Guest Op-ed: Do Dallas Residents Need Community Water Fluoridation? Yes, and Here’s Why

Some still mistakenly cling to the disproved belief that fluoride helps CHILDREN’S teeth as they form. That hypothesis was thoroughly disproved a quarter century ago.
It is important to ask — exactly why should an ADULT be sentenced to take this poisonous chemical, fluoride, in every glass of water every day of life?

Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers.

Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.
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.

Who benefits from adding hydrofluorosalisic acid toxic waste neurotoxin (fluoride) to our drinking water?
ONLY those who get paid to promote the illegal practice.

Beth Stewart is the Executive Director of Texas Oral Health Coalition, Inc.

“The Safe Water Drinking Act of 1974.” That speaks for itself when you compare the good intentions of the early 1970’s with the scientific data of 2018.

Did the good intentions of 1974 include the scientific data that hydroflurosyllicic acid, not to be confused with naturally occurring calcium fluoride, is full of carcinogens, some even radioactive? Obviously not.

My recommendation to all would be that if you want to take care of your teeth, you floss and brush them as recommended by your dentist.

Too much information exists regarding the effects of hydroflurosyllicic acid, the additive the city of Dallas uses in its fluoridation program to prevent tooth decay.

Do you still want to ingest these carcinogens throughout your entire digestive system? I choose flossing and brushing instead. Talk about removing your choice?

I choose safer drinking water over a problem I can solve myself with a little personal responsibility. I’ve been using high quality water filters for almost ten years. I will choose no to hydroflurosyllicic acid and yes to personal responsibility over being forced to consume carcinogens in the water I bathe and drink.

“If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)

Despite the dogmatic position of organizations committed to the fluoridation myth, fluoride is destroying teeth at a huge cost – and it is doing it at twice the rate in Black and Hispanic communities. Per 2011-12 government figures, over half of American teens have some level of fluorosis and more than 1 in 5 (23%) have the brown stains and even pitting or flaking enamel of moderate to severe dental fluorosis on at least two of their teeth. These disfigured teeth will require costly veneers and crowns in young adulthood.

Moreover, dental fluorosis (DF) is predictive of increased rates of diabetes, kidney disease, and learning disabilities which are also higher in Black and Hispanic communities which is why Human Rights leaders call fluoridation an environmental injustice that must end. Since fluoride is an endocrine disruptor, enzyme poison and ‘burden’ to kidneys, these findings are not only well documented, but biologically plausible. BTW: Before fluoridation, the national dental fluorosis rate was only 3%.

1962 DF: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/1962_01_10_Blacks_Fluorosis.pdf
2010 DF: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.htm
2017 DF: http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2017/05/09/DC85141

2016 Ambassador Andrew Young: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2016AndrewJYoung/10/prweb13768202.htm
2015 Lois Gibbs: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/gibbs-2015.pdf
Other leaders: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/ej/statements/

Dear Moderator…I sent wrong draft of my comment a minute ago…If you can catch it this is my comment…sorry for extra trouble (:

The Unsafe Ineffective COSTLY Fluoridation Program needs to END!
The disingenuous “cost advantage of Fluoridation” claim, is a frequently cited claim that $38 is saved for every dollar spent on fluoridation, is based on faulty assumptions. This claim was from Susan Griffin (an economist working for the CDC) it has been cited ad nauseam by state health officials and other promoters of fluoridation around the world.
Even one of the Pro-fluoridation dentists that came to speak in the Council chambers used this one!
I bet the pro-fluoride lobby stressed this one even more during their back door meetings with the Dallas City Council. .
In this article, Ms Stewart states, “For Dallas, the cost of fluoridation is only $0.49 per year per person, so that a lifetime of cavity prevention is less than $39.”
Humm… how did Ms Stewart come to this amount for Dallas residents when after my repeated requests to the Dallas Water Utilities for additional information/documents showing additional costs for the Dallas fluoridation program other than the HFS, their reply was -we do not have the software to provide specific costs for the fluoride program.
An investigative reporter needs to follow-up on this!
HFS eats through concrete and glass! An average of two times a year in the Dallas Elmfork treatment plant alone there was a leak that needed to be repaired! Any injuries in the last 50 years that the city of Dallas paid for?
I am concerned for the workers at DWU. The HFS is very dangerous and health problems related to contact with the HFS may take time to be diagnosed. When determined what will these costs be?
This comment was left on the Op-ed I wrote for NDG https://northdallasgazette.com/2018/01/10/guest-op-ed-can-unsafe-dallas-water/
Clark says
January 11, 2018 at 7:33 am
I am a certified water treatment operator and have been for 17years. I have personally seen how harmful this stuff is on those who have to handle it every day and how it will eat holes in concrete. It can’t be good for anyone’s health when it can desolve supply pipes and etch glass in the supply rooms. Go visit your utility dept and ask to visit the fluoride room. I think you will have a whole different opinion.
These special interest dentist need to do a visit to see what their promoting. It may give them a whole different perspective.
Good job Regina.
Thanks for standing up for those who can’t.
The Pro-fluoride lobby relies on the fact people most people will not investigate their claims. And the more the claims are repeated the more people listening believe the claims are based on the truth.
When in fact, the primary cost-benefit analysis used to support Water Fluoridation in the U.S. assumes negligible adverse effects from Fluoridation and omits the costs of treating dental fluorosis, of accidents and overfeeds, of occupational exposures to fluoride, of promoting Fluoridation, and of avoiding fluoridated water.
Due to widespread use of CWF, employment of dentists is projected to grow by 16% between 2012 and 2022 (vs. 11% for all occupations) (1), and cosmetic dentistry in the U.S. has grown to be a multi-billion dollar industry (2).
(122). Dentists. Job Outlook. 2014 [cited 2014 Aug 5]; Available from: http://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/dentists.htm#tab-6
(123). American Association of Cosmetic Dentistry. Cosmetic Dentistry Continues to Surge – Market Estimated at $2.75 Billion. 2007 [cited 2013 Aug 8]; Available from: http://www.aacd.com/index.php?module=cms&page=723

More info A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation Lee Ko & Kathleen M. Thiessen Article: International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 21:2, 91-120, DOI: 10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000093 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000093

As usual, fear-mongering is the rhetoric of the fluoridation opposition. All claims, and no real proof. The PROOF is fluoridation is safe and effective, 70 years of research has shown that. Over 211 million people in the US benefit from fluoridation- at the optimal level. If it was not true, courts would have eliminated it decades ago. It’s a mineral, an essential trace mineral that has benefits to the body, just like iron.

-Who was the city of Dallas vendor that the DOJ fined $2B to cleanup hydroflorisilic acid? (should have been $50B).
-What year did the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledged for the first time that the African American community has higher rates of dental fluorosis (almost twice that of Caucasians)?
-Why is Linda S. Orgain, MPH, Health Communications Specialist, Division of Oral Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion unable to provide the data that drives the constant in calculating the .7ppm “optimal fluoride “level claim? This is something that has been claimed to exist since the early 1960’s.

Only you can end the power of willful ignorance…. and remember what Doc Brown says,,,,, “the future is what you make it.”

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

Upton Sinclair, 1935

The places that fluoridate most have the worst cavity records. Even neighborhood by neighborhood.
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

Park cities, as well as most of the world, refuse to add fluoride to tap water.
The EPA scientists (not the brass) have issued a statement against mass fluoridation.
The FDA refuses to test its safety by changing the definition of a drug (just this one time).
It is a huge scam. This a waste product of the fertilizer industry. No secret or argument there. Look it up, They are not allowed to dump this in the ocean, but they get paid to dump it in drinking and bathing water.
Yes, oral health is directly related to overall health. Ingestion of poison might be related as well.
The law is clear, first do no harm. Except here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITy04DpZpl0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITy04DpZpl0
Public policy based on the noise from deluded parrots, and apathetic, trusting sheep. They never address any of these key points, just keep repeating 75 year old propaganda. These people have presided over a huge increase in money spent on ‘health’ care, while we witness a concurrent increase in horrible diseases, such as cancer. Yet their only argument is an appeal to their authority. It is now proven to be associated with brain damage to infants, but not usually crippling. So, even if it worked as advertised, which it CLEARLY doesn’t, you are promoting lower IQ children with nicer teeth. Wake up! Grow up!
http://fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis01/
http://fluoridealert.org/articles/iq-facts/
PS How about kidney problems, bone cancer in teenaged boys? Are their teeth beautiful in the medical waiting rooms?

The studies linking fluoride to cognitive impairment in children are compelling and conclusive. It is a confirmed neurotoxin. Studies confirming the efficacy of fluoride in the prevention of cavities are not conclusive. If people want to add fluoride there are many other ways to do that. Fluoridating a public water supply amounts to medication without consent. It is also medicating without a measured dose.

Like so many articles written by pro-fluoridation advocates, this article is long on generalities and short on specifics. For example, what is the source of the author’s bland assurance that “fluoridation reduces tooth decay by about 29%”? The author airily disregards all recent scientific evidence of the harm done by fluoridation. In fact; she chooses not to mention any contrary evidence at all.. For her, a simple appeal to authority (in this case, to a little-known government entity called “The National Academies Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering and Medicine”) is sufficient to quell any doubts readers may have about the probity of government institutions or the wisdom of fluoridation as public policy. Apparently she has never heard of the Flint, Michigan scandal, which involved the formerly respected EPA; or else is she is ignorant of the scandal’s implications. The author seems genuinely confused about the issue of freedom of choice. On the one hand, she writes that, “Everyone should have the right to choose whether they drink fluoridated water or not.” Yet in her very next sentence, she argues that “People that oppose fluoridation are removing that choice for all residents”, the inference being that mandatory fluoridation should be imposed on everyone after all.

So, in conclusion, the article does not further the public debate about fluoride in any meaningful respect. It just muddies the waters.

This group of individuals making comments literally posts these comments every time there is any positive press about community water fluoridation. Their comments sound credible, but if you check any valid website, the Center for Disease Control, the American Academy of Pediatrics (www.ilikemyteeth.org), the American Dental Association, you will find that what they have written is so much drivel. Why? I have no idea. But inform yourselves, do not accept something just because you read it on the internet.

All these anti fluoride commentators will tell you that Community Water Fluoridation at .7PPM is a danger to human health.
Mss Spencer even says it is an “endocrine disruptor,” Wow .So that means woman worldwide are at risk , because the biggest endocrine disruptor is the birth control pill” So this proves She is just scaremongering

If what they say has a grain of truth in it. With according to their personal opinions C.W.F cause every illness or decease from Ashma to Yellow fever

With at least 500 million people in the world using or have used C.W.F in the last 70 odd years ,you would think that getting quality Medical case histories of say 1/2 million patients with proven complications from C.W.F would be a walk in the park
But in 70 odd years they have nothing, except Personal opinion

Here is the silly part…

Thousands of peer-reviewed published scientific studies suggest that swallowing fluoride could adversely affect a person’s health.
It would be very, very silly to think that every one of those studies is invalid.

http://www.dallasforsaferwater.com

Like KSpencer points out, fluorosis is ruining the teeth of many teens.

Can one imagine the future dental costs associated with trying to cosmetically fix damaged teeth from too much fluoride?

Dentists must love having all these future lifelong patients trying to cosmetically repair their teeth.
The revenue must be astounding for cosmetic Dentists.

If you want fluoride buy toothpaste, don’t force me to buy water that I believe is harmful to my children and me.

Excellent article from Beth Stewart regarding the benefits and lack of risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

Canadian public health physician, Dr. Jim Chirico, recently posted another excellent summary of why fluoridation opponents (FOs) should be ignored: “If your child had an important health issue, would you base your treatment decision for your child on what the majority of your neighbors thought? I doubt that you would. You would seek the advice of trusted medical experts – your dentist, you family doctor, your nurse practitioner and you wouldn’t rely on doctor Google. Health decisions need to be based on credible science, not popular opinion, pseudo-science or internet myths from anti-fluoridation groups with their own personal agendas. When all of the scientific evidence is considered – both positive and negative – the science is solid. Adding fluoride to municipal drinking water is effective in reducing cavities for children and adults, is safe and cost effective. If the public wants to be properly informed, I encourage you to speak to your dentist, your family doctor, or nurse practitioner. If you choose to search the internet, go to reliable, trustworthy websites of unbiased organizations … parents have a lot of things to worry about, but many decades of research have demonstrated that fluoridation isn’t one of them. By removing fluoride you will be turning your backs on the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in your community. It will be your children, your poor and your elderly that will be the ones suffering physically, mentally and financially,” he said. “This is an opportunity for your council and community to show leadership, compassion and courage by not giving in to a vocal minority and by not abandoning the practice of relying upon the expertise of respected public health, dental, medical and scientific organizations; but rather, that council and the community affirm its confidence in their integrity and recommendations and support the ongoing fluoridation of the municipal drinking water system.”
As noted in comments to the other North Dallas Gazette articles, the 70-year body of evidence 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 has remained unchanged for over 70 years. 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 their 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?
Fluoridation opponents distrust the scientific, dental and health professions and rely on the proclamations of a few outliers who distort the actual science and use the edited “evidence” to try and scare members of the public into believing their propaganda.

jwillie6 – You still have not read TCAF and discovered that there are not 1,200 unique, legitimate scientific references. It is nothing more than a summary of typical anti-F propaganda found all over the Internet. Provide a citation you believe proves your claims that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any “health dangers”.

Nyscof – Really? The only group that is demonstrably grossly misinformed is the FOs. Beth Stewart is one of the many thousands of science, dental and other health professionals who recognize the benefits of fluoridation as noted above. You have provided absolutely no rational explanation (with proof) of why, if your so-called “evidence” is obvious and legitimate, anti-F activists remain an extremely small, marginal minority. You must distort the conclusions of the Cochrane group to make it sound as though some experts actually accept your opinions.
~> https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/06/29/cochrane-fluoridation-review-i-most-research-ignored/
~> https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/cochrane-review-on-your-precious-bodily-fluids-community-water-fluoridation/

Joe – Who benefits from adding hydrofluorosalisic acid to the water? Those who drink it.

David Norsworthy – I am surprised that you accept any recommendation by dentists, since most of them support fluoridation. Everyone who supports fluoridation would also recommend that all known methods of reducing dental decay be employed. Fluoride ions from dissolved hydroflurosyllicic acid are identical from those dissolved from CaF. All fluoridation chemicals are regulated to be safe and not contain any harmful levels of other chemicals – just as all of the other disinfectants and other water treatment chemicals. You have provided no evidence to prove any of your claims.

KSpencer – WoW! Nothing but links to anti-F opinion sites and a CDC site which does not support your claim of dental fluorosis rates. You provide no published study which proves your claim that 23% of American teens have moderate or severe dental fluorosis. Drinking optimally fluoridated water has only been linked to an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis which is normally not noticeable and actually increases resistance to decay. There is absolutely no evidence that very mild to mild dental fluorosis is predictive of increased rates of diabetes, kidney disease, learning disabilities or that fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated water are an endocrine disruptor, enzyme poison and a burden to kidneys. All your other so-called references are as unreliable as your CDC reference. These claims are neither biologically plausible or well documented by legitimate studies. Cite the study you believe provides the best proof of your claims of harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water. Anything you post will have been reviewed and rejected as providing sufficient proof for changing the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

Medications are absorbed by the whole body and so are Fluoridation Chemicals. To think it helps the teeth without side effects is absurd. I don’t believe for a second that flouride was added to the water just to help our teeth.

I want to remind you that chemists and the EPA characterize fluoride as a poison; that fact is an absolute. People have varying tolerances for poisons based on individual factors. It is unethical to submit an entire population to a poison and call it medicine for teeth.

NEVER give in to a totalitarian decision.

Very faulty numbers an reasoning in her article. I like what the water plant worker has to say about the fluoride room at the water plant and all the damage that has been done to the concrete and pipes and glass. The cost of repairs outweighs benefits.

Beth Stewart, have you lived in a closet all your life? The latest is that fluoride does little to help dental caries, causes gingivitis (additional cost for dental patients) and worsens several serious diseases. And, if that was not bad enough, the proponents of forced community fluoridation of our water supply are robbing us of our freedom of choice..

TYVM for keeping this important topic in the light.
More discussion and education will eventually lead to the truth.
Fluoride is a toxic medicine that our family DOES NOT consent to.
If in doubt do not add it!
http://www.DogsAgainstFluoridation.com

Dear Dallas Residents,

Don’t be misled by those who are posting that your fluoridated water is causing a single adverse health effect in any of you. I have 2 daughters who grew up drinking it. As a parent and a pediatric dentist, would I do anything that would harm my or your children? Absolutely not.

Credibly conducted science is how we separate myths from facts. The fluoridation opponents here are posting cherry pick tidbits of information, and misinformation, to scare you into thinking that your health, teeth, and body are in peril. There is not a shred of evidence which supports their claims about fluoridated water at the optimal level of 0.7ppm (parts per million).

As a dentist and scientist, we are held to a higher standard. We have to back up our statements with scientific facts. Those who oppose community water fluoridation (CWF) are not held to this high standard. Hence the misquoting by the fluoride opponents of CWF by the Cochrane Review, impact on the teeth, and damage to minority groups health is mythical at best.

CWF is:
1. Safe-it causes absolutely no adverse health effects in anyone. Over 3,000 credibly conducted scientific studies and research papers over the past 70+ years has shown CWF to be safe and effective.
2. Effective: By simply drinking the fluoridated water, cavities are reduced for everyone regardless of age, race, ethnicity, socio-econonmic status, level of education, or access to dental care.
3. Cost Savings: As reported in this Guest Op-ed, the Return on Investment is huge. Not only does CWF save you all money on preventable cavity repairs, it helps save the healthcare system costs, which directly saves those with insurance higher premiums.
4. Savings in pain, suffering, root canals, extractions, decreased quality of life, employability, and difficulty in focusing in school, and occasional deaths from this preventable disease.

Cavities are the #1 Chronic Disease of Children. It is 5 times more common than asthma, 4 times more common than obesity, and 20 times more common than diabetes.

I am president of the American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit 501c4. Our Board of Directors consists of a physician and dentists who disseminate credible science on CWF. We do not accept a penny for our efforts. Our sole purpose is to help communities separate the science from the myths that are spread.

references:
http://www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.org
http://www.CDC.gov/fluoridation
http://www.ILikeMyTeeth.org (the American Academy of Pediatrics Campaign for Dental Health)

You can check out each of the statements that I made, and those made by the opponents, on our webpage as well as the other references listed below.

Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Pediatric Dentist
President, American Fluoridation Society

And yet, with all the paranoia being pushed in these comments, there has never been one person who has been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime.

Nor has there ever been one successful lawsuit for health reasons by anyone, against anyone, because they were harmed by drinking water with 1 ppm of fluoride in it. Bear in mind that the United States, the land of the Class Action Lawsuit, has more people drinking optimally fluoridated water than any other place on the planet. Hundreds of millions of people drink it every day in a country where lawsuits are so common that even McDonald’s was successfully sued because its coffee was too hot!!

And not one successful lawsuit for harm. Imagine that.

It is apparent that enough people exist in Dallas to warrant a change in the fluoridation policy. Large numbers of people do not want fluoridation of the water supply. Floridation should be stopped.

The question is; How can fluoridation be stopped? Where is the political machine to change this policy? Where is the politician who will support the people by pushing to get this policy change? I wonder if Dallas, Texas can advance a new trend or not. Can this be done in a city that often resists change?

KF – Residual disinfectants used to treat drinking water “are absorbed by the whole body” and so are the disinfection byproducts. What exactly is your point? Unlike low levels of fluoride ions, residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts like chloroform provide no known health benefits when they are absorbed. Why are fluoridation opponents (FOs) fixated on fluoride ions when exposure to any substance at high enough exposure levels can be characterized as a poison. Arguments of FOs are flawed and irrational.

Raelene – Again, no understanding of a basic concept that any substance (like undiluted water treatment chemicals) are toxic at high enough exposure levels are toxic and many are corrosive. Would you suggest that only highly diluted chemicals be transported and added to treat water?? FOs are illogical.

Dr. Michon Hawkins – Really? Do you have any specific, legitimate citations of published papers that prove any of your claims? Explain exactly how you are being forced to drink fluoridated water and how you are robbed of your freedom of choice? If I decided I did not want to ingest residual disinfectants or disinfection byproducts Would I have the right to demand that water disinfection be halted and claim that I was forced to drink the disinfected tap water and robbed of my freedom of choice? Fluoridation opponents are illogical and extremely paranoid.

Anonymous – So, you believe that politics should dictate health-related decisions based on anti-science misinformation? The question actually is, why should fluoridation be stopped when there is no legitimate evidence to prove the process is ineffective or harmful?

http://www.crescentcitytimes.com/beware-of-newly-formed-the-american-fluoridation-society/

Beware of newly formed, “The American Fluoridation Society”
Anti fluoridationists were tipped off to the creation of “The American Fluoridation Society.” It was discovered that it was incorporated in Portland just a few months ago. It’s a 501c(4), which apparently means that access to who is funding this is limited. The three incorporators were Kurt Ferre, Chuck Haynie (aka Billy Budd) and Johnny Johnson. Matt Malmsheimer is the registered agent.

It was discovered that Johnny Johnson identified himself as the President of the American Fluoridation Society in an article published on the website of the British Fluoridation Society talking about fluoridation efforts in Austin, Texas. Johnson also created and pays for the website http://www.AmericanFluoridationSociety.us along with several variations of it that has no content so far.

Johnson announced at an Oral Health Florida meeting in January 2015 “American Fluoridation Society is being created, mirroring the British Fluoridation Society, to help with fluoridation efforts and information”

Chuck Haynie MD (aka Billy Budd) identifies himself as “American Fluoridation Society Member” at an April 2015 meeting of the American Association for Community Dental Programs Annual Symposium in Kansas City, Missouri

Attorney Matt Malmsheimer is the “registering agent” and this is probably him http://www.hk-law.com/professionals-staff/attorneys/malmsheimer.php (same address)

Irony

Matt received his undergraduate degree from New York University in 1992. He obtained his J.D., cum laude, from Lewis & Clark Law School in 2003, where he served as a member and Managing Editor of its law review, Environmental Law. Upon graduating, Matt obtained a Certificate in Environmental and Natural Resource Law

This UK document says that the American Fluoridation Societywas founded on 09-04-2015 and has its registered office in Portland. The organisation’s status is listed as “Active”. American Fluoridation Society, Inc. is a DOMESTIC NONPROFIT CORPORATION registered in United States of America (USA) with Oregon Secretary of State Corporations Division

Steve Slott now identifies himself as a founding member of the American Fluoridation Society, a non-profit, volunteer organization composed of healthcare professionals dedicated to education of the public, with evidence-based information on the public health initiative of water fluoridation where he wrote a clumsy retort to Rick North’s excellent article at https://www.thelundreport.org/content/dispelling-common-misstatements-fluoridation

The American Fluoridation Society is a group is made up, so far (and as far as we know), of the most prolific Rabid Responders on the Internet (Johnson, Slott, Ferre, Haynie (Budd), They may have organized because the mainstream doesn’t want any part of them. Or maybe mainstream loves what they are doing but wants to secretly fund them without being tainted by their foolish, unscientific and insulting words. Or maybe it was set up to avoid their getting individually sued for the false claims they make about fluoridation. Or it could be an ego thing. We’ll find out.

Right now, it appears that Johnson made up an organization, and made himself president which gives him a title and an organization that sounds important; but right now just seems to puff up his “credentials.”

46 Responses to Beware of newly formed, “The American Fluoridation Society”

Anonymous You Bring up excellent points!
And I have some answers for you!
The Dallas City Council NEEDS to adopt the Precautionary principle…. The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action or stopping an action) in a more simple term, told often to the Dallas City Council concerning the Fluoridation Program, “When in Doubt- Leave it Out!”
Excerpt from – Local Governments and the Precautionary Principle
Traditionally, federal, state, and local governments in the United States have followed a “risk management” approach to regulate health and environmental issues. As mentioned above, this approach asks how much harm is allowable, rather than how little harm is possible.3 For instance, if a certain plastic used to make toys contained toxic chemicals, a traditional risk assessment might determine the level of harm that would likely occur and lawmakers might use the risk assessment to determine the level of exposure that would be acceptable.4 Additionally, the risk management approach requires evidence of actual harm before regulations may be enacted to prevent harm, meaning that governments attempt to manage risk rather than prevent it.5 Some policy makers have referred to this approach as the “dead body approach,” meaning that damage must be proven before action is taken.6 In some instances, lawmakers have abandoned the concept of risk assessment when addressing the negative health and environmental effects of human activity. Instead, they have turned to the precautionary approach, an idea that entails acting when there is indication of harm rather than proof of harm.7 (full pdf. Link) http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/Precautionary%20Principle.pdf

Precautionary Principle
updated by Maria Mergel (May 11, 2016) TXP-2
Precaution is a systemic change that transforms the way we approach environmental regulation and decision making. This change is rooted in a paradigm shift away from risk/benefit and cost/benefit decision-making that asks, “what level of harm is acceptable?” to a precautionary approach which asks, “how can we prevent harm?”
– Center for Health, Environment, and Justice
The problem very often is that long before the science does come in, the harm has already been done.- Michael Pollan

Wingspread Statement, Jan. 1998:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” The precautionary principle was defined at a conference at Wingspread, headquarters of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin, January 15, 1998. (Text and background of statement – SEHN)

Randy Johnson wrote to Anonymous…
Anonymous – So, you believe that politics should dictate health-related decisions based on anti-science misinformation? The question actually is, why should fluoridation be stopped when there is no legitimate evidence to prove the process is ineffective or harmful?

First …Mr Johnson, Fluorisis is “legitimate evidence” Fluoridation IS HARMFUL.
Secondly…Politics HAS dictated health-related decisions based partially on Pro-Fluoridation Lobby misinformation. Shame on the Pro-Fluoridation Lobby to falsify studies and MIS- represent Cost/Health Effectiveness to falsely give the Dallas City Council unfounded faith in the Fluoridation Program!

anonymous says
January 21, 2018 at 7:38 am
It is apparent that enough people exist in Dallas to warrant a change in the fluoridation policy. Large numbers of people do not want fluoridation of the water supply. Floridation should be stopped.
The question is; How can fluoridation be stopped? Where is the political machine to change this policy? Where is the politician who will support the people by pushing to get this policy change? I wonder if Dallas, Texas can advance a new trend or not. Can this be done in a city that often resists change?
Anonymous and the Public at large…The answer to “How can fluoridation be stopped?” Nine of the Dallas 15 City Council-members can Vote to end the Fluoridation Program immediately! It was a simple vote of the Dallas City Council that began the Fluoridation Program in 1965. (Encouraged by 30 Local Dentists) a simple vote can end it!
I KNOW the Fluoridation Program will end worldwide one day. There are MUCH better ways to combat tooth decay. My heart aches for the damage being done daily.
One day the members of Dallas City Council will be asking the people to forgive them for taking so long BUT if they were the ones that cited the Precautionary Principle and Stopped the harm…
People will forgive them that admitted they were wrong and chose a better path on their own.

Which one of the Council-members will lead this…CM Caraway stated he with us in 2015, CM Medrano DID NOT vote to purchase the HFS in 2015, CM Griggs is recorded offering his support to Kadane in 2014 to end fluoridation. The new council-members Narvaez and Felder speak loudly they want to represent their constituents…
The question is who will be the Hero!

The “Precautionary Principle” implies a “When in doubt, leave it out” approach. This is especially good advice for women who are pregnant or are nursing.

The “Hippocratic Oath” should also apply here. It’s the oath doctors take in protecting their patients when practicing medicine.

At this juncture, with all of the available information presented, if you’re still willing to believe hydroflurosyllicic acid, not calcium fluoride, is perfectly adequate for ingestion through your gastrointestinal system, become a victim of your own demise and not mine.

A moral conundrum: Do the benefits to children’s teeth outweigh the life-time health concerns of the entire adult population?

The mercenary fluoridators here and elsewhere would say absolutely; that are are no other issues and that people who have these concerns are either stupid, lazy or crazy.

They do their best to use their glittering intellects and tried-and-true industry catch phrases like “safe and effective” to keep the profit wheel rolling and the status quo in place. They are very good at their jobs – they must be well paid. And yet here we are. All these years gone by and there are more adult health concerns than ever.

Here for our decision makers is the core question for the flouridators: with all of the millions of dollars your industry has at its disposal, can’t a way be invented for children to apply fluoride to their baby teeth without dosing the entire population? Now that would be a win-win. That would be the Dallas Way.

At the next meeting, ask your friendly consulting fluoridator that question. Watch their reaction and I believe you will have your answer.

Please, please Dallas. Play it safe: Take it out.

Regina Imburgia – Every thing in the world is a conspiracy to fluoridation opponents who apparently must be “tipped off” to realize that an organization has been formed to refute their fear-mongering tactics. The members of the American Fluoridation Society – who volunteer their time – used that name and their respective positions in their first public comments after the organization’s formation. Apparently fluoridation opponents can only read and understand information that conforms to their beliefs – everything else is ignored.

What exactly are your science and health credentials (training and experience) to evaluate and provide evidence in support of the anti-F propaganda? So far I have seen nothing in your comments that constitute proof of anything, only personal, unsupported opinions. Seems as though you are nothing more than a typical anti-F puppet – like jwillie6, nyscof, Joe, KSpencer, honkyhanky and other Internet trolls (look up the definition) who simply copy/paste standard, unsupportable nonsense from anti-F propaganda with no apparent understanding of science and no regard for public health issues.

Provide citations (and quoted author conclusions) of a couple of published studies you believe support your belief that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes (or has caused) harm to anyone. Then there will be something to discuss. Also, explain why the many critiques of those studies should be ignored.

Provide an explanation of why, if any of the anti-F claims of harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water are even remotely true, over 100 of the top national and international science and health organizations in the world (and their thousands of members) recognize the benefits of fluoridation for reducing dental decay — and no such organizations support the anti-F propaganda.

In the absence of any evidence or legitimate explanations, explain why anyone should believe the unsupported, fear-laced propaganda of fluoridation opponents.

Fluoridation began with deception and continues with deception.

There is some evidence that supports the assertion that topical exposure ( in the form of toothpaste) to the surface of the tooth may help harden the enamel, thus decreasing incidence of cavities,

Also, there is some evidence that topical exposure of the surface of the tooth to fluoride in the water that is ingested does not result in harder enamel

The dosing of all the tissues of the body by fluoride added to the water supply is not medically indicated, raises the opportunity for detrimental health effects on all the tissues of the body and constitutes an unethical medical practice because it is involuntary.

If one brushes one’s teeth with fluoridated toothpaste, then one may receive the benefits of harder enamel. If one does not brush one’s teeth regularly and has a diet high in sugar, one is likely to get cavities no matter how much fluoride is added to the city water that they drink. Consequently, brushing one’s teeth and avoiding damaging ones teeth by ingesting destructive substances holds greater promise for dental health than fluoridating water.

Consequently, the practice of fluoridation puts a BandAid on the problem of irresponsible health behavior in adults who don’t brush and ingest Cokes (high in phosphoric acid and high fructose corn syrup) and who should know better or who DO know but don’t care enough to change their behavior. And, it helps the politicians grandstand that they have helped to save the teeth of ” the dear little children” whose teeth are rotting because their parents failed to parent effectively and teach their children to brush their teeth and avoid sugary food.

There is no substitute for taking responsibility for one’s own health and life.

Outsourcing the problem to a politically mediated, collectivist, one size fits all approach is not going to work

I filter fluoride and a lot of other things out of my city water to veto the decision of the city council and those who support their decision to dose me with fluoride. This cost me money to avoid the personal consequences of their decisions. I am only happy to pay money to protect my health, though I shouldn’t have to be forced to make this particular decision.

Also, I brush with non fluoridated toothpaste. And I largely avoid sugar. And I get dental checkups from a dentist who doesn’t use fluoride in his practice.

And…………….

I haven’t gotten any cavities for quite a number of years now.

Keep your Fluoridation Laws OFF MY BODY !

Google; “Berkey”, “Alexapure”, “ProPurUsa.com”, and “fluoride”

Has anyone noticed that whenever fluoridation opponents (FOs) are challenged to cite specific, legitimate, published studies that prove their opinions are valid and the scientific consensus of relevant experts that fluoridation is a safe and beneficial public health program to reduce dental decay should be changed, they disappear back into the dark shadows of disinformation?

The same thing happens when their unsupported attempts at explaining their faulty logic and patently false claims are challenged – – – No answer – – – Poof, gone until the next article that mentions fluoridation or fluoride when they repeat their unsupported and unsupportable claims – – – (Or they don’t address the critiques of their arguments and weave off into another line of falsehoods.

FOs have the same level of credibility (and confirming “evidence”) as those who insist the earth is flat, the sun revolves around the earth, men didn’t actually land on the moon, our government is spraying mind-control substances in chem-trails (look, up in the sky – you can verify the “evidence”), that Bigfoot exists in the forests of the N.W., the Iluminati are controlling the world and humans are enslaved by a race of reptilian, countless individuals have been sucked into UFOs and examined, the Holocaust did not happen and other equally unsupportable nonsense.

Here are some statements by the CDC, EPA, FDA and others…

Scroll to the bottom of this webpage for the ANSWER SHEET.
http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com/quiz

In April 2016, The North Dallas Gazette ran an article which covered Lead and Fluoride. (Scroll down the page to see the article on this website http://www.DallasForSaferWater.com )
…or go here https://northdallasgazette.com/2016/04/13/flint-just-tip-iceberg/
QUOTE excerpt…
“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.”

From my previous comment, I mentioned the ANSWER SHEET on the Quiz.
http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com/quiz

I want to draw attention to #22.

The CDC deliberately tried to bury that fact within the study’s report. They originally placed the findings in an obscure place. The findings showed that African Americans suffer from higher rates of fluorosis than Caucasian Americans.
This reminds many people of the CDC’s unethical direct involvement with “Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male” where many Blacks suffered or died unnecessarily.
If one is unfamiliar with the Tuskegee Study, do your homework (and don’t rely upon the CDC to tell it to you).
– Short video about the CDC and Tuskegee – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sswitl8_-w4

“Any doctor, toxicologist or reseacher who just questions the myth of fluoride being at all detremental to human health is attacked and destroyed by harassment, smears and lack ot funding.” A fluoridation skeptic

I was acutely poisoned by heavier than air gases of fluorine in the basement the DC water treatment plant and lifelong chronic fluoride exposure from drinking water and dental products starting with dental fluorosis as a child progressing to hyperparathyroidism, hip replacement and kidney stones etc. The medical testing laboratories do not measure fluoride accumulation in bone or kidney stones. Why not? Ask your doctor.

The preverbial see no evil, hear no evil attitude on the part of those who promote water fluoridation. Where you do not look you will not find.

Community water fluoridation programs should be called what they really are: bone and body fluoride accumulation projects-with unmonitored levels and of unknown health consequences.

Susan Kanen,
Biochemist and recognized whistleblower to lead contamination of drinking water

https://m.facebook.com/groups/fluoridefreealaska/

Today, January 24, 2018, I spoke at the Dallas City Council for three minutes. So much more I wanted to say!! here is the live-stream video… https://www.facebook.com/erin.imagine/videos/10159927701880357/

This below is the flyer they received… Contact CM Dwayne Caraway he was Mayor Pro-tem today… he was listening…City Secretary’s # 214-670-3738 they can connect you… Ask him to lead this “Precautionary Effort”!!

Precautionary principle…. The principle is used by policy makers to justify discretionary decisions in situations where there is the possibility of harm from making a certain decision (e.g. taking a particular course of action or stopping an action) simply put-“When in Doubt- Leave it Out!”
Precautionary Principle – updated by Maria Mergel (May 11, 2016) TXP-2 Precaution is a systemic change that transforms the way we approach environmental regulation and decision making. This change is rooted in a paradigm shift away from risk/benefit and cost/benefit decision-making that asks, “what level of harm is acceptable?” to a precautionary approach which asks, “how can we prevent harm?”
– Center for Health, Environment, and Justice
The problem very often is that long before the science does come in, the harm has already been done.- Michael Pollan

Excerpt from – Local Governments and the Precautionary Principle
Traditionally, federal, state, and local governments in the United States have followed a “risk management” approach to regulate health and environmental issues. As mentioned above, this approach asks how much harm is allowable, rather than how little harm is possible.3 For instance, if a certain plastic used to make toys contained toxic chemicals, a traditional risk assessment might determine the level of harm that would likely occur and lawmakers might use the risk assessment to determine the level of exposure that would be acceptable.4 Additionally, the risk management approach requires evidence of actual harm before regulations may be enacted to prevent harm, meaning that governments attempt to manage risk rather than prevent it.5 Some policy makers have referred to this approach as the “dead body approach,” meaning that damage must be proven before action is taken.6 In some instances, lawmakers have abandoned the concept of risk assessment when addressing the negative health and environmental effects of human activity. Instead, they have turned to the precautionary approach, an idea that entails acting when there is indication of harm rather than proof of harm.7 (full pdf. Link) http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/Precautionary%20Principle.pdf

Wingspread Statement, Jan. 1998:
“When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action.” The precautionary principle was defined at a conference at Wingspread, headquarters of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin, January 15, 1998. (Text and background of statement – SEHN)

DallasforSaferWater.com Call/email Dallas City Council..YOU support the Precautionary Principle STOP Fluoridation!

WOW! I like Steve Madison’s’ comments, especially this part, “Here for our decision makers is the core question for the flouridators: with all of the millions of dollars your industry has at its disposal, can’t a way be invented for children to apply fluoride to their baby teeth without dosing the entire population? Now that would be a win-win. That would be the Dallas Way.

At the next meeting, ask your friendly consulting fluoridator that question. Watch their reaction and I believe you will have your answer.

Please, please Dallas. Play it safe: take it out”

FYI I do not know Steve Madison but I too am a Dallas resident and I say, there are better ways to reduce tooth decay. This poisoning of the whole population is insane! I am calling the City Council and telling them I support the Precautionary Principle Regina Imburgia talked about at the City Council meeting this morning.

Regina also said the cost effectiveness of the Fluoridation Program is based on incomplete data. Very troubling! The DWU can NOT tell us all the costs of Fluoridation!

Interesting, I want to know where my money is going! I hear areas in south Dallas use septic tanks!! In 2018!! A guy spoke at the City Council about this in December I think! I want my councilman to look into this also!

Beth Stewart, Randy Johnson, and Johnny Johnson –

Fluoridation is first and foremost a medical issue, not a dental issue.

Nevertheless, Beth Stewart claims that “fluoridation reduces tooth decay by about 29%”. That’s a very underwhelming claim to make for the effectiveness of fluoridation as a means to prevent tooth decay. We risk poisoning vulnerable sections of the population for a measly 29% improvement? And how do we even know that the 29% figure is correct? What is the source of that statement? Please cite article, author, year of publication, and give a web link if such exists.

Stop Fluoridation you idiots. Go eat some fluoride if you think it’s safe. Who ever wrote this article go feed it to your kids.

I trust the Dallas City Council will carefully and impartially evaluate the available scientific evidence, 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. If they do, they will come to the same conclusions as the Denver Water Board Commissioners where legitimate science prevailed over the fear-mongering and BiasScience of fluoridation opponents (FOs) in 2015 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 statement 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.

More anti-F nonsense:
Regina Imburgia – Your use of the “Precautionary Principle” makes several false assumptions which have never been proven by fluoridation opponents (FOs) – otherwise fluoridation would have been halted. The facts: 1) The overwhelming majority of evidence over the last 70 years had demonstrated that community water fluoridation strengthens tooth enamel and reduces the risk of dental decay and related health problems. 2) Tooth decay is a well-documented health problem, among all groups, but particularly among those who lack good health care, diets, education, etc. 3) There is no proof that drinking optimally fluoridated water has caused harm to anyone. 4) Therefore, the Precautionary Principle would definitely dictate that the path of the least harm be taken and not careen down a path that depends on unsupported speculation that ingesting optimally fluoridated water causes harm. Only moderate to severe fluoridation could be considered harmful to health, and those conditions are not caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water. The levels of fluorosis which may be caused by fluoridation are neither cosmetically or structurally compromised and are actually more resistant to decay. Hopefully the Council members will all lead the science-based decision to continue fluoridation and not the anti-science-based opinions of anti-F activists.

David Norsworthy – FOs have provided no evidence of doubt. The scientific consensus that drinking water fluoridation is safe and effective for reducing dental decay is as well supported as the scientific consensus that drinking water disinfection (which involves the addition of toxic chemicals to the water and creates poisonous disinfection byproducts) is a safe and effective method of reducing water-transmitted diseases. You have provided no evidence to support your anti-F paranoia.
Steve Madison – A false argument – 70 years of scientific studies have demonstrated that drinking optimally fluoridated water reduces the risk of dental decay for children and adults. Read the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health.
~> http://who.int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf

Clint Griess – FOs begin with deception and continue with deception. Proof is that they provide opinions and not legitimate, credible, reproducible scientific evidence.
John Parks – Read the 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health. Your assumptions are flawed. There are many causes of dental decay, and there are numerous preventive measures. Not everyone gets cavities, and some unlucky individuals regularly get cavities despite taking all precautions. That does not mean that fluoridation is ineffective at reducing dental decay in a population. 70+ years of scientific studies continue to support the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective, and that is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their thousands of members) continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay and associated health problems. That is also the reason there are no nationally or internationally recognized science/health organizations that support the anti-F propaganda.

TomT – Why would anyone go to an anti-F website for legitimate information? If you have legitimate, credible, reproducible scientific evidence to prove any of your opinions are valid, cite the study and provide author quotes. Then explain exactly why that study should be sufficient to change the scientific consensus. Any study you might provide will have already been evaluated by the science and health communities, and it has not changed the consensus.

Susan Kanen – I am sorry you were harmed by concentrated fluoridation chemicals. Levels of fluoride ions in the treated tap water are not even remotely toxic. However, your disingenuous use of that accident in an effort to have fluoridation discontinued is like pointing out accidents with concentrated disinfectants (or the use of chlorine gas as a chemical weapon) and demanding that drinking water disinfection be halted. Do you have any legitimate evidence that any of your health issues were actually caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water? If you do have some legitimate documented evidence of harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water, you would be the only person I am aware of who does.

Regina Imburgia – It is a good thing your speech was limited to three minutes. Look up “Gish Gallup”. FOs are notorious for employing that strategy whenever given the chance. Your argument about the Precautionary Principle appears to be the same as the one you posted yesterday. It is as invalid and preposterous as today as it was then.

Now, as before, I see no scientific evidence – – only unsupportable opinions – – from the FOs posting here.

The American Fluoridation Society is nofhing but mire than self-promoting professional bloggers,

Why might a group need a 501c3 if it does not take donations?

Fluoride is harmful. Fluoride is the sole cause of Fluorosis. Fluorosis is a DISEASE.
Fluorosis of the teeth is an outward sign of fluoride harm.
The World Health Organization- Fluorosis
The disease and how it affects people
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases-risks/diseases/fluorosis/en/ states: A person’s diet, general state of health as well as the body’s ability to dispose of fluoride all affect how the exposure to fluoride manifests itself.
Is the Dallas City Council monitoring each person’s diet receiving the Dallas water that is fluoridated with HFS?
Does the Dallas City Council know how the HFS laced Dallas water is manifesting itself in the bodies of those drinking it?
Since 1962 the recommended fluoride level was a range .7ppm -1.2ppm. April 27, 2015 Health and Human Services changed the recommendation to .7ppm nationwide the new recommendation was “to address an increasing prevalence of dental fluorosis in young people, and the fact that Americans now get fluoride from multiple sources, including toothpaste and dental rinses.”
The Dallas City Council are the gatekeepers for the Fluoridation issue. 25 Communities buy Dallas water. Millions of lives are affected.
The Precautionary Principle needs to be applied by the Council to this issue, “When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically”. The precautionary principle was defined at a conference at Wingspread, headquarters of the Johnson Foundation in Racine, Wisconsin, January 15, 1998. (Text and background of statement – SEHN)
There are safer more effective ways to combat the dental health problems in Dallas.
Go to http://www.DallasforSaferWater.com

Johnny Johnson –

Today I took the time to look at the American Fluoridation Society website, of which you’re the president. In particular, I looked at the section which contains responses to Paul Connett’s celebrated “50 Reasons”. Some of the responses are plausible; however, many of the responses are not convincing. In any case, I know from experience that truth can never be determined unless both parties to a controversy are permitted to cross-examine each other in formal debate and that debate is conducted under recognized rules of order. Yet orderly debate in a public forum among experts is the one thing that pro-F advocates avoid at all costs. Apparently the pro-F side feels its arguments will not be convincing enough to carry the day in such a venue. May I suggest that as long as your side refuses to engage in formal, public debate with recognized anti-F experts, you will never convince your opponents. The intelligent public will always have the impression that you are hiding something.

Mr Winn –
I feel the same way as you; we need open debate about the Fluoride Issue. To expose the TRUTH!

I have asked the Dallas City Council to enlighten the Public and SHOW Us the Proof Fluoridation is Safe for ALL the people ingesting the Fluoridated Dallas water.
They have ignored these requests for over 4 years!

There has Not been ONE Town Hall on the issue. Not one Open Meeting inviting the experts on both sides. The City has NOT once requested “stakeholder” input!

The Dallas City Council that Votes to FUND the Fluoridation Program with OUR money ignores the Public but I am told they listens to the Dallas Water Utilities (DWU) Staff. I have MANY problems with this!

Furthermore;
On January 28, 2015 a THREE YEAR contract for a funds allocation for the HFS (Hydrofluorosilicic Acid) from Mosaic was approved by the Dallas City Council. The vote was 13 to 2 CM Sheffie Kadane and CM Adam Medrano voted No.

Prior to the vote that day, January 28th, CM Rick Callahan told the Council he had received hundreds and hundreds of pro-fluoridation emails. An Open Records request revealed Callahan had received hundreds and hundreds of emails requesting him and the Council to Vote NO to fluoridation! Less than 20 emails were pro.

I came to the Council a few weeks after the vote and challenged CM Callahan’s claim, I brought a video of CM Callahan making the email claim as part of my presentation. The video was approved by the City Manager’s office. We had used videos just weeks before during Open Mic and the audio/video could be heard in the chambers and was live streamed and archived. BUT this was the first day our videos were censored.

I and many others were looking forward to some open public discussion in January 2018 since the three year contract would be expiring. But through Open Records request we found the DWU started looking for bids for HFS in October 2016!
And NEW Three year contact for HFS was approved (rolled into the Consent Agenda) and passed the City Council without ANY discussion DECEMBER 2016!

I encourage everyone to Call Majed Al-Ghafry he is the Assistant City Manager over the DWU 214-671-9465 Tell him to look at the Precautionary Principle and make a recommendation to the Mayor and council to apply this principle! There are better less harmful, cost effective ways to combat the dental problem A precautionary approach which asks, “how can we prevent harm?”

The World Health Organization recognizes Fluorosis as a Disease from Fluoride and only from fluoride. In 2015, HHS (Health and Human Services) lowered their recommended level of Fluoride because the public was getting fluoride from many sources and the disease has greatly increased. Harm from Fluoride IS EVIDENT. Turn OFF the HFS Pump!

To Randy Johnson who said of me, “I am sorry you were harmed by concentrated fluoridation chemicals”

You concede my multiple health issues were caused by concentrated fluoridation chemicals!

You are of a set of a decreasing numbers of believers in the slogan, ‘the dose makes the poison.’

So you are also conceding many hundreds or even thousands of other water treatment plant workers may also have been similarly harmed by fluoridation chemical exposure on the job, but remain unrecognized or quieted by lawsuits settled behind closed doors. The greater good then justifies harm to a few water treatment workers who have not been sufficenty informed or given consent and are at the mercy of medical professionals willful blind to multiple known symptoms of fluoride poisoning. Also dental fluorosis victims suffering dental disfigurement are justifiable sacrifices for questionable ‘great good’ of less decay in about one primary tooth.

You said you are sorry-if you at all cared of the many health issues I suffer- you would due diligence to examine my medical record to question my fluoride levels and symptoms over a lifetime. To date no fluoridation ‘expert’ has tried to studied my documented situation. Many of my fluoridation harms to multiple biological systems including dental fluorosis requiring veneers PREDATE my F exposure on the job (including GERD, uterine fibroids and prolapse, chronic fatigue, difficult labors, hair loss, acne). The most serious harms surfaced five years AFTER my acute fluoride exposure (parathyroid, thyroid, kidney stones, acute pancreatitis, osteoarthritis and osteoporosis, renal cysts) when exposure was to fluoridated water, dental products and ocean seafood, mechanically deboned chicken.

Lifelong fluoride ACCUMULATION is the issue. Some estimate 50% of ingested F is incorporated permanantly in adults with higher % in younger individuals with a half life excretion of 20 years. Why ingest poisonous F when official research states the F benefit is topical not internal?

You have no idea of my doses of F exposure or over what periods of my life these occurred. No idea of total F exposures being a daughter of a military dentist (given F supplements, growing up on bases known to be early and consistantly fluoridated), my gestating and longtime nursing of three children while drinking fluoridated water and powdered milk and drink mixes made from very soft water that enhanses F toxicity. You have no idea what level of my exposure lifelong and no idea of what this has done to my health in my sixties. Neither do municipalities track F urine, blood or bone levels when they dose their citizens undocumented ‘need’ for fluoride ion. I have enough F accumulated in my bones based on a documented bone assay of 1500 ppm as F if consumed at one time to kill me ten times over. My xrays prove F accumulation with calcification of interosseous membrane of the forearm and degenerative hip and spine. I have calcification of thyroid nodules, pheboliths, breast and ligaments. Calcium is mobilized from bone to complex toxic fluoride ion in the blood stream and insoluble CaF deposited inappropriately throughout the body some even suggest on the aorta.

Even if no one has been able prove to your satisfaction that any lifelong harm is done by slow chronic low level F poisoning, by God, I may be the first of millions!

Here’s my progress in healing over the last five years avoiding F exposure: my persistantly high parathyroid hormone levels returned to midrange normal, antibodies against thyroid much less, goiter at 60% size of thyroid when previously on ‘optimal’ F water, no more kidney stones, pancreatitis, enlarged heart, renal cysts no longer increasing is size. My medical bills around 2013 were over $150,000 since 2013 my medical bills were < $1,000.

Millions poisoned on water fluoridation are experiencing (even if fluoride promoters deny it) increasing rates of dental fluorosis, hypothyroidism, diabetes, joint replacements and fractures, heart disease, Alzheimer's and other unknown levels of suffering that quite POTENTIALLY linked to F exposure. You require an astronomical level of scientific 'proof' when commonsense minded people are more and more seeing the unacceptible potential harm caused by water fluoridation's contribution to F overdose lifelong. Regina is right, until F promotors can disprove F harm, leave it out of Dallas water based on the precautionary principle. You have done much harm to the fluoridation cause conceding harm to me from F exposure-acute or otherwise.

You said if I argue against F, I should argue against chlorine disinfection:

Disinfectant byproducts from chlorines in tap water ARE monitored and limited. Harm from low levels of toxic chlorinated chemicals is recognized. Yet you ignore harm from unpure fluoridation chemicals and their even more uninvestigated the extremely toxic byproducts of fluoridation.

One more additional thought, I observed and was a whistleblower on my firsthand observation of continued lead contamination of drinking water from DC lead service lines (LSL) even with multiple official claims to the contrary. Flint is total vindication in my whistleblower claims on lead contamination of drinking water. Also the EPA secretly varied HFSA concentration of the water passing through DC experimental LSL and kept hidden the observation, also shared by other researchers, that the addition of HFSA increases lead corrosion from LSL.

Randy Johnson do you believe 'the dose makes the poison' when it comes to lead exposure?

You demonstrate no true concern for those like me who suffer fluoride poisoning or you would loosen the connection between your fingers and eyes/your fingers and ears and investigate my claims of F harm.

Susan Kanen
Biochemist harmed by fluoride

My husband has false teeth, I have chronic kidney disease. I have two grand children on the Autism spectrum we do not need this poison in our water!

I want the city to think about people like me and my family. I care about the poor children with tooth decay, the money the city saves can be used to buy tooth brushes for these children

I do not have a computer. I asked this lady to submit this for me. I hope you will think about what I have said.

Whether or not it has already been said; Thanks to the North Dallas Gazette for providing a venue for the free discussion of these ideas. I wish there were more periodicals in Dallas that sponsored “uncensored” and free discussion of ideas as is being done here.

As for the fluoridation issue – I have made up my mind. I am contacting my city council representative as soon as possible. I am going to tell my council person that if he/she wants my vote; she/he needs to vote to provide fluoride free water to this city whenever the opportunity comes up.

Thank you for the feedback! We are delighted to know it has encouraged you to take action.

Brush your teeth? YOU GET FLUORIDE in toothpaste! Go to the dentist? YOU GET FLUORIDE applied on your teeth! And guess what….just those two actions alone EXCEED the recommended dosage of fluoride per the ADA and that doesn’t even address the other sources. Why do city councils allow cities to continue to add fluoride treatment to the water where we ingest and literally have harm caused to our organs and systems? Please stop harming us with this poison. To the author, follow the money trail… who paid for the research and who sells the cities fluoride?

I would very much appreciate it if you would stop fluoridation of the Dallas city water and save me the trouble of having to filter it out. BTW – I will be watching who on the City Council votes to continue this practice and will not vote for anyone that does support this position of fluoridation.

Good day. I am an MD from Calgary, Alberta who has extensively studied artificial water fluoridation for 2 decades. It is not effective, safe nor ethical, and is not needed for any bodily function.

Please see the link below for an opinion piece in the Canadian media published this weekend, authored by myself and the most knowledgeable PhD/dentist in our country.

http://troymedia.com/2018/01/28/fluoride-pointless-health-risk/

I have also appended Water Fluoridation Basics which I use to discuss with our City Councillors in Calgary. These councillors, in 2011, made the bold move of stopping water fluoridation after 20 years of infusing this highly toxic waste product from the fertilizer industry into our pristine public water supplies. They did so partly based on science and economics, but mostly on the lack of ethics and morality of mass medicating all our citizens, without control of dose or dosage, without informed consent, and without follow-up or monitoring.

I am happy to respond to any of your queries, comments or questions.

Thanks for your interest in this very important area for the health of all citizens.

Robert C Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP
Founder SAFE WATER CALGARY http://www.safewatercalgary.com
111-3437-42 St NW
Calgary, AB T3A 2M7
drbob_is@me.com

Remove hydroflurosilific acid from our drinking water.

I have to laugh.
Gavin is right.

Don’t people brush their teeth anymore?
Don’t people brush their teeth anymore?
Don’t people brush their teeth anymore?

A tube of Fluoride toothpaste costs $1. It can last a long time (a small pea sized amount per brushing per the CDC). Fluoride works topically (per the CDC).

Fluoridating water and drinking it is ridiculous.
“Brush your teeth” for those who want fluoride.
Gee!

I’m a Dallas resident and I think this argument needs to be dealt with from a science standpoint, not a personal one. This finger pointing and personal attacks is just wasting time and destracting from the real question. Do we put in toxic levels of flouride? No. However, the problem is in the natural levels already in the water. This natural level of flouride in the water fluctuates, so when you add in the chemical on top of the fluctuating level, it does at times bring the level to toxic. This is in the reports from the city. Overall on average the level is okay, but at times it is toxic. Which means you don’t know when you use the water at that moment if it’s going to be toxic. This is the problem. At any given time you may or may not be ingesting toxic levels of a chemical. The teeth argument, the government, the city council, etc, this isn’t the arguement. The discussion should be whether or not the tax paying citizens of Dallas want their water to be treated with a chemical that could be at various times over the acceptable limit. Are we as citizens okay with that? I apersonally am not. I would rather be in charge of what chemicals I put in my body. Therefore, the logical conclusion is to investigate the validity of the arguement. Everyone is already aware that it’s a toxic chemical. The pro-flouride people thinks it’s not at harmful levels. So let’s find out if that is true. Assign a group of people to work with the water company to look at the reports and see what is going on. The overall “average” reports are meaningless if at any moment the levels are toxic. If that is the case, which is proven that it is, the water company either needs to change how they put the chemical in so that it flucuates as the natural levels fluctuates, so we never have a toxic level. If this isn’t possible, then they need to leave it out. But this should be based on honest research by a group of honest citizens who want to make a smart decision. Not personal or political attacks. Everyone wants safe drinking water. Let’s make sure that it’s safe. At all times, not just an average over time.

No no no no no no no NO Fluoridation! Pay attention Adam McGough!

It’s about time the truth about chemicals such as fluoride in our water system and the health hazards it causes are coming to light.

Hasn’t this archaic and expensive dangerous practice stopped yet?
Dallas does not need to add any hydrofluorasylisic acid to our water.
It lowers IQ and causes untold amount of health problems.
It also destroys expensive infrastructure.
If you want Fluoride in your house —- Go buy it !
Liberty, is not forcing innocent people harm and cost!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqstwfKGzPI

Shouldn’t people even have a choice…?

If this toxin is for healthy teeth, put it in tooth paste and spit it out. That way those who don’t want it can choose a paste without it.
If it’s for healthy teeth, children don’t begin forming permanent teeth until 3 years of age. By that age you can use tooth paste with fluoride to brush the teeth (or not).
But forcing a toxin on everyone through a resource that the body can’t live without is criminal and lacks any common sense, except to those profiting from its sale.

I received this Press Release and immediately forwarded it to Mr, Majed Al-Ghafry (Assistant City Manager over the Dallas Water Utilities) This is my message to Mr. Al-Ghafry…
I just received this press release. Please realize daily studies are coming out validating what we have been telling the Dallas City council for over Four Years …

The public is Much more forgiving when they see their elected officials “acted”
Before they are forced to act!! Stopping the fluoridation program citing the precautionary principle is the Answer!

I am praying you have an open mind and heart and will take an active part to change the “ in name only public health program” to standing up and truly helping the health of the people of Dallas by turning off the Fluoride tap!

Sincerely Regina

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: NYSCOF
> Date: February 14, 2018 at 1:23:12 PM CST
> To: nyscof@aol.com
>
> NYSCOF News Release on PRNewswire
>
> Study Reveals More Proof Fluoridation Can Damage Human Thyroid Gland
>
> New York – February 14, 2018 — Fluoride impairs thyroid hormones at lower water concentrations than dentists claim is safe, according to “Impact of Drinking Water Fluoride on Human Thyroid Hormones: A Case Control Study,” published in Scientific Reports (Feb 2018), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)
>
> Left untreated an underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism) can cause several health problems, such as obesity, joint pain, infertility and heart disease. (Mayo Clinic)
>
> Researchers, Kheradpisheh et al., compared people with hypothyroidism to those without thyroid disease and found that fluoride in drinking water impairs thyroid hormones even at 0.5 milligrams per Liter (mg/L) – less than the US government and organized dentistry’s recommendation of 0.7 mg/L to ostensibly reduce tooth decay.
>
> Many municipalities still artificially fluoridate up to 1.2 mg/L – the old guidelines – which contributes to the growing dental fluorosis epidemic (discolored teeth).
>
> In fact, “Some studies have discovered the relation between dental fluorosis and thyroid disease,” write Kheradpisheh’s team.
>
> They write “The major finding of this study is that TSH values [thyroid stimulating hormones] are higher with a higher fluoride concentration in the drinking water, even for generally low fluoride concentrations. This is seen both in cases of untreated hypothyroidism and in controls.” High TSH levels are a hypothyroid biomarker.
>
> They detail many previous fluoride/thyroid damaging studies.
>
> In 2006, the National Research Council published the first review of fluoride/thyroid literature and revealed substantial evidence that fluoride exposure can impact thyroid function in some individuals.
>
> Kheradpisheh concludes his findings are “consistent with the Peckham study in England,”
>
> Peckham found hypothyroidism prevalence was at least 30% more likely in practices located in areas with fluoride levels in excess of 0.3 mg/L.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health (2015)
>
> Peckham writes, “The clear [and significant] association found in our analyses between fluoride levels in drinking water and variations in hypothyroidism prevalence appears to confirm findings in earlier studies that ingestion of fluoride affects thyroid function…The findings of the study raise particular concerns about the validity of community fluoridation as a safe public health measure.”
>
> Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says “It’s immoral that state and local legislatures mandate fluoridation or impede cities from stopping fluoridation which seems like a back-door mandate – e.g. NYS Fluoridation Law 1100a which should be repealed.”
>

> Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, NYSCOF President nyscof@aol.com
> http://FluorideAction.Net
__________________________________________________________________
Those reading the comments on this North Dallas Gazette Article -Please get involved …go to http://www.DallasForSaferWater.com

9 Council-members can STOP the Harm from the Fluoridation Program

The Dallas Morning News has watched our presentations in The City Council Chambers and they are sent the most recent studies…but they refuse to investigate or at least “report” about the concerns…

Please call/email Mr Al-Ghafry encourage him to speak up…214-671-9465

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

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”