Ten Scary Facts about Fluoridation Promotion in Australia – By Paul Connett, PhD

167 Comments

Ten Scary Facts about Fluoridation Promotion in Australia
By Paul Connett, PhD

With the Murdoch press campaigning to force water fluoridation on every town in Australia with a population over 1000 it is time to look more closely at those who promote this practice in Australia. Typically these promoters pour scorn and abuse on any citizen or scientist who has the temerity to question water fluoridation, even though the very same practice has been rejected by most industrialized countries, including 97% of Europe.

Typically opponents of fluoridation are accused of scaremongering. Well, let’s look at 10 facts that should make reasonable people “scared” of people that promote this practice.

Here are ten scary facts about proponents:

1) Proponents ignore the fact that there is no evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient. In fact, there is not one single biochemical mechanism in the human body that needs fluoride to function properly. So why on earth are we being asked (or rather forced) to swallow it?

2) Proponents further ignore nature’s verdict on fluoride as far as the baby is concerned. The level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is remarkable low – 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p. 40). This means that in a fluoridated community with fluoride levels in the water at levels between 0.6 and 1.2 ppm, a bottle-fed baby is getting between 150 and 300 times the level of fluoride that nature intended. That is a reckless thing to do.

3) Proponents are downplaying the knowledge that large numbers of children in fluoridated communities are being over-exposed to fluoride (from all sources) as evidenced by the high prevalence of dental fluorosis (a discoloration and mottling of the tooth enamel) (CDC, 2010).

4) Promoters have assumed that no other developing tissue in the baby’s body is negatively impacted while fluoride is damaging the growing tooth cells causing this condition (dental fluorosis).

5) Promoters of fluoridation can point to very few studies conducted in Australia or other fluoridated countries (from 1950 to the present) that have investigated the health of citizens in fluoridated communities. Like the US, where once the Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation in 1950 (with little science on the table), they switched from an investigative to promotional mode and have use PR not science to defend this practice.

6) No health agency in Australia has followed up the recommendation made in 1991 by the Australian government research body the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) that studies be conducted to investigate the many anecdotal reports from individuals who claim to be highly sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity even at the levels used in water fluoridation; nor the recommendation by the same body that fluoride bone levels should be carefully monitored.

7) While repeatedly claiming that fluoridation is “safe and effective” promoters are not willing to defend their position in open public debate when challenged to do so by qualified scientists who have studied the issue and reached opposite conclusions.

8) One of the reasons promoters give for refusing to debate leading opponents is not their lack of knowledge but their lack of debating skills, however even when three scientists outlined a full and documented case against fluoridation in writing (see The Case Against Fluoride, by Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck, MD, PhD and Spedding Micklem, D Phil, Chelsea Green, 2010) they still have been unable to refute the arguments in this text. However, that does not stop them labeling their opponents as being anti-science or practicing “junk science.”

9) When challenged fluoridation promoters have provided no substantial body of scientific research that could justify their confidently ignoring the large body of evidence in both animal and human studies that fluoride is neurotoxic (click here). This brings us to the scariest fact of all.

10) Australian health agencies – and other promoters of fluoridation – are prepared to put a known neurotoxic substance into the drinking water of millions of their citizens, when the last children that need their IQ lowered are the children from low-income families. These are the very same children being targeted for water fluoridation. This despite the fact that there are known ways of fighting tooth decay which are successfully being practiced in the vast majority of countries worldwide (e.g. the Childsmile program in Scotland) which do not force their citizens to swallow this toxic substance.

Advertisements

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

167 thoughts on “Ten Scary Facts about Fluoridation Promotion in Australia – By Paul Connett, PhD

  1. Steve Slott should not despair. He has proved two things beyond all reasonable doubt:

    Firstly, that he is prepared to promote water fluoridation (not dental health) whatever the possible cost to public health, and will happily ignore or deride all evidence of harm or ineffectiveness of this policy.

    Secondly, he will accept uncritically all evidence which appears to support his position, and will not under any circumstances subject that evidence to the same standards of proof he demands of the evidence which clearly shows that fluoridation is both harmful and ineffective.

    I don’t know if he is paid accordingly, but he is clearly acting like a defence attorney for water fluoridation, and is certainly not the learned judge he pretends to be, with a serious interest in knowing the truth and making an honest finding based on facts. There is a world of difference.

    • This world is run by psychopaths Peter, I know this is no pleasant thing to know.
      I think it’s not only about the money, it’s also about control too!

      It’s safe & effective, what utter nonsense & BS! Those darn crims! They deserve to be put behind bars!!

      Look everyone, see how safe & effective fluoride really is!

      –> Fluoride: Calcifier of the Soul!

      –> http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/fluoride-calcifier-soul

      • You see, this must be why, or part of the reason, that the lunatics, are hell bent over, to ensure that almost everyone gets descent exposure, to this accumulating neurotoxin!

        Once a critical mass is reached, they will eventually loose their power & control!

        Guess who owns the Murdoch press?
        It’s one of the psychopaths Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Daily Telegraph!

        This proves, how far these traitors will go, in order to further their agenda!

        ◆Propaganda Fail! Another Murdoch Poll Backfires◆

        Rupert Murdoch owned Daily Telegraph continues to push their Pro-Vaccine, Pro-GMO & Pro-Fluoride agenda and is failing miserably!!

        http://realnewsaustralia.com/2015/09/06/propaganda-fail-another-murdoch-poll-backfires/

  2. Steve

    If 0.6 of ONE TOOTH SURFACE is equal to an 18% difference, than 7% more would still be no more than one tooth SURFACE.

    • So what?

      1. By age 17 the average difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated is about 1.6 surfaces.

      2. The delayed eruption theory has no merit.

      A). “Conclusion: Exposure to fluoride in drinking water did not delay the eruption of permanent teeth. The observed difference in dental caries experience among children exposed to different fluoride levels could not be explained by the timing of eruption of permanent teeth.”

      ——-J Public Health Dent. 2014 Aug;74(3):241-7. doi: 10.1111/jphd.12053. Epub 2014 Mar 17.
      Does fluoride in drinking water delay tooth eruption?
      Jolaoso IA1, Kumar J, Moss ME.
      © 2014 American Association of Public Health Dentistry.

      B). “The present study indicates that the impact of any of the four fluoride exposure parameters on permanent tooth emergence was relatively minimal. Caries experience in the primary molars had a more pronounced impact on the timing of emergence of the successors than exposure to any of the four fluoride parameters.”

      ——Leroy R, et al. (2003). The effect of fluorides and caries in primary teeth on permanent tooth emergence. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 31(6):463-70.

      C). “Nearly 57000 children (aged from 4 years, 4 months to 15 years, 9 months) of Karl-Marx-Stadt (1.0 ppm F) and Plauen (0.2 ppm F) were examined to compare the mean eruption times of permanent teeth before and after 12 years of water fluoridation. Whereas a direct influence of internally administered fluorides is to be excluded, an indirect action on the premolars may be assumed with certainty. The delayed eruption of all premolars in children of the area with optimally fluoridated water was the only systematic effect which could be detected. This normalization is explained by a prolonged stay of the deciduous teeth in the dental arch which is due to a lesser caries prevalence.”

      ——Kunzel VW. (1976). [Cross-sectional comparison of the median eruption time for permanent teeth in children from fluoride poor and optimally fluoridated areas] Stomatol DDR. 5:310-21. (See abstract)

      D). “However, while there is well established evidence of differences in dental development at similar ages across cultural and ethnicity groups, there is not evidence that water fluoridation is a cause of differential tooth eruption. Information recently published by the Fluoride Action Network based on Australian data, suggesting a substantial difference in tooth eruption between fluoridated and non fluoridated areas of Australia, have been confirmed as being based on erroneous data.”

      “The Australian research centre (ARCPOH) responsible for these data have confirmed the data error and reported that when the error is corrected there is little variation in the number of permanent teeth present at each age between children in Queensland and all of Australia.”

      —–National Fluoridation Information Service (2011): Does Delayed Tooth Eruption Negate The Effect of Water Fluoridation? National Fluoridation Information Service Advisory June 2011, Wellington, New Zealand.

      3. Untreated dental decay in but surface of one tooth can cause the loss of the entire dentition along with the extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection. Untreated dental decay in but one surface of one tooth can, and has, been directly responsible for death.

      4. Optimal level fluoride is colorless, tasteless, odorless, and causes no adverse effects.

      5. The cost savings of fluoridation have been demonstrated by peer-reviewed science to be $15- $50, or more, per $1 spent on fluoridation.

      6. Given all of this, there is no valid reason not to fluoridate.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Steve,

        It’s a waste of oxygen replying to your comments above when an overall average difference (fluoridated children versus non-fluoridated children across 84 communities who represented more than 43 million children) was an insignificant 0.6 OF ONE TOOTH SURFACE.

        • Ailsa

          Yes, antifluoridationists typically view facts and evidence as being a waste. That is precisely why they remain so uninformed on this issue.

          Obviously, my previous comment was beyond your ability to comprehend, or reply. My suggestion would be for you to get someone to explain it to you.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Believe it or not, Steve, I used to believe in water fluoridation.

            Your disregard for iodine-deficient humans who can have thyroid effects from chronically consuming as little as one-tenth to three-tenths of one litre of water containing 1 mg/L/F per kg of body weight shows how uncaring you really are.

            • Ailsa

              Just more unsubstantiated personal opinion from you. When will you begin to understand that science and healthcare are evidence-based, not your personal opinion based?

              The fact is that you are seeking to deprive entire populations of the benefits of a public health initiative which can, and does, significantly prevent a disorder which causes lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection…….and based on what? Nothing but your personal speculation, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation. There could be no clearer evidence of a lack of caring than that.

              Entire dentitions are lost as a result of but one untreated cavity in one tooth. Extreme pain and disfigurement are constantly resultant of but one untreated cavity in one tooth. Children have tragically died as a direct result of but one untreated cavity in one tooth. These facts are real, not the unsubtantiated speculative nonsense you continue to put forth.

              As long as antifluoridationists continue dessiminate the type of misinformation as is all over this page, I will continue to expose it as being such. I have provided treatment, and advocated, for the underserved population for the overwhelming majority of my 33 year career. I have frequently battled those such as you who are so out of touch with reality that they have absolutely no clue as to what are the problems of the real world, and no understanding of the issue they oppose.

              When you can provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your litany of claims in regard to optimal level fluoride, then present it, properly cited. Until then you are posting nothing but your own personal opinions…..which are unqualified, and meaningless.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

              • STEVE,

                I’ve already presented the exact wording and the source from which I make my claim that the chronic consumption of as little as one-tenth to three-tenths of one litre of optimally fluoridated water (1 mg/L/F) can cause effects to thyroid function in iodine-deficient humans.

                You even disputed that (the wording and the source) even though the wording and the source came straight from the original document released 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences.

                • Ailsa

                  1. I did not dispute the wording and the source. I simply exposed your attempt to misuse that report by plucking out-of-context information from it. The 2006 NRC report dos not support your position. As I have repeatedly explained to you…….. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects.  The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm.  The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater.  Nothing else.  Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly.  It did not. 

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

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

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

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

                  Steven D. Slott, DDS

                  • Steve

                    I stand by what I wrote about the NRC 2006 (aka NAS 2006) noting words to the effect that 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg/F when chronically ingested can have ‘effects on thyroid’.

                    (These effects are not beneficial.)

              • Steve

                ‘Extreme disfigurement’ can also be cause by optimally fluoridated water.

                • Ailsa

                  There is no “extreme disfigurement” in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water. You do not get to make up your own facts.

                  Steven D. Slott, DDS

                  • The poorly-nourished are more at risk from severe disfigurement from fluoride intake during the formative years of their teeth. The USA, to its shame, has many poorly-nourished children.

              • Steve

                Many in the profession you followed give the ridiculous advice to brush (with F toothpaste), rinse but don’t swallow.

                There will, in time, be many more-than-otherwise cases of moderate to severe dental fluorosis as a result.

                • 1. I have not “followed” any profession.

                  2. I’m sure the American Dental Association, and the US Centers for Disease Control, will be devastated to learn that online commenter, “Ailsa” has personally determined their recommendations to be “ridiculous”.

                  Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • STEVE WROTE: “4. Optimal level fluoride is colorless, tasteless, odorless, and causes no adverse effects.”

        RESPONSE: Colourless and odourless are two reasons why fluoride can be so dangerous. That’s why a person died years ago when one water supply overdosed on fluoride when even the local doctor didn’t realise why the locals were ill – and at risk of dehydrating from and excess of fluoride in their water supply – and told locals to drink plenty of water.

        As for it (fluoridation) “causes no adverse effects.”

        That’s an outright lie.

        • Ailsa

          Your anecdote about why you deem someone died, is meaningless without properly documented proof.

          Optimal level fluoride causes no adverse effects. Your opinion that this is “an outright lie” is meaningless in the absence of any proof that it is a lie…….which you cannot produce because it does not exist. Because you want there to be adverse effects from optimal level fluoride does not qualify as proof of anything.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Steve,

            The lie is your denial that optimally fluoridated water has no adverse effects.

            This was proven in Victoria, Australia, by a respiratory specialist in a clinical setting via placebo testing.

            • Ailsa

              It is not a “denial” of anything. It is a fact. There are no adverse effects of optimal level fluoride. What you claim somebody or other has “proven” is as meaningless as are the rest of your comments, and is typical of the “science” which antifluoridationists claim supports their position. When their claims are challenged as I did with your claim that I was lying, they are inevitably found to be based on nothing but anecdotal junk, irrelevant literature, out-of-context quotes, misrepresented science, and/or blatant information.

              You cannot simply make up your own facts as you want them to be, Ailsa.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

              • Steve,

                The fact is, Elaine Valentine of Geelong, Victoria, was placebo tested (using distilled water and fluoride equivalent to the ‘optimal’ recommended concentration), the consumption of which (only one glass) caused Elaine’s lung function to drop to only 25%.

                I have evidence of this direct from Elaine’s health practitioner following Elaine giving consent for the information to be shared with me.

                The Victorian Health department advised no more testing in case it resulted in death.

                • Ailsa

                  Your anecdote as to what you personally claim happened to somebody or other……is obviously irrelevant and meaningless.

                  Steven D. Slott, DDS

                  • Steve

                    Pity the patients who have been subjected to your bias while ‘at your mercy’ in your dental chair.

                  • That which happens to Elaine when exposed to even a minute amount of fluoride is obviously irrelevant to folk such as yourself who seem to have no empathy whatsoever for those who have even severe adverse effects – such as does Elaine from fluoride exposure.

                    Does your home medicine cabinet house psych drugs prescribed especially for the likely head of the household?

          • As you KNOW but sidestepped the fact: I referred to overdosing.

  3. STEVE WROTE, “… countless peer-reviewed studies clearly demonstrate its (water fluoridation’s) effectiveness in preventing dental decay in entire populations. …”

    RESPONSE: The largest oral health study in the USA – of more than 37,000/38,000 children who represented a population of more than 43 million – found an overall average difference (fluoridated vs non-fluoridated) of 0.6 of ONE TOOTH SURFACE.

    Brunelle & Carlos expressed that 0.6 of one tooth SURFACE difference as 18%.

    • Here is precisely what Brunelle and Carlos stated:

      “The decline in dental caries in U.S. schoolchildren, first observed nationwide in 1979-1980, was confirmed further by a second national epidemiological survey completed in 1987. Mean DMFS scores in persons aged 5-17 years had decreased about 36% during the interval, and, in 1987, approximately 50% of children were caries-free in the permanent dentition. Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS scores about 18% lower than those who had never lived in fluoridated communities. When some of the “background” effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.”

      —–Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation.
      Brunelle JA1, Carlos JP.
      J Dent Res. 1990 Feb;69 Spec No:723-7; discussion 820-3.

      This study is routinely read superficially by antifluoridationists.

      The paper can be quoted as averages to minimize the effect because the 0.6 surface is the effect averaged over both age and geography. 5 year olds have only 1 or two permanent teeth and there is essentially no difference between cavity rates at that early age yet they are counted in calculating the “average”

      By age 17 the difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated is about 1.6 surfaces and the benefit curve is sharply accelerating with a benefit just under 3 times higher than the 0.6 so commonly quoted.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Steve,

        I was writing about ‘overall’ average of 0.6 of one tooth SURFACE – not 17 year olds – as you know.

        If delayed tooth eruption had been taken into account, the difference would have been in favour of no fluoridation.

      • Steve

        An overall average difference of 0.6 of one tooth SURFACE – out of mouths full of tooth surfaces – is not something to crow about.

        Especially when the children tested represented more than 43 MILLION children.

  4. RE STEVE SLOTT’S DENIALS relating to everything to do with water fluoridation being ineffective and potentially unsafe.

    They are akin to those of two, then prominent, Australian federal politicians.

    Both were repeatedly denying the damning-for-their-party results – on TV on the election night – when there was a huge swing against the then prime minister John Howard’s government.

    Regardless of the results that every TV viewer could see, both of these scoundrels kept denying the figures that were clearly displayed for every Australian to see.

  5. Judging by Professor Kaye Roberts-Thomson’s biography below [A] she is eminently suitable for conducting national oral health surveys.

    One of Professor Roberts-Thomson’s power point presentations contained the following figures [B] (excluding the fluoridated percentages of Australian states and territories) which show low-fluoridated Queensland’s holds its own when compared to heavily-fluoridated Australian states and territories.

    [A]

    BIOGRAPHY:

    Assoc. Prof Kaye Roberts-Thomson is the Director of the Dental Education and Practice Unit at the University of Adelaide, Deputy Director of the Australian Research Centre for Population Oral Health and coordinates the Clearing House on Oral Health Promotion. Her research relates to epidemiology and public health interventions, which has aided understanding of the risk factors and effective health promotion and prevention of oral diseases in various population groups including among Indigenous Australians. She has had continuous NH&MRC funding since 2001 (including seven project grants and a capacity building grant). She is the co-author/editor of five books, three book chapters, over 30 refereed scientific papers. She has been an invited speaker at international meetings including International Women in Dentistry Conference and at national meetings including the Public Health Association of Australia Conference. She has trained examiners for the national oral health surveys of Australia, Vietnam, East Timor, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand.

    [B]

    TOOTH DECAY EXPERIENCES IN ALL AUSTRALIAN STATES AND TERRITORIES 2004-06 (note the % of fluoridation for each state/territory)

    1) 13.1 teeth – QUEENSLAND – LESS THAN 5% FLUORIDATED
    2) 13.4 teeth – TASMANIA 83% FLUORIDDATED (previously 91% fluoridated and the first state in Australia to introduce artificial water fluoridation)
    3) 13.1 teeth – Western Australia – 92% fluoridated
    4) 12.8 teeth – New South Wales 92% fluoridated
    6) 11.0 teeth – Australian Capital Territory 100% fluoridated
    6) 12.7 teeth – South Australia 90% fluoridated
    7) 10.7 teeth – Northern Territory 70% fluoridated
    8) 12.8 teeth – Victoria 90% fluoridated

    • And Steve Slott still asserts that these figures mean nothing without “expert” analysis (which he evidently can’t provide), and that “optimal” water fluoridation prevents dental decay! Truth is the very last thing he is interested in.

      • Peter

        You seem inexplicably oblivious to the fact that my comments are still clearly visible. The falsity of your claim about what you deem I assert about “these figures”, is easily verified by simply reading my comments.

        In regard to “optimal fluoridation”, I have no idea as to what you even mean by that, much less having made any comment about what it will, or will not do.

        If this is your garbled reference to optimally fluoridated water, countless peer-reviewed studies clearly demonstrate its effectiveness in preventing dental decay in entire populations. I will gladly cite as many of such studies as you would reasonably care to read.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

  6. Steve, in his latest post refers to:

    “the lack of “high quality” studies, those studies being RCTs, ……… such studies are not possible for a large population-based public health initiative such as water fluoridation, and will never be done for fluoridation”, but “…high quality observational studies, of which there are volumes in regard to fluoridation, are the next best thing to RCTs, and are entirely acceptable within respected science and healthcare, as being valid sources of evidence”.

    Yet he flatly rejects the findings of one such study, the ARCPOH study cited below, demanding a vast range of additional information which he acknowledges is only found in RCTs.

    Why does he reject the findings of this study, which in any other circumstances would be “entirely acceptable within respected science and healthcare”? Simply because the results don’t match his religious beliefs on the matter.

    It’s a bit naive providing the rope for the hangman, Steve.

    • Peter

      If you are referring to the Australian survey, you need to learn how to read. No where in my comments have I rejected the findings of that survey. What I have rejected are the misrepresentations of the data from this survey by you and Ailsa. Your erroneous personal interpretations of this data have nothing to do with the validity of the survey. They are simply a clear demonstration of the total lack of understanding the two of you have for scientific study, and your confusing your personal opinions as being conclusions of the survey.

      The information I requested was in response to Ailsa’s request to me to explain the data of the survey to her. There is no way to adequately answer her question without at least some of that information.

      There is no place in my comments that I acknowledged such information “is only found in RCTs”.

      Wow! You must really be living in a delusional world. Your false claims about what you deem I have stated are as grievous as are Ailsa’s misrepresentation of the survey data.

      And you wonder why you get no respect?

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • The simple fact, Steve, is that after 50 years of fluoridation in Australia, those living in fluoridated states have just as much dental decay as those who grew up in largely-unfluoridated Queensland. The facts are there in black and white.

        Water fluoridation has been a total and abysmal failure in its sole proclaimed objective of reducing dental decay where it has been implemented. Your personal interpretation or non-interpretation of the evidence is irrelevant.

        If you have not rejected the findings of that survey, you can clear the air by formally acknowledging on this forum that you accept them, and their inescapable implications.

        • Peter

          There is nothing “simple” about dental decay. What would have been the incidence of decay had there been no fluoridation? You have no idea. Your personal opinion that fluoridation has been “an abysmal failure” is therefore meaningless and irrelevant.

          Yet once again, i have not rejected any data from the survey. I have rejected your and Ailsa’s personal interpretations of it. You still seem not to understand the difference between the data obtained in the survey, and your personal interpretation of that data. What you and Ailsa deem the data to show, is obviously, meaningless and irrelevant. You have no qualifications to render such an assessment.

          The sooner you begin to properly educate yourself on this issue, and begin to understand that you cannot just twist facts to suit your bias, the sooner you will be able to intelligently discuss fluoridation. Until then, you can’t.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

  7. Steve

    See below for the average number of TEETH with caries/decay experience in all Australian states and territories (sourced from pro-fluoridation Kaye Roberts-Thomson’s power point presentation headed, “State and territory findings from the 2004-06 Australian National Survey of Adult Oral health”, February 25-25, 2008. Adelaide, SA”.

    The survey was conducted when all states and territories (except Queensland) were heavily fluoridated: i.e.

    1) 13.1 teeth – Queensland – <5% fluoridated
    2) 13.4 teeth – Tasmania 83% fluoridated (previously 91% fluoridated and the first state in Australia to introduce artificial water fluoridation)
    3) 13.1 teeth – Western Australia – 92% fluoridated
    4) 12.8 teeth – New South Wales 92% fluoridated
    6) 11.0 teeth – Australian Capital Territory 100% fluoridated
    6) 12.7 teeth – South Australia 90% fluoridated
    7) 10.7 teeth – Northern Territory 70% fluoridated
    8) 12.8 teeth – Victoria 90% fluoridated

    • Ailsa

      So what? You can’t draw any conclusions about fluoridation based on a snapshot of data which controls for no variables. If you have a peer-reviewed study using this data, adequately controlling for variables, then present it, properly cited from its original source.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  8. If a tsunami of evidence (proving fluoridation’s potential for harm and lack of effectiveness) were rolling towards some fluoride mongers, they would rush towards it chanting, ‘Fluoride is safe and effective …’

    • Well, thank goodness there is no empirical evidence suggesting CWF’s potential for harm & lack of effectiveness. BTW, love the phrase “fluoride mongers.”

  9. Steve

    If water fluoridation is so good, please explain why the 2004-06 Australian National survey of Adult Oral Health found that 83% fluoridated Tasmania had 0.3 of one tooth MORE decay than low-fluoridated (<0.5%) Queensland; and why 90%-fluoridated Western Australia had the exact same amount of tooth decay as did <5%-Queensland.

    • Ailsa

      Provide health and dental histories for the citizens of both areas…….genetic information for citizens in both areas……..education levels of citizens in both areas………information on how long citizens had resided in fluoridated or in non-fluoridated areas………who was raised on fluoridated water, who was not……..information about their oral healthcare habits……..information about their diets………information on access to and utilization of dental/medical care………total fluoride exposure of citizens in both areas……… information on those who resided in fluoridated areas but worked and/or schooled in non-fluoridated areas and vice versa………..and socio-economics of both groups……for a start.

      Then, we’ll go from there.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Steve,

        Now I know exactly had obstructionist your comments really are.

        The 2004-6 national oral health study is an officials oral health study for Australia.

        • Ailsa

          It makes no difference what is the source of the data. You asked me to explain the data to you. I told you the information you need to provide for me to do so. That is not a reflection on the validity of the data, it is a reflection on your superficial attempt to simplify the reasons for this data. Those who performed the survey would tell you the same thing.

          The cause and effects of dental decay are myriad. As much as you would like to use such snapshots of data to confirm your bias against fluoridation, it cannot be done. Dental disease is far mote complex than to make conclusions anout one preventive measure based on nothing but a snapshot of data on dental decay incidence.

          Your failure to understand this is precisely why antifluoridationists need to leave this issue to those who have the education, training, experience, and knowledge to make appropriate recommendations. Assuming that you know more than the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare, as do most antifluoridationists assume they do, is ludicrous, and dangerous to the health of the public.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • I didn’t ask you to explain the data, I asked you to

            “please explain why the 2004-06 Australian National survey of Adult Oral Health found that 83% fluoridated Tasmania had 0.3 of one tooth MORE decay than low-fluoridated (<0.5%) Queensland; and why 90%-fluoridated Western Australia had the exact same amount of tooth decay as did <5%-Queensland."

            LOW-FLUORIDATED QUEENSLAND'S DENTAL HEALTH HAD THE EXACT SAME NUMBER OF DENTAL CARIES AS HIGH-FLUORIDATED WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

            • Ailsa

              You continue to make my point. You don’t even understand what you are asking, much less anything else about fluoridation.

              According to you, the data collected in the survey shows that 83% of fluoridated Tasmania……..”. You aked me to explain why the data shows this. I told you the informatiom I need in order to explain this.

              Dental caries is dental decay. You don’t have a number of dental decay. You have an amount.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

              • Steve.

                Please explain why heavily-fluoridated Tasmania has twice “enjoyed” the highest rate of toothessness in Australia – worse than low-fluoridated Queensland.

                While you are at it, please bear in mind that Tasmania was the first Australian state to introduce artificial water fluoridation.

      • Steve,

        Name a single study that suits your argument that you have rejected because it did not control for every one of these factors.

        But of course we know very well that you only demand all this information when the results don’t suit you. You’re transparent.

        I note also the implicit assumption that all this unknown information can only work in your favour (i.e., if the evidence doesn’t fit the belief, it must be defective). It doesn’t occur to you, evidently, that all this extra information, if known, might actually show the fluoridated states in an even more unfavourable light than their abysmal dental health statistics show.

        If you’re really interested in knowing all this extra information, find out from the study’s authors. But I suspect you’re not in the least interested – it’s just a roadblock you’ve thrown up to hide behind.

        • It’s so funny how Steve cites the York Review, but fails to mention how it did not find any high quality studies on water fluoridation [1].

          “Given the certainty with which water fluoridation has been promoted and opposed, and the large number (around 3200) of research papers identified, the reviewers were surprised by the poor quality of the evidence and the uncertainty surrounding the beneficial and adverse effects of fluoridation” [2].

          Steve, of course, knows this. So, naturally, one wonders why he insists so strongly on playing this little game of his. 😉

          [1] http://fluoridealert.org/studies/rct/
          [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2001050/

          • AFA

            Sure, there are a lot of things I failed to mention about the York Review. This does not negate the fact that this Committe found and reported evidence that fluoridation prevents dental decay. Nor does it negate that same finding by the Cochrane Review, the World Health Organization, and countless peer-reviewed studies.

            What I also failed to mention about York is that this Committee criticized the lack of “high quality” studies, those studies being RCTs, while undoubtedly being fully aware that such studies are not possible for a large population-based public health initiative such as water fluoridation, and will never be done for fluoridation. As the Committee was also undoubtedly fully aware, high quality observational studies, of which there are volumes in regard to fluoridation, are the next best thing to RCTs, and are entirely acceptable within respected science and healthcare, as being valid sources of evidence.

            The 2015 Cochrane Review which was an update of the 2000 York Review, did, indeed, recognize these facts about RCTs and water fluoridation, and stated so in its report:

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

            And:

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

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

  10. STEVE,

    You continue to recklessly ignore the fact that the chronic consumption of as little as one-tenth to one-third of one litre of water containing 1 ppm fluoride has the potential to cause thyroid effects in a 10-kg iodine-deficient infant.

    Of course, the 1/10 to 1/3 of one litre of such water would need to increase incrementally as did the weight of the infant.

    • Ailsa

      1. Your personal opinion is not “fact”.

      2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any harm to the thyroid of infants, or anyone else from optimally fluoridated water……as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.

      3. What is “reckless” is the continued efforts of you and other antifluoridationists to deprive entire populations of the benefits of a very valuable public health initiatiative based on nothing but false information, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science, and misinformation.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • STEVE,

        You continue to recklessly ignore the fact that the chronic consumption of as little as one-tenth to one-third of one litre of water containing 1 ppm fluoride has the potential to cause thyroid effects in a 10-kg iodine-deficient infant.

        Of course, the 1/10 to 1/3 of one litre of such water would need to increase incrementally as did the weight of the infant.

  11. Here is the report card for nearly half a century of fluoridation in Australia (National Survey of Adult Oral Health, ARCPOH, Adelaide University, 2004-6):

    New South Wales: 12.8 decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT) average.
    Victoria: 12.8 DMFT.
    South Australia: 12.7 DMFT.
    Western Australia: 13.1 DMFT.
    Tasmania: 13.4 DMFT.
    Australian Capital Territory: 11.0 DMFT.
    Northern Territory: 10.7 DMFT.

    All these states and territories have been heavily fluoridated for up to 50 years.

    And largely unfluoridated Queensland?: 13.1 DMFT.

    (These figures, for all Australians 15 years and older, were presented at a workshop on February 25-26 2008 by Kaye Roberts-Thomson, one of the study’s lead researchers).

    The science of mathematics, unlike the science of fluoridation, is settled. The numbers are there in black and white, and cannot simply be ignored. Water fluoridation has been a total and abysmal failure in achieving its sole proclaimed objective.

    • Peter

      Ahhh, so dental decay incidence is solely dependent upon but one, single factor, water fluoridation?

      Interesting…….

      Seems you are in dire need of a bit of education on the cause and preventive factors involved in dental disease.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Steve, I’ll quote you directly: “Water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm prevents dental decay”.

        Now look at those figures again and repeat those words. Is this what teeth look like when you “prevent” decay – nearly 13 decayed missing of filled teeth average, to be precise? Makes a complete nonsense of your claim. Words have meanings, as I’ve had to tell you before.

        Again, you say: “Ahhh, so dental decay incidence is solely dependent upon but one, single factor, water fluoridation?”

        No, it is your monotonous lecturing on the topic which suggests that is the case, but the above figures prove otherwise.

        Water fluoridation – the single issue you are relentlessly and fanatically promoting – is shown to be totally irrelevant to dental health. You have absolutely no evidence of any “cause and preventive factors” operating in Queensland and nowhere else to explain these figures which so comprehensively demolish your fatuous claims about “optimal” water fluoridation. It’s just more evidence invented on the spot to explain away a truth you simply can’t face.

        I suggest Queenslanders’ dental health being as good as the rest of the nation is due simply to the fact that their dietary and dental health habits – the “cause and preventive factors” – are the same as in the rest of the country, and fluoridation does not enter into the equation. Prove me wrong.

        • Peter

          In regard to this latest round of your unsubstantiated personal opinions:

          1. Peter: “Steve, I’ll quote you directly: ‘Water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm prevents dental decay’ ”

          “Now look at those figures again and repeat those words. Is this what teeth look like when you “prevent” decay – nearly 13 decayed missing of filled teeth average, to be precise? Makes a complete nonsense of your claim. Words have meanings, as I’ve had to tell you before.”

          A. Okay. I looked at the figures you have posted here. Once again…….water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm prevents dental decay. I will gladly cite as many peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrating that basic fact, as you would reasonably care to read. No one with any real knowledge on fluoridation has stated that it prevents all decay.

          (1) From the 2000 York Review:

          “The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant effect of water fluoridation in reducing dental caries as measured by both dmft/DMFT and the proportion of caries-free children. However, the results showed statistically significant evidence of heterogeneity and thus the pooled estimates should be interpreted with caution. The meta-regression carried out to investigate the heterogeneity between studies showed that, for both dmft/DMFT and the proportion of caries-free children, the baseline caries measurement and study duration both accounted for a significant proportion of this heterogeneity. For both these outcome measurements, increased duration of follow up was associated with a greater difference in the change in caries measurement from baseline to final examination in the fluoridated compared with the control group.”

          —–A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation
          Marian McDonagh, Penny Whiting, Matthew Bradley, Janet Cooper, Alex Sutton, Ivor Chestnutt, Kate Misso, Paul Wilson, Elizabeth Treasure, Jos Kleijnen, NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, Dental Public Health Unit, The Dental School, University of Wales, Cardiff
          University of Leicester, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health
          University of York
          Report 18

          (2) From the 2015 Cochrane Review:

          “A total of 155 studies met the inclusion criteria; 107 studies provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis.
          The results from the caries severity data indicate that the initiation of water fluoridation results in reductions in dmft of 1.81 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.31; 9 studies at high risk of bias, 44,268 participants) and in DMFT of 1.16 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.61; 10 studies at high risk of bias, 78,764 participants). This translates to a 35% reduction in dmft and a 26% reduction in DMFT compared to the median control group mean values. There were also increases in the percentage of caries free children of 15%(95% CI 11% to 19%; 10 studies, 39,966 participants) in deciduous dentition and 14% (95% CI 5% to 23%; 8 studies, 53,538 participants) in permanent dentition. The majority of studies (71%) were conducted prior to 1975 and the widespread introduction of the use of fluoride toothpaste.”

          ——Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries (Review)
          Copyright © 2015 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

          (3). From the World Health Organization:

          “Water fluoridation in low fluoride-containing water supplies helps to maintain optimal dental tissue development and dental enamel resistance against caries attack during the entire life span. Fluoride in drinking water acts mainly through its retention in dental plaque and saliva. Frequent consumption of drinking water and products made with fluoridated water maintain intra-oral fluoride levels. People of all ages, including the elderly, benefit from community water fluoridation. For example, the prevalence of caries on root surfaces of teeth is inversely related to fluoride levels in the drinking water: in other words, within the non-toxic range for fluoride, the higher the level of fluoride in water, the lower the level of dental decay. This finding is important because with increasing tooth retention and an aging population, the prevalence of dental root caries would be expected to be higher in the absence of fluoridation.”

          ——-http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/oralhealth/en/index2.html

          Please feel free to contact these groups and inform them of your personal opinion that optimally fluoridated water does not prevent dental decay.

          B. Yes, words have meaning. This is precisely why I choose mine carefully. You should consider doing the same.

          2. Peter: “Again, you say: ‘Ahhh, so dental decay incidence is solely dependent upon but one, single factor, water fluoridation?’ ”

          “No, it is your monotonous lecturing on the topic which suggests that is the case, but the above figures prove otherwise.”

          Facts:
          A. There is nothing in my comments which suggests that water fluoridation is the sole determinant involved in dental decay.

          B. If you don’t like my “monotonous lecturing on the topic” then cease posting misinformation on fluoridation all over the internet, and I will cease having to constantly correct it with facts and evidence.

          3. Peter: “Water fluoridation – the single issue you are relentlessly and fanatically promoting – is shown to be totally irrelevant to dental health. You have absolutely no evidence of any “cause and preventive factors” operating in Queensland and nowhere else to explain these figures which so comprehensively demolish your fatuous claims about “optimal” water fluoridation. It’s just more evidence invented on the spot to explain away a truth you simply can’t face.”

          Facts:
          A. There is no valid evidence to support your erroneous claim that water fluoridation “is shown to be totally irrelevant to dental health”. Your unsubstantiated personal opinion does not qualify as such.

          B. It is interesting that you claim the facts and documented supporting evidence I provide are “just more evidence invented on the spot”, while you provide nothing but your personal opinions with no valid support for them, whatsoever. It appears that you have things completely reversed here.

          C. The figures you have posted, do nothing to “demolish” anything regard to water fluoridation.
          Again, I will gladly post as many peer-reviewed scientific studies as you would reasonably care to read which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation in preventing dental decay in entire populations. Just let me know.

          3. Peter: “I suggest Queenslanders’ dental health being as good as the rest of the nation is due simply to the fact that their dietary and dental health habits – the “cause and preventive factors” – are the same as in the rest of the country, and fluoridation does not enter into the equation. Prove me wrong.”

          Facts:
          A. What you “suggest” are reasons for the dental conditions of anyone, anywhere…….are irrelevant. You are not qualified to make any such assessments.

          B. It is not my responsibility to disprove your unsubstantiated personal opinions. It is your responsibility to provide valid evidence to support them. You have provided none.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Steve,

            If you “prevented” somebody from jumping off a ten-storey building, would you still need to call an ambulance? I repeat, words have meanings.

            Water fluoridation has been a total and abysmal failure in achieving its sole proclaimed objective of reducing, let alone preventing, dental decay in Australia and elsewhere. It is the number one public health fraud of all time. End of story.

            Why not devote your obvious talents to some genuine, intelligent, individual-based and, above all, effective program to improve dental health? Find out how the Europeans did it. That’s the way modern medicine works in every other area of health in the 21st. century, not the indiscriminate ‘sheep-dip’ approach.

            • Peter

              Jumping off buildings??

              Yes, words have meanings. You need to learn how to make yours make any sense.

              You, like most antifluoridationists somehow assume that fluoridation is the complete centerpiece for all of preventive dentistry. It is an integral piece, but simply one aspect of what we do. You should stop assuming you know dentistry, stop assuming you understand fluoridation……and stop assuming that you know more than the overwhelming majority of respected science and healthcare which has long since known every point antifluoridationists raise, fully considered them, and fully addressed them. Why do you think I have no trouble in refuting every argument you attempt? It is because they have all long since been addressed with facts and evidence.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

            • Peter, plz be aware, that the criminals who are relentlessly pushing this toxic accumulative neurotoxin onto the sheeple, most likely are paid to do, the dirty work that they are doing!
              It’s illegal to be dumped, or diluted into the sea, but it’s ok to be dripped into the public drinking water supply! It’s so very ‘safe & effective!’
              Where is basic common sense?

              It is absolutely correct to be questioning the so-called experts & stop being led like a sheep, to the slaughter! This is something the criminals certainly do not like, people able to think critically for themselves!

              Plz be aware of how these shills & agents operate. This is not just limited to their fluoridation fraud!

              Cointel Shill Protocol – How to Infiltrate Internet Forums!
              This shows just a sample, on how they operate!

              –> http://tinyurl.com/ouuo93p

      • Brush, floss, mouthwash, eat healthy, stay off the sugary crap. etc. It’s not rocket science. That will all be needed to have healthy teeth. But the one thing that is not needed is water fluoridation. https://youtu.be/FRIdsxT3IGc?t=2773 This is why the promoters of the dodgy practice must go to such great lengths to “spin” the info. It’s really sad and pathetic.

  12. STEVE WROTE: “Facts: A. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of an association of optimally fluoridated water with asthma.”

    RESPONSE: One of the material safety data sheets (MSDS) for a fluoridating agent lists asthma as an adverse effect of the product.

    • Ailsa

      MSDS for fluoridating substances have no relevance to consumers of fluoridated water. These substances do not exist at the tap in fluoridated water. They are not ingested.

      Once again…….there is no valid peer reviewed scientific evidence of an association of optimally fluoridated water with asthma…….or any other adverse effect, for that matter.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  13. So, I have waded through the comments. I will add my two cents worth.

    In 2008, I became very ill with asthma. I realised that this coincided with fluoridation of Brisbane water. I did my own research and found enough info to verify my self diagnosis. I have the advantage of not living in a fluoridated town so when I am exposed to this poison, it is immediately obvious.

    I have dental lecture notes, medical lecture notes, chemical analysis of hydrofluorosilicic acid. I looked at 100 ft high lime stacks of the poison in Florida, on GoogleEarth. I found the Chinese supplier whose site states clearly. “This product is used for water fluoridation – and it is poisonous”

    I understand the manufacturing process simplistically is to crush feldspar rock, douse it in sulphuric acid to extract the phosphate. All the residue is collected and dumped on the top of a lime stack to drain. When dry enough, it is scooped into 1000kg rubber bags, and shipped directly to water treatment plants. It is about 19% fluorine, 81% unidentified.

    I have had fluoridated water samples tested and found arsenic, boron, uranium, heavy metals, anything that might have originally been in that batch of rock.

    When it hits the wtp, they test for fluorine percentage. They treat the water with chlorine, then add the hydrofluorosilicic acid, which makes the water really acidic, so then they add lime to neutralise the acid, which turns the water white, so then they add aluminium to make it look drinkable.
    All this adds up to a very unscientific process.

    The houses near the wtp get much higher levels than those farther away. Lucky are those at the end of the line.

    At the time it was being sold for about $10 a kilo. One kilo for each megalitre. If you look up Council water usage per day, they tell you how many megalitres are used per day. eg. A town with 100,000 people using 100 megalitres will be paying upwards of $1000 per day for fluoride, as well as staff, equipment, etc.
    Out of that 100 megalitres, about 200,000 litres will be drunk, and the rest gets flushed down the drain.
    Not efficient, and detrimental to the environment.

    Sydney was fluoridated in 1969. Georges River had a huge oyster industry up until 1970. Hawkesbury River still has an oyster industry. What conclusion would you draw from that? There are several sewage treatment plants upstream.

    FACT. Fluorine gets into the human body and bounces around until it finds some calcium. It then lodges in odd places in the body. Maybe teeth, maybe bones, maybe pineal gland, who knows?
    I know a woman in her forties who grew up on fluoridated water. Her teeth have started to split vertically from edge to root. She has had to have several extracted recently.

    If the advice is to not drink tap water if you don’t want to ingest fluoride, can someone explain how this can happen? Also, how does one shower, or wash clothes?

    • Marg

      1. Marg: “In 2008, I became very ill with asthma. I realised that this coincided with fluoridation of Brisbane water. I did my own research and found enough info to verify my self diagnosis. I have the advantage of not living in a fluoridated town so when I am exposed to this poison, it is immediately obvious.”

      Facts:
      A. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of an association of optimally fluoridated water with asthma.

      B. Living in a non-fluoridated town does not mean that you do not ingest fluoride in your water. Fluoride has existed in water since the beginning of time. In all likelihood you have been ingesting fluoride in your water, fluoridated or not, your entire life, and continue to do so today. Please don’t insist that there is a difference between “naturally occurring fluoride” and that added through fluoridation. There is not. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound from which it is released.

      2. Marg: “I have dental lecture notes, medical lecture notes, chemical analysis of hydrofluorosilicic acid. I looked at 100 ft high lime stacks of the poison in Florida, on GoogleEarth. I found the Chinese supplier whose site states clearly. “This product is used for water fluoridation – and it is poisonous””

      Facts:
      Upon addition to drinking water, due the pH of that water (~7), Hydrofluorosilic acid is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts 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. It is of no concern, whatsoever.

      3. Marg: “I understand the manufacturing process simplistically is to crush feldspar rock, douse it in sulphuric acid to extract the phosphate. All the residue is collected and dumped on the top of a lime stack to drain. When dry enough, it is scooped into 1000kg rubber bags, and shipped directly to water treatment plants. It is about 19% fluorine, 81% unidentified.”

      Facts:
      A. Hydrofluorosilic acid is a co-product of the process which produces the other co-product, phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is utilized in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into foods that we eat. To fear one co-product is to fear the other.

      B. Fluorine is an element. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. There is no fluorine in the compound hydrofluorosilic acid, only its negatively charged atom bound to hydrogen and silica in the compound.

      C. There is nothing “unidentified” within the compound hydrofluorisilic acid.

      4. Marg: “I have had fluoridated water samples tested and found arsenic, boron, uranium, heavy metals, anything that might have originally been in that batch of rock.”

      Facts:
      In the US, presumably similarly in Australia, all water at the tap must meet all of the EPA mandated stringent quality requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. This certainly includes fluoridated water. Standard 60 mandates that no contaminant in water at the tap exist in an amount in excess of 10% of the EPA maximum allowable safety level for that contaminant (MCL). Fluoridated water easily meets all of these requirements. If it didn’t it wouldn’t be allowed. A complete list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the EPA maximum allowable level for each, may be found:

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

      5. Marg: “When it hits the wtp, they test for fluorine percentage. They treat the water with chlorine, then add the hydrofluorosilicic acid, which makes the water really acidic, so then they add lime to neutralise the acid, which turns the water white, so then they add aluminium to make it look drinkable. All this adds up to a very unscientific process.”

      Facts:
      The processes and procedures followed by water treatment professionals in the addition of substances to public water supplies, could not be any more scientific, or precise. It must be. If you believe these professionals in your own community to be incompetent at their job, then you should immediately report this to your local officials along with complete, documented evidence as to why you deem them to be so.

      6. Marg: “At the time it was being sold for about $10 a kilo. One kilo for each megalitre. If you look up Council water usage per day, they tell you how many megalitres are used per day. eg. A town with 100,000 people using 100 megalitres will be paying upwards of $1000 per day for fluoride, as well as staff, equipment, etc.
      Out of that 100 megalitres, about 200,000 litres will be drunk, and the rest gets flushed down the drain.
      Not efficient, and detrimental to the environment.”

      Facts:
      A. The effectiveness and cost savings of fluoridation are well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I will gladly cite as many such studies as you would reasonably care to read.

      B. At less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, there is no other dental preventive measure which even approaches the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation in the reduction of dental decay in entire populations.

      C. In the 70 year history of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects.

      D. The peer-reviewed science has demonstrated there to be no adverse effect on the environment from fluoridated water. I will gladly cite the studies if you so desire.

      Given these facts, it makes no difference how much is “flushed down the drain”. Fluoridation works exactly as it is supposed to work, with no adverse effects.

      7. Marg: “Sydney was fluoridated in 1969. Georges River had a huge oyster industry up until 1970. Hawkesbury River still has an oyster industry. What conclusion would you draw from that? There are several sewage treatment plants upstream.”

      Facts:
      There are no conclusions to be drawn from unsubstantiated anecdotes.

      8. Marg: “FACT. Fluorine gets into the human body and bounces around until it finds some calcium. It then lodges in odd places in the body. Maybe teeth, maybe bones, maybe pineal gland, who knows?”

      Fluoride is ingested in fluoridated water, not fluorine. Once ingested fluoride is absorbed through the gut, becoming incorporated into the blood plasma where it circulates through the body. Approximately fifty percent of that fluoride is excreted through the kidneys. The other 50% is retained in the hard tissues of the body, i.e. teeth and bones. This accumulated fluoride does not simply continue to increase over time. It is removed from the hard tissues back out into the plasma in concert with its equilibrium with plasma levels of fluoride. Plasma levels are determined by fluoride intake and that which is released from the hard tissues.

      There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects associated with optimal level fluoride accumulation, or anything else.

      9. Marg: “I know a woman in her forties who grew up on fluoridated water. Her teeth have started to split vertically from edge to root. She has had to have several extracted recently.

      Facts:
      Vertical fractures of the teeth can occur due to any of a number of reasons. Trauma, abrupt temperature changes due to such things a eating ice, clinching, grinding, nail biting….to name a few. The reason she still has teeth at all in her forties could very well be due in no small part to the fact that she grew up on fluoridated water.

      10. Marg: “If the advice is to not drink tap water if you don’t want to ingest fluoride, can someone explain how this can happen?”

      Facts:
      Optimal level fluoride is odorless, tasteless, colorless, and causes no adverse effects. There is no good reason not to drink fluoridated tap water in the absence of any other reasons not associated with the fluoridation.

      11. Marg: ” Also, how does one shower, or wash clothes?”

      Facts:
      In a shower, and with a washing machine.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  14. STEVE WROTE: “You are claiming that the entire purpose of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water is a “red herring”.”

    RESPONSE: Prove that I made that claim.

    • Ailsa

      “You repeatedly referring to 4.0 mg/L is another red-herring diversion”

      You are the one who attempted to use the 2006 NRC report as support for your position. I simply pointed out the fact that this committee’s focus was on the EPA MCL for fluoride, 4.0 ppm, and keep you from straying from that basic fact. You claim my reference to 4.0 ppm is a “red herring”. Therefore you are claiming the entire purpose of the NRC Committee to be a “red herring”. If you don’t want to discuss what this Committee’s concerns were in regard to fluoride at 4.0 ppm, then don’t attempt to misuse that report as evidence to support your position.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  15. ONE HORROR OF DENTAL FLUOROSIS:

    An online article reported an unfortunate army recruit being called, repeatedly, “Garbage Mouth” because of the permanent stains on his teeth caused by chronic fluoride poisoning. This man was the target of other denigrations because of his teeth.

    The disfigurement of teeth due to fluorosis is brought to many by the advocacy for water fluoridation by many dentists and their trade associations.

    • Ailsa

      1. Anecdotes are not evidence of anything

      2. Dental fluorosis causing anything that could be termed “disfigurement” is moderate/severe. This level of dental fluorosis is not attributable to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  16. CORRECTION TO “3) Cochrane, 2015 calculated approximately 12% of the population exposed to a concentration of 0.7 ppm/F in water that approximately 12% could have dental fluorosis that could concern about their appearance.”

    This sentence should read, “3) Cochrane, 2015 calculated approximately 12% of the population exposed to a concentration of 0.7 ppm/F in water could have dental fluorosis of concern about their appearance,”

  17. STEVE WROTE: “0.7 ppm is the non-enforceable recommended optimal level of fluoride in any drinking water, regardless the source of the fluoride. This recommended level is set by the US Department of Health and Human Services, and is the level at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur with no adverse effects.”

    RESPONSE:
    1) First sentence WRONG. Australia’s recommended ‘optimal’ level is still 1.00 ppm.
    2) The last part of your second sentence is WRONG. It was already known, before artificial fluoridation began, that at 1.0 ppm/F concentration in water, at least 10% of children would develop dental fluorosis.
    3) Cochrane, 2015 calculated approximately 12% of the population exposed to a concentration of 0.7 ppm/F in water that approximately 12% could have dental fluorosis that could concern about their appearance.
    4) Cochrane, 2015 calculated approximately 40% of the population would have some level of dental fluorosis when exposed to a water fluoridation concentration of 0.7 ppm/F.
    5) Dental fluorosis, no matter how slight, is a sign that the individual has been chronically fluoride poisoned during the development of their teeth.
    6) Even only a ‘little bit of chronic fluoride poisoning’ would be totally unacceptable to responsible people.

    • 1. As I specified, the optimal level of 0.7 ppm is that recommended level, set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects. There is nothing “WRONG” about that statement. It is easily verifiable. If Australia recommends an optimal level of 1.0 ppm, that’s fine. However the optimal level set by the United States Department of and Health and Services is 0.7 ppm.

      2. The only thing “WRONG” in regard to my statement that the optimal is that level at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur with no adverse effects is your garbling of it. First of all it was not “already known” that 10% of children would develop dental fluorosis. This was simply an estimate. Second, the mild to very mild dental fluorosis sometimes attributable to optimally fluoridated water, is not an adverse effect. The 2006 NRC Committee considered mild dental fluorosis to not be an adverse effect.

      3. Yes, Cochrane estimated that 12% would develop dental fluorosis that could be of asthetic concern. So what? That this Committee believes mild dental fluorosis could be of asthetic concern in 12% is entirely subjective. It does not mean that 12% will be concerned with asthetics of mild dental fluorosis. Mild dental fluorosis is not an adverse effect.

      4. The “40%” comes from a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar in which 41% of adolescents were observed to show signs of dental fluorosis. This 41% was deemed to be 37.1% mild to very mild, 3.8% moderate, with the moderate being attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste and/or exposure to high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth developing years of 0-8.

      5. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that 1) mild dental fluorosis is a “sign that the individual has been chronically fluoride poisoned during the development of their teeth”. Your unqualified personal opinon does not qualify as being such evidence.

      6. As there is no “chronic fluoride poisoning” from 0.7 ppm fluoride, your #6 has no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

      7. While you lament “concern” about benign, barely detectable mild dental fluorosis you ignore the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, loss of teeth, and life-threatening infection directly resultant of untreated dental decay which could be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  18. And just one more to add to the list of ludicrous claims made by fluoridationists:

    “Severe, disfiguring dental fluorosis is not caused by water fluoridation, it is caused by fluoride from other sources”.

    I can just hear the ferry captain defending himself in court: “It wasn’t the passengers I took on board at the last port and carefully counted who caused the ferry to sink, it was all the people who boarded earlier while I was sleeping, and it was not my responsibility to count them”.

    Perhaps these fluoridation lunatics will one day have to defend themselves in court. I hope so.

    • Peter

      Taking away the minuscule 0.7 ppm fluoride in water will not prevent severe dental fluorosis from occurring, nor will its addition cause severe dental fluorosis to occur. Attempting to blame optimally fluoridated water for severe dental fluorosis is like saying a drop of water caused a flood.

      Strven D. Slott, DDS

      • Steve,

        If “taking away the minuscule 0.7 ppm fluoride in water will not prevent severe dental fluorosis from occurring”, then I suggest adding a “minuscule” 0.7 ppm fluoride to water in the first place will not prevent dental decay from occurring, either. You can’t have it both ways.

        The significant difference here is that ingesting large amounts of fluoridated water (ingested fluoride is the cause of fluorosis) is far more likely to have a negative effect than the alleged positive effect of the very small amount which comes into contact with the teeth on the way to the stomach. Either this “minuscule” amount of fluoride has a significant effect (as you would claim when it suits your argument), or it doesn’t. Please make up your mind.

        As for ” Attempting to blame optimally fluoridated water for severe dental fluorosis is like saying a drop of water caused a flood”, it is the total intake which is relevant, and it is grossly irresponsible to deliberately increase the fluoride intake of those you acknowledge are already grossly over-exposed, and then, hilariously, assert that their exposure to fluoride is still “optimal”. Words have meanings, Steve.

        • Peter

          1. Yes, I can “have it both ways”. What you “suggest” is irrelevant. The facts are:

          A. Water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm prevents dental decay.
          B. 0.7 ppm fluoride does not cause severe dental fluorosis.

          2. Your personal opinion notwithstanding, there are no negative effects of ingesting optimal level fluoride. Therefore, obviously, the positives outweigh the negatives.

          3. Your personal opinion notwithstanding, the effects of fluoridated water are not simply from contact with the teeth “on the way to the stomach”. First of all the mild dental fluorosis which you guys continue to erroneously attempt to portray as some sort of major disorder, is clear evidence of the systemic benefit of fluoride. Peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, a definite benefit. Mild dental fluorisis can only occur systemically. Additionally, as fluoride becomes incorporated into saliva, the teeth are consistently exposed to a low concentration of fluoride all during the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Further, fluoride becomes incorporated into the plaque which adheres to the teeth, providing constant contact of fluoride with the teeth.

          4. The amount of fluoride accumulated from optimally fluoridated water will not cause severe dental fluorosis. Those with this degree of dental fluorisis have been exposed to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth developing years of 0-8. The problem is with whatever is the source of that abnormally high level of fluoride, not with the 0.7 ppm in their water. Removal of 0.7 ppm fluoride from the water would have as much effect on the severe dental fluorosis as would removal of a drop of water have on a flood. Severe dental fluorosis is not attributable to optimally fluoridated water.

          5. I have never acknowledged anyone to be “grossly overexposed” to fluoride.

          6. The optimal level of fluoride is, by definition, that concentration of fluoride in water, as set by the US Department of Health and Human Services, at which maximum dental decay will occur with no adverse effects.

          7. Yes “words have meaning”. I choose mine carefully. Please cease misrepresented them.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • No, Steve, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim 0.7 ppm is significant when it suits your argument and insignificant when it doesn’t. And it is blatantly untrue to state that water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm “prevents dental decay”. Teeth rot at the same rate in fluoridated areas (hence no mass unemployment of dentists) as in unfluoridated areas (such as virtually the whole of western Europe).

            And your claim that “there are no negative effects of ingesting optimal level fluoride” is equally untrue, when there is a wealth of evidence from around the world to the contrary. The fact that you blindly refuse to consider the evidence honestly on its merits does not mean it does not exist.

            Your fanciful claim that “as fluoride becomes incorporated into saliva, the teeth are consistently exposed to a low concentration of fluoride all during the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention” is in flat contradiction of the position now taken by dental bodies that the major effect of fluoride is topical, not systemic. But you have to rack your brains for any excuse for dumping this stuff in the water, rather than applying it intelligently and directly where it has its greatest effect. It’s a process of blind denial, not open-minded inquiry.

            The ultimate absurdity is your claim that “Removal of 0.7 ppm fluoride from the water would have as much effect on the severe dental fluorosis as would removal of a drop of water have on a flood”. Are you seriously suggesting that some people are getting many millions of times more fluoride from other sources before you even load them up with a little bit more?

            If a flood were composed of only ten drops of water then, by your analogy, those with severe dental fluorosis are getting ten times what you claim is “optimal” (ten percent of which you are contributing). You’re obviously no health expert, and I don’t think you would get too far as a mathematician or a hydrologist.

            You say: “I have never acknowledged anyone to be ‘grossly overexposed’ to fluoride”. Well, better late than never.

            And did you really mean to say “that concentration of fluoride in water, as set by the US Department of Health and Human Services, at which maximum dental decay will occur with no adverse effects” – and then follow it up with “Yes ‘words have meaning’. I choose mine carefully”?

            It’s alright, Steve – we’re all fallible. Let’s never forget that.

            • Peter,

              This is your quote, and the crux of your last comment, “The ultimate absurdity is your claim that “Removal of 0.7 ppm fluoride from the water would have as much effect on the severe dental fluorosis as would removal of a drop of water have on a flood”. Are you seriously suggesting that some people are getting many millions of times more fluoride from other sources before you even load them up with a little bit more?
              If a flood were composed of only ten drops of water then, by your analogy, those with severe dental fluorosis are getting ten times what you claim is “optimal” (ten percent of which you are contributing).”

              Ok, first of all, no one EVER said that anyone is getting “millions of times more fluoride from other sources.” Your knack for exaggeration correlates with your inability to zero in on precise facts.

              There are places in the world that have too much natural fluoride in water. India is a good example where natural levels can be as high as 33 ppm. No rational person would EVER suggest adding ‘a few more drops to that flood.’ I’m sure Dr. Slott would agree that fluoride should be removed from that water. Here you are putting words in his mouth and arguing against what you have written. I believe they call this the Straw Man.

              And again this quote of yours: “Your fanciful claim that “as fluoride becomes incorporated into saliva, the teeth are consistently exposed to a low concentration of fluoride all during the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention” is in flat contradiction of the position now taken by dental bodies that the major effect of fluoride is topical, not systemic. ”

              First of all, when fluoride is incorporated in saliva and plaque, the mechanism here IS topical. Water fluoridation also works systematically as evidenced by the fact that very mild to mild dental fluorosis which can result from water fluoridation is more resistant to decay.

            • Peter

              In regard to your unsubstantiated claims, and personal opinions:

              1. Peter: “No, Steve, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim 0.7 ppm is significant when it suits your argument and insignificant when it doesn’t. And it is blatantly untrue to state that water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm “prevents dental decay”. Teeth rot at the same rate in fluoridated areas (hence no mass unemployment of dentists) as in unfluoridated areas (such as virtually the whole of western Europe).”

              Facts:
              A. The entire purpose of the optimal level is to “have it both ways”. In the early part of the last century, researchers observed that many of those living in an area of Colorado, high in endemic fluoride levels, had discolored and mottled teeth that were very resistant to dental decay. They set out to determine if a level of fluoride could be found which would provide the benefit of increased decay resistance, while not causing the stains and mottling. After considerable observation of the effects of different concentrations of fluoride they determined that at a much lower level, of 1 ppm, the decay resistance was still significant, without the discoloration and mottling associated with the higher levels of fluoride. In other words, they had found the level at which they could “have it both ways”.

              Utilizing this information, the United Public Health Service set the recommended optimal level of fluoride in water to be a range of 0.7 ppm to 1.2 ppm. It was set as a range to allow for different levels of water consumption due to climate differences. Recent studies have shown that, due to air conditioning and other modern amenities, a significant difference in water consumption due to differing climates no longer exists. Thus, in 2011, the US CDC recommended that the then current optimal range be consolidated into simply the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm. After careful consideration and study, the US Department of Health and Human Services determined that, due to the greater availability of fluoride from other sources now than when the optimal was originally set, consolidation of the range into the low end of that range, 0.7 ppm, would cause no significant loss of decay prevention. In 2015, the US DHHS officially consolidated the previous optimal range recommendation into a single concentration level of 0.7 ppm. The current officially recommended optimal level of fluoride at which maximum dental decay will occur, with no adverse effects, is 0.7 ppm, the level at which most systems have been fluoridating for years, anyway.

              B. There is nothing “untrue” about the statement that water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm prevents dental decay. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate this fact. I will gladly site as many as you would reasonably care to read.

              2. Peter: “And your claim that “there are no negative effects of ingesting optimal level fluoride” is equally untrue, when there is a wealth of evidence from around the world to the contrary. The fact that you blindly refuse to consider the evidence honestly on its merits does not mean it does not exist.”

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

              3. Peter: “Your fanciful claim that “as fluoride becomes incorporated into saliva, the teeth are consistently exposed to a low concentration of fluoride all during the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention” is in flat contradiction of the position now taken by dental bodies that the major effect of fluoride is topical, not systemic.”

              Facts:
              The claim about fluoride incorporation into saliva is not “fanciful” and it is not mine.

              “Fluoride works to control early dental caries in several ways. Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization (i.e., recovery) of demineralized enamel (12,13). As cariogenic bacteria metabolize carbohydrates and produce acid, fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface (14). The released fluoride and the fluoride present in saliva are then taken up, along with calcium and phosphate, by de-mineralized enamel to establish an improved enamel crystal structure. This improved structure is more acid resistant and contains more fluoride and less carbonate (12,15–19) (Figure 1). Fluoride is more readily taken up by demineralized enamel than by sound enamel (20). Cycles of demineralization and remineralization continue throughout the lifetime of the tooth.”

              http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5014a1.htm

              B. There is nothing “contradictory” about the fact that fluoride works both systemically and topically. For one thing, you seemed to have omitted the fact that mild dental fluorosis is a clear demonstration of the systemic effect of fluoride. For another, the peer-reviewed science clearly demonstrates that the effect is both systemic and topical.

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

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

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

              From the CDC:

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

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

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

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

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

              4. Peter: “But you have to rack your brains for any excuse for dumping this stuff in the water, rather than applying it intelligently and directly where it has its greatest effect. It’s a process of blind denial, not open-minded inquiry.”

              Facts:
              A. One doesn’t have to “rack your brains” to understand water fluoridation. He has only to properly educate himself from appropriate sources of accurate information…..which I have clearly done, and which you clearly have not.

              B. Knowing the facts and evidence on a scientific issue is not “blind denial”. An obvious lack of understanding of a scientific issue is not “open-minded inquiry”.

              5. Peter: “The ultimate absurdity is your claim that “Removal of 0.7 ppm fluoride from the water would have as much effect on the severe dental fluorosis as would removal of a drop of water have on a flood”. Are you seriously suggesting that some people are getting many millions of times more fluoride from other sources before you even load them up with a little bit more?”

              Facts:
              Severe dental fluorosis is caused by chronic exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental fluoride such as in areas of fluoride pollution in the atmosphere of a particular country or region, or to abnormally high levels of fluoride in well-water, during the teeth developing years of 0-8. These levels can range anywhere from 5 ppm to 20 ppm or more. One of the 3 reasons cited by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water for its final recommendation to lower the EPA MCL of fluoride down from 4.0 ppm was the risk of severe dental fluorosis with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or higher during the teeth developing years.

              In the presence of such abnormally high levels of fluoride, removal of 0.7 ppm fluoride from the water will not prevent the severe dental fluorosis from occurring. In the absence of exposure to such high levels of fluoride, 0.7 ppm fluoride in drinking water will not cause severe dental fluorosis.

              The problem of severe dental fluorosis resides with the abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride, not with the minuscule 0.7 ppm in optimally fluoridated water.

              6. Peter: “If a flood were composed of only ten drops of water then, by your analogy, those with severe dental fluorosis are getting ten times what you claim is “optimal” (ten percent of which you are contributing). You’re obviously no health expert, and I don’t think you would get too far as a mathematician or a hydrologist.”

              Facts:
              My comments clearly speak for themselves.

              7. Peter: “You say: “I have never acknowledged anyone to be ‘grossly overexposed’ to fluoride”. Well, better late than never.”

              Facts:
              I have never “acknowledged anyone to be ‘grossly exposed’ to fluoride” as you had erroneously stated I had.

              8. Peter: “And did you really mean to say “that concentration of fluoride in water, as set by the US Department of Health and Human Services, at which maximum dental decay will occur with no adverse effects” – and then follow it up with “Yes ‘words have meaning’. I choose mine carefully”?”

              Facts:
              Yes, I really meant to say that.

              9. Peter: “It’s alright, Steve – we’re all fallible. Let’s never forget that.”

              Facts:
              Yes, obviously some being far more fallible than others.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Peter

      The saying goes, ‘More hands make light work.’ That could be altered to, “More minds make for more interesting comments.’ This alludes to yours and your great comments in both of your blogs. Your ferry-captain’s hypothetical denial is also wonderful. Keep this line of thought rolling – it is very useable for the anti-F lobby when the occasion arises.

  19. Steve

    4.0 ppm (= 4.0 mg/L) is the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in naturally-fluoridated water in the USA – as you would know.

    0.7 ppm (mg/L) is the recommended concentration for artificially fluoridated water in the USA – as you would know.

    You repeatedly referring to 4.0 mg/L is another red-herring diversion.

    This debate relates to Australia – as you also know.

    • Ailsa

      Fluoride is an anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. There is no difference between the fluoride in “naturally fluoridated water”, and that in “artificially fluoridated water.” A negatively charged atom of fluorine is a negatively charged atom of fluorine, regardless the source compound from which it is released. Before you attempt to argue this elementary point, you need to make sure you understand the difference between an atom and a compound.

      4.0 ppm fluoride is the EPA MCL and the MCLG for fluoride in any drinking water in the US, regardless the source of the fluoride, “natural” or “artificial”. The MCL is the legally enforceable maximum allowable level in drinking water.

      0.7 ppm is the non-enforceable recommended optimal level of fluoride in any drinking water, regardless the source of the fluoride. This recommended level is set by the US Department of Health and Human Services, and is that level at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur with no adverse effects.

      When discussing the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, the MCL of 4.0 mg/liter is that which that committee was charged to evaluate. It was not charged to, nor did it, evaluate water fluoridation, or the optimal level. You are claiming that the entire purpose of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water is a “red herring”.

      Yes, the debate is about fluoridation in Australia. The principles and the science of fluoridation are the same, however, regardless the country.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  20. Here are some of the absurdities put forward by fluoridation promoters:

    “Water is fluoridated at the optimal level for maximum health benefit”

    So why is toothpaste fluoridated at one thousand times this “optimal” level? The teeth are in the mouth, not the stomach.
    How can you determine what is “optimal” for somebody you have never met, about whose health you know absolutely nothing? The “optimal” level in fact has nothing to do with maximum benefit, it is the highest level at which its detrimental effects are thought to be not too severe, nothing more. We are expected to believe that maximum benefit just happens to occur at this point.

    “European countries do not fluoridate because of numerous water sources, and logistical difficulties”

    Fluoride is not added to mountain streams and other “water sources”, it is added at water treatment plants, just like chlorine ,after all the “logistical” problems have been overcome. Oslo, in Norway, has two water treatment plants, a population of 1.4 million, and no water fluoridation. Fluoridating populations as small as one thousand is claimed to be “cost-effective”. Not one European country has cited this fictitious reason for not fluoridating. The fact is, it is totally unnecessary, their teeth are just as good without. That’s as good a reason as you can get, and requires no justification.

    “Nobody is forced to drink fluoridated water, that’s their choice”

    Try that pathetic argument with drink-spiking: “The girl doesn’t have to take the drink, that’s her choice”. Or the noisy neighbour: “You are free not to listen to their loud music”. Or the air polluter: “You are free not to breathe the air”. Nobody should be put in a position of having to take action, particularly expensive action, to avoid another person’s attempted violation of their legitimate freedoms.

    “Water fluoridation is one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th. century”

    The ultimate absurdity. The CDC was well aware when it made this claim that the reduction in dental decay it attributed to fluoridation was occurring simultaneously at the same rate throughout the developed world without fluoridation which, by that fact alone, should have been ruled out at the outset as irrelevant. Fluoridation is the number one public health fraud of all time.

    • Bravo, Peter.

      An excellent comment; especially about the spiked drink, the loud noise and the polluted air.

    • Dear Peter: You ask “So why is toothpaste fluoridated at one thousand times this ‘optimal’ level?”

      The directions for toothpaste are to spit it out. Toothpaste provides fluoride protection for a couple of hours. Ingested fluoridated water remineralizes teeth, via the saliva, continually, giving round-the-clock protection.

      You suggest that Europe knows best, erroneously implying that they reject fluoridation. But shouldn’t the standard of how to adjust fluoride levels in our drinking water be science, not what Europe does? (Any student of history would be appalled at the suggestion we follow the lead of Europe.) But let’s look at Ireland:

      “In the Irish Republic, 67% of the population are benefiting from this public health measure. Fluoridation
      started in that country in 1964, which helps to explain why it is near the top of the European children’s
      dental health league table with a very low number of decayed, missing and filled teeth per 5-year old
      child.” http://www.bfsweb.org/documents/denthlth.PDF

      You claim fluoridation is a “…violation of legitimate freedoms.”

      I don’t see how adjusting the level of fluoride ions in drinking water to an optimal level violates anyone’s freedom in the USA or elsewhere. One of the roles of government is to provide city dwellers with water, it being highly impractical for every household to have its own private well, treatment plant, and sewer system. In this situation, we want our water treated by the best available science. Lucky for us, several large, independent systematic reviews have found the best and more relevant research to support fluoridation on the grounds of safety and efficacy.

      “We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.” – Dr. John Harris of the Department of Ethics and Social Policy at the University of Manchester, UK

      • Linda,

        I can always appreciate original, carefully thought-out arguments, but your response is just another load of carbon-copy promotional spiel, and we are way past that kind of hype on this side of the argument.

        You say: “The directions for toothpaste are to spit it out.

        Well, of course you would spit it out at those concentrations because there is no benefit in swallowing it, ever. The point you are seemingly unable to answer is why it needs to be one thousand times more concentrated than “optimally” fluoridated water which, if that term means anything, delivers just the right amount of fluoride to the teeth. Evidently not.

        You say: “Toothpaste provides fluoride protection for a couple of hours”.

        The writing on a tube of Colgate fluoride toothpaste says “Provides protection for 12 hours”. Who is lying, one or both?

        You say: “Ingested fluoridated water remineralizes teeth, via the saliva, continually, giving round-the-clock protection”.

        You know you have no evidence for that claim, it is just another example of the retrospective fairytale “science” thought up after the event to fit the totally unintelligent notion of swallowing fluoride. (The only good reason for swallowing fluoridated water is that the body needs constant hydration. It’s the water the body needs, not the fluoride).

        You say: “You suggest that Europe knows best, erroneously implying that they reject fluoridation”.

        I imply no such thing, I state it as a matter of fact.

        You say: “But shouldn’t the standard of how to adjust fluoride levels in our drinking water be science, not what Europe does?”

        This is not a discussion about “how to adjust fluoride levels in our drinking water”. It may be your argument, it’s not mine. And if Europe can achieve the same and better improvements in dental health as in fluoridated countries without resorting to this primitive sheep-dip approach, why should we be “appalled” at the prospect of learning from them?

        You say: “In the Irish Republic, 67% of the population are benefiting from this public health measure” (more parroted, meaningless hype) and the IR “is near the top of the European children’s dental health league”. “Near the top”? That means an unfluoridated country not “benefiting from this measure” has better teeth? Amazing! What an admission, and what a contradiction!

        You say: “I don’t see how adjusting the level of fluoride ions in drinking water to an optimal level violates anyone’s freedom in the USA or elsewhere”. More rote-learned hype. What about “adjusting” the levels of lead, arsenic, etc., in water if somebody thought it a good idea? The pre-existence of low levels of fluoride, or any other toxin, in water provides no justification for increasing it, in some cases by a very large factor.

        Next time you are in a restaurant, with a glass of water in front of you, and somebody attempts to drop a Panadol in your water (for your benefit, of course, and it’s harmless), consider how you would you react. Not a violation of your freedom?
        Would you still swallow it? I doubt it.

        And Linda, please stop using this ridiculous term “optimally fluoridated” when you know absolutely nothing about the person who receives it. It’s the antithesis of science, and an abuse of the English language.

  21. The spinning slott machine that keeps on spinning, the laughing stock of world wide Dentists.
    http://www.dmlawfirm.com/slott-machine-backs-artificial-fluoidation
    A mercury addled serial forced fluoridation troll.
    http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/statement_61.html
    Dentist Steve , a bully, a liar and a coward.

  22. Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
    A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
    A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
    A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
    ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.

  23. The pro-F lobby diverts attention from the fact that fluoride has been found to lower children’s IQ by the use of a red-herring claim that the levels of fluoride in the drinking water were much higher than the ‘optimal’ level (i.e. 1.00 mg/L until early 2015 in the USA).

    However, the Lin et al, 1991 study in Xinjiang, China, reported to the effect that ‘Children in the high-fluoride (low-iodine) area had lower IQ scores compared with the children from the reference fluoride (low-iodine) area whose drinking water contained 0.34 mg/L.

    (Refer to Choi et al for details : http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104912.pdf)

    THE ‘HIGH fluoride’ area’s water contained a fluoride concentration of only 0.88 mg/L.

    That was 0.12 mg/L lower than the claimed ‘optimal’ concentration level of 1.0 mg/L which was recommended since 1962 but recently changed in the USA to 0.7 mg/L.

  24. Hoodwinking is the name of the pro-F lobby’s game when it comes to water fluoridation promotion and its so-called benefits.

    FACT: When all Australian states and territories (except Queensland) were heavily fluoridated, less-than-5%- fluoridated Queensland’s dental health was equal. In fact it was 0.3 of one tooth better than the 83%-fluoridated state of Tasmania; equal to 90%-fluoridated South Australia and 0.3 of one tooth more than 92%-fluoridated New South Wales and 77%-fluoridated Victoria.

    AVERAGE DECAY EXPERIENCE: 12.8 New South Wales (92% fluoridated); 12.8 Victoria (77% fluoridated); 13.1 Queensland (less-than-5% fluoridated); 12.7 South Australia (90% fluoridated); 13.1 Western Australia (92% fluoridated); 11.0 Australian Capital Territory (100% fluoridated); 10.7 Northern Territory (70% fluoridated).

    SOURCE: “National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06”.

    PROOF: The above figures indicate that it is not water fluoridation that determines caries/decay experiences.

  25. It must have been a humiliating blow to the pro-F lobby when one of Canada’s leading fluoridation promoters came out against the practice: i.e. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS – then Associate Professor, Head, Department of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto.

    View Professor Limeback’s Open Letter “Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water” via this link http://fluoridefreesacramento.org/Why_I_Am_Now_Officially_Opposed_to_Adding_Fluoride_to_Drinking_Water.pdf

    Professor Limeback did years of funded research in tooth formation, bone and fluoride and elaborated his reasons for changing his mind – about water fluoridation – under the following headings:

    1. Fluoridation is no longer effective.

    2. Fluoridation is the main cause of dental fluorosis.

    3. Chemicals that are used in fluoridation have not been tested for safety.

    4. There are serious health risks from water fluoridation.

    Anyone reading Professor Limeback’s Open Letter with an open mind would know why …

    FLUORIDATION IS NOT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

    • Ailsa

      Why would anyone be “humiliated” by Dr. limeback’s opinion on fluoridation? That’s a bizarre statement. Dr. Limeback is one for whom I have a great deal of respect for his lifelong work as a dental educator, and researcher. However, he has been a strong opponent of fluoridation for over a decade and a half. There is nothing new there. He is certainly welcome to his opinions on fluoridation, but they are contradicted by the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Slott, However, Doc Slott has been a strong propponent of fluoridation for over 6 decades . There is nothing new there. He is certainly welcome to his opinions on fluoridation, but they are contradicted by the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide countries that only fluoridate 5% of the world’s population’s drinking water.

  26. Johnny,

    Gloat, but be aware that the truth about water fluoridation is being slowly and irrevocably squeezed out of the toothpaste tube.

    In time, a critical mass of people will be aware of the fraud that is water fluoridation and then its balloon will be deflated and those who have long promoted the practice will be seen in their true light.

    Part of the fraud is making claims along the lines of “the benefit of water fluoridation is 40%’, which is enormous’, while not telling decision makers and others that the 40% is less than one-quarter of one tooth.

    Part of the fraud is couching Abstracts in terms that make fluoridation appear to be a great benefit while the body of the published review tells a different story.

    FLUORIDATION IS NOT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

    NEVER WAS.

    NEVER WILL BE.

  27. ACTUALLY, STEVE, THE ‘CHILD-SMILE’ PROGRAM WOULD BE A FANTASTIC SUBSTITUTE FOR WATER FLUORIDATION:

    a) No trough medicine via kitchen taps;
    b) No uncontrolled doses of an accumulative poison (fluoride) via drinking water supplies;
    c) No forced treatments via drinking water supplies.
    d) Children learning dental hygiene practices that ought to stay with many for life;
    e) Swallowing less neurotoxic fluoride so long as the children are taught to spit our their fluoride toothpaste and then rinse it out of their mouths, thoroughly;
    f) Less dental fluorosis so long as the children follow the advice in ‘e’;
    g) No stomach pains and/or colic caused by swallowing fluoride from fluoridated water (that means no bottle-fed infants screaming from colic because their formulas have been reconstituted with fluoridated water);
    h) No muscle pain and weakness (muscle fibre damage) from chronically ingesting fluoridated water;
    i) No risk to bone architecture from chronically ingesting fluoridated water;
    j) No fluoride-caused asthma from exposure to fluoridated water;
    k) No ‘fluoride bombs’ if advice in ‘e’ is followed;
    l) No one prevented from showering/bathing if they are hypersensitive to fluoridated water (as are some);
    m) No one prevented from laundering clothes in potable water due to hypersensitivity to fluoridated water;
    n) No need for individuals or parents to pay huge dental bills for the repair of teeth damaged by fluoride consumed via public water supplies
    o) No more toxic waste (aka fluoride) imported into countries from China, Belgium or Japan for addition to water supplies for claimed dental benefits.
    p) No unnecessary toxic waste (aka fluoride from fluoridated water) being released into environments which contains non-biodegradable and accumulative heavy metals such as mercury, lead, aluminium, etc.
    q) No risk to water utility workers from exposure from handling any of the three fluoridating agents that are used.
    H) No children suffering the embarrassment of being called names – like Garbage Mouth – due to having moderate to severe dental fluorosis caused by ingesting toxic doses of fluoride during the development of their teeth.
    Etc.

    A NEGATIVE FOR DENTISTS: No income from fixing teeth damaged by fluoride consumed from public drinking water supplies nor peer prestige conferred on those who rabidly promote the practice.

    A NEGATIVE FOR THE PHOSPHATE FERTILISER INDUSTRY: 1) No income from selling industrial waste that has been captured in pollution scrubbers and sold for addition to water supplies for an alleged dental benefit; 2) additional expense having to dispose of this highly-toxic by-product that has to be disposed of in properly regulated sites;

    A NEGATIVE FOR MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS: No income from chronically treating those whose idiosyncratic reactions to fluoride in drinking water warrant them returning time and again to doctors’ surgeries for yet more medications while the cause of their ailments remains undiagnosed.

    A NEGATIVE FOR DENTAL RESEARCHERS:
    a) No research funds for doing oral health studies related exclusively to either dental fluorosis or fluoridated-versus-nonfluoridated oral health comparisons.

    A NEGATIVE FOR FLUORIDE PROMOTING BUREAUCRATS: No trips, accommodation, meals paid for from the public purse to promote the practice and no opportunity to call those who oppose the practice ‘nutters’, ‘flat earthers’ and other derogatory names.

    A NEGATIVE FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS PEOPLE: No income from constructing material to pull the wool over the eyes of the gullible and trusting so far as water fluoridation is concerned.

    As for the alleged savings as a result of water fluoridation, it’s more than likely they are negated by dental and health costs resulting from damage caused by the uncontrolled doses of fluoride that are ingested by drinking fluoridated drinking water.

    • Ailsa

      A program that provides education and some dental tteatment for 120,000 children, at a cost of £62.50, per child, per year, is not a substitute for an initiative that provides significant dental decay prevention, with no adverse effects, for entire populations, at a cost of £35 pence per person, per year.

      ChldSmile is certaintly a good adjunct to fluoridation, but as a substitute? No……which is why the Dental Association of Scotland recommends fluoridation, as well as ChildSmile.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Steve,

        No doubt most trade-based dental association’s would continue to defend water fluoridation if they were underwater struggling for oxygen.

      • Slott has lost the plott, Scotland has zero fluoridation and it is irrelevant what the Dental Association of Scotland recommends. In fact the UK has only about 10% fluoridation, Wales zero, Northern Ireland zero, Scotland zero.

  28. Posted by Paul Connett Thursday, September 10, 2015 6:38 pm on the Gloucester Times website. Reposted by Ailsa Boyden September 11, 2015 2:04 PM

    In Scotland, they have a ChildSmile program. It provides education in dental hygiene, starting with pre-school, and involving the parents. They have no fluoridation, but their dental health has soared, and their caries plummeted.

    The Scots can testify that oral health education and better diet (less sugar, more fruit and vegetables) is a safer and more effective alternative. There is no need to dose the developing brain with a known neurotoxin. The last children who need their IQ lowered are children from low-income families, who are precisely those targeted for fluoridation!

    Children deserve education, not fluoridation. Our children should not be forced to swallow fluoride when fluoridated toothpaste is readily available.

    Paul Connett, PhD

    Binghampton, NY

    • Yes, Ailsa, the ChildSmile program is very good. However, it is not an adequate substitute for fluoridation. It serves 120,000 children at a cost of £125, per chlid, per year. Connett stated that the Scots have cut expenses in half. Even if that is true, that is still £62.50 per child, per year. In contrast, fluoridation serves 6 million people of all ages in the UK, at a cost of only 35 Pence, per person, per year. That’s £7.5 million, per year for 120,000 children versus £2 million per year for 6 million of all ages.

      That the ChildSmile program is not expected to be a replacement for fluoridation is evidenced by the recommendation of the Scottish section of the British Dental Association that the water be fluoridated.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • I repeat, “No doubt most trade-based dental association’s would continue to defend water fluoridation if they were underwater struggling for oxygen.”

  29. Those who argue for water fluoridation have no regard for those who are already overdosing on fluoride.

    In fact, a friend of mine had a high level of fluoride in her blood (pathology test). She was a heavy tea drinker!

    Google ‘Ministry of not so funny walks’ to see two examples of fluoride, coupled with poor nutrition, having grossly affected the bone architecture of two children.

    Fluoride can have diabolical effects on bone and NO ONE MONITORS to ascertain the level of fluoride accumulating in people’s bones.

  30. Chemist Connett,

    It is interesting how your “10 Reasons” has morphed over the past 3 years since your resounding defeat in Brooksville, FL. Even your trip to this small town could not prevent our overturning of the anti-fluoridation then-mayor’s push to keep her cessation of this 25 year scheme from being over-ruled.

    The vote, in case it’s slipped your mind, was 4-1. Yes, the then-mayor was the lone dissenting vote.

    Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
    Pediatric Dentist
    Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
    Proudly fluoridated Pinellas County-remember that loss too? 700,000 people got it back 🙂

    • Johnny

      How can you justify pushing the fluoridation barrow when oral health studies (fluoridated vs non-fluoridated) such as Townsville vs Brisbane reveal an average difference of no more than one-quarter of one tooth.

      If delayed tooth eruption – caused by fluoride intake – were factored in (as it ought to be) then it is likely that the one-quarter of one tooth difference would be in favour of non fluoridation.

    • “Johnson posts on many social forums on the internet, proclaiming to be a “expert” on fluoride, and advocates for the fluoridation of water supplies. He continuously misinterprets the scientific literature on fluoride effects, risks and benefits.

      When confronted with scientific evidence that is in direct opposition to his claims, he usually does one of several things:
      1) not answer at all
      2) comes up with a red herring or a strawman,
      3) accuses the writer of “fear-mongering”, using “conspiracy tactics”, or the like
      4) cite literature which has nothing to do with the subject being discussed”
      http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/johnson.html

  31. AFMildura

    The following is the first portion of my response to Connett’s response to me. The rest will be forthcoming.

    As usual, Paul is long on unsubstantiated speculation, and personal opinion……and short on facts and evidence

    1. Connett: “I will never convince Steven that fluoridation is a bad medical practice, which should never have been started let alone continue for 70 years. So my commentary here is intended for others who might stray upon this conversation.”

    Facts:
    There is no “medical practice” involved in water fluoridation. There is simply the increasing of existing fluoride ions in water up to the level at which maximum benefit will be obtained while ingesting a substance we will ingest in our water anyway, fluoridated or not.

    2. “Obviously AFAM did have that confidence to publish his comments in full.”

    Yes it did. I commend AFAM for so doing. My usual experience with antifluoridation sites is that they use use censorship in lieu of the facts and evidence they cannot produce.

    3. Connett: “Proponents ignore the fact that there is no evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient. In fact, there is not one single biochemical mechanism in the human body that needs fluoride to function properly. So why on earth are we being asked (or rather forced) to swallow it?”

    Facts:
    Fluoride is, indeed, an essential nutrient, and no one is forced to swallow anything in regard to water fluoridation.

    A. “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.

    B. “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

    C. “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

    4. Connett: “Proponents further ignore nature’s verdict on fluoride as far as the baby is concerned. The level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is remarkable low – 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p. 40). This means that in a fluoridated community with fluoride levels in the water at levels between 0.6 and 1.2 ppm, a bottle-fed baby is getting between 150 and 300 times the level of fluoride that nature intended. That is a reckless thing to do.”

    Facts:
    Connett takes broad liberty in assuming he, alone, knows what is “nature’s verdict”. The amount of fluoride in human breast milk is irrelevant to fluoridation. Breast milk is deficient in iron, Vitamin K, and Vitamin D. By his logic, “nature” intends for infants to be anemic, free-bleeders who develop Ricketts.

    5. Connett: “In the above responses to Scary Facts 1 and 2 Stephen seems to confuse geology and biology”.

    Facts:
    As can be plainly seen, there is no confusion in my comments.

    6. Connett: “The lifeless rocks came first, and biology (nature or evolution or life) came second.

    So what?

    7. Connett: “The level of fluoride that “naturally” occurs in water supplies is a vagary of which rocks the water has flown through. The levels can range from less than 0.1 ppm and as high as 20 ppm. This “natural” occurrence gives no judgment on whether the biology of fluoride is beneficial or harmful to living things”.

    Facts:
    Yes, the level of existing fluoride in water can vary widely. This is a compelling reason for fluoridation, not against it. The is no difference in existing fluoride ions in water, and those added through fluoridation. If Paul fails to understand this basic fact then I’m sure he can find a high school refresher course in chemistry to take.

    Before any system is fluoridated, the existing levels of fluoride ions is determined. In those supplies in which the fluoride level is below the optimal, only that amount of fluoride is added which will bring that level up to 0.7 ppm. For those supplies which are determined to have existing fluoride levels already at, or above, the optimal, fluoridation is not needed and is not done. For those supplies which have significantly high levels of existing fluoride, not only is fluoridation not done, the recommendation or even mandate, is given to reduce that level.

    8. “Arsenic also appears “naturally” in some water supplies but that does not make it safe or beneficial”

    Facts:
    First of all there is strong evidence that arsenic is an essential nutrient. Second, the safety and/or benefit of arsenic is irrelevant to water fluoridated at the optimal level.

    “Definition of specific biochemical functions in higher animals (including humans) for the ultratrace elements boron, silicon, vanadium, nickel, and arsenic still has not been achieved although all of these elements have been described as being essential nutrients. Recently, many new findings from studies using molecular biology techniques, sophisticated equipment, unusual organisms, and newly defined enzymes have revealed possible sites of essential action for these five elements.”

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

    9. Connett: “However, biology, nature or evolution has given us some strong evidence that fluoride is not beneficial to the biochemistry of living systems – especially mammals – and appears to have deliberately shunned its use. Thus we should be aware of the risks of deliberately exposing millions of people daily to increased levels to the general low level of exposure from background levels.”

    Facts:
    A. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimal level fluoride “is not beneficial to the biochemistry of living systems”. What “appears” to Paul is irrelevant.

    B. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any risks of optimally fluoridated water.

    10. Connett: “Nature’s evidence comes in several parts.
    First, there is not one biochemical process in the human body that needs fluoride to function properly, nor does it appear in any biochemical molecule (amino acid, protein, carbohydrate, fatty acid, nucleic acid, vitamin or metabolite).”

    Facts:
    “Nature” has put fluoride in the water already, in widely varying amounts, as Paul noted previously. . It seems that he selectively deems what is important or not important in regard to what “nature does”. Fluoridation simply stabilizes the fluoride concentration at a constant 0.7 ppm, at which occurs maximum decay prevention with no adverse effects.

    11. Connett: “Second, no one has ever demonstrated a disease caused by lack of fluoride, i.e. it is not an essential nutrient.”

    Facts:
    There is ample evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient. See item #3 above.

    12. Connett: “Third, when it enters the body the kidney does it best to eliminate the fluoride from the circulating bloodstream via the urine. The healthy kidney gets rid of about 50% each day this way. The remaining fluoride is largely sequestered in the bone, the teeth and other calcifying tissues like the pineal gland.”

    Facts:
    There’s no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of optimal level fluoride on the kidneys, pineal gland, or anything else.

    “Because the kidneys are constantly exposed to various fluoride concentrations, any health effects caused by fluoride would likely manifest themselves in kidney cells. However, several large community-based studies of people with long-term exposure to drinking water with fluoride
    concentrations up to 8 ppm have failed to show an increase in kidney disease.”

    ——https://www.kidney.org/atoz/pdf/Fluoride_Intake_in_CKD.pdf

    “People exposed to optimally fluoridated water will consume 1.5mg of fluoride per day. Available studies found no difference in kidney function between people drinking optimally fluoridated and non-fluoridated water. There is discrepant information in studies relating to the potential negative effects of consuming water with greater than 2.0ppm of fluoride.”

    “Available literature indicated that impaired kidney function results in changes in fluoride retention and distribution in the body. People with kidney impairment showed a decreased urine fluoride and increased serum and bone fluoride correlated with degree of impairment; however, there was no consistent evidence that the retention of fluoride in people with stage four or stage five CKD, consuming optimally fluoridated water, resulted in negative health consequences.”

    —–Ludlow M, Luxton G, Mathew T. Effects of fluoridation of community water supplies
    for people with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2007; 22:2763-2767 

    13. Connett: “Both the rapid elimination and sequestration of fluoride makes enormous sense once one realizes that fluoride can interferes at a very basic level with many biological structures and functions. It forms a strong hydrogen-bond and it complexes with many important metal ions like calcium, magnesium, copper, zinc, and manganese. It is largely these attributes that explain fluoride’s ability to inhibit many enzymes and interfere with the transmission of messages across membranes via G-proteins. In short, the fluoride ion is a highly toxic species as far as biology is concerned. See Barbier et al. (2012), The Molecular Mechanisms of Fluoride’s Toxicity. Chem. Biol. Interact. 188(2):319-333.”

    Facts:
    There is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water.

    “Water intoxication provokes disturbances in electrolyte balance, resulting in a rapid decrease in serum sodium concentration and eventual death. The development of acute dilutional hyponatraemia causes neurological symptoms because of the movement of water into the brain cells, in response to the fall in extracellular osmolality. Symptoms can become apparent when the serum sodium falls below 120 mmol/litre, but are usually associated with concentrations below 110 mmol/litre. Severe symptoms occur with very low sodium concentrations of 90–105 mmol/litre. As the sodium concentration falls, the symptoms progress from confusion to drowsiness and eventually coma. However, the rate at which the sodium concentration falls is also an important factor, and the acute intake of large volumes of water over a short period of time, as occurred in this case, would have produced a rapid drop in serum sodium, which was fatal.”

    —-Farrell DJ, Bower L. Fatal water intoxication. Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2003;56(10):803-804.

    There is no more valid scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level causes any adverse effects on the human body than is there that water causes any adverse effects at its proper use level.

    14. Connett: “Thus it is highly fortunate that nature minimized the baby’s exposure to fluoride. The level in mothers’ milk is extremely low at 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p.40). So whether by design or by accident the developing tissues of a baby are protected from any significant exposure to fluoride. Water fluoridation, recklessly in my view, removes that protection.”

    Facts:
    Paul is once again using his unique ability to personally deem which actions by “nature” are important and which are not.

    The fluoride content of human breast milk is irrelevant to water fluoridation.

    15. “Steven Slott draws solace from the fact that fluoride is all around us. Indeed, it is the thirteenth most abundant element in the earth’s crust and the average level in the sea is 1.4 ppm. But this hurts not helps his case. When life evolved from the sea there was no shortage of fluoride for nature to draw upon (1.4 ppm), but as mentioned above she chose not to use it as one of the building blocks in the mainstream of life on this planet.”

    Facts:
    I draw no “solace” from any of Paul’s personal opinions.

    B. I have no “case”….whatever Paul deems that to mean. I simply present facts and evidence.

    C. In spite of Paul’s self-anointed position as arbiter of what “nature” intends or chooses, his speculation and personal opinion in that regard are irrelevant.

    16. Connett: “So it is interesting that even promoters today acknowledge that fluoride does not help fight tooth decay by some internal biochemical mechanism but by a topical interaction with the inorganic matrix of the tooth enamel predominantly after the tooth has erupted (CDC, 1999).”

    Facts:

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

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

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

    From the CDC:

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

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

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

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

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

    17. Connett: “So all of this poses two questions about fluoridation: 1) Why expose a bottle-fed infant to 100-300 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby (which happens when you make up baby formula with fluoridated water)? 2) Why expose the whole body to fluoride via fluoridated tap water when you can reach the target organ with a simple topical treatment (e.g. with fluoridated mouthwash or toothpaste).”

    Facts:
    1). Because of the dental decay resistance provided to the developing teeth of the infant, with no adverse effects. Paul attempts to make a huge issue over mild dental fluorosis when he believes it to somehow bolster his arguments, but then conveniently forgets about it when it obviously debunks his argument. Mild dental fluorosis is the most obvious evidence of the systemic benefit of fluoride.

    “Conclusion. This study’s findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.”

    “Clinical Implications. The results highlight the need for those considering policies regarding reduction in fluoride exposure to take into consideration the caries-preventive benefits associated with milder forms of enamel fluorosis.”

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

    2). The benefits of fluoride are both topical and systemic. The degree of decay prevention provided by water fluoridation far exceed that which can be attained “with a simple topical treatment (e.g. with fluoridated mouthwash or toothpaste).”

    18. Connett: “when he knows full well that since the US Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation in 1950 there have been virtually no serious health studies on babies and children conducted in the US or any other fluoridated countries – just endless studies on teeth. Occasionally, one slips through the cracks like Bassin’s finding (Bassin et al., 2006) that young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th to 8th years have a 5 to 7-fold increased risk of succumbing to osteosarcoma by the age of 20. The long awaited study that was supposed to refute this finding (Kim et al., 2011) did no such thing. If Bassin’s study was “absolutely not valid”, Kim certainly did not demonstrate that nor has Steven Slott.”

    Facts:
    A. Chester Douglass, the principal researcher of the large Harvard study from which Bassin obtained the data she used in her doctoral dissertation to which Paul refers, completely refuted Bassin’s findings:

    “In a letter to the editor of the journal Cancer Causes Control,

    Chester Douglass, principal investigator of the Harvard Study, advises readers to be cautious when interpreting the [Bassin] findings, noting the following reasons:

    • The preliminary findings from the overall analysis of the cases identified between 1993 and 2000 (second set of cases) do not show an association between osteosarcoma and fluoride in drinking water.

    – The cases had been identified from the same hospitals within the same orthopaedic departments and the same pathology departments diagnosing osteosarcoma, and similar methods of fluoride exposure

    Bone specimens were also provided by many of the cases – preliminary analysis of bone specimens suggests fluoride level in the bone is not associated with osteosarcoma.

    The 1990 NIEHS National toxicology Program study found an association with high levels of fluoride in drinking water and osteosarcoma in male rats. However, the findings of their second study did not find an association.

    Some of the limitations noted by Bassin et al in their paper include:

    The estimates of fluoride in drinking water at each residence do not reflect the actual consumption of fluoride.

    The study did no obtain biologic markers for fluoride uptake in bone.

    The actual amount of fluoride in a fluoridated supply may vary (within guideline levels).

    Natural fluoride levels can vary over time (the researchers thought this unlikely for the time spent at each residence).

    There is a lack of data on other potential confounders.

    Fluoride may not be causative agent
    – another factor in drinking water may be correlated with the presence of fluoride.

    Data to assess fluoride exposure from
    diet, industrial sources of other sources such as pesticides was not available – cases

    may have been exposed to other unknown factors such as contaminants or carcinogens in the bottled or well water, with the fluoride in these products or natural sources irrelevant, regardless of the concentration.

    For more information refer http://www.health.qld. gov.au/health_professionals/”

    ——Douglass, C.W. and K. Joshipura, Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes Control, 2006(17): p.481-482

    B. Paul, as usual, attempts to fear-monger about osteosarcoma based on nothing but the refuted dissertation of Bassin, while ignoring the volume of science demonstrating that there is no association of optimally fluoridated water with cancer. I will be glad to provide him with a list of peer-reviewed studies if he so desires.

    19. Connett: “Fortunately, while fluoridated countries have shown little interest in finding out if fluoridation is harmful or not there have been many studies of babies, children and adults in communities in other countries that have modest to high natural levels of fluoride. The doses at which harm has been found in some of these have provided no adequate margin of safety to protect all our children from short-term exposure or adults from long-term exposure. This includes human studies (both IQ and other studies), which indicate an association between harmful effects on the brain and exposure to fluoride. These are buttressed by over 100 animal studies, which demonstrate the biochemical plausibility of such findings.”

    Facts:
    There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride on IQ, or anything else, in persons of any age group.

    20. Connett: “The fact that promoters keep denying the relevance of these studies shows how little they understand about toxicology and risk assessment. They continue to confuse concentration and dose and seem to have no understanding of the concept of margin of safety.”

    Facts:
    A. The fact that Paul does not understand the difference between relevant and irrelevant studies, or between valid science and junk science…..is his own problem, not one with fluoridation advocates who do indeed understand science.

    B. The only one who seems to have a problem discerning the difference between dose and concentration is Paul himself. Dentists and MDs would not be licensed and authorized by state and federal government to prescribe the full range of drugs and medications if they did not understand this elementary principle learned in the pharmacology and toxicology courses of their professional educations.

    C. The validity of the adequate margin of safety between the optimal level of fluoride and the threshold of adverse effects has been clearly demonstrated by 70 years of fluoridation, hundreds of millions having chronically ingested fluoridated water, with no adverse effects.

    21. Connett: “So I don’t think it is fear-mongering to point out that it is reckless to expose bottle-fed infants to a neurotoxic substance at 100 to 300 times the level that occurs in breast-fed infants.”

    Facts:

    It is indeed fear-mongering to use unsubstantiated speculation about fabricated potential of “harm” to babies in the absence of any valid evidence, whatsoever, to support that claim.

    22. Connett: “What disturbs me is the willingness of health agencies to continue to add a known neurotoxic substance to the drinking water, without producing a substantial body of evidence that demonstrate that we can safely ignore all the evidence discussed above and in fact #9 below”

    Facts:
    What disturbs those who truly understand water fluoridation is the willingness of Paul and/or his followers to constantly disseminate a stream of unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and patently false statements in an attempt to impose their decades-old personal ideology unto entire populations, at the expense of the health and well-being of those populations.

    If Paul wants to eliminate from ingestion all substances which are toxic, without taking into consideration the proper use levels of those substances, we will be able to ingest absolutely nothing and will be dead within a week.

    23. Connett: Proponents are downplaying the knowledge that large numbers of children in fluoridated communities are being over-exposed to fluoride (from all sources) as evidenced by the high prevalence of dental fluorosis (a discoloration and mottling of the tooth enamel) (CDC, 2010).

    Facts:
    A. I know of no one who “downplays” dental fluorosis. The fact that dental and medical healthcare providers understand the difference between the degrees of severity of dental fluorosis , while Paul attempts to lump them all together is demonstration of Paul’s deficiency of knowledge, not of any “downplay” of the effect.

    B. The mild to very mild dental fluorosis sometimes attributable to optimally fluoridated water does not cause any “mottling of the enamel”. It is simply a barely detectable effect causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. The “mottling” to which Paul refers, is, by definition, moderate/severe dental fluorosis. This degree of dental fluorosis is not attributable to optimally fluoridated water.

    24. Connett: “I did not state or imply that the dental fluososis “is attributable to optimally fluoridated water.” I clearly stated that, “large numbers of children in fluoridated communities are being over-exposed to fluoride (from all sources).” Whether or not the fluoride comes from fluoridated water, or fluoridated toothpaste or pesticide residues, the undisputed fact remains that our kids are being over-exposed to fluoride. When fluoridation began the early promoters thought they would limit this condition to 10% of the kids in its “very mild” condition. Trendley Dean testified before Congress that “mild” dental fluorosis was an unacceptable trade-off for reduced tooth decay.”

    Facts:
    A. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on “large numbers of children” or anyone else, from overexposure to fluoride attributable to optimally fluoridated water.

    B. What Paul claims that Trendley Dean stated is meaningless in the absence of proper citation to where the quote may be viewed in its complete and proper context.

    24. Connett: “Now according to the CDC (2010) study, for children aged 12-15:
    28.5% have very mild dental fluorosis – up to 25% of the tooth enamel impacted 8.6% have mild dental fluorosis – up to 50% of the tooth enamel impacted
    3.6% have moderate or severe dental fluorosis – 100% of the enamel impacted.
    These are unacceptable prevalence figures and it was one of the key reasons for HHS lowering the recommended level of fluoride to 0.7 ppm from 1.2 ppm. Stephen attempts to diminish the significance of this “over-exposure” by dwelling on the cosmetic and structural significance of dental fluorosis rather the key concern that dental fluorosis provides direct evidence that the child’s biochemistry has been interfered with, most likely via fluoride inhibiting the enzymes involved in the growing tooth cells responsible for laying down the tooth enamel. A responsible health official should wonder whether while this is occurring fluoride might also be interfering with enzymes or some other biochemical molecules in other tissues; hence Scary Fact 4.”

    Facts:

    A. As I stated, in the 2010 CDC study Beltran-Aguilar observed 37.1% of adolescents examined to exhibit signs of mild to very mild dental fluorosis, and 3.7% with signs of moderate dental fluorosis. Any severe dental fluorosis was negligible.

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

    B. Paul’s personal opinion as to what is “unacceptable” is irrelevant. While he laments “concern” for the benign, barely detectable mild dental fluorosis, he callously disregards the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infections, directly resultant of untreated dental decay which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.

    C. Science and healthcare are evidence-based, not Paul Connett personal speculation-based. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any “interfering with enzymes”, or any other adverse effect, from optimal level fluoride.

    25. Connett: “What I am saying is that fluoridation promoters, going back to the 1940s, took a terrible gamble here when they assumed that no other developing tissue would be impacted. And once the PHS had endorsed fluoridation in 1950 they really did not go to any length to find out if other tissues were harmed. And have not done so since. They don’t finance the studies then conclude that the absence of study is the same as the absence of harm, which is what Steven Slott has done here.”

    Facts:
    See #24 C above.

    26. Connett: “(Stephen is forgetting the arsenic, lead, and possibly radionuclides, for which there are no safe levels, which are inevitably added when industrial grade fluoride obtained from the phosphate fertilizer industry is used to fluoridate water, not pharmaceutical grade as used in dental products)”

    Facts:
    A. I have forgotten no such thing. I clearly stated that the only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety. The trace contaminants are the “arsenic, lead, and possibly radionuclides” to which Paul refers.

    According to the EPA mandated stringent NSF Standard 60 testing of fluoridated water at the tap, lead was detected in less than 1% of random samples. Within that less than 1% the maximum amount detected was 0.088 parts per billion. The Standard 60 maximum allowable level of lead is 1.5 parts per billion.

    Arsenic was only detected in less than 50% of the random samples. The maximum level of arsenic detected was 0.6 parts per billion. The Standard 60 maximum allowed level of arsenic is 1.0 parts per billion.

    Radionuclides were detected in less than 1% of the random samples. The amount detected was negligible.

    A complete list of the content of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise levels of any detected contaminants, and the maximum allowable level under Standard 60, may be found:

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

    If Paul wishes to argue with the United States Environmental Protection Agency in regard to what he personally deems to be safe levels, he is entirely free to do so.

    B. Paul’s implication that “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride is safer for fluoridation than the fluoridation substances currently utilized could not be any more erroneous. The fact is that there is a potential for greater levels of contaminants in fluoridated water from “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride than there is from the fluoridation substances currently utilized.

    From the CDC:

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

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

    “AWWA-grade sodium fluoride is preferred over USP-grade sodium fluoride for use in water treatment facilities because the granular AWWA product is less likely to result in dusting exposure of water plant operators than the more powder-like USP-grade sodium fluoride.”

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

    27. “Stephen is confusing the MCLs with the MCLGs for these substances. The MCLG for both arsenic and lead is zero”

    Facts:
    I have confused nothing. I have clearly stated the MCLs, because this is the level of contaminants considered by the EPA to be safe, and attainable with current technology.

    The EPA, as a matter of policy, sets the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) at zero for any substance which can be carcinogenic, regardless the level at which carcinogenicity may occur. Arsenic and lead can be carcinogenic at high levels. Thus, they are automatically assigned an MCLG of zero. Due to the high prevalence of arsenic in the environment and the strong evidence of its being an essential nutrient, a zero level of arsenic is, in all likelihood, not even attainable, and even if it were, it is not desirable.

    to be continued………..

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Response to Connett continued………

      28. Connett: “Here is a non-exhaustive list Stephen. I expect others could add more. I would like to see if any of the following can be associated with increased exposure to fluoride:
      a) Arthritis rates
      b) Decreased thyroid function
      c) Lowered IQ in children
      d) Increased ADHD rates in children. e) Reduced time to puberty
      f) Reproductivehealth
      g) Alzheimer’s disease”

      Facts:
      In order to credibly request testing for such associations, there must be credible evidence that an association may exist. Otherwise unsubstantiated claims could be put forth forever. There is no such evidence in regard to this list of disorders. I certainly have no objection to Paul or anyone else performing valid studies to determine whatever association Paul personally believes to exist. But this is not a reason to cease fluoridation in the meantime.

      29. Connett:
      “I would also like to see a government attempt to put the anecdotal reports of people claiming to be sensitive to fluoride on a scientific level.
      I would also like to see a further investigation of Bassin’s suggested age window of vulnerability to ostreosarcoma in young boys.
      I would also like to see an attempt to reproduce Jennifer Luke’s findings on fluoride and human pineal gland and her studies on animals (Luke, 1997, 2001).
      I would also like to see a comprehensive effort to monitor fluoride levels in urine, blood and bone to establish a baseline for future research. This and all the above should have started 70 years ago before this reckless experiment was begun.”

      Facts:
      A.Paul is certainly free to undertake any of this he wishes. In the meantime, his wish to do so is not reason to cease water fluoridation.

      B. Seventy years ago, researchers determined that existing high levels of fluoride in drinking water resulted in increased dental decay resistance, but also resulted in discoloration and mottling of the teeth. They set out to find if they could determine a reduced level of this fluoride at which significant dental decay resistance could still occur, but without the discoloration and mottling of teeth. They determined that a reduction of this fluoride level to a range between 0.7 ppm and 1.2 ppm would provide that proper balance. For those water supplies already at or above this level, no additional fluoride would be needed. For those below this level, additional fluoride could be incorporated up to that optimal range, without causing adverse effects.

      There was no “experiment”, simply an adjustment of existing levels of a substance which had always been ingested in water, to a level at which maximum benefit could be attained without the adverse effects. There was no need to perform all of the activities Paul wishes to perform on a substances that people had been ingesting in their water since the beginning of time.

      30. Connett: “this is actually not true of breast-fed babies. Babies being bottle –fed fluoride at 100-300 normal breast-milk levels is a new phenomenon the vast majority of human beings. Moreover, millions have been harmed when the natural levels go much above 2 ppm.”

      Facts:
      There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of adverse effects on babies, or anyone else, from optimally fluoridated water. The only risk of any “harm” between 2.0 ppm to 4.0 ppm fluoride is moderate dental fluorosis. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

      31. Connett: “Again you are confusing the MCL and the MCLG Stephen. The MCL for arsenic is 10 ppb [a determination based on the economics or arsenic removal] and the MCLG, which is the ideal goal for a safe level, which is zero)”

      Facts:
      The one attempting to confuse MCL and MCLG is Paul. I have been clear on my use of MCL. He constantly attempts to use MCLG to confuse the issue of safety levels of contaminants.

      From the EPA:
      “The MCL is set as close to the MCLG as feasible. EPA must determine the feasible MCL or TT which the Safe Drinking Water Act defines as the level that may be achieved with the use of the best available technology, treatment techniques, and other means which EPA finds are available (after examination for efficiency under field conditions, not solely under laboratory conditions) are available, taking cost into consideration.”

      http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/basicinformation.cfm

      As I have clearly demonstrated previously, a zero level for arsenic is neither attainable nor desirable.

      32. Connett: “Sadly, the lack of evidence here is due largely to the government’s irresponsible neglect of the issue. See our text The Case Against Fluoride for the reasons why it is entirely reasonable and expected that a small percentage (1-2%) would be particularly sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity even at the levels we fluoridate water.”

      Facts:
      A. Paul’s opinion of governmental “neglect” is so noted. It is also irrelevant. Again, science and healthcare are evidence-based, not Paul Connett personal speculation-based.

      B. Paul should save sales promotions for his book, for other venues.

      33. Connett: “Why not? We are talking about public policy here. A public policy, which is being forced on millions and usually without their informed consent to this human treatment. Why can this only be pontificated by a priesthood?”

      A. We are talking about a healthcare decision directly affecting each and every member of a community.

      B. There is nothing forced upon anyone in regard to water fluoridation.

      C. Informed consent applies to treatment rendered. If Paul deems drinking a glass of water to be a “treatment” of some sort, requiring informed consent, then every time he gets ready to “administer” a glass of water to himself he will need to obtain informed from himself to give to himself. This is, obviously, ridiculous.

      D. There is nothing “pontificated by a priesthood” in regard to water fluoridation. There is simply a decision made by local civic leaders as to the content of local water supplies under their jurisdiction……..one of the countless duties for which they have been duly elected by the people of the community.

      34. “Connett: Why are we allowing dentists with no specialized medical training or toxicological training to control this debate?”

      Facts:
      On a dental/healthcare issue whom does Paul believe should be accorded credence…..dentists and MDs……or his “Fluoride Action Network?

      While Paul constantly attempts to portray this to be an issue controlled by dentists he fails to understand that the support for fluoridation is widespread amongst the various aspects and disciplines of healthcare. This includes those such as the past 5 US Surgeons General of the US, the Chief medical officers for the US, all MDs who answered directly to the President…….the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health…..the US CDC, the US IOM…….and over 150 of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world. This could hardly be deemed to be controlled by dentists.

      One of the most highly respected toxicologists in the US, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, has flatly stated:

      “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

      35. Connett: ” And do so from solo platforms without being forced to produce the scientific studies to back up their assertions?”

      Facts:
      As clearly evidenced here, I consistently provide scientific studies to back up my assertions, if not when the assertions are made, then immediately upon request.

      The ones who are notorious for failing to produce valid evidence to support their claims are antifluoridationists…….as evidenced by the countless unsubstantiated claims Paul has made here.

      36. Connett: “I can understand why Steven Slott, a self-appointed member of this priesthood, would want to be free of the discipline of open debate, but hopefully others will not let him get away with that luxury. And if he doesn’t believe in the value of debate then why does he spend so much of his working hours debating the issue on the internet.”

      Facts:
      As clearly evidenced by the enormous amount of unsubstantiated claims Paul makes, it takes an enormous of amount of time and effort to properly address them. While he has plenty of time to toss out his multitude of claims within the time constraints and format of an “open debate”, there obviously is nowhere near enough time, under such conditions, to properly address even a few of them, much less all of them.

      I am more than happy to debate Paul in a written debate such as this, in which his claims can all be properly addressed with facts and evidence.

      37. Connett: “Why doesn’t Steven “put his opinions into proper format for peer-review and seek to have them published in a respect scientific journal”? Why is he allowed to say whatever he wants – and insult whomever he chooses without subjecting himself to the same discipline he demands of others?”

      Facts:
      Has Paul ever been denied the right to “say whatever he wants and insult whomever he chooses”? Highly doubtful.
      Paul promotes himself to be an “authority” on fluoridation, at times being referred to as “The Premier International Authority on Fluoridation”. One with such lofty “credentials” on a science and healthcare issue can be rightfully expected to have published a significant amount of peer-reviewed literature on that issue. Paul has produced not one single scrap of peer-reviewed literature on fluoridation, yet still promotes himself as being an “authority” on the issue.

      I, on the other hand, have never promoted, or referred to, myself as being in any manner an authority or expert on fluoridation. I am simply a general dentist who fully understands this issue because he taken the time and exerted the effort to properly educate himself on it. I have no need, or desire, to publish anything. I simply provide facts and evidence which readers are free to use in whatever manner they choose.

      38. Connett: “There is not a total lack of interest in our book. It has been well received by those who have an open mind on the issue. Clearly, Steven demonstrates the absolute opposite of an open mind when he writes, “there is no reason anyone of intelligence would care what is in his book, much less have any desire, whatsoever, to address any of it.” Others might find this attitude acceptable, I don’t. In my view this is arrogance of the highest order. It is a pity Steven didn’t have the same Latin teacher as I did when I was 12-years of age. He said one day in class that, “An educated person is someone who can entertain his or her self, entertain a friend and entertain a new idea.”

      Facts:
      Sure, Paul’s book has been “well-received” by antifluoridationists seeking to confirm their bias. It is highly doubtful that it has been well-received” by anyone else.

      Again, the lack of anyone refuting his book is not an indication of an inability to do so, it is an indication of a lack of interest to do so by anyone with any credence.

      Paul’s opinion as to what he deems to be an “acceptable” attitude, and anecdotes about his school days are, obviously, irrelevant.

      39. Connett: “I am afraid that Steven, to quote Ibsen (from his play The Ghosts) is “pitifully afraid of the light” on this issue. For me, I would welcome a book from Steven (and his colleagues) entitled “The Case For Fluoridation.” Especially if he did what we did: made all his views and arguments transparent and provide the documentation for all the science that supports his position. This could only raise the level of debate, but I am afraid that is not his agenda. Any one who has followed his verbage on the internet will know that his agenda is to frighten people away from any rational discussion by insults, sarcasm and every verbal form of intimidation he can muster.”

      Facts:
      A. I have no need to write a book on fluoridation. I simply provide facts and evidence.

      B. If Paul so craved respect for his opinions, he should not have circumvented the peer-review process by publishing them in book form rather than in a form suitable for proper peer-review and publishing in a respected scientific journal, as do legitimate scientists. He has no one to blame but himself for that decision.

      C. The only ones who claim that I “frighten people away from any rational discussion by insults, sarcasm and every verbal form of intimidation he can muster.” are uninformed antifluoridationists who resent my exposing the fallacies of their arguments and holding them accountable to provide valid facts and evidence to support their claims. Instead of whining about my so doing, Paul would be better served by properly educating himself on this issue from respected, reliable sources of accurate information.

      40. Connett: “That is not true Steven. If you check out our health database (www.FluorideAction.net/issues/health/brain ) you will see that there many more studies (animal, human and fetal studies) that buttress the IQ studies that fluoride is neurotoxic and can impact the mental and neurological development of both animals and humans. Take the animal studies where they are put in mazes – those exposed to fluoride are less able to learn and remember (that was 31 out of 33 peer-reviewed studies). But we are not alone in concluding that fluoride is neurotoxic. Consultants hired by the US EPA concluded that there was substantial evidence that fluoride was neurotoxic”

      Facts:
      If Paul has valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of neurotoxicity of optimal level fluoride then he needs to properly cite it from primary sources. Providing a link to his own website, “Fluorideaction” does not qualify as such.

      41. Connett: Landrigan and Grandjean (who you cite) writing in the Lancet also concluded that fluoride was a developmental neurotoxin.

      Facts:
      Landrigan and Grandjean did not conclude optimal level fluoride to be neurotoxic. Paul is free to provide a proper cite to such a conclusion if he so desires.

      42. Connett: “Like other promoters when challenged Steven can provide no list of studies that satisfactorily discount this large body of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic. All he does is to throw out all these studies as being ‘fatally flawed.’ ”

      A. There is no “large body of evidence” that optimal level fluoride is neurotoxic. In fact, there is no evidence, whatsoever, that it is such.

      B. Allow me to provide Paul with quotes from Grandjean and Choi, themselves, in regard to the high level of fluoride in the Chinese studies, and the flaws which rendered them to be of virtually no value:

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

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

      From: Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic
      Review and Meta-Analysis
      Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang, Philippe Grandjean
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1104912
      Online 20 July 2012

      page 4 Conclusion:

      “The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on
      children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level
      information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustment.”

      ——Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic
      Review and Meta-Analysis
      Anna L. Choi, Guifan Sun, Ying Zhang, Philippe Grandjean

      Page 9

      “Six of the 34 studies identified were excluded due to missing information on the number of
      subjects or the mean and variance of the outcome (see Figure 1 for a study selection flow chart
      and Supplemental Material, Table S1 for additional information on studies that were excluded
      from the analysis). ”

      Page 13

      “Children who lived in areas with high fluoride exposure had lower IQ scores than those who lived in low exposure or control areas.”

      Page 13-14

      “While most reports were fairly brief and complete information on covariates was not available, the results tended to support the potential for fluoride-mediated developmental neurotoxicity at relatively high levels of exposure in some studies.”

      Page 15

      “The present study cannot be used to derive an exposure limit, as the actual exposures of the
      individual children are not known. Misclassification of children in both high- and low-exposure
      groups may have occurred if the children were drinking water from other sources (e.g., at school
      or in the field).”

      Page 15-16

      “Still, each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which
      limit the conclusions that can be drawn. However, most deficiencies relate to the reporting,
      where key information was missing. The fact that some aspects of the study were not reported
      limits the extent to which the available reports allow a firm conclusion. Some methodological
      limitations were also noted. Most studies were cross-sectional, but this study design would seem appropriate in a stable population where water supplies and fluoride concentrations have
      remained unchanged for many years. The current water-fluoride level likely also reflects past
      developmental exposures. In regard to the outcomes, the inverse association persisted between
      studies using different intelligence tests, although most studies did not report age adjustment of
      the cognitive test scores.”

      43. Connett: “No precautionary principle? I think this tells us more about the people that continue to push this reckless practice than it does about the quality of evidence.”

      Facts:
      The Precautionary Principle applies when there is no scientific consensus of safety of the substance or issue in question. With over 150 of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world supporting fluoridation, there is clearly scientific consensus of its safety. The Precautionary Principle, therefore, does not apply to fluoridation.

      44. Connett: “I am appalled that any government would put a known neurotoxic substance into the public drinking water of millions of their citizens especially their children.”

      Facts:
      Nature put fluoride into the drinking water first. Is Paul also “appalled” with Nature?

      45. Connett: “actually there are 44 IQ studies from China, Iran, India and Mexico and some were published in well-established peer-reviewed western journals) which were so fatally flawed (some had weaknesses but not all and Choi et al conceded that the results were remarkably consistent despite the fact that they were carried out by different research teams at different times in different parts of China and Iran. 26 of the 27 studies found a lowering of IQ)”

      Facts:
      See my item #42

      46. Connett: “Steven omitted the quote that Grandjean gave at the time of this study’s release: “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.” (Harvard press).

      The fact that fluoride is neurotoxic is nothing newly discovered by Grandjean. It has been on the EPA list of neurotoxins for years. On that same list are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (sweetener), ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), tetracycline (antibiotic), caffeine, and nicotine.

      Does Paul fear neurotoxicity when he sweetens his coffee or tea? Has a beer? Takes an aspirin? Has a cup of coffee or consumes a soft drink? Highly doubtful. Why? Because he understands that concentration level is the difference between safety and toxicity of all substances. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of neurotoxicity of optimal level fluoride.

      47. Connett: “He also omitted mention of the pilot study that Choi, Grandjean and others conducted in China in 2014 (and published in 2015) where they found the ability of a child to remember a series of numbers and repeat backwards and forwards was associated with levels of fluoride exposure, which corresponded to levels experienced by American children in fluoridated communities”

      Facts:
      This was a study of the effects of elevated concentrations of fluoride in well-water of Chinese communities. Water in the US is fluoridated at the very low level of 0.7 ppm.

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

      —–Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study,”
      Neurotoxicology and Teratology.

      48. Connett: “Steven’s constant use of the word “optimal level” again underlines his lack of
      understanding of toxicology and risk assessment.”

      Facts:
      The “optimal level” of fluoride is, by definition that non-enforceable level of fluoride in drinking water, officially recommended by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur, with no adverse effects.

      Paul’s failure to understand what exactly is the “optimal level” of fluoride is clear demonstration of his lack of understanding of even the basics of this issue.

      49. Connett: “Let’s examine more closely the studies reviewed by Choi et al (2012). Seven Slott and other proponents have said these can be ignored because the “high” fluoride villages had levels not relevant to the “optimal levels”……etc, etc, etc”

      Facts:
      Grandjean and Choi, themselves, stated that these Chinese studies were too flawed to base any conclusions about fluoridation in the United States on them. It is a mystery why Paul continues to attempt to do so anyway.

      50. Connett: According to report from BBC Scotland the program had slashed their costs by half.”

      Fine. So the cost to serve 120,000 children in the Child Smile program is £62.50 per child, per year instead of £125 per child per year. The cost of fluoridation serving 6 million people in the UK is 35 pence per person, per year.

      51. Connett: “Such savings would get thrown out the window, 1) if you were forced to use pharmaceutical grade fluoride as your fluoridating agent rather than industrial grade waste product; 2) if you took into account the costs of treating dental fluorosis and 3) if you acknowledged that fluoride was also having other health effects.”

      Facts:
      A. There is no reason anyone should be forced to use “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride to fluoridate water systems. Not only is it more expensive, it is also inadvisable due to the potential to introduce greater amounts of arsenic and other contaminants into the water supply than the currently utilized fluoridation substances.

      B. There is no “waste product” involved in fluoridation. A substance utilized productively is, by definition, not waste. It is truly odd that Paul not only does not understand the danger and inadvisability of using “pharmaceutical grade” fluoride for fluoridation, he also seems to be against productive use of our natural resources. Thankfully Paul does not determine which fluoridation substances are utilized. We would all be in trouble if he did.

      C. There is no treatment required for mild to very mild dental fluorosis. Therefore, there are no “costs of treating dental fluorosis” attributable to optimally fluoridated water.

      D. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of “other health effects” attributable to optimally fluoridated water.

      52. Connett: “(only “obvious” to those who are determined to defend fluoridation regardless of the scientific evidence and have little understanding of toxicology and risk assessment),”

      Facts:
      It is obvious that optimal level fluoride is not toxic due to the fact that hundreds of millions of people have chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water over the past 70 years, with no proven adverse effects.

      It is obvious that optimal level fluoride is not toxic, to those who understand that science and healthcare are evidence-based, not Paul Connett personal speculation-based.

      53. Connett: “I will never convince Steven that fluoridation is a bad medical practice, which should never have been started let alone continue for 70 years. So these last words are intended for others who might stray upon this conversation.”

      Facts:
      A. Paul will never convince any intelligent individuals who have a proper understanding of fluoridation, a decent knowledge of the scientific literature, and are able to see through the smoke, misinformation, personal speculation, and unsubstantiated claims, he presents.

      B. There is no “medical practice” involved in water fluoridation. Perhaps Paul should check the legal system to see how many times that argument has been rejected when brought in by antifluoridationists. If he does, he will find the answer to be……..each and every time.

      54. Connett: “Once you add the treatment to the water supply you can’t control the dose people get; you cannot control who gets the treatment (it goes to everyone) and you deny people their right to informed consent to medication.”

      Facts:
      A. The dose of fluoride from fluoridated water is very easily controlled. Simply put, for every one liter of fluoridated water consumed, 0.7 mg of fluoride will be ingested. The US CDC has estimated that of the total fluoride intake from all sources, 75% is from water and beverages. The US Institute of Medicine has established 10 mg to be the daily upper limit of fluoride intake before adverse effects may occur. A simple math equation demonstrates that before this daily upper limit could be attained, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

      The daily upper limit for infants and children ages 0-8 years is considerably less, but only due to the risk of mild dental fluorosis during those teeth developing years. After the teeth have developed, dental fluorosis is no longer possible. Thus, after age 8 years, the daily upper limit jumps to 10 mg.

      B. There is no informed consent required for local officials to approve routine water additives for public water supplies under their jurisdiction. Any such consent is accorded by their election.

      55. Connett: “Fluoride is the last substance to force people to swallow. It is not an essential nutrient. Nature has not used it any………etc, etc, etc….”

      Facts:
      See all my above answers in regard to Paul’s final rehash of his “arguments”.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Slottman the coward, I have asked you before to write your own book, “The Case for Swallowing Silcofluorides”. but you cowardly back away from doing this.
      But you write so prolifically on the internet.
      Put your money where you put your mouth, no courage to back a flop of a seller?
      Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
      A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
      A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
      A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
      ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.

    • “Breast milk has the perfect combination of proteins, fats, vitamins, and carbohydrates. There is nothing better for the health of your baby” [ http://americanpregnancy.org/first-year-of-life/whats-in-breastmilk/ ]. Fluoride isn’t one of them. Connett has a point.

      Also see: https://www.facebook.com/notes/anti-fluoridation-association-of-mildura/infant-exposure-the-great-gamble/310619905750395

  32. CONTRIBUTION to TRUTH by Darlene Sherrell and Martha Bevis (Source p-p 220-221, “The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson: Seven Stories Press):

    QUOTE: The assurances that drinking fluoride for a lifetime would be harmless flowed strongest from Dr (Harold Carpenter) Hodge’s cold war laboratory at the University of Rochester. … In 1954 … (he told the US) Congress that it would require ingesting 20-80 milligrams of fluoride each day for ten to twenty years before injury would occur.

    After hearing Hodge, Congress rejected the appeals to ban water fluoridation. In the late 1980s … two antifluoride activists, Martha Bevis and Darlene Sherrell, questioned the data Hodge had given Congress.

    (Hodge’s claim mutated.) The American Dental Association (ADA) stated in a pamphlet that ‘the daily intake required to produce symptoms of chronic toxicity after years of consumption is 20 to 80 milligrams or more depending on weight.’ It was a plain falsehood.

    Sherrell wrote to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) asking where the numbers had come from. (Sherrell) spotted that even Hodge had changed his data. Hodge stated in 1979 that 10 mgs of fluoride a day – not 20 – would cause “crippling fluorosis.” Hodge had given no accompanying explanation for why he had halved his estimate. … the government and the ADA ignored Hodge’s correction; they continued to use his higher estimate of the amount of fluoride one could safely consume in a day, even though Hodge himself had repudiated it.

    It was only with the help of Florida’s Senator Bob Graham that Sherrell won a response in 1990 from the NAS, to whom she pointed out the error. … Three years later, in 1993, the NAS National Research Council (NRC) published … Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. This time, although there was no accounting or apologizing for the forty years of false reassurances, the numbers were quietly corrected. “Crippling skeletal fluorosis,” the NRC stated, “might occur in people who ingested 10-20 mg of fluoride per day for 10-20 years.

    It was an astonishing state of affairs. Two citizen activists, neither of them scientists, had torn away the flimsy garment that had concealed a half century of scientific deception. The corrected 1993 NRC figures laid bare the facts: countless thousands of Americans have been exposed to dangerous levels of fluoride throughout their lives. … (and) may be suffering a variety of musculoskeletal and other health ailments that can be traced back to the toxicologist’s false promise that fluoride in water was safe.” QUOTE ENDS

  33. Pingback: Connett’s Response to Slott on ’10 Scary Facts of FL Promotion’ | Research Blog

  34. It is criminal the lengths fluoride promoters go to, to force ingestion of this unsafe, ineffective toxin, while ignoring clear evidence of the harm water fluoridation causes to sensitive individuals – perhaps not a large percentage of the population, but a lot of people suffering needlessly. And how many more are suffering without having realized the cause? Whatever happened to informed consent to medical treatment?

    Thank you AFAM, for your continued dedication to exposing the truth.

  35. Steve,

    It doesn’t matter why the fluoride enquiry was convened (NRC/NAS, 2006) because that doesn’t change the fact that it, in effect, found 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg/F can cause thyroid effects in iodine-deficient humans when chronically ingested.

    That means, that the chronic consumption of only one-tenth to three-tenths of one litre of water containing a fluoride concentration of 1.00 ppm has the potential to begin harming thyroid function in 10-kg, iodine-deficient infants.

    1.00 pm is the so-called ‘optimal’ concentration that the USA Government and the American Dental Association had been promoting since at least 1962.

    The only reason that the recommended concentration (depending on average ambient temperatures) was changed, in the USA, from 0.7 (or was it 0.6?) to 1.2 mg/L was because so many children had already been chronically fluoride poisoned – as evidenced by the high rate of dental fluorosis.

    Even when artificial water fluoridation began in the USA, it was known – and expected – that about 10% of children would develop dental fluorosis.

    • Ailsa

      1. Yet once again…you need to read the report and cease reliance on out-of-context quotes of what the Committee duly reported as being in the literature. The Committee was clear as to what it deemed to be of any concern with fluoride at the level of 4.0 ppm in drinking water. There was no mention of thyroid concerns. So, either you are claiming that Committee to have been entirely negligent in its duties, which, if true, would negate whole report……or you have no idea as to what you are talking about.

      The Chair of the Committee sees nothing to fear with ingestion of optimally fluoridated water. You are certainly free to argue with him if you wish, however, he might take exception to your continued implication that his committee was irresponsible and negligent in its duties.

      2. The optimal level of fluoride in drinking is not a “so-called” anything, and is not “promoted” by anyone. The optimal level of fluoride is the official recommendation of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, as to the proper level of fluoride in drinking water at which will occur maximum dental decay prevention, with no adverse effects. This level is 0.7 ppm, and is the level at which the majority of fluoridated systems maintain their fluoride.

      3. The only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. In 33 years of practicing dentistry in a fluoridated community surrounded by fluoridated communities, I have as yet to see one, single case of dental fluorisis attributable to the water, which even be detectable outside of close examination in my dental chair.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Slotto, if fluorosis is no problem, why did you Yanks reduce many area’s level of poisoning the water, by 30%, from 1.0 ppm to 0.7 ppm?

  36. Steve,

    This comment of yours, “Perhaps you should actually read the NRC Report. If you do, you will find that the Committee expressed no concerns with thyroid at the level if 4.0 ppm or below. The only concerns cited in the final recommendation were risk of severe dental fluorosis, risk of bone fracture, and risk skeletal fluorosis….with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater.” is a red herring. It deliberately distracts from the fact that NRC/NAS 2006 reported to the effect (as worded verbatim in another comment) that 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg/F can cause effects to thyroid function in iodine-deficient people.

    No amount of you diverting back to 4.00 ppm/F in water will derail me from the point that iodine-deficient people can have effects to their thyroid function (which are not beneficial) from 4 to 5 times less fluoride than iodine-adequate people.

    • Ailsa

      The final recommendation of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water “is a red herring”??

      Not only was the 4.0 ppm not “a red herring”, it was the whole point of the report. Again, if you would read the report, you might actually begin to understand it. The Committee was charged with evaluating the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect the public against adverse effects. After an exhaustive 3 year review of all the pertinent fluoride literature, the Committee made one final recommendation…..to reduce the primary MCL down from 4.0 ppm. Why? Because of the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or higher. No other reasons. If the committee had any concerns with adverse effects on the thyroid with fluoride at 4.0 ppm or lower, it would have been responsible for so stating, and recommending accordingly. It did not. It made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm.

      Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third that secondary MCL.

      Because this committee dutifully reported what was in the scientific literature does not mean that it considered it all pertinent, or of concern with fluoride at 4.0 ppm or lower. The final recommendation reflected exactly what this committee deemed important at this level of fluoride.

      The Chair of the Committee, Dr. John Doull, one of the most highly respected toxicologists in the nation, has flatly stated that “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”

      You are certainly welcome to your personal opinion. However, it does not stand up very well against that of Doull and his 2006 NRC Committee.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • I will repeat, ad infinitum if necessary, that the NRC/NAS 2006 reviewers in effect agreed that 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg/F when chronically ingested by iodine-deficient humans can have effects of thyroid. Full stop.

        • Ailsa

          Repeat all you want. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water did not state any concerns with thyroid as a reason for its final recommendation. If it had any concerns with thyroid at the level of 4.0 ppm, it would hve been responsible for so stating, and recommending accordingly. It did not. Severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis. That was it.

          So, are you claiming this committee to have been irresponsible and negligent?

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

  37. Steve,

    Following are the actual words published by the National Academies Press, Washington, DC on behalf of the National Research Council of the National Academies (of Sciences):

    “In humans, effects on thyroid function were associated with fluoride exposures of 0.05-0.13 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was adequate and 0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day when iodine intake was inadequate.”
    (Page 218/467 .pdf “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (NRC/NAS, 2006).

    The entire 12-member scientific committee, appointed by the National Research Council agreed with that finding.

    • Ailsa

      Perhaps you should actually read the NRC Report. If you do, you will find that the Committee expressed no concerns with thyroid at the level if 4.0 ppm or below. The only concerns cited in the final recommendation were risk of severe dental fluorosis, risk of bone fracture, and risk skeletal fluorosis….with chronic consumption of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. And, yes, all 12 members signed off on this final recommendation, including the 3 fluoridation opponents, Limeback, Thiessen, and Isaacson.

      “In response to EPA’s request, the NRC convened the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, which prepared this report. The committee was charged to review toxicologic, epidemiologic, and clinical data on fluoride—particularly data published since the NRC’s previous (1993) report—and exposure data on orally ingested fluoride from drinking water and other sources. On the basis of its review, the committee was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and SMCL of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects. The committee was asked to consider the relative contribution of various fluoride sources (e.g., drinking water, food, dental-hygiene products) to total exposure. The committee was also asked to identify data gaps and to make recommendations for future research relevant to setting the MCLG and SMCL for fluoride. Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment, and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge.”

      —Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
      http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html
      Page 2

      “After reviewing the collective evidence, including studies conducted since the early 1990s, the committee concluded unanimously that the present MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered. Exposure at the MCLG clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis, a condition that is associated with enamel loss and pitting. In addition, the majority of the committee concluded that the MCLG is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. The basis for these conclusions is expanded upon below.”

      Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
      http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571.html
      pp 2,3

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  38. When will fluoride promoters stop ignoring the NAS/NRC 2006 finding to the effect that the chronic ingestion of 0.01 to 0.03 milligrams of fluoride per kilogram of body weight can cause “thyroid effects” in iodine-deficient humans?

    In simple terms, this means that a bottle-fed, iodine-deficient, 10-kg infant, whose formula is reconstituted with water containing 1.0 mg/L of fluoride could have “thyroid effects” from being chronically fed from about one-tenth to three-tenths of one litre of fluoridated water.

    Iodine-deficient people can have “thyroid effects” form chronically ingesting 4 to 5 times less fluoride than an iodine-adequate person.

    • Ailsa

      1. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water did not express concern with thyroid at the fluoride level of 4.0 ppm or lower. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. The Chair of that acommittee, Dr. John Doull stated that he sees no valid, scientific reason to fear fluoride at the optimal level.

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

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

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

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

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

      2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on the thyroid, or anything else in babies or anyone else, from optimally fluoridated water.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  39. Okay, now that we have Connett’s 10 myths, let’s take a look at the actual facts, and see if “Mildura” has the confidence in its position to publish this comment, or whether it will, as do most antifluoridationist websites, weakly rely on censorship in lieu of facts and evidence.

    1. Connett: “Proponents ignore the fact that there is no evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient. In fact, there is not one single biochemical mechanism in the human body that needs fluoride to function properly. So why on earth are we being asked (or rather forced) to swallow it?”

    Facts:
    Connett ignores the fact that fluoride has always existed in water, fluoridated or not. Fluoridation does nothing but raise the existing level of fluoride up to that at which maximum benefit will be attained with no adverse effects. Under Connett’s “logic” we will still ingest fluoride in our water, we will just fail to gain the maximum benefit while so doing.

    2) Connett: “Proponents further ignore nature’s verdict on fluoride as far as the baby is concerned. The level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is remarkable low – 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p. 40). This means that in a fluoridated community with fluoride levels in the water at levels between 0.6 and 1.2 ppm, a bottle-fed baby is getting between 150 and 300 times the level of fluoride that nature intended. That is a reckless thing to do.”

    Facts:
    That which is “reckless” is Connett’s fear-mongering about babies when he has absolutely no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water on babies, or anyone else…….in spite of hundreds of millions having chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water over the past 70 years.

    3) Connett: Proponents are downplaying the knowledge that large numbers of children in fluoridated communities are being over-exposed to fluoride (from all sources) as evidenced by the high prevalence of dental fluorosis (a discoloration and mottling of the tooth enamel) (CDC, 2010).

    Facts:
    Connett dishonestly attempts to lump all levels of dental fluorosis into one, falsely implying that “a discoloration and mottling of the tooth enamel” is attributable to optimally fluoridated water. The facts are that the only dental fluorosis in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.

    The “CDC 2010” which Connett notes but fails to properly cite, is a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar in which 41% of adolescents they examined were found to have signs of dental fluorosis. This 41% was composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, and 3.8% composed of those with moderate dental fluorosis attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste and/or exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth forming years of 0-8.

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

    4) Connett: “Promoters have assumed that no other developing tissue in the baby’s body is negatively impacted while fluoride is damaging the growing tooth cells causing this condition (dental fluorosis).”

    Facts:
    Connett presents no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that any “developing tissue in the baby’s body is negatively impacted while ……”. Why does he present no such evidence? Because none exists.

    5) Connett: “Promoters of fluoridation can point to very few studies conducted in Australia or other fluoridated countries (from 1950 to the present) that have investigated the health of citizens in fluoridated communities. Like the US, where once the Public Health Service endorsed fluoridation in 1950 (with little science on the table), they switched from an investigative to promotional mode and have use PR not science to defend this practice.”

    Facts:
    Given that the only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable safety levels, the real question is…….what exactly does Connett wish to be tested? Fluoride ions which humans have been ingesting since the beginning of time, or trace contaminants in amounts that have already been deemed safe by the United States Environmental Protection Agency?

    6) Connett: “No health agency in Australia has followed up the recommendation made in 1991 by the Australian government research body the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) that studies be conducted to investigate the many anecdotal reports from individuals who claim to be highly sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity even at the levels used in water fluoridation; nor the recommendation by the same body that fluoride bone levels should be carefully monitored.”

    Facts:
    There is no valid, peer-reviewed evidence of any sensitivity to optimal level fluoride……..as evidenced by Connett’s inability to provide anything but anecdotes and speculation.

    7) Connett: “While repeatedly claiming that fluoridation is “safe and effective” promoters are not willing to defend their position in open public debate when challenged to do so by qualified scientists who have studied the issue and reached opposite conclusions.”

    Facts:
    Healthcare issues are not to be “debated” in live shows before audiences. Connett should go into show business if that is his desire. He is entirely free to put his opinions into proper format for peer-review and seek to have them published in a respect scientific journal if he so desires, but he needs to save the theatrics for Broadway.

    8) Connett: “One of the reasons promoters give for refusing to debate leading opponents is not their lack of knowledge but their lack of debating skills, however even when three scientists outlined a full and documented case against fluoridation in writing (see The Case Against Fluoride, by Paul Connett, PhD, James Beck, MD, PhD and Spedding Micklem, D Phil, Chelsea Green, 2010) they still have been unable to refute the arguments in this text. However, that does not stop them labeling their opponents as being anti-science or practicing “junk science.”

    Facts:
    A. Connett mistakes a total lack of interest in his non peer-reviewed book, as being “unable to refute the arguments…..”. In actuality, there is no reason anyone of intelligence would care what is in his book, much less have any desire, whatsoever, to address any of it.

    B. Connett’s book has nothing to do with the proper characterization of the constant flow of unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and misrepresented science by antifluoridationists as being “anti-science or practicing ‘junk science’ “. It is exactly that.

    9) Connett: “When challenged fluoridation promoters have provided no substantial body of scientific research that could justify their confidently ignoring the large body of evidence in both animal and human studies that fluoride is neurotoxic (click here). This brings us to the scariest fact of all.”

    Facts:
    There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of optimal level fluoride being neurotoxic. Connett bases his claims in this regard, on the Chinese studies, dug out of obscure Chinese journals, which were so fatally flawed that the reviewers of these studies, Grandjean and Choi, stated that they should not be used to assess fluoridated water in the US. Does this stop Connett from doing so anyway? Obviously not.

    10) Connett: “Australian health agencies – and other promoters of fluoridation – are prepared to put a known neurotoxic substance into the drinking water of millions of their citizens, when the last children that need their IQ lowered are the children from low-income families. These are the very same children being targeted for water fluoridation. This despite the fact that there are known ways of fighting tooth decay which are successfully being practiced in the vast majority of countries worldwide (e.g. the Childsmile program in Scotland) which do not force their citizens to swallow this toxic substance.”

    A. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any neurotoxicity of optimal level fluoride…..as evidenced by Connett’s inability to provide any such evidence.

    B. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any lowering of IQ in children of low-income families, or anyone else…….as evidenced by Connett’s inability to provide any such evidence.

    C. The Scottish ChildSmile Program, while a good initiative, delivers no where near the dental decay prevention of fluoridation, and is certainly saving no money. This 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 program 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 that Childsmile is an adequate substitute for water fluoridation.  The professional body representing dentists in Scotland does not see it that way. 

    —-British Fluoridation Society

    D. Fluoride at the optimal level is obviously not toxic, and, just as obviously, no one is forced to do anything in regard to the public health initiative of water fluoridation.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Another book length essay by Slottman the coward, I have asked you before to write your own book, “The Case for Swallowing Silcofluorides”. but you cowardly back away from doing this.
      But you write so prolifically on the internet.
      Put your money where you put your mouth, no courage to back a flop of a seller?
      Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
      A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
      A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
      A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
      ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.

      • Dear Colin: You attack Dr. Slott, apparently not recognizing that he is representing the scientific community’s consensus on community water fluoridation.

        As for “forced fluoridation,” no one is pouring fluoridated water down your throat against your will (though it is hard to avoid ingesting some of this common mineral). As with thousands of other public health measures, fluoridation is an opt-out situation (not opt-in as in giving consent for individual medical care). In public health measures, individuals are not given the power to deny other citizens of the benefits (e.g. you can’t operate a dirty restaurant if you want). With fluoridation, people can opt out by filtering their water or buy bottled water (which you would want to do anyway since fluoride exists in most ground water).

        One of the roles of government is to provide city dwellers with water, it being highly impractical for every household to have its own private well, treatment plant, and sewer system. In this situation, we want our water treated by the best available science. Lucky for us, several large, independent systematic reviews have found the best and more relevant research to support fluoridation on the grounds of safety and efficacy.

        “We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.” – Dr. John Harris of the Department of Ethics and Social Policy at the University of Manchester, UK

  40. Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
    A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
    A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
    A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
    ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.
    http://fluoridealert.org/

    • My, my, Colin, you seem extremely frustrated here. Tell you what, though, instead of wasting time posting childish personal attacks, you should seek to properly educate yourself on this issue from trustworthy sources. You would be a lot less frustrated if you gained some true understanding of fluoridation.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Alright Sloth DDS show the whole world how smart you are, and show us the original published peer reviewed paper that proved hydrofluorosilicic acid/sodium fluoride are safe and effective that started all this crap in the 1940’s & 50’s.

        None of your mates the likes of Kenny Baby from OPEN PARACHUTE could show us could he, can you?

        No you cannot, because there isn’t one is there Sloth DDS, so go away you poor excuse for a human being, let alone a calling yourself a medical “professional!”

        And don’t give me those diversionary tactics like your mate Kenny Baby keeps on with so he doesn’t have to answer our questions not unlike yourself.

        Just answer the question or go away back under that rock you crawled out from you pathetic fraud.

        Sloth DDS did a really good job dealing with Paul Melters below, didn’t you Sloth DDS.

        Oh and btw, Paul Melters says a big hello as well Sloth DDS.

        Just keep on showing the world how dumb you really are Sloth DDS by telling us we’re not as educated as you and you are an expert on fluoride.

        Below are Melters’ responses to Slott’s comments.

        Response: Point 1 – Paul Melters to Steve Slott, DSS – September 2, 2013

        Response Point 2 – Paul Melters to Steve Slott, DDS – September 4, 2013

        (Earlier Response – August 29, 2013)
        Alternate Response to Slott by Melters (1R)

        Response Point 3 – Paul Melters to Steve Slott, DDS – September 5, 2013
        (Earlier Response – August 29, 2013)

        Response Point 4 – Paul Melters to Steve Slott, DDS – September 6, 2013
        (Earlier Response – August 29, 2013)

        Response Point 5 – Paul Melters to Steve Slott, DDS – September 6, 2013
        (Earlier Response – August 29, 2013)

        http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/

        Sloth DDS you just keep on drinking that URANIUM, CADMIUM, ARSENIC, LEAD, MERCURY, BERYLLIUM, ETC ETC and enjoy those MERCURY fillings as well and let the rest of us have pure water without this crap that you say is SAFE AND EFFECTIVE to drink.

        Raw Fluoridation Chemical Analyses FOI SA WATER CORP. FROM 2006-2010

        You’ll find that 6 batches contained URANIUM in that FOI Sloth DDS.

        http://sapphireeyesproductions.blogspot.com.au/

        The new research found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick. It would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. That’s at least 10 times thinner than previous studies indicated. The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay, or whether fluoride has some other unrecognized effect on tooth enamel.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215121918.htm

        • Darryl

          1. Hydrofluorosilic acid does not exist at the tap in fluoridated water. It is therefore not ingested. There is no requirement, or need, for proof that a substance which is not ingested and does not come into contact with consumers, is “safe and effective”.

          2. I have no idea as to whom “Paul Melters” may be, but antifluoridationists are constantly posting nonsense about me. Actually some of that stuff is quite comical and entertaining. Some lawyer has a page full of nonsense on me that is literally hysterical. Please free to read any of it you wish. Intelligent readers know better than to accord it any credence.

          3. The only contaminants in fluoridated water at the tap are in such minuscule amounts, so far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that those detected aren’t those that already exist in water naturally. A complete list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants, and the EPA mandated maximum allowable level for each may be found:

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

          4. The scientists who conducted the study you cite did not not conclude that fluoride is ineffective, they were simply trying to determine the exact mechanism for the effectiveness.

          “Frank Müller and colleagues point out that tooth decay is a major public health problem worldwide. In the United States alone, consumers spend more than $50 billion each year on the treatment of cavities. The fluoride in some toothpaste, mouthwash and municipal drinking water is one of the most effective ways to prevent decay. Scientists long have known that fluoride makes enamel — the hard white substance covering the surface of teeth — more resistant to decay. Some thought that fluoride simply changed the main mineral in enamel, hydroxyapatite, into a more-decay resistant material called fluorapatite.”

          “The new research found that the fluorapatite layer formed in this way is only 6 nanometers thick. It would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. That’s at least 10 times thinner than previous studies indicated. The scientists question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay, or whether fluoride has some other unrecognized effect on tooth enamel. They are launching a new study in search of an answer.”

          —-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101215121918.htm

          Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Hello Sloth DDS you just admitted that there are no safety studies just go away and play with your buddies somewhere else.

            You just proved to the world that you are a fraud.

            Oh and for your pathetic stance with the excuse about this point is just another pathetic way of not answering my question.

            1. Hydrofluorosilic acid does not exist at the tap in fluoridated water. It is therefore not ingested. There is no requirement, or need, for proof that a substance which is not ingested and does not come into contact with consumers, is “safe and effective”.

            How did I know that you’d come back with this piece of crock shite is because SHILLS the likes of you do this all the time so I’ve heard this pathetic piece of crap before.

            So here we go again Sloth DDS, I’ll make it a bit easier for you, now show the world the original published peer reviewed paper showing FLUORIDE is SAFE AND EFFECTIVE in the treatment of dental caries.

            See, I can play with words just as good as you and that’s all the proponents of fluoridation do and the likes of you never ever speak the truth about the toxic effects of any fluoride compounds.

            Because no-one in the Western world is allowed to do any real research into the toxicity of any fluoride compound are they Sloth DDS?

            Only reviews of reviews, they aren’t allowed to publish any peer review papers stating fluoride is not safe and effective are they Sloth DDS?

            And you know that the so called research done by anyone is done for TEETH and nothing about fluoride’s effects on any human tissue because they’ll find out the truth about the toxicity of fluoride poisoning won’t they Sloth DDS.

            Doesn’t that mean there’s a MASSIVE COVER UP Sloth DDS?

            You are getting away with this because, no-one and I mean no-one in the Western world’s medical profession knows anything about fluoride poisoning.

            That’s because they’re not being taught about it in MED SCHOOLS in the USA, NZ, Britain and here in Australia are they Sloth DDS.

            Btw Sloth, I bet you feel very special having DDS beside your name.

            That doesn’t mean you are a TOXICOLOGIST or an ALLERGIST does it Sloth.

            You have no right to tell anyone that fluoride is safe and effective because you are not qualified are you?

            You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about do you Sloth DDS?

            So, all this and you involved is obviously being done by design isn’t it Sloth DDS?

            So SHILLS like you can keep on saying FLUORIDE is SAFE AND EFFECTIVE thus keeping the FLUORIDE FRAUD PERPETUATING with the help of the ignorance of the medical profession’s minions backing you all the way.

            All this because they don’t know any better do they Sloth DDS?

            Isn’t that just brilliant, that’s until this information gets out into the public domain and I wouldn’t be in your shoes for all the money in the world and/or what you’re being paid to do helping with this sham/fraud/snake oil.

            Now bout the problem you have with Paul Melters, here’s just one of many examples of his and your work from Paul’s website you pathetic little man.

            This information below can be found on Paul Melter’s website for anybody’s reference and don’t play dumb because everyone reading this knows that you are.

            2. I have no idea as to whom “Paul Melters” may be, but antifluoridationists are constantly posting nonsense about me. Actually some of that stuff is quite comical and entertaining. Some lawyer has a page full of nonsense on me that is literally hysterical. Please free to read any of it you wish. Intelligent readers know better than to accord it any credence.

            Yeah right you pathetic & lying little man you wouldn’t know the meaning of the truth, nonsense and/or intellegent.

            http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/

            HOME SLOTT JOHNSON PERROTT BILLY BUDD

            Point #1: Response by Paul Melters to Steve Slott, DDS
            September 2, 2013

            Steve Slott

            Here is my first response to your latest post.

            I will address each point separately, as time permits.

            You write about Point #1:

            1. SLOTT: “#1 Estimates of fluoride intake among U.S. and Canadian adults have ranged from <1.0 mg fluoride per day in nonfluoridated areas to 1–3 mg fluoride per day in fluoridated areas."

            —Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States.

            PM RESPONSE: Three comments here:

            a) You were asked to provide a reference for the following statement:

            1) Slott: "The total daily intake of fluoride from all sources is estimated by the CDC to be in the range of 1.5 ppm to 2.8 ppm".

            Because I questioned those numbers I asked you to provide the SPECIFIC reference to the CDC site where this statement can be found. I also reminded you – again – that intake is not measured in ppm, concentration is.

            You are now providing a reference to a CDC document that lists different intake numbers, specifically "1–3 mg". So I presume the CDC document stating the 1.5 to 2.8 figures – that you earlier insisted upon – does not exist.

            b) These 1-3 mg/day figures are the same intake figures that were cited earlier by myself from the 1977 NRC/NAS document. At that point you called those figures and implications "questionable" and "36 years old". I guess when they come from the CDC dentists, they are okay?

            c) I supplied you with a clear reference and link to a 1991 table and report showing that daily total fluoride intake was up to 6.6 mg/day in optimally fluoridated areas. This was not the first time I supplied you with this citation/link. It was at least the 5th time (and I have supplied it at least 6 more times since, on this and other forums!).

            At one point, on another forum, you insisted that you couldn't find the document. Then you couldn't find the page number. It was then that I provided you with a Google link directly to the document.

            Yet you claim – again – that this link "for the 1991 report is totally inadequate" and that I "failed to provide proper cites…and have no idea as to how to obtain the information in its proper and complete context, from its original source."

            You further wrote:

            "Assumedly the reason you are unable to properly cite these reports is because you obviously have not read the reports, have no idea of how to access them, and have no understanding whatsoever of their meaning."

            Hm… Once again – is there something NOT acceptable with the complete cite/link I provided? Here it is, now for the umteenth time, EXACTLY as provided before.

            Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks, Department of Health and Human Services, February 1991 p17 (table 11).
            Available for FREE via Google Books/Diane Publishing – wow! – with page numbers! – and the US Government:http://health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/.
            Special link for Google-challenged reader Steve Slott:
            http://tinyurl.com/ofsdku6

            Please do enlighten me and other readers – what is not acceptable about this citation? Does the link not work for you, perhaps?

            You further accused me of getting this cite off a "third party website". You have done this before, on another forum, except at that time that you listed a different "antifluoridationist" website I allegedly "pulled" the citations from:

            http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoquality/request&response/1a.shtml

            As it turned out, that was the website of the US Department of Health & Human Services, which had posted an excellent letter from somebody requesting more information on safety studies (which don't exist). All citations were properly done and entirely reliable. It was a wonderful letter, and I encourage all readers to check it out.

            However, your "third party website" claims didn't make sense then and don't make sense now, as the direct link above had always been provided.

            Slott: "I encourage any readers who desire to see the type of misleading tactics utilized by antifluoridationists such as Paul, to access the link I posted below the following quote in order to see from where he has obtained these out-of-context quotes for which he can produce no acceptable reference."

            Well Steve Slott – judging from the links above it appears that the only person who has distorted the truth here, and used misleading tactics – to put it mildly – is you.

            Paul

            I'm sure that Paul would love to communicate with you again Sloth DDS.

            • Darryl, this quote from you pretty much sums up your mental state:

              “Doesn’t that mean there’s a MASSIVE COVER UP Sloth DDS?” . . . Not that you’re paranoid or delusional or anything like that, Darryl, because there’s always a MASSIVE COVER UP . That explains everything.

              • David is a sewage worker, who knows how shovel his stuff.

                Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
                A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
                A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
                A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
                ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.

            • Darryl

              1. It is a mystery why you seem to believe there to be a need for safety studies on a substance which is not ingested, but I have already addressed that issue in my last comment.

              2. In order to credibly demand proof that a substance is safe, you must first provide valid evidence that it is unsafe. Water fluoridation is a public health initiative which has been providing a very valuable benefit to entire populations for 70 years. During that time period, hundreds of millions of people of all ages have consumed optimally fluoridated water. There have been no proven adverse effects. If you wish for cessation of this initiative then it is encumbent upon you to provide valid evidence to support your request. If you have valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of optimal level fluoride, I will certainly be glad to read it. In the absence of this, however, it is neither my, nor anyone else’s responsibility to disprove unsubstantiated claims.

              As far as effectiveness…..countless peer-reviewed scientific studies have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of fluoridation in preventing dental decay in entire populations. I will be glad to cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.

              3. In regard to whatever is the nonsense you’ve posted from Paul somebody or other, again, feel free to read as much of that junk as you wish. Intelligent people know better than to accord it any credence.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

              • All we get is a load of BS from you Sloth DDS and it’s the same old rhetoric time and time again, it’s pathetic.

                You are a joke and a very bad one at that.

                Goodbye little man you are a bad liar and history will eventually catch up with you and all your mates, just like when Paul Melters caught up with you.

                Reviews of reviews of reviews are not PUBLISHED PEER REVIEWED STUDIES so you can tell everyone
                As far as effectiveness…..countless peer-reviewed scientific studies have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of fluoridation in preventing dental decay in entire populations. I will be glad to cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.

                Not good enough for me Sloth DDS.

                False Statement # 9 by Steve Slott, DDS

                SLOTT: “It is futile to attempt to make any kind of assessment on effectiveness water fluoridation or any of the numerous other variables involved in formation of dental decay without controlling for these factors. There are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. i will gladly provide you with a list of some of them if you so desire.”

                Response by Paul Melters to Steve Slott (September 2013)

                To Steve Slott

                You wrote:

                SLOTT: “It is futile to attempt to make any kind of assessment on effectiveness water fluoridation or any of the numerous other variables involved in formation of dental decay without controlling for these factors. There are countless peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation. i will gladly provide you with a list of some of them if you so desire.”

                PM: Okay, why don’t you post one of those “countless studies” which demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation and which has accounted for confounding factors such as race, gender, age, total intake, tooth eruption, brushing and other oral hygiene factors, socio-economic status, etc.? Let’s have a look at them.

                So far, Slott has been unable to post ONE study, as it doesn’t exist. He has been asked the question repeatedly – at least 30 times.

                UPDATE (September 8, 2013)

                3 further responses were received on September 5, as well as September 7.

                On two occasions Slott provided an excerpt from a review which had the word “confounding” in the abstract.

                Slott was asked to post a list of the established confounding factors. He was unable to do so.

                The third time he posted 5 abstracts from various papers. Most were reviews, some were data surveys which did not account for most of the established confounding factors specified in the
                question, only a select few – as has been done countless times to prove the “efficacy of water fluoridation”.

                Not ONE study was provided as had been asked for.

                SEE:

                Response 1 – http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/sept__5_s9rs.html
                Response 2 – http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/statement_9__response_sept_7a.html
                Response 3 – http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/sept_7b.html

                UPDATE (September 10, 2013)

                “Expert” Slott posted the same 2012 Rugg-Gunn review at least 9 more times over the weekend of September 7/8. He was unable to provide a list on established confounding factors, and was further unable to cite which ones had actually been investigated by Rugg-Gunn in his review. When questioned, he just kept reposting the same abstract over and over again, an act certainly bordering on perseveration.

                http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/html/statement_91.html

                Goodbye Clown and keep lying!

                • Glad I could educate you a bit, Darryl. You obviously have a long way to go, but it’s a start, anyway. I would recommend the websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the Anerican Academy of Pediatrics, as excellent sources from which to continue your education on this issue.

                  Steven D. Slott, DDS

                  • Steve,

                    Why don’t you educate the organisations – that you recommended for Darryl – about all the fluoride sources that can contribute to skeletal fluorosis? Such as fluoridated drinking water, medications, toothpastes, fluoride-leaching dental fillings, grape juice, wine, cigarette smoke and other fluoride-emitting smoke and, most of , the sodium fluoride used in metal industries which some workers are exposed to, week in week out, for their working lives?

                    You could also tell these organisations about the big hospitals in Australia that test for all manner of things that cause idiosyncratic reactions but that won’t touch fluoride testing with a ten-foot pole because it would be professional suicide for those who did the testing seeing as water fluoridation is such a hot potato.

                    • Ailsa

                      1. The United States is 74.6% fluoridated, with hundreds of millions of people of all ages having chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water over the past 70 years. If skeletal fluorosis was caused by optimally fluoridated water, this disorder would be rampant in the US by now.

                      Skeletal fluorosis is so rare in the United States so as to be nearly non-existent.

                      2. Your uninformed, insulting opinion as to the competence of Australian hospital personnel, is obviously, irrelevant and meaningless.

                      Steven D. Slott, DDS

                  • As I have said before on this site
                    Capital letters dont make your opinion any more Palatable
                    Calling people names does nothing for you credibility
                    Swearing just shows you lack of knowledge of the english language, You dont have to swear to get you opinion across.
                    The only people who do this are anti fluoride/vaccine lot. Maybe their arguments are not strong enough to stand up on their own

                    • Now we have the Kiwi, attacking the messenger and not answering the message.
                      Bully tactics from liars and cowards. 🙂

                      Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
                      A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
                      A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
                      A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
                      ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.

                  • Again the spining slott machine spins and spins.

                    Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
                    A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
                    A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
                    A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
                    ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.

                  • Glad I could educate you a bit, Steve, Kurt, Chris and JJ. You obviously have a long way to go, but it’s a start, anyway. I would recommend the website http://fluoridealert.org/ , as excellent source from which to continue your education on this issue. 🙂

                  • Could you tell me the advantages of flouridation of our water supplies Steve, and can you yourself explain exactly how flouride is beneficial to my body?

                  • LOL A who’s who list of all the fluoride fanatic butt riders. Nice one, Steve 😉

              • Trust the slott, not, he can address anything, he is a “dentist”, that loves to swallow silicofluorides for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and drink it all day as well.
                And he wants the whole world to swallow these toxins too, but guess what, only 5% of the world’s population swallow fluoridated water now.
                The slott is in a tiny minority

            • Wow, Daryl, you can do capital letters. I’m sure that Dr. Slott is quaking in his boots.

              • Ah , now we have the Dentist from non- fluoridated Portland.
                I have asked you before, How do you get your daily dose of toxic silicofluorides, in your water, food and beverages in Portland?
                You had no courage to answer before, can you answer now?

                Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
                A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
                A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
                A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
                ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.

          • Come in spinner, slott machine says any substance that is put into the water and is then dissolved is okay.
            Suddenly toxic waste, by magic, becomes magic tooth medicine.
            Nothing to see here, no studies needed because slott says so.

            Show me a Forced Fluoridation Promoter, and I will show you a Bully, a Liar and a Coward.
            A Bully that wants to unfairly force an accumulating toxin into your water, food and beverages without your consent, for the rest of your life.
            A Liar who spouts lies, saying zero harm results from forced fluoridation, or lies by omission and ignores facts.
            A Coward with no fortitude to tell the public the exact truth of what they put in the water supply, and the harms that can come from ingesting fluoride, and no guts to have serious public debates and information Q and A sessions.
            ‪#‎fluoridation‬ is not wanted. ‪#‎fluoride‬ don’t swallow it, or the lies.

      • My, my, Steve, you seem extremely frustrated here. Tell you what, though, instead of wasting time posting childish personal attacks and lies, you should seek to properly educate yourself on this issue from trustworthy sources. You would be a lot less frustrated if you gained some true understanding of fluoridation. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s