to water fluoridation other than the hazardous work conditions. Tanker trucks deliver the FSA every few weeks, and leaks and spills in the transfer and storage areas make the concrete floors look like Swiss cheese after some time. That treatment plant only serves about 250,000 people, and the cost of the chemicals in one year is about $150,000, including the additional caustic soda needed for pH adjustment because the FSA is so acidic at a pH of 1.2. FSA is a costly additive requiring capital equipment expenses and maintenance and replacement costs that do nothing to make the water safe to drink. If those expenses have such great benefit, why are dentists like yourself seeing such overwhelming tooth decay? Those expenses are not doing anything to benefit the people who maintain a healthy diet and proper oral health. Those of us who don’t need it are subsidizing the economically disadvantaged, many of whom live more on soft drinks and junk food than good nutrition and swarm your free clinics with resulting rampant tooth decay. It would appear our subsidizing dollars are doing nothing. This is some of what has influenced my position. My daughter’s senior prom date three years ago had horrible looking dental fluorosis, like many young and older people I see regularly in Tulsa. Perhaps that’s from swallowing toothpaste in their early childhood years, maybe or maybe not aggravated from the fluoridated water. But they are all candidates for some cosmetic dentistry, and I’ve read (and not from FAN) that Americans spend about $2.75 billion annually on cosmetic dentistry. Excessive fluoride exposure causes that “cosmetic defect.” Granted not all cosmetic dentistry is for dental fluorosis, but do you see any conflict of interest there? It seems ANY dental work these days is becoming a luxury service, that people without insurance will forego until they can’t stand it and have the offending tooth extracted. “Tooth decay is not caused by lack of fluoride any more than depression is caused by lack of Prozac.” Some of the staunchest pro-fluoridationists would have us believe otherwise. These are all facts that weigh heavily in my position against fluoridation. I will gladly read what you refer me to, as long as it is not funded by the ADA or USPHS. There are too many reputations at stake for either of them to consider reversing their positions on a policy they continue to pump milions of dollars into promoting and singing its praises. They’re riding a tiger – I truly believe that.

          • Steven Slott says:

            John

            1. It’s ironic that you parrot nonsense from the “fluoride action network” while disparaging the American Dental Association and the US Public Health Service, two of the most highly respected healthcare organizations in the world. Your judgment in choosing your sources is highly questionable, to say the least. On a matter of space exploration, I suppose you would consult an astrology group rather than NASA…..

            2. Your anecdotes about this expense and that, what you claim some water operator “experienced”, etc, etc, etc, are obviously meaningless and irrelevant.

            3. If raw, undiluted, toxic, routine water system additives such as chlorine, ammonia, fluoride, and myriad others are too much for water treatment specialists to handle properly that is a problem with their education, training, and oversight, not with the additives.

            By the same token, if there are haz-mat “leaks and spills in the transfer and storage areas” causing problems wherever you claim they are occurring, this is a problem of which I’m sure OSHA and other appropriate regulators would would have high interest. Again, this is a problem with education, training, and oversight, not with water fluoridation. Sloppy procedures have no place in any such facilities.

            3. You are not qualified to diagnose dental fluorosis. The anecdotal about what you claim to have diagnosed in the dentition of your daughter’s prom date is typical of the “evidence” antifluoridationists continually put forth, but is obviously irrelevant and meaningless.


            4. There are myriad reasons for the overwhelming problem with dental decay. Removal of the most cost-effective measure we have to prevent dental decay in entire populations is not the way to combat it.

            5. Your claim that those of you whom you claim to maintain “a healthy diet and proper oral health”, whatever you deem that to be, fails to take into account that one of the reasons you have that “proper oral health” is because of water fluoridation. Whether you live in a fluoridated area or not, you have benifited from the fluoride in areas that are fluoridated. To seek to deprive others of the preventive measure from you have benefited is short-sighted and self-serving.

            5. Your disdain for the underserved population is so noted.

            6. There is no requirement for Treatment of mild to very mild dental fluorosis. Antifluoridationists can never seem to comprehend the concept of upholding professional responsibilities, and advocation for better lives of others, without somehow being paid to do so. This speaks volumes about the greedy mindset of these activists. Ironically, the only ones of whom I am aware are profiting from keeping this issue alive are your mentor, Paul Connett, his family, friends, and his “FAN”.

            7. Polio is not caused by a lack of the Salk vaccine either. So should we cease polio vaccinations? Prevention is always the best “cure” for any disease. A claim that preventive measures should not be undertaken because disease is not caused by a lack of these measures…..is obviously ridiculous.


            8. Your conspiracy nonsense is so noted and is irrelevant.

            9. It is of no concern to me what you read, or what you believe. I simply correct the misinformation posted by you and other antifluoridationists such that intelligent readers will understand the fallacies of antifluoridationist arguments and will not accord them undue credibility.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridatioon Society

          • Steve slott says:

            John

            1. It’s ironic that you parrot nonsense from the “fluoride action network” while disparaging the American Dental Association and the US Public Health Service, two of the most highly respected healthcare organizations in the world. Your judgment in choosing your sources is highly questionable, to say the least. On a matter of space exploration, I suppose you would consult an astrology group rather than NASA…..

            2. Your anecdotes about this expense and that, what you claim some water operator “experienced”, etc, etc, etc, are obviously meaningless and irrelevant.

            3. If raw, undiluted, toxic, routine water system additives such as chlorine, ammonia, fluoride, and myriad others are too much for water treatment specialists to handle properly that is a problem with their education, training, and oversight, not with the additives.

            By the same token, if there are haz-mat “leaks and spills in the transfer and storage areas” causing problems wherever you claim they are occurring, this is a problem of which I’m sure OSHA and other appropriate regulators would would have high interest. Again, this is a problem with education, training, and oversight, not with water fluoridation. Sloppy procedures have no place in any such facilities.

            3. You are not qualified to diagnose dental fluorosis. The anecdotal about what you claim to have diagnosed in the dentition of your daughter’s prom date is typical of the “evidence” antifluoridationists continually put forth, but is obviously irrelevant and meaningless.

            4. There are myriad reasons for the overwhelming problem with dental decay. Removal of the most cost-effective measure we have to prevent dental decay in entire populations is not the way to combat it.

            5. Your claim that those of you whom you claim to maintain “a healthy diet and proper oral health”, whatever you deem that to be, fails to take into account that one of the reasons you have that “proper oral health” is because of water fluoridation. Whether you live in a fluoridated area or not, you have benifited from the fluoride in areas that are fluoridated. To seek to deprive others of the preventive measure from you have benefited is short-sighted and self-serving.

            5. Your disdain for the underserved population is so noted.

            6. There is no requirement for Treatment of mild to very mild dental fluorosis. Antifluoridationists can never seem to comprehend the concept of upholding professional responsibilities, and advocation for better lives of others, without somehow being paid to do so. This speaks volumes about the greedy mindset of these activists. Ironically, the only ones of whom I am aware are profiting from keeping this issue alive are your mentor, Paul Connett, his family, friends, and his “FAN”.
            7. Polio is not caused by a lack of the Salk vaccine either. So should we cease polio vaccinations? Prevention is always the best “cure” for any disease. A claim that preventive measures should not be undertaken because disease is not caused by a lack of these measures…..is obviously ridiculous.

            8. Your conspiracy nonsense is so noted and is irrelevant.

            9. It is of no concern to me what you read, or what you believe. I simply correct the misinformation posted by you and other antifluoridationists such that intelligent readers will understand the fallacies of antifluoridationist arguments and will not accord them undue credibility.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridatioon Society

          • Steve slott says:

            John Mueller

            The cost savings of fluoridation are well documented:

            1. For most cities, every $1 invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs.

            ——“Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation,”
            U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
            Prevention, accessed on March 14, 2011 at
            http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm

            2. A Texas study confirmed that the state saved $24 per child, per year in Medicaid expenditures for children because of the cavities that were prevented by drinking
            fluoridated water.

            —— “Water Fluoridation Costs in Texas: Texas Health Steps (EPSDT-Medicaid),
            Department of Oral Health Website (2000),

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            John Mueller

            Cost-effectiveness Studies, cont….

            in New York State found that Medicaid enrollees in less fluoridated counties needed 33 percent more fillings, root canals, and extractions than those
            in counties where fluoridated water was much more prevalent. As a result, the treatment costs per Medicaid recipient were $23.65 higher for those living in less
            fluoridated counties.

            ————-Kumar J.V., Adekugbe O., Melnik T.A., “Geographic Variation in Medicaid Claims for Dental Procedures in New York State: Role of Fluoridation Under Contemporary
            Conditions,”
            Public Health Reports, (September-October 2010) Vol. 125, No. 5, 647-54.

            ————The original figure ($23.63) was corrected in a subsequent edition of this journal and clarified to be $23.65. See: “Letters to the Editor,”
            Public Health Reports (November-
            December 2010), Vol. 125, 788.

            4. Researchers estimated that in 2003 Colorado saved nearly $149 million in unnecessary treatment costs by fluoridating public water supplies—average savings of roughly $61 per person.

            ——O’Connell J.M. et al., “Costs and savings associated with community water fluoridation programs in Colorado,”
            Preventing Chronic Disease (November 2005), accessed on
            March 12, 2011 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459459/.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            John Mueller

            Cost-effectiveness studies cont……

            5. A 1999 study compared Louisiana parishes (counties) that were fluoridated with those that were not. The study found that low-income children in communities without fluoridated water were three times more likely than those in communities with fluoridated water to need dental treatment in a hospital operating room.

            ——-“Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay – Louisiana,
            1995-1996,”
            Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), September 3, 1999, accessed on March 11, 2011

            6. By reducing the incidence of decay, fluoridation makes it less likely that toothaches or other serious dental problems will drive people to hospital emergency rooms (ERs)—where treatment costs are high. A 2010 survey of hospitals in Washington State found that dental disorders were the leading reason why uninsured patients visited ERs.

            ——-Washington State Hospital Association, Emergency Room Use (October 2010) 8-12,


            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • John Mueller says:

            Mr. Slott,
            The time has come to stop dignifying your sometimes drivel with any further truths and from-the-heart concerns. My sincerely has been met with its limit of rudeness and disrespect.
            You seem to take on different personalities, and personalized voluminous copy-and-paste quips. Whoever you are, you have evidently mastered a technique of omnipresence. Fortunately for the real truth seekers, you don’t seem to have much of a following. And as more truths become known, CWF will go down, and the likes of you will fall and fall hard, whoever you all are.

          • Steve slottjohn Mueller says:

            John Mueller

            Yes, facts and evidence are indeed “drivel” to antifluoridationists. That’s exactly what I expose all over the internet. You have gone from “indisputable facts” to whining about “rudeness and disrespect”. If you desire respect then earn it. Seeking to deprive an entire population of the benefits of a very valuable public health initiative by putting forth nonsense you glean from your “research” of antifluoridationist websites deserves nothing but contempt.

            ”Real truth seekers” perform honest research from legitimate, respected sources. They don’t seek to confirm their bias by relying solely on misinformation from dubious sources. As an educated engineer, you should know better than to succumb to the nonsense disseminated by antifluoridationists and should have the sense and integrity to verify the validity of information before you attempt to repeat it publicly. As I have clearly demonstrated, you don’t.

            Now, if you care to properly educate yourself on this issue from proper sources, I’ll be glad to help you out. If you want to pack up, take your toys and go home with your tail between your legs, as do most antifluoridationists when they have been backed against the wall, that’s of no concern to me. If you care to continue posting antifluoridationist nonsense about this public health initiative, I will continue to correct it.

            As far as CWF “going down”….hardly. According to the latest CDC report, the US was 74.7% fluoridated in 2014, increased from 74.6% in 2012, which was increased from 73.4% in 2011.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            John Mueller

            Yes, facts and evidence are indeed “drivel” to antifluoridationists. That’s exactly what I expose all over the internet. You have gone from “indisputable facts” to whining about “rudeness and disrespect”. If you desire respect then earn it. Seeking to deprive an entire population of the benefits of a very valuable public health initiative by putting forth nonsense you glean from your “research” of antifluoridationist websites deserves nothing but contempt.

            ”Real truth seekers” perform honest research from legitimate, respected sources. They don’t seek to confirm their bias by relying solely on misinformation from dubious sources. As an educated engineer, you should know better than to succumb to the nonsense disseminated by antifluoridationists and should have the sense and integrity to verify the validity of information before you attempt to repeat it publicly. As I have clearly demonstrated, you don’t.

            Now, if you care to properly educate yourself on this issue from proper sources, I’ll be glad to help you out. If you want to pack up, take your toys and go home with your tail between your legs, as do most antifluoridationists when they have been backed against the wall, that’s of no concern to me. If you care to continue posting antifluoridationist nonsense about this public health initiative, I will continue to correct it.

            As far as CWF “going down”….hardly. According to the latest CDC report, the US was 74.7% fluoridated in 2014, increased from 74.6% in 2012, which was increased from 73.4% in 2011.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • John Mueller says:

            Steve Slott,
            Your thoroughness in what sometimes appears as arguing for the sake of arguing, as evidenced by sometimes replacing true accuracy with arrogant presumptions thereby begging argument in return, seems to be taking ad hominem attacks to the highest level consistent with and characteristic of the profluoridation passion. I commend the level of genius in your ability to do so. That ability clearly complements your skill at dispensing personal insults in a dialog forum, the latter likely to be your legacy seen by anyone you have individually challenged for opposing CFW on any of the legitimate grounds available to us.
            That said, with all due respect to your professed expertise in various scientific areas that include and extend far beyond the oral cavity, please comment on the expertise and/or moral code of Dr. Charles Bass. Was he not opposed to water fluoridation? Evidently he shares with several others the distinction of being “The Father of Preventive Dentistry.” Am I wrong to place value in his position on oral health care and fluoridation? After all, he was a medical doctor, and a rather distinguished one for his advocacy of prevention, which you advocate by mass medication. I am also an advocate for prevention, but in an individualized and targeted manner. And before you tear me to shreds about referring to CWF as mass medication, if we were to add lithium to the water to treat a mental condition, naturally occurring lithium ions behaving similarly to fluoride ions, but with opposite charge, would you not consider that “adjustment of naturally occurring ion concentration” as comprising mass medication? Was Dr. Bass considered a quack by your profluoridation colleagues? Is Arvid Carllson considered a quack? Was John Colquhoun a quack? Is Hardy Limeback a quack? (I’ve read that the term “quack” originated in reference to the practice of dentistry by some who were practicing irresponsibly.) Are there dentists or others who would consider you a quack? I do hope not, that being such a subjective and derogatory assignment to one’s character!!

  23. Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. says:

    Most of the claims made by fluoridation promoters on this site are incorrect. It will take significant time to correct some of them. For example, it is true that Standard 60 states that no EPA regulated contaminant can be added into water if its final concentration exceeds 10% of its EPA MCL. The MCL for fluoride is 4 ppm and 10% of that is 0.4 ppm. Since fluoride is infused and topped off today typically at 0.7 ppm or higher, then “optimal” fluoridation of water violates rules set out by the NSF in Standard 60. It is also illegal to add any EPA regulated contaminant, including fluoride, intentionally into water supplies without an NPDES permit from the EPA. The fact that current EPA staff do not enforce this provision in the Clean Water Act is irrelevant. “Water fluoridation” remains illegal.
    23% fluosilicic acid is not “carefully prepared”, as though this provides some sort of purity control or gives some therapeutic quality to the hazardous waste, when it of course does not. It is simply that fluosilicic acid cannot be enriched to a concentration much higher than this because if one attempts to do so by evaporating water from the solution, the silicon tretrafluoride toxic gas quantitatively returns into the atmosphere from the solution.
    There are vast published data proving that consumption of “optimally fluoridated” water causes adverse pathology, both in well-controlled mammalian experiments, and in human observational studies. A key side effect of the ingestion of “optimally fluoridated” water is incorporation of fluoride into bone where it does not belong and where it is a contaminant. The irreversible incorporation stimulates the formation of bone of poor quality. There is no systemic blood fluoride level low enough at which fluoride does not incorporate into bone. The NRC 2006 Report tabulated data indicating bone discomfort and skeletal fluorosis symptoms at bone fluoride levels over a broad range, in some humans as low as 1,700 mg/kg in bone. Fluoride incorporates into bone at this level, which is more concentrated in fluoridated toothpaste, in a 1 ppm fluoride water city in only about 10 years (if one actually consumes the fluoridated water). Other aspects of fluoride toxicity and illegality are discussed in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
    Fluoride is a contaminant of water. It is not a normal ingredient in either the bloodstream or in pure pristine fresh drinking water. The FDA ruled that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient and when added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. The reason for this is because fluoride is added into water to treat humans, with the sole purpose of elevating the fluoride level in blood in an attempt to therapeutically impact dental decay. The FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended to be ingested by pregnant women in 1966, but fluoridationists ignore all FDA warnings on fluoride, including the fact that the FDA has never approved fluoride for ingestion in the U.S.
    Fluoridation of water doesn’t “save money on dental expenses.” 1) People who care for their teeth do not have caries, and for them fluoridation cannot decrease caries by 25 or 40% since one cannot have fewer caries than 0. The same is true for people with false teeth who have no caries to reduce. 2) The Cochrane review confirmed yet again that there are no credible well-controlled studies proving that swallowing fluoride reduces caries. The largest studies we have indicate the opposite, that fluoridated cities do not have reduced caries incidence (as published by Teotia; and by Yiamouyiannis; and by Ziegelbecker; and other Statewide studies) as described also in textbooks by dentist Phillip Sutton. 3) The fluoride level in saliva at 0.016 ppm, bathing teeth topically, is 75,000 times lower than that in toothpaste and is unable to affect dental decay. There are no studies proving that fluoride at this level in saliva can affect teeth enamel. Kathleen Thiessen did not falsify or misinterpret anything when she reached the conclusions she published. The idea of some at the CDC that ingested systemic fluoride can somehow affect dental caries is a pipedream and a wish of an organization that has promoted “fluoridation” of water for decades without proof of effectiveness and proof of lack of harm for all consumers including those with kidney disease, bone diseases, etc. Wishing and hoping has nothing to do with scientific fact. Sorry.

    • Steve slott says:

      And now we have Sauerheber, the “Scientific Consultant” for attorney James Deal. Deal runs a website he calls “classactionfluoride” or something to that effect, for the apparent sole purpose of attempting to drum up lawsuits against fluoridation from which he would presumably profit. Deal’s obvious lack of success with this endeavor aside, Sauerheber’s conflict of interest is readily apparent.

      So, let’s look at Sauerheber’s latest edition of misinformation:

      1. Sauerhener: “Most of the claims made by fluoridation promoters on this site are incorrect. It will take significant time to correct some of them”

      Facts: I’m in no hurry, Richard. Why don’t you go ahead and demonstrate exactly where you deem I am “incorrect”. Take as much time as you need.

      2. Sauerheber: “For example, it is true that Standard 60 states that no EPA regulated contaminant can be added into water if its final concentration exceeds 10% of its EPA MCL. The MCL for fluoride is 4 ppm and 10% of that is 0.4 ppm. Since fluoride is infused and topped off today typically at 0.7 ppm or higher, then “optimal” fluoridation of water violates rules set out by the NSF in Standard 60.”

      Facts:
      There are no violations of Standard 60 certification requirements in association with water fluoridation.

      NSF Standard 60 states:

      “For contaminants regulated by the U.S. EPA, the SPAC [single product allowable concentrations] is set to a default level that is not to exceed ten percent of the regulatory level in order to ensure that the consumer is adequately protected in the event that multiple sources of the contaminant exist in the water supply. A lower or higher number of sources can be specified if data are available to warrant deviating from the default”

      “As noted above, NSF/ANSI Standard 60 requires, when available, that the US EPA MCL
      to determine the acceptable level for a chemical of interest. The EPA MCL for fluoride ion in water is 4 mg/L. The data-derived SPAC for fluoride ion in drinking water from NSF Certified treatment products is 1.2 mg/L, or less than one-third of the EPA’s MCL. Based on the SPAC for fluoride ion, the allowable maximum use levels (MUL) for NSF 60 Certified fluoridation products are:”

      —NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Products
      http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

      to be continued………

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Steve slott says:

        Sauerheber continued…………

        3. Sauerheber: ” It is also illegal to add any EPA regulated contaminant, including fluoride, intentionally into water supplies without an NPDES permit from the EPA. The fact that current EPA staff do not enforce this provision in the Clean Water Act is irrelevant. ‘Water fluoridation’. remains illegal.

        Facts:
        There is nothing illegal about the addition of fluoride ions to drinking water, as long as the total concentration of existing and added fluoride does not exceed the EPA mandated maximum allowable concentration 4.0 ppm fluoride.

        NPDES permits are required for point source discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. They govern the contents and characteristics of the total discharge. They are not required for each and every substance within that discharge which, of course, includes fluoride.

        “In response, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also referred to as the Clean Water Act (CWA), was amended in 1972 to provide that the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States from any point source is unlawful, unless the discharge is in compliance with a permit. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that are required by the CWA for point sources have helped to dramatically improve water quality in many water bodies in the U.S.”

        “NPDES permits typically specify waste discharge requirements (for example, maximum flow rate, pollutant concentration limits, allowable pH range, maximum temperature) .”

        —-NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
        http://www.beachapedia.org/NPDES:_National_Pollutant_Discharge_Elimination_System

        to be continued………

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Steve slott says:

          Sauerheber continued……..

          4. Sauerheber: “23% fluosilicic acid is not “carefully prepared”, as though this provides some sort of purity control or gives some therapeutic quality to the hazardous waste……etc, etc. etc…..”

          Facts:
          A. There is no “hazardous waste” involved in water fluoridation. Waste, by definition, has no productive use. Fluoridation substances are utilized productively in the fluoridation of public water systems. It is a mystery as to why antifluoridationists seem to believe it to be a negative to productively recycle and reuse as much of our natural resources as is possible.

          B. All water at the tap must meet all of the stringent, EPA mandated quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of the NSF. It makes no difference what is the concentration level of aqueous HFA. Once public drinking water reaches the tap, it must meet Standard 60 certification requirements. If it doesn’t, it is not allowed. Fluoridated water at the tap easily meets all NSF Standard 60 certification requirements.

          —NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Products
          http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

          5. Sauerheber: “There are vast published data proving that consumption of ‘optimally fluoridated’ water causes adverse pathology, both in well-controlled mammalian experiments, and in human observational studies.

          Facts:

          There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride……..as evidenced by Sauerheber’s inability to provide any of this “vast published data”, properly cited to original sources.

          6. Sauerheber: “A key side effect of the ingestion of ‘optimally fluoridated’ water is incorporation of fluoride into bone where it does not belong and where it is a contaminant. The irreversible incorporation stimulates the formation of bone of poor quality. There is no systemic blood fluoride level low enough at which fluoride does not incorporate into bone”.

          Facts:

          There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects resultant of “incorporation of fluoride into bone where it doesn’t belong and where it is a contaminant” in regard to fluoride from optimally fluoridated water……..as evidenced by Sauerheber’s inability to provide any such evidence, properly cited to original sources.

          to be continued……..


          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            Sauerheber continued………

            7. Sauerheber: “The NRC 2006 Report tabulated data indicating bone discomfort and skeletal fluorosis symptoms at bone fluoride levels over a broad range, in some humans as low as 1,700 mg/kg in bone. Fluoride incorporates into bone at this level, which is more concentrated in fluoridated toothpaste, in a 1 ppm fluoride water city in only about 10 years (if one actually consumes the fluoridated water).”

            Facts:

            The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.

            –Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
            Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council

            Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

            In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:

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

            —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

            to be continued……

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Siciety

          • Steve slott says:

            Sauerheber continued…….

            9. Sauerheber: “Fluoride is a contaminant of water. It is not a normal ingredient in either the bloodstream or in pure pristine fresh drinking water.”

            Facts:

            A. Sauerheber’s personal opinion as to what is a “normal ingredient” in the bloodstream, is of no relevance. In regard to his idea of “pure pristine fresh drinking water” he only need look at the annual water quality report of any public utility in order to see how “pristine” is his drinking water. As fluoride has always existed in water, with humans having been ingesting it in that water since the beginning of time, Sauerheber’s claim that fluoride is not a “normal ingredient” in drinking water is dubious, at best.

            to be continued…….

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            Sauerheber continued………

            10. Sauerheber: “The FDA ruled that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient and when added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug.”

            Facts:

            The contents of public drinking water are under the full jurisdiction of the US EPA, not the FDA. It makes no difference what Sauerheber claims that the “FDA ruled”. It is of no relevance to water fluoridation.

            11. Sauerheber: “Fluoridation of water doesn’t “save money on dental expenses.” 1) People who care for their teeth do not have caries, and for them fluoridation cannot decrease caries by 25 or 40% since one cannot have fewer caries than 0.”

            Facts:

            As a dentist who has filled, extracted, and performed root canals on tens of thousands of teeth of “people who care for their teeth” I can state unequivocally that Sauerheber’s claim that these people “do not have caries” could not be any more uninformed and utterly ridiculous.

            B. The peer-reviewed science clearly demonstrates a cost savings of $15-$50 per every $1 spent on fluoridation. I have already listed a number of these studies on this site, but will gladly do so again should Sauerheber so desire.

            12. Sauerheber: “The Cochrane review confirmed yet again that there are no credible well-controlled studies proving that swallowing fluoride reduces caries.”

            Facts:

            Sauerheber provides the standard antifluoridationist misrepresentation of the Cochrane Review, here. He should consider actually reading this study sometime.

            The Cochrane Review was an update of the 2000 York Review.  As such, Cochrane set narrow parameters for fluoridation studies it would review, consistent with the parameters originally set by York. It then culled the scientific literature and found 155 studies, out of 4,600 fluoride studies considered,  which fit within its parameters. This immediately excluded well over 4,000 quality, peer-reviewed fluoridation studies. Within the 155 studies Cochrane chose to review, it deemed the majority to fall within the parameters it had established for them to be considered at high risk of bias. It did not state that the studies were biased, nor invalid.

            to be continued……..


            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            Sauerheber continued………….

            13. Sauerheber: “The largest studies we have indicate the opposite, that fluoridated cities do not have reduced caries incidence (as published by Teotia; and by Yiamouyiannis; and by Ziegelbecker; and other Statewide studies) as described also in textbooks by dentist Phillip Sutton.”

            Facts:

            What Sauerheber lists here is not what “the largest studies we have indicate”, it is the skewed misrepresentation of data from those studies by fringe activists such as Yiamouyiannis, Sutton, etc.

            14. Sauerheber: “The fluoride level in saliva at 0.016 ppm, bathing teeth topically, is 75,000 times lower than that in toothpaste and is unable to affect dental decay.

            Facts:

            Sauerheber plucks an out-of-context quote from the CDC here. The entire paragraph in its complete context, properly cited, states:

            “Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas (27). This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity. However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1–2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization (28).”

            —Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
            US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
            Recommendations and Reports
            August 17, 2001 / 50(RR14);1-42

            15. Sauerheber: “Kathleen Thiessen did not falsify or misinterpret anything when she reached the conclusions she published.”

            Facts:

            So what? The fact that Thiessen is a long time, outspoken fluoridation opponent is well known. Her endorsement of Hirzy’s flawed study is clear demonstration of her confirmation bias against fluoridation. Her study on cost savings discredits itself. There is no dental treatment required for mild to very mild dental fluorosis. Therefore, contrary to her erroneous claim and inclusion in her “cost analysis”, there is no expense for treatment of any dental fluorosis attributable to optimally fluoridated water.

            16. Sauerheber: “The idea of some at the CDC that ingested systemic fluoride can somehow affect dental caries is a pipedream and a wish of an organization that has promoted “fluoridation” of water for decades without proof of effectiveness and proof of lack of harm for all consumers including those with kidney disease, bone diseases, etc.”

            Facts:

            Sauerheber’s unsubstantiated personal opinions on the effectiveness of systemic fluoride in the prevention of dental decay are unqualified and irrelevant.

            B. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. I will gladly cite as many as Sauerheber would reasonably care to read.

            17. Sauerheber: “Wishing and hoping has nothing to do with scientific fact. Sorry.”

            Facts:

            A. Correct. Neither do unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and misrepresentation of scientific literature.

            B. I have no argument with Sauerheber’s claim that he is “sorry”. I fully agree.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

  24. Seabreezes1 says:

    “Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and they’ll make the kid sick, too.” – Dr. David Kennedy, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)

    Fluoride is an EPA regulated contaminant and a poison that kills or harms plants, livestock and humans. It originates as a poisonous volcanic gas and is naturally found bound with CALCIUM and includes magnesium and phosphorus, which are good for teeth.

    The stuff added to our water is sourced from the slurry of phosphate and aluminum industry. It is invariably bound with ALUMINUM, and contains arsenic, lead, cadmium, etc.

    Despite dental marketing material, there are hundreds of high quality peer reviewed studies published in credible journals proving fluoridation is harmful to susceptible subpopulations which include pregnant women and their fetuses, infants and young children, the elderly and those with prolonged health conditions such as kidney disease or diabetes.

    The international panelists of the 2015 Cochrane Review agreed with findings of the equally prestigious 2000 York Review, that the fluoridation studies purporting benefit were low quality with high risk of bias, had NO evidence of safety, and any benefit was small in absolute terms and possibly not relevant in the 21st century given the prevalence of fluoridated toothpastes. You see, the 1940s hypothesis that fluoride needed to be ingested has been discarded. Any benefit is from brushing….. that’s because fluoride is a POISON, it poisons cavity producing bacteria.

    • Steve slott says:

      Ahhh, it seems that Karen Spencer has seen fit to post under one of her other pseudonyms, now……..”Seabreezes”.

      Antifluoridationists post all over the internet hiding behind so many different pseudonyms that it’s difficult to keep score.

      But, at any rate, since “seabreezes” has posted the same copy/paste nonsense as did her alter-ego “K Spencer”, I’ll simply refer her to my reply to her first one.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  25. James Dean says:

    Phosphate Fertilizer Industry (Florida, US)

    In the process of converting phosphate rock into soluble fertilizer, two very toxic fluoride gases are released: hydrogen fluoride and silicon tetrafluoride. In the past, the phosphate industry used to let these two gases vent freely into the atmosphere. This, however, caused severe environmental damage among downwind communities, including widespread cattle poisonings, scorched vegetation, and various human health complaints.

  26. James Dean says:

    1. The Industrial Sources of the Chemicals

    Until recently, all fluoridation chemicals were obtained from the wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry in central Florida. In recent years, however, an increasing number of water departments have begun purchasing their fluoride chemicals from China. Based on recent incidents, it appears that the quality control of the Chinese chemicals is even more lax, and variable, than the U.S.-produced chemicals.

    • Steve slott says:

      James Dean

      All water at the tap must meet all of the stringent, EPA mandated quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 mandates that no contaminant be present in water at the tap in excess of 10% of the EPA maximum allowable level (MCL), for that contaminant. If water at the tap does not meet all of the Standard 60 requirements, it is not allowed. It’s that simple. This certainly includes fluoridated water at the tap.

      It therefore makes no difference from where fluoridation substances are sourced. If the water in which they are utilized does not meet Standard 60 requirements, it is not allowed.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • James Dean says:

        The EPA also listed fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin.

        • James Dean says:

          The EPA also listed Fluoride as an endocrine disruptor.

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            Yes, fluoride is on the EPA list of neurotoxins……..along with 150 or so other substances. On that same list are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (sweetener), ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), caffeine, and nicotine. Fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is no more neurotoxic than are any of these other substances at their proper use levels.

            There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of endocrine disruption from optimal level fluoride. If you care to argue the point then provide such evidence, properly cited to original sources.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • James Dean says:

            Yes, beer, aspertame, and aspiring are all toxic. These substances, like fluoride are all harmful when chronically ingested.

          • James Dean says:

            Steve, No dentist can deceive an informed public.

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            Yes, an informed public is exactly my goal. This means correction of the constant onslaught of misinformation posted by uninformed antifluoridationists such as you and the others commenting on this site.

            That the US is now 74.7% fluoridated, increased from 74.6% in 2012, increased from 73.4% in 2011 is a testament to the fact that yes, an informed public cannot be deceived by antifluoridationists, in spite of the constant efforts of these unscrupulous activists to do so.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • James Dean says:

            Last year the federal government has recommended lowering the level of fluoride in drinking water from 1.2 ppm to 0.7 ppm or less. It won’t be long till the end of water fluoridation.

          • James Dean says:

            The EPA listed Fluoride as an endocrine disruptor which impairs the thyroid gland.

          • James Dean says:

            “Yes, fluoride is on the EPA list of neurotoxins, along with.. aspartame (sweetener), ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), caffeine, and nicotine.” Yes, give that sh*t to your kids.

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            The government did not “recommended lowering the level of fluoride in drinking water from 1.2 ppm to 0.7 ppm or less.”

            This is a garbled reference to the reset of the optimal level of fluoride in drinking last year by the US DHHS

            The optimal level of fluoride in drinking water is that recommended level at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. This optimal level was originally set by the US Public Health Service in 1962, as a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was set as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between different climates.

            Recent scientific evidence has demonstrated that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no longer exist any significant difference in water consumption due to climate differences. Thus, there is no longer a need for a range. In recognition of this fact and of the greater availability of fluoride now, than when the optimal was originally established, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal range be consolidated into simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. After several years of careful study and consideration as to whether this consolidation would significantly reduce the dental decay prevention of fluoridation, the US DHHS determined that it would not. Thus, in keeping with the original goal of providing maximum dental decay protection while minimizing any risk of adverse effects, the US DHHS recently announced that the optimal recommendation had been officially consolidated into the low end of the previous optimum range. The current optimal level is 0.7 ppm, the level at which most water systems have been fluoridating for years, anyway.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any endocrine disruption resultant of optimal level fluoride…….as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            It is unclear as to why you would recommend giving “sh*t” to kids. But far be it from me to try and make sense of the murky antifluoridationist mindset.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • James Dean says:

            There is no such thing as optimal level as there is fluoride in almost everything we consume: water, soda, coffee, soups, teas, and other beverages. We also consume fluoride through our pores when showering or bathing. Everyone is being overdosed with this neurotoxin fluoride.

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            “There is no such thing as optimal level fluoride”

            Well, I’m not sure what planet on which you reside, but on this one we don’t get to make up our own facts, as you seem determined to do.

            A. The optimal level of fluoride is, by definition, that level of fluoride in drinking water at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. The optimal level is 0.7 ppm, and is an official recommendation of the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

            B. Please free at any time to present valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects from this “overdosing” you claim to be occurring, in association with optimally fluoridated water.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • James Dean says:

            You don’t need a peer review to show that individuals should not be forced to consume a toxic waste by product without knowing their medical history and having a doctor monitor their daily dosage.

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            “You don’t need a peer review to show that individuals should not be forced to consume a toxic waste by product without knowing their medical history and having a doctor monitor their daily dosage.”

            Agreed. But that is of no relevance to water fluoridation.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • James Dean says:

            How is it of no relevance? There is no doctor monitoring the dosage of individuals consuming Fluorosilicic acid that is added to our public water.

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            “How is it of no relevance? There is no doctor monitoring the dosage of individuals consuming Fluorosilicic acid that is added to our public water.”

            Fluorosilic acid is not consumed by anyone.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • James Dean says:

            So what are people consuming?

          • Steven Slott says:

            James Dean

            “So what are people consuming?”

            Fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

  27. Dan Germouse says:

    I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.
    http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/

  28. jwillie6 says:

    Fluoridation has a dismal record in the U.S. There is no correlation in states between fluoridation and teeth health.
    The CDC reports that Kentucky, 100% fluoridated for over 60 years, has the worse total loss of teeth in the country (42.3%). Compare that to Hawaii with the least fluoridation (10.8%) and the best record of total teeth loss in the U.S. (13.1%). Similar poor results are found in Maine (79.4% and 30.4%), Delaware (86.3% and 25.8%) and other states.
    Fluoridation is not only a waste of tax money but is slow poisoning in every glass of water over a lifetime resulting in serious health problems; damage to bones, brain, thyroid and much more.

  29. jwillie6 says:

    In children, fluoridation causes enamel damage in 41% of all children (CDC data), a lowered IQ (Harvard University), and a fivefold increase in bone cancer (Dr. Bassin, DDS, Harvard University).

    In adults, generally the first disease from this toxic poison is damage to the thyroid gland. Is it a coincidence that thyroid cancer is now the fastest-rising cancer?

    Thyroid cancer rates are on the rise, increasing 240 percent over the last 20 years. It’s now the fastest-rising cancer in women. Is this epidemic connected with the 74% fluoridation In the U.S.?
    See for yourself.
    http://news.yahoo.com/video/thyroid-cancer-fastest-rising-cancer-223047514.html

    • Steve slott says:

      Jwillie

      1. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any “enamel damage in 41% of all children”. Your “41%” is a garbled reference to a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar in which 41% of adolescents they examined were found to have signs of dental fluorosis.. This 41% was composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign effects requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth….with the other 3.8% being those with moderate dental fluorosis, attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste and/or exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth forming years of 0-8.

      Your hypocrisy is clearly evident by your attempt to fear-monger about benign, barely detectable mild dental fluorosis in order to impose your ideology on entire populations, while you ignore the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, loss of teeth, and life-threatening infection directly resultant of untreated dental decay which could be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.

      Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
      Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H. 

      2. The lowered IQ nonsense to which you erroneously refer to as “(Harvard University)” was not in relation to any Harvard study. The “reduced IQ studies” are a reference to a 2011 review of 27 Chinese studies dug out of obscure Chinese journals by researchers Phillippe Grandjean and Anna Choi. These studies were of the effects of high levels of fluoride (as high as 11.5 ppm) in the well-water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages.

      As Grandjean and Choi are members of the faculty of the Harvard School of Public Health, antifluoridationists erroneously refer to this study as the “Harvard Study”. After excluding studies which were so seriously flawed that they did not even warrant review, Grandjean and Choi ended up with 27 in their review. By their own admission these studies had key information missing, inadequate control for confounders, and questionable methodologies. These 27 studies were so were so seriously flawed that Grandjean and Choi were led to issue a public statement in March, 2013 that the studies should not be used to judge water fluoridation in the US. This obviously has not stopped “FAN” from doing so anyway.

      “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

      –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author (23)

      3. Bassin was simply a doctoral thesis in which Bassin took a subset of preliminary data from a larger sttudy which concluded there to be no associated between fluoridated water and bone cancer. Bassin’s findings have never been replicated. While you attempt to fear-monger with this one doctoral thesis, you disingenuously ignore the volume of scientific evidence which clearly demonstrates there to be no association of fluoridated water and cancer.

      4. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on the thyroid gland from optimally fluoridated water.

      5. A newscast video report about thyroid cancer is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Mike says:

        jwillie6,

        Pay no attention to the alleged “Dr. S Slott”. He/They are a paid group of internet trolls that post all sorts of phony information about the supposed health benefits of fluoridation. Also, there is no such thing as Amer Fluoridation Society. And if you look at any effort in North America that is attempting to stop water fluoridation, you will see him or randy johnson attacking anyone who is asking for the end of this unhealthy practice.

        The issue comes down to a few things:
        We are being medicated without our consent with a substance that is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic.

        We cannot control the dose of the fluoride because of the amount of water we drink and bath in. Certain groups of people like children, athletes, diabetics, laborers can be affected more so due to body size, amount of water intake or health conditions.

        98% of Europe does not fluoridate their water and if you look at WHO report https://www.facebook.com/FluorideFreeIllinois/photos/p.546941515466022/546941515466022/?type=3&theater all dental issues are on the decline whether fluoridated or NOT.

        Cheers

  30. John Teagle says:

    Dr Steven Slott DDS and his ilk such as Dr Johnny Johnson DDS (Randy Johnson??) are nothing more than Astroturfers who have a hidden agenda knowing full well that fluoridation is only effective when applied topically and is a serious cause of the disease dental fluorosis.
    http://fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/topical_systemic/
    http://www.publichealthreports.org/documents/PHS_2015_Fluoride_Guidelines.pdf
    Astroturfers are paid shills who are not concerned with the truth, only interested in promoting an agenda that benefits companies who profit from causing harm to consumers.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s__qs0cBek
    The Astroturfers are highly organized (and paid?) to discredit and ridicule anyone who dares to stand up for their human rights when it comes to medications such as fluoridation.
    Here is a recent example of how the Astroturfers operate in order to promote their hidden agenda of promoting the ingestion of known neurotoxins such as Sodium Silicofluoride by unsuspecting consumers.
    http://www.foodconsumer.org/newsite/Safety/chemical/calgary_fluoride_study_fatally_flawed_0227160320.html
    The World Health Organisation is aware of the dangers of the diseases dental fluorosis and skeletal fluorosis and warns about the harmful effects from overexposure to fluoride.
    http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/fluorosis/en/
    The US Public Health Service in July 2015 drastically reduced the purported “safe/optimal” level of fluoride in reticulated water supplies from 1.2 mgs per litre to 0.7mgs per litre.
    http://www.publichealthreports.org/documents/PHS_2015_Fluoride_Guidelines.pdf
    This reduction was necessary because of the alarming increased prevalence of dental fluorosis in children and young adults, a disease that is a bio-marker for more serious illnesses such as hypothyroidism, Iodine Deficiency Disease and arthritis to name just a few.
    The Gold Standard UK Cochrane Collaboration in the systematic peer review could not find any conclusive evidence that fluoridation prevents tooth decay but it found that fluoride causes the WHO recognised water related disease dental fluoridation.
    http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

    • Steve slott says:

      John Teagle

      It is ironic that you claim fluoridation proponents to be “not concerned with the truth” and then proceed to post a litany of patently false information.

      1. ‘Fluoridealert” is nothing but the biased website of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. The filtered and edited information located on this site, and others like it, is valid evidence of nothing. If you wish your claims to be taken seriously then you will need to cite original sources of accurate information, unfiltered through antifluoridationist websites.

      2. The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic.  The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which is the only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with optimally fluoridated water.  Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.  As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.  Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically. 

      —-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
      http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long

      Additionally, saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing if the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.

      From the CDC:

      “Fluoride works to control early dental caries in several ways. Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization (i.e., recovery) of demineralized enamel. As cariogenic bacteria metabolize carbohydrates and produce acid, fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface. The released fluoride and the fluoride present in saliva are then taken up, along with calcium and phosphate, by de-mineralized enamel to establish an improved enamel crystal structure. This improved structure is more acid resistant and contains more fluoride and less carbonate.. Fluoride is more readily taken up by demineralized enamel than by sound enamel.. Cycles of demineralization and remineralization continue throughout the lifetime of the tooth.”

      ——–Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
      United States Centers for Disease Control
      Recommendations and Reports
      August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Steve slott says:

        John Teagle

        The only ones of whom I’m aware are paid to advocate for or against fluoridation are the founder of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”, Paul Connett, his family, and whatever paid staff he has, including his paid lobbyist, William Hirzy. Not only have Connett and his wife been paid a monthly stipend, but presumably, “FAN” has picked up some, if not all of the tab for Connett’s repeated trips to New Zealand, Australia, Europe, Canada, and all over the United States. No fluoridation advocate of whom I’m aware is paid anything for fluoridation efforts, and certainly would not be paid as lavishly as Connett.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Steve slott says:

          John Teagle

          Before continuing to make a fool of yourself by spreading “FAN’ nonsense all over the internet, you would be well served to at least attempt to properly educate yourself on this issue from respected, legitimate sources.

          The misrepresentation of the Calgary study by antifluoridationists has been well documented by New Zealand chemist, Ken Perrott, PhD. This may be viewed:

          https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/02/27/anti-fluoridationists-flawed-attacks-on-calgary-study/

          Dental fluorosis is not a disease. Other than the severe level, it is simply a cosmetic effect of the teeth. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is the only level of dental fluorosis which may be attributable to optimally fluoridated water. This level is barely detectable, causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, of health of teeth, and, given the increased decay resistance of these teeth, is in many cases viewed as a positive by those who are even aware they have it.

          Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the US as to be nearly non-existent. The World Health Organization is fully supportive of fluoridation. It would not be if there were any risk of adverse effects.

          The US Public Health Service has not “drastically reduced” anything in regard to water fluoridation.

          A. The optimal is not a “purported” level. It is, by definition, that concentration of fluoride in drinking water at which maximum dental decay resistance will be obtained, with no adverse effects. The optimal level is an official recommendation of the United States Department of Heath and Human Services.

          B. The optimal level has never been 1.2 mg/liter. Prior to 2015, it was a range of 0.7 mg/liter to 1.2 mg/liter as set by the US Public Health Service in 1962. It was set as a range in order to allow for different amounts of water consumption between different climates. Recent scientific evidence has demonstrated that, due to air-conditioning and other modern amenities, there no longer exist any significant difference in water consumption due to climate differences. Thus, there is no longer a need for a range. In recognition of this fact and of the greater availability of fluoride now, than when the optimal was originally established, the CDC, in 2011, recommended that the optimal range be consolidated into simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. After several years of careful study and consideration as to whether this consolidation would significantly reduce the dental decay prevention of fluoridation, the US DHHS determined that it would not. Thus, in keeping with the original goal of providing maximum dental decay protection while minimizing any risk of adverse effects, the US DHHS recently announced that the optimal recommendation had been officially consolidated into the low end of the previous optimum range. The current optimal level is 0.7 ppm, the level at which most water systems have been fluoridating for years, anyway.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            John Teagle

            1. Dental fluorosis is not a disease. It is simply an effect of the teeth.

            Untreated dental decay which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation, on the other hand, is a disease……a very devastating one which can and does cause lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection.

            2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that dental fluorosis is “a bio-marker for more serious illnesses such as hypothyroidism, Iodine Deficiency Disease and arthritis to name just a few.”……..as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Siru Cossaboon says:

            Steve Slott,

            You are the one spreading “science for sale” and other nonsense saying that “calcium fluoride is the same” fluoride ions as the artificial fluoridation chemicals added to our water, which eat through concrete and melt flesh. Calcium fluoride does not! Again these dental “Experts” know nothing about fluorine chemistry, just repeat what the Ada has told them and offer studies that prove nothing in support of their claims.

            Here is a confession from an honest dentist:

            ARE DENTISTS REALLY QUALIFIED TO BE FLUORIDE EXPERTS?

            I graduated from dental school in 1972 and the dental schools water fluoridation educational curriculum has not changed since then. To be licensed in Oklahoma and other states a dentist has to graduate from a dental school that is accredited by the American Dental Association (ADA). For a dental school to be accredited by the ADA that school has to meet the very strict curriculum requirements of the ADA. All accredited dental schools are just carbon copies of each other so it doesn’t matter which ADA accredited dental school one attends as they are all the same except maybe for the color of the wallpaper.

            In dental school, one day during one of our preventative dentistry courses, only a very few minutes was devoted to telling us students that “fluoridated drinking water reduced and prevented tooth decay and it was safe and caused no bodily harm.” If a student said something about hearing that fluoride was a toxic chemical and should not be added to the drinking water we were instructed very explicitly that it is the dentists who are the “experts” and that the public does not know anything about fluoride and that fluoride was safe and that anyone who disagreed was unscientific, misinformed, a fear monger and should be seriously denigrated…and if we ever expected to graduate from dental school we had darn well better defend water fluoridation and never question it.

            That was it, no book, no PowerPoint, no tests, no nothing…just this brief statement one day.
            That was the total amount of “facts” we students were taught about water fluoridation science. The ADA does not want dentists to know truthful, accurate and undistorted water fluoridation science so they intentionally keep it out of the dental school curriculum and instead just supply dentists with rehearsed scripted messages to spout. The public and most dentists unfortunately hold it that this very brief indoctrination (brainwashing) dentists are given in dental school somehow makes dentist fluoridation “experts.”

            Since the ADA controls the dental school curriculum, as well as dentistry in general, a potential dental student has to first pass the ADA’s Dental Aptitude Test to be accepted to a dental school. Another ADA test has to be passed to advance to the third year and again at the end of the fourth year to graduate. Then a dentist has to graduate from an ADA accredited school to be licensed. Then there is the back door the ADA has into all the state dental boards.

            Dentist take what they learn in dental school as Gospel Truth. We are taught many very specific procedures and techniques for treating tooth decay and gum diseases. We don’t deviate. We do as we are taught. If we expect to graduate from dental school we had darn well do as we are told and taught. If we don’t do as taught, we fail. This water fluoridation scenario is the same. Dentists don’t question their dental school fluoridation teachings, they take it as GOSPEL TRUTH which means that dentists will attack and denigrate anyone who is opposed to fluoridation. These ADA controlled dental schools are very good at turning out very skilled and professional dentists…but these schools are total failures at turning out anything that even remotely resembles a “fluoridation expert.”

            Because of the American Dental Association’s control over dental schools there is no such thing as a scientifically accurate Water Fluoridation 101 course taught in any dental school in this country, and there never has been. Should any dentists approach you with that pretense that they are the “experts,” I suggest you ask them to document their qualifications and have them show you on their dental school course transcript where their fluoride coursework is documented. Also ask them to document if they have taken any continuing education courses on water fluoridation since their graduation from dental school. They won’t be able to provide any documentation as no courses have ever existed. The public has been misled into believing that dentists are water fluoridation “experts” when in fact that is clearly not the case. Dentists are so far removed from the accurate water fluoridation science that they are not even in the ball park of scientifically accurate water fluoridation science.

            One very popular tactic that the ADA indoctrinated dentists attempt to use to make them appear as fluoride “experts” is to question if the fluoride opponents are using “peer reviewed” studies in their opposition. Here is my reply to this “peer review” questioning.

            UNDERSTANDING PEER REVIEW

            I know the promoters of fluoride often blather that the studies they use to promote the addition of fluorosilicic acid to the public drinking water are peer reviewed and then they ask the fluoride opponents if the studies the opponents use to document the known adverse health effects from fluoridation or vaccinations are peer reviewed.

            My experience with peer review has documented to me that “peer” review can be slanted depending on who the “peer reviewers” are beholden to. For example, there is this study done by a hungry fox. This foxes study concluded that is safe for a fox to guard the chickens. The chickens questioned the accuracy of this study and ask the fox if the study had been peer reviewed. The fox said no it had not been peer reviewed so the fox organized its peers and they did a peer review study and all the foxes concluded that the “peer reviewed” study was accurate and that it was OK for hungry foxes to guard the chickens. So the chickens now do not have a choice, they are now guarded by the hungry foxes…think those chickens feel safe?

            Jim Maxey DDS
            http://www.DentalConfessions.com

        • Steve slott says:

          John Teagle

          Your statement “The Gold Standard UK Cochrane Collaboration in the systematic peer review could not find any conclusive evidence that fluoridation prevents tooth decay but it found that fluoride causes the WHO recognised water related disease dental fluoridation.” is so inane that it really requires no further comment.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society.

    • Siru Cossaboon says:

      John,

      Thank you! Steve Slott trolls the net anywhere there is a fluoride debate going on. It is always the same Bs. He is not from Chesco.

      The American Fluoridation Society is just a troll club!

      • Steve slott says:

        Siru

        Yes, antifluoridationists resent the “imposition” of facts and evidence into their onslaughts of misinformation. Once antifluoridationists learn that it is not acceptable to discard truth and accuracy whenever expedient, cease posting misinformation, and begin to properly educate themselves on this issue from legitimate, reliable sources of accurate information…..I will gladly go away. As this will obviously never happen, I suppose you should just get used to my correction of your misinformation as long as you continue you post it.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

  31. jwillie6 says:

    Recent scientific studies tell the true story. Check the following research studies showing increased cancer with fluoride.
    There are many PubMed ( US National Library of Medicine®) scientific studies showing that fluoride in drinking water causes cancer. Here are a few. Go read them yourself.
    A fivefold increase in bone cancer in young people:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16596294

    Uterine cancer mortality:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9002384

    Cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11512573

    • Steve slott says:

      Jwillie

      There is overwhelming scientific consensus that there is no association of optimally fluoridated with cancer of any type, your reprehensible fear-mongering notwithstanding.

      A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.

      ——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982

      • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma

      —— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
      ——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005,

      Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.

      ——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999.  Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.

      The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.

      ——-McDonagh M S, et al., Systemic review of water fluoridation. BMJ, 2000. 321.

      A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).

      ——Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

      In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.

      ——-Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

      A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.

      ——European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

  32. Steve slott says:

    Unless the “managers of the water system” are healthcare personnel qualified to render appropriate healthcare recommendations, it is obviously a grievous mistake to allow them to unilaterally make a healthcare decision which directly affects the health and well-being of all citizens of a population, without carefully considering valid facts, evidence, and recommendations from those who are indeed qualified to render appropriate recommendations.

    This fact is readily apparent by the uninformed comment of the DMWA Executive Director David L. Busch who said. “One of them is the idea of putting things in the water that are not their naturally.” Fluoride has always existed in water “naturally”, and always will. The fluoride ions added as a result of fluoridation are identical to those which have always been in the water.

    This fact is also readily apparent in the flawed thinking of the managers that money will be saved by their irresponsible decision. The following is that which the peer-reviewed science has clearly demonstrated in regard to cost of fluoridation. The cost savings of fluoridation are well documented:

    1. For most cities, every $1 invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs.

    ——“Cost Savings of Community Water Fluoridation,”
    U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, accessed on March 14, 2011 at
    http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm.

    2. A Texas study confirmed that the state saved $24 per child, per year in Medicaid expenditures for children because of the cavities that were prevented by drinking
    fluoridated water.

    —— “Water Fluoridation Costs in Texas: Texas Health Steps (EPSDT-Medicaid),
    Department of Oral Health Website (2000),
    http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/dental/pdf/fluoridation.pdf,

    3. A 2010 study in New York State found that Medicaid enrollees in less fluoridated counties needed 33 percent more fillings, root canals, and extractions than those
    in counties where fluoridated water was much more prevalent. As a result, the treatment costs per Medicaid recipient were $23.65 higher for those living in less
    fluoridated counties.

    ————-Kumar J.V., Adekugbe O., Melnik T.A., “Geographic Variation in Medicaid Claims for Dental Procedures in New York State: Role of Fluoridation Under Contemporary
    Conditions,”
    Public Health Reports, (September-October 2010) Vol. 125, No. 5, 647-54.

    ————The original figure ($23.63) was corrected in a subsequent edition of this journal and clarified to be $23.65. See: “Letters to the Editor,”
    Public Health Reports (November-
    December 2010), Vol. 125, 788.

    4. Researchers estimated that in 2003 Colorado saved nearly $149 million in unnecessary treatment costs by fluoridating public water supplies—average savings of roughly $61 per person.

    ——O’Connell J.M. et al., “Costs and savings associated with community water fluoridation programs in Colorado,”
    Preventing Chronic Disease (November 2005), accessed on
    March 12, 2011 at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1459459/.

    5. A 1999 study compared Louisiana parishes (counties) that were fluoridated with those that were not. The study found that low-income children in communities without fluoridated water were three times more likely than those in communities with fluoridated water to need dental treatment in a hospital operating room.

    ——-“Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay – Louisiana,
    1995-1996,”
    Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), September 3, 1999, accessed on March 11, 2011 at
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4834a2.htm.

    6. By reducing the incidence of decay, fluoridation makes it less likely that toothaches or other serious dental problems will drive people to hospital emergency rooms (ERs)—where treatment costs are high. A 2010 survey of hospitals in Washington State found that dental disorders were the leading reason why uninsured patients visited ERs.

    ——-Washington State Hospital Association, Emergency Room Use (October 2010) 8-12,
    http://www.wsha.org/files/127/ERreport.pdf, accessed February 8, 2011.

    7. Scientists who testified before Congress in 1995 estimated that national savings
    from water fluoridation totaled $3.84 billion each

    ——Michael W. Easley, DDS, MP, “Perspectives on the Science Supporting Florida’s Public
    Health Policy for Community Water Fluoridation,”
    Florida Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 191, Dec. 2005, accessed on March 16, 2011 at
    http://www.doh.state.fl.us/family/dental/perspectives.pdf.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Information Director
    American Fluoridation Society

    • Dan Germouse says:

      The claim for cost-effectiveness was always ridiculous, and has been thoroughly debunked.
      http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000093

      • Steve slott says:

        Germouse

        No, as I have demonstrated in my previous comment, the peer-reviewed scientific science clearly demonstrates a $15-$50 or more savings per $1 spent on water fluoridation.

        The one sole study which you claim has “thoroughly debunked” the volume of science demonstrating cost-effectiveness is one by long time fluoridation opponent, Katleen Thiessen. It has no merit.

        First, Thiessen clearly demonstrated her confirmation bias when she endorsed current “FAN” lobbyist, William Hirzy’s, 2013 study on fluoridation. Had she even bothered to read Hirzy’s mess prior to endorsing it she would have found, as did the EPA, that Hirzy had made a 70-fold error in his calculations which, when corrected, resulted in Hirzy’s data demonstrating the exact opposite of what Hirzy had concluded.

        Second, Thiessen discredits her own study by including “costs” to treat mild to very mild dental fluorosis, and basing her “benefit analysis” on her assumption that fluoride only works topically. There are no costs for treating mild to very mild dental fluorosis, as this effect is barely detectable and requires no treatment. In regard to the mechanism of action of fluoride, Thiessen contradicts herself. On one hand she clearly recognizes dental fluorosis, while on the other claims that effect is topical, not systemic.

        Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, a definite benefit. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically.

        In attempting to discount the systemic benefit from incorporation of fluoride into saliva, Thiessen utilizes the standard antifluoridationist tactic of plucking a statement out of context.

        Thiessen states the following, she copied nearly verbatim from a CDC report:

        “The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas. This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity.”

        Now, here is the entire paragraph from this report:

        Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas (27). This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity. However, drinking fluoridated water, brushing with fluoride toothpaste, or using other fluoride dental products can raise the concentration of fluoride in saliva present in the mouth 100- to 1,000-fold. The concentration returns to previous levels within 1–2 hours but, during this time, saliva serves as an important source of fluoride for concentration in plaque and for tooth remineralization (28).

        ——–Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
        United States Centers for Disease Control
        Recommendations and Reports
        August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42

        Notice how Thiessen conveniently omitted the last two sentences from this paragraph.

        Clearly, not only is Thiessen void of objectivity and credibility on this issue, she also exhibits dishonesty in her use of out-of-context information to supposedly bolster her argument. There is nothing in her paper which “rebuked” anything.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Dan Germouse says:

          You have absolutely no credible evidence for safety or efficacy, so any claim for cost effectiveness is pure make-believe.

          • Steve slott says:

            Germouse

            Your science denial is so noted. Given the uninformed nature of your comments, however, coupled with the fact that you consider “FAN”, “fluoridealert”, and Declan Waugh to be “good sources of information”, and cite your own ridiculous website as your “support”……….obviously your personal opinion on the quality of peer-reviewed scientific literature is unqualified and meaningless.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

  33. Dr. Alicia Risner-Bauman says:

    Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that when adjusted to the proper levels has been scientifically shown to reduce the incidence of dental decay at all ages, not just children. Community water fluoridation is a public health measure available to all residents who have access to the water supply. There are no social or economic barriers to receiving the recommended amount of fluoride. Fluoride has been added to the water system for years without any ill effects on the population of Downingtown, PA. Discontinuing the addition of fluoride to the community water system will leave the members of Downingtown more susceptible to this preventable, infectious disease which causes pain, infection, disfigurement, and loss of time from work and school. The citizens of Downingtown need to unite and tell the water authority that they DO NOT WANT THE DMWA TO DISCONTINUE ADDING FLUORIDE TO THE WATER.

    Alicia Risner-Bauman, DDS, FADPD
    ADA CAPIR rep District 3
    PDA Access to Oral Health Care Advisory Group Chair
    PCOH Steering Committee
    NYS Special Care Dentistry Task Force
    PA DOH Health Advisory Board

    • David Green says:

      Perhaps you could provide the studies of Downington residents that backs your claim that they haven’t suffered any ill effects.

      • Steve slott says:

        David, perhaps you could provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • David Green says:

          First you have to tell me what dosage we are talking about.

          • Steve slott says:

            David Green

            I stated nothing about dose. I challenged you to provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride. Optimal level fluoride is, by definition 0.7 mg/liter.

            Obviously you can’t. Why? Because none exists.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            David Green

            I am a member of no such “travelling fluoridation circus”. I am simply a healthcare provider in North Carolina who provides facts and evidence to correct the mounds of misinformation posted all over the internet by antifluoridationists. My affiliation with the American Fluoridation Society is strictly voluntary and noted at the end of each of my comments for the sake of full disclosure of whom I am and what is my perspective.

            You, on the other hand, are a bottled water dealer in Ontario who has an obvious financial conflict of interest in disparaging fluoridated tap water.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • David Green says:

            Is the barker not a part of the show?

        • David Green says:

          I challenged the dentist to back up her claim and neither she nor you have provided evidence of any studies of Downington residents.

          I have made no claims and therefore I don’t need to provide anything, but are you saying that the effects of fluoride are not dose dependent? That would be a bizarre claim from someone in your lofty position.

          • Mike McGann says:

            I’ll note two points of fact here:

            1. Demanding specific data from Downingtown supposes that residents of the borough and environs are somehow different from the reaming 7 billion humans on Earth. It is, at best, a circular argument. One can, and obviously are, making the argument that much of the studies as well as the last 400-plus years of experience in the US Southwest, where fluoride appears naturally in the groundwater, offers a lot of data points to consider.

            2. As your IP indicates you are from the West Coast of the U.S., I find the arguments of “astroturfing” by one side of this argument a tad ironic. Clearly, non-Chester County residents are attempting to make their argument here on both sides, but there’s no clear high moral ground.

            Lastly, obscenities and ad hominem attacks (aside from being lame resorts when logic and facts aren’t going your way) are not permitted on this site. We are family friendly with a number of readers under 18. Those doing so will be banned.

          • Steve slott says:

            David Green

            Sure, whatever you wish to provide in support of your position is entirely up to you. I’m simply exposing the fact that you cannot provide any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride.

            I did not say anything about dose. I challenged you to provide valid peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the concentration utilized in fluoridated water causes any adverse effects…..which you obviously cannot do.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

          • David Green says:

            I didn’t demand anything. I just asked the dentist to back her claim. I am not from the west coast of the US. I live in Ontario. Steve and I are part of the travelling fluoridation
            circus. I ask him things that he can’t or won’t answer like whether dosage is important in measuring harm and he waves the title that he gave himself around in hopes of impressing people. It’s all in good fun.

        • David Green says:

          So, are the effects of fluoride dose-dependent or not? Don’t keep evading the question. Just give a straight answer. More volume won’t help your case. Only some substance.

          • Steve slott says:

            I’m not “evading” anything. You are the one doing this. Until you answer my question as to whether you can provide any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal concentration level utilized in fluoridation, I will not allow you to divert to another issue. So far, you have provided no such evidence.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information DirectorAmerican Fluoridation Society

          • David Green says:

            I can’t answer that question until you tell me whether fluoride’s effects are dosage dependent and what dosage we are talking about. I am willing to concede that at a dosage of zero, there are no negative effects.

            I guess in your world, one would get the same effect from drinking two cans of pop instead of one because the level of sugar is the same in both.

          • Steve slott says:

            The “dose” of fluoride ingested from optimally fluoridated water is 0.7 mg per every liter of such water consumed. The US CDC estimates that 75% of fluoride intake from all sources comes from water and beverages. The US Institute of Medicine established daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources before adverse effects may occur is 10 mg.

            Given the limitations of water toxicity, yet once again……can you provide any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal concentration level of fluoridated water?

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Societ

    • Dan Germouse says:

      Alicia, you are lying. You can’t cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that the forced-fluoridation human experiment is anything but harmful and useless. There is no credible evidence that fluoridated water has ever prevented a single dental cavity. The forced-fluoridation fanatics often try to claim that the low rates of dental caries in western European countries which do not have artificially fluoridated public water supplies are due to naturally occurring fluoride in water, or some other kind of artificial fluoridation such as salt fluoridation. They are lying.
      http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/scotland-and-the-netherlands-inconvenient-examples/

      • Steve slott says:

        Germouse

        Obviously, the one lying is you. But what else would be expected of one who cites his own ridiculous website, “forcefluoridationfreedomfighters” as his “support”.

        Countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of optimally fluoridated water in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. You have repeatedly been provided with numerous of these studies. However, as your memory appears to be non-existent, I will gladly do so again if you so desire.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Dan Germouse says:

          The studies you cite are always very poor quality studies which are essentially meaningless, because that’s all you have.

          • Steve slott says:

            Germouse

            Your science denial is so noted. Given the uninformed nature of your comments, however, coupled with the fact that you consider “FAN”, “fluoridealert”, and Declan Waugh to be “good sources of information”, and cite your own ridiculous website as your “support”……….obviously your personal opinion on the quality of peer-reviewed scientific literature is unqualified and meaningless.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

    • James Dean says:

      The fluoride chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are: fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, and sodium fluoride. Unlike the fluoride compounds found in toothpaste or supplements, fluoridation chemicals are not pharmaceutical grade quality. They are, instead, unpurified industrial by-products that are collected in the air pollution control systems of certain industries.

      Due to the lack of processing, these chemicals are known to contain elevated levels of certain contaminants, particularly arsenic. In addition, recent research — including both epidemiological and laboratory investigations — have detected associations between the fluoridation of water with fluorosilicic acid and elevated lead exposure, particularly those living in houses with old pipes.

      • Steve slott says:

        James Dean

        1. Fortunately for the health of the public, you are not the one determining the proper fluoridation substances to be used in fluoridation. “Pharmceutical grade fluoride” is not only far more expensive than the fluorosilicates, it has the potential to add increased levels of contaminants into the water than will fluorosilic acid.

        From the CDC;

        “Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water.”

        “Given the volumes of chemicals used in water fluoridation, a pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride for fluoridation could potentially contain much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than a NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product.”

        http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#9

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

      • Steve slott says:

        James Dean

        2. There are no substances involved in water fluoridation that are “unpurified industrial by-products that are collected in the air pollution control systems of certain

        The substance most widely utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA).  HFA is a co-product of the process which extracts the other co-product, phosphoric acid, from naturally occurring  phosphorite rock.  Phosphoric acid is used in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into foods that we eat.  The HFA co-product is carefully diluted to an 23% aqueous solution which is utilized to fluoridate water systems.  To irrationally fear one co-product of this process is to irrationally fear the other.

        Once introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water (~7), the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (decomposed).  The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts that are so far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainly that those detected aren’t that already exist in water naturally.  

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Steve slott says:

          James Dean

          All water at the tap must meet all of the EPA mandated quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foindation. Standard 60 mandates that no contaminant be present in water at the tap in excess of 10% of the EPA maximum allowable level of safety (MCL) for that contaminant. Fluoridated water easily meets all of these requirements. If it didn’t, it would not be allowed.

          The amount of contaminants detected in fluoridated water at the tap is in such barely detectable minuscule amounts, so far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that those detected aren’t those that exist in the water naturally.

          A complete list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants and the EPA mandated maximum allowable level for each, may be found on the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals” on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation.

          http://www.nsf.org/newsroom/nsf-fact-sheet-on-fluoridation-chemicals

          It should be noted that in order to even detect any contaminants whatsoever in fluoridated water at the tap it takes 10 X the normal maufacturer recommended single use amount of fluoridation substance.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean

            The theory of increased lead uptake purportedly attributable to fluoridation substances was rebuked by Urbansky/Schock in 2000, and again by Macek in 2006. The theory has no merit.

            “Overall we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantifiable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation or reactivity of lead (0) or lead (II) compounds.  The governing factots are the concentrations of a number of other species such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fluorosilicates under drinking water conditions. ”

            —-Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
            Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2000, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637

            “Our analysis does not offer support for the hypothesis that silicofluorides in community water systems increase PbB concentrations in children. On the other hand, given the limitations of our data, our analyses cannot refute a possible link between water fluoridation method and lead uptake in children, particularly among those who live in older dwellings. Although other ecologic studies might allow another opportunity to test the relation between water fluoridation method and PbB concentrations in U.S. children, such analyses are likely to have similar limitations. Ultimately, the hypothesis that one or more fluoride compounds is associated with enhanced lead leaching or increased lead absorption is best addressed via systematic study of lead concentrations in drinking water, experimental chemical investigations, and studies of animal toxicology. Efforts to decrease exposure to lead among children by targeting prevention efforts at high-risk communities and/or populations as well as efforts to prevent dental caries via the use of fluoridated drinking water should continue unless a causal impact of certain fluoridation methods on PbB concentration is demonstrated by additional research.”

            —-Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994
            Environ Health Perspec. 2006 January; 114 (1): 130-134
            Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Delores M. Malvitz

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

        • James Dean says:

          It is not a co-product. Hydrofluorosilic acid is a toxic waste product. We will not be forced to consume it.

          • Steve slott says:

            James Dean.

            Yes, hydrofluorosilic acid is a co-product of the process used to derive the other co-product, phosphoric acid. Ironically, you in all likelihood ingest phosphoric acid every day, whereas you do not ingest hydrofluorosilic acid. HFA is long gone before the water reaches the tap. If someone is forcing you to consume HFA you need to report this to appropriate authorities immediately.

            If I believed any of the nonsense of antifluoridationists I wouldn’t go within a mile of fluoridated water. I’d use rainwater if necessary. That antifluoridationists freely consume fluoridated water all the while they are spinning ridiculous yarns about it means that they are either stark raving mad, or that they don’t believe their nonsense any more than do intelligent people.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

    • Siru Cossaboon says:

      Nonsense! Most of Europe bans fluoridation, because it is not effective and not safe! Also the element Fluorine (F9) is a highly toxic gas which binds with other chemicals to form fluorides. There is nothing natural in the fluoridation chemicals that are added to our water: hydrofluorocilic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate which are both industrial waste products of phosphate fertilizer industry.
      You can say there are no studies proving harm at “optimal” levels, but even the 2006 NRC found many and advised that there were no studies proving safety at ANY levels….. here are 14 recent studies pertinent to 2016 conversations:
      A few 2014-2015 studies and reports plus two on fluoride and lead:
      1. S Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. J Epidemiol Community Health. 24 February 2015. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204971. http:// jech.bmj.com/content/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971
      2. Navneet Singh, et al. A comparative study of fluoride ingestion levels, serum thyroid hormone & TSH level derangements, dental fluorosis status. Springerplus. 2014; 3: 7. 2014 Jan 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3890436/pdf/40064_2013_Article_766.pdf
      3. I. Gutowskaa, et al. Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages. Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661–1668. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887233315001605
      4. Louveau A, et al. Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels. Nature. 2015 Jul 16;523(7560):337-41. Epub 2015 Jun 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524
      5. A Malin and C Till. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence. Environmental Health 2015, 14:17 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0003-1. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/s12940-015-0003-1.pdf
      6. Zhang S, et al. Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis in Children’s Intelligence in Endemic Fluorosis Area in Tianjin, China. Toxicol Sci. 2015 Apr; 144(2):238-45. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfu311. Epub 2015 Jan 1. PMID: 25556215. http:// http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215
      7. Anna L. Choi, Ying Zhang, Guifan Sun, David C. Bellinger, d, Kanglin Wang, Xiao Jing Yang, Jin Shu Li, Quanmei Zheng, Yuanli Fug, Philippe Grandjean, Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Volume 47, January–February 2015, Pages 96–101. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S0892036214001809
      8. Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Nov;9(11):ZC10-5. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/15518.6726. Epub 2015 Nov 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26673535
      9. Grandjean P, Landigran P. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , 330 – 338. March 2014. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/ PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract
      10. F. Liu et al.. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. Physiol Behav. 2014 Jan 30;124:1-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405
      11. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass part. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. Epub 2007 Jun 30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714
      12. Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology. 2000 Dec;21(6):1091-100: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11233755
      13. Martín-Pardillos A, Sosa C, Millán Á, Sorribas V. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2014.01.012. Epub 2014 Feb 18. PMID: 24561004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004
      14. Main, Douglas. Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015. http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent-cavities-huge-study- shows-348251

      • Steve slott says:

        Siru

        1. Yes, antifluoridationists do view facts and evidence as “nonsense”.

        2. No one in Europe “bans fluoridation”. There are myriad reasons why different countries may not fluoridate their water systems, few, if any, in regard to any concerns with safety or effectiveness of the initiative. These reasons include such things as logistics of water systems rendering fluoridation cost-prohibitive, use of fluoridated salt and/or milk programs in lieu of water fluoridation, existing levels of fluoride in water systems already at, or above, the optimal level, and equal access to comprehensive dental care by all citizens of a country.

        There are currently 12.5 million people in Europe served by optimally fluoridated water including Britain, Spain, and Ireland, with efforts to expand that fluoridation coverage in those countries and in others within Europe.

        3. The properties of fluorine gas are irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water.

        4. Fluoride is the anion of fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Chemical combinations are compounds. An atom is not a compound.

        5. There are no “industrial waste products” involved in water fluoridation. First of all, the overwhelming majority of all the substances you ingest or otherwise utilize are made by one industry or another, and are therefore “industrial” products. Second, “waste” by definition, is a substance not of any productive use. Fluoridation substances are utilized productively in the fluoridation of water, and in other manners. They are therefore not “waste” anything. It seems that antifluoridationists do not believe in the productive recycling and use of our natural resources.

        The substance most widely utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA).  HFA is a co-product of the process which extracts the other co-product, phosphoric acid, from naturally occurring  phosphorite rock.  Phosphoric acid is used in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into foods that we eat.  The HFA co-product is carefully diluted to an 23% aqueous solution which is utilized to fluoridate water systems.  To irrationally fear one co-product of this process is to irrationally fear the other.

        Once introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water (~7), the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated).  The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts that are so far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainly that those detected aren’t those that already exist in water naturally.  

        6. Yes, there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride.

         The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects.  The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm.  The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater.  Nothing else.  Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for so stating and recommending accordingly.  It did not. 

        Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

        In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:

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

        —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

      • Steve slott says:

        Siru

        In regard to your list of literature copy/pasted from “fluoridealert”:

        S Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?

        This study has already been widely discredited in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and conclusions not supported by the peer-reviewed science. It has no merit.

        “In summary, this study [Peckham] is an ecologic one that has several significant flaws, making it almost meaningless with regard to assessing any possible association between water fluoridation and hypothyroidism. As such, this study provides no evidence of a causal relationship between water fluoride concentration and hypothyroidism.”

        —–No Evidence Supports the Claim That Water Fluoridation Causes Hypothyroidism
        John J. Warren, Maria C.P. Saraiva
        J Evid Base Dent Pract 2015;15:137-139
        1532-3382

        B. “A major weakness of this study is the fact that other potential confounding factors have not been taken into account; this makes the conclusions regarding the community health utility of water fluoridation problematic. The strong conclusion of the paper by Peckham et al is not supported by the published literature. What is without question is that fluoride has had a remarkable and positive effect on our dental health, and the evidence base for this is overwhelming. The WHO recommends up to 1.5 mg/L for optimum dental health on the basis of decades of epidemiological study, which has consistently shown water fluoridation to be safe and cost-effective. The conclusions of the study by Peckham et al are simply not convincing, and should perhaps be taken with a large pinch of (fluoridated) salt.”

        —-Commentary on “Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?
        A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water”
        Grimes DR. J Epidemiol Community Health
        Published Online First: doi:10.1136/jech-2015-205708

        C. . The authors’ [Peckham, et al.] assessment of the evidence-­‐base is unbalanced and misinterpreted, contains
        inaccuracies and lacks citation of key studies.

        “The results of this study do not support the consistent findings of three scientific reviews, which report insufficient evidence of an association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and adverse thyroid effects.”

        —-Prepared by Peel Public Health (Marco Ghassemi, Research and Policy Analyst) Feb. 26, 2015

        2. Navneet Singh, et al. A comparative study of fluoride ingestion levels, serum thyroid hormone & TSH level derangements, dental fluorosis status.

        This was a study of children living in villages in India with endemic fluorosis, who had chronic exposure to water with natural fluoride levels of 2.6 ppm to 5.2 ppm and above. Water in the US is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

        “The children with dental fluorosis living in endemic fluorosis areas may not have a frank thyroid disease due to excessive fluorine consumption but they do show thyroid disease leading to many health effect hence they require special care and attention.”

        —–Navneet Singh, et al. A comparative study of fluoride ingestion levels, serum thyroid hormone & TSH level derangements, dental fluorosis status

        3. I. Gutowskaa, et al. Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages.

        This is of no relevance to water fluoridated at the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.

        4. Louveau A, et al. Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels.

        This is of no relevance to water fluoridated at the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.

        5. A Malin and C Till. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence.

        This study has been widely discredited in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and conclusions not supported by the peer-reviewed science. It has no merit.

        The inadequate control for confounders is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Huber, et al., utilizing the same data as did Malin, concluded the reported cases of ADHD to be correlated with elevation level at which the children resided, not water fluoridation.

        —-J Atten Disord. 2015 Mar 25. pii: 1087054715577137. [Epub ahead of print]
        Association Between Altitude and Regional Variation of ADHD in Youth.
        Huber RS1, Kim TS2, Kim N3, Kuykendall MD4, Sherwood SN5, Renshaw PF6, Kondo DG6.

        B. “It’s an ecological study design with 51 observations (50 states & DC), and is not appropriate to test a hypothesis. ADHD prevalence was based on self-reported data, and hence had a potential of misclassification of disorder status. State-wide fluoridation measures were used. Individuals’ exposure to fluoridation were not measured. Due to ecological assessment of exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the use of prevalence data of self-reported ADHD and water fluoridation from different years, the findings are at high risk for ecological fallacy. Authors did not adjust for important confounders (smoking, low birth weight, age, sex etc.). Moreover, authors’ poor literature review and skewed interpretation of literature concerning fluoride and neurodevelomental defects may have introduced bias.”

        ——http://www.fluoridescience.org/articles/exposure-to-fluoridated-water-and-attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-prevalence-among-children-and-adolescents-in-the-united-states-an-ecological-association/#

        C. “Poor quality ecological study with important design limitations – e.g., at high risk of ecological fallacy, measurement error (ADHD prevalence based on self-report), and confounding bias.”


         
        “The authors’ provide a bias view of the effects of fluoridation on children’s cognitive functions in their “introduction” and “discussion” sections; they state “Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin associated with impaired cognitive functioning in infants and children” (page 9)”

        —Peel Public Health
        https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http

        6. Zhang S, et al. Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis in Children’s Intelligence in Endemic Fluorosis Area in Tianjin, China.

        This study compared children living in areas of China with high fluoride exposure against a control group living in an area with 0.63 ppm fluoride in well-water. The control group was right at the 0.7 ppm level at which water is fluoridated in the US. This would seem to indicate a higher IQ associated with optimal level fluoride.

        7. Anna L. Choi, Ying Zhang, Guifan Sun, David C. Bellinger, d, Kanglin Wang, Xiao Jing Yang, Jin Shu Li, Quanmei Zheng, Yuanli Fug, Philippe Grandjean, Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.

        This was a study of the effects of elevated levels of naturally occurring fluoride in an area of China. Water in the US is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

        “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on developmental fluoride neurotoxicity support the hypothesis that exposure to elevated concentrations of fluoride in water is neurotoxic during development.”

        —-Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.
        Choi, Grandjean

        8. Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional Study

        A study of the effects of exposure to high level of naturally occurring fluoride in Chinese villages. Water in the US is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

        “Findings of this study suggest that the overall IQ of the children exposed to high fluoride levels in drinking water and hence suffering from dental fluorosis were significantly lower than those of the low fluoride area.”

        —-Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional Study

        9. Grandjean P, Landigran P. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , 330 – 338. March 2014. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/ PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract

        This is nothing but a March, 2014 article in the “Lancet” in which fluoride was briefly mentioned as being a neurotoxin. This is not news now, nor was it then. Fluoride has been on the EPA list of neurotoxins for years. On that same list are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (sweetener), ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), caffeine, and nicotine.

        In an article in “the Atlantic” on March 18, 2014, Dr. Philip Landrigan, co-author of the “Lancet” article with Grandjean, stated:

        “Fluoride is very much a two-edged sword,” Landrigan said. “There’s no question that, at low doses, it’s beneficial.” Flouride has been shown to prevent dental cavities and aid skeletal growth. At higher levels, though, it causes tooth and bone lesions. The epidemiologic studies cited by Grandjean and Landrigan, which came from China, imply that high fluoride exposure has negative effects on brain growth.

        “Are the exposure levels in China comparable to what we have in our drinking water and toothpaste?” I asked.

        “No, they’re probably higher,” Landrigan said. “In some places in China, there are naturally high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, which picks it up because it’s water-soluble.”

        “So your advice isn’t to take it out of our toothpaste?”

        “Not at all,” Landrigan said. “I think it’s very good to have in toothpaste.”
        —-http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/the-toxins-that-threaten-our-brains/284466/

        10. F. Liu et al.. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice.

        This is a highly subjective study of the behavior of mice exposed to fluoride. It is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

        11. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass part.

        And

        12. Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead.

        The theory of lead leaching by fluoridation substances was refuted by Urbansky/Schock in 2000 and by Macek in 2006.

        “Overall we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantifiable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation or reactivity of lead (0) or lead (II) compounds.  The governing factots are the concentrations of a number of other species such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fluorosilicates under drinking water conditions. ”

        —-Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
        Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2000, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637

        “Our analysis does not offer support for the hypothesis that silicofluorides in community water systems increase PbB concentrations in children. On the other hand, given the limitations of our data, our analyses cannot refute a possible link between water fluoridation method and lead uptake in children, particularly among those who live in older dwellings. Although other ecologic studies might allow another opportunity to test the relation between water fluoridation method and PbB concentrations in U.S. children, such analyses are likely to have similar limitations. Ultimately, the hypothesis that one or more fluoride compounds is associated with enhanced lead leaching or increased lead absorption is best addressed via systematic study of lead concentrations in drinking water, experimental chemical investigations, and studies of animal toxicology. Efforts to decrease exposure to lead among children by targeting prevention efforts at high-risk communities and/or populations as well as efforts to prevent dental caries via the use of fluoridated drinking water should continue unless a causal impact of certain fluoridation methods on PbB concentration is demonstrated by additional research.”

        —-Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994
        Environ Health Perspec. 2006 January; 114 (1): 130-134
        Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Delores M. Malvitz

        13. Martín-Pardillos A, Sosa C, Millán Á, Sorribas V. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats.

        This is a study of rats who have had their kidneys artificially destroyed. It is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

        14. Main, Douglas. Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015.

        This is an erroneous, biased article about the recent Cochrane Review, in Newsweek by antifluoridationist/freelance writer, Douglas Main, well known for his anti fluoridation articles in the dubious online publication, “Natural News”. Why the once proud Newsweek has sunk to the depths of publishing such nonsense is anyone’s guess. For those intelligent personals who wish for an accurate view of the Cochrane Review, unfiltered by antifluoridationists, it may be found:

        http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

      • Steve slott says:

        Siru

        In regard to your list of literature copy/pasted from “fluoridealert”:

        S Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?

        This study has already been widely discredited in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and conclusions not supported by the peer-reviewed science. It has no merit.

        “In summary, this study [Peckham] is an ecologic one that has several significant flaws, making it almost meaningless with regard to assessing any possible association between water fluoridation and hypothyroidism. As such, this study provides no evidence of a causal relationship between water fluoride concentration and hypothyroidism.”

        —–No Evidence Supports the Claim That Water Fluoridation Causes Hypothyroidism
        John J. Warren, Maria C.P. Saraiva
        J Evid Base Dent Pract 2015;15:137-139
        1532-3382

        B. “A major weakness of this study is the fact that other potential confounding factors have not been taken into account; this makes the conclusions regarding the community health utility of water fluoridation problematic. The strong conclusion of the paper by Peckham et al is not supported by the published literature. What is without question is that fluoride has had a remarkable and positive effect on our dental health, and the evidence base for this is overwhelming. The WHO recommends up to 1.5 mg/L for optimum dental health on the basis of decades of epidemiological study, which has consistently shown water fluoridation to be safe and cost-effective. The conclusions of the study by Peckham et al are simply not convincing, and should perhaps be taken with a large pinch of (fluoridated) salt.”

        —-Commentary on “Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England?
        A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water”
        Grimes DR. J Epidemiol Community Health
        Published Online First: doi:10.1136/jech-2015-205708

        C. . The authors’ [Peckham, et al.] assessment of the evidence-­‐base is unbalanced and misinterpreted, contains
        inaccuracies and lacks citation of key studies.

        “The results of this study do not support the consistent findings of three scientific reviews, which report insufficient evidence of an association between exposure to fluoride in drinking water and adverse thyroid effects.”

        —-Prepared by Peel Public Health (Marco Ghassemi, Research and Policy Analyst) Feb. 26, 2015

        2. Navneet Singh, et al. A comparative study of fluoride ingestion levels, serum thyroid hormone & TSH level derangements, dental fluorosis status.

        This was a study of children living in villages in India with endemic fluorosis, who had chronic exposure to water with natural fluoride levels of 2.6 ppm to 5.2 ppm and above. Water in the US is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

        “The children with dental fluorosis living in endemic fluorosis areas may not have a frank thyroid disease due to excessive fluorine consumption but they do show thyroid disease leading to many health effect hence they require special care and attention.”

        —–Navneet Singh, et al. A comparative study of fluoride ingestion levels, serum thyroid hormone & TSH level derangements, dental fluorosis status

        3. I. Gutowskaa, et al. Fluoride as a factor initiating and potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages.

        This is of no relevance to water fluoridated at the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.

        4. Louveau A, et al. Structural and functional features of central nervous system lymphatic vessels.

        This is of no relevance to water fluoridated at the optimal level of 0.7 ppm.

        5. A Malin and C Till. Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence.

        This study has been widely discredited in the scientific literature for its poor methodology, inadequate control for confounders, and conclusions not supported by the peer-reviewed science. It has no merit.

        The inadequate control for confounders is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Huber, et al., utilizing the same data as did Malin, concluded the reported cases of ADHD to be correlated with elevation level at which the children resided, not water fluoridation.

        —-J Atten Disord. 2015 Mar 25. pii: 1087054715577137. [Epub ahead of print]
        Association Between Altitude and Regional Variation of ADHD in Youth.
        Huber RS1, Kim TS2, Kim N3, Kuykendall MD4, Sherwood SN5, Renshaw PF6, Kondo DG6.

        B. “It’s an ecological study design with 51 observations (50 states & DC), and is not appropriate to test a hypothesis. ADHD prevalence was based on self-reported data, and hence had a potential of misclassification of disorder status. State-wide fluoridation measures were used. Individuals’ exposure to fluoridation were not measured. Due to ecological assessment of exposure to fluoride in drinking water and the use of prevalence data of self-reported ADHD and water fluoridation from different years, the findings are at high risk for ecological fallacy. Authors did not adjust for important confounders (smoking, low birth weight, age, sex etc.). Moreover, authors’ poor literature review and skewed interpretation of literature concerning fluoride and neurodevelomental defects may have introduced bias.”

        ——http://www.fluoridescience.org/articles/exposure-to-fluoridated-water-and-attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder-prevalence-among-children-and-adolescents-in-the-united-states-an-ecological-association/#

        C. “Poor quality ecological study with important design limitations – e.g., at high risk of ecological fallacy, measurement error (ADHD prevalence based on self-report), and confounding bias.”

        “The authors’ provide a bias view of the effects of fluoridation on children’s cognitive functions in their “introduction” and “discussion” sections; they state “Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin associated with impaired cognitive functioning in infants and children” (page 9)”

        —Peel Public Health
        https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http

        6. Zhang S, et al. Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis in Children’s Intelligence in Endemic Fluorosis Area in Tianjin, China.

        This study compared children living in areas of China with high fluoride exposure against a control group living in an area with 0.63 ppm fluoride in well-water. The control group was right at the 0.7 ppm level at which water is fluoridated in the US. This would seem to indicate a higher IQ associated with optimal level fluoride.

        7. Anna L. Choi, Ying Zhang, Guifan Sun, David C. Bellinger, d, Kanglin Wang, Xiao Jing Yang, Jin Shu Li, Quanmei Zheng, Yuanli Fug, Philippe Grandjean, Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.

        This was a study of the effects of elevated levels of naturally occurring fluoride in an area of China. Water in the US is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

        “A systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on developmental fluoride neurotoxicity support the hypothesis that exposure to elevated concentrations of fluoride in water is neurotoxic during development.”

        —-Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.
        Choi, Grandjean

        to be continued…………

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Steve slott says:

          Siru continued………..

          8. Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional Study

          A study of the effects of exposure to high level of naturally occurring fluoride in Chinese villages. Water in the US is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

          “Findings of this study suggest that the overall IQ of the children exposed to high fluoride levels in drinking water and hence suffering from dental fluorosis were significantly lower than those of the low fluoride area.”

          —-Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional Study

          9. Grandjean P, Landigran P. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , 330 – 338. March 2014. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/ PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract

          This is nothing but a March, 2014 article in the “Lancet” in which fluoride was briefly mentioned as being a neurotoxin. This is not news now, nor was it then. Fluoride has been on the EPA list of neurotoxins for years. On that same list are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (sweetener), ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), caffeine, and nicotine.

          In an article in “the Atlantic” on March 18, 2014, Dr. Philip Landrigan, co-author of the “Lancet” article with Grandjean, stated:

          “Fluoride is very much a two-edged sword,” Landrigan said. “There’s no question that, at low doses, it’s beneficial.” Flouride has been shown to prevent dental cavities and aid skeletal growth. At higher levels, though, it causes tooth and bone lesions. The epidemiologic studies cited by Grandjean and Landrigan, which came from China, imply that high fluoride exposure has negative effects on brain growth.

          “Are the exposure levels in China comparable to what we have in our drinking water and toothpaste?” I asked.

          “No, they’re probably higher,” Landrigan said. “In some places in China, there are naturally high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, which picks it up because it’s water-soluble.”

          “So your advice isn’t to take it out of our toothpaste?”

          “Not at all,” Landrigan said. “I think it’s very good to have in toothpaste.”
          —-http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/the-toxins-that-threaten-our-brains/284466/

          10. F. Liu et al.. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice.

          This is a highly subjective study of the behavior of mice exposed to fluoride. It is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

          11. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass part.

          And

          Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead.

          The theory of lead leaching by fluoridation substances was refuted by Urbansky/Schock in 2000 and by Macek in 2006.

          “Overall we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantifiable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation or reactivity of lead (0) or lead (II) compounds. The governing factots are the concentrations of a number of other species such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fluorosilicates under drinking water conditions. ”

          —-Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
          Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2000, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637

          “Our analysis does not offer support for the hypothesis that silicofluorides in community water systems increase PbB concentrations in children. On the other hand, given the limitations of our data, our analyses cannot refute a possible link between water fluoridation method and lead uptake in children, particularly among those who live in older dwellings. Although other ecologic studies might allow another opportunity to test the relation between water fluoridation method and PbB concentrations in U.S. children, such analyses are likely to have similar limitations. Ultimately, the hypothesis that one or more fluoride compounds is associated with enhanced lead leaching or increased lead absorption is best addressed via systematic study of lead concentrations in drinking water, experimental chemical investigations, and studies of animal toxicology. Efforts to decrease exposure to lead among children by targeting prevention efforts at high-risk communities and/or populations as well as efforts to prevent dental caries via the use of fluoridated drinking water should continue unless a causal impact of certain fluoridation methods on PbB concentration is demonstrated by additional research.”

          —-Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994
          Environ Health Perspec. 2006 January; 114 (1): 130-134
          Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Delores M. Malvitz

          13. Martín-Pardillos A, Sosa C, Millán Á, Sorribas V. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats.
          This is a study of rats who have had their kidneys artificially destroyed. It is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

          14. Main, Douglas. Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015.

          This is an erroneous, biased article about the recent Cochrane Review, in Newsweek by antifluoridationist/freelance writer, Douglas Main, well known for his anti fluoridation articles in the dubious online publication, “Natural News”. Why the once proud Newsweek has sunk to the depths of publishing such nonsense is anyone’s guess. For those intelligent personals who wish for an accurate view of the Cochrane Review, unfiltered by antifluoridationists, it may be found:

          http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

        • Steve slott says:

          Siru continued……..

          8. Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional Study

          A study of the effects of exposure to high level of naturally occurring fluoride in Chinese villages. Water in the US is fluoridated at the minuscule level of 0.7 ppm.

          “Findings of this study suggest that the overall IQ of the children exposed to high fluoride levels in drinking water and hence suffering from dental fluorosis were significantly lower than those of the low fluoride area.”

          —-Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional Study

          9. Grandjean P, Landigran P. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , 330 – 338. March 2014. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/ PIIS1474-4422(13)70278-3/abstract

          This is nothing but a March, 2014 article in the “Lancet” in which fluoride was briefly mentioned as being a neurotoxin. This is not news now, nor was it then. Fluoride has been on the EPA list of neurotoxins for years. On that same list are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (sweetener), ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), caffeine, and nicotine.

          In an article in “the Atlantic” on March 18, 2014, Dr. Philip Landrigan, co-author of the “Lancet” article with Grandjean, stated:

          “Fluoride is very much a two-edged sword,” Landrigan said. “There’s no question that, at low doses, it’s beneficial.” Flouride has been shown to prevent dental cavities and aid skeletal growth. At higher levels, though, it causes tooth and bone lesions. The epidemiologic studies cited by Grandjean and Landrigan, which came from China, imply that high fluoride exposure has negative effects on brain growth.

          “Are the exposure levels in China comparable to what we have in our drinking water and toothpaste?” I asked.

          “No, they’re probably higher,” Landrigan said. “In some places in China, there are naturally high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, which picks it up because it’s water-soluble.”

          “So your advice isn’t to take it out of our toothpaste?”

          “Not at all,” Landrigan said. “I think it’s very good to have in toothpaste.”
          —-http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/the-toxins-that-threaten-our-brains/284466/

          10. F. Liu et al.. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice.

          This is a highly subjective study of the behavior of mice exposed to fluoride. It is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

          to be continued………..

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

          • Steve slott says:

            Siru continued…….

            11. Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass part.

            And

            Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead.

            The theory of lead leaching by fluoridation substances was refuted by Urbansky/Schock in 2000 and by Macek in 2006.

            “Overall we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantifiable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation or reactivity of lead (0) or lead (II) compounds. The governing factots are the concentrations of a number of other species such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fluorosilicates under drinking water conditions. ”

            —-Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
            Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2000, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637

            “Our analysis does not offer support for the hypothesis that silicofluorides in community water systems increase PbB concentrations in children. On the other hand, given the limitations of our data, our analyses cannot refute a possible link between water fluoridation method and lead uptake in children, particularly among those who live in older dwellings. Although other ecologic studies might allow another opportunity to test the relation between water fluoridation method and PbB concentrations in U.S. children, such analyses are likely to have similar limitations. Ultimately, the hypothesis that one or more fluoride compounds is associated with enhanced lead leaching or increased lead absorption is best addressed via systematic study of lead concentrations in drinking water, experimental chemical investigations, and studies of animal toxicology. Efforts to decrease exposure to lead among children by targeting prevention efforts at high-risk communities and/or populations as well as efforts to prevent dental caries via the use of fluoridated drinking water should continue unless a causal impact of certain fluoridation methods on PbB concentration is demonstrated by additional research.”

            —-Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994
            Environ Health Perspec. 2006 January; 114 (1): 130-134
            Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Delores M. Malvitz

            13. Martín-Pardillos A, Sosa C, Millán Á, Sorribas V. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats.
            This is a study of rats who have had their kidneys artificially destroyed. It is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

            14. Main, Douglas. Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015.

            This is an erroneous, biased article about the recent Cochrane Review, in Newsweek by antifluoridationist/freelance writer, Douglas Main, well known for his anti fluoridation articles in the dubious online publication, “Natural News”. Why the once proud Newsweek has sunk to the depths of publishing such nonsense is anyone’s guess. For those intelligent personals who wish for an accurate view of the Cochrane Review, unfiltered by antifluoridationists, it may be found:

            http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-prevent-tooth-decay

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

    • Siru Cossaboon says:

      Excuse me, but who gave dentist (mouth doctors) a license to practice medicine? Who gave water companies a license to be our pharmacist? Who controls and checks upon the individual dosage? No one. If you choose to ingest fluoridated toothpaste it is your business, but don’t put any artificial fluorides into my water! Any calcium fluoride that is there naturally is not the problem. The silicofluorides that these mouth doctors and industry impose on us is a tremendous problem. Artificial fluorides are neurotoxic endocrine disrupting carcinogens. Science is clear on that! None for me! Go away mass poisoners!

      • Steve slott says:

        Siru

        You are in serious need of proper education on the issue of water fluoridation, from reliable, respected sources.

        1. There is no such thing as an “artificial fluoride”.

        2. Calcium fluoride does not exist in your water. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those added through fluoridation.

        3. No one “imposes” anything on anyone in regard to fluoridation other than antifluoridationists who seek to impose their skewed personal ideology against fluoridation unto entire populations, based on nothing but false statements, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science, and misinformation.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

    • Siru Cossaboon says:

      Fluoride is a “naturally occurring mineral”… Really? Did you ever take chemistry 101? Any chemistry class? Ha! You obviously know absolutely nothing about fluorides or fluorine chemistry!
      Fluorspar or fluorite is a mineral, but that is not the same as the Sodium fluoride (artificial compound) in the dentists offices and the water fluoridation chemicals of hydrofluorocilic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate. This is the typical dentists touting fluoridation knowing 0 about fluorine chemistry! Ha! And you are the experts? What an outrageous joke!

  34. jwillie6 says:

    One need not be a scientist to understand that it is immoral to medicate everyone with fluoride without permission. We should be the ones who should be deciding what we put into our bodies and not the federal government or the local government which is putting
    fluoride into our water. We should control our own destiny.

    Those who desire fluoride are welcome to put it in their own glass of water, as much as they wish. Leave the rest of us out of it.

    • Steve slott says:

      Jwillie

      1. There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are only fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water.

      2. As no one is forced to do anything in regard to water fluoridation, individual “permission” is not required for local officials to approve the concentration level of existing minerals such as fluoride in drinking water supplies under their jurisdiction.

      3. As fluoride occurs in water naturally, it seems that whatever grievance you may have about what you put into your body needs to be taken up with nature.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Information Director
      American Fluoridation Society

      • jwillie6 says:

        As with tobacco and asbestos, it took years to correct the “science.” It will take time to correct the fluoridation science.”

        Many of us are trying to shine the light of truth on fluoridation, how it is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health.

        It will take time to change closed minds, but meanwhile only 5% of the world and 3% of Europe fluoridate their water. Big money drives it in the U.S., which is 74% fluoridated.

        The World Health Organization (WHO) has shown that Europe has as good or better tooth decay rates than any heavily fluoridated country, including the U.S. This shows how totally ineffective fluoridation is for teeth.

        • Steve slott says:

          Jwillie

          You once again fail to present any valid evidence to support your unsubstantiated claims and personal opinions. Perhaps you will one day begin to understand that science is evidence-based, not jwillie-personal-opinion-based.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

      • Siru Cossaboon says:

        You are a well known fluoridation troll!
        The Fluoridation proponents spend tens of millions $ on public relations and opinion twisting propaganda! Science means nothing to them. They twist and turn the truth to fit their needs to continue fluoridation and to expand it. The industry has hired many trolls who work the net to discredit anyone who holds the opposing view. They gang up on you. This is the Fluoride Mafia. See Pew:
        http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/pew.july-2015.pdf

        • Steve slott says:

          Siru

          1. I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers to discern the difference between my comments and those of the antifluoridationists commenting on this site as to whom “science means nothing”. You should consider reading my comments. They would provide a desperately needed education for you.

          2. ‘Fluoridealert” is the biased website of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. The filtered and edited nonsense posted on that site is evidence of nothing other than the gullibility of any who accord it credence.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Information Director
          American Fluoridation Society

      • Siru Cossaboon says:

        In 2006, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the maximum amount of fluoride then allowed in the nation’s drinking water can cause health problems and “should be lowered.” Despite of this, the amount remained at 1.0ppm till 2015, when it was finally lowered to 0.7ppm. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114304623045405305

      • Siru Cossaboon says:

        To the two dentists here:

        I find that very few dentists know very little about Fluorine (F9) chemistry. As soon as a dentist or a dental hygienist says: “Fluoride is natural and safe”, I won’t listen to them anymore, because they obviously do not even know what fluorides are. Generally the dental hygienists in any dental office do not even know what kind of fluoride they use in the dental office. The dentists usually know it is Sodium fluoride, but other than that they know barely nothing about fluorine chemistry. They have never studied fluorides or toxicology, for that matter. So what qualifies them to be our medicators? They just repeat what the ADA has told them, which does not comply with chemistry. Anyone with even a basic chemistry 101 class knows that Fluoride is not a mineral (like the dentist here claimed). Fluorine (F9) is a toxic gas that binds with other chemicals to form fluorides. Thus, fluorides are all toxic compounds!

    • Siru Cossaboon says:

      Thank you! Water fluoridation is immoral as no ones controls the dosage of a drug and it makes the water companies our doctors. Different people react differently and certain people are very vulnerable to the toxic effects of artificial fluorides, such as kidney and thyroid patients, young children, and the elderly. Also there are no safety records at all for hydrofluorocilic acid, which is the toxin in our water. In fact dental health improved after fluoridation was stopped in British Columbia, Canada and East Germany.

      • Steve slott says:

        Siru

        1. The only thing “immoral” in regard to fluoridation is the effort of antifluoridationists to deny entire populations the dental decay preventive benefits of this initiative, based on nothing but false statements, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science and misinformation.

        2. There are no drugs involved in fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in your water.

        3. The “dosage” of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very strictly controlled. Where it is uncontrolled is in non-fluoridated systems. Fluoride has existed in water forever. Humans have been ingesting it in their water since the beginning of time and will continue to do so, fluoridated water or not. Fluoride in fluoridated systems is strictly maintained at the level of 0.7 mg/liter. Non-fluoridated systems are bound only by the EPA maximum allowable level of 4.0 mg/liter fluoride. Thus, in advocating against fluoridation you are the one promoting uncontrolled “dose”, not the other way around.

        4. There is no such thing as “artificial fluoride”. Fluoride is the anion of the naturally occurring element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. There are no artificial atoms of fluorine.

        5. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride on “kidney and thyroid patients, young children, and the elderly.” If you care to ague the point then provide such evidence, properly cited to original sources.

        6. Hydrofluorosilic acid is not ingested. There is no requirement, or any need for “safety records” of a substance which is not ingested or otherwise contacted by consumers. Manufacturers of HFA are in complete compliance with all safety records and requirements in regard to water treatment professionals who do come into contact with HFA.

        7. Please provide valid documentation to support your unsubstantiated claim that “dental health improved after fluoridation was stopped in British Columbia, Canada and East Germany.”

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Information Director
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Siru Cossaboon says:

          Steve,

          There is no dental benefit for ingesting fluorides as has been shown by Rast Germany, where dental health improved after fluoridation was ended (after Soviet era), most of Europe (which does not fluoridate), and bBritish Columbia, Canada.
          Here is an honest 2001 cessation study of 6,000 children in British Columbia where cavities, “decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community”: The WHO statistics agree that there s no benefit to fluoridation.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562

          • Steve slott says:

            Siru

            1. Here is the complete conclusion from the Maupome study from which you plucked an out-of-context quote:

            “Our results suggest a complicated pattern of disease following cessation of fluoridation. Multiple sources of fluoride besides water fluoridation have made it more difficult to detect changes in the epidemiological profile of a population with generally low caries experience, and living in an affluent setting with widely accessible dental services. There are, however, subtle differences in caries and caries treatment experience between children living in fluoridated and fluoridation-ended areas.”

            —Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001 Feb;29(1):37-47.
            Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation.
            Maupomé G1, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J.

            When viewed in proper context, this study obviously does not support your position.

            2. The “WHO statistics” which you claim to agree that there is no benefit to fluoridation, are not WHO statistics. To what you refer is a skewed misrepresentation of WHO data by personnel of the New York antifluoridationist faction, “Fluoride Action Network”. In that graph, “FAN” staffer Chris Neurath plucked a couple of points out of a cluster of points all over the page for each country, connected the two, and claimed that to be a “trend”.

            A complete explanation of this “FAN’ manipulation of WHO data has been provided by New Zealand chemist, Ken Perrott, PhD. Any who so desire may view this:

            https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/08/12/fluoridation-connetts-naive-used-of-who-data-debunked/

            3. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. I will gladly cite as many of these as you would reasonably care to read.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Information Director
            American Fluoridation Society

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.