Wednesday, September 22, 2021

Is Dallas water too dangerous to drink?

(Photo Credit: U.S. Marine Corps)

Part One

By Joe Farkus, NDG Contributing Writer

While fluoride exists naturally in water, cities and municipalities have been adding more of it in drinking water to combat dental cavities, prevent tooth decay, and improve overall dental health. Dallas has been doing this for decades and for the past 5 years, a group of dedicated activists has been fighting what they see as a major health concern regarding the amount of fluoride added to the city’s water supply. Despite past failures to get the City of Dallas to end its water fluoridation program, these activists believe they have new evidence that will finally turn the tide in their favor.

“You are deciding between possible tooth decay reduction and expected brain damage,” Regina Imburgia, a leader of the group Activists for Truth and Liberty, told the Dallas City Council during a council meeting in October. “Look into the 12-year fluoride study that was just published on Sept. 19, 2017. “

The study Imburgia referenced in her comments to the council caught the attention of national news outlets upon its publication. It evaluated roughly 299 pairs of Mexican mothers and their children, testing the children for cognitive development over a period of 12 years. While the study did find a decrease in intelligence test scores in children who were exposed to increased levels of fluoride, the study’s researchers only found a possible connection to fluoride exposure for children while they were still in their mother’s womb – not after they were born. It is also important to note, studies that have yet to be replicated – such as the one in question – are generally not taken as concrete evidence of a phenomenon.

Imburgia disagrees.

“The credibility of this study is beyond reproach,” Imburgia told the Council. “This study isolated fluoride and fluoride alone as the determining factor that lowered the IQ.”

There have been numerous objections to the interpretation some activists have taken from the report. The American Dental Association (ADA) responded in a press release claiming the report’s findings are not applicable to the United States due to the significant differences in how citizens of Mexico and the U.S. intake fluoride (the substance is not added to salt in the U.S. and is only added to water when the naturally occurring level of fluoride in water is lower than the recommended level) and the unknown nature of how participants in the study ingested fluoride. Critics have also been quick to point out the study’s findings do not reflect how much fluoride participants were exposed to through naturally occurring levels of fluoride in their water.

According to the city’s 2016 Water Quality Report, the average level of fluoride in Dallas’s public water is 0.7 parts per million (ppm) – well within the recommended standards of the CDC (1.0 ppm), the US Public Health Service (0.7 ppm), and the Environmental Protection Agency (which has set a limit of 4 milligrams per liter).

Despite this, Imburgia and her fellow activists remain convinced Dallas’ fluoridation program is dangerous. In her opinion, the Dallas City Council has other reasons for not agreeing with her conclusions.

“The status quo has been comfortable for them,” Imburgia told the North Dallas Gazette. “Over the years, being called anti-fluoride or whatever – you’re a kook or a nut or a tin-foil hat. They don’t want those labels.”

The Dallas City Council will likely have to decide on whether to approve a new contract to fluoridate the city’s water early this year.

Next week, look for Part Two of our coverage on water fluoridation in North Texas, where we discuss which of Dallas’s surrounding cities add fluoride into their water and which do not and why.

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 COMMENTS

  1. Arsenic occurs naturally in drinking water also. But it and fluoride are deadly poisons. Knowledgeable scientists recommend that all consume as close to zero as possible.

    Fluoride should be prescribed to individuals by medical professionals, not by communities.
    The whole world is aware of the fluoridation scheme. While 74% of the U.S. is forced to drink fluoridate water, only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their water. China and Japan have rejected it many years ago.

  2. First, fluoride is fluoride. It doesn’t matter the source. For a healthy individual, exposure via water, food, or breathing contaminated air is the same world-wide. For a healthy individual approximately 50% of the fluoride that one is exposed to on a daily basis will remain in the body, the other 50% will be excreted through the kidneys. This study found a very large effect. An increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/L was associated with a drop in IQ of 5 to 6 points. To put this into perspective with the fluoride levels ingested by the Mexican mothers and the levels ingested in fluoridated parts of the USA, the average fluoride intake in the Mexican mothers was about the same as that in women in the USA. It was not substantially higher. The range of fluoride levels in Mexico also corresponded closely to the range found in most of the USA. The higher levels were similar to what is found in areas in the USA with fluoridated water, and the lower levels were similar to what is found in most unfluoridated parts of the USA.

  3. The Mexican study is not relevant to Texas. In Mexico, the amount of fluoride in the water is not measured. The people who wrote the Mexican study did not control for lead and arsenic which are elements that are known to affect the health of brains. This article is very badly conceived. Fluoride is safe and effective. It would be a terrible mistake for Texans to lose this public health measure.

  4. Thank you for your comment. NDG does not take a position on the issue, nor does the article. A similar criticism to the one you presented is actually included in the article:

    “The American Dental Association (ADA) responded in a press release claiming the report’s findings are not applicable to the United States due to the significant differences in how citizens of Mexico and the U.S. intake fluoride (the substance is not added to salt in the U.S. and is only added to water when the naturally occurring level of fluoride in water is lower than the recommended level) and the unknown nature of how participants in the study ingested fluoride. Critics have also been quick to point out the study’s findings do not reflect how much fluoride participants were exposed to through naturally occurring levels of fluoride in their water.”

  5. “Fluoride is not Fluoride” as some may presume. Lack of knowledge is part of the problem.

    Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is the additive the City of Dallas uses in the drinking water. It is a diluted version of fluorosilicic acid not to be confused with naturally occurring calcium fluoride.

    As mentioned on Organic-Gardening-and-HomeSteading.com:

    “Fluorosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry and is heavily contaminated with toxins and heavy metals (including the cancerous arsenic, lead and cadmium) and radioactive materials. This substance is the waste residue from the superphosphate fertilizer industry, and about 70 to 75 percent of this stuff comes from the Cargill fertilizer manufacturing company.”

    Dr. J. William Hirzy, EPA scientist, is reported to have said, “If the stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant, if it gets into a lake, it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing!”

    Will the Mayor of Dallas as well as the City Council even conduct their own study? Lack of leadership is another part of the problem. Appease the status quo.

    I’m hoping that by the time the smoke clears on this matter, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, the additive the City of Dallas uses in the drinking water will be viewed for what it is. Activists like Regina Imburgia will be owed a debt of gratitude and her critics will owe her an engraved apology.

  6. A study in Harvard’s The Lancet published in 2015 weighs in on the toxins causing autism and ADHD (attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder). Researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (ISMMS) say that along with these numerous environmental toxins, fluoridated water is adding to the higher incident of both cognitive and behavioral disorders. Harvard had already published a study in 2006 that pointed to fluoride as a ‘developmental neurotoxicant’, and this newer study looks to over 27 additional investigations into the matter via meta nalysis. In the previous study, it was already established that fluoride consumption lowered children’s IQ scores. The left-over from industry, passed off as ‘medicine,’ obstructs brain development, and can cause a full spectrum of serious health issues – from autism to dyslexia, ADHD, ADD, and more. The study calls the effects from this chemical a ‘silent epidemic’ that mainstream media and many scientific papers have ignored. Two of the main researchers involved in the study, Philippe Grandjean from HSPH and Philip Landrigan from ISMMS, say that incidences of chemical-related neurodevelopmental disorders have doubled over the past seven years from six to 12. The study admits that there are numerous chemicals to blame – many of which are untested or ceremoniously approved by the FDA, USDA, and CDC without truly knowing their long term ramifications on human health – but that fluoride is a definite culprit.

    Get Informed on the dangers of fluoride:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh-oeu2L8yM&t=4811s

  7. 4800 professionals agree with Regina that ingesting fluoride is ineffective in reducing tooth decay and harmful to health http://researchers/professionals-statement. Also agreeing with regina is an international dentists group – the IAOMT. Science does NOT support fluoridation – only politics does.

    Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. Consuming a fluoride free diet does NOT cause tooth decay. Fluoridation is an outdated concept continued by legislators afraid to buck rich and powerful special interest groups whose political viability is tied to fluoridation

  8. The Sept 2017 NIH/EPA sponsored longitudinal study is the most rigorous neurotoxicity study to date, but its findings validate the findings of dozens of human and hundreds of laboratory studies. Low dose prenatal exposure consistent with doses in ‘optimally’ fluoridated communities result in up to a 6 point lower IQ on a dose response trend line – after excluding all high risk pregnancies such as those with kidney disease and diabetes. Another recent study (Malin & Till 2015) found tens of thousands more 11 year olds diagnosed with ADHD in fluoridated American regions. Animal studies suggest timing of exposure, prenatal or during early childhood, dictate whether the impact is lowered IQ or increased learning disabilities.

    For a non-scientific organization like the ADA to claim that because the most likely source of the fluoride was salt instead of water and suggest more study is needed in fluoridated American communities is suggesting experimentation on pregnant women and their children when the predicted outcome is subtle but permanent brain damage. Neither dentists nor city councils should be making that decision for their constituents. No one should.

  9. Fluoride is essentially a drug being illegally “prescribed and administered” to all citizens without regard to their body weight, health status, sensitivity to drugs/chemicals, need for the “treatment,” or the requirements for informed consent.

    If the City proposed putting Prozac in the water supply to reduce the levels of depression, stress, and violence in our community, you can be sure the city council and mayor would be inundated with angry citizens determined to throw them out of office. If the City added thyroid hormones to the public water supplies because a subset of the population have low thyroid conditions, the mayor and city council members would be arrested for practicing medicine without a license.

    Please stop mass medicating citizens without our consent…and making us pay for it to boot!

  10. Thank you to Joe Farkus and The North Dallas Gazette for shinning some light on this important issue. A friend that read this article before I read got to read it said, “It was fair, unbiased a “We report you decide” piece”. Bravo! THIS is what the Public has been missing!

    Many videos of us speaking during Open Mic to Mayor Rawlings and the Dallas City Council can be watched by going to http://www.DogsAgainstFluoridation.com (on the Home page you can also read an explanation of the Website name) Scroll down read and sign our petition to the Mayor to; Stop the Unsafe Ineffective Fluoridation Program. Take just few minutes (just scrolling the Home Page) to see we have facts that show The Fluoridation Program is Not Safe and it Disproportionately effects Hispanics and Blacks!

    We need more people to become informed and remind the Dallas City Council they REPRESENT US! The Council is supposed to be the gate-keepers and SHOULD be Looking into the REALITY of this unhealthy 20th Century program! 20th Century science and the CDC approved smoking and drinking when pregnant, AND said the Tuskegee Experiments were safe!!

    There are Much Better ways to help the poverty areas fight tooth decay! Ingesting fluoride to help your teeth when the CDC states positive action of fluoride it topical, is like drinking suntan lotion to prevent a sun burn!

    The Fluoridation Program needs to Stop until it can be proven safe for everyone. Dallas needs to follow the Precautionary Rule: When in Doubt- Leave it Out!

  11. Without getting into the weeds here, deliberately contaminating the public water supply in Dallas with Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is a terrible idea. “It’s for the children” proponents say but they omit the fact that only the teeth of children benefit from topical exposure – it does not benefit the teeth of adults. Its also a deadly poison. The required public health notices on product labeling clearly state that it should never be taken internally. The stuff is a also recognized neuro-toxin that accumulates in the brains and livers of adults. There is evidence of long term health consequences for those of us that drink the treated water for 30-70 years. And finally, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid leaches lead from the lead solder holding together the copper water pipes in our houses. If you have copper piping in your Dallas house, you also have lead in your domestic water. It seems clear to me that even if the children do receive some short term benefit from drinking water dosed with Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, the long term health risks to us all should mandate its removal.

  12. I demand the ending of forced medication on my family!
    This is illegal and there will be lawsuits filed.
    If anyone wants to go ahead and take it, they can go out and buy it themselves.
    It costs me a small fortune to filter it out of our families water.
    Stop the insanity!

  13. You don’t drink your sunscreen! Fluoride in the public water has always been insane. It kills fish in your aquarium. It makes horses’ bones brittle, undermining their health. Fluoridated water has killed dialysis patients, when substituted for filtered water used in dialysis. Fluoridated water punishes the athlete or health conscious who drink the full 8 glasses of water a day. You get double-dosed when you take a shower or hot bath. No other drug is so carelessly administered with regard to dose. Ingestion of a pea-sized dose of fluoride toothpaste by a child is reason to call poison control. This is on the toothpaste label. But perhaps the worst, fluoride discriminates. Dallas residents who live in impoverished areas of the City have older pipes which contain lead. The Fluorocilicic Acid the City uses in their mix to supplement the naturally-occurring fluoride in our water supply leaches lead out of the old pipes into the water the disadvantaged drink. No one is asking Dallas to filter out the .5 level of naturally-occurring calcium fluoride. Why spend over a million dollars damaging Dallas residents’ health when we already have enough of the natural stuff for the supposed dental benefits? If this were an I.Q. test . . . the entire Council failed it.

  14. Putting aside the obvious problem that the most fluoridated areas show the most tooth decay, I want to bring up something less well known. I was surprised to learn that thousands of EPA scientist (nor brass) have signed a public statement denouncing the practice. This carefully made documentary tells the story of how that developed, and spurred the modern outcry against this scam. Fluoridegate
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITy04DpZpl0

    EPA Scientist
    http://www.cleanwatersonomamarin.org/get-the-facts/hirzy/hirzy-senate-testimony/

    PS The fact that the FDA refuses to test fluoridated water is at the heart of the corruption being currently exposed.

  15. The City of Dallas Council members are guilty of TREASON, WARRING on We the People, as the facts & the law support this claim!

    Whether is to policing for profit & unjust enrichment OR adding lethal chemicals to the city water
    these are CRIMINAL ACTS & justice MUST be served!

    How many people in Dallas have rec’d bogus Speeding tickets – see Texas Trans Code 201.904,
    or had their insurance rates increases contrary to Texas Trans Code 707.018, 707.019 –
    the tyranny MUST come to an abrupt END!

    I don’t drink the City of Dallas Kool-Aid or eat their baloney sandwiches they serve to the inmates in that are falsely arrested by DPD. For more information, contact me! I NO LONGER pay traffic tickets or Sales Tax b/c it is against the law. See TCCrP 43.02, et al.

  16. I want to commend The North Dallas Gazette and Mr Farkus for shining the spotlight on this issue with true journalistic, balanced reporting.
    As a person degreed in Biological-Chemistry-Toxicology, the importance of this issue cannot be overstated. Most folks commonly underestimate the terrible toxicity of swallowing Fluoride, because small ingested amounts accumulate/react overtime.

    SCIENCE – In order to make an informed decision about swallowing fluoride, an individual needs to review the actual published scientific studies in a variety of journals.

    It is very well documented that the Dallas City Council Members, and also the Quality of Life Committee, have never provided any credible scientific study which states that swallowing fluoridated water is completely safe for everyone. Not once has any Council member shown or referenced published scientific studies.
    In fact, during the final months of the 2015 water fluoridation vote, a citizen can observe video records/photos of the blatant disinterest in scientific literature by Dallas Council Members. It is an embarrassment.
    The City Council Members played “Doctor” in 2015 by prescribing “ingested fluoride” to every individual and animal for the 25 cities with which it administrates water treatment. Playing “Doctor” without citing any scientific literature which verifies this ingestion is safe for everyone is gross malpractice.

    However, the Dallas City Council has been presented with hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of scientific studies which demonstrate how ingesting fluoride can harm a person’s health. Each Council person was even presented with a beautifully indexed thick binder packed with scientific studies covering a wide spectrum of ailments. They trashed it.

    The volume of scientific studies which show harmful health effects from fluoride is beyond count.
    Duh?! Does the City Council think that every one of those studies are invalid?
    Or, do they not truly care about the health of all citizens?

  17. More and more cities are reversing the fluoridation of their drinking water. These cities are usually not big cities, and they mostly have white populations.

    Today, fluoridatiion is mostly confined to big cities with minorities being the majority population. I believe that floridating drinking water in minority communities is racist, with the intent to dumb down, and sicken the minorities.

  18. Piece #3: Dialysis Deaths:

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-07-31/news/9307310110_1_dialysis-patients-dialysis-deaths-fluoride

    You have to read past the first paragraph to understand that it is an issue of “dose”, and not of the amount of fluoride in the drinking water. This also should validate #4: dosage; which is completely uncontrolled. Also find it interesting that the high level of accumulated fluoride interfered with the electrical signaling of the body and caused heart failure! Filter failed. They got unfiltered City water. That’s all it took to kill.

  19. As far as “my bad” claiming the Dallas City Council would fail the I.Q. test. I have appeared and spoken before the Council. I have attended many Council meetings. The embarrassing display of having the Mayor bring in his dentist from his church to be an expert witness . . . when the man’s logic should have been put out to pasture! You can’t claim fluoridation’s benefits and then spend all your time talking about the horrible dental condition of your patients you treated AFTER fluoridation was introduced. And that joke was pitted against real scientists and scientific studies! Yes, I.Q. is a valid question.

  20. The fluoridation opponents are out in force, but their prolific commenting consists of completely unsupported and unsupportable claims.

    jwillie6 – You seem completely unable to understand the rather basic concept that any substance can be a deadly poison at high enough exposure levels even those substances (water, oxygen, sodium, chlorine, iodine, fluorine, potassium, vitamins, caffeine, etc.) that are beneficial or even essential at normal exposure levels. Knowledgeable scientists recommend that drinking water contains 0.7 mg/l fluoride ions (which, by the way, is fairly close to 0, beneficial and harmless). Similarly, fluoridation is not a medication, so there is obviously no reason to prescribe it to individuals – the FDA regulates bottled water which can contain fluoride ions at the same level as found in fluoridated water as a “Food For Human Consumption”
    ~> https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=165.110

    Ellen C – The Mexican study has demonstrated no harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water – “individuals participating in the study have been exposed to fluoridated salt (at 250 ppm and to varying degrees of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water.” There was no measure of exposure levels, there were five paragraphs outlining the limitations of the study and many important potential confounding factors were not measured/analyzed. Like all other such studies, the only conclusion that could be drawn was a possible association with IQ – hardly proof of anything. Search on:
    ~> http://americanfluoridationsociety.org/meir-martinez-comments-on-mexican-study/
    ~> https://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2017/09/22/fluoride-pregnancy-iq/
    ~> https://sciblogs.co.nz/open-parachute/2017/09/24/maternal-urinary-fluoride-iq-update/
    ~> http://www.ada.org/~/media/ADA/Public%20Programs/Files/2017_NFAC_Comments_on_Bashash_Study_11-27-2017.pdf?la=en

    David Norsworthy – Fluoride ions are fluoride ions – identical regardless of source. Fluorosilicic acid is derived from naturally occurring rocks which are the source for natural fluoridation. The alleged contaminants in fluoridation treatment chemicals are regulated and fluoridation products are certified by NSF. The fact is that, “The data reported in Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate that very low concentrations of contaminants are associated with fluoridation chemicals. In fact, NSF was only able to detect the reported trace amounts by dosing the chemicals into water at ten times the manufacturers maximum use level (as required by the Standard). If the products had been dosed into water at the manufacturer’s maximum use level, all contaminant levels would have been below the analytical method detection limits.”
    ~> http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_on_Fluoridation.pdf

    Joe – First, the Lancet is an independent peer-reviewed general medical journal and not “Harvard’s The Lancet”. Also, Harvard did not publish an IQ study in 2006 or at any other time – You seem to be referring to the infamous 2012 Choi, et al. “Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review…” often dubbed the “Harvard IQ study” published in Environmental Health. That had far more serious limitations than the recent Bashash, et al. study. In any case, none of your claims have any legitimate, confirming proof.
    ~> https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/repeating-bad-sicence-on-fluoride/

    Nyscof – Fluoridation is only an “outdated concept” in the imaginations of fluoridation opponents. In any scientific or health field there are a few fringe outliers who do not accept the scientific consensus because of various, strong personal beliefs. The FAN Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation, initiated in 2007, had collected about 4,700 signatures worldwide by March, 2015, and by January 2018 a whoppin’ 4,790 signatures had been collected out of the millions of working and retired medical, dental and scientific professionals in the world. For example:
    ** 378 dentists worldwide signed the petition (there were 195,722 practicing dentists in the U.S – 2015) – that is less than 0.2% and less than 0.02% of the 1.8 million practicing dentists in the world.
    ** 581 physicians signed the petition (there were 926,119 professionally active physicians in the U.S – 2016) – that’s about 0.06% practicing U.S physicians and 0.005% of the 10-15 million practicing physicians.
    ** 106 pharmacists signed the petition, 0.04%. of the 297,100 practicing pharmacists in the U.S. – 2014 and 0.005% of the more than 2 million practicing pharmacists world-wide.
    These minute percentages don’t even include the thousands of retired professionals who could sign the petition if they believed it to present legitimate claims.

    KSpencer – See my response to Ellen C

    Tess – Fluoride is essentially NOT a drug, so any arguments suggesting that a prescription is required is as legitimate as suggesting that a poison permit is required to add chlorine gas or other poisonous substances to the water to protect the health of those who drink it. Where is your proof that fluoridation is a medication? See my reply to jwillie6.

    regina imburgia – You made one accurate statement, “We need more people to become informed…”
    Your statement, “The Fluoridation Program needs to Stop until it can be proven safe for everyone” is a reminder of how uninformed fluoridation opponents can be. Can you name any human activity which can be proven safe for everyone??? Are all drinking water treatment methods proven safe for everyone? Is wearing seatbelts safe for everyone? Is crossing the street safe for everyone?

    Rational individuals must invest the time to understand and evaluate the evidence, and if they are not able or willing to do that, then a safe alternative would be to trust the experts and not a small group of fear-mongering activists who have no legitimate proof of their claims.

  21. I fully agree with Regina’s article, and this comment is coming from a practicing dentist. Fluoride is a toxic poison and is a major detriment to the health of all humans and animals. It has been proven to be a major disrupter of the Thyroid gland which is obviously not good for humans. It should not be in our city water supply, period.

  22. In university chemistry and biochemistry classes and research labs, I was taught that fluoride chemicals (fluorine-containing) are extremely toxic substances that are highly reactive and interact with living cells in harmful ways even in low levels. Hydrofluorosilicic acid that is added to the Dallas water supply is strongly acid such that it corrodes metal allowing lead to be leached into the water from plumbing equipment resulting in elevated lead exposure in children, and is so acidic that it digests glass.

    Anyone who claims that fluoride chemicals are not toxic in drinking water is ignoring the basic facts of chemistry and biochemistry.

    For example, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences had a panel of twelve experts publish a fluoride science review in 2006 and they looked at 1,100 scientific studies reporting that fluoride has adverse effects in human endocrine glands including the thyroid, among just one of its findings. The thyroid plays a key role in metabolism. Low thyroid can lead to increased obesity and other health problems.

    Now a new study in Birmingham, England published in 2015 in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, has correlated increase in hypothyroidism with fluoride drinking water in a large population review of medical data. Birmingham was compared to Manchester where no fluoride is added to the drinking water, and Manchester residents had healthier thyroids than those drinking the fluoridated water in Birmingham.

    Another new 2015 research investigation in the U.S. titled, “Water Fluoridation Linked to Higher ADHD rates,” in children reports on the recently published study in the journal of Environmental Health. The study, “Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association,” discovered the following: “State prevalence of artificial water fluoridation in 1992 significantly positively predicted state prevalence of ADHD in 2003, 2007, and 2011, even after controlling for socioeconomic status.

    Studies are linking fluoride with low IQ in children. Indeed, fifty studies in children indicate that fluoride consumption is linked with lower IQ levels such that fluoride is no listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a neurotoxin.

    The U.S. Centers for Disease Control says that babies under 6 months should not get any fluoride.

    Kidney patients and diabetics are particularly vulnerable to harm from ingested fluoride, and African-Americans suffer in greater percentages from kidney disease and diabetes.

  23. In April, 2016, a different reporter for The North Dallas Gazette also wrote a wonderful article.
    https://northdallasgazette.com/2016/04/13/flint-just-tip-iceberg/

    QUOTE excerpts…
    DALLAS WATER SUPPLY
    “…In spite of public outcry the Dallas City Council moved forward and voted in favor to add Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFS) to the drinking water. Council members were warned of the dangers of HFS, the potential adverse effects it could have on residents as it is highly contaminated with toxins including lead and the fact that African-Americans are at the greatest risk leading with higher lead levels than their White and Hispanic counterparts…”

  24. I am convinced!…like I was 20 years ago. Stop the fluoride NOW!

    I wonder how the people of Dallas will act after a generation of no fluoride.

  25. J. S. Gentry,

    Your original comment, like several others, was in pending status therefore possibly the entire message was not viewable – it had not been reviewed and certainly not redacted. While NDG does reserve the right to not approve comments, unless they are offensive, they are usually approved as is – to allow readers to form their own opinion of comments submitted.

  26. Mr. Johnson: A new term is going to enter the fray soon. “Fluoride Deniers.” Fluoride ions are fluoride ions but I say again, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is not Calcium Fluoride.

    At the very least, claiming alleged contaminants when its contents are well documented? What does toxins and heavy metals (including the cancerous arsenic, lead and cadmium) and radioactive material contaminants have to do with the prevention of tooth decay?

    Do we blindly trust government minions to control the amount of toxins we are forced to ingest through our gastrointestinal system without even a challenge? This assists in tooth decay? Please explain.

    We have EPA scientists, PhDs, MDs on record, all staunchly opposed to what has become commonly known as fluoridation of the water supply to prevent tooth decay.

    What we have is the addition of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid to the City of Dallas drinking water (and the municipalities the city of Dallas sells its water to). Who is willing to voluntarily accept that these levels of known toxins are acceptable for ingestion? I say no!

    Have you ever seen how corrosive Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is to the treatment facility that uses it? You have to wear a chemical suit to properly apply it. That’s a job I wouldn’t want.

    Perhaps a little more honesty in research and a little less “copy and paste” might garner your comments the recognition you think they deserve.

  27. This continual outpouring of completely unsupported and unsupportable anti-F vitriol is remarkable. To continue addressing specific anti-F comments…

    The fluoridation opponents (FOs) below are simply repeating standard, unproven anti-F claims. There is no legitimate evidence of short or long term harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. That is the reason the scientific consensus of relevant experts that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay and related health issues in a community. That is the reason over 100 recognized national and international science and health organizations (and their many thousands of members) continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation. These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.
    ~> http://ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium
    ~> http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

    I challenge the FOS to explain why, if the alleged claims that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective have any credibility, all these organizations and their members have not recognized it? Why are there no recognized science or health organizations that support the anti-F propaganda?

    Steve Madison – jumped headfirst into the weeds in his attempt to explain fluoridation. I’m trying to stay out of the weeds here: deliberately adding chemicals to drinking water to improve the safety and protect the health of citizens who drink it is precisely what public water treatment is. Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is no more a “deadly poison” than are chlorine gas (a chemical weapon), sodium hypochlorite, sodium hydroxide, aluminum sulfate, hydrochloric acid and other chemicals added to treat water. All these chemicals are highly diluted and regulated to be within safe levels. Exposure to optimal levels of fluoride ions (0.7 ppm) in drinking water benefits teeth as they are forming and helps protect the exposed enamel of teeth in both children and adults.

    Erin – How do you justify your claim that fluoridation is “forced medication”? There is no evidence that fluoridation is a form of medication – period! How, exactly, are you forced to drink the fluoridated water – mind control? Physical force? Any rational citizens I know who choose not to ingest chemicals in tap water (residual disinfectants, disinfection byproducts, fluoride ions and other natural/added chemicals) are completely free to find other sources of water or take steps to remove the chemicals they dislike ingesting – they don’t go running around demanding that water treatment be halted.

    J.S. Gentry – You don’t drink your bleach either – what’s your point? Drinking fluoridated water has never killed anyone – unless they died from ingesting too many H2O molecules in too short a time – yes, drinking pure H2O can kill a person. According to the logic of FOs, providing public water should be banned because water is poisonous. You also don’t seem to understand the difference between a tube of fluoridated toothpaste which contains over 1,000 times the level of fluoride ions found in a liter of optimally fluoridated water. Fluorosilicic Acid does not leach lead out of water pipes – in fact, the disadvantaged who don’t have access to dental care are some of the primary beneficiaries of the reduce risk of dental decay – but FOs simply don’t care about public health.
    ~> https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2015/september/fight-over-fluoride-in-dallas-water-supply/
    ~> https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/pdf/urbansky_schock.pdf
    ~> https://openparachute.wordpress.com/tag/fluorosilicic-acid/

    honkyhanky – You provide no evidence to prove your claims, and there is over 70 years of evidence that, after adjusting for other possible causes (confounding factors) those who drink optimally fluoridated water have less tooth decay. I just contacted the EPA, and there is no evidence that EPA scientists denounce fluoridation. You are referring to a few EPA scientists many years ago who signed a statement which was never representative of the EPA or any other legitimate government, science or health organization.
    ~> http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationreferences.htm

    Katman – Council members are guilty of “TREASON” for following the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – really? They would be guilty of caving to anti-science fear-mongering if they did not accurately evaluate the legitimate evidence.

    TomT – The volume of scientific studies which show harmful effects from drinking optimally fluoridated water is zero. As a person “degreed in Biological-Chemistry-Toxicology”, you seem remarkably unable to understand a simple scientific truth. Like most FOs, you seem to believe that a substance which can be shown to be harmful at excessive exposure levels should be avoided at all levels of exposure. Of course, any substance can be shown to be highly toxic at high enough exposure levels, so what is your point?

    Richard Sheridan – So, do you have any proof that “floridating drinking water in minority communities is racist, with the intent to dumb down, and sicken the minorities”?

    Dr. Charles Sizemore – Provide specific proof (citations and author quotes) that drinking optimally fluoridated water is a toxic poison which is “a major disrupter of the Thyroid gland”. There is none.

    Neil Carman – As a PhD you should be aware that posting the standard anti-F argument that “fluoride chemicals (fluorine-containing) are extremely toxic substances that are highly reactive…” is simply fear mongering. You should also have been able to sort through the studies and discover that Hydrofluorosilicic acid, when properly added and diluted does not corrode metal pipes and dissolve lead. You should also have been able to understand that the 2006 NRC Fluoride review 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.” Yet there was no recommendation to lower the SMCL below 2.0 ppm (nearly three times the fluoride level of optimally fluoridated water) for any reason – not even for an increased risk of dental fluorosis. If there were any concerns from drinking water with a fluoride content of 2.0 ppm those concerns would have been mentioned. Similarly, your claims that studies have found links between fluoridation and hypothyroidism, ADHD and lowered IQ are at best suggestion of a possible correlation, and all such studies (as you as a scientist should be aware) have serious flaws which render them totally unsuitable for changing the scientific consensus that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure. That is the reason over 100 of the major science and health organizations (and their thousands of members) continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation.
    ~> https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/

  28. Interesting: This “Randy Johnson” (above) seems to take some pleasure skewering the pro-healthy-water comments here. The core problem for Johnson and his forced-medication crowd is credibility. It seems that there are a growing number of folks that no longer believe the government when it says that adding Hydrofluorosilicic Acid to the public water supply is a good thing. This is an important development and poses some level of danger to those who draw their livelihood from selling and adding this stuff to the water. As far as I can tell, those are the only folks who publicly defend this barbaric practice. Regina is a courageous public health advocate for all of us in Dallas and I honor her for her perseverance. Truth will out and one day Dallas water will be fluoride free. CHEERS!

  29. A reply to more anti-F comments…

    TomT – The April 2016 article provides nothing more than an unsupportable quote from an anti-F activist. Fluoride ions from Hydrofluorosilicic Acid are identical to those that water dissolves from the same fluoride-containing minerals used to produce the fluoridation chemicals – which are regulated and certified to by NSF to be safe. In fact, NSF was only able to detect the reported trace amounts by dosing the chemicals into water at ten times the manufacturers maximum use level (as required by the Standard). If the products had been dosed into water at the manufacturer’s maximum use level, all contaminant levels would have been below the analytical method detection limits.”
    ~> http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_on_Fluoridation.pdf

    Anonymous – Exactly what evidence (now or 20 years ago) convinced you that fluoridation is unsafe? Provide specific citations and author quotes that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water is either harmful or ineffective – and describe exactly why the studies should have been able to change the scientific consensus of relevant experts – but didn’t. Generally these anonymous folks believe unsupportable propaganda because they don’t understand the evidence that supports the scientific consensus – the claims simply align with their paranoia and they believe them.

    David Norsworthy – You can say, “Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is not Calcium Fluoride” as many times as you wish, but that does not change the fact that the dissolved fluoride ions from either source are identical. The other elements in Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (H2SiF6·2H2O ) are hydrogen, silicon and oxygen – what is your point? Regarding your claim of other contaminants, read the link in my reply to TomT. How exactly are you “forced to ingest [toxins] through our gastrointestinal system without even a challenge”?? Are you incapable of finding other sources of water or installing water treatment methods to remove disinfectants, disinfectant byproducts, fluoride ions, and other chemicals in the water you wish not to drink?? Does everyone who chooses not to ingest chemicals in their public water have the right to demand that those chemicals not be added?? There are outliers in every branch of science and health who ignore the actual scientific evidence and accept scientifically unsupportable beliefs – there are no legitimate reasons to believe these proponents of anti-science. It seems as though you have no trust in government or accepted science or health practices. Perhaps a little more actual understanding of science and not dependence on the unsupportable beliefs of science-deniers might change your beliefs and change your comments so they might garner the recognition you think they deserve.

  30. STEVE MADISON – The actual “core problem” of credibility rests with the fluoridation opponents and other science deniers who have very strong beliefs but virtually no evidence to support their paranoia.

    Let me ask you some simple questions:

    1) Do you accept the legitimacy of any of the more than 100 science and health organizations that continue to publically recognize the benefits of fluoridation? These organizations include the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Association for Health Education, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Council on Science and Health, the American Dental Association, the American Pharmacists Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Water Works Association, the Association for Academic Health Centers, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Australian Department of Health, the Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council, the British Fluoridation Society, the Canadian Dental Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Canadian Public Health Association, the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health, the Institute of Medicine, the International Association for Dental Research, the U.S. Public Health Service, and about seventy other recognized science and health organizations.

    2) Do you pick and choose the science and health positions you wish to believe in, or do you simply dismiss all published conclusions and positions statements of all these organizations?

    3) Can you list any nationally or internationally recognized science and health organizations that publically support the anti-F opinions as legitimate? I can’t.

    4) Can you cite one legitimate scientific study (along with the author’s quotes) that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water causes harm? No study has been accepted by the science or health communities as providing evidence that the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective should change. Hundreds of millions of individuals of all ages drink optimally fluoridated water daily – and have done so for decades. There are over 70 years of scientific studies on the benefits, risks and costs of fluoridation. If drinking optimally fluoridated water was harmful, one might expect that someone besides a few anti-science activists would have noticed – unless, of course the scientific and medical communities are all part of a global conspiracy to poison the common folks.

    5) If you cite a study, can you explain exactly why the criticism of experts was not legitimate and why the scientific community should have accepted the study as evidence to change the scientific consensus?

    All alleged “evidence” presented by fluoridation opponents (FOs) and used in their attempts to influence public opinion has been carefully evaluated and dismissed by mainstream scientific & health communities. When presented to the public this “evidence” will have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted/misused/misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only be suggestion of a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable &/or 6) The claim will be a complete fabrication.

    Because there is no legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions, FOs rely on meaningless, unsupportable diversions like “This ‘Randy Johnson’ (above) seems to take some pleasure skewering the pro-healthy-water comments here.”. I take no pleasure in pointing out the fact that FOs have no legitimate evidence to support their claims.

    Unfortunately though, it is far easier to sell fear and misinformation than it is to promote a considered review of more than 70 years of complicated scientific research. FOs are experts at exploiting fear-mongering strategies to scam and scare the public into accepting their agenda.

    The fact is that once you actually take the time to carefully examine the fear-laced propaganda of FOs, strip away the fear-laced headlines then read and understand the actual science, you will discover the evidence provides no proof for the fear-based claims.

  31. Randy Johnson,
    I know who you are.
    You and a couple others (not from the City of Dallas) often troll for Fluoride articles across the country.
    You have been exposed. Income also. You guys are well documented.
    But I won’t cite the dirt on you guys, because it is a small book.
    Go ahead. Do your thing.
    Try to dismiss each opponent to water fluoridation.
    I just laugh at you guys.

  32. Praise God Almighty for women like Regina Imburgia. I am so sick and tired of these jackasses who think they know it all poisoning our water, If they don’t straighten up, these jerks on Dallas City Council will be held accountable by the people for their terrible actions and not listening to science and reason.

  33. TomT – True, I am not from Dallas, but anti-science activism is a global problem. I drink Denver, CO municipal water which is optimally fluoridated.

    When the Denver Water Board Commissioners announced in 2015 they were reviewing the fluoridation policy because of petitions by anti-F activists I became interested in helping people in Denver and elsewhere understand the controversy and in providing resources to counter the distortions of available evidence by fluoridation opponents (FOs).

    Thankfully legitimate science prevailed over the fear-mongering and BiasScience of FOs in Denver on August 26th with the decision to continue fluoridation of the city’s drinking water.

    The resolution the Denver Water Board Commissioners adopted at its August 26, 2015 meeting stated: “Nothing has been presented to the Board or learned in our research that would justify ignoring the advice of these public health agencies and medical and community organizations, or deviating from the thoroughly researched and documented recommendation of the U.S. Public Health Service.”, https://www.denverwater.org/sites/default/files/fluoride-board-resolution-august-2015.pdf

    That conclusion is important considering top FO spokesperson, Paul Connett, flew to Denver to give a presentation at the July 29th information session – – – and contributed nothing new or of value to the decision making process.

    Hopefully those responsible for the fluoridation of Dallas water will recognize the fear-based claims of FOs are unsupportable, understand the 70-year body of evidence that supports fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure and continue the practice of fluoridation.

  34. CDC: Fluoride Additives Are Not Different From Natural Fluoride

    Some consumers have questioned whether fluoride from natural groundwater sources, such as calcium fluoride, is better than fluorides added “artificially,” such as HFSA or sodium fluoride. Two recent scientific studies listed below demonstrate that the same fluoride ion is present in naturally occurring fluoride or fluoride drinking water additives and that no intermediates or other products were observed at pH levels as low as 3.5. In addition, fluoride metabolism is not affected differently by the chemical compounds nor are they affected by whether the fluoride is present naturally or artificially.

    • The ionic speciation study conducted in 2006 mentioned previously (Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Re-examination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by fluoride NMR and pH measurement. Environ Sci Technol 2006;40:8:2572)

    • The pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride was studied by a 2008 study (G.M. Whitford, F.C. Sampaio, C.S. Pinto, A.G. Maria, V.E.S. Cardoso, M.A.R. Buzalaf, Pharmacokinetics of ingested fluoride: Lack of effect of chemical compound, Archives of Oral Biology, 53 (2008) 1037–1041).

    In other words, “Fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. There is no difference”.

  35. Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Study on Fluoride, Comment on Safety of Fluoridation

    From: John Doull [mailto:JDOULL@kumc.edu]
    Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:42 PM
    To: Matt Jacob
    Cc: Jayanth V. Kumar; Bill Maas (Consultant)
    Subject: RE: NRC Report findings and Adverse effect at 1 ppm

    Dear Matt; In response to your question, I do not believe there is any valid scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level. I also feel that there is no reason why Kansas City residents should avoid drinking the fluoridated water that is provided by the community water system.

    Sincerely John Doull M.D. PhD.
    Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee report on Fluoride in Drinking Water.

  36. Kurt Ferre, Steve Slott, and Randy Johnson are from out of town.
    They often troll for Fluoride articles.
    They are not drinking Dallas water.

  37. Mountains of scientific studies suggest that swallowing fluoride could adversely affect a person’s health.
    It would be very silly to think that every one of those studies is invalid.

    The “Precautionary Principle” applies.
    The Dallas City Council should withdraw the water fluoridation program.

  38. The point to consider about the difference between pharmaceutical grade fluoride and industrial grade fluoride, like the HFS (Hydrofluorosilicic acid) is, the HFS brings with it other neurotoxins like; arsenic and lead. Arsenic, lead and fluoride accumulate in the body. It is disingenuous for the Pro Fluoridation lobby to diminish the concerns about these and other toxins being added to our water. Shame on them. HFS is what the DWU puts into the Dallas water. The DWU prides themselves on their dosing abilities. They even have been given an award from the CDC for their accurate dosing. But after closer investigation (through Open Records Requests) it was revealed hundreds of days the fluoride was OVER the recommended level of .7ppm fluoride. These PRO-Fluoridation people like Steve Slott and Randy Johnson would acknowledge the recommended or ”optimum level of fluoride ion” for infants under 6 months is .01 mg per day. Most infant formula already has .01 mg fluoride. This dry formula is then mixed with water. Dallas water that is even over the .7ppm fluoride! Bottled water is not on the top of the grocery list in poverty areas. Those innocent little babies are getting many hundreds of times too much fluoride!! Water is a shared resource that should be protected for the most vulnerable among us! You can Help make Dallas Water Safer (there has been a delay in getting our DallasforSaferWater link live so please Go to http://www.DogsAgainstFluoridation.com scroll through the home page read and sign the petition to the Mayor, contact your Dallas City Council-member PLEASE Help Stop this Unsafe Ineffective Fluoridation Program!!

  39. CHLORINE IS ADDED TO WATER TO TREAT THE WATER.

    Kurt Ferre: “In other words, “Fluoride ion is a fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. There is no difference”.

    And that “flouride” is being added to to Dallas’s water “treat” people. That is illegal. Anything added to water to treat people makes it a medicine. Prescribing a medicine without a license is illegal. WORSE is medicating people without a license is a FELONY crime.

    The hydrofluorosalisic acid that Dallas adds to it’s water to treat people comes with a bonus…ARSENIC and LEAD!!

  40. My thoughts for Randy Johnson. Y’know, back in the Sixties we used to joke about “Better Living Through Chemistry”. Some of us chose to self-medicate. But it was a choice. There’s another phrase that is important here: “Science advances one funeral at a time.” Randy, your authoritarian opinions here masquerading as science are ready for the Toe Tag. Real science is never established by “consensus”. To hammer us with consensus arguments while ignoring our logical, sensible position is shameful. Who made you the guard dog over the millions here affected by the City of Dallas policy? If you do a photo comparison of the general public in the Sixties with a photo comparison today; today looks like the walking wounded in the crowded ER hallway. The American public are sick. We are plagued from our beginnings–Autism–to our endings–Alzheimers. Your vaunted studies begin to sound like the pro cigarette commercials and studies paid for by the tobacco lobby of the past. For our part, we know something is wrong. If you were philosophically true to your guns, you would know as well. But you are not. The average American in their Seventies and Eighties, if they make it that far today, suffers from Osteoporosis. Calcium Fluoride, the naturally-occurring fluoride in our water at .5 ppm–the very fact it has “calcium” in the name; that would seem to indicate it would not be pulling additional calcium from the bones. Experts tell us, however, that Fluorosilicic Acid, being an acid–let’s put on our scientific thinking caps now–is not “calcium buffered”, if I can use a descriptive term here. It is an acid. It’s called an acid for a reason. Bayer buffers their aspirin. It’s not just a marketing thing. It makes the acidity less reactive when introduced into the human organism. So I’m calling horsefeathers to your ion argument. It’s an obfuscation. Trust? You want us to trust the experts? Okay, let’s just fast forward through a few decades of FDA and other agency approval of various drugs and products right through to the class-action lawsuits with bands of hungry attorneys wanting us to call 800 numbers on the back end. Rewind, watch again. “Trust the experts” is ludicrous when the current numbers range up around 200,000 a year dead by the proper administration of prescription medications and procedures. It’s a Zombie Apocalypse over in the camp of those who are authorized to prescribe and medicate us WITH our consent. Bollocks to “trust the experts”, Mr. Johnson. How about trust the public? How about hear our reasonable concerns regarding the false science and flawed studies that delivered fluoridation to us all those decades ago . . . when we were healthier! If someone mentioned it I missed it. We haven’t even touched upon the use of fluoride as a pesticide on crops; our food supply that we consume. Hey, it works in rat poison, so why not spray it on food to kill the insects, and bees . .
    Once you fluoridate the water, scientifically you lose the means to assess how much of a dose an individual is getting. The water’s used on food crops. The fluoride is used as a pesticide. You get more fluoride through the skin in a hot shower by far than you ingest in your drinking water. Did I say fluoride bio-accumulates in the body? Do I need to repeat what studies have shown? The fact that it bio-accumulates and there are so many sources of fluoride coming back to us in a fluoridated water environment; that right there falsifies any idea you, Randy, put forward that you are cloaking with the mantle of scientific authority. In any given case you simply can’t know the exposure to fluoride. Toe tag that baby and deep six it. It does not fly. You’re not a Dallas resident. You don’t have standing in this debate. We, the human guinea pigs in this half-century experiment; we have a legitimate voice to be heard.

  41. Additional comment for Randy Johnson. Mr. Johnson claims fluoridation is not medication. Perhaps we can all review the NYT article from 2014 recommending adding Lithium to municipal water supplies . . . for the benefits! This is as they say one gnat’s behind away from actual medicating of the populace. And this is a concern in many of our minds; that with the Dallas City Council’s wanting approval from Rockefeller Foundation backed Model Cities, Strong Cities programs; that they desire to keep this pipeline of opportunity open against the will of the Dallas residents. In short, we have a legitimate concern. Study the article carefully. Be sure to note that one of the psychiatric experts quoted wrote the book: “Listening to Prozac.” I suppose I could say I’ve listened. I was picking up at a warehouse. The Foreman said to me, “You will wait your turn or I will kill you.” He walked off. I turned to one of the fork lift operators. He said, “The boss is on Prozac. Be very careful.” With all the mass shootings linked to Serotonin uptake inhibitors, I was listening. So I want you to seriously sit back and take in the fact that the New York Times is recommending millions of likely unsuspecting residents against their knowledge–therefore against their consent–be psychiatric medicated . . . for their own good. Fluoridation is the obvious switch that has been flipped. One of the Dallas City Council members even mentioned in debate on the fluoride issue that the precedent for medicating the public was already well established. So which fork in the road are we going to take? Do we go down the road to HOTEL CALIFORNIA, Dallas-style? Or do we quit pandering for the approval and accreditation of elite, un-elected, organizations; quit violating the medical rights and consent of our citizenry; and make Dallas the great city it can and will be through an empowered vital and health-conscious citizenry? Who gets to have a voice here? I for one am not going to go silently before Randy Johnson’s pseudo-scientific gate-keeping. For one thing, most of the psychiatrists I’ve met over my lifetime were as nuts as their patients. Do you seriously want the author of “Listening to Prozac” recommending the dose of Lithium for the Dallas water supply? Think about it. Oh, the NYT article sounds like it would be sooo beneficial. In fact . . . wouldn’t it be the compassionate thing to do . . . for the greater good? Wouldn’t you just like to have all the drivers in traffic on I-30, I-635, 75 Central Expressway; wouldn’t you prefer them all to be on a Lithium high? This is not fear mongering. This is the path we could potentially be on based upon already-existing, “well-established”, precedent. Call me nuts. Personally I think that European countries who Ozonate their water supplies to purify the water have taken the highest road. Here’s the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/should-we-all-take-a-bit-of-lithium.html

  42. regina imburgia – This comment “The point to consider…” was posted on the 1/10/18 fluoride article you fabricated, and it is as false and disingenuous there as here. My reply is the same:

    The point to consider about the difference between pharmaceutical grade fluoride and the chemicals used to fluoridate water alleged by fluoridation opponents (FOs) is that there is none. You continue to exhibit a disdain for and a complete failure to understand science.
    Fluoride ions dissolved in water are identical regardless of source – nearly all originate from natural fluoride-containing minerals. Chemicals used to fluoridate water are carefully regulated, and they are certified by NSF. The fact is that, “The data reported in Tables 1 and 2 demonstrate that very low concentrations of contaminants are associated with fluoridation chemicals. In fact, NSF was only able to detect the reported trace amounts by dosing the chemicals into water at ten times the manufacturers maximum use level (as required by the Standard). If the products had been dosed into water at the manufacturer’s maximum use level, all contaminant levels would have been below the analytical method detection limits.”
    ~> http://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet_on_Fluoridation.pdf
    FOs are attempting to halt a beneficial public health measure and increase the risk of dental decay and related health issues in Dallas. Shame on them. There is a known risk of tooth decay and no proven health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water.
    You did not mention by how much the fluoride levels were over 0.7 ppm in Dallas water, but I am certain your example of doses 10 times the recommended level is a complete fabrication. My guess would be that the average fluoride level over a year’s time would be very close to the recommended level of 0.7 ppm (certainly not 7.0 ppm at any time) and might have varied by 0.1 ppm or so. If you have proof of levels 10 times more than recommended, provide that evidence and then you will have some credibility – without proof of your claims, you are guilty of disingenuous fear-mongering.
    Your other claims are similarly unsupported opinions. Cite a study that proves the “recommended or ”optimum level of fluoride ion” for infants under 6 months is .01 mg per day.“ Also provide a citation to any specific study that proves “Those innocent little babies are getting hundreds of times too much fluoride!!” Millions of infants have been drinking optimally fluoridated water in their formula over the last seven decades, so provide a single study that has proven any of the harm alleged by FOs from drinking optimally fluoridated water to children or adults? The only possible consequences I have read about of mixing formula with optimally fluoridated water is “there may be an increased chance for permanent teeth (when they erupt at about age 6 to have mild dental fluorosis”. Mild dental fluorosis is generally not noticeable, and the teeth are more resistant to decay. Tooth decay is a recognized health rise (except perhaps to FOs), while To reduce that slight risk, some formula can be mixed with non-fluoridated water.
    ~> http://www.ada.org/~/media/EBD/Files/PHS_2015_Fluoride_Guidelines.pdf?la=en
    “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
    You Can Help make Dallas Water Safer. For those of you reading these comments and perhaps wondering if the fear-laced claims of FOs have any validity, you can begin reading information outside the confines of anti-F websites and make your own decisions about what the 70+ years of evidence actually demonstrates. Contact your Dallas City Council-member and encourage them not to be hoodwinked by the anti-science FOs.
    ~> http://who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf
    ~> https://www.scimex.org/__data/assets/file/0017/106523/16399-NHMRC-Fluoride-Information.pdf
    ~> http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation
    ~> http://americanfluoridationsociety.com/home
    ~> http://bfsweb.org
    ~> http://msof.nz
    ~> http://ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation
    ~> http://cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html
    ~> http://scientificamerican.com/article/a-plan-to-defend-against-the-war-on-science
    ~> http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/03/science-doubters/achenbach-text
    PLEASE Help Stop this Anti-Science, Anti-Fluoridation Program!!

  43. Oh Randy. You manage to to copy/paste so many words and still can not, for the life of you, copy/paste your way around a very simple, one sentence fact:

    People need to have the choice.

    You can post all the links in the world and issue canned responses over and over again, but this fact will be there, gnawing at your bones much alike non buffered fluoride. I’ll add a few questions here:

    Why does this fluoride need to be sourced from an industry which would otherwise find it very expensive to get rid of the byproduct?

    Is fluoride the only substance which can help with remineralization of the teeth, assuming fluoride does have this effect? What about crushed cocoa nibs or bentonite clay?

    By all means, stick to your guns and optimally fluoridated water. That’s very important, to have it optimally fluoridated. Because, when you add wast amounts of acid to wast amounts of water you can control exactly how much every person of varying ages, weights and backgrounds will ingest, right? Right? We’ll just have to trust the experts, I guess. We all know governments around the world are full of them. Right?

    Note: I’m not from the Dallas area, not even remotely, but I would like nothing more than to have my human brothers and sisters in Texas and elsewhere regain some of their natural given, inalienable rights. Here we don’t have our water poisoned with fluoride, but our toothpaste more than makes up for it, with standard 1450ppm fluoride content.

  44. Why are fluoridationists silent on fluoride’s total fluoride intake. There’s no dispute that too much fluoride is a danger to health.Fluoride is in virtually all foods and beverage on top of what’s absorbed and swallowed from dental products. Fluoride is also a component of many medicines and air pollution. Tea is naturally high in fluoride. Tea drinkers risk fluoride induced bone damage from tea alone,
    according to research published in Environmental Pollution (Das, et al. 12/2017)

    Tea plants (Camellia sinensis) absorb fluoride from soil and air then released from 1.47 to 6.9 milligrams fluoride per liter (mg/L) when brewed, reports Das’ research team

    “It can be predicted that long-term consumption of copious quantities of traditional tea might increase the chances of fluorosis in the consumers,” they report.

    Fluoride from tea, alone, has reportedly caused skeletal fluorosis, an arthritic-type disease that most US physicians aren’t trained to diagnose and consumers aren’t informed about.

    EPA caps fluoride water contamination at 4 mg/L to protect against skeletal fluorosis. But an EPA-requested review of fluoride toxicology research (NRC 2006) revealed 4 mg/L doesn’t protect bones. The level must be lowered – some say to as close to zero as possible.

    Additionally, Waugh et al. brewed 54 different brands of tea to find fluoride levels reaching up to 6.1 mg/L. Waugh concludes that individuals’ total fluoride intake “could readily exceed the levels known to cause chronic fluoride intoxication.” Heart, liver, kidneys, endocrine and nervous systems are also at risk, they caution.

    Alarmingly, some studies found 9 mg/L fluoride in brewed tea.

    Why aren’t fluoridation supporters informating the American public to monitor their daily fluoride intake from all sources. I believe protecting fluoride is their goal – not the public. The fluoridationists in this comment section are the more childish of the fluoridation promoters – wanting more win than and puffing up their egos than giving Americans the tools they need to give the “optimum” amount of fluoride to their children to prevent tooth decay as they claim without unwanted denta fluorosis or skeletal fluorosis.

  45. Thank you, Regina, for your tireless work on behalf of the residents of Dallas and surrounding communities. The bottom line is this. The Dallas City Council has no authority to approve adding Hydro Fluorosilicic Acid to our drinking water. If the reason is “for the children’s teeth”, then they are acknowledging that it is for medicinal purposes. Well, I do not consent to this toxic chemical being added to the drinking water. And I believe the majority of critical thinking people feel the same. There is no way to regulate the amount of it that an individual consumes. Shame on the City of Dallas for allowing this horrific practice to continue all these years. Let’s stop it now before we the lawsuits begin!

  46. Water Fld. is also being used as PR for Salt Fld. (touted as substitutes for one another, but VERY different consumption patterns)

    One child sized KFC popcorn chicken in Costa Rica contains over 8.5X amount of Sodium Fluoride as a pea sized quantity of toothpaste?

    A pea-sized quantity is often the recommended amount of toothpaste- people warned to call poison control if their child consumes more than this amount used in brushing.

    250 mg F- / Kg Salt in Costa Rica
    5.34 g (-25 mg sodium to acct for natural sodium in chicken breast – treated as negligible) “Salt” in Child’s Popcorn Chicken KFC Costa Rica (85g serving)
    45.247% F- molar mass in NaF
    54.753 % Na+ molar mass in NaF
    39.33% Na+ molar mass in NaCl

    Okay, all relevant links attached below. These are the questions that drive me crazy:

    I couldn’t figure the modification to make for mass % Na+ in the combo NaF and NaCl in costa rica, so I erred on the safe end and used the same conversion as if the percentage mass Na+ was unaffected by the addition of the 250mg F- containing Fluoride compound/kg table salt (treated as pure NaCl- thus over estimating percentage Na+, and under representing actual quantity of salt and therefore NaF consumed).

    To get our 250 mg F- per Kg of table salt in CR we will need .552525 g NaF. The conversion we are looking to get is what % NaF is present in the mixture of NaCl and NaF. To save room, I will skip the conversions- suffice to say it isn’t much (seemingly): only .0005522% NaF present in this “salt”.

    Next, is to figure just how much “salt” is present in the chicken in question. Though the survey and article shared mention the 5.34g as being the “salt” content of the chicken- as the claims are “based on the kfc website” which lists nutrition facts as “sodium”, I am assuming that the translation of “sodium” to salt in misleading. I am treating the 5.34g “salt” content as actually 5.34g sodium content. It makes more consistent sense.

    Based on the Na+ sodium percent assumption given above (treated as pure NaCl) – 39.33% Na in NaCl; this 5.34g can be considered to be about 13.577g of “salt”. How much of this “salt” is NaF?

    Only 5.522e-4 % of it is NaF. That breaks out to 7.497 mg of NaF.

    Based on the “fluoride conversion” chart given, a pea sized amount of tooth paste at 1000ppm F- (most common in USA)- contains .88mg NaF (2.2mg NaF per 1g of toothpaste).

    That would mean that the amount of RAW SODIUM FLUORIDE consumed in a child’s sized amount of popcorn chicken at a KFC in Costa Rica is over 8.5x the amount present in the pea sized amount of toothpaste in the USA (the amount we are warned to call poison control if consumed by a child)! Even if the 5.34g of salt listed is actual “salt” content (not sodium content), we are still looking at over 3.3x the amount of NaF in the toothpaste.

    And really, what kid stops at a single serving of popcorn chicken?

    https://www.kfc.com/nutrition/full-nutrition-guide

    http://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/news/Salt%20in%20the%20news/2015/WASH%20Children's%20Meals%20Survey/160652.html

    https://www.google.com/search?q=sodium+content+chicken&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS751US751&oq=sodium+content+chicken&aqs=chrome..69i57j35i39j0l4.2815j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    http://calorielab.com/restaurants/kfc/2

    http://www.ibiblio.org/taft/cedros/english/newsletter/n5/Salt.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3203184/How-salt-KFC-depends-world-Chicken-fries-Costa-Rica-FIVE-times-salt-UK-nearly-bad.html

    http://www.colgateprofessional.com.au/Professional/v1/en/au/locale-assets/docs/student_Fluoride_Conversions.pdf

  47. Salt fluoridation is the issue that really got me interested in researching the whole practice. Before I had visited Costa Rica and witnessed firsthand the impossibility of finding salt which had not had raw Sodium/Potassium Fluoride [though advertised as addition of F- ions] added DIRECTLY to the sea salt, I didn’t think twice about fluoridation. Come to find out- Costa Rica practices salt fluoridation, UNIVERSAL salt fluoridation to be particular. (illegal to import non-Fld. salt) SF was originally purported as a rural alternative to WF- but has come to be practiced at the national level across the globe. However controversial water fluoridation is, no current commentaries have effectively detailed Salt Fluoridation, the practices (dosage assumptions, actual social outcome [amount of sodium fluoride consumed]) and groups which purport the practice.

    http://iris.paho.org/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/736/9275116156.pdf?sequence=1

    “Promoting Oral Health- The Use of Salt Fluoridation to Prevent Dental Caries”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here