.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Friday, July 03, 2015




I listened to this right through and found it interesting.

FAN news letter

Newsweek’s Coverage of the Cochrane Review
Two weeks ago we told you about the new review of the effectiveness of fluoridation by the Cochrane Collaboration, which is considered to provide the gold standard in evidence based reviews of health science by doctors and researchers.  The authors found very little evidence that fluoride is effective in reducing dental decay, but did find evidence confirming that fluoridation increases fluorosis rates.   
On Monday, Newsweek published a great article by journalist Douglas Main on the Cochrane review, giving it widespread coverage in the US.  The article, entitled “Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows,” provides the best coverage of the review we’ve seen yet, and is a must-read and must-share for anyone living in a country that allows fluoridation.  Some key points from the article include:
  • The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom.”
  • One 2001 study covered in the Cochrane review of two neighboring British Columbia communities found that when fluoridation was stopped in one city, cavity prevalence actually went down slightly amongst schoolchildren, while cavity rates in the fluoridated community remained stable.  
  • Studies that attest to the effectiveness of fluoridation were generally done before the widespread usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes in the 1970s and later, according to the recent Cochrane study. 
  • Nearly all these papers were flawed in significant ways. For example, 70 percent of the studies made no effort to control for important confounding factors such as dietary sources of fluoride other than tap water, diet in general or ethnicity.  
  • When it comes to fluoridation research, even the best studies are not high quality. Although this was already well-established, it doesn't seem to be well-known.
  • One thing the review definitively concluded: Fluoridation causes fluorosis.
  • But most scientists interviewed for this article don’t necessarily think fluoridation’s uncertain benefits justify its continuation without more stringent evidence, and argue for more research into the matter. 
The article also quotes several scientific and medical experts who agree that the concern over the practice ought to be taken seriously.  Here are just a few of the quotes: 
  • “From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny.
  • Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.”
  • Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review.  The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed.  There’s really hardly any evidence” the practice works, Sheldon adds. “And if anything there may be some evidence the other way.  When you have a public health intervention that’s applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose,” Sheldon says. Everybody drinks water, after all, mostly from the tap. “Public health bodies need to have the courage to look at this review…and be honest enough to say that this needs to be reconsidered.”     
  • Overall the review suggests that stopping fluoridation would be unlikely increase the risk of tooth decay, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments of environmental contaminants.
  • “The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.
  • “The fact that there is insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces social inequalities in dental health is troublesome given that this is often cited as a reason for fluoridating water,” say Christine Till and Ashley Malin, researchers at Toronto’s York University.
Earlier this year Newsweek also published two great articles on the recent studies linking artificially fluoridated water to a significant increase in hypothyroidism and ADHD.

Help FAN make these articles go viral.  Our Facebook post

Thursday, July 02, 2015



Published on 1 Jul 2015
This film has been produced for Fluoride Free Bedford, a small group dedicated to keeping fluoride out of the town’s water supply.

Local people have been suffering from the damaging effects of water fluoridation since 1970 when the process began. Fluoridation was halted in 2009 without public knowledge while the treatment works underwent an upgrade. Thanks to the efforts of the group, Bedford remains fluoride free. But the future hangs in the balance as the council executive awaits recommendations from the Health Scrutiny Committee who, so far, have shown little interest or concern about fluoride.

PLEASE COPY AND SHARE ...

Find out more about the 13-year fight to get fluoride out of Bedford once and for all. WATCH Toxic Tap Water: Bedford's Battle Against Water Fluoridation ... THE MOVIE on YouTube: http://bit.ly/1OUudsR or go to www.fluoridefreebedford.org

KRISTV.com | Continuous News Coverage | Corpus Christi

Australia - Lismore bakery installs filters to remove fluoride

Darren Coyne
A Lismore business owner wants the Lismore City Council to chip in to help cover the costs of installing a filter to remove fluoride from the water.
Geoff Haycraft, owner of Goanna Bakery % Cafe in Lismore, next to his new filtration system. (Darren Coyne)Geoff Haycraft, owner of Goanna Bakery & Cafe, has just spent about $4000 for a reverse osmosis filter system in order to guarantee his food and coffee are fluoride free.
Rous Water has confirmed that the water supplies of Lismore, Ballina and surrounding areas will be fluoridated by next month, despite ongoing concerns from business owners and residents.
Mr Haycraft has written to the general manager and councillors of Lismore to raise his concerns about the introduction of fluoride.
‘The imminent introduction of fluoride into Lismore’s water supply represents a serious threat to the wellbeing and economic future of my business,’ he wrote. ‘As such, I have felt compelled to take the necessary action to protect not only the livelihood of myself and my thirty staff, but also the interests of the thousands of our customers whose patronage is driven by their desire for clean, chemical free food.
Mr Haycraft said if the council was serious about supporting the economic viability and future of his business, then I can expect that it will be happy to reimburse the costs involved in filtering the water.
‘The alternative position would be that, not only does  council consider it reasonable to bypass the community’s democratic right to vote in a referendum regarding its continued access to clean water, but also that it is acceptable to directly and explicitly do harm to businesses (Goanna is not the only business affected) in its municipality without any responsibility taken or acknowledged.’ Mr Haycraft said the filtration system cost $2315, plumbing and installation cost $1237.50 and stands for the tanks cost $300.
‘I should also mention that there will be ongoing costs with the replacement of filters in the future,’ he said. Mr Haycraft is considering taking his appeal directly to the next meeting of the Lismore City Council.

Wednesday, July 01, 2015



He really seems happy. He made me smile.

NZ - Fluoride delay

A decision on adding fluoride in Ranfurly's water supply will be delayed for up to 14 years.

The Central Otago District Council agreed yesterday to put the issue on the ''back burner'' until after it meets national drinking water standards.

The Maniototo Community Board voted in 2011 to add fluoride to the Ranfurly water supply and three years later, the board agreed to seek more feedback and information on the issue.
The council, rather than community boards, now has responsibility for decisions about the district's water supplies, so the matter was on the agenda at yesterday's meeting.

''I think this is a talk that should be had at national level, not community level, but we're not here to debate the merits or otherwise of fluoride, so let's put it on the back burner,'' Cr Martin McPherson said.

Cr Stu Duncan said the Maniototo board had voted on the matter then revisited it and delayed making a decision. Council water services manager Russell Bond said meeting the drinking water standards should take priority and the council agreed to delay making a decision until the supply has been upgraded.

That process could take up to 14 years.

14 years to get clean water?

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows



If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.  
Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk ofimpaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.
Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.”
You might think, then, that fluoridated water's efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact. 
The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.
The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. 
The authors also found only two studies since 1975 that looked at the effectiveness of reducing cavities in baby teeth, and found fluoridation to have no statistically significant impact here, either. 
The scientists also found “insufficient evidence” that fluoridation reduces tooth decay in adults (children excluded).
“From the review, we’re unable to determine whether water fluoridation has an impact on caries levels in adults,” Glenny says. (“Tooth decay,” “cavities” and “caries” all mean the same thing: breakdown of enamel by mouth-dwelling microbes.)
“Frankly, this is pretty shocking,” says Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst uninvolved in the work. “This study does not support the use of fluoride in drinking water.” Trevor Sheldon concurred. Sheldon is the dean of the Hull York Medical School in the United Kingdom who led the advisory board that conducted a systematic review of water fluoridation in 2000, that came to similar conclusions as the Cochrane review. The lack of good evidence of effectiveness has shocked him. “I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed."
“There’s really hardly any evidence” the practice works, Sheldon adds. “And if anything there may be some evidence the other way.” One 2001 studycovered in the Cochrane review of two neighboring British Columbia communities found that when fluoridation was stopped in one city, cavity prevalence actually went down slightly amongst schoolchildren, while cavity rates in the fluoridated community remained stable.  
RTX146EGNACHO DOCE / REUTERS
Overall the review suggests that stopping fluoridation would be unlikely to increase the risk of tooth decay, says Kathleen Thiessen, a senior scientist at the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis, which does human health risk assessments of environmental contaminants.
“The sad story is that very little has been done in recent years to ensure that fluoridation is still needed [or] to ensure that adverse effects do not happen,” says Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher and physician at Harvard University.
The scientists also couldn’t find enough evidence to support the oft-repeated notion that fluoridation reduces dental health disparities among different socioeconomic groups, which the CDC and others use as a rationale for fluoridating water.
“The fact that there is insufficient information to determine whether fluoridation reduces social inequalities in dental health is troublesome given that this is often cited as a reason for fluoridating water,” say Christine Tilland Ashley Malin, researchers at Toronto’s York University.
Studies that attest to the effectiveness of fluoridation were generally done before the widespread usage of fluoride-containing dental products like rinses and toothpastes in the 1970s and later, according to the recent Cochrane study. So while it may have once made sense to add fluoride to water, it no longer appears to be necessary or useful, Thiessen says.
It has also become clear in the last 15 years that fluoride primarily acts topically, according to the CDC. It reacts with the surface of the tooth enamel, making it more resistant to acids excreted by bacteria. Thus, there's no good reason to swallow fluoride and subject every tissue of your body to it, Thiessen says.
Another 2009 review by the Cochrane group clearly shows that fluoride toothpaste prevents cavities, serving as a useful counterpoint to fluoridation’s uncertain benefits.
Across all nine studies included in the review looking at caries reductions in children's permanent choppers, there was evidence linking fluoridation to  26 percent decline in the prevalence of decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. But the researchers say they have serious doubts about the validity of this number. They write: “We have limited confidence in the size of this effect due to the high risk of bias within the studies and the lack of contemporary evidence.” Six of the nine studies were from before 1975, before fluoride toothpaste was widely available.
The review also found fluoridation was associated with a 14 percent increase in the number of children without any cavities. But more than two-thirds percent of the studies showing this took place more than 40 years ago, and are not of high quality.
Nearly all these papers were flawed in significant ways. For example, 70 percent of the cavity-reducing studies made no effort to control for important confounding factors such as dietary sources of fluoride other than tap water, diet in general (like how much sugar they consumed) or ethnicity. 
When it comes to fluoridation research, even the best studies are not high quality. Although this was already well-established, it doesn't seem to be well-known.
“I couldn’t believe the low quality of the research” on fluoridation, Sheldon says.
The data suggest that toothpaste, besides other preventative measures like dental sealants, flossing and avoiding sugar, are the real drivers in the decline of tooth decay in the past few decades, Thiessen says. Indeed, cavity rates have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.
water-fluoridation-cavitiesRates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation. KK CHENG ET AL / BMJ
Meanwhile, dental health leaves much to be desired in widely fluoridated America: About 60 percent of American teenagers have had cavities, and 15 percent have untreated tooth decay.
One thing the review definitively concluded: Fluoridation causes fluorosis.
This condition occurs when fluoride interferes with the cells that produce enamel, creating white flecks on the teeth. On average, about 12 percent of people in fluoridated areas have fluorosis bad enough that it qualifies as an “aesthetic concern,” according to the review. According to Sheldon, that’s a “huge number.” A total of 40 percent of people in fluoridated areas have some level of fluorosis, though the majority of these cases are likely unnoticeable to the average person.
In a smaller percentage of cases, fluorosis can be severe enough to cause structural damage, brown stains and mottling to the tooth.
Sheldon says that if fluoridation were to be submitted anew for approval today, “nobody would even think about it” due to the shoddy evidence of effectiveness and obvious downside of fluorosis.
There is also a definite issue of inequality when it comes to fluorosis. Blacks and Mexican-Americans have higher rates of both moderate and severe forms of the condition. Blacks also have higher levels. As of 2004, 58 percent of African-Americans had fluorosis, compared to 36 percent of whites, and the condition is becoming more common.
The Cochrane review concerned itself only with oral health. It didn’t address other health problems associated with fluoride, which Grandjean says need to be researched.
Many of the Cochrane study’s conclusions conflict with statements by the CDC, the American Dental Association and others that maintain fluoridation is safe and effective. The ADA, for example, maintains on its website that “thousands of studies” support fluoridation’s effectiveness—which is directly contradicted by the Cochrane findings. The ADA didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.
The  CDC remains undeterred. “Nothing in the Cochrane review” reduces the government’s “confidence in water fluoridation as a valuable tool to prevent tooth decay in children as well as adults,” says Barbara Gooch, a dental researcher with CDC’s Division of Oral Health.
The CDC and others “are somehow suspending disbelief,” Sheldon says. They are “all in the mindset that this is a really good thing, and just not accepting that they might be wrong.” Sheldon and others suggest pro-fluoridation beliefs are entrenched and will not easily change, despite the poor data quality and lack of evidence from the past 40 years.
Derek Richards, the editor of the journal Evidence-Based Dentistry (published by the prestigious Nature group) concedes that “we haven’t got any current evidence” that fluoridation reduces cavities, “so we don’t know how much it’s reducing tooth decay at the moment,” he says. “But I have no qualms about that.” Richards reasons that because fluoridation may help reduce cavities in those who don’t use toothpaste or take other preventative measures, including many in lower socioeconomic groups, it’s likely still useful. He also argues that there’s no conclusive evidence of harm from fluoridation (other than fluorosis), so he doesn’t see a large downside.
But most scientists interviewed for this article don’t necessarily think fluoridation’s uncertain benefits justify its continuation without more stringent evidence, and argue for more research into the matter.
“When you have a public health intervention that’s applied to everybody, the burden of evidence to know that people are likely to benefit and not to be harmed is much higher, since people can’t choose,” Sheldon says. Everybody drinks water, after all, mostly from the tap. “Public health bodies need to have the courage to look at this review,” says Sheldon, “and be honest enough to say that this needs to be reconsidered.”

Fizzy drinks lethal toll

Scientists warn they kill 184,000 a year through diabetes, heart disease and cancer
Study looked at sodas, fruit drinks, sports and energy drinks
Potentially lethal: Researchers claim sugary drinks kill as many as 184,000 adults each year (stock image)Found they have no benefits but contribute to thousands of deaths
Urged world governments to eliminate such drinks from diets
By COLIN FERNANDEZ

Sugary drinks kill as many as 184,000 adults each year, scientists claim.
Fizzy soft drinks, fruit drinks, energy drinks and sweetened iced teas are causing thousands of deaths and have no health benefits, they said.
And they warned that governments across the world should make it a priority to eliminate such drinks from people’s diets.
Researchers said sugary drinks were implicated in 133,000 diabetes deaths worldwide in one year. Another 45,000 died from cardiovascular disease and 6,450 from cancer. All three diseases have been linked to high sugar consumption.

Steven shouldn't your talent be directed against manufacturers who cause the tooth rot to youngsters rather than crusading for fluoride.


How Conflicts of Interest Have Corrupted the CDC

By Dr. Mercola
Conflicts of interest have become more the rule than the occasional exception. Even the trusted US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) receives heavy funding from industry.
How this conflict of interest may have affected the organization’s decisions is the topic of an article1 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), penned by the journal’s associate editor, Jeanne Lenzer, who notes:
“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) includes the following disclaimer with its recommendations:
“CDC, our planners, and our content experts wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products... CDC does not accept commercial support.”
The CDC’s image as an independent watchdog over the public health has given it enormous prestige, and its recommendations are occasionally enforced by law.
Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking.”............


Surely not - would they Steven?

Monday, June 29, 2015




Someone ought to tell his parents what he is up to.



You won't like this one Steven.

Rates of thyroid cancer tripled since 1975 - public water utilities continue to poison us with water fluoridation


thyroid(NaturalNews) As scientists struggle to explain why thyroid cancer rates have more than tripled in the U.S. since the mid-1970s, nobody's addressing the elephant in the room that is artificial water fluoridation and the confirmed toxicity of fluoride chemicals when they enter the thyroid gland.


A study published last year attempted to explain away the thyroid cancer epidemic in the U.S. today, blaming it not on more actual cases of the disease, but rather on morediagnoses. The problem, say researchers from Dartmouth University, is that thyroid cancer is supposedly overdiagnosed and overtreated.

"The incidence of thyroid cancer is at epidemic proportions, but it doesn't look like an epidemic of disease," believes Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. "[I]t looks like an epidemic of diagnosis," he's quoted as saying by HealthDay News.

It's a plausible hypothesis, actually: Just like with prostate cancer, testing regimens for thyroid cancer oftentimes pick up benign cancers that never would have developed into anything serious. Meanwhile, many of those diagnosed undergo invasive procedures, such as having their thyroids completely removed, that were never even necessary.

"This means that a lot of people are having their thyroids removed for a cancer that was never going to bother them," said Dr. Welch, suggesting that, as more people become aware of thyroid cancer and have their necks examined to look for problems, they're being misdiagnosed.

Multiple studies dating back to the 1970s link fluoride exposure to thyroid and other cancers

But what about the fluoride connection? Sure, some folks are being misdiagnosed as this study suggests, but it's surely not misdiagnosis that's primarily responsible for the more than 300% rise in thyroid cancer rates over the past 40 years. So what is it?

A study published just this year showed that fluoride ingestion is directly associated with rising rates of underactive thyroid, or hypothyroidism. Published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, the paper "raises questions about the safety of community fluoridation," to quote the words of one of its authors...........

Sunday, June 28, 2015


Government Mind Control - The Fluoride Conspiracy by extremlymsync

Saturday, June 27, 2015

He's back


Welcome back Steven I know you've been busy writing comments elsewhere. According to Google almost 900 hits on this page when you wrote far more than normal so I must thank you for writing.
I don't know if people believe you or not but you are passionate in fluoridation's support.
What are your views on the pineal gland does fluoride affect it not forgetting the thyroid of course. Your views on both would be appreciated.

Below is Stevens latest comment followed by Chris Cooke's and then Steven at his rude best.
Followed by Chris's
_____________________________________________________________

"Misleading answer"?

No. Dental fluorosis can only occur during the teeth developing years of 0-8. Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the 74.6% fluoridated US as to be nearly non-existent. The US Institute of Medicine established daily upper intake of fluoride before skeletal fluorosis or any other adverse effct may occur, is 10 mg.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

_____________________________________________________________
Steven, nice to have you back! :-)

I have to tell you, though, that there is a multitude of sin hidden behind your simple quotation of a statistic. Take your "everything is hunky-dory if you consume less that 10mg per day" figure.

1. That "upper intake" limit for babies is not 10mg/day of course. It is actually 0.7 - going as high as 2.2mg/d for 4 - 8 yrs.

2. Bear in mind this is the upper "tolerable" intake (U.T.I.) - above which, presumably, it would not be tolerable?? Not for anybody. You seem not to want to use that qualifying word "tolerable". Why not?

3. This U.T.I. applies to "almost all individuals in the population" according to the Institute. No idea then of who it does NOT apply to? Or the harm that might be done? I would imagine people with pre-existing medical conditions, particularly kidney malfunction, were most at risk. How many people is this? What harm may occur to them? Will any die - or live shorter lives - as a result? How do we protect them?

4. Yet this U.T.I. becomes meaningless when set aside the Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) because there is NO RDA (apparently not enough research!). Makes you wonder how they managed to get the U.T.L. figures! Instead they give what they call an "Adequate Intake" (A.I.) figure (they admit this figure is not much better than a guess and do not know how many people this A.I. might apply to). This A.I. varies between 2 - 4 mg/d for (healthy!) adults to the much lower levels for children, to as near as dammit zero for babies. Not forgetting that water fluoridation is being sold to us as helping children's teeth - children seem to have a much lower tolerance for this poison. Natural mother's milk also uniquely filters out the fluoride from the body - showing that perhaps breast-feeding is really best?

5. However the real damnation of this 10mg U.T.I. figure lies in the source - which is dated 1997! 18 years ago!! There's been a lot of research in those intervening years virtually without exception showing fluoride to be more dangerous than previously believed.

So, you see Steven, your reassuringly glib assertion about a 10mg "Upper Limit" is more deceptive than clarifying. As is your comment reference "skeletal fluorosis". Younger and younger people nowadays are being diagnosed with "arthritis" which is almost identical to skeletal fluorosis. Doctors are not trained to recognise anything but the severest forms of skeletal fluorosis and, until that point, invariable will diagnose arthritis instead. Maybe it's the skeletal fluorosis diagnosis that is rare, rather than the condition??

Regardless, I guess you'll continue to use those same 10mg/d ("upper intake" - nothing about "tolerable"!) figures on other forums. But you will now know that on this forum at least we won't have the wool pulled over our eyes with seriously misleading statistics.


Chris
_____________________________________________________________


1. The IOM daily upper limit for infants:

0-6 mos -0.7 mg.
6-12 mos - 0.9 mg
1-3 years- 1.2 mg
4-8 yrs- 2.3 mg
Above 8 yrs- 10 mg

The only risk to infants and children 0-8 years from exceeding this upper limit due to optimally fluoridated water, is mild to very mild dental fluorisis, a barely detectible effect which causes no adversity on cosmetic, form, function, or health of teeth.

That mild dental fluorosis is the only risk to infants is evidenced by the fact that after age 8, the daily UL jumps to 10 mg . Dental fluorosis can only occur during the teeth developing years of 0-8.

The validity of the IOM daily UL is evidenced by the fact that in the 70 year hustory of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects.

Your unsubstantiated speculation and personal opinions are meaningless. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride.....including to patients with "pre-existing, conditions, particularly kidney malfunction".....then present it, properly cited.

As no such evidence exists, I will not hold my breath in anticipation.

Steven D. Slott, DDS


Steven - the first part of your latest comment is about amounts for infants. That merely reproduces and expands on what I said. Were you trying to make a point? If so what was it? The rest of your comment simply sidesteps my five points. I must take it therefore that you agree with me that your quoting of an official "Upper Intake" figure of 10mg lacked proper qualification and or explanation. Therefore I was right and your comment was indeed misleading.

The rest of your comment is a "come on - show me the evidence" type of comment. There's no way I'm going to text volumes for you merely to "refuse to accept" or simply ignore. You can have this link here: http://fluoridealert.org/studies/schiffl-2008/ . There's enough other links on the web if you care to research.

The five studies quoted in this link are mostly recent. They are peer reviewed because otherwise they would not get published in well known and respectable medical journals - although I understand (before you say so) that peer review standards vary from journal to journal.

BTW - I've just been having a chortle at the ADA pro-fluoridation propaganda "Fluoridation Facts" (71 pages!!). It has a very curious idea of what a "fact" is. They don't seem to be able to tell simple truth on anything!! So if that's what fills up you daily reading diet I can understand why you dentists say the things that you say! Just one little "for instance". They claim not one single European Country has ever banned fluoridation. Despite Germany having an actual law against it and Holland stopping it in the 1970's when it was judged illegal. This link will fill you in: http://topinfopost.com/2014/02/13/98-per-cent-of-europe-banned-water-fluoridation - Complete with scanned copies of confirmation letters from the proper authorities in each of those countries. So .... tell me Steven .... how can this ADA - whose "professional opinion" you seem to value so highly - make up such gob-smacking and patently untrue "facts"? Is it willful ignorance or deliberate deception?

_____________________________________________________________


Bombshell: Government Admits Fluoride Hurting... by jaggedmalmsey

Another old video but worth watching again and maybe Steven hasn't seen it.

Canada - Fluoride: we’re stuck with it, reader

Dear Mayor and council,
We read with interest the article in the Beacon Star on June 5 (Town opts to stick with fluoride) regarding the town’s decision to keep the fluoridation of the water supply to the town.
We have a few questions regarding this decision.
Dr. Jim Chirico stated that fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral found in rock, soil and water. However, when we spoke with Coun. Paul Borneman in December 2014, he told us the type of fluoride that the town uses comes from industrial plant waste in Asia. It is illegal for use there, because of its toxicity. It is not a naturally-occurring fluoride. Consequently, we started to do some research and discovered that many people – health care professionals and ordinary citizens – have had a growing concern over the safety and efficiency of treating drinking water with this chemical mixture. Dr. Chirico also states that the water is treated with chlorine, another toxic chemical. He failed to point out that while chlorine is easily and inexpensively removed from water (if one so chooses), the fluoride compound - and some of the chemicals that come with it- cannot be removed; we are stuck with it.
We would like to hear a response from council on some other questions: How much research into the effects and efficiency of water fluoridation did the councillors themselves do?
In the district of Parry Sound, where a majority of the populace lives outside the area served by treated water, the local dental professionals would see if there was a marked difference between the dental health of those drinking the fluoride treated water and home and those that are on other systems. Was this report prepared and presented?
Knowing that many residents of the town had concerns about the addition of this type of fluoride into our drinking water, what professional did the council ask to present the arguments against the addition of the chemical mixture, so that balanced discussion could be had, and more informed decision could be made?
As this chemical is used to treat humans, and not for the safety of the water supply, do the councilors feel they are in a better position to prescribe this drug to the residents en masse, than our individual health care practitioners are? How did they come to this conclusion?
Coun. Brad Horne stated that he agreed with the World Health Organization about the fact that we put fluoride in the water.
We are enclosing a report from the World Health Organization about the danger of fluoride and the need to remove it from water, due to the many conditions people suffer from fluoridation ranging from ‘mild dental fluorosis to crippling skeletal fluorosis.’
As well, we are including several reports from Europe and North America, from a wide range of health care professionals, with accreditations and sources noted, regarding the dangers of the addition of this chemical mixture drinking water.
You will note that Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine/Physiology has this to say: “Fluoridation goes against all principles of pharmacology. It’s obsolete.”
We would like to close by reminding the council that Dr. Chirico warns of the dangers of “selective review of the literature.” Until both sides of the argument are fully presented, that is exactly what council has let happen.
It is not too late to review your decision.
Wayne and Mary Anne Gilbert

Parry Sound
I see Steven added his comments. He keeps busy.


Ask Tufts Experts July 2015 Issue

Q. My dentist recommended using a prescription fluoride toothpaste. If the water in my city is already fluoridated, does that contribute to the risk of possible overdose?

A. Public Health Dentist Wanda Wright, DDS, and Associate Clinical Professor David Leader, DMD, posed this question to Tufts University School of Dental Medicine Dental/Public Health students. Their short answer is that using prescription fluoride toothpaste in communities with water fluoridated at the usual 0.7 to 1.0 parts per million (PPM) will not contribute to the risk of an overdose.
They explain, “Fluoride reaches a toxic level only at 2.5 to 5 grams per kilogram (2.2 pounds) when consumed within two to four hours. That means that an adult would have to ingest hundreds of gallons of community-fluoridated water within a few hours to cause harm. If you were to try to drink that much water so quickly, you would die from the effect of the water before the fluoride could reach a toxic level. It is very important to note the two- to four-hour time frame. Consuming less fluoride over time does not create an additive effect.
“How much water is a toxic dose? In 2007, a 28-year-old woman died after swallowing only 6 liters (6.34 quarts) of water in a contest. That water might have contained 6 milligrams of fluoride. The additional fluoride of prescription toothpaste, if you were to swallow all of the prescription toothpaste on a toothbrush, might be as high as 2 milligrams per use. That means that if this woman also used prescription fluoride toothpaste in that time, she may have ingested as much as 8 milligrams of fluoride in 24 hours. That is a small percentage of an acutely toxic dose for an adult. Please note that we do not recommend prescription fluoride toothpaste for children under seven years old.”

Misleading answer, an overdose no but long term harm like fluorosis yes.

Friday, June 26, 2015


get-attachment (10)