Connett’s Response to Slott on ’10 Scary Facts of FL Promotion’


Original post:

Slott’s response:

Connett’s response:

(Feel free to add comments below…)


Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

18 thoughts on “Connett’s Response to Slott on ’10 Scary Facts of FL Promotion’

  1. One branch of the World Health Organization (WHO) states that Fluoride is a Low-Dose Endocrine Disruptor associated with (I say more directly, causes) Obesity, Diabetes and Hypothyroidism.

    WHO is embarrassed about this because another branch actively promotes Fluoridation.

    Of course there is no doubt about damage to Thyroid function as Fluoride was for many years used as a drug to treat Hyperthyroidism.

    The evidence for Obesity and Diabetes, which are on the rise in some western countries, is very interesting and correlates well with the timescale of Fluoride pushing by the industrial waste generators and their lackeys.

    The adverse health outcomes in Townsville (Fluoridated for 50 years) compared with the rest of Queensland (not Fluoridated until recently) provides evidence of Fluoride poisoning.

    Australian Health authorities were aware as early as 1953 that a primary targets for damage by Fluoride are the bones and kidneys.

    • drgeoffpain, your quote: “The evidence for Obesity and Diabetes, which are on the rise in some western countries, is very interesting and correlates well with the timescale of Fluoride pushing by the industrial waste generators and their lackeys.”

      The rise of obesity & Diabetes also correlates well with the increase of Fast Food restaurants.

    • ACSH’s Dr. Gil Ross had this comment: “Whenever I hear someone, usually in the media, use the term ‘endocrine disrupter,’ I immediately know that the writer (or speaker) is either uninformed and too lazy to do a little independent research, or is a member of or a sympathizer with some anti-chemical activist group. We in the business of communicating real vs. hypothetical risks owe Angela a debt of gratitude for attempting to put this mythology to rest, although realistically too many people, in and out of government and regulatory agencies, have a vested interest in keeping the endo-disruption bugaboo alive. Also, those interested in sound science should have a peek at Angela’s other site,”

      • “In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response; the effects of the fluoride-induced changes vary in degree and kind in different individuals. Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response, although probably not in the sense of mimicking a normal hormone. The mechanisms of action remain to be worked out and appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms, for example, direct stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by interference with second messenger function, indirect stimulation or inhibition of hormone secretion by effects on things such as calcium balance, and inhibition of peripheral enzymes that are necessary for activation of the normal hormone.”

        • Page 2 of the Executive Summary for the 2006 NRC Report reference on what exactly the 12-member panel of the committee DID NOT review:

          “Addressing questions of artificial fluoridation, economics, risk-benefit assessment and water-treatment technology was not part of the committee’s charge”.

          Fluoride at 0,7 ppm is NOT an endocrine disruptor, nor did the NRC Report list it in its 3 “toxicological end points”. The beauty of a systematic review is that it was the consensus of the 12-member NRC committee, not the confirmation biases of the 3 anti-fluoronistas that were on the committee.

  2. David

    Yep. Exactly. Connett’s fear-mongering over the minuscule amounts of contaminants in fluoridated water at the tap, is unconscionable.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • You forced-fluorifuckation freaks are the world’s ultimate hypocrites.

      • Germouse

        No, germouse, fluoridation advocates simply understand the issue. Because the science does not support your position is unfortunate for you, but is not a sign of hypocrisy on the part of anyone.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • DanGer mouse,

        A hypocrite is someone who says one thing and does the complete opposite, like, say, for example, somebody who bans and blocks somebody from their webpage and then bitches when they are blocked from another webpage.

        Who does that remind me of? . . Let’s see . . Hey! That’s just like you. You blocked me from your webpage, and when you get blocked from webpages for your rude behavior, you call those people criminals.

        Yes! You are a Great example of a hypocrite! Isn’t this fun?!

  3. Here is the first portion of my response to Connett’s response. 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.”

    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?”

    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

    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.”

    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”.

    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”.

    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”

    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.”

    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).”

    “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.”

    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.”

    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.”


    “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.”

    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.”

    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.”

    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).”


    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

    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).”

    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.”

    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.”

    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”

    ——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.”

    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.”

    A. The fact that Paul does not understand the difference between relevant and irrelevant studies, or between valid science and junk science… 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.”


    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”

    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).

    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.”

    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.”


    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.”

    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)”

    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:

    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.”


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

    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”

      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.”

      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.”

      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)”

      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.”

      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.”

      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…… 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?”

      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?”

      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.”

      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?”

      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.”

      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.”

      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 ( ) 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”

      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.

      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
      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.”

      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.”

      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)”

      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”

      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.”

      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”

      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.”

      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),”

      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.”

      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.”

      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….”

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

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Dr. Slott, for the record, we never censor anything, pro or anti fluoridation, so you can always feel free to comment here. The only occasions where comments get held for moderation are if this is automatically done by WordPress, in which case, when time allows, we manually approve them — unedited. The only time we will edit or delete a comment is if the comment author requests us to do so. We don’t believe in censoring comments and we don’t like it when other pro or antifluoridation websites or blogs engage in this practice.

      As the saying goes, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” ( ).

      • Afamildura

        I respect you for understanding the importance of allowing free flow of information. It demonstrates class and a true desire for honest discussion. There will always be some comments that warrant removal, but that is entirely understandable, and justified when so done. I appreciate your attitude.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS

      • Has Connett responded to Sloths second (and last) rebuttal? This “corrected response” link leads to Connets response to Sloths first rebuttal.

  4. 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

  5. In point #5 of Paul Connett’s second response, Dr. Slott is wrong when he is quoted as saying, ” . . and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable safety levels.”

    The fact is that these “trace contaminants” arsenic, lead, etc. aren’t “barely detectable,” they’re not detectable at all. NSF auditors must apply the fluoride additive, fluorosilicic acid, at 10 times the recommended amount into water in order to detect ANY contaminants. This is the only way they can be detected, at 10x the normal concentration. Below, I look at arsenic in FSA:

    (Note: There is a lot of math here. If you want to skip the math, the answer is: A person would have to drink 2 liters of water per day for 2451 lifetimes (that’s 171,570 years) to have a One-In-A-Million chance of having an ill health effect from any arsenic as a result of fluoridation.)

    During a Fluoride Information Event which was hosted by The Denver Water Board on July 29, Dr. Paul Connett was asked by a board member if there was any qualitative difference in the safety of “natural fluoride” which is already found in the Denver water supply, and “added fluoride.”

    Dr. Connett spoke about impurities which have been found at trace levels in Fluorosilicic Acid (FSA).
    He argued that because the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) is ZERO for many harmful substances, then any of these harmful substances, AT ANY LEVEL can be considered unsafe. Therefore the addition of an artificial fluoridation agent is unsafe for that reason alone.

    JUST FOR FUN, I thought I’d run the numbers and see exactly how unsafe these impurities really are.

    1.) One has a naturally occurring fluoride level of 0.68 ppm. After adding fluoride, the level is 0.71. This means here they are adding 0.03 ppm of fluoride.

    2.) The second field has a naturally occurring fluoride level of 0.63. After adding fluoride, the level is 0.71. This means here they are adding 0.08 ppm of fluoride.

    3.) The third has a natural fluoride level of 0.13 ppm and the finished product is 0.64 ppm.
    This means here they are adding 0.51 ppm of fluoride. This is where they are adding the most fluoride.

    So, in the interest of fairness I will do math on the third field where the most FSA is added, and therefore the most impurities would be found.

    The following batch analysis of FSA was presented to me by an anti-fluoride activist in New Zealand. And according to him, these numbers are typical. Here is his comment with the table:

    “The below table outlines the latest analysis results obtained from composite sampling of Orica’s hydrofluorosilicic acid for supply to New Zealand water treatment plants. The analysis was completed by an independent laboratory.

    Antimony mg/kg <0.09
    Arsenic mg/kg 1.1
    Barium mg/kg 0.24
    Cadmium mg/kg 0.04
    Chromium mg/kg 0.4
    Copper mg/kg <0.3
    Lead mg/kg <0.05
    Manganese mg/kg 0.8
    Mercury mg/kg <0.05
    Molybdenum mg/kg <0.09
    Nickel mg/kg 0.3
    Selenium mg/kg <0.5”

    LET’S LOOK AT ARSENIC (since this is the scariest one)
    Here the impurities are listed as mg/kg. We first need to convert to ppm (parts per million) or mg/L. Since the specific gravity of FSA is 1.46, we multiply by 1.1 mg/kg of Arsenic:
    1.46sg x 1.1mg/k = 1.6 ppm As.

    FSA is 23% actual fluoride, but it is watered down so the actual amount of fluoride you are getting is 19.8% Actual Fluoride, or roughly 1/5 fluoride. So, assuming there was NO Fluoride in the water, and you want to achieve 1ppm F, you would have to put in 5 ppm of Fluorosilicic Acid (FSA) into the water, or 0.000005
    Multiply that number by 1.6 ppm of arsenic (because you are diluting the already small amount of arsenic when you add the FSA to water at 5 ppm).

    So here is the equation. 0.000005 x 0.0000016 = 0.00000000008 or 8 ppt (parts per trillion).

    Now, that amount, 8ppt arsenic is not even detectable, so for all practical purposes, as far as the lab is concerned, we are already at ZERO arsenic. So, if any lab were to test this water for arsenic, and there was no other naturally occuring arsenic, this water with added fluorosilicic acid has already achieved the MCLG of Zero. Dr. Connett's quote: "(Stephen is confusing the MCLs with the MCLGs for these substances. The MCLG for both arsenic and lead is zero)" It's irrelevant who is confusing what. Artificially fluoridated water already achieves an MCLG of zero as long as no other natural contaminants are present.

    (In fact if you live and breathe in a home built pre-2006 you are already exposing yourself to more arsenic than by drinking this water for a lifetime. I wonder if Dr. Connett will have the treated lumber in his home replaced if there is any?)

    The above equation assumes you want as much as 1.0 ppm of fluoride, and there is zero fluoride in the raw water. So, since Denver is only taking the fluoride level in the third well field up to 0.64 ppm F and since there is already 0.13 ppm F in the water, they are only adding 0.51 ppm F. Therefore we multiply 8 ppt x 0.51 = 4.08 ppt of Arsenic that is being added to the water due to fluoridation.

    In the well field where Denver adds the most amount of FSA the potential exists of adding 4.08 ppt of arsenic.
    The MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) for Arsenic in drinking water is 10 ppb (parts per billion). This MCL is 2451 times higher than Denver’s 4.08 ppt.

    According to the U.S. EPA, “MCLs are set at very stringent levels. To understand the possible health effects described for many regulated contaminants, a person would have to drink 2 liters of water every day for a lifetime to have a one-in-a-million chance of having the described health effect.”

    THEREFORE: A person would have to drink 2 liters of water per day for 2451 lifetimes to have a one-in-a-million chance of having an ill health effect from any arsenic as a result of Denver's water fluoridation at its most extreme. 2451 lifetimes x a 70 year average lifespan: That's 2 liters of water every day for 171,570 years in order to have that one-in-a-million chance of an ill health effect from any arsenic that might be present.

    This is what Dr. Connett means when he says that the impurities in fluoridation additives are unsafe. Needless to say, he is exaggerating a wee bit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s