Steven D Slott is still actively defending his cherished fluoridation on behalf of the AFS

LETTER: Addressing Fluoride Concerns

BY SPECIAL TO THE POST · SEPTEMBER 6, 2016

On behalf of the American Fluoridation Society, I appreciate the willingness of the Daily Post to allow the following response to misconceptions of Cathy Justus expressed in her recent fluoride article.

1. As Ms. Justus notes, fluoride can cause, “detrimental health effects”, as can all substances at improper levels. However, there is no credible scientific evidence that fluoride at the level of 0.7 mg/L, at which water is fluoridated, causes any adverse effects. I will gladly address any evidence believed to contradict this.

2. The 2006 NRC Committee evaluated the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary allowable levels of fluoride in drinking water, 4.0 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L, to protect the public from adverse effects. It reviewed the pertinent fluoride literature, reported what was in it, and made a final recommendation based on what it deemed of importance with fluoride at the level of 2-4 mg/L. The final recommendation listed but 3 concerns with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 mg/L or greater: risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture and skeletal fluorosis. If this Committee had deemed there to be any other concern with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for so stating and recommending accordingly. It did not. (1)

3. The Kruegge diabetes study falsely assumes there to be a difference between “natural fluoride” and that added through fluoridation. There is not. Fluoride is an ion of the element fluorine. There is no difference in the “natural” fluoride ions ingested and those ingested as a result of fluoridation. The fluoridation substances used to add these fluoride ions do not exist after they release these ions. They do not make it to the tap, and are not ingested. Obviously, there can be no difference in diabetes incidence attributable to substances which are not ingested. In addition, questions have been raised as to the actual source and validity of the data Kruegge reports. He has yet to satisfactorily answer those questions. (2)

Justus omitted one key finding… Kruegge found fluorosilic acid (FSA) to be associated with a reduced incidence and prevalence of diabetes. FSA is the substance most often used in fluoridation. Therefore, if one accords credence to Kruegge’s findings, in spite of the obvious problems, it must be accepted that fluoridation is protective against diabetes, not causative. (3)

4. The Cochrane Review considered over 4,500 fluoride studies, then culled that to but 155 which fit within its narrow parameters of studies it would review. The studies, including those since 1975, were not excluded for “insufficient quality”. They were excluded because they did not provide the before and after data that fit within Cochrane’s parameters.

Out of the 19 studies on effectiveness Cochrane chose to review, 30%, or 6, of those studies were after 1975.

Cochrane states:

“Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth. These results are based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.”

Additionally, Cochrane recognized the infeasibility of conducting “gold standard” randomized controlled trials on large population based public health initiatives such as fluoridation, and the fact that they would never be performed

5. There is no credible scientific evidence that dental fluorosis is an “outward sign of internal poisoning”. Dental fluorosis is simply an effect of the teeth, with only the severest level considered to be an adverse effect. The 2006 NRC Committee concluded that severe dental fluorosis does not occur in areas with a fluoride level of 2.0 mg/L or less. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/L — one third this level.

The only dental fluorosis which may be attributable to fluoride at 0.7 mg/L is the barely detectable mild to very mild.

From the 2015 report of the US Public Health Service:

“In national surveys cited by the initial Federal Register notice, however, more than 90% of dental fluorosis in the United States is the very mild or mild form, most often appearing as barely visible lacy white markings or spots on the enamel.” (5)

Steven D. Slott
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society


Comment

"Oh dear just as we were thinking Dr Slott had seen the light at last, that Scotland and Denmark have the intelligent solutions to tooth decay, back he comes to defend the mass poisoning of public water supplies....

1. "However, there is no credible scientific evidence that fluoride at the level of 0.7 mg/L, at which water is fluoridated, causes any adverse effects."

Oh yes there is Steve, rather a lot in fact, but you choose to ignore it in defence of your beloved sacred cow of fluoridation.

2. "The Kruegge diabetes study falsely assumes there to be a difference between “natural fluoride” and that added through fluoridation. There is not."

You have absolutely no understanding of science, Steve if you believe that fluorosilicate chemicals are the same as naturally occurring calcium fluoride.

3. "The fluoridation substances used to add these fluoride ions do not exist after they release these ions. They do not make it to the tap, and are not ingested."

Presumably these toxic elements miraculously disappear into the back o' beyond then.  What an ingenious way of getting rid of industrial waste; dump it in the public water supply and none of the poison makes it to the tap.  No wonder the authorities and chemical companies who profit handsomely from pushing fluoridation are so intent on forcing it on unwilling communities and denying the mounting scientific evidence of harm.

"There is no credible scientific evidence that dental fluorosis is an “outward sign of internal poisoning”."

Please note Steve......"Dental fluorosis is a manifestation of systemic toxicity". (Hansard 2014/99: WA 158)

But is anyone monitoring any individuals in fluoridated communities for systemic toxicity and the resulting long term effects on health?  No they are not, Steve, there is no health monitoring whatsoever and since the fluoridation chemicals have never undergone any toxicological tests proving them safe for human consumption, this disgusting practice continues with ruthless disregard for medical ethics.  If the chemicals are untested, and there is no individual health monitoring at cellular level or assessment of total fluoride intake from all sources, then all claims that fluoridation is safe are pure fabrication and null and void."

Carol S