posted by Bill at
1:39 PM
Bill
1. Sheldon is certainly welcome to his personal opinions, but that's all they are. They are to be taken in conjunction with the volumes of support for fluoridation within the worldwide body of science and healthcare, and from the multitude of highly respected healthcare experts and providers.
2. Anecdotal claims as to whom you claim were "afraid to be a part of this review" are obviously meaningless and irrelevant.
3. Why don't you list these "so many experts" whom you claim are against fluoridation. Then we'll compare that list against the list of those who support fluoridation. In doing so, it will be quite obvious as to which direction way "common sense" would point.
4. Assuming that by "fluorosis" you mean dental fluorosis, yes, the incidence is pretty evenly split between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. The only such fluorosis which may be attributable to optimally fluoridated water, however, is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorised teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.
Your hypocrisy is evident by the fact that while you lament "concern" for the barely detectable, faint white streaks of mild dental fluorosis, you callously disregard 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 water fluoridtion.
5. Provided that the "youngster" in the non-fluoridated community whom you claim had "terrible teeth from too much fluoride", does, indeed have staining and mottling of severe dental fluorosis, optimally fluoridated water did not cause it. Attempting to attribute severe dental fluorosis to the minuscule 0.7 mg/liter fluoride in fluoridated water, whether the dental fluorosis occurs in a fluoridated community or not, is akin to attributing a tidal wave to one drop of water. Can the drop be technically stated to have contributed to the tidal wave? Yes. Will the tidal wave still occur without the one drop? Yes. Can the tidal wave occur in the absence of all water except that one drop? No.
6. All fluoride is "pure." Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Things don't get much more "pure" than an atom. The fluoride ions added during fluoridation are obviously identical to those which have always existed in water. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound from which it is released. Elementary chemistry.
7. There are no medications involved in fluoridation, and no one is forced to do anything in regard to fluoridation. Any who believe that because water flows from their faucet, they are somehow forced to drink it, has cognitive issues, not a problem with fluoridation.
8. Your failure to follow the recommendations of your healthcare provider are unfortunate for you, but of no relevance to water fluoridation. People are just as free to refuse to drink water with a content not to their liking as you were to refuse the recommendations of your healthcare provider.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By 
Steve Slott, at 06 April, 2016
Hello Steve
Nice to hear from you, congratulations on your new position as Information Director of the American Fluoridation Society. Hope they pay you well.
1. Of course it is Sheldon’s opinion which I believe carries more weight than yours.
2. Anecdotal evidence are not irrelevant. We are not in a court.
3. Who ever I quoted you would dismiss so I won’t bother.
4. Rubbish
5. I didn’t say he got fluorosis from fluoridation. It was too much fluoride from either toothpaste or tablets. By the way in the UK it is 1 part pm not 0.7
6 Yes we all know that Steve. You’re forgetting the stuff it is mixed with.
7. That is just weird.
8. Unfortunate for me? I’m still here Steve.
Ken I don’t like the company you keep. Why are so many fluoride proponents so nasty.
By Bill, at 06 April, 2016
Bill
1. It is always comical that antifluoridationists can't wrap their minds sround the concept of upholding professional responsibilities, and acting in the best interests of others, without getting "paid well." Speaks volumes about the greedy mindset of antifluoridationists.
Actually, since the only ones of whom I'm aware are "paid well" to advocate for or against fluoridation are the head antifluoridationist Connett, his family, and his friends.....the more realistic question is how much are you being paid to parrott his misinformation?
2. Yes, antifluoridationists all seem to believe that anecdotes, personal opinions, and whatever tales they choose to spin, all make up valid evidence. Newsflash......science is evidence-based, not anecdote-based. But, I suppose when you have no valid evidence, you have to go with the only thing you have and just hope no one notices the difference.
3. Hmmm, I don't see anywhere in my comment that I mentioned comparing my opinion with that of Sheldon's. I compared his opinion to that of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare and to the multitude of highly respected healthcare providers and experts.
4. You have no one to quote other than the usual little band of antifluoridationists whom antifluoridationists all quote.
5. Yes, antifluoridationists view facts and evidence as "rubbish". No surprise there.
6. You have no idea as to the source of the fluoride which you claim caused the "youngster" to have "terrible teeth". The bottom line is that it was not from optimally fluoridated water.
7. If you "all know that" then why did you claim a fluorine atom to not be pure? Obviously the "all [who] know that" doesn't include you.
8. I didn't forget anything. You're the one who doesn't understand the difference between an atom and a compound.....a concept taught in entry level high school chemistry.
9. Yes, claiming fluoride ions which have existed in water since the beginning of time to suddenly be "medication" is indeed weird. But such is the mindset of antifluoridationists.
10. Sure, but for how long? How much has your life expectancy been reduced because you believe you know more about healthcare than your healthcare provider?
11. Yes, I suppose to an antifluoridationist, it does seem "nasty" to hold antifluoridationists accountable to provide valid evidence to support their claims, and to constantly correct the misinformation they disseminate. They all seem to squeal about no longer being able to post their nonsense unchallenged all over the internet.
And.......I still see no list of your "so many experts" anywhere.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 06 April, 2016
Steve, arrogance is a manifestation of ignorance. I find your arrogance absolutely staggering. Whether fluoridation is effective or not is irrelevant, and as you refuse to acknowledge that it is medication, it is undeniably a health intervention which most people do not want and do not consent to. Your claim that "Any who believe that because water flows from their faucet, they are somehow forced to drink it, has cognitive issues, not a problem with fluoridation" is ludicrous to say the least, when noone can live without water and the vast majority of consumers do not have access to an alternative source of clean, uncontaminated water. Since none is provided by the authorities who force this so called 'health intervention' on unwilling communities and individuals, I presume you are suggesting that unfluoridated water is also provided on tap in order to preserve the freedom of choice your appear to be referring to.
As for the fluoridation chemicals being identical to naturally occurring calcium fluoride, hexafluorosilicic acid is a class 2 listed poison because it is too toxic for human consumption, whilst calcium fluoride is too benign to be of such concern.
By 
, at 06 April, 2016
Carrie continued.........
6. I have not stated that "fluoridation chemicals being identical to naturally occurring calcium fluoride". I stated that fluoride ions are identical, regardless the source compound from which these ions are released. This is a scientific fact.
First of all, calcium fluoride is a compound, and it does not exist in groundwater. As this water flows over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions which have been leached from calcium fluoride and fluorosilicate compounds in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being "naturally occurring" fluoride.
When hexafluorosilic acid is added to drinking water, due to the neutral pH of that water, the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those "naturally occurring" fluoride ions, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. As HFA is not ingested, it is of no relevance that it is "a class 2 listed poison because it is too toxic for human consumption".
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 07 April, 2016
Wow! Steve, what an ingenious way of getting rid of industrial waste. Dump it in the drinking water and the chemicals dissociate leaving nothing but the fluoride ion and a long list of insignificant contaminants. The dissociation you refer to has been observed in distilled water in laboratory conditions and, when ingested, fluorosilicates may reassociate in the acid PH of the stomach to form hydrofluoric acid, with disastrous consequences for health. As for the contaminants in the fluoridation chemicals being below maximum EPA levels, the only safe level of arsenic is ZERO, so it is outrageous that it is being deliberately added to drinking water in these chemicals.
I see you haven't addressed my concerns about freedom of choice so I presume you feel justified in forcing your misguided opinions and will on entire communities and individuals who disagree with you.
If you want to drink fluoridated tap water, that is your choice but don't try to force it on the rest of us. We don't want it and reserve the right to defend our health freedom. I'm sure Bill will enjoy a long, healthy life by taking control of his own health, which I also do by the way. I consult my holistic doctor if I need any guidance and advice.
By , at 07 April, 2016
I’ll refer to this first
University of York
Professor Trevor A. Sheldon
Head of Department
3/1/2001
In my capacity of chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York and as its founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented. The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal. It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review’s findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society……..
Ken and Steve dismiss Trevor Sheldon’s letter as being one man’s opinion. It was not just his opinion the whole review board thought so. He spoke for all of them.
Steve I sometimes think you are either as I suggested an AI computer housed in the American Fluoride society or you are against fluoridation as no way will you ever win over anybody with your arrogance and more likely drive them to join us.
By Bill, at 07 April, 2016
Carrie continued.........
The EPA MCL for contaminants is that level deemed to be safe, set as close to the MCLG as is possible, and which can actually be attained with current technology. The MCL for arsenic is 10 parts per billion. Under stringent EPA mandated Standard 60 testing, the maximum detected amount of arsenic in fluoridated water at the tap is 0.6 parts per billion. The mean amount detected is 0.17 parts per billion. It takes 10 times the normal use amount of fluoridated substance to even detect any arsenic all, and even then it is only detected in less than 50% of random samples. Obviously, arsenic is of no concern in regard to fluoridation substances.
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 levels for each, may be found on the "Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Substances" on the website of NSF International.
4. That which is "outrageous" is those such as you who seek to deprive entire populations of the benefits of a very valuable public health initiative such as water fluoridation, based on nothing but false statements, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science and misinformation.
That which is "outrageous" is the fact that in spite of your now having had the fallacies of your arguments fully exposed, you will, nonetheless, keep right on disseminating them, knowing full well that you are misleading the public.
5. No one forces you to drink fluoridated water. You are entirely free to drink it or not. Your choice. Those of whom you seek to deprive the benefits of fluoridated water are the ones who would be "forced" to do so, by those such as you.
6. Your "health freedom" is irrelevant to water fluoridation. You are perfectly free to consume the water or not.
7. That Bill disregards the recommendations of his healthcare provider is unfortunate for him, but of no relevance to water fluoridation.
8. Whom you choose consult for your health needs is of no relevance to water fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 07 April, 2016
Bill
1. What you personally deem that the "entire review board" thought is irrelevant and meaningless. Sheldon expressed his personal opinion, which he is certainly entitled to do. However, that's all ot is.....his personal opinion. If you really want to compare this one opinion with the volume of opinions from those respected healthcare professionals and organizations who fully support fluoridation, I will be glad to accomodate you. Of note is the fact that you cannot provide any respected organizations which oppose fluoridation. Why? Because there are none.
2. It could not be of any less concern to me what you or any other antifluoridationist delude that I am. I simply correct the mounds of misinformation disseminated all over the internet by those who have no understanding of fluoridation, and no respect for truth and accuracy. I post my full name and affiliation at the end of each of my comments for the sake of full disclosure as to whom I am and what is my perspective. Any who wish to waste their time checking me out are entirely free to do so.
3. Seeking to "win over" antifluoridationist is of no concern to me, as it is a waste of time. The objections of antifluoridationists are not grounded in science, they are grounded in personal ideology, the same anti-government ideology that has existed with antifluoridationists since the John Birch Society at the very beginning of the initiative 71 years ago. Thus, no amount of scientific evidence presented to antifluoridationists can, or will, ever change their mindset.
I simply correct the misinformation posted all over the internet by these activists such that intelligent people in search of accurate information on fluoridation will have it, and will be able to understand the complete fallacies of antifluoridationist arguments.
4. What you claim to be "arrogance" is actually my utter contempt for antifluoridationists who seek to impose their skewed personal ideology onto entire populations through the use of false statements, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science, and misinformation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 07 April, 2016
Well if it is a waste of time in trying to win us over, and I agree you are right, why do you bother because if anybody new to the debate did visit these pages they would not be persuaded by your utter contempt. I can say I have persuaded people without any previous opinion in the rightness of our case and I have even changed a few who previously thought fluoride was good for them. I doubt with your contempt and arrogance you can say the same.
Contempt and arrogance are not good emotions to foster. I wish you well Steven.
By Bill, at 07 April, 2016
Bill
I post because those who are truly seeking accurate information on fluoridation will easily discern that this is exactly what I provide. The only ones who would not be persuaded by the facts and evidence are antifluoridationists who, whether they admit it to themselves or not, have long since made up their minds on the issue and are simply seeking confirmation for their bias.
Those who would be persuaded by your misinformation are antifluoridationists who are deluding themselves and you into believing they have had no "previous opinion". No intelligent person who does not already have his or her mindset locked up in the antifluoridationist ideology will be "persuaded" your arguments.
You're probably right. I doubt that I have ever changed the mind of any antifluoridationist, as probably has no one else. I present facts and evidence, which of course, are of no importance to antifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 07 April, 2016
You say that "I doubt that I have ever changed the mind of any antifluoridationist, as probably has no one else"
Funny how those who were for fluoridation have changed their mind though isn't it, Steven – I wonder why?
I suppose you will say it is one man's opinion I suppose.
WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION
Based on new research, a former fluoridation proponent changes his opinion about the alleged safety and benefits of water fluoridation
by JOHN COLQUHOUN, Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1, Autumn 1997
WHY I AM NOW OFFICIALLY OPPOSED TO ADDING FLUORIDE TO DRINKING WATER
Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS | Former President, Canadian Association for Dental Research
April, 2000
To whom it may concern:
Since April of 1999, I have publicly decried the addition of fluoride, especially hydrofluosilicic acid, to drinking water for the purpose of preventing tooth decay. The following summarize my reasons.....
By Bill, at 07 April, 2016
Bill
Yeah, Limeback is a mystery, I'll admit. He is a former dental educator and researcher for whom I do have respect, and with whom I occassionally correspond. Why he inexplicably went off the deep end with fluoridation, aligning himself with those such as Connett and his "FAN" in the process, has puzzled many people.
Colquhoun is another matter entirely. He was simply a fringe activist who was very outspoken in his skewed opposition to fluoridation. Newbrun and Horowitz completely debunked his nonsense in their 1999 paper published in Perspectives in Biology and Medicine:
Why We Have Not Changed Our Minds about the
Safety and Efficacy of Water Fluoridation:
A Response to John Colquhoun
Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D.
Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H.
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 42:526-541, 1999.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 07 April, 2016
Careful Steven you almost sound human perhaps one day you too will change your mind.
I watched a video interview Colquhoun gave explaining his reasons, you ought to watch it.
You missed my point people do change their minds from being for fluoridation to being against it. One way.
By Bill, at 07 April, 2016
Bill
No, discarding facts and evidence in favor of misinformation and nonsense is not my style.
Thanks for the suggestion, but I would much rather watch Saturday morning cartoons. They provide far more educational value than a video of Colquhon.
Yes, I see your point. One apparently sane, intelligent person did claim to have changed his mind. What is the population of the world? I forget.
Of course it's one way. Once the antifluoridationist ideology becomes ingrained into one's mind an atom bomb couldn't shake it loose, much less anything as mundane as facts and evidence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 07 April, 2016
Btw, Bill, if you let on that I could have a human side, I'll deny it and sue you for ruining my reputation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 07 April, 2016
Sorry about that Steven I don't want to ruin your well earned reputation.
Don't watch Colquhon's video you might catch some of his humanity.
Well the two I quoted as changing their minds on fluoridation were heads of dentistry. Hundreds more have done but of course they are unintelligent or insane as you rightly point out.
My opinion why people like me do not change their mind is we are not fixated on teeth. Even if I thought fluoride was effective in preventing cavities I would still be against it as I know what they put in the water. If it was a calcium fluoride they put in instead of the HF Acid it would be even more reason to accept but even then you can't control the dose. It is a medicine. I also know people can be allergic to fluoride. It can cause mouth ulcers. Only half of the fluoride is excreted from the body also fluorosis is rampant in fluoridated areas.
Over to you to dismiss all my reasons as being fallacious.
By Bill, at 08 April, 2016
"5. No one forces you to drink fluoridated water. You are entirely free to drink it or not. Your choice. Those of whom you seek to deprive the benefits of fluoridated water are the ones who would be "forced" to do so, by those such as you."
Err, excuse me Steve but it is illogical to claim that noone is forced to drink fluoridated tap water but others who are deprived the 'benefits' if it is not available from the tap are 'forced' to avoid it. If you are suggesting there is another source of water other than the tap available to those who oppose fluoridation, then equally, an alternative source of fluoridated water could be provided to those who believe it has any benefits.
Perhaps you could explain to me how I can avoid fluoridated tap water, as filtration systems are not only too expensive, but do not work anyway, and likewise buying in huge volumes of bottled water is neither affordable, practical. The solution is to distribute bottled fluoridated water to those who want it and leave our taps alone, but of course, then you wouldn't be able to force your will on everyone who disagrees with you.
All the sources you quote are endorsements, not scientific evidence, which does not exist anyway as the fluoridation chemicals have never undergone any toxicological testing proving them safe for human consumption. But of course you know better than Professor Sheldon who conducted the prestigious York Review and you know better than Dr Susheela whose research over 20 years proved the adverse health effects of ingesting fluoridated water. Of course, you know better than Doctors William Hirzy and Robert Carton who found that the only safe level of fluoride for babies is ZERO. And you know better than senior Harvard professors who have classified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin.
Thank goodness noone is listening to you except the misguided, misinformed proponents of fluoridation.
By , at 08 April, 2016
Bill continued..........
4. It makes no difference what compound releases fluoride ions into water, they are identical. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion regardless of whether the source compound is calcium fluoride, HFA, NaF, or any other compound. The insolubility of calcium fluoride makes it unsuitable for fluoridation. The amount of fluoride ions released by calcium fluoride would be negligible. HFA, on the other hand, immediately and completely releases its fluoride ions upon addition to drinking water. After that point the HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested.
5. The "dose" of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water is very precisely controlled. For every one liter of fluoridated water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride is ingested. Of the total fluoride intake from all sources, 75% is from water and beverages. Given that the daily upper limit of fluoride ingestion from all sources is 10 mg before adverse effects may occur, a simple math equation demonstrates that before this upper limit could be attained attributable to optimally fluoridated water, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.
Non-fluoridated systems, on the other hand, do not have the strict control over fluoride levels that do fluoridated systems. The only restriction on non-fluoridated systems is the EPA mandated maximal allowable level of 4.0 ppm, nearly 6 times the fluoride concentration maintained by fluoridated systems.
6. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of allergy to fluoride.
7. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimal level fluoride causes "mouth ulcers".
8. Incidence of dental fluorosis is nearly even in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Society
By Steve Slott, at 08 April, 2016
Yes you’ve said all that before. Why your fixation on pushing fluoride down everybody’s throat Steven? It’s bad enough here to see evident signs of obesity with waddling people eating their way to an early grave. No amount of fluoride will stop that. In your country it is even far worse. Apart from eating too much it is eating the wrong food.
Beautiful teeth is not much consolation when you can’t tie your shoelaces or walk upstairs. Diabetes and heart problems are rife. Children don’t drink water anyway. see today’s press.
Children 'drink just 25% of the water they need' and are topping up with fizzy drinks
Youngsters between 11 and 18 are drinking on average 453ml of water
Health experts said they should be drinking in more than 1.8 litres instead
Younger children aged four to ten are drinking only 276ml of water a day
Experts say switching one fizzy drink for water reduces the diabetes risk
By Bill, at 08 April, 2016
Yes, Bill, I have said all that before. In spite of this, however, you keep making the same erroneous claims, the fallacies of which I have already clearly demonstrated to you. The same is true for this latest comment of yours. This repeated denial of the facts and evidence presented to you is typical of antifluoridationists, and clear evidence that objections to fluoridation are not grounded in science. They are grounded in personal ideology. Thus no matter how much valid scientific evidence is presented to them, they will deny it and continue making the same unsubstantiated, erroneous claims.
I'll be glad to continue repeatedly posting the same facts and evidence as long as you continue to post the same erroneous arguments. However for the sake of my weary typing fingers, I'll just refer you to my previous comments in regard to your claims here.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 08 April, 2016
That sounded very much like a robotic cut and paste are you sure you are real Steven?
No reference to obesity and the bigger health problem.
By Bill, at 08 April, 2016
Bill, there is no bigger health problem than chronic/acute massive unchecked bacterial infection. It can be, and has been, fatal, with all degrees in between. This is what antifluoridationists can't seem to understand. Until you realize that the head is attached to the rest of body via the same bloodstream, you will never understand the deadly seriousness of this overwhelming problem, and what it takes to combat it.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 08 April, 2016
That proves it, a cut and paste AI program.
A recent NewScientist article details how a program called PC Therapist successfully fooled five out of 10 judges in a small-scale Turing test in 1991.
Cleverbot, a relatively new favorite for these competitions, took third place in the larger 2012 competition. However, a year earlier the program successfully tricked 59.3 percent of 1,300 people at a Techniche festival in Guwahti, India, with the majority of voters believing it was human.
By Bill, at 08 April, 2016
When all else fails fall back on false claims and ridiculous nonsense. If you spent as much time seeking to properly educate yourself on this issue as you do making ridiculous assumptions about me you might actually learn something.
This just goes to show that UKF has no foundation for its opposition to fluoridation, and can provide no valid evidence to support its position.....as is the case with all antifluoridationist organizations.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 08 April, 2016
More proof.
By Bill, at 08 April, 2016
"Bill, there is no bigger health problem than chronic/acute massive unchecked bacterial infection. It can be, and has been, fatal, with all degrees in between. This is what antifluoridationists can't seem to understand. Until you realize that the head is attached to the rest of body via the same bloodstream, you will never understand the deadly seriousness of this overwhelming problem, and what it takes to combat it."
Oh yes we do Robot Steve, and the answer is......A TOOTHBRUSH!! It's been very successful in Scotland, without forcing poison down the throats of an entire population.
Fluoridation does nothing to remedy the consequences of poor oral habits and poor diet, and even if it worked, is totally redundant when the root causes of poor oral health are addressed and remedied, as in Scotland.
By , at 08 April, 2016
Carrie
Great idea, Carrie!! A toothbrush! Now why hasn't the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare thought of that?? Obviously, they should have consulted with you prior to doing anything. And the Scottish ChildSmile program......yet another brilliant idea!! Wow, you're just a wealth of solutions!
So, let's evaluate your suggestion here.......The Childsmile program involves a supervised toothbrushing program in schools, twice yearly fluoride varnish applications in selected areas, and various education initiatives. The total number of children involved is 120,000. The total annual cost of the program is £15 million . This equals £125 per child per year.
By contrast, the entire fluoridation programme currently serving 6 million people in England is costing around £2.1 million a year and is benefiting everyone with natural teeth, regardless of age, education or socio-economic status. Importantly, it is benefiting all children. The cost per person of fluoridation in England is therefore around 35 pence per annum.
The fact that the British Dental Association in Scotland has recently come out publicly to call for Scottish communities to move towards introducing water fluoridation undermines the arguments of anti-fluoridation groups, whether in the United States or in the UK, that Childsmile is an adequate substitute for water fluoridation. The professional body representing dentists in Scotland does not see it that way.
Childsmile is drastically more expensive than fluoridation, restricted to 120,000 school children, is dependent upon compliance of those children, has decay reduction no greater than fluoridation, and does not appear to have reduced SES inequalities.
While a good adjunct to work in combination with fluoridation, it is, as the BFA has concluded, in no manner a substitute for fluoridation.
Hmmm, Carrie, looks like the UK's gonna need warehouses full of additional Euros if they employ a program like Childsmile in lieu of water fluoridation! But, hey, I'm sure you can come up with one of your solutions for that little problem.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 08 April, 2016
I did a search for copies of its words as I said it is a copy and paste job by a computer program with names inserted to add authenticity.
I wonder who paid for the program?
By Bill, at 08 April, 2016
"Childsmile is drastically more expensive than fluoridation"
Absolute bull**** Robot R2Steve2. Childsmile is not only far more effective than fluoridation as a standalone intervention, but a fraction of the cost. You conveniently forget the enormous cost of consultations, building and maintaining the dosing plants, buying and transporting tons of the industrial waste poison, the medical costs for the adverse health effects, and the lifetime cost to families of cosmetic dentistry to repair the damage to teeth from fluoridation etc.
As Bill has said, most kids don't even drink the water so it's utter nonsense to claim there is universal compliance with fluoridation.
Time to switch off your batteries and go into permanent retirement, Robot R2Steve2, along with all your bull****.
By , at 08 April, 2016
Facts are facts, Carrie. The information I provided about Childsmile is fully verifiable. Your groundless personal opinions on this Scottish dental program are obviously not verifiable in any manner. Based on the lack of knowledge you have exhibited in all your other comments, it should be of no surprise to anyone that you attempt to fabricate your own facts about Childsmile.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 09 April, 2016
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By , at 09 April, 2016
My statements about Childsmile were sourced from the Childsmile programme, but the relative costs of this hugely successful scheme in Scotland compared to fluoridation are irrelevant when fluoridation has not only been a complete failure but is harmful to babies and kidney patients as well as other vulnerable groups, and wholly unethical, whilst Childsmile has proven to be effective, safe, hugely popular,ethically sound, and teaches good oral habits for life.
In fluoridated Birmingham in the UK, shocking statistics reveal that decay rates are soaring, in fluoridated New Zealand and Australia, decay rates are soaring, and in the heavily fluoridated USA, fluoridation is not working either.
You have done a great disservice to the pro fluoridation lobby with the nonsense and misinformation you spread through your inane rantings all over the Internet and have attracted many new sympathisers to our cause. In other words, your mission has failed.
Oh dear, Steve, shocking testimonials for you in your 'other life' as a dentist. This one isn't very complimentary, no wonder you need a distraction from your professional employment by trolling the Internet defending the indefensible...... "“Dr.” Slott should lose his license (if he has one) for incompetence." – A Slott dental patient
By , at 10 April, 2016
Anonymous
If my comments were as completely uninformed, unsubstantiated, and erroneous as yours, I would probably cower behind a pseudonym as well. See my previous comments. They are sel-explanatory to anyone with an education beyond the third grade....your copy/paste nonsense from "FAN" notwithstanding.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 10 April, 2016
Steven do you click I'm not a robot when you publish?
If so it is false testimony as your "facts"
By Bill, at 10 April, 2016
Thank you, Bill. You provide excellent example of the level of intelligence with which one deals when according credence to antifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 10 April, 2016
OK Steven answer this “What vegetable is found in tomato soup?”
By Bill, at 10 April, 2016
Well, I believe that canned tomato soup contains corn syrup, so I suppose the answer would be corn. Not sure of the relevance of this to fluoridated water, but far be it from me to attempt to decipher the antifluoridationist mindset.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 10 April, 2016
Well Steve, clearly you consider me to be of low intelligence, but I don't pretend to be clever and of superior intellect to everyone else on the planet. I do, however, have faith in the research of the greatest scientific minds and source all my information from the most compelling and conclusive evidence. I'll leave the cut and paste jobs to you as I note from your prolific output all over the Internet, that you are very accomplished in the skill.
For the record, Steve, I am educated to degree standard but the most important lesson I have learned is that knowledge is very humbling: the more I learn, the more I realise how little I know, and that arrogance is a manifestation of ignorance.
By the way, Steve, you failed the tomato soup question.
By , at 10 April, 2016
Carrie
1. Yes, based on your comments I do consider you to be of low intelligence. Your comments speak for themselves in that regard. Intelligent people do not mindlessly trust the validity of information they copy/paste from dubious sources, without making every effort to verify that validity independently of that source. Obviously, you don't lift a finger to verify the validity of the nonsense you post.
2. You source your erroneous information from antifluoridationist websites and blogs. There is nothing you have posted that I haven't seen and refuted dozens of times each. Why? Because it is the same, verbatim nonsense copy/pasted from the same antifluoridationist websites as is done so by countless other uninformed antifluoridationists who rely solely on being spoon-fed from these sites because they cannot think for themselves.
3. Yes, I copy/paste. The difference is that I copy/paste information that I have written myself based on countless hours of proper research of this issue from primary sources, discussions with authors of the scientific studies I cite, verifying and reverifying the validity of my claims before I post them rather than attempting to do so afterward, and having a good working knowledge of what is in the scientific literature on fluoridation.
I began saving my comments because I got very tired of rewriting them from scratch every the same verbatim argument was copy/pasted into comments by lazy antifluoridationists such as you who do so from the same antifluoridationist websites.
4. Whose comments demonstrate ignorance and whose do not is blatently obvious all over this page.
5. Go check the contents of canned tomato soup. You will see that corn syrup is indeed an ingredient. Corn is classified as a vegetable. It is the only vegetable in canned tomato soup. Home-made tomato soup may contain whatever vegetables anyone wishes to incorporate into them.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 11 April, 2016
Has a human taken over? The writing standard has deteriorated.
I have to thank you "Steven", until you joined in the discussion this blog normally gets about 400 visits a day and now it is up to 12,000. Strange, perhaps people love to follow the exchange of blows and your insulting comments. I hope if there are some readers who come across these exchanges and have no preconceived opinion will be sympathetic to our views. Your fevered rhetoric would put me off even if you were right.
By Bill, at 11 April, 2016
1. "Intelligent people do not mindlessly trust the validity of information they copy/paste from dubious sources"
None of my comments have been copied and pasted, and intelligent people don't project insults at anyone who disagrees with them Steve. Why bother engaging in any discussion with me if you consider me to be of such low intelligence? But then, I'm probably too dumb to figure that out and therefore immune to your insults.
2. "You source your erroneous information from antifluoridationist websites and blogs."
Wrong, another false accusation Steve.
3. "a good working knowledge of what is in the scientific literature on fluoridation."
The authors of the York Review completed an exhaustive evaluation of the scientific literature worldwide and found no conclusive evidence that fluoridation is either safe or effective. So where is the evidence that they appear to have missed? More importantly, where is the evidence that it's not only safe for everyone to ingest hexafluorosilicic acid, but ethical to medicate community drinking water supplies with this chemical without the consent of all affected individuals?
4. "Whose comments demonstrate ignorance and whose do not is blatently obvious all over this page."
I'm sure all the visitors to this site have worked that one out for themselves Steve.
5. Oh dear you have got your knickers in a twist, but you're right about home made soup.
By , at 11 April, 2016
Good, Bill. I hope your visits go to 100k. The more the better. The general public needs to see how baseless and idiotic are antifluoridationist "arguments". What is always comical is that antifluoridationists can never seem to comprehend the fact that the only ones who will be "sympathetic" to their position and/or "put off" by my comments are other antifluoridationists. Given that a stick of dynamite could not change their mindset, they could not be of any less concern. All others enjoy seeing my exposure of the fallacies of the claims of unscrupulous activists who have been running wild spewing patently false information sll over the internet, unchallenged, for far too long. The fact that I can and do provide valid evidence of support for my claims while you can provide nothing but typical, lame attempts to discredit me is precisely what I want as many as possible to see and understand about little antifluoridationist factions such as UKAF.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 11 April, 2016
To see many of Steven's wonderful letters visit
https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/12310450/replies
I like this one Steven.
"Truthful? An antifluoridationist?? Now, THAT's a contradiction in terms....."
So you think all people who dare say they have doubts about fluoridation are liars.
I can imagine you in the SS.
Sorry I take that back I'm sure you are a nice man who loves animals.
By Bill, at 11 April, 2016
"All others enjoy seeing my exposure of the fallacies of the claims of unscrupulous activists who have been running wild spewing patently false information all over the internet, unchallenged, for far too long."
Please give examples of this 'false information' we are spewing Steve, as we are concerned by your accusations of deceiving the public. But 'unchallenged', Steve? Oh no, you've been doing a fine job of arguing the toss with antifluoridationists but unfortunately, without any valid references to lend any credibility to your position.
"The fact that I can and do provide valid evidence of support for my claims"
You haven't provided one single reference to any of the 'scientific' studies that you claim to support your fanatical defence of fluoridation.
You're like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, Steve, attracting a lot of attention with your rantings, but instead of getting rid of rats, you're trying to poison our kids with rat poison.
By , at 11 April, 2016
Carrie continued.........
York:
There is no clear association between water fluoridation and overall cancer incidence and mortality. This was also true for osteosarcoma and bone/joint cancers. Only two studies considered thyroid cancer and neither found a statistically significant association with water fluoridation."
"Overall, no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer or all cancers was found."
---pg xiii
D. Hexafluorosilic acid is not ingested in fluoridated water. There is no requirement, or need, for evidence that it is safe to ingest a substance which is not ingested.
E. There is no medication involved in fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. There is no need for evidence that it is ethical to medicate community water supplies when there is no medicating of community water supplies involved with water fluoridation.
F. There is no individual consent required for local officials to approve the concentration level of an existing mineral in public water supplies under their jurisdiction.
4. Yes, your comments speak for themselves in regard to your obvious ignorance of water fluoridation.
5. Yes, I am correct about tomato soup. Your claim that I had "failed" that question was just one more clear example of your failure to verify the validity of your comments before posting them.
6. I have no "knickers".
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 11 April, 2016
Bill
There is a difference between "people who have doubts" and those who intentionally and repeatedly disseminate false information. "People who have doubts" seek accurate information, and accept valid facts and evidence when presented to them. Those who intentionally and repeatedly disseminate false information regardless of how many times the fallacy of that information has been clearly demonstrated to them are, by definition, liars. Antifluoridationists fall under the latter category.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 11 April, 2016
What category do these people come under Steven?
The renowned medical doctor, nine-time #1 New York Times bestselling author, and television personality, Dr. Mark Hyman, has added his important voice to the fluoridation debate. He has joined other key national figures—including Erin Brockovich, Lois Gibbs, and Alveda King--who have recently called for an investigation into fluoride's risks to diabetics, kidney patients, thyroid function, and the brain. As Hyman notes:
“There are numerous mechanisms by which uncontrolled dosing of fluorides through water fluoridation can potentially harm thyroid function, the body and the brain. A malfunctioning thyroid often leads to weight gain. And diabetics and patients with kidney disease are often thirsty, causing them to consume increased amounts of fluorides if they have access to only fluoridated water. Communities of color and the underserved are disproportionately harmed by fluorides because most rely on municipal water sources, many of which continue to add fluoride, despite research showing the potential harms and negating the potential benefits. I support federal investigative hearings looking into why our cities and towns are allowed to continue to add fluoride to public water sources and why the whole story about fluorides is only just now coming out.” (Dr. Mark Hyman via email on April 1, 2016)
Daniel G. Stockin, MPH, a public health professional known internationally for his work to end water fluoridation, made Dr. Hyman’s statement public in a news release earlier this week:
Are these more liars?
By Bill, at 11 April, 2016
Carrie
As you requested, false information spewed all over this page:
1. Bill: "I know it is not a pure fluoride and in the States they even get supplies from China."
Fluoride is an atom of fluorine. There us no such thing as an impure atom.
2. Bill: "I’m against it as I am against enforced medication."
There is no medication involved in fluoridation, and no one is forced to do anything in regard to fluoridation.
3. Carrie: "what an ingenious way of getting rid of industrial waste."
There is no waste involved in water fluoridation, "industrial" or otherwise.
4. Carrie: "when noone can live without water and the vast majority of consumers do not have access to alternative sources of uncontaminated water."
Non-fluoridated water systems are not uncontaminated. Numerous substances are added to these water supplies, and numerous substances exist in them already, including fluoride.
You confuse convenience with a basic need. No one has a basic right to have water pumped directly into their dwelling. That is a convenience. No one must live without water as a result of water fluoridation. Everyone has access to rainwater, rivers, and streams.
5. Carrie: "As for the fluoridation chemicals being identical to naturally occurring calcium fluoride, hexafluorosilicic acid is a class 2 listed poison because it is too toxic for human consumption, whilst calcium fluoride."
I didn't state that fluoridation chemicals are identical to calcium fluoride. I stated that all fluoride ions are identical, which they are.
6. Carrie: "The dissociation you refer to has been observed in distilled water in laboratory conditions and, when ingested, fluorosilicates may reassociate in the acid PH of the stomach to form hydrofluoric acid, with disastrous consequences for health"
There is no valid evidence of any "disastrous consequences for health" from reformation of optimal level fluoride in the gut.
7. Carrie: "As for the contaminants in the fluoridation chemicals being below maximum EPA levels, the only safe level of arsenic is ZERO"
The level of arsenic considered safe by the United States Environmental Protection Agency is 0.6 ppb. As arsenic is ubiquitous in nature, and as there is strong evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient, a "ZERO" level of arsenic is likely not attainable or desirable.
8. Carrie: "If you want to drink fluoridated tap water, that is your choice but don't try to force it on the rest of us. We don't want it and reserve the right to defend our health freedom."
Nothing is forced upon anyone in regard to fluoridated water. There are no restrictions on anyone's "right to defend our health freedoms" associated with fluoridated water. Any who desire not to consume fluoridated water are entirely free to do so.
9. Bill: "Well the two I quoted as changing their minds on fluoridation were heads of dentistry. Hundreds more have done but of course they are unintelligent or insane as you rightly point out."
A. The two quoted were not "heads of dentistry". One is a former dental educator in Canada, the other a fringe activist from New Zealand.
B. There is no evidence to support the claims that hundreds more dentists have changed their minds in regard to fluoridation.
to be continued:
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 11 April, 2016
Carrie continued...........
10. Bill: "I would still be against it as I know what they put in the water. If it was a calcium fluoride they put in instead of the HF Acid it would be even more reason to accept but even then you can't control the dose. It is a medicine. I also know people can be allergic to fluoride. It can cause mouth ulcers. Only half of the fluoride is excreted from the body also fluorosis is rampant in fluoridated areas.
A. Putting calcium fluoride in water would result in few, if any free fluoride ions being released into the water. It would remain as calcium fluoride, which does nothing to prevent dental decay. Hydrofluorosilic acid release the desired amount of fluoride ions and then no longer exists in that water. Thus, using calcium fluoride instead of HFA would not only not be "more reason to accept", it would be entirely nonsensical.
B. The "dose" of fluoride from fluoridated water is easily controlled, by the concentration level of the fluoride, and by the amount of water the human body can tolerate in a short period of time before water toxicity occurs. .
C. Fluoride has always existed in water. To suddenly proclaim it to be medicine is obviously ridiculous.
D. There is no credible, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of allergy to fluoride.
E. There is no credible, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride causes "mouth ulcers".
F. Fluorosis is not "rampant" in fluoridated areas. The US is 74.7% fluoridated. Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the US as to be nearly non-existent. The amount of dental fluorosis is nearly equal between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, with the only such fluorosis attributable to optimally fluoridated water being barely detectable mild to very mild.
11. Carrie: "Fluoridation does nothing to remedy the consequences of poor oral habits and poor diet, and even if it worked, is totally redundant when the root causes of poor oral health are addressed and remedied, as in Scotland."
Fluoride makes the teeth more resistant to dental decay. This occurs regardless of poor oral habits and poor diet. This is one of the strongest reasons for fluoridation. It reduces dental decay in spite of poor healthcare habits.
B. As I have clearly explained, while Childsmile is a good program, it is not a substitute for water fluoridation. It is astronomically more expensive than fluoridation, and benefits only a small percentage of those who benefit from fluoridation.
12. Carrie: "Childsmile is not only far more effective than fluoridation as a standalone intervention, but a fraction of the cost. You conveniently forget the enormous cost of consultations, building and maintaining the dosing plants, buying and transporting tons of the industrial waste poison, the medical costs for the adverse health effects, and the lifetime cost to families of cosmetic dentistry to repair the damage to teeth from fluoridation etc."
Childsmile is astronomically more expensive than fluoridation. It costs £15 million per year to benefit 120,000 children in Scotland, compared with a cost of £2.1 million for fluoridation which benefits 6 million people of all ages in England.
B. There are no adverse health effects of optimally fluoridated water. Thus there are no "medical costs for the adverse health effects". There is no "damage" to teeth from optimally fluoridated water. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis requires no dental treatment. Thus there are is no " lifetime cost to families of cosmetic dentistry to repair the damage to teeth from fluoridation etc."
to be continued............
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 11 April, 2016
Carrie continued.........
12. Anonymous: "...... fluoridation has not only been a complete failure but is harmful to babies and kidney patients as well as other vulnerable groups, and wholly unethical"
A. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation.
B. There is no credible, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of optimally fluoridated water being "harmful to babies and kidney patients as well as other vulnerable groups".
C. There is nothing unethical about a public health initiative which has provided significant prevention of dental decay in hundreds of millions of people for the past 71 years, with no proven adverse effects.
13. Anonymous: ".......in the heavily fluoridated USA, fluoridation is not working either."
Countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations.
14. Anonymous: "...you have done a great disservice to the pro fluoridation lobby with the nonsense and misinformation you spread through your inane rantings all over the Internet"
There is no "nonsense and misinformation" in the information I provide. Anyone who believes otherwise is free to provide proof of such a claim.
15. Carrie: "I do, however, have faith in the research of the greatest scientific minds and source all my information from the most compelling and conclusive evidence."
Copy/paste nonsense from antifluoridationist websites does not constitute "research of the greatest minds" and does not constitute "the most compelling and conclusive evidence".
16. Carrie: "More importantly, where is the evidence that it's not only safe for everyone to ingest hexafluorosilicic acid, but ethical to medicate community drinking water supplies with this chemical without the consent of all affected individuals?"
A. Hexafluorosilic acid is not ingested.
B. There are no community drinking water supplies medicated as a result of water fluoridation.
C. There is no consent required for local officials to determine the concentration level of an existing mineral in public water supplies under their jurisdiction.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 11 April, 2016
Carrie
As requested, references for my claims:
A. Immediate and complete hydrolysis of HFA:
----Reexamination of Hexafluorosilicate Hydrolysis By F NMR and pH Measurement
William F. Finney, Erin Wilson, Andrew Callender, Michael D. Morris, and Larry W. Beck
Environmental Science and Technology/ Vol 40, No. 8, 2006
------SCHER, Opinion on critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water – 16 May 2011.
B. Arsenic an essential nutrient:
Nutritional requirements for boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic: current knowledge and speculation.
Nielsen FH.
FASEB J. 1991 Sep;5(12):2661-7.
C. Effectiveness of fluoridation:
1) 2015
---The Dental Health of primary school children living in fluoridated, pre-fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New South Wales, Australia
Anthony S Blinkhorn, Roy Byun, George Johnson, Pathik Metha, Meredith Kay, and Peter Lewis
BMC Oral Health 2015, 15:9 doi:10.1186/1472-6831-15-9http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6831/15/9
2) 2000
-----J Public Health Dent. 2000 Summer;60(3):147-53.
The prevalence of dental caries and fluorosis in Japanese communities with up to 1.4 ppm of naturally occurring fluoride.
Tsutsui A, Yagi M, Horowitz AM.
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Fukuoka Dental College, Fukuoka, Japan. tutuia@college.fdcnet.ac.jp
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11109211
3) 2004
Community Dent Health. 2004 Mar;21(1):37-44.
Dental caries and enamel fluorosis among the fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations in the Republic of Ireland in 2002.
Whelton H, Crowley E, O'Mullane D, Donaldson M, Kelleher V, Cronin M.
Oral Health Services Research Centre, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
4) 1995
-----J Public Health Dent. 1995 Spring;55(2):79-84.
Dental fluorosis and caries prevalence in children residing in communities with different levels of fluoride in the water.
Jackson RD, Kelly SA, Katz BP, Hull JR, Stookey GK.
Oral Health Research Institute, Indianapolis, IN 46202-2876, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15074871
5) 2004
----The association between social deprivation and the prevalence and severity of dental caries and fluorosis in populations with and without water fluoridation
Michael G McGrady, Roger P Ellwood, [...], and Iain A Pretty
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3543717/
6) 2012
-----Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2012 Oct;40 Suppl 2:55-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2012.00721.x.
Effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries prevention.
Rugg-Gunn AJ, Do L.
Newcastle University, UK. andrew@rugg-gunn.net
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22998306
7) 2012
----Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.
Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23252588
8). 2012
----Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8.
Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation.
Murray JJ.
Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8500120
9) 1993
-----Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23488212
10). 2012
------Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 11 April, 2016
"Yes Steve, whilst it is true that "The Review concluded that no associations between cancer and water fluoridation were able to be detected", Professor Sheldon also stated in a letter on 3/1/2001 that "The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe."
However, Dr Dean Burk, Head of National Cancer Institute for 34 years, made this statement "In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."--Dean Burk -- Congressional Record 21 July 1976
And in a judicial hearing on 14th January 1982, Dr Burk further stated ""I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don't start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year."
This affidavit from Dr Susheela who has done more research than anyone, detailing the adverse health effects of ingesting fluoride is rather long so I shall provide the link for you to read: http://www.fluorideandfluorosis.com/Affidavit/Affidavit.html
The FDA classifies fluoridated water as an unlicensed medicine, as it is in Europe too, because it fulfills absolutely the definition of a medicine in that it is a substance used to treat or prevent disease. It therefore requires consent.
Fluoride is not a mineral or a nutrient and has no known biochemical function in the body. Fluoridation does not adjust the levels of naturally occurring calcium fluoride, as 'topping up' means adding like to like. All authorities involved in mandating water fluoridation are therefore acting illegally.
Fluorosilicate chemicals do not always fully dissociate in water, and are known to reassociate in the acid PH of the stomach. Also, it is not known what dangerous compounds may be formed when free fluoride ions combine with the many chemicals in tap water. Concerns have been raised about aluminium sulphate and the trihalomethanes from chlorine. Funny how these chemicals are too toxic to dump in our rivers and lakes but no longer a pollutant when dumped into our drinking water. It's a mystery to me but then maybe I'm just too dumb to understand the 'science'."
Carrie
By , at 12 April, 2016
"Anonymous" continued........
5. "Fluoride is not a mineral or a nutrient and has no known biochemical function in the body. Fluoridation does not adjust the levels of naturally occurring calcium fluoride, as 'topping up' means adding like to like. All authorities involved in mandating water fluoridation are therefore acting illegally."
Facts:
Fluoride is an essential nutrient
"This report focuses on five nutrients—calcium, phosphorus, magnesium, vitamin D, and fluoride, all of which play a key role in the development and maintenance of bone and other calcified tissues."
----Institute of Medicine (US) Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1997. Preface.
"Fluoride is regarded as an essential nutrient now well known to be effective in the maintenance of a tooth enamel that is more resistant to decay."
----Fluoride as a Nutrient
American Academy of Pediatrics
Committee on Nutrition
Pediatrics, vol. 49, No 3, March 1972
"Fluoride is a normal constituent of the human body, involved in the mineralisation of both teeth and bones (Fairley et al 1983, Varughese & Moreno 1981). The fluoride concentration in bones and teeth is about 10,000 times that in body fluids and soft tissues (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, 1995). Nearly 99% of the body's fluoride is bound strongly to calcified tissues. Fluoride in bone appears to exist in both rapidly- and slowly-exchangeable pools. Because of its role in the prevention of dental caries, fluoride has been classified as essential to human health (Bergmann & Bergmann 1991, FNB:IOM 1997)8"
-----Australian Government
National Health and Medical Research Council
https://www.nrv.gov.au/nutrients/fluoride
B. Calcium fluoride does not exist in groundwater. As this water 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. The fluoride ions added through fluoridation are identical to these "naturally occurring ones". A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound from which it is released.
C. Obviously, there is nothing illegal about fluoridation.
to be continued............
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 12 April, 2016
"Anonymous" continued.............
6. 'Fluorosilicate chemicals do not always fully dissociate in water, and are known to reassociate in the acid PH of the stomach. Also, it is not known what dangerous compounds may be formed when free fluoride ions combine with the many chemicals in tap water. Concerns have been raised about aluminium sulphate and the trihalomethanes from chlorine.
A. Peer-reviewed science has clearly demonstrated the immediate and complete hydrolysis of HFA at the neutral pH of drinking water.
"The dissociation of hexafluorosilicate has been reinvestigated due to recent suggestions that fluorosilicate intermediates may be present in appreciable concentrations in drinking water. 19F NMR spectroscopy has been used to search for intermediates in the hydrolysis of hexafluorosilicate. No intermediates were observable at 10-5 M concentrations under excess fluoride forcing conditions over the pH range of 3.5−5."
----Reexamination of Hexafluorosilicate Hydrolysis By F NMR and pH Measurement
William F. Finney, Erin Wilson, Andrew Callender, Michael D. Morris, and Larry W. Beck
Environmental Science and Technology/ Vol 40, No. 8, 2006
'"Fluoridation of drinking water is recommended in some EU Member States, and hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation. These compounds are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to the fluoride ion. No residual fluorosilicate intermediates have been reported. Thus, the main substance of relevance (F-)."
---SCHER, Opinion on critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water – 16 May 2011.
B. There are too few fluoride ions at the optimal level for there to be any significant reformation of HF in the gut......as evidenced by the lack of any valid, peer-reviewed scientific of any adverse effect from reformation of optimal level,fluoride. As humans have been ingesting fluoride in water since the beginning of time, if there were any such adverse effects there would have been massive epidemics of destruction of the epithelial lining if the human gut all throughout history. There have not been.
C. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects from any such purported combination of optimal level -fluoride ions with other chemicals in the water. This includes "aluminium sulphate and the trihalomethanes from chlorine."
7. Anonymous: Funny how these chemicals are too toxic to dump in our rivers and lakes but no longer a pollutant when dumped into our drinking water. It's a mystery to me but then maybe I'm just too dumb to understand the 'science'."
Facts:
A. Please free to produce any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects from "these chemicals".
B. Yes, as evidenced by your comments, that could very well be the case.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 12 April, 2016
You and Ken often tell people that they are too ignorant and unqualified to give any opinion. You're not toxicologists so why do you presume to know better than them?
By Bill, at 12 April, 2016
Bill
The fact that I can point out the fallacies of antifluoridationist arguments doesn't mean I "presume" to know more. It means that I have properly researched, and properly educated myself enough on the issue of water fluoridation to understand what is valid and what is not, being fully prepared to provide evidence of support when requested. When toxicologists venture into the field of oral health, I do indeed know more, as dentists are legally recognized experts in this area. Good example is when Kathleen Thiessen, who some have stated is a toxicologist, made erroneous claims in her study about dental costs involved in treatment for dental fluorosis, thereby way overinflating her cost estimates of fluoridation. As an expert in that field I can state with authority that there is no treatment required for the mild dental fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water, thus, there are no such costs.
In regard to toxicologists, here is the opinion of one of the most highly respected toxicologists in the United States:
"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
By Steve Slott, at 12 April, 2016
"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"
"I do not believe" that's his opinion as you would tell us Steven.
People put up with their white spots but they are not happy about it.
By the way people are now tired of this the figures have dropped right down to to 450.
By Bill, at 12 April, 2016
How astute of you, Bill. A hint that that this is his opinion is my statement:
"Here is the opinion of one of these most highly respected toxicologists in the United States."
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 12 April, 2016
It's how you say it Steven.
By Bill, at 12 April, 2016
Well, you got me, Bill. I'm at a loss as to how more clearly It can be stated that a quote is an opinion than by saying "here is the opinion of......"
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluorifation Society
By Steve Slott, at 12 April, 2016
Because of the value you put on one and not another.
You dismissed Trevor Sheldon as one man's opinion as if it was worthless. No bias there then.
By Bill, at 12 April, 2016
The assessment that Sheldon's opinion is "worthless" is yours, not mine. I simply stated that his opionion is but that of one person.
You raised the issue of toxicologists, wondering why Ken and I "presume to know better than them". I provided you with the opinion of a highly respected toxicologist whose opinion agrees with that of Ken and me. If you don't know what is the opinion of those whom you naively put forth as seeming support for your opinion, then don't attempt that tactic in the first place.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Informati0n Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 12 April, 2016
If we keep this up it will go into the Guiness book of records.
You have more stamina than me Good night Steven.
By Bill, at 12 April, 2016
Yep, it's bedtime over there, and I got a few other things to do here.
By Steve Slott, at 12 April, 2016
From Carrie
"Attempts have been made to classify fluoride as a nutrient for obvious reasons by vested interests, but since there is no requirement by the body for fluoride and a deficiency is impossible, fluoride is NOT a nutrient.
Yes, organic arsenic is a nutrient but is a deadly poison in the fluoridation chemicals that are captured from the pollution scrubbers in industrial chimneys.
You haven't addressed my concerns about why it is illegal to dump the fluoridation chemicals in rivers and lakes because they're too toxic, but not a poison when dumped into our drinking water. Presumably all the poisons miraculously disappear en route to the tap.
Dr Susheela is a leading authority on the toxicity of fluoride in the human body. You obviously haven't read her affidavit or looked at her work. In her 20 years of research, she found extensive damage to the mucosa in the gut from ingesting fluoridated water.
Fluoridation violates the Nuremberg Code, the Geneva Convention, many EU Directives and, above all, is a gross violation of medical ethics. It is not only morally reprehensible but illegal.
There really is nothing more to discuss as we are going round in circles, and I am tired of your insults."
Carrie
By Bill, at 13 April, 2016
Carrie
1. People are certainly free to choose whether to accept your personal opinion that fluoride is not a nutrient, or the opinions of the United States Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the National Health and Medical Research Council of the Australian government......that it is.
2. Arsenic (AR) is an element classified as a heavy metal. The EPA MCL for AR is 10 ppb. Organic and inorganic arsenic are compounds containing the element arsenic. Measurement of arsenic in water is a measurement of the total amount of AR present. The maximum total of arsenic in fluoridated water at the tap is is 0.6 ppb, well below the 10 ppb considered by the EPA to be safe.
3. My mistake. It didn't occur to me that anyone would not understand the difference between uncontrolled dumping of any substances into the environment, versus the carefully controlled, proper dilution and use of substances added to public water systems. There are few, if any substances which responsible governments will allowed to be uncontrollably dumped into the environment, certainly including the myriad raw, undiluted water additives.
4. Scrubbers do not capture fluoridation chemicals from the chimneys of anything. Scrubbers are sophisticated equipment which precipitate useful substances from gases, which otherwise would be wastefully unused. It is a mystery why antifluoridationists view such responsible conservation and use of our natural resources to be a negative of some sort.
Any who are interested may find a description of the process of extraction of HFA from naturally occurring phosphorite rock, and a picture of a scrubber:
http://americanfluoridationsociety.org/obtainment-of-hfa/
5. Yes, I read Dr. Susheela's affadavit. Your personal opinion that she is some sort of "authority" is meaningless. Her affadavit is nothing but unsubstantiated, irrelevant claims about fluoride in general. She provides no valid references for her personal opinions stated in her affadavit. She can provide no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence for any such purported "extensive damage to the mucosa and gut from ingesting fluoridated water" because no such evidence exists.
6. Your unsubstantiated personal opinions as to the legality of water fluoridation are obviously unqualified, erroneous, and meaningless.
7. I do not go "round in circles". I provide facts and evidence. Yes, when antifluoridationists have been forced into a corner by facts and evidence they generally exit the discussion in a huff.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 13 April, 2016
How dare you criticize Dr Susheela and as for point 3, you have exposed the fluoridation agenda for what it is, "the solution to pollution is dilution."
By , at 13 April, 2016
Say, I thought you packed up your toys and left in a huff....
The fact that you don't understand the fallacies of the unsubstantiated, irrelevant information provided by this Dr. Susheela, could not be any clearer demonstration of your own confirmation bias and lack of understanding of even basic science.
When you find any raw, undiluted water additives which the government will allow to be uncontrollably dumped into the environment, please enlighten us all.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 13 April, 2016
You are funny Steven no way can I imagine you as a dentist even a retired one.
Still no matter what you say we will win, people will reject fluoridation sooner or later.
Just like smoking is no longer promoted and lead in petrol is banned.
By Bill, at 13 April, 2016
Yeah, you're really picking up steam. The US was 73.4% fluoridated in 2011, 74.6% in 2012, and 74.7% in 2014......
Seems facts and evidence do seem to matter.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
By Steve Slott, at 13 April, 2016
As many Americans bring God into things l too believe that he/she is on our side. You to my mind represent a Nazi outlook imposing your will on a reluctant enlightened population.
We will win as we are right.
By Bill, at 14 April, 2016
So Steve, if I dump a barrel of undiluted hexafluorosilicic acid into a lake, I'd be arrested for polluting the lake with an illegal poison, but if I drip the same volume of the acid slowly into the lake in dilution at 1 part per million, it would pose no danger to either man or beast but is now transformed into an essential nutrient of benefit to health, even though the same volume of acid ends up in the lake.
Bill is right, we will win because we have God and the truth on our side, and in the continuum, it is already decided.
By , at 15 April, 2016
Professor Trevor A. Sheldon
Head of Department
But I believe that there are so many experts against, that common sense would say it is not worth continuing the practice of fluoridation because of the long term risk to our health.
Bill