March 11, 2016 (Revised March 18, 2016)
Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner
Attention: Michael Kreidler
PO Box 40255
Olympia, WA 98504-0255
Phone: 360-725-7080
Fax: 360–586-2018
Dear Mr. Kreidler,
To make it easy for you to follow the links in this letter, I am posting it on my web site at the following location:
www. Fluoride-Class-Action.com/washington-insurance-commission-3-11-16.
I am writing to you regarding Delta Dental, an insurance company which delivers little benefit to consumers in return for the premiums they pay and spends insurance premiums collected for purposes other than repairing teeth.
Delta Dental’s plans are not really insurance. Enhanced plan costs an individual $600 per year but will pay out an absolute maximum of $1,000 per year. This is poor coverage. See:
https://www.deltadentalcoversme.com/get-a-quote/compare
Instead of using consumer premiums to pay for dental services, Delta Dental squanders enormous sums building drinking water fluoridation facilities across the country and promoting drinking water fluoridation.
Delta Dental of Washington finances the Washington Dental Foundation, which is an advocate for fluoridation. The Washington Dental Foundation home page is on the Delta Dental web site. See:
https://www.deltadentalwa.com/guest/public/aboutus/wds-foundation.aspx
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/
Secure Arkansas considers Delta Dental to be part of a fluoridation racket. See:
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2016/03/04/the-delta-dental-racket-follow-the-money/
It is difficult to convince a water district to begin fluoridation when the cost of modifying existing facilities and adding fluoridation equipment can cost millions of dollars. Well organized pro-fluoridation groups, financed by Delta Dental and the CDC, convince city councils and water commissioners to enact fluoridation. One technique is to channel donations to politicians through dental PACs. See:
Delta Dental in Arkansas and other states including Washington is waiting in the wings with its offer to pay for expensive new fluoridation equipment.
Port Angeles, Washington is a good example. Port Angeles voters had voted three times in referendums not to fluoridate their water, but the city council went against the voters‘ wishes and in 2006 initiated fluoridation. Delta Dental made the transition easier by paying for the fluoridation facilities. Delta Dental’s contract with the city included a clause which required that if Port Angeles terminated fluoridation within ten years, the city would have to repay Delta Dental’s investment.
In 2016 the city of Port Angeles conducted a non-binding election to determine public opinion. The majority voted to terminate fluoridation. The Port Angeles City County again chose to ignore the will of the people and to continue fluoridation. It is not clear who will pay for needed improvements to water facilities now corroded by fluoridation. See:
Both Bellingham and Olympia fought expensive fluoridation initiatives in past two decades, and in both cases fluoridation efforts were turned back. In both cases Delta Dental was available to pay for new fluoridation equipment. The pressure in Spokane to fluoridate is relentless.
Delta Dental finances the new American Fluoridation Society, which pressures water districts either to start fluoridating or not to end fluoridation. See:
https://americanfluoridationsociety.org/
Delta Dental is doing this all across the country. An Arkansas group known as Secure Arkansas has documented the wrongdoings of Delta Dental and other pro-fluoridation groups. See:
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2015/12/13/delta-dental-and-the-fluoride-exposure/
If fluoridation were a magic remedy which eliminated tooth decay and caused no adverse reactions, this might make sense. However, it is clear that this is not so. There is overwhelming evidence in the documents cited in this letter that fluoridation is both ineffectual and harmful to health. I will make a few points here which provide clear proof of this. These points come not from me but from fluoridation supporters. The CDC web site itself makes the following admissions:
that fluoridation reduces caries only 18% to 25% (Other evidence says it does not reduce caries at all);
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm
that 41% of adolescents suffer from some degree of dental fluorosis, with around 12% of adolescents suffering from mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis, which is noticeable, embarrassing, and ugly;
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf
that “fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children”.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf
According to CDC’s own admission then, fluoridation would not seem to be a good bargain.
Next, come the admissions made by the National Sanitation Foundation, NSF, the trade association authorized and financed by the EPA to approve and set safety standards for fluoridation materials. The NSF website admits that tanker loads of fluoridation materials can and do contain arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium. See:
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/what-is-in-it.
Add to this the studies which indicate that there are much more effective ways to reduce and even eliminate tooth decay than fluoridation. The fixation on fluoridation distracts the dental profession from teaching methods which really do reduce caries and do so without any harm.
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/preventing-tooth-decay-without-fluoride
The fixation of fluoridation as the solution to tooth decay distracts from the teaching of other dental care procedures which really would prevent tooth decay.
Add to this the fact that the fluoridation materials used in Washington do not meet the standards set forth in Washington law. RCW 246-290-220 says that fluoridation may be done in Washington only with fluoridation materials which “comply with” the National Sanitation Foundation NSF Rule 60 standard. NSF 60 requires that some 20 toxicological studies be done on drinking water additives and that a risk estimation test be done. The toxicological studies are not being done, and the fluoridation materials do not pass the risk estimation test.
I filed a petition with the Board of Health, showing that the fluoridation materials do not “comply with” NSF 60 and therefore do not “comply with” RCW 246-290-220. The Board of Health denied my petition without addressing all the issues I presented. I appealed the Board decision to Governor Inslee. He denied my appeal without addressing all the issues I presented. I made a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied without addressing the legal and scientific issues I raised. I sent Governor Inslee a final rebuke for his failure to enforce the law and failure to consider the overwhelming evidence that fluoridation is ineffectual and harmful to health. It appears to me that Governor Inslee is relying on pro-fluoridation * so-called experts to ghost write his response. See:
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/governor-inslee-12-1-2015
https://jamesrobertdeal.org/motion-for-reconsideration-to-inslee
https://www.fluoride-class–action.com/rebuke-to-inslee
The consumption of around 2 milligrams of fluoride per day from conception until death does significant harm to health. Fluorosilicic acid leaches lead from plumbing. See:
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/silicic-acid-2
Studies from Harvard and other sources show that fluoride reduces IQ. See:
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/iq-harm-from-fluoride-harvard
Fluoride displaces iodine and reduces thyroid function. See:
https://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/thyroid/
Fluoridation causes or exacerbates ADHD. See:
https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/fluoride-causes-adhd
Please see the following online documents for more about the health problems cause by fluoridation in the materials I am submitting:
Delta Dental and the Fluoride Exposure
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2015/12/13/delta-dental-and-the-fluoride-exposure
Safewater Overview of Fluoridation
www.fluoride-class-action.com/safewater.
https://www.deltadentalcoversme.com/get-a-quote/compare
https://www.deltadentalwa.com/group/awc
https://www.deltadentalia.com/foundation/grant-funding
https://www.deltadentalins.com/about/community/fluoridation-initiatives.html
https://www.citizenaudit.org/910621480/
https://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2014_10_EO/91-0621480_990O_201312.pdf
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2015/11/04/delta-dental-exposed-follow-the-money-part-1/
In conclusion, I urge you to investigate the misbehavior of Delta Dental and order Dental Delta to spend consumer premiums on direct dental care instead of financing fluoridation facilities which do little or nothing to prevent tooth decay and which harm health and on the financing of false fluoridation propaganda. I also urge you to require Delta Dental to repay to consumers the premiums they paid but which were misused on fluoridation equipment and false propaganda.
Sincerely,
James Robert Deal, Attorney
WSBA Number 8103
Deal, it’s truly sad to see someone such as you, who supposedly holds a law degree, exhibit such an obvious lack of understanding of this issue to the point where you actually seem to believe any intelligent person will accept this conglomeration of half-truths, misinformation, and utter nonsense you’ve posted here, citing your own website as your source. Could you even be any more ridiculous?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
For the past month, Slott, your 100 comments all stated that you are the Information Director for the American Fluoridation Society. Strange then that you neglected to mention that in this post, especially when you receive money from Delta Dental.
Strange also that you are afraid to admit that the amount of fluoride in a pea-size dab of fluoride toothpaste is the same amount of fluoride that’s in 12 oz of optimally fluoridated water: 0.25 mg.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e1696f9c84808697ab2b939e5d64182037199fb415c01d3badacfdb6e9c0da83.jpg
Sure “johndmac”, if that is of importance to you, then by all means, I’ll do my best to remember to sign as Information Director of AFS. I’ve received no money from Delta Dental, or anyone else, for my fluoridation advocacy. The AFS has received a $50k grant from Delta Dental of California, if that is to what you refer. There is no great secret. It’s ironic that while I sign my my full name at the end of each post for the sake of full transparency, you see fit to cower behind a pseudonym. Why don’t you come out of hiding and stand behind your comments with your full name?
There is plenty of info on the AFS on its website, since you seem interested:
http://www.americanfluoridationsociety.org
What grounds do you have for the ridiculous statement I am “afraid to admit that the amount of fluoride in a pea-size dab of fluoride toothpaste is the same amount of fluoride that’s in 12 oz of optimally fluoridated water: 0.25 mg.”? The pea sized dolup is simply that amount recommended by the ADA for small children to use when they brush their teeth. This is a safe amount for them to swallow, if indeed they do so when they brush, as opposed to putting a full strip of toothpaste on their brush and swallowing that each time.
Steven D. Slott
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Even more ridiculous is the CDC’s recommended optimal fluoride level for schools that you said “is so absurd that it is truly comical.”
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aea2c21c864f813c162a4042fcaf0e61a8d5562de6c2cbd405a8c6f5c92a9427.jpg
There is no substance to Dr. Slott’s response. We will wait to see if he can offer anything other than personal attacks.
Fine, Deal. I’ll go point-by-point if you wish. If you’re just going to censor it out, however, as do most antifluoridationist websites, it’s a waste of my time.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Here’s your “substance”:
1. Deal: “I am writing to you regarding Delta Dental, an insurance company which delivers little benefit to consumers in return for the premiums they pay and spends insurance premiums collected for purposes other than repairing teeth.”
Facts:
Prevention of disease is most certainly in the best financial interests of any health insurer, including Delta Dental. The less disease, the less the insurance companies pay out in expenses. As prevention is also in the best interests of the health and well-being of consumers, it is entirely acceptable and prudent for health insurers to promote prevention. Given that insurers are businesses that understandably seek to maximize profits, they will support those initiatives which are effective in preventing disease. Delta Dental supports the public health initiative of water fluoridation because it knows that the science has clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of fluoridation in preventing a significant amount of dental disease.
2. Deal: “Delta Dental’s plans are not really insurance. Enhanced plan costs an individual $600 per year but will pay out an absolute maximum of $1,000 per year. This is poor coverage.”
Facts:
Your unsubstantiated opinion of the quality of coverage by Delta Dental is of no relevance to water fluoridation.
3. Deal: “Instead of using consumer premiums to pay for dental services, Delta Dental squanders enormous sums building drinking water fluoridation facilities across the country and promoting drinking water fluoridation.’
Facts:
Your unsubstantiated opinion as to the prudence of Delta Dental supporting a very effective dental decay preventive measure is meaningless. As long as Delta meets its contractual obligations with employers and consumers, how it chooses to allocate its funds otherwise is of no relevance.
4. Deal: “Delta Dental of Washington finances the Washington Dental Foundation, which is an advocate for fluoridation. The Washington Dental Foundation home page is on the Delta Dental web site”
Facts:
So what?
5. Deal: “Secure Arkansas considers Delta Dental to be part of a fluoridation racket”
Facts:
The unsubstantiated opinions of an activist organization are of no relevance.
6. Deal: “It is difficult to convince a water district to begin fluoridation when the cost of modifying existing facilities and adding fluoridation equipment can cost millions of dollars. Well organized pro-fluoridation groups, financed by Delta Dental and the CDC, convince city councils and water commissioners to enact fluoridation. One technique is to channel donations to politicians through dental PACs…….Port Angeles, Bellingham, olympia, etc., etc., etc…..”
Facts:
The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is an agency of the US government. It does not fund “pro-fluoridation groups”, or anyone else. Delta Dental is a private health insurer. It is free to fund groups which work to improve the dental health of all citizens, if it so chooses to do. This is not only in its own best interests, but in those of consumers, as well.
7. Deal: “If fluoridation were a magic remedy which eliminated tooth decay and caused no adverse reactions, this might make sense. However, it is clear that this is not so. There is overwhelming evidence in the documents cited in this letter that fluoridation is both ineffectual and harmful to health. I will make a few points here which provide clear proof of this”
Facts:
A. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated…….as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.
B. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations. I have cited several at the end of comment and will gladly cite more if you so desire.
8. Deal: “These points come not from me but from fluoridation supporters. The CDC web site itself makes the following admissions:
A. “that fluoridation reduces caries only 18% to 25% (Other evidence says it does not reduce caries at all);”
Facts:
An 18-25% reduction in dental decay could hardly be deemed “ineffectual”.
B. “that 41% of adolescents suffer from some degree of dental fluorosis, with around 12% of adolescents suffering from mild, moderate, and severe fluorosis, which is noticeable, embarrassing, and ugly;”
Facts:
The “41%” you note is in reference to a 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar in which 41% of adolescents they examined were found to have signs of dental fluorosis.. This 41% was composed of 37.1% with mild to very mild dental fluorosis, both of which are barely detectable, benign effects requiring no treatment, and which have no effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth….with the other 3.8% being those with moderate dental fluorosis, attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste and/or exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride during the teeth forming years of 0-8. The observed amount of severe dental fluorosis, that level which is “noticeable, embarrassing, and ugly” was negligible.
Your hypocrisy is clearly evident by your attempt to induce unwarranted fear about benign, barely detectable mild dental fluorosis while you callously ignore the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, loss of teeth, and life-threatening infection directly resultant of untreated dental decay which could be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.
—Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
C. “that ‘fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children’ ”
You contradict yourself here. The dental fluorosis you lament is the clearest demonstration of the systemic effect of fluoride.
The effects of fluoride are both topical and systemic. The systemic effects are demonstrated in the mild to very mild dental fluorosis which is the only dental fluorosis in any manner associated with optimally fluoridated water. Mild to very mild dental fluorosis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As Kumar, et al. have demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. Dental fluorosis can only occur systemically.
—-The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
Additionally, saliva with fluoride incorporated into it provides a constant bathing if the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of dental decay prevention. Incorporation of fluoride into saliva occurs systemically.
From the CDC:
“Fluoride works to control early dental caries in several ways. Fluoride concentrated in plaque and saliva inhibits the demineralization of sound enamel and enhances the remineralization (i.e., recovery) of demineralized enamel. As cariogenic bacteria metabolize carbohydrates and produce acid, fluoride is released from dental plaque in response to lowered pH at the tooth-plaque interface. The released fluoride and the fluoride present in saliva are then taken up, along with calcium and phosphate, by de-mineralized enamel to establish an improved enamel crystal structure. This improved structure is more acid resistant and contains more fluoride and less carbonate.. Fluoride is more readily taken up by demineralized enamel than by sound enamel.. Cycles of demineralization and remineralization continue throughout the lifetime of the tooth.”
——–Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States
United States Centers for Disease Control
Recommendations and Reports
August 17, 2001/50(RR14);1-42
Additionally, in a 2014 study Cho, et al. found:
“Conclusions: While 6-year-old children who had not ingested fluoridated water showed higher dft in theWF-ceased area than in the non-WF area, 11-year-old children in theWF-ceased area who had ingested fluoridated water for approximately 4 years after birth showed significantly lower DMFT than those in the non-WF area. This suggests that the systemic effect of fluoride intake through water fluoridation could be important for the prevention of
dental caries.”
—–Systemic effect of water fluoridation on dental caries prevalence
Cho HJ, Jin BH, Park DY, Jung SH, Lee HS, Paik DI, Bae KH.
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2014; 42: 341–348.
Additionally:
“Evidence also supports fluoride’s systemic mechanism of caries inhibition in pit and fissure surfaces of permanent first molars when it is incorporated into these teeth pre-eruptively.”
—Buzalaf MAR (ed): Fluoride and the Oral Environment. Monogr Oral Sci. Basel, Karger, 2011, vol 22, pp 97–114
(DOI:10.1159/000325151)
D. “According to CDC’s own admission then, fluoridation would not seem to be a good bargain.”
Facts:
The CDC has made no such “admission” and obviously nothing you have presented here demonstrates otherwise.
9. Deal: “Next, come the admissions made by the National Sanitation Foundation, NSF, the trade association authorized and financed by the EPA to approve and set safety standards for fluoridation materials. The NSF website admits that tanker loads of fluoridation materials can and do contain arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium.”
Facts:
Water quality standards begin at the tap. All water at the tap must meet stringent, EPA mandated, quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. Standard 60 requires that no contaminant be present in water at the tap in excess of 10% of the EPA maximum allowable level of safety (MCL) for that contaminant. Fluoridated water at the tap easily meets all of these requirements.
A detailed list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap, including precise amounts of any detected contaminants and the EPA mandated maximum allowable level for each, may be found in the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Substances” located on the website of the National Sanitary Foundation.
10. Deal: “Add to this the studies which indicate that there are much more effective ways to reduce and even eliminate tooth decay than fluoridation. The fixation on fluoridation distracts the dental profession from teaching methods which really do reduce caries and do so without any harm.”
Facts:
A. There are no such studies “which indicate that there are much more effective ways to reduce and even eliminate tooth decay than fluoridation.”……..as clearly evidenced by your inability to provide any such studies.
B. Your unsubstantiated opinion as to what “methods” the dental profession does, or does not “teach”, is unqualified and meaningless.
to be continued………..
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
“substance” continued……..
11. Deal: “Add to this the fact that the fluoridation materials used in Washington do not meet the standards set forth in Washington law. RCW 246-290-220 says that fluoridation may be done in Washington only with fluoridation materials which “comply with” the National Sanitation Foundation NSF Rule 60 standard. NSF 60 requires that some 20 toxicological studies be done on drinking water additives and that a risk estimation test be done. The toxicological studies are not being done, and the fluoridation materials do not pass the risk estimation test.”
Facts:
Fluoridation substances do not reach the tap in fluoridated water. They are therefore not ingested. There is no requirement, nor any need, for “toxicological studies” on substances which are not ingested or otherwise contacted by consumers.
The only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety.
12. Deal: “I sent Governor Inslee a final rebuke for his failure to enforce the law and failure to consider the overwhelming evidence that fluoridation is ineffectual and harmful to health. It appears to me that Governor Inslee is relying on pro-fluoridation * so-called experts to ghost write his response.”
Facts:
A. There are no violations of law involved with water fluoridation, as evidenced by your inability to demonstrate any such violations.
B. There is no “overwhelming evidence that fluoridation is ineffectual and harmful to health”, as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.
C. The “so-called experts” include those such as the past 5 US Surgeons General, the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health, the Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, the US CDC, the US EPA, the US Institute of Medicine, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world.
Since you obviously disdain these “so-called experts”, exactly on whom did you expect the Governor to rely on a matter of dental/healthcare………the “fluoride action network”?
12. Deal: “The consumption of around 2 milligrams of fluoride per day from conception until death does significant harm to health.”
Facts:
The United States Institute of Medicine established daily upper limit of daily fluoride ingestion from all sources, before adverse effects, is 10 mg.
—Dietary reference intakes (DRIs): tolerable upper intake levels, vitamin
National Food and Nutrition Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academies
13. Deal: “Fluorosilicic acid leaches lead from plumbing.”
Facts:
The lead leaching theory has no merit. It was debunked by Urbansky/Schock in 2000 and by Macek in 2006.
“Overall we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantifiable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bioaccumulation or reactivity of lead (0) or lead (II) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fluorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”
—-Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2000, Vol. 57. pp. 597-637
“Our analysis does not offer support for the hypothesis that silicofluorides in community water systems increase PbB concentrations in children. On the other hand, given the limitations of our data, our analyses cannot refute a possible link between water fluoridation method and lead uptake in children, particularly among those who live in older dwellings. Although other ecologic studies might allow another opportunity to test the relation between water fluoridation method and PbB concentrations in U.S. children, such analyses are likely to have similar limitations. Ultimately, the hypothesis that one or more fluoride compounds is associated with enhanced lead leaching or increased lead absorption is best addressed via systematic study of lead concentrations in drinking water, experimental chemical investigations, and studies of animal toxicology. Efforts to decrease exposure to lead among children by targeting prevention efforts at high-risk communities and/or populations as well as efforts to prevent dental caries via the use of fluoridated drinking water should continue unless a causal impact of certain fluoridation methods on PbB concentration is demonstrated by additional research.”
—-Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994
Environ Health Perspec. 2006 January; 114 (1): 130-134
Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Delores M. Malvitz
14. Deal: “Studies from Harvard and other sources show that fluoride reduces IQ.”
Facts:
A. There are no valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies from Harvard, or anywhere else which demonstrate any adverse effect of optimal level fluoride on IQ.
The Harvard study was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:
“–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”
–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author
As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study.
B. A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health demonstrates there to be no neurotoxicity or adverse effect on IQ from optimal level fluoride.
Conclusions.
These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic. Associations between very high fluoride exposure and low IQ reported in previous studies may have been affected by confounding, particularly by urban or rural status.
—-Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand
Jonathan M. Broadbent, PhD, W. Murray Thomson, BSc, PhD, Sandhya Ramrakha, PhD, Terrie E. Moffitt, PhD,Jiaxu Zeng, PhD, Lyndie A. Foster Page, BSc, PhD, and Richie Poulton, PhD
(Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print May 15, 2014
15. Deal: “Fluoride displaces iodine and reduces thyroid function”
Facts:
There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on the thyroid from optimal level fluoride, as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.
The British hypothyroidism study was one performed by Stephen Peckham, a long-time antifluoridationists who is the former chair of the British antifluoridationist faction, “Hampshire Against Fluoride”. This clear conflict of interest aside, his study has been widely criticized for having poor methodology, inadequate controls for variables, and reaching a conclusion that is not supported by his data or the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
“In summary, this study is an ecologic one that has several significant flaws, making it almost meaningless with regard to assessing any possible association between water fluoridation and hypothyroidism. As such, this study provides no evidence of a causal relationship between water fluoride concentration and hypothyroidism.”
—-No Evidence Supports the Claim That Water Fluoridation Causes Hypothyroidism
John J. Warren
Professor, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, Department of Preventive & Community Dentistry, The University of Iowa
Maria C.P. Saraiva
Associate Professor, University of Sa~o Paulo School of Dentistry of Ribeira~o Preto, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Av do Cafe s/n, Ribeira~o Preto CEP-14040-904, Brazil
J Evid Base Dent Pract 2015;15:137-139 1532-3382
16. Deal: “Fluoridation causes or exacerbates ADHD”.
Facts:
There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any association of optimal level fluoride with ADHD. The Malin study has been so widely criticized in the literature for its poor methodology, and inadequate control for confounders that it is a wonder that anyone still attempts to cite it as evidence of anything.
The inadequate control for confounders by Malin is clearly demonstrated by the fact that Huber, et al, using the same data as did Malin, concluded the increased reporting of ADHD to be due to altitude at which the children resided, not water fluoridation.
“RESULTS: Both the datasets independently revealed that the prevalence of ADHD decreases with increasing altitude (R 2= .38, p < .001; R 2 = .31, p < .001), respectively. This study controlled for potential confounds (e.g., low birth weight, ethnicity, and household size)."
"CONCLUSION: These findings suggest a need for further investigation into the extent by which altitude may serve as a protective factor for ADHD."
—–J Atten Disord. 2015 Mar 25. pii: 1087054715577137. [Epub ahead of print]
Association Between Altitude and Regional Variation of ADHD in Youth.
Huber RS1, Kim TS2, Kim N3, Kuykendall MD4, Sherwood SN5, Renshaw PF6, Kondo DG6.
17. Deal: "Please see the following online documents for more about the health problems cause by fluoridation in the materials I am submitting"
Facts:
Nonsense posted on activist websites is valid evidence of absolutely nothing.
18. Deal: "In conclusion, I urge you to investigate the misbehavior of Delta Dental and order Dental Delta to spend consumer premiums on direct dental care instead of financing fluoridation facilities which do little or nothing to prevent tooth decay and which harm health and on the financing of false fluoridation propaganda. I also urge you to require Delta Dental to repay to consumers the premiums they paid but which were misused on fluoridation equipment and false propaganda."
Facts:
Good luck with such ridiculous nonsense.
———————————-
Effectiveness Studies:
1) 2015
Results
In the 3 areas the proportion of children who received a dental examination varied; 77.5% (n = 825) for the fluoridated area, 80.1% (n = 781) for the pre-fluoridated area and 55.3% (n = 523) for the non-fluoridated area. The mean dmft was 1.40 for the fluoridated area, 2.02 for the pre-fluoridated area and 2.09 for the non-fluoridated area. These differences were statistically significant (p < 0.01). Differences were also noted in the proportion of children who were caries free, 62.6% fluoridated area, 50.8% for the pre-fluoride area and 48.6% for the non-fluoride location.
Conclusion
The children living in the well-established fluoridated area had less dental caries and a higher proportion free from disease when compared with the other two areas which were not fluoridated. Fluoridation demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of better oral health for young children.
—The Dental Health of primary school children living in fluoridated, pre-fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New South Wales, Australia
Anthony S Blinkhorn, Roy Byun, George Johnson, Pathik Metha, Meredith Kay, and Peter Lewis
BMC Oral Health 2015, 15:9 doi:10.1186/1472-6831-15-
2) RESULTS:
The prevalence of dental caries was inversely related and the prevalence of fluorosis was directly related to the concentration of fluoride in the drinking water. The mean DMFS in the communities with 0.8 to 1.4 ppm fluoride was 53.9 percent to 62.4 percent lower than that in communities with negligible amounts of fluoride. Multivariate analysis showed that water fluoride level was the strongest factor influencing DMFS scores. The prevalence of fluorosis ranged from 1.7 percent to 15.4 percent, and the increase in fluorosis with increasing fluoride exposure was limited entirely to the milder forms.
—–J Public Health Dent. 2000 Summer;60(3):147-53.
The prevalence of dental caries and fluorosis in Japanese communities with up to 1.4 ppm of naturally occurring fluoride.
Tsutsui A, Yagi M, Horowitz AM.
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Fukuoka Dental College, Fukuoka, Japan. tutuia@college.fdcnet.ac.jp
3) 2000
CONCLUSIONS:
Caries levels are lower among children with fluoridated domestic water supplies. Decay levels are much lower in 2002 than they were in 1984 and in the 1960s. The oral health of the less well off is worse than that of the rest of the population. The prevalence of dental fluorosis is higher amongst children and adolescents with fluoridated water supplies. Comparisons with 1984 data show an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis since that time.
—-Community Dent Health. 2004 Mar;21(1):37-44.
Dental caries and enamel fluorosis among the fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations in the Republic of Ireland in 2002.
Whelton H, Crowley E, O'Mullane D, Donaldson M, Kelleher V, Cronin M.
Oral Health Services Research Centre, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Sure “johndmac”, if that is of importance to you, then by all means, I’ll do my best to remember to sign as Information Director of AFS. I’ve received no money from Delta Dental, or anyone else, for my fluoridation advocacy. The AFS has received a $50k grant from Delta Dental of California, if that is to what you refer. There is no great secret. It’s ironic that while I sign my full name at the end of each post for the sake of full transparency, you see fit to cower behind a pseudonym. Why don’t you come put of hiding and stand behind your comments with your full name as I do with mine?
What grounds do you have for the ridiculous statement I am “afraid to admit that the amount of fluoride in a pea-size dab of fluoride toothpaste is the same amount of fluoride that’s in 12 oz of optimally fluoridated water: 0.25 mg.”? The pea sized dolup is simply that amount recommended by the ADA for small children to use when they brush their teeth. This is a safe amount for them to swallow, if indeed they do so when they brush, as opposed to putting a full strip of toothpaste on their brush and swallowing that each time.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Well, do you admit that the amount of fluoride in a pea-size dab of fluoride toothpaste is the same amount of fluoride that’s in 12 oz of optimally fluoridated water? Yes or no?
I don’t “admit”. I state facts and evidence. In regard to your question, 12 oz= 0.35 liter. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter. Thus, 0.35 liter of optimally fluoridated water would provide 0.245 mg fluoride.
The amount of fluoride in a pea sized dollop of toothpaste would depend on the precise amount of the dollop and the concentration of fluoride within that dollop. The fluoride concentration in toothpaste is generally 1000-1200 mg/liter.
Taking your figure of 0.25 mg per pea sized dollop, if a child brushed his/her teeth 3 times per day, and, for some reason, ingested all of the toothpaste each time, this would mean 0.75 mg fluoride from toothpaste. Small children generally average consuming a liter of water and beverages per day. This would mean an additional 0.7 mg fluoride ingested for a total of 1.45 mg fluoride. The CDC has estimated that of the total fluoride intake from all sources, including dental products, 75% is from water and beverages. Not adjusting for the amount we have already included from toothpaste, this would mean total daily fluoride intake from all sources to be 1.93 mg.
The US Institute of Medicine established daily upper limit for children 4-8 years, the years for the pea sized dollop, before adverse effects is 2.2 mg. Thus, even allowing for children swallowing the entire amount of toothpaste each time, and not correcting for the toothpaste fluoride counted twice, the total amount of fluoride ingested is still less than the IOM daily upper limit of 2.2 mg. Given the fact that the only consequence of exceeding this UL in any manner associated with fluoridated water is risk of barely detectable mild dental fluorosis, it can easily be seen that the pea-sized dollop and the optimal level of 0.7 mg/liter fluoride are completely protective against adverse effects in children.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Dr. Slott,
Delta Dental finances the new American Fluoridation Society, so you have a financial incentive to believe in the fluoridation fraud. It is amazing to us that an educated person can advocate that we all should consume 2 mg of fluoride from conception to death. You balance off the benefit of fluoridation – a 23% reduction in tooth decay – with a 41% rate of fluorosis. And the 23% reduction is probably zero according to the Iowa study. Why would you advicate giving kids any level of fluorosis? And the CDC says the effect is primarily topical. Truly, Dr. Slott, you are trapped in a maze, just like people who get trapped in cult religions. As Mark Twain said: It is much easier to defraud a person than it is to convince him he has been defrauded.
Deal
1. Delta Dental pays me nothing, and anything I do in affiliation with the American Fluoridation Society is strictly volunteer. I have no “financial incentive” in anything whatsoever that I do advocating for fluoridation. You, on the other hand seek to file frivolous lawsuits against fluoridation in the hope that one may somehow stick and reap handsome financial reward for you. Your hypocrisy is staggering.
2. The US Institute of Medicine established daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources before adverse effects, is 10 mg. Your “2 mg from conception to death” is but one fifth of this daily UL.
3. I have addressed your misrepresentation of “41% rate of fluorosis” , the effectiveness of fluoridation, and topical/systemic effects, in other comments. If you had any understanding of fluoridation you would realize that the “fluorosis” you lament is the clearest demonstration of the systemic benefit of fluoridation.
4. It is entertaining that antifluoridationists constantly make references to “faith” and “religion” in regard to fluoridation advocates when I’ve never encountered any advocates who use anything but peer-reviewed science to support their claims. It is antifluoridations who use speculation, personal opinions, misrepresented science, and misinformation as their “evidence”.
From your comments, It is clearly obvious whom is stuck in a “maze of cult religions” here.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Dr. Slott,
Why would you approve of even “barely detectable mild dental fluorosis”? If enamel is affected, all the bones in the body are affected. Enzymes are interrupted. Thyroid activity is reduced because fluoride interferes with iodine, which the thyroid needs. We become anemic. Just for some slight decline in tooth decay, which is probably zero?
All the scientific considerations just roll off you like rain. You are trapped in a fluoride maze. http://jamesrobertdeal.org/trapped-in-a-maze/ How much income would you lose if you came out against fluoridation? Your mind is twisted by your fear of income reduction.
And you ignore that fluoridation is illegal. http://fluoride-class-action.com/illegal. #fluoridationisillegal You are a sucker, a dupe. Unfortunately the lie you advocate is harmful to health.
Deal
1. I approve of even “mild dental fluorosis” because it causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth, and peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant. So, prevention of the lifetime devastating effects of untreated dental decay, or barely detectable faint white streaks on some teeth? Gee, tough decision.
Obviously you have never seen the black discoloration of extremely painful, decayed teeth. If you had, you would possibly see the fallacy of attempting to pump up mild dental fluorosis into being some sort of major disorder that it is not.
2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on the “bones of the body”, interuption of enzymes, or on the thyroid, from optimal level fluoride, as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.
3. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that anemia is any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water, as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.
4. Your attempt to trivialize dental disease is indicative of how out of touch with reality you truly are. The prevention of significant amounts of untreated dental decay results in prevention of lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection, all resultant of untreated dental decay which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.
5. Present any valid “scientific considerations” and we’ll see how they “roll off of me like rain”. Thus far, you have presented none. Obviously you are the science denier here.
6. Why would I “lose income” if I opposed fluoridation? That defies logic. If anything, i would increase my income if fluoridation were ceased. The more dental disease, the greater the income for dentists. You, on the other hand do seek to gain financially by filing frivolous lawsuits against fluoridation in the pie-in-the-sky hope that one may someday gain traction from which you will reap the financial benefits.
7. There is nothing illegal about fluoridation……obviously. That diatribe of erroneous, conspiracy nonsense to which you provide a link would, undoubtedly, be laughed right out of court should you ever be foolish enough to attempt a lawsuit based on that junk.
8. You can provide no valid evidence that fluoridation is a lie. Therefore, the one who is providing lies here is obviously you.
7. Your infantile name-calling is so noted, but is really more suitable for a kindergarten playground.
8. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water is, in any manner, “harmful to health”, as evidenced by your inability to provide any such evidence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Correction: dental fluorosis was the only consequence of exceeding the UL that the IOM even considered – based primarily on data from the 1930s and ‘40s that had since been debunked.
1. Please present valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any consequence other than dental fluorosis which should be considered by the IOM, or anyone else. Unsubstantiated speculation does not qualify as such.
2. Please present any valid evidence that data utilized by the United States Institute of Medicine, a division of the US National Academies of Sciences, to assess proper intake of fluoride, is from the “1930s and ’40s that had since been debunked”. Include any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that the US IOM daily upper limits are incorrect. Unsubstantiated speculation does not qualify as such.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
2. In 1981, Austrian statistician Rudolph Ziegelbecker debunked the cherry-picked data from the 1930s and ‘40s that government dentist H. Trendley Dean used (and the U.S. Institute of Medicine still uses) to justify artificial water fluoridation.
When all the data wer analyzed (from 48,000 children in North America and Europe), fluoride in water was not associated with less tooth decay. It was associated with more fluorosis though.
Of exactly what relevance is your unsubstantiated personal opinion as to what you deem some “Austrian statistician” did in 1981?
Once again, if you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your unsubstantiated claims, then produce it, properly cited to original sources.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Your idiotic science denial is all you got, because no one has been able to debunk Ziegelbecker.
There is no “science denial” in my comment. That which is “idiotic” and indicative of how truly uninformed you are is your seeming belief that what you personally deem some statistician did in 1981 somehow constitutes science. It does not.
Once again, if you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence you believe supports your claims then produce it, properly cited from original sources. So far you have presented no such evidence, and I’m fine with the ability of anyone with a modicum of intelligence to be able to easily discern that fact.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
You dismiss what some statistician did in 1981, but worship what some government dentist did in the 1930s.
Given that you have not provided any valid evidence of “what some statistician did in 1981”, there is nothing for me to have “dismissed” in that regard. What I have done is to expose the fact that what you claim to be “science” is nothing but your unsubstantiated claim as to what you deem somebody or other has done.
If you have evidence you desire to be taken seriously then properly cite it from original sources such that it can be viewed in complete and proper context. Expecting intelligent readers to simply accept your word as to what anyone has done or said is obviously ridiculous.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
You’ve been made aware of Ziegelbecker’s findings before, but your selective amnesia blinds you to anything that threatens your Precious.
1. The National Research Council (2006) recommended that the following evidence should be considered, and the National Toxicology Program is now considering it:
Cue used-chemical salesman bending over backwards to deny science:
These recommendations OF THE 2006 NRC were made in regard to assessing the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. They were not made in regard to water fluoridated at the optimal level of 0.7 ppm. This NRC Committee specifically stated that it did not assess fluoridated water.
The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.
Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.
In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:
“I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”
—John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Right on cue!
In addition to the NRC committee’s recommendations for needed research into fluoride’s Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects – including testing fluoridated water – its “final” recommendation (that Slott fixates on and falsely claims is their only recommendation) to lower the primary MCL was also ignored by fluoridationists.
In other words (what you’re desperately trying not to admit), it is unsafe for a child to swallow more than a pea sized dollop of toothpaste – as clearly indicated by the FDA warning on the label of fluoride toothpaste.
I don’t “admit”, and I don’t “desperately try[ing] not to admit” anything. I state facts and evidence. You’re the one “desperately” hung up on toothpaste, not I.
Toothpaste contains 1200-1500 times the concentration of fluoride as does optimally fluoridated water. Why you seem to think it is of some great surprise that there would be a warning on a tube of toothpaste containing this high concentration of fluoride, is a mystery. Children during the teeth developing years of 0-8 who chronically swallow toothpaste with this high concentration of fluoride are at risk to develop mild to moderate dental fluorosis. The warning is to help prevent this from occurring.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Nice try, Misinformation Director, but the FDA warning says nothing about “chronically” swallowing toothpaste. It is about a single incident.
Slott, if you’re going to try to pass off your opinions as information, you had better sign your nonsense: “Fluoride Editorialist.” Isn’t that your role in your other oxymoronic cult called “Fluoride Science”?
What is this obsession you have with toothpaste? The warning on the tube states that if more than is used for brushing is accidently swallowed then get medical help or contact poison control. The directions state to apply a one inch strip of toothpaste on the brush. Thus, if more than a one inch strip of toothpaste is swallowed during brushing then get medical help. Children 0-8 who chronically ingest more than a one inch strip of fluoridated toothpaste are at risk to develop mild to moderate dental fluorosis. This is why the ADA and the CDC have recommended a pea-sized dollop instead of a one inch strip….to prevent the ingestion of a strip of toothpaste each time teeth are brushed. Is this really that difficult to understand?
When you come out of hiding from behind your pseudonym, any of your criticism as to how I transparently sign my full name at the end of each of my comments may be viewed as anything other than hypocritical nonsense. Until then, it obviously will not be.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
You fluoridationists allow your fixation on fluoride in drinking water and fluoride in toothpaste to distract you from the other and better methods of preventing tooth decay. See: http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/preventing-tooth-decay-without-fluoride
Deal, the ones who have a “fixation” on fluoride in drinking water are obviously antifluoridationists such as you. Healthcare professionals, in particularly dentists, understand that the overwhelming mgnitude of untreated dental decay in most areas of the world requires attention to all viable methods of prevention of this disorder. Fluoridation is the most cost-effective means to prevent a significant amount of dental decay in entire populations, and therefore requires the full support of responsible persons who truly desire to make inroads into the problem. However, it is obviously not the only preventive measure considered, studied, or fully promoted by dentists and other healthcare professionals and organizations. It is but one.
The destructive efforts by antifluoridationists to impose their decades old ideology against fluoridation onto entire populations does indeed take time and effort away from support of other preventive measures. However, this does not mean that all other viable such measures are ignored, it just means that far more time, effort, and money must be expended on retaining fluoridation than should be necessary.
Your personal opinion as to “better methods” of preventing dental disease, is unqualified, irrelevant, and meaningless.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
We’re talking about children, so quit trying to deceive with “one inch strip of toothpaste on the brush.” The directions state to apply a pea-sized dab of toothpaste (0.25 mg of fluoride), and if more than that is swallowed, then get medical help or contact poison control immediately.
Stop your ridiculous “bending over backwards” to avoid admitting that it is unsafe for young children to swallow more than 0.25 mg of fluoride.
I’m not the one attempting to deceive here. You are, by intermingling instructions on a tube of toothpaste with recommendations from the ADA and CDC. Read the warning. It states exactly as I said.
“(1) For all fluoride dentifrice (gel, paste, and powder) products. “Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. [highlighted in bold type] If more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.” These warnings shall be used in place of the general warning statements required by 330.1(g) of this chapter.”
—CFR – Code of Federal Regulations Title 21
The “pea-sized dab” is the recommendation of the ADA and the CDC. It is not stated on the toothpaste tube. The tube simply states that if more toothpaste is swallowed than is used for brushing, seek medical help. It then states to apply a one inch strip. Therefore, according to the tube, if more than a one inch strip is swallowed during brushing, seek medical help.
The ADA and the CDC do not state to contact poison control or seek medical help if more than a pea-sized dab is ingested. They state that to minimize risk of dental fluorosis, small children should only use a pea-sized dab…….exactly as I have been stating.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Focus, Slott. We’re talking here about fluoride toothpaste labels: directions and warnings meant for parents to see. Reality check: It is stated in the label’s directions for children under 6 to “use only a pea-sized amount.” Anyone can easily verify this, so very stupid of you to say it’s not on the label.
You are talking about the “drug facts” on the box. The FDA warning on the tube, which is what you referenced in the first place, states exactly what I stated it does……if more than is used for brushing is swallowed, seek medical help. It then states to apply a one inch strip to the brush. It doesn’t matter, anyway. You are trying to claim dire consequences if children ingest more than 0.25 mg fluoride when they brush their teeth. There are not, and neither the toothpaste manufacturers, the FDA, the CDC, nor the ADA say there are. The only consequence of kids 0-8 years chronically ingesting more than a pea-sized dollop of toothpaste is risk of mild to moderate dental fluorosis, nothing else. This is borne out by the fact that there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of optimal level fluoride on kids, or anyone else. If you care to argue the point then produce such evidence, properly cited.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Toothpaste labels don’t state to apply a one inch strip to the brush. And you’re the one talking about “dire consequences,” but afraid to say “unsafe.”
1. It is clearly stated on the tube to apply “at least a one inch strip of the product”.
It’s up to Deal as to whether he posts the url for the image or not.
2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water is, in any manner “unsafe” for any age group……as evidenced by your continued inability to provide any such evidence.
3. Now, do you have anything of relevance to water fluoridation, or just your continued obsession with toothpaste?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Slott, you’re confused or deceptive – either way, no credibility. Toothpastes that say to apply a 1-inch strip are for “Adults and children 12 years & older… Children under 12 years: Ask a dentist.”
Focus, Slott. We’re talking about children under 6 using a pea-size amount of toothpaste that contains 0.25 mg of fluoride, the “safe” dose to swallow. The same dose that’s in 12 oz of F-water. More than that is not safe in toothpaste or water – no matter how you spin it.
So for the first time in a 100 comments, you just happen to “forget” to mention that you are Information Director of the cult that was given $50,000.00 by Delta Dental – while trying to dismiss this article about Dental Dental using consumer premiums to push fluoridation schemes instead of paying for customers’ dental services?
I frequently “forget” to include my affiliation with AFS along with my signature. Since this is of some importance to you, I’ll try to be more diligent in including it when responding to your comments. You, on the other hand, cower behind a pseudonym when posting your comments. I’m fine with the ability of intelligent readers to discern whom is being more transparent, and whom is being more dishonest here.
I have no affiliation with any “cult”. It’s odd that anyone would refer to the American Fluoridation Society, or any other respected organization which supports fluoridation, as being a “cult”, but far be it from me to try to understand the murky mindset of any antifluoridationist……especially one who has so little confidence in his comments that he sees fit to cower behind a pseudonym.
I didn’t “try to dismiss” anything. Deal’s ridiculous article “dismisses” itself, as as is clear to any intelligent person. When it is illegal, or improper for insurance companies who meet their contractual obligations to expend funds on anything other than paying out claims, you and Deal may some foundation for your absurd claims. Until then, you obviously don’t.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Bull Slott.
Ahhh, another “intelligent” retort from the commenter who cowers behind the pseudonym “johndmac”.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Dr. Slott,
Fluoride toothpaste is another fraud which you have bought into. Fluoride toothpaste is not very effective in reducing tooth decay. Fluoride does not kill bacteria dead as does iodine; it interrupts their enzymes, as it interrupts ours. See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/tag/toothpaste. There are much better ways to prevent tooth decay.See http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/preventing-tooth-decay-without-fluoride. Fluoride toothpaste should be dispensed only by prescription. It contains highly concentrated fluoride. Some is absorbed into the soft tissues of the mouth and from there some enters the inner dentin and makes it chalky. What remains in your mouth and on your teeth is eventually swallowed. The fluoride bond with teeth is a weak ionic bond of calcium-fluoride. When pH drops as a result of eating or drinking something acidic, the fluoride turns into fluoride ion and hydrogen fluoride which are swallowed. Some children lock themselves in the bathroom eat toothpaste like candy. It is dangerous to have in the home. It is poisoning people for profit. You are part of that profit driven cult. You are financially rewarded to believe the lie. You are wasting your life on a lie. Repent. Awaken from your false cult of profitable lies.
Deal
You unsubstantiated rant about toothpaste could not be any more meaningless and irrelevant.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society
Dentist Slott’s comments suggest he is hoping to get his face on the cover of the next edition of The Fluoride Deception, investigative journalist Chris Bryson’s expose of the corrupt history of water fluoridation.
It is a false claim, that you must choose either high caries
incidence, or consume fluoride. One can have zero or low caries incidence
without consuming fluoride. This
is because caries are not caused by absence of fluoride. In fact fluoride is not a
mineral nutrient or dietary requirement.
And
it is illegal to have the Federal CDC make a National request to
fluoridate people thru water supplies because fluoride is not a water cleaning
additive allowed by
the SDWA. It is a putative dental prophylactic added to elevate
people’s blood fluoride. Therapeutics are prohibited from being required.
And
the NRC Report indicated that 1 ppm fluoride water consumption causes
elevated TSH, PTH, and calcitonin levels. Anyone who chooses not to
live with that
perturbation should be allowed to have their sinks contain regular
water.
And the report indicates that fluoride incorporates into bone where it causes osteoblasts to form bone of poor quality.
Tabulated
NRC data indicate that bone discomfort is sensed in some individuals at
1800 mg/kg, a level attained in about 10 years on “optimally
fluoridated” water.
And
saliva fluoride is 0.016 ppm, 75,000 times less concentrated than in
toothpaste. There are no studies suggesting that this level could
possibly influence caries
topically. Any such claim contradicts the no-effect studies of
Ziegelbecker , Teotia, and Yiamouyiannis, and Sutton and the Cochrane
review proved there are no credible studies indicating any such
benefit.
And
the broad sweeping pronouncement that no location anywhere wilI have
lead leaching from silicic acid water is dictatorial and propaganda
with zero proof in
fact.
And
people have fulL rights to express opinions on Delta Dental’s use of
profits from non refunded premiums to force cities to fluoridate
humans thru their drinking
water.
And
all studies claiming caries reduction by f ingestion are anecdotal,
including those of Kumar, where the amount of sugar eaten between the
treatment groups
was not controlled. In fact, humans cannot be placed in cages in order
to control all materials that the Oral cavity is exposed to during the
study. Controlled studies are only possible in animals where published
data indicate no decrease in spontaneous caries
incidence from consumption of optimally fluoridated water.
And
how could anyone maintain that systemic F can cause enamel hypoplasia
dental fluorosis from the blood, and yet somehow have no adverse
effects on bone?
And F is not a component of clean normal blood, it is a contaminant of blood.
The warning to call a poison control center has
nothing to do with preventing fluorosis. If fluorosis is a benefit
against decay, then
why would there be a warning to prevent it?
The
warning is there because the FDA has never approved any fluoride
ingestion without a prescription. Sodium fluoride Luride tablets are
not FDA approved but
have not been banned, and are allowed only by prescription and only in
regions where water is not fluoridated. Also their use is prohibited in
children under six.
And the FDA banned the sale of any fluoride compound intended to be ingested by pregnant women in the U. S.
And t the FDA ruled that fluoridated water cannot be used in kidney
dialysis because of the increased morbidity when using water in dialysis
patients that contained
“optimal” levels of fluoride.
Sure, if plumbing contains very low lead levels, then the lead
that is leached by silicic acid can remain below the MCL, but this does
not protect anyone
with lead service lines as in Flint and many other cities, or in homes
with lead rich plumbing.
Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. Chemistry
This is Dr. Richard Sauerheber’s response to Dr. Slott:
Most of the claims made by fluoridation promoters on this site are incorrect. It will take significant time to correct some of them. For example, it is true that Standard 60 states that no EPA regulated contaminant can be added into water if its final concentration exceeds 10% of its EPA MCL. The MCL for fluoride is 4 ppm and 10% of that is 0.4 ppm. Since fluoride is infused and topped off today typically at 0.7 ppm or higher, then “optimal” fluoridation of water violates rules set out by the NSF in Standard 60. It is also illegal to add any EPA regulated contaminant, including fluoride, intentionally into water supplies without an NPDES permit from the EPA. The fact that current EPA staff do not enforce this provision in the Clean Water Act is irrelevant. “Water fluoridation” remains illegal.
23% fluosilicic acid is not “carefully prepared”, as though this provides some sort of purity control or gives some therapeutic quality to the hazardous waste, when it of course does not. It is simply that fluosilicic acid cannot be enriched to a concentration much higher than this because if one attempts to do so by evaporating water from the solution, the silicon tretrafluoride toxic gas quantitatively returns into the atmosphere from the solution.
There are vast published data proving that consumption of “optimally fluoridated” water causes adverse pathology, both in well-controlled mammalian experiments, and in human observational studies. A key side effect of the ingestion of “optimally fluoridated” water is incorporation of fluoride into bone where it does not belong and where it is a contaminant. The irreversible incorporation stimulates the formation of bone of poor quality. There is no systemic blood fluoride level low enough at which fluoride does not incorporate into bone. The NRC 2006 Report tabulated data indicating bone discomfort and skeletal fluorosis symptoms at bone fluoride levels over a broad range, in some humans as low as 1,700 mg/kg in bone. Fluoride incorporates into bone at this level, which is more concentrated than in fluoridated toothpaste, in a 1 ppm fluoride water city in only about 10 years (if one actually consumes the fluoridated water). Other aspects of fluoride toxicity and illegality are discussed in the Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 at: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490/
Fluoride is a contaminant of water. It is not a normal ingredient in either the bloodstream or in pure pristine fresh drinking water. The FDA ruled that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient and when added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug. The reason for this is because fluoride is added into water to treat humans, with the sole purpose of elevating the fluoride level in blood in an attempt to therapeutically impact dental decay. The FDA banned the sale of all fluoride compounds intended to be ingested by pregnant women in 1966, but fluoridationists ignore all FDA warnings on fluoride, including the fact that the FDA has never approved fluoride for ingestion in the U.S.
Fluoridation of water doesn’t “save money on dental expenses.” 1) People who care for their teeth do not have caries, and for them fluoridation cannot decrease caries by 25 or 40% since one cannot have fewer caries than 0. The same is true for people with false teeth who have no caries to reduce. 2) The Cochrane review confirmed yet again that there are no credible well-controlled studies proving that swallowing fluoride reduces caries. The largest studies we have indicate the opposite, that fluoridated cities do not have reduced caries incidence (as published by Teotia; and by Yiamouyiannis; and by Ziegelbecker; and other Statewide studies) as described also in textbooks by dentist Phillip Sutton. 3) The fluoride level in saliva at 0.016 ppm, bathing teeth topically, is 75,000 times lower than that in toothpaste and is unable to affect dental decay. There are no studies proving that fluoride at this level in saliva can affect teeth enamel. Kathleen Thiessen did not falsify or misinterpret anything when she reached the conclusions she published. The idea of some at the CDC that ingested systemic fluoride can somehow affect dental caries is a pipedream and a wish of an organization that has promoted “fluoridation” of water for decades without proof of effectiveness and proof of lack of harm for all consumers including those with kidney disease, bone diseases, etc. Wishing and hoping has nothing to do with scientific fact. Sorry.