Web
Analytics Made Easy - StatCounter

Is Brantford’s $200,000 fluoridation plan necessary?

Is Brantford’s $200,000 fluoridation plan necessary?

  BRANTFORD – With a new $200,000 fluoridation system being considered in Brantford, maybe it’s time to rethink the whole fluoridation thing in the first place. The practice of adding fluoride to city water supplies is on the decline and has been eliminated in dozens of countries around the world and municipalities in Ontario. These

 

BRANTFORD – With a new $200,000 fluoridation system being considered in Brantford, maybe it’s time to rethink the whole fluoridation thing in the first place.

The practice of adding fluoride to city water supplies is on the decline and has been eliminated in dozens of countries around the world and municipalities in Ontario.

These countries and cities have found that existing sources are enough to prevent tooth decay by themselves, making the addition of fluoride to the water supply both redundant and expensive, but not totally devoid of risk. Today’s toothpaste, mouth wash, milk, and fluoride treatments at the dentist, for instance offer the same protection. There are trace fluorides found naturally in most water supplies.

But it is possible to get too much fluoride in your system, which can cause teeth to develop brown ridges. It can also attack the bones in high concentrations.

The City of Brantford was the first municipality in Canada to begin the practice back in 1945. It was an experiment that the people of Brantford knew nothing about for at least three months after they had been drinking it. At that time, extensive follow up research was to have been done to check the long term affects, if any, on the users. Apparently, this was never done, or if it was, never made public.

Dr. W.L. Hutton, known as the father of fluoridation, was the head medical officer of health of Brantford in 1945 and was behind the fluoridation experiment.

Hutton was the president of the Eugenics Society of Canada before taking the job with the City of Brantford. Many other noted city personalities, like Alexander Graham Bell, also belonged to, and held prominent positions of influence within the Eugenics Movement and were openly excited when Hitler’s Germany joined the movement just prior to the Second World War.

Eugenics is a pseudo-science advocating the improvement of human heredity traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of those deemed to possess more desired traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.

During the War, Nazi scientists used fluoride and other chemicals to experiment on imprisoned Jews as a possible means of controlling mass populations. They found the addition of large amounts of fluoride in their water supplies caused prisoners to become more docile and easier to manipulate.

USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950s that in his post as U.S. Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to: “using the fluoride in the water supplies in their gulags (concentration camps), to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient”.

Fluoride is the slurry that is left after the manufacturing of phosphorous fertilizer. It was discovered as a potential tooth decay retardant in the late 1930s, but Nazi German scientists wondered what it would do to people if applied in large doses.

A recent study of fluorinated versus non-fluorinated countries shows “tooth decay rates are unequivocally in decline equally well in fluoridated countries as in non-fluoridated countries.”

The practice has been stopped in several countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and Portugal, and others are considering the move. Many cities within the U.S. and elsewhere have also banned the practice.

John Colquhoun was a high level municipal councillor in Auckland, New Zealand, trained in dentistry and served as that city’s Principal Dental Officer and was once a proponent of the use of fluoride. He is now an outspoken critic. He has done a worldwide research project visiting several countries and collecting data. He found that tooth decay is in fact on the decline, but no more in fluoridated countries as non-fluoridated ones.

“The current Maximum Acceptable Concentration (MAC) of 1.5 milligram per litre of fluoride in drinking water is unlikely to cause adverse health effects, including cancer, bone fracture, immunotoxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity, genotoxicity, and/or neurotoxicity,” according to the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water.

Most bottled water does not contain added fluoride; however, trace levels are in all water. Municipality of Lakeshore former Mayor Tom Bain was faced with the same dilemma Brantford is in with aged fluoridation equipment in need of replacement.

“Spending $340,000 on upgrades to the water filtration plant that must be completed before fluoridation can resume in Cornwall.”

Council rejected its use as the Cornwall Seaway News reported in 2016.

Six Nations new state of the art water treatment plant will continue to reject fluoride to the water supply, according to the Elected Band Council.

If it makes no significant difference to one’s dental health, but may produce unwanted side effects like fluorosis and learning disabilities, and will cost Brantford $200,000 and more, one must ask, why add it to municipal or community water supplies in the first place?

90 comments

Posts Carousel

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

90 Comments

  • chris price
    March 2, 2017, 3:16 pm

    What a load of rubbish this is.Jim Windle is all lies.
    He talks about John Colquhoun ” He is now an outspoken critic. He has done a worldwide research project visiting several countries and collecting data. He found that tooth decay is in fact on the decline, but no more in fluoridated countries as non-fluoridated ones.”
    This has to be the world first. A out spoken critic that has been dead for 18 years!
    Bet he gets cheap air fares

    The nazis never used fluoride during the war
    “The World War II death camp
    statement is an absurd lie,” said Jay Lehr, who has authored or co-authored more than 30 books, most of them self-described “boring science books for scientists.”
    In summary, our Holocaust historian knew of no such project. Two book authors who researched the topic found no credible evidence of such a connection. A leading anti-fluoridation activist repudiates the story. The most commonly cited Web source for the story was a 16-year-old extract in a fringe Australian publication. ”

    Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and Portugal, are E.U member states and it is compulsory to attend a dentist every 6 months or 12 months depending on country, as part of their Medical insurance requirements, fluoride is still used in toothpaste salt and milk.

    Researchers found that in 2013 more than 211 million people had
    access to fluoridated water through community water systems serving
    1,000 or more people. They estimated 2013 savings associated with caries
    averted as a result of fluoridation to be $6.8 billion, or $32 per
    capita. The estimated cost to community water fluoridation programs
    providing fluoridation was $324 million, with net savings estimated at
    $6.5 billion and a $20 return on investment for each $1 spent. Estimates
    of per capita savings associated with community water fluoridation may
    be used by states to estimate net savings and a return on investment
    using local data on fluoridation costs.

    REPLY
    • James Reeves@chris price
      March 2, 2017, 8:01 pm

      Fluoride in milk or tooth paste are good ideas because it offers choice.
      Everyone deserves freedom of choice for fluoride or any drug.

      REPLY
      • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
        March 2, 2017, 9:16 pm

        “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

        Fluoridation opponents care nothing about public health, only their self-inflicted, unwarranted fears.

        REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 12:28 am

          Not one scientific study exists to prove fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is safe and effective for all members of the public, infants, children, sensitive, kidney problems pre-diabetics), elderly, etc.
          _________________________________________-

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 6:45 am

          James Reeves – You are repeating yourself.

          Do you have a scientific study that proves drinking residual disinfectants, disinfection byproducts are “safe and effective for all members of the public, infants, children, sensitive, kidney problems pre-diabetics), elderly, etc.”?

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 10:41 am

          Wake up.
          None of these are drugs forced on everyone in drinking water.
          Where is ONE study to show effectiveness and safety of fluoride?

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 11:12 am

          James Reeves – Provide one study that shows fluoridation is a drug that is forced on everyone.

          Explain exactly how are you are forced to drink fluoridated water – mind control? physical force? chem-trails?

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 11:28 am

          Wake up and get serious.
          We need that ONE study for medications like fluoride which is forced on EVERYONE.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 11:37 am

          Explain exactly how are you are forced to drink fluoridated water – mind control? physical force? chem-trails?

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 3:54 pm

          Some comments are too silly to consider.

          This one is totally silly.

          It is big money interest on the march.

          Notice how much bull stuff is necessary when promoters have no adequate response to the ethical and morality issues with forcing everyone to consume the industrial toxic waste fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 5:47 pm

          James Reeves – Your entire line of comments if ridiculous. You provide no evidence you are being forced to consume fluoridated water, and you certainly have no proof of any “big money interest” conspiracy.

          The ethics and morals issues are on the fluoridation opponents who are trying to increase dental decay in populations and associated health issues. That is completely deplorable.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 5:57 pm

          Once more, this is the response when promoters have no answers and nothing of value to say.

          REPLY
  • James Reeves
    March 2, 2017, 2:36 pm

    Fluoride causes lowered IQ and ADHD in children.

    The EPA has now classified fluoride as a neurotoxin (nerve and brain poison). Also, the world’s most renowned medical journal, “LANCET,” in 2014 reported that fluoride is a neurotoxin in the same category as mercury, lead and arsenic.

    Fluoridation causes enamel damage (dental fluorosis) in 41% of all children (CDC data) and has also been shown to lower IQ in children with 50 research studies. Now it has been proven to cause ADHD, as reported in the “Journal of Environmental Health” (by Malin & Till, 2015).

    A 2015 study from England’s University of Kent found that drinking water with added fluoride can wreck your thyroid, and lead to weight gain and depression.

    Colgate has just announced a Fluoride-Free toothpaste to help young children avoid these health issues.

    REPLY
    • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
      March 2, 2017, 7:44 pm

      James Reeves – Provide the specific citations and quotes (in context) that you think prove drinking optimally fluoridated water:
      1) is a neurotoxin
      2) causes enamel damage
      3) causes ADHD
      4) wrecks your thyroid and lead to weight gain and depression.

      There are no studies that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water causes those health issues.

      REPLY
  • Randy Johnson
    March 2, 2017, 9:10 am

    Read the first 3 paragraphs in the article image above, “World-wide interest was focused on Brantford when the city’s water was fluoridated in 1945 for improving dental health. This venture resulted over subsequent years in a sharp reduction in dental defects among Brantford children. A survey conducted as recently as 1963-64 showed Brantford school children had about 60 per cent fewer cavities than those in Paris where drinking water was not fluoridated.”

    Since the introduction of fluoridation in Brantford, and cities around the world, surveys have consistently shown dental decay is lower in optimally fluoridated communities when compared to similar cities with lower levels of fluoride ions. These studies and thousands of others conducted in the subsequent 70 years have overwhelmingly demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.

    However, fluoridation opponents (FOs) selectively extract and edit information from the 70 years of research that has examined the benefits and risks of community water fluoridation. They use discredited studies and deliberately distorted conclusions to create the illusion of a public health program that is ineffective and dangerous – fabricating “evidence” that alleges drinking optimally fluoridated water causes a variety of serious health problems.

    Unfortunately it is far easier to sell fear than it is to promote a considered review of more than 70 years of complicated scientific research. The majority of scientists and health professionals in the world who are involved with the study of fluorine chemistry and community water fluoridation or who treat patients who drink (or do not drink) water containing fluoride ions overwhelmingly support community water fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay (and related health issues) in a community. Fluoridation opponents (FOs) are experts at exploiting fear.

    Fear is not science. And the science is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their thousands of members) — as well as six Surgeons General since 1982 – continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay. These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.
    ~>ada(dot)org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium

    FOs have no rational explanation for why many thousands of individuals who are committed to understanding science and doing everything in their power to improve people’s health continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation and reject the alleged “evidence” FOs seem to believe is so clear and convincing.

    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 and read the actual science, you will discover the evidence provides no proof for the fear-based claims.

    A balanced review of all the evidence (not just the carefully selected and edited opinions in anti-F propaganda) can be found in two extremely helpful reviews:

    The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health, Conclusions:
    —> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
    —> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
    —> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”
    ~> who(dot)int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf

    Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council 2016 Fluoridation Report, Conclusions:
    —> “Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.”
    ~> scimex(dot)org/__data/assets/file/0017/106523/16399-NHMRC-Fluoride-Information.pdf

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has denied a petition filed by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and others that would have prohibited the “purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.”
    ~> drbicuspid(dot)com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=rst&pag=dis&ItemID=321197

    REPLY
    • David Green@Randy Johnson
      March 2, 2017, 9:29 am

      The surveys conducted at that time are a bit of a joke by today’s standards. The WHO data for 12 year-olds is hard evidence to dispute, but go ahead and see if you can come up with something more believable than Steve’s generic non-explanation.

      REPLY
      • Randy Johnson@David Green
        March 2, 2017, 10:19 am

        David Green – The actual WHO data supports the conclusions of this 2016 review. If the data actually supported the anti-F opinions, explain why the WHO came to the conclusions in my previous comment.
        ~> who(dot)int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf

        The modern data from the overwhelming majority of studies is the reason the major science and health organizations continue to recognize fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay.

        The modern data is the reason no recognized national or international health or science organization I am aware of accepts the anti-F opinions.

        The modern data is the reason the EPA rejected the petition filed by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and others that would have prohibited the “purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.”

        If you have some hidden stash of evidence that has been overlooked by the overwhelming majority of experts that contradicts the modern data that fluoridation is safe and effective, feel free to present it to the experts. If it is legitimate, the consensus will change. Fluoridation opponents have been trying to change the scientific consensus for decades without legitimate evidence and without success. That is why they must take their edited evidence to the public in an effort to scare them into accepting their opinions.

        REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 10:49 am

          The WHO data speaks for itself. You’ll have to talk to them about why they ignore their own data. I suspect it is because they realize they have a problem but don’t know how to admit that their position is contradicted.

          Your ongoing argument that fluoridation must be safe and effective because if it weren’t all the supporters would have changed their minds, ignores human nature, ignores history, and ignores research that I have already presented to you. I guess in that sense you are the perfect spokesperson for mainstream thinkers in general. You are them. It never matters how many times the mainstream has been proven wrong in the past, because every time they insisted they couldn’t be. Fluoridation today is just another example for future historians to laugh about.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 2, 2017, 11:26 am

          David Green – It is quite a bit more probable that fluoridation opponents have misrepresented the WHO data, as they do other studies and reviews like the 2015 Cochrane and the 2006 NRC Fluoride Reviews.

          It does not matter what “evidence” you have presented to me in the various comment sections – I just provide the scientific perspective of why that alleged “evidence” is flawed and/or misrepresented.

          The overwhelming majority of science and health experts have examined the anti-F opinions and found them to be nothing more than opinions.

          If you have legitimate evidence that has not already been refuted that shows any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water take it to the proper authorities.

          It is quite a bit more probable that anti-F activists are the perfect example of human nature that ignores evidence that is contrary to their passionately held beliefs.

          Go through the 2016 WHO report and the 2017 EPA rejection of the anti-F petition and provide specific details of where the conclusions of the experts is faulty – then there will be something to discuss.

          REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 12:47 pm

          The WHO paper, if we are reading the same article, is a good one. It emphasizes sugar intake as the problem. The one reference to “low levels of fluoride” has no reference to any research, so we can assume they just through it in there to support their current position.

          The EPA lost what little credibility they had when they started referring to endorsements. They’ll need to stick to the science and back their case better when we get them into court. I can hardly wait. Hopefully they will assign a judge with a science background.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 2, 2017, 1:08 pm

          David Green – Since you believe you have a better grasp of the science of fluoridation than the experts, I suggest you submit an article for publication detailing your interpretations of the evidence.

          In the exceptionally remote chance it were to be published, it could join the examples of anti-F wizardry exemplified by the 2012 Harvard IQ study by Choi et al., the 2014 Grandjean, Landrigan – Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity paper, the 2015 Malin, Till ADHD study and the 2015 Peckham, et al. hypothyroidism study.

          Your personal opinions are completely irrelevant. Your claims, based on your personal opinions, that all experts except a few outliers are wrong is absurd. If you actually read the EPA refutation of the anti-F petition, it provides the science behind the decision, and it clearly exposes the disingenuous anti-F tactics.

          The lack of legitimate evidence to support the anti-F opinions, and the blatant distortions of many studies are the primary reasons fluoridation opponents have no credibility in the scientific community – they are science deniers.

          REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 1:20 pm

          “Since you believe…” You really should stop assigning beliefs to me that I have never claimed. Your personal opinions about my personal opinions are also irrelevant.

          Have you come up with any evidence that the WHO data, as tabled by FAN, is incorrect? If it were don’t you think the WHO would have released a statement or launched a legal action? You are never going to be able to get around those macro numbers, just like you can’t get around the infant formula numbers.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 2, 2017, 4:14 pm

          David Green – If you don’t believe you have a better grasp of the science of fluoridation than the experts then why don’t you accept the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective? The overwhelming majority of experts and organizations that represent them accept the scientific consensus.

          Forgive me for assigning any beliefs to you…

          Let me ask you directly. Do you believe you understand the entire body of scientific evidence better than the experts in the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Dental and Medical Associations, the Australian Dental Association, the British Dental and Medical Associations, the Canadian Dental and Public Health Associations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the European Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the Irish Forum on Fluoridation, Public Health England, the World Health Organization and dozens of other reputable organizations?

          Do you believe your opinions on “macro numbers” and “infant formula numbers” should cause the organizations that discuss these topics to change their recommendations? If so – specify exactly what the revised versions should read on each of the websites along with specific references to prove your revisions.

          I am simply stating that the 2016 WHO report did not address the issues you seem to think are important, and they came to the conclusions that fluoridation is both safe and effective. If you have problems with that, contact WHO and ask them directly.

          REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 7:02 pm

          I don’t accept the consensus that fluoridation is safe because I don’t believe the research in that area has been sufficiently thorough. This is what the National Toxicology Program has found as well. If you want to listen to an hour of comment from them, I will send you the link. In particular they noted gaps in the research in the area of early development and neurological effects and these are the areas of greatest concern to me, followed by effects on the thyroid.

          Perhaps that same recognition is why the NIH has funded Christine Till and others to look into that area and this will be happening over the next two years. I don’t have an opinion about whether fluoridation works as claimed, since the evidence is mixed but even if there is a 25% reduction in decay, that doesn’t mean that I or anyone else in particular needs the extra fluoride ingestion. We don’t yet know all the harms from a cumulatively retained substance that has not yet been accumulating for a full lifetime, so I don’t wish to take that chance. If people think they need fluoride they can easily take a known dose each day rather than the unknown and variable dose that comes from adding it to the water.

          I don’t have any desire to contact the WHO. I have already contacted the CDA and advised them, since they are the ones who are suggesting the maximum upper daily dose to minimize Moderate or Severe Fluorosis. They first tried to avoid giving a straight answer, but when I pressed them, they said it would be brought up the next time they look to update their position. It has been 5 years now since the last update, so they are overdue. No one from the CDA has replied to question my numbers or offer an explanation. Perhaps they have delayed because they know they have a problem and don’t know what to do about it. The problem is not a secret. New Hampshire has required a warning on utility bills since 2012. Most other places have relied on advice from the dentists and public health people who have recognized that an admission that fluoridation is not safe for everyone would cause the public to doubt whether it is safe for anyone.
          I don’t expect the organizations supporting fluoridation to acknowledge the WHO data for 12 year olds. When you have a policy with a history, there is no room for any admission that brings that policy into doubt. With infant formula, everyone could just say “mixing infant formula using fluoridated water is not recommended, due to the high fluid intake to bodyweight ratio during the first year.” That presents the problem of who is going to pay for that water and since low-income people are more likely to bottle feed, that turns it into the over-used “social justice issue”.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 2, 2017, 7:32 pm

          David Green – You still didn’t answer my questions:

          “Do you believe you understand the entire body of scientific evidence better than the experts in the organizations referenced”

          “Do you believe your opinions on ‘macro numbers’ and ‘infant formula numbers’ should cause the organizations that discuss these topics to change their recommendations?”

          If so, and if you have credible evidence, and the expertise and credentials to present an air-tight case for your opinions then the consensus will change. Your implication that scientific consensus does not change with presentation of legitimate evidence is absurd – it changes regularly – sometimes frustratingly so. You are just trying to provide an excuse for why no one takes your opinions seriously.

          The EPA rejection of the anti-F petition provided many specific examples of why the anti-F opinions are not sufficient to change the consensus.

          REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 8:01 pm

          Answer to the first question is no. I thought you would get from my comments that it isn’t about understanding the evidence better when the evidence is not there to understand. If it were there, why is the NTP acknowledging gaps in the research and the NIH funding research in the area in which the NTP says those gaps exist.
          Second question is a yes, they already have discussed them. The January 2007 issue of JADA shows that the ADA is aware of the problem. I think your faith in people’s ability to admit an error is greater than mine. I’m ready for the EPA to put their arguments in front of a judge who doesn’t listen to any talk of endorsements. After I read that part of the EPA’s response, I new that anything else would just be more of the same sort of politics they have been engaged in up until now, and would avoid one of the key points-that they are ignoring their own guidelines relating to margin of safety. If you have a judge ready, I have my check book close at hand. I’m looking forward to both the Peel lawsuit and this one. We are two thinking judges away from the end of fluoridation in North American.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 2, 2017, 9:14 pm

          I also don’t believe you understand the entire body of scientific evidence better than the experts in the organizations referenced. That is precisely why I accept their conclusions over yours. The fact that my understanding of the evidence corresponds with most experts makes me even more confident that the anti-F activists have no legitimate grounds for their self-inflicted fear of fluoridation. If the judges rely on legitimate science there will be no doubt they will come to the same conclusion as the EPA scientists.

          REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 9:48 pm

          I just said that I don’t believe I understand the evidence better. I thought I was pretty clear about why the issue is not about understanding the evidence. It is about the absence of evidence in the areas I mentioned.
          Do you believe the WHO data compiled by FAN is accurate or not? You complained that I didn’t answer your questions, but then you don’t answer mine. Also, what did you say your background is? I know you finally mentioned it a while ago but I have forgotten and my memory is that you weren’t very specific.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 2, 2017, 11:21 pm

          David Green – The experts representing the science and health organizations that recognize the benefits of fluoridation are also aware of your so-called “absence of evidence”. They have concluded fluoridation is safe and effective based on the evidence that is available not some wishful thinking of fluoridation opponents. Hundreds of millions of individuals ingest optimally fluoridated water daily and have done so for decades. Many individuals have the misfortunate to drink water with significantly higher levels of fluoride ions on a regular basis and have done so forever. The risks of exposure to fluoride ions at safe and at excessive levels are well understood.

          The WHO data I have seen that fits your description is a bunch of numbers that describe huge, mixed populations that have no controls for possible confounding factors – in other words, any possible correlations are irrelevant regarding fluoridation as a cause of any result. In other words, differences in decay rates can be a result of diet, access to health care, education, genetics, natural fluoride levels, socio-economic status, or other factors — or combination of factors.

          REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 8:14 am

          Are you saying that despite recognizing an absence of evidence in the areas I mentioned, the organizations that support fluoridation are able to know that fluoridation is safe anyway? I wouldn’t call that sound scientific thinking. How would one recognize a connection between fluoride intake and IQ loss without a study?
          I didn’t ask for an interpretation of the WHO data, just an opinion about whether the data is accurate. I can get a weak discounting of the data from Steve. I guess you are both saying that the confounding factors all line up in one direction for fluoridating countries but in the opposite direction for non-fluoridating countries.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 3, 2017, 10:05 am

          David Green – Your definition of “absence of evidence” and it’s relevance to fluoridation is the product of your imagination. You and other outliers fabricate the claim that there is a significant “absence of evidence”. Mainstream science recognizes that the 70-year body of evidence provides sufficient evidence of the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation. By your definition there is an “absence of evidence” that proves drinking tap water treated with disinfectants (which creates disinfection byproducts) or any of the other chemicals used is perfectly safe for everyone under all circumstances. Do you recommend stopping disinfection until research has concluded that proves there are no potentially harmful effects to anyone anywhere? There is an “absence of evidence” that storing water in plastic bottles is completely safe for everyone everywhere. Perhaps only glass bottles should be used to store beverages until all plastic products are proven completely safe for everyone – actually, I have seen no studies that prove glass containers are completely safe. Provide scientific evidence that any human activity is completely safe for everyone all the time.

          I am simply stating that without carefully taking confounding factors into consideration raw numbers are meaningless for providing useful correlations. Look up “correlation does not imply causation” to see some of the absurd conclusions that can be drawn by plotting raw numbers.

          REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 11:25 am

          Why would the NIH fund research into developmental and neurological effects if they already had that research?

          With regards to tap water, there may also be an absence of evidence that chlorine is safe(I would say we know that it isn’t) but if you don’t put it in there people will get immediately ill. That is not the case with fluoride.

          With water in plastic bottles and perhaps glass, there is also an absence of evidence but people can choose based upon their perception of risk. I can’t easily opt out of the fluoride that comes in the tap water, since it gets into the food and may be absorbed during bathing. That is another area for which there is an absence of evidence. What we do know is that total fluoride intake has consistently risen over the last 60 years. The latest unreleased data from the CDC allegedly shows big increases in Moderate and Severe Fluorosis. What will we see in 50 years in those people if they continue to ingest more fluoride than any group before them?

          I don’t care about what you think about the usefulness of the WHO data. I just want to know whether you think the numbers are accurate and if not, why not? Do you have any conflicting information or even data for other ages which doesn’t correlate?

          What is it that you did during your working life?

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 3, 2017, 1:05 pm

          I will reserve comment on the NIH research until the studies have been completed, published and evaluated. Well done scientific research is the way scientific knowledge progresses. The existing scientific research is the reason for the current scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

          I will also reserve comment on the “unreleased data from the CDC” until it is published and evaluated in context – a process that fluoridation opponents seem unable to accomplish as demonstrated by the recent EPA evaluation of the anti-F petition.

          I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I will ask the following Y/N questions.

          1) Do you believe that dental decay does not increase the risk of serious health problems that might develop over a period of time?

          2) Do you believe that only immediate harm is important in establishing public health policies?

          3) Do you believe that long-term negative health effects important in determining public health policy?

          4) Do you believe that drinking optimally fluoridated water has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT in reducing dental decay in a population – in other words the conclusions from the 2016 WHO and NHMRC fluoride reviews referenced below are completely false?

          As I stated before, the WHO numbers as used by fluoridation opponents are irrelevant – it would not matter if they were accurate or fabricated.

          References:
          The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health, Conclusions:
          —> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
          —> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
          —> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”
          ~> who–dot–int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf

          Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council 2016 Fluoridation Report, Conclusions:
          —> “Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.”
          ~> scimex–dot–org/__data/assets/file/0017/106523/16399-NHMRC-Fluoride-Information.pdf

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 3, 2017, 3:05 pm

          David Green – I will reserve comment on the NIH research until the studies have been completed, published and evaluated. Well done scientific research is the way scientific knowledge progresses. The existing scientific research is the reason for the current scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

          I will also reserve comment on the “unreleased data from the CDC” until it is published and evaluated in context – a process that fluoridation opponents seem unable to accomplish as demonstrated by the recent EPA evaluation of the anti-F petition.

          I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I will ask the following Y/N questions.
          1) Do you believe that dental decay does not increase the risk of serious health problems that might develop over a period of time?

          2) Do you believe that only the risk of immediate harm is important in establishing public health policies?

          3) Do you believe that long-term negative health effects are irrelevant when determining public health policy?

          4) Do you believe that drinking optimally fluoridated water has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT in reducing dental decay in a population – in other words the conclusions from the 2016 WHO and NHMRC fluoride reviews referenced below are completely false?

          As I stated before, the WHO numbers as used by fluoridation opponents are irrelevant – it would not matter if they were accurate or fabricated.
          References:

          The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health, Conclusions:
          —> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
          —> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
          —> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”

          Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council 2016 Fluoridation Report, Conclusions:
          —> “Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.”

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 3, 2017, 5:37 pm

          David Green – My reply has been deleted twice already.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 5:39 pm

          David Green – I will reserve comment on the NIH research until the studies have been completed, published and evaluated. Well done scientific research is the way scientific knowledge progresses. The existing scientific research is the reason for the current scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

          I will also reserve comment on the “unreleased data from the CDC” until it is published and evaluated in context – a process that fluoridation opponents seem unable to accomplish as demonstrated by the recent EPA evaluation of the anti-F petition.

          To be continued:

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 5:40 pm

          David Green – I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so I will ask the following Y/N questions.
          1) Do you believe that dental decay does not increase the risk of serious health problems that might develop over a period of time?
          2) Do you believe that only the risk of immediate harm is important in establishing public health policies?
          3) Do you believe that long-term negative health effects are irrelevant when determining public health policy?
          4) Do you believe that drinking optimally fluoridated water has ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT in reducing dental decay in a population – in other words the conclusions from the 2016 WHO and NHMRC fluoride reviews referenced below are completely false?

          As I stated before, the WHO numbers as used by fluoridation opponents are irrelevant – it would not matter if they were accurate or fabricated.

          To be continued:

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 5:41 pm

          David Green – References:
          The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health, Conclusions:
          —> “Studies from many different countries over the past 60 years are remarkably consistent in demonstrating substantial reductions in caries prevalence as a result of water fluoridation. One hundred and thirteen studies into the effectiveness of artificial water fluoridation in 23 countries conducted before 1990, recorded a modal percent caries reduction of 40 to 50% in primary teeth and 50 to 60% in permanent.”
          —> “More recently, systematic reviews summarizing these extensive databases have confirmed that water fluoridation substantially reduces the prevalence and incidence of dental caries in primary and permanent teeth. Although percent caries reductions recorded have been slightly lower in 59 post-1990 studies compared with the pre-1990 studies, the reductions are still substantial.”
          —> “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”

          Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council 2016 Fluoridation Report, Conclusions:
          —> “Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.”

          REPLY
        • David Green@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 5:42 pm

          I think that is like when they turn the house lights up at a concert. We’ll have to reconvene in the next round.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@David Green
          March 3, 2017, 6:29 pm

          Can’t answer four Y/N questions before you go? I don’t want to assign any beliefs to you that you have never claimed. I am only trying to understand your rather unspecified beliefs regarding public health measures, balancing benefits and risks and other topics relevant to drinking water treatment methods. Come to think about it, I’ll add a 5th Y/N question to the mix.

          5) Do you believe exposure to fluoride ions in tooth paste &/or rinses as recommended by the CDA, ADA, and other organizations confers ANY protection against dental decay or helps remineralize tooth enamel?

          I guess the conclusion of the anti-F comedy performance will have to wait.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@David Green
          March 3, 2017, 10:54 am

          We know. We know.
          Promoters of this big money scam (selling industrial toxic waste fluoride) won’t read any science showing how ineffective it is for teeth and dangerous to health.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 7:59 pm

          “None are as blind as those who will not see.”—– also “those who will not read.”

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 5:40 pm

          It is immoral and unethical to force fluoride or any drug on all citizens without their consent.
          A doctor or dentist cannot force that on ANYONE. They would lose their license to practice if they did.

          It should be illegal for the government to force it on EVERYONE without consent.
          Use as much fluoride in your own glass of water as you like. Just leave the rest of us out of being forced to consume it. It must be a matter of choice and informed consent.
          We all deserve that.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 5, 2017, 10:19 am

          James Reeves – You continue to copy/paste the same fiction, and you have provided no evidence that fluoridation is a drug. Quite the contrary – fluoridated water is FDA approved.

          Answer the question of how you are being forced to consume fluoridated water. Mind control, physical force, chem-trails, or ???

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 5, 2017, 10:54 am

          Same old nonsense repeated over and over.
          EVERYONE understands that this toxic waste fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid, is added to drinking water without consent. So no one drinking water can avoid it.
          Exactly what about being forced don’t you understand?

          REPLY
  • James Reeves
    March 2, 2017, 12:54 am

    The truth is spreading and people everywhere are learning that fluoride in drinking water is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health. With any drug, we all deserve freedom of choice.
    Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:

    In the US, 74 % fluoridated (more than the rest of the world combined).
    In Europe, only 3%.
    In the world, only 5%.
    In Canada, now 30% — down from 45% in seven years.
    Over 217 communities have voted it out in the last six years (over 450 in 25 years).

    REPLY
    • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
      March 2, 2017, 8:38 am

      James Reeves – The only thing that is spreading is the disingenuous disinformation contained in your copy/paste responses to almost any article that mentions fluoride or fluoridation – it is certainly not truth.

      Your claims are demonstrably false. Your failure to produce specific citations and quotes from the actual scientific literature you believe proves your claims is clear confirmation they are false. You have apparently either never read the original studies or you have absolutely no idea how to interpret and understand published research. You depend on the interpretations of others.

      You have made the allegations below over and over recently, yet you can provide no quotes from any source which prove your claims that fluoride ions at levels found in optimally fluoridated water:
      (1) “causes lowered IQ” – the 2012 Harvard IQ study by Choi et al.,
      (2) “is a neurotoxin” – the 2014 Grandjean,Landrigan – Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity paper ,
      (3) “has been proven to cause ADHD” – the 2015 Malin, Till ADHD study
      (4) “can wreck your thyroid” – the 2015 Peckham, et al. hypothyroidism study.
      (5) “is now reported to cause diabetes” – the 2016 K. Fluegge study, Community water fluoridation predicts increase in … diabetes in 22 states.
      (6) “causes enamel damage in 41% of all children” – the CDC fluorosis data,
      (7) “Fluoride is the only drug on the market not approved by the FDA because it was grandfathered in as a rat poison and roach poison.”
      (8) “Deaths occurred (3 people) in earlier days during dialysis treatment at University of Chicago Hospitals.”
      (9) “is immoral and unethical to force fluoride or any chemical or drug on all citizens without their consent.”
      (10) “Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:”

      If any of your claims were true, how do you explain the fact that over 100 major national and international science and health organizations recognize the benefits of fluoridation (and none support the anti-F opinions)?

      Since evidence that proves your claims doesn’t exist, all you can do is completely fabricate statements or quote secondary sources who happen to agree with you and who apparently are not any better at understanding or interpreting the actual evidence than you.
      If you had actually read or understood the original sources, you would realize that none of the conclusions even came close to supporting your claims. At best the authors of claims 1-4 suggest nothing more than possible correlations. I certainly have seen nothing that prove your claims.

      You can’t provide any supporting quotes for your beliefs, because any papers you reference contain absolutely no proof of your claims. The authors of #s 1-4 are smart enough not to make claims of anything in their conclusions besides possible correlations even though they are ardent fluoridation opponents, and the quality of those studies has been challenged by most experts. The authors of these studies make suggestions of possible harm and leave it to their minions to “adjust” their conclusions into “proof” of catastrophic harm.

      If you had read (or understood) the Fluegge’s diabetes paper (#5) you would realize that (a) it was a poor study with conflicting and improbable conclusions, and (b) if the study could be believed, it actually concluded that “fluorosilicic acid [used in over 70% of water treatment plants] was significantly and robustly associated with decreases in incidence and prevalence of diabetes.”

      The CDC data (#6) does not call very mild to mild fluorosis (the only levels of fluorosis associated with fluoridation) “enamel damage” – in fact, it was the reduction of cavities in teeth with noticeable fluorosis that provided the original evidence that fluoride ions strengthened enamel against decay. Claim #7 demonstrates your complete disconnect with reality.

      The dialysis deaths (#8) were caused by equipment malfunction and had nothing to do with optimally fluoridated water. Your attempt to exploit this tragedy is reprehensible.

      Your claim #9 has two flaws. Fluoridation is not a drug – Anyone (even a child) can purchase bottles of water regulated by the FDA that contain optimal fluoride levels (and no warning labels) without a prescription. No one is forcing anyone to drink fluoridated water – everyone is free to find other sources or remove it (and any other chemicals) from their drinking water. Explain exactly how the government is forcing you to drink fluoride ions? Physical force? Mind control? I have always been curious.

      Whether or not other countries fluoridate their water has nothing to do with the scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness. (claim #10)

      Your inability to provide exact quotes to support your claims proves you are intentionally posting false information, and your self-inflicted paranoia of fluoridation remains nothing but a figment of your imagination.

      REPLY
      • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
        March 2, 2017, 9:03 am

        Please excuse Mr. Johnson. He keeps trying to promote the big money scheme of fluoridation ____ and in a very wordy manner.

        Fluoride is a by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry (hydrofluorosilicic acid) and it wreaks havoc on the brain, the thyroid, the bones and body. People in the whole world (only 5% fluoridated) and in Europe (only 3% fluoridated) have realized what kind of damage fluoride can cause to our health in general.

        The 70 year old science of forced fluoridation is simply wrong and dangerous, but other big money schemes with the wrong science hung on for years, like tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline, and asbestos. We eventually learned the truth.
        So, it will take some time to overcome the fluoridation scheme.

        REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 2, 2017, 11:51 am

          James Reeves – So far you have provided absolutely no citations or quotes to prove any of your claims.

          You don’t even understand your “wrong science” claims. Unlike the practice of fluoridation with over 70 years of evidence that fluoridation is effective at reducing dental decay and safe at optimal levels in drinking water, there was never any scientific consensus that smoking or chewing tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline and asbestos were beneficial to health. It was scientific research that lead to the scientific consensus that established the health risks of tobacco, DDT, lead and asbestos.

          Over 70 years of research and the resulting consensus of experts continues to substantiate the benefits and safety of drinking water fluoridation.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 2:41 pm

          The fluoride issue is very simple.

          Remove the fluoride from drinking water and put as much as you wish in your own glass of water.
          The rest of us then won’t be forced to consume it. Everyone will be happy with freedom of choice.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 2, 2017, 4:15 pm

          James Reeves – The solutions for the fluoride issue is very simple.

          SIMPLE SOLUTION – TRUST THE EXPERTS
          1. Leave the fluoride ions in the water at 0.7 ppm.
          2. Distillation, RO and activated alumina are available for those who have been duped into fearing the process of fluoridation by deceptive practices of fluoridation opponents.
          3. Leave the rest of the population out of it, providing everyone in the community, particularly the disadvantaged, the benefits of strengthened enamel.
          PROBLEM SOLVED.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 4:37 pm

          How silly.
          People already pay for clean drinking water. They should not be forced to pay more for a filter. Just remove the industrial toxic waste fluoride for m water.

          . .Fluoride is a by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry (hydrofluorosilicic acid) and it wreaks havoc on the brain, the thyroid, the bones, the kidneys and body. People in the whole world (only 5% fluoridated) and Europe (only 3% fluoridated) have realized what kind of damage fluoride can cause to our health in general.

          Everyone wants safe, clean water and not the added drug fluoride (actually industrial toxic waste hydrofluosilicic acid

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 2, 2017, 6:00 pm

          James Reeves – Only a fluoridation opponent or other science-denier would find the advice, Trust the experts, silly.

          You keep presenting completely unsupportable opinions. Provide specific citations and quotes that prove the 10 claims you have made – Otherwise everyone can easily see that you provide no legitimate evidence for your completely false claims of “damage fluoride can cause to our health in general”.
          (1) “causes lowered IQ” – the 2012 Harvard IQ study by Choi et al.,
          (2) “is a neurotoxin” – the 2014 Grandjean,Landrigan – Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity paper ,
          (3) “has been proven to cause ADHD” – the 2015 Malin, Till ADHD study
          (4) “can wreck your thyroid” – the 2015 Peckham, et al. hypothyroidism study.
          (5) “is now reported to cause diabetes” – the 2016 K. Fluegge study, Community water fluoridation predicts increase in … diabetes in 22 states.
          (6) “causes enamel damage in 41% of all children” – the CDC fluorosis data,
          (7) “Fluoride is the only drug on the market not approved by the FDA because it was grandfathered in as a rat poison and roach poison.”
          (8) “Deaths occurred (3 people) in earlier days during dialysis treatment at University of Chicago Hospitals.”
          (9) “is immoral and unethical to force fluoride or any chemical or drug on all citizens without their consent.”
          (10) “Consider that 95% of the world rejects fluoridation:”

          All claims are false or irrelevant without proof in context.

          No one is forcing anyone to do anything. If someone has a completely self-inflicted, unwarranted fear of small amounts of fluoride ions they are completely free to find drinking water elsewhere or remove fluoride (or any other chemicals — residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, for example — they choose not to ingest.

          Your lack of understanding of basic chemistry is astounding: fluoride ions are identical regardless of source.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 6:50 pm

          Would You Drink Shampoo to Clean Your Hair?

          Or sunscreen to protect your skin?

          Drink fluoride to protect teeth? Really? Mass medication without consent?

          Fluoride toothpaste or mouthwash applied to the surface of teeth is sufficient, as the CDC reported in 1999.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 2, 2017, 7:41 pm

          James Reeves – Still no specific citations and quotes to prove your claims. The fabricated claim that fluoridation = medication is # 9 on the list.

          Would you drink bleach to protect yourself from pathogens? Oh, right, you probably are drinking bleach (or chloramines) – along with the disinfection byproducts that are produced. You seem to not understand that all water treatment processes involve adding chemicals to the water, and if you drink public tap water you will ingest chemicals at levels that are safe. The benefits of all water treatment processes far outweigh any risks.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 2, 2017, 7:50 pm

          Chlorine is added to treat the WATER. Fluoride is added treat the BODY (teeth), resulting in a forced medication on everyone.
          “Fluoride is a toxic industrial waste and our bodies are not toxic waste dumps.”

          You can’t show one study that fluoride is safe in any concentration for all of the public; infants, children, pregnant women, those with fluoride allergy, those with weak kidney problems, the elderly, etc.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 2, 2017, 9:07 pm

          James Reeves – You apparently have no concept of how fluoride ions act to reduce dental decay. The WHO released a report, Fluoride and Oral Health in 2016 which contained an extensive history and review of the benefits and risks of exposure to fluoride ions. One of the conclusions relevant to your alleged distinction between fluoridation and disinfection.
          => Fluoride is effective at controlling caries because it acts in several different ways. When present in dental plaque and saliva, it delays the demineralization and promotes the remineralization of incipient enamel lesions, a healing process before cavities become established. Fluoride also interferes with glycolysis, the process by which cariogenic bacteria metabolize sugars to produce acid. In higher concentrations, it has a bactericidal action on cariogenic and other bacteria. Studies suggest that, when fluoride is ingested during the period of tooth development, it makes teeth more resistant to subsequent caries development. Fluoridated water also has a significant topical effect in addition to its systemic effect (Hardwick et al., 1982). It is well known that salivary and plaque fluoride (F) concentrations are directly related to the F concentration in drinking water. This versatility of action adds to fluoride’s value in caries prevention. Aiding remineralization is likely to be fluoride’s most important action.
          ~> who–dot–int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf

          So, fluoridation also has some of the same treatment characteristics as disinfection – it is just more versatile.

          You can’t show one study that drinking water disinfectants or the disinfection byproducts they produce are safe in any concentration for all of the public; infants, children, pregnant women, those with fluoride allergy, those with weak kidney problems, the elderly, etc.

          Are you advocating for cessation of disinfection – all of your arguments against fluoridation apply equally well to disinfection?

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 12:30 am

          It is unfortunate that there is not one scientific study to prove fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is safe and effective for all members of the public, infants, children, sensitive, kidney problems pre-diabetics), elderly, etc.
          _________________________________________-

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 6:47 am

          You must be out of cut-paste snippets of disinformation – this is the 4th posting of this same nonsense.

          Do you have a scientific study that proves drinking residual disinfectants, disinfection byproducts are “safe and effective for all members of the public, infants, children, sensitive, kidney problems pre-diabetics), elderly, etc.”?

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 11:08 am

          It is not humorous to be forcing everyone to consume an industrial toxic waste fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid.
          None of these things you list are drugs forced on everyone in drinking water.
          Where is ONE study to show effectiveness and safety of fluoride?

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 11:36 am

          James Reeves – Really?? You continually demonstrate how little you actually know about reality.

          Fluoridation a drug only in your imagination.

          Your use of “drug” in the context of water treatment is absurd. How about just including all water treatment chemicals under the heading of “poisons” that makes things simpler.

          If someone drinks water that has been treated with various poisons, disinfected (bleach), had the pH adjusted (hydrochloric acid or sodium hydroxide), or had chemicals add to reduce corrosion or flocculate/coagulate contaminants they will absolutely drink a variety of residual chemicals which include natural contaminants, those chemicals added during treatment (including disinfectants and fluoride ions) and the disinfection byproducts that are created).

          By YOUR definition everyone who drinks tap water is FORCED to ingest all of the residual poisonous chemicals in the tap water.

          Most people, except the fluoridation opponents who are apparently forced to drink tap water against their will, have the freedom of choice to figure out how to find other sources of water or remove whatever chemicals they choose not to ingest.

          Since the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates fluoridation is safe and effective everyone who drinks tap water will experience all the benefits of water treatment, including reduced dental decay, reduced cases of disease from water-borne pathogens, reduced exposure to chemicals leached from distribution pipes, etc. The residual chemicals in the tap water are carefully regulated to be within safe limits. The benefits of all water treatment processes far outweigh any risks.

          The bottom line is that fluoridation opponents don’t give a rip about public health – only about their selfish, unsupportable opinions and demands.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 3:56 pm

          As usual, the promoters try to deflect when they can’t answer the concerns.
          They may have a point if only fluoride in drinking water was in any way beneficial and not dangerous to health.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 5:50 pm

          James Reeves – You have provided nothing to deflect. You provide no evidence of harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 5:57 pm

          Oh yes, this is the response when promoters have no answers and nothing of value to say.

          REPLY
        • Randy Johnson@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 10:11 am

          James Reeves – You should team up with David Green. The two of you would make a great comedy act – him with his “absence of evidence” complaints and you with your “not one scientific study to prove fluoride is safe” arguments. If the two of you had your way, everyone would huddle in their bed until they died from dehydration because no human activity has ever been proven safe for everyone everywhere.

          For example, do you have a scientific study that proves drinking residual disinfectants, disinfection byproducts are “safe and effective for all members of the public, infants, children, sensitive, kidney problems pre-diabetics), elderly, etc.”? There are no such studies, therefore we should halt water disinfection.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@Randy Johnson
          March 3, 2017, 10:49 am

          Wake up.
          It is not humorous to be forcing everyone to consume an industrial toxic waste fluoride, hydrofluorosilicic acid.
          None of these things you list are drugs forced on everyone in drinking water.
          Where is ONE study to show effectiveness and safety of fluoride?

          REPLY
        • chris price@James Reeves
          March 2, 2017, 9:40 pm

          Please excuse J Willie. is thousands of posts to every mention of fluoride he has never posted any peer reviewed research to back up his multitude of error ridden claims
          The only person I can think of to match his list of unproven list of false aliments Is the activist Declan Waugh.
          The old trick of making a wild claims, suggesting something as a
          possibility and then promoting the idea as some sort of scientifically
          proven fact in his scaremongering.

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@chris price
          March 3, 2017, 12:29 am

          No, no, not one scientific study exists to prove fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is safe and effective for all members of the public, infants, children, sensitive, kidney problems pre-diabetics), elderly, etc.
          _________________________________________-

          REPLY
        • chris price@James Reeves
          March 3, 2017, 1:56 am

          That statement applies to anything we eat drink or use, depending on the person. Another red herring from the activist, because he cant answer the question

          REPLY
        • James Reeves@chris price
          March 3, 2017, 10:41 am

          No! How silly. Wake up.
          None of these are drugs forced on everyone in drinking water.
          Where is ONE study to show effectiveness and safety of fluoride?

          REPLY
  • David Green
    March 1, 2017, 9:14 pm

    Interesting information about the Brantford MOH connection to Eugenics and Hitler. I don’t think we know whether fluoride was ever used in Nazi prison camps, but this is certainly a coincidence.
    They sure had bizarre ideas in the 40s. Imagine if the gov’t put something in the water now and didn’t tell the public about it for three months.

    REPLY

Headquarters:


Oneida Business Park Suite 124
50 Generations Drive, Box 1
Ohsweken, ON N0A 1M0
Six Nations of the Grand River Country


Email: info@tworowtimes.com


Main office: (519) 900-5535


Editorial: (519) 900-6241


Advertising: (519) 900-6373


Latest Posts