Poll: Should Dallas Put Fluoride in Its Water?

Are you confused about why this is even a question?

What do you want coming out of this thing? (Other than water.)
What do you want coming out of this thing? (Other than water.)

It’s tough sometimes to know which “experts” we’re supposed to believe, especially when scientific consensus also has a way of changing its collective mind as researchers learn more. It can be confusing to mere lay-folk like you (most of you, anyway) and me.

For years we’ve heard that fluoride in our drinking water is an absolute good and has promoted dental health for decades. But now, as Tim noted last week, scientists have concerns about the chemical’s neurotoxic effects. These concerns have been raised to the Dallas City Council, which will vote Jan. 28 on a contract to continue fluoridating the city’s water supply. Should they continue the practice?



Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Dining

Dining

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments

  • bob

    Next I want you to do a survey on global warming. Because I hear that’s a big commie plot too.

  • Dan Germouse

    I really wish toxic waste pushing ignoramuses would stop associating climate science with fluoridationist nonsense. Climate change is extremely serious, and the science credible, unlike fluoridation “science”. Thinking that everything which has had the label “science” slapped onto it is all the same is about as dumb as it gets. Fluoridation and the reckless burning of fossil fuels are both examples of grossly irresponsible pollution carried out to further corporate interests at the expense of the public, and in defiance of the best scientific knowledge and the precautionary principle. It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that America and Australia are especially guilty in relation to both. When a dentist supports industrial silicofluoride toxic waste pollution, it is similar to a geologist supporting carbon pollution, because they are both speaking outside their area of expertise. Whenever anyone speaks in favour of forced-fluoridation they are just blowing hot air, because there is no good quality evidence they can cite, and because the whole idea of using public water supplies to medicate populations is ridiculous to everyone with at least a little common sense.

  • Dan Germouse

    The following are some good sources of information on fluoride and artificial water fluoridation: the Fluoride Action Network, Declan Waugh’s work, the books The Case Against Fluoride and The Fluoride Deception, the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, and the peer-reviewed journal Fluoride.
    https://www.facebook.com/FluorideActionNetwork
    http://www.fluoridealert.org/
    http://ffwireland.blogspot.com.au/
    http://www.enviro.ie/downloads.html
    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571
    http://www.fluorideresearch.org/

    The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies. Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the human rights and medical ethics principle of informed consent to medical intervention, is entirely indiscriminate, results in the random dosing of residents since the fluoride dose received from water and other sources is uncontrolled, and is environmentally irresponsible because the vast majority of tap water is not ingested, so the environmental load is vastly greater than it needs to be. Medicating public water supplies means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised.

    Medicating public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals is especially egregious, because fluoride is a cumulative poison with a half life in the body of around 20 years, there was no good quality scientific research which indicated that forced-fluoridation was anything but harmful and useless in the 1940s and there still isn’t any, the best quality scientific research which has been conducted indicates that forced-fluoridation is in fact both harmful and useless, the fluoride pollution which is used is industrial grade rather than pharmaceutical grade, and fluoride is not biodegradable. The forced-fluoridation experiment is authoritarian, an abuse of human rights, criminally negligent, irrational, archaic, pseudoscientific, and all risk, no reward.

  • Dan Germouse

    Neurotoxicity is not the only legitimate health concern. Another is skeletal fluorosis due to fluoride accumulation in bone.

    http://forcedfluoridationfreedomfighters.com/a-preliminary-investigation-into-fluoride-accumulation-in-bone/

  • James Reeves

    Would You Drink Shampoo to Clean Your Hair?
    Or sunscreen to protect the skin?
    What doctor would prescribe a drug (fluoride) to someone he has not met or without being able to control the dosage?

    Consider this:
    In the US, over 70 % fluoridated.
    In Europe, 3%.
    In the world, 5%.
    Also Israel banned fluoridation last year.

    Data from the World Health Organization shows that the tooth decay rate in Europe is as good or better than any fluoridated country. This shows how ineffective fluoride is for teeth.

    To see why fluoride is dangerous, Google “Fluoride dangers” and read a few of the over 1,000,000 articles, many by M.D.’s, dentists and medical scientists.

  • AeroRazavi

    What’s worse for you teeth: a soda, orange juice, coffee or non-fluoridated water?

    Or for that matter, what’s worse: a candy bar or non-fluoridated water?

  • James Anthony

    Should they put ANYTHING in the water ? NOOOO!!!! Let me choose if I want to medicate/poison myself

  • Esteban Ramirez

    If the City of Dallas is in the business of taking care of people’s teeth, why not make money off of it instead of spending $1,000,000?

    Stop buying fluoride, and put a tax on sugar.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    It’s 10:30AM and 26% say “Yes”?

    It disgusts me that people think it’s ok to impose what they think is good for you, on all.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    It’s 10:30AM and 26% say “Yes”?

    It disgusts me that people think it’s ok to impose what they think is good for you, on all.

    Especially to the tune of $1,000,000 per year.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Figure out some other way to get people to do what you think is good for them that doesn’t cost us all money.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Good video on the origins of water fluoridation:
    http://youtu.be/ReJhMxTJVyo?t=30s

  • bob

    I’m not even going to ask if you’ve had your kids vaccinated. Because really, if you want to pick and choose whatever science suits your fancy………See you in the emergency room.

  • Erin Imagine

    to be polite, i will simply add ” IF IN DOUBT, LEAVE IT OUT!”

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Bob, it costs us $1,000,000 to add fluoride to the water…

    Why not put a tax on sugar if we want to take care of everyone’s teeth? That way the city can make money, instead of put the tax burden on us.

  • Anonymous

    Well worth the cost. Perhaps I should show you the Big Book of British Smiles.

  • Rob Wrinkle

    it is my understanding that Highland park doesn’t have fluoride in their water.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    If you feel that way than YOU pay for it!

  • Anonymous

    “If you feel that way than YOU pay for it!”-I already do pay for it. And your teeth thank me.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Dumb. You, and the 20something% that want the water fluoridated need to split the bill. I hate when the masses have to suffer for the amusement of wackos.

  • Anonymous

    “Dumb. You, and the 20something% that want the water fluoridated need to split the bill.”- Nope, if you don’t want the water fluoridated, you should move to North Korea.

    “I hate when the masses have to suffer for the amusement of wackos.”-I agree, which is why we’re not going to suffer your wackiness by entertaining the idea of promoting tooth decay.

  • Anonymous

    67% say no? You anti-fluoride nuts must have google alerts on fluoride articles.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Dumb again. Your logic is that because I do not support forcing fluoride down people’s throats that I am “promoting tooth decay” or that if people are given the choice to take care of their own teeth that they will not do it and therefore need it to be done for them…

    You know better then everyone else though, huh? You know what’s good for them and how they need to get it? Sounds Hitleresque. Tooth Nazi. Let people take care of their own teeth and trust them to do so. Other people’s mouths are not Your problem.

  • Joe

    If I want more fluoride to poison me I can easily get it from hundreds of products that most are ingesting anyway.
    I am one who has spent hundreds of dollars to install a Reverse Osmosis Filtration System to reduce the hydrofluorsalicic acid the city adds to our water.

    This link takes you to a page where you can send a single message to ALL the Dallas City Council Members and the Mayor!!

    http://www.ci.dallas.tx.us/forms/mcc/MCC_Mail_Form.htm

    • Steve Slott

      Joe

      Hate to be the one to break the news to you but hydrofluorosilic acid does not in exist in fluoridated water by the time it reaches your house. Since it doesn’t exist, there is no need to remove it. Since there is no HFA to remove, it seems you’ve totally wasted the “hundreds of dollars to install a Reverse Osmosis Filtration System to reduce the hydrofluorosilic acid the city adds to our water”.

      All who wish to follow the advice of foolish Joe, the link he provides is for you. Intelligent people will know better.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Anonymous

    “I am “promoting tooth decay” or that if people are given the choice to take care of their own teeth that they will not do it and therefore need it to be done for them”

    You don’t get how decay works-it’s not a matter of people not taking care of their teeth. Plenty of toothless wonders took care of their teeth quite well-but decay doesn’t care if you take care of your teeth. Fluoride goes the extra mile that you can’t. This is known as a public good. Likewise, I work from home and don’t need to drive. But I still pay for roads, as a public good. And I am fine with that.

  • Anonymous

    60 say no? You anti-fluoride nuts must have Google Alerts set.

    • Bobby Clemente

      You pro-fluoride drones must not love your pineal gland. Stay blinded.

  • Anonymous

    60 say no? You anti-fluoride nuts must have Google Alerts set.

  • Anonymous

    60 say no? You anti-fluoride folks must have Google Alerts set.

  • Anonymous

    Nuts

  • Regina Imburgia

    That is correct they never have fluoridated. Dr Dan Strader DDS wrote a letter to the Dallas City Council advising them to vote NO on Januay 28…I read it on Dec 14…watch the other presentation the council heard that day at http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com…join us in chambers on Jan 28th!

  • Debz Whipple Price

    peer reviewed journal “Fluoride” since when has that been peer reviewed, it is still a bottom feeding propaganda outlet for the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby and as for declan waugh Declan Waugh has a shocking record of misrepresenting the scientific literature dealing with fluoride. And all the rest of the links are activist sites Hardly quality scientific sources

  • Debz Whipple Price

    . From a recent issue of the newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:
    “Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea.
    Several countries are unable to introduce water fluoridation programmes due to technical, financial or sociocultural reasons. As an alternative, both salt and milk have been found to be reliable and convenient vehicles for increasing fluoride intake to an optimal level for hard to reach and low socio-economic communities. Studies have found them to be as effective as community water fluoridation schemes.
    Some European, Latin American, and Caribbean countries, including France, Switzerland, Germany, Costa rica, Colombia and Jamaica currently use fluoridated salt schemes. Mexico and most Latin American and Caribbean countries (apart from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and French Guyana) have or have had salt fluoridation programmes.
    A smaller number of countries currently have fluoridated milk programmes, including Bulgaria, Chile, China, Peru, Russia, Thailand and the United Kingdom
    Some country regions have optimal amounts of naturally occurring fluoride which provides good protection for oral health. examples of countries supplied with naturally fluoridated water at or around the optimum level needed to prevent dental decay include the United Kingdom (estimated 329,000 people), United States of America (estimated 10,078,000 people) Canada (estimated 300,000 people) and Australia (estimated 144,000 people).
    It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total.”

  • Debz Whipple Price

    at least fluoride has solid scientific non government testing in place to maintain safe and uncontaminated drinking water with the tests fluoride water has to pass your toxic waste call is rubbish
    mind the same people dont jump up and down about the natural health industry ,who fought tooth and nail to stop any testing of their products for contaminates
    no one has been able to prove in a court of law fluoride is a medication

  • Debz Whipple Price

    Oh good, we should take out all the chemicals that clarifie it, disinfect it, and take it out of the local stream and not treat it at all Good luck with that These anti fluoride lot are selecitive in there agenda
    They rave about medication/poison in their water but then say ,that chemical is ok and that one is ok Its all a load of rubbish

  • Debz Whipple Price

    More scaremongering . In the USA for instance, only five cases of crippling skeletal fluorosis were reported over the past 40 years. Their total intake of fluoride over a 20-year period was estimated to be approximately 15–20 mg/day.

  • FluorideFreeAus

    What point are you trying to make? The British diet is loaded with fluoride through the tea they drink. Look it up. Then, get a life.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    “Toothless wonders”? What an arrogant, idiotic, childlike statement to make about people who may be missing teeth. I suppose you think you’re better than folks who are missing teeth? Ever think how it might feel to lose a tooth despite all your drinking of Dallas tap water?

    Your abusiveness of those less fortunate than you aside, I am familiar with tooth decay and hardly see why you think I do not, or why you feel water fluoridation is the cure. 99% of toothpastes have fluoride in them. Why is that, and dentist visits not enough for you?

    Roads and tooth decay are equal forms of a “public good”? Not even close. Roads are a luxury that most people choose to use to help lead more efficient lives which do not impose on a person’s choices on what to do or not to do with their body.

    Water fluoridation is an extravagant, expensive intrusion into the mouths and bodies of people, many of whom would elect to opt out of it.

    Again, if you want awesome teeth so you can continue to belittle those who don’t, then take care of them yourself. But this idea that you and the city know what’s best for folks is offensive, and an intrusion into people’s personal choices and freedoms.

    Save money and stop fluoridating the water. That’s it.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Nothing wrong with freedom of choice. The nuts are those like you who think you know what’s good for everyone else.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Nothing wrong with freedom of choice. The nuts are those like you who think you know what’s good for everyone else.

  • Hank Black

    The less chemicals in the water, the better. Chemicals such as chlorine and ammonia because those chemicals are put in to treat the water, to keep germs from proliferating to a degree that it is less pure. Fluoride is the only thing added to treat the person, not the water. Fluoride is more toxic than lead. You (and most people on both side s of this argument) don’t even know what fluoride is. Calcium fluoride? Fluorine? Hydrofluorosilicic acid? Stannous fluoride? Sodium fluoride?
    Your trust in the conventional narrative is touching, but misplaced. The top toxicologist of the EPA, William Marcus raised the alarm in the ’90s. The EPA scientists issued a statement against fluoride. Just google EPA statement against fluoride. The countries with the best cavity records do not fluoridate. Most of the world (97%) does not fluoridate. That includes Park Cities.

  • Chris

    Who knew so many people had a Google Alert for “Fluoride”

  • Hank Black

    Common Myths
    Claim. There is overwhelming agreement among top researchers and scientists that fluoride is both safe and effective.
    Fact. The reason fluoride is now an issue is because top scientists have spoken against it. Most surprising is the EPA Union statement against fluoride. This stemmed from the work of Dr, Marcus, their lead toxicologist in the 1990’s. The list goes on and on with affidavits of scientists who sued to end mass fluoridation, including dentists and national dental health directors who previously prescribed it. Arvid Carlsson, an outspoken anti-fluoridationist, won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 2000.

    Claim. You will suffer terribly from cavities if you don’t have enough fluoride.
    Fact. Most of the world does not fluoridate. Many have better cavity statistics than the US, which leads the world in mass fluoridation. The absolute best records go to countries without fluoride.

    Claim. The great reduction in cavities is due to fluoride in our water.
    Fact. There is an undisputed lowering of cavities coinciding with the years when fluoride was introduced. Unfortunately this is mere correlation, ignoring other factors, not proof. During the same time period dental decay rates dropped at the same rate in non-fluoridated communities, worldwide and nationally.

    Claim. Fluoride is natural.
    Fact. We use hydrofluorosilicic acid in Dallas water. It is definitely unnatural and extremely corrosive and toxic. It is an official (EPA) hazardous toxic waste by-product of the super phosphate fertilizer industry, centered in Florida. It is illegal to dump it into the land, air, river, or lake. To dispose of it, according to EPA guidelines, would cost over $1 a gallon, were it not for the loophole allowing it to be sold to our water treatment plants. It is not even pharmaceutical grade fluoride. This variety often contains lead, arsenic, uranium, and other contaminants. It has been proven that it also leaches lead out of plumbing fixtures into our water supply.
    What is natural is lead, uranium, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. What is the basis for this ’natural’ argument?

    Claim. Dental fluorosis is purely cosmetic.
    Fact. Dental fluorosis indicates toxic overload of the body, especially when the source is from ingestion. The CDC reports 41% of teenagers, overall, have this condition now.

  • James Reeves

    Some chemicals are added to drinking water to treat the water. Fluoride is added to treat the body (teeth). This forces the drug on everyone without their consent.

    Can you understand the difference?

  • Hank Black
  • Chris

    One more point, why can’t I comment on today’s “Leading off” post?

  • Hank Black
  • Hank Black

    Common Myths
    Claim. There is overwhelming agreement among top researchers and scientists that fluoride is both safe and effective.
    Fact. The reason fluoride is now an issue is because top scientists have spoken against it. Most surprising is the EPA Union statement against fluoride. This stemmed from the work of Dr, Marcus, their lead toxicologist in the 1990’s. The list goes on and on with affidavits of scientists who sued to end mass fluoridation, including dentists and national dental health directors who previously prescribed it. Arvid Carlsson, an outspoken anti-fluoridationist, won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 2000.

    Claim. You will suffer terribly from cavities if you don’t have enough fluoride.
    Fact. Most of the world does not fluoridate. Many have better cavity statistics than the US, which leads the world in mass fluoridation. The absolute best records go to countries without fluoride.

    Claim. The great reduction in cavities is due to fluoride in our water.
    Fact. There is an undisputed lowering of cavities coinciding with the years when fluoride was introduced. Unfortunately this is mere correlation, ignoring other factors, not proof. During the same time period dental decay rates dropped at the same rate in non-fluoridated communities, worldwide and nationally.

    Claim. Fluoride is natural.
    Fact. We use hydrofluorosilicic acid in Dallas water. It is definitely unnatural and extremely corrosive and toxic. It is an official (EPA) hazardous toxic waste by-product of the super phosphate fertilizer industry, centered in Florida. It is illegal to dump it into the land, air, river, or lake. To dispose of it, according to EPA guidelines, would cost over $1 a gallon, were it not for the loophole allowing it to be sold to our water treatment plants. It is not even pharmaceutical grade fluoride. This variety often contains lead, arsenic, uranium, and other contaminants. It has been proven that it also leaches lead out of plumbing fixtures into our water supply.
    What is natural is lead, uranium, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. What is the basis for this ’natural’ argument?

    Claim. Dental fluorosis is purely cosmetic.
    Fact. Dental fluorosis indicates toxic overload of the body, especially when the source is from ingestion. The CDC reports 41% of teenagers, overall, have this condition now.

  • James Reeves

    The science of tobacco, DDT, lead in gasoline, thalidomide, and asbestos were wrong. The “Vioxx” science resulted in 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths ( FDA data). Remember when the health professionals advertised, “a pack a day keeps cancer away?”

    The 70 year old “science” of fluoride is outdated, discredited and wrong as well.

    Fluoridation is worthless, outdated and a discredited practice, which is dangerous to health. Maybe someone can explain why after 70 years of adding this toxic waste fluoride to drinking water in the U.S., cities and states are announcing epidemics in tooth decay..

    Chicago, fluoridated for 58 years, reports that 64% of third graders have tooth decay. Similar reports occur in most fluoridated states (over 60 years) and many cities like Cincinnati, Boston, Detroit and Washington D.C., etc.

    Kentucky was one of the first states in the entire nation to fluoridate their municipal-drinking-water supply, starting in 1951; and by 1971, the state was 100% fluoridated. Yet, in 2009, the state of Kentucky’s dental health was such that Governor Steve Besher had to declare a dental-health crisis.

    Etc., etc. etc.

    • Dubious Brother

      My family experience: I grew up without fluoridated water and had lots of cavities. My older children grew up with fluoridated water and had no cavities. My youngest daughter grew up with bottled water and had lots of cavities.

  • Hank Black

    Common Myths
    Claim. There is overwhelming agreement among top researchers and scientists that fluoride is both safe and effective.
    Fact. The reason fluoride is now an issue is because top scientists have spoken against it. Most surprising is the EPA Union statement against fluoride. This stemmed from the work of Dr, Marcus, their lead toxicologist in the 1990’s. The list goes on and on with affidavits of scientists who sued to end mass fluoridation, including dentists and national dental health directors who previously prescribed it. Arvid Carlsson, an outspoken anti-fluoridationist, won the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 2000.

    Claim. You will suffer terribly from cavities if you don’t have enough fluoride.
    Fact. Most of the world does not fluoridate. Many have better cavity statistics than the US, which leads the world in mass fluoridation. The absolute best records go to countries without fluoride.

    Claim. The great reduction in cavities is due to fluoride in our water.
    Fact. There is an undisputed lowering of cavities coinciding with the years when fluoride was introduced. Unfortunately this is mere correlation, ignoring other factors, not proof. During the same time period dental decay rates dropped at the same rate in non-fluoridated communities, worldwide and nationally.

    Claim. Fluoride is natural.
    Fact. We use hydrofluorosilicic acid in Dallas water. It is definitely unnatural and extremely corrosive and toxic. It is an official (EPA) hazardous toxic waste by-product of the super phosphate fertilizer industry, centered in Florida. It is illegal to dump it into the land, air, river, or lake. To dispose of it, according to EPA guidelines, would cost over $1 a gallon, were it not for the loophole allowing it to be sold to our water treatment plants. It is not even pharmaceutical grade fluoride. This variety often contains lead, arsenic, uranium, and other contaminants. It has been proven that it also leaches lead out of plumbing fixtures into our water supply.
    What is natural is lead, uranium, mercury, cadmium, and arsenic. What is the basis for this ’natural’ argument?

    Claim. Dental fluorosis is purely cosmetic.
    Fact. Dental fluorosis indicates toxic overload of the body, especially when the source is from ingestion. The CDC reports 41% of teenagers, overall, have this condition now.

  • Hank Black
  • Trisha Yates

    The introduction to this poll is very, very, biased by the way – so I’m not surprised at the current results – its like asking did you know oxygen is poisonous? Would you like to breath oxygen and poison your brain? or not…

  • Trisha Yates

    Question Poll Wording: http://www.people-press.org/methodology/questionnaire-design/question-wording/
    Jason Heid has made up his mind about fluoridation and is attempting to sway readers to back his position… journalism? I think not.

  • Steve Slott

    Gee, Hank, did you copy/paste all of that from “fluoridealert” all by yourself? Now, do You think maybe you could have some thoughts of your own on this?

    1. To answer your question, fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. Calcium fluoride, hydrofluorosilic acid, stannous fluoride, and sodium fluoride are all compounds with the fluoride in them.

    2. Fluoride at the optimal level is not toxic. If you care to argue the point then provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of such toxicity of fluoride at this level.

    3. There are no “sides” to this issue. There is only science, which fully supports fluoridation, and “junk science”, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation dessiminated by antifluoridationists.

    4. William Marcus was not “the top toxicologist at the EPA”, he was simply one of countless scientists at that agency which employs 20,000 people. His antifluoridationist views were just his own personal opinions, did not represent those of the EPA, and contravened the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare.

    The “statement” to which you refer was nothing but a paper written by William Hirzy, the current paid lobbyist for the New York antifluoridationist faction, “FAN”, who headed a small EPA emplyees’ union a decade and a half a half ago. This union was comprised of but 1500 of the EPA employees, and did, in no manner, speak for the EPA. At a meeting of this union 15 or do years sgo, those few in attendance voted to support the antifluoridationist activities of their then leader, Hirzy. This enabled Hirzy to claim union support for his statement. Shortly after this meeting, this little union went defunk and was usurped by the much larger EPA Employees’ Union. Neither this union nor the EPA has any stance on fluoridation.

    5. Please provide valid documentation of the “countries with the best cavity record” along with whatever is your definition of “best cavity record” and documentation of all sources of fluoride intake for the citizens of these countries.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Tom T

    Become informed.
    Get the Facts.

    LOCAL Anti-Fluoridation WEBSITE
    Dogs Against Fluoridation
    http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com/

  • Tom T

    Contention on Fluoridation of the area drinking water revolves around two basic arguments concerning Public Health…

    CAVITY PREVENTION

    versus

    OVERALL BODY HEALTH RISKS

    Pro-Fluoridation Supporters argue that consuming fluoride via the drinking water, regardless of extreme dosages, might help to prevent possibly some, but certainly not all, cavities. Pro-Fluoridation would cost taxpayers over a million dollars.

    Anti-Fluoridation Supporters argue that consuming fluoride via the drinking water has countless overall body health risks, does not control dosage, and violates the civil rights of individuals to choose their own medications. Anti-Fluoridation would save taxpayers over a million dollars, while yet appeasing the Pro-Fluoridation Supporters because the raw water already has sufficient fluoride in it at 0.5 parts per million. It is also argued that fluoride for teeth should be only topical applications (not consumed internally), per the government reports and CDC along with a list of other scientific studies.

    Overall Body Health Risks – There are literally hundreds and hundreds of peer reviewed published scientific studies conducted at prestigious universities and institutions which suggest that there are many health risks from fluoride exposure.

    So, which is a better choice?

    CHOICE #1 – Possibly preventing some cavities, but potentially harming the overall health of the public (especially the fetus, infants, the poor, and minorities). And at a cost of over a million dollars.

    …or…

    CHOICE #2 – Not risking overall body health, utilizing the fluoride already in the Dallas source water supply for possible protection from cavities, and saving over a million dollars.

    Should we risk the health of a baby or unborn by attempting to possibly prevent a cavity?

    WHY RISK IT?

    • Debz Whipple Price

      show me data that backs up this post at .7-1PPM

  • Trisha Yates

    Calling someone else abusive after calling their words “arrogant, idiotic, childlike” is hypocritical.

  • Paul McKinney

    New Zealand Pro-fluoride Dentist discovers non-fluoridate areas have less cavities. 1998 John Colquhoun (52 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8th-Bbb0LQ. BTW – Our well CaF, F is buffered and doesn’t contain the additional Arsenic that Hydrofluorosilic acid does.

  • Tom T

    Debz,
    Get the FACTS on the issue.
    Dogs Against Fluoridation – – The LOCAL Anti-Fluoridation website
    http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com/

    For Scientific Studies (locally).

    Go to any Sprouts Farmers Market in the Vitamin/Nutrition Department. Ask the associate to print out the information about the harmful effects of Fluoride complete with the PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC STUDIES conducted at prestigious Universities and Institutions. Be prepared for a “small book”.

    Some of the studies include the toxic effects of Fluoride on the Aging Process, the Digestive System, the Kidneys, the Immune system (Liver Cancer, Osteosarcoma, Thyroid Cancer), Hypothyroidism, Joint Pain,, Bone Damage, Carpel Tunnel Syndrome, Fractures, Osteoporosis, Attention Span, Brain Damage, Intelligence, Memory, damage to the Pineal Gland (also possible sleep disorders could result because melatonin is produced via the Pineal), Damage to the Enamel of Teeth and also potentially making teeth brittle or increasing tooth decay with excessive fluoride use, increasing the risk of Infertility in both Males and Females, Brain defects in newborns resulting from excessive Fluoride during Pregnancy, accelerating the skin’s aging process, etc.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Trisha, if I had said “name calling isn’t the answer” and then continued, you might be correct… But that’s not the case. What happened was this anonymous person made fun of people, and I responded in a way that I think was warranted.

    I happen to think bullies need to be stood up to. I’ve stood up to them all my life. If you have another way of dealing with people who pick on others please share. I don’t agree that it’s hypocritical.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Trisha, if I had said “name calling isn’t the answer” and then continued, you might be correct… But that’s not the case. What happened was this anonymous person made fun of people, and I responded in a way that I think was warranted.

    I happen to think bullies need to be stood up to. I’ve stood up to them all my life. If you have another way of dealing with people who pick on others please share.

  • Paul McKinney

    That’s because they most often call it the nebulous “bone degeneration” or code it as Osteosclerosis to get it accepted by insurance in the US at least that’s the explanation from 5 orthopedic surgeons in Dallas which includes both Baylor and Southwest Medical School. Debz, you know better and are paid better that that ,those study’s that you don’t believe from India show skeletal fluorosis at much lower levels than 15-20mg/day for some. Just ask the over 100,000 Indian’s that live in Dallas. They know exactly what fluorosis is.

  • Kallie Miller

    Peel Citizens Against Fluoridation in Peel Region, Ontario, Canada had their lawyer, Nader Hasan, file a lawsuit in Superior Court on September 25, 2014. Here is the first page of the Statement of Claim so people can see that some of the claim applies globally including Dallas.

    The plaintiff Liesa Cianchino (hereinafter, the “Plaintiff”) claims:
    1. a declaration that the Fluoridation Act, RSO. 1990, c. F. 22 violates. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is of no force or effect under s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982;
    2. a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Peel’s artificial water fluoridation program violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms;
    3. a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Peel’s artificial water fluoridation program violates the Safe Water Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 32;
    4. a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Peel’s artificial water fluoridation program violates the Food and Drug Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. F-27
    5. a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Peel was negligent in its failure to ensure the safety of municipal drinking water;
    6. a permanent injunction restraining the Regional Municipality of Peel from artificially fluoridating drinking water in municipal water supplies;
    7. damages for negligence in the amount of $500,000;
    8. damages under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the amount of $100,000
    9. pre-judgment and post-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.E. 1990, c. C-43, as amended;
    10. costs of this action together with applicable Harmonized
    Sales Tax thereon; and
    11. such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just.

    Given that law suits cost a lot of money, you can rest assured the Peel group is relatively assured that they will win this case and the truth of the dangers and illegality including no toxicology/safety studies on HFSA will be legally known. You can read the full Statement of Claim here: http://tinyurl.com/kuenhm8

    • Debz Whipple Price

      If there is evidence of genuine harm, then whether or not fluoride improves dental health is really immaterial. So I would think you would be trumpeting your evidence from the rooftops in an effort to get the scientists and health professionals on side (and perhaps even myself – I am a sucker for evidence, , rather than trying to divert me into explaining things which, by all indications, you don’t actually care about

  • Tom T

    A Pro-Fluoride person KEEPS hitting the “Yes” vote.
    The vote is padded.

    This is easy to observe.

    Look at the comment ratings of Likes and Dislikes.

  • Peter Thomas

    Steve Slott and Chris Price have arrived wearing their 16th century Paracelsus hats and science fiction.

    Check out how they mislead the public. http://fluoridedentalexperts.com/

    Steve Slott has been so completely discredited, it is a mystery as to why any intelligent person accords him any credibility whatsoever. Slott is a fluoridationist on the “editorial board” of a dubious fluoridationist organization pretentiously named “Fluoride Science” that’s so biased toward fluoridationist literature of questionable value that they believe every human on earth should imbibe toxic waste. His education is nothing higher than the undergraduate level plus dental training..

    Also see how Slott’s patient reviews are below average.

    http://www.healthgrades.com/dentist/dr-steven-slott-2wgl4/patient-ratings

    • Kallie Miller

      Thanks Peter. You are right on and the people need to know the truth of him. IMHO, he has no respect for the individual’s rights to not be medicated without informed consent, dose control and regulation. I sure wouldn’t want him for my dentist. Too patriarchal– STEVEN KNOWS WHAT IS BEST FOR YOU

    • Steve Slott

      Peter Thomas

      Still nothing but personal attacks?

      Comical.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Seymour Butts

      Actually, his patient reviews were above average at one time, and then he commented on a Dallas Observer article about fluoride. The anti-fluoride nuts then posted bad reviews on healthgrades:

      http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-05-08/news/in-dallas-an-anti-flouride-movement-for-once-not-dismissed/

      Read the comment from “gaiaspeaks2” on May 9th. This is how you ***holes act, in a dishonest fashion.

  • Brandon

    Dental health problems are real. “Fluoride poisoning” from drinking water is not. I grew up in a Colorado mountain community where the water is fluoridated naturally (there is actually too much) because it comes from springs. It’s rated as some the best-quality drinking water around.

    • timber72 .

      Brandon: you contradict yourself in the span of two sentences. First, you say “”Fluoride poisoning” from drinking water is not (real.)”, and then, in the very next sentence, you say “(there is actually too much.)”

      If there is no such thing as “Fluoride poisoning”, then how can there be “too much”?

  • NIkkie

    How hard is it to just brush your teeth and eat properly?

  • Peter Thomas

    Fluoridation is pure pseudoscience. Fluoride is now available in multiple delivery forms many of which don’t require swallowing it yet like typical dinosaurs they still want to add it to the water. Fluoridationuists are today’s flat earthers and Luddites.

    Note: Fluoride is not required anyway. It’s capable of a wide range of side effects.

  • Peter Thomas

    So you agree with the 16th century astrologer Paracelsus?

  • Peter Thomas

    “A majority vote which violates ethical or moral principles, or deprives individuals of rights they should be free to enjoy, is not democracy but tyranny. It is a subversion of democracy that will bring democracy to an end in the degree that it is allowed to operate.” – the late F.B. Exner, MD FACR, Seattle

    The reason that ethical public health practice requires individual consent is because medical science can never guarantee that any treatment or procedure will not harm anyone, whether or not specific harm has been identified. No treatment can be imposed on anyone without their informed consent.
    In the case of fluoridation, the instigators announced from the outset that it would cause some degree of dental fluorosis, an adverse effect recognized by them and everyone else. The claim of fluoridators is that dental fluorosis is acceptable injury. The Washington Supreme Court stated in 1954 that if city water is fluoridated, it will be necessary for residents “to use it for domestic purposes including drinking, because there is no other practical source of supply.” Kaul v Chehalis, 45 Wn.2d 616, 277 P.2d 352 (1954) at 618. Some people cannot afford a distiller or a whole house filter. Some are not strong enough to haul water jugs home. Some do not own a vehicle. Some cannot afford to buy water.

    • Debz Whipple Price

      at the pH of drinking water, HFA immediately and completely dissociates. The products of this dissociation are fluoride ions, identical to those which exist “naturally” in water, and trace contaminants in minuscule concentrations that fall far short of EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After this point, HFA no longer exists. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever.
      So why buy a filter??

  • Peter Thomas

    Old Steve Slott is one of the biggest promoters of truth decay !

    Peer reviewed studies show that the fluoride is so toxic that it can cause gastrointestinal, neurological and dermatological problems in some people.

    http://www.waterloowatch.com/ffw%20brochure%202%20references.html

    • Bobby Clemente

      It’s better for his business. 😉

    • Debz Whipple Price

      at .7-1PPM? show me the peer reviewed quality scientific paper that state this.

  • Trisha Yates

    The way I read what he said was that people can loose teeth even if they brush, floss – do everything they can on their own. He was doing the opposite of blaming others – and advocating that we work together for a solution. He was calling out the whole rhetoric that if people just took care of themselves we wouldn’t need fluoridation. So, in effect, by jumping to conclusion in this case, you became the bully you want to avoid. Just saying.

  • Peter Thomas

    There is no doubt. Peer reviewed studies show it is so toxic that some people experience side effects from fluoridated water. The rest will have a chronic toxic load which isn’t helpful or good for anyone.

    http://www.waterloowatch.com/ffw%20brochure%202%20references.html

  • Trisha Yates

    How about we take H20 out of our water – that is a pretty deadly chemical …http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-drinking-too-much-water-can-kill/

  • Peter Thomas

    The fluoride ion is more toxic than lead and only sightly less lethal than arsenic. It’s a protoplasmic poison, enzyme inhibitor and endocrine disruptor. Fluoridation puts a hundred times more fluoride than allowed levels of lead and arsenic into the public water supply. The fluoride chemicals use to fluoridate is toxic waste from the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries, It’s too toxic to discharge into the atmosphere so they deviously got it into the public water supply. The list of contaminants it contains is longer than my arm and they only test for a few of them. The fluoride ion is so toxic that it can cause gastrointestinal, neurological and dermatological problems in some people ( Journal of Dental Medicine) at just 1mg dose per day. The fluoride ion is the active ingredient in rat and roach poison as well as in insecticides. 97 % of Europe and 95 % of the world has rejected fluoridation and their teeth are better than ours. Fluoridation is the biggest scam in human history netting industry over a hundred billion dollars from sales and disposal cost savings.

    • Debz Whipple Price

      and after all that it still passes the strict quality standards that assure the public’s safety. These additives are subject to a stringent system of standards, testing, and certificates by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute (NSF/ANSI). Both of these entities are nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.”

  • Peter Thomas

    Actually water is essential for life. You must be an ignoramus to make a comment like that.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    maybe we need to go down to city hall with a noose and tell them to either stick their head in the noose or drink a vial of flouride and watch them die for their vile criminal action to poison ourselves and our families. They should be arrested for putting this in the water and the police should be held as guilty of aiding and abetting them and co conspirators if they refuse to arrest these criminals. If I poisoned your well water with any other toxic compound the authorities would arrest me and throw me in prison. This element is a proven poison with no real benefit. The studies were extremely fraudulent and much has been written about it so that anyone who cares to learn more can use this thing called google and pull their head out of their back side. Now the Dentists they love fluoride it makes them lots of money. Want to know the real reason why and how? It actually ruins your teeth and creates more business for them because fluoride leaches calcium out of your body and as it does so through the pulp of your teeth it rots them out from the inside out. The con job was that it was a study created by the Melon Institute that came out in favor of putting fluoride in the water. WHY? The melon family owned alcoa and fluoride was an expensive problem they had to deal with because fluoride is industrial waste from the aluminum mfg process that alcoa used so they wanted to con everyone to think that their toxic waste was good for you LOL and the idiots here voting for letting fluoride remain in the water supply need to turn in their drivers licenses so we can make them a special new card to carry with the word STUPID PERSON in big letters on it to identify what brilliant minds they have to the rest of us who have to deal with their lack of mental capacity.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    were getting you a plack prepared in honor of your really public display of stupidity and I just want to confirm your name is spelled correctly considering people of your mental powers might not place as much importance on spelling. We need your address were we can ship it as well.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    now we know who the moron dentist in the area is that makes money off of peoples teeth being rotted from the inside out. Maybe we need to boycott all you criminally insane people who embrace fraudulent science in the name of furthering your financial agenda

  • Kallie Miller

    It doesn’t have to be proven as it is used as a medication to treat cavities and that makes it a drug/medication.

  • Truth Activist

    EVERYONE, both sides, can WIN ON THIS ISSUE.

    A liter of raw source water (before Fluoride is added) contains 0.5 mg of Fluoride.
    A serving size of toothpaste contains less Fluoride ( 0.3 mg )

    [ You are supposed to contact poison control if more than the serving of toothpaste is swallowed…read the toothpaste label. ]

    A liter of source water already contains more fluoride than toothpaste.

    So, by NOT adding Fluoride, Pro-Fluoride people still get more than a serving’s worth of toothpaste Fluoride in every Liter of untreated water that they drink.

    EVERYBODY WINS!

    Plenty of Fluoride is in the water already.
    We do not need to add any more, nor do we need to spend over a million dollars in order to add more.

    Just don’t add it.
    EVERYBODY WINS.

    See the graphic at
    Dogs Against Fluoridation
    http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com/

    • David Green

      If I were a Dallas councillor, I would be looking for ways to lower what is already in there down to .1 ppm or less.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    did you marry Mr. Whipple the Charmin guy from the commercials? Makes sense if you did cause you are full of it and totally ignorant on the facts regarding fluoride.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    Why don’t you go drink a bottle of fluoride and show us how much you think it is safe then. You won’t do that because if you have any common sense you know it would kill you to do so. Fluoride is not beneficial to your teeth the studes were paid for initially to con people so Alcoa could could get away with dumping its toxic waste from the Aluminum mfg process into our drinking water without going to jail for dumping toxic waste into public waters. Alcoa was owned by the Melon family. The study that said it was good for your teeth was the Melon Institute. Boy do you people in favor of fluoride have your facts screwed up. Recently Harvard came out and said fluoridation lowered IQ levels so that must explain why you have that problem.

  • Nancy Addison

    I pose a question:

    What if a doctor told you that he was going to prescribe a drug to you that had not been approved by the FDA, that he wanted your whole family to take it, that he was not going to be able to regulate the amount each one of you received, that it was actually not the right type of drug the tests had shown to work, that this drug had been proven NOT to work in the way he was prescribing, that it could also cause brittle bones in the elderly, and cancer in boys, that it could cause severe thyroid problems and that, oh by the way, it was actually a toxic waste material. Would you TAKE it? What would you DO?

    • Debz Whipple Price

      ok so if I gave you a drug that was not controlled by any sort of regulation and could contain anything that was around the place of manufacture including residue from other drugs ,would you buy it. probably not
      These are the problems that could arise from the products manufactured by the Natural Health industry who funds Fluoride Action Network , and you complain about fluoride

  • Nancy Addison

    I learned about a study done in 2001 on fluoride and osteosarcoma, which was a critical study in the form of a PhD dissertation at Harvard University (Bassin, 2001). “The thesis, authored by Dr. Elise Bassin found a strong, statistically-significant relationship between “fluoride exposure during the 6th through 8th years of life (the “mid-childhood growth spurt”) and the later development of osteosarcoma among young males.” (1)

    Dr. Bassin’s research was an apparently extremely well-researched and detailed study, with accuracy on the assessment of her subjects and the content of their drinking water. Her work detected a direct association with fluoride and osteosarcoma. Her work and her findings show the fact that “bone is the principal site for fluoride accumulation within the body, and the rate of accumulation is elevated during the periods of bone development. Thus the cells in the bone, particularly during the growth spurts, may be exposed to some of the highest fluoride concentrations in the body. “ (2) Her study shows that fluoride is in fact, toxic and a carcinogen. This rare form of cancer, osteosarcoma, shows up in these young men in their late teens and early twenties. Her research and her findings have never been disproven.

    Revisisting the Fluoride-Osteosarcoma connection in the context of Elise Bassin’s findings: Part 1 by Dr. Paul Connett, Chris Neurath and Michael Connett, submitted to the NRC review on the Toxicology of Fluoride in Water- page 1. March 2, 2005.
    Revisisting the Fluoride-Osteosarcoma connection in the context of Elise Bassin’s findings: Part 1 by Dr. Paul Connett, Chris Neurath and Michael Connett, submitted to the NRC review on the Toxicology of Fluoride in Water- page 4. March 2, 2005.

    • Debz Whipple Price

      • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma
      —— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
      ——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005, http://www.sfdph.org/phes/ water/fluoride/Osteosarcoma_fluoride fact_sheet.pdf
      Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.
      ——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999. Available at http//www. nhmrc.gov.au/advice/pdfcover/fluocov. htm, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.
      The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.

  • Nancy Addison

    Of course we need to have pure water to drink, but fluoride is not added to the water to purify the water. It is added with the idea that it helps prevent tooth decay. But the studies done on tooth decay were done with calcium fluoride. Yet, the fluoride added to our drinking water is different: sodium fluoride and fluorosilicic acid, that can be contaminated with lead and arsenic, and are actually toxic waste from aluminum and fertilizer plants. (5) So, this is not a fluoride that would even help with dental decay.

    Connett, PhD, Paul. “50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation.” St. Lawrence University (Canton, N.Y.). These “50 Reasons” were first compiled by Paul Connett and presented in person to the Fluoridation Forum in Ireland in October 2000. The document was refined in 2004 and published in Medical Veritas. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/50reasons.htm. In the introduction to this 2004 version it was explained that after over four years the Irish authorities had not been able to muster a response to the “50 Reasons,” despite agreeing to do so in 2000.

    • Steve Slott

      Nancy

      “Not been able to muster a response”? To Connett’s nonsensical “50 reasons”? Seriously?

      Connett’s claims have been refuted do many times by so many prople that it’s a wonder any intelligent person even refers to them. Actually, as with the majority of Connett’s “literature” few take it seriously enough to waste time with any formal refute of it.

      Here is one refute that TW Cutress took the time to do:

      Response to a list of
      “50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation”
      compiled by Dr Connett*
      Responses by TW Cutress
      https://www.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/response-50-reasons-oppose-fluoridation.pdf

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Nancy Addison

    This fluoride they are purchasing has been proven: to NOT be the correct type of fluoride, to NOT work in an ingested form, to be an unapproved drug that cannot be regulated in dosage, to cause osteosarcoma in males, and to NOT even help with dental health. Even though we have done this for so long and it is so ingrained in our thoughts, I am posing a suggestion that maybe it is time to keep our water free of this toxic waste and help our water supply, stay cleaner and safer for our citizens. I’ve changed the way I think about fluoride in our water the same way I changed the way I think about coconut oil. Is this product good for our health? Sometimes it isn’t easy to admit that maybe we should do things differently, even though we have been doing it this way for so long. Change is not always easy. It takes a strong person to make change happen.

    • Peter Thomas

      Well done Nancy. Thanks for posting.

    • Steve Slott

      Nancy

      The fluoride in fluoridated water is identical to that which has existed in water since the beginning of time. As groundwater courses over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions leached from calcium fluoride and/or fluorosilicates in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring fluoride”

      When hydrofluorosilic acid is introduced into drinking water, the pH of that water (~7) causes the immediate and complete hydrolysis (dissociation) of the HFA into fluoride ions identical to those which already exist in water as “naturally occurring fluoride”, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After that point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is of no concern, whatsoever.

      A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of the source compound. Elementary chemistry.

      Countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of fluoridation. I will gladly cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Peter Thomas

    Debz Whipple Price – also called Chris Price and half along with Slott are probably paid internet trolls. They must be getting all their information from the head honcho toxic waste pushers. Debz is a dental nurse from New Zealand who constantly lies, mislead and obfuscates.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    everyone who is conspiring to poison the public with this chemical needs to be arrested for their criminal activity they are nothing but organized criminals and deserve to be looked down upon as criminals and arrested and exposed for all their lying and public deception. They should be run out of town tar and feather is too good for them. science is on the side of those against fluoridation and there is no doubt on this matter in the scientific community so it is not up for debate what we need to be discussing is how many years we need to be putting you corrupt politicians in prison for poisoning our water supply and that goes double for all you shills and paid spokespeople who represent the money interests that profit from poisoning the water supply.

    • Debz Whipple Price

      show me quality peer reviewed papers that say fluoride is a danger to human health at .7-1PPM
      If it is that bad there must be hundreds

  • No Nonsense

    Like any classified bio-accumulative toxin, silicofluorides discriminate. They hurt the frailest, those with compromised kidney function, lowered immune systems and the nutritionally deficient the most. These fluorides have never been FDA approved for consumption. Moreover, no data exists showing any significant oral health benefits in fluoridated communities. In fact, according to CDC data, some of the most fluoridated states (Kentucky 99.6%, Tennessee 96% and West Virginia 91.5%) also have the highest rankings of tooth loss.

    • Debz Whipple Price

      Kentucky has a mandatory fluoridation
      law that applies to all public water systems that serve more than 1,500 as
      I remember. The percentage of KY residents on public water systems ranks
      in the high 90%-range. KY also has one of the highest rates of
      edentulousness, so that antis try to make the claim that it proves that
      fluoridation doesn’t work. It is very explainable, but the antis, and
      sometimes politicians, don’t care about the facts. Most of the
      edentulousness is in a generation of Kentuckians that never had the
      benefits of lifetime exposure to fluoridated water. Also, a very large
      percentage of Kentuckians aren’t on public water systems, especially in
      Eastern KY, so obviously CWF can’t benefit someone on a well. And as we
      all know, caries is a multifactorial disease – fluoridation can’t prevent a
      hundred percent of caries in a hundred percent of the exposed population,
      even though it does put a major dent in caries. Finally, poverty has a
      substantial effect on caries susceptibility; KY has a very large percentage
      of its population considered impoverished and most of those live in Eastern
      Kentucky.

  • Rob Wrinkle

    Hey Mr. Funny Guy. Glad you are here reading this. Since you are Ivy League educated, I would guess that you are against fluoridation. And I bet you don’t drink Dallas tap water.

  • Rob Wrinkle

    Keep in mind that the poll is unscientific and the results are irrelevant.

  • Paul McKinney

    Jason, now that you fixed the broken survey so that cookies are working to block multiple votes, do you want to start it again at zero, so we can get some real idea of what the demand for fluoride really is.

  • Rob Wrinkle

    First they take fluoride out of the water, next they might push for and get a living wage. Then they might make Highland Park reincorporate into the City Of Dallas. Change is scary to the Dallas establishment.

  • Rob Wrinkle

    Since you don’t live in Dallas, or Texas, or the US, would it be correct to say that you are a cyber-carpetbagger?

  • Rob Wrinkle

    Carpetbagger-excerpt from WIKI- The term is still used today to refer to an outsider perceived as using manipulation or fraud to obtain an objective.

  • Steve Slott

    Peter Thomas

    There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies which demonstrate adverse effects of optimal level fluoride. Of the studies noted in your sterling reference to “waterloo”, the 1961 study by Feltman was the only one published in a respected scientific journal.

    This study found to have no merit by the American Academy of Allergies

  • Steve Slott

    …..in a 1971 review of this study and several others.

    “The American Academy of Allergy has recently evaluated the question of
    allergy to fluoride as used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.
    This evaluation included a review of clinical reports. As a result of this
    evaluation, the Executive Committee of the American Academy of Allergy
    unanimously adopted the following statement:
    “There is no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as
    used in the fluoridation of community water supplies.”

    Division of Dental Health
    Preventive Practices Branch
    9000 Rockville Pike
    Bethesda, Maryland 20014

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Erin Imagine

    i have no doubt but i was just trying to be polite 😉 . thx if they do not leave it out they will be LIABLE w COUNTLESS lawsuits!

  • Steve Slott

    Paul

    Colquhoun was completely refuted by Newbrun and Horowitz in 1999 in “Perspectives in Biology and Medicine”.

    —–Why We Have Not Changed Our Minds about the 
    Safety and Efficacy of Water Fluoridation:  A Response to John Colquhoun
    Ernest Newbrun, D.M.D., Ph.D.
    Herschel Horowitz, D.D.S., M.P.H.
    Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 42:526-541, 1999.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Peter Thomas

    Predictably, you roll out the personal attacks and nonsense about phantom payments every time you get backed into a corner by facts and evidence.

    Truly comical.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Germouse

    In regard to your “good sources”….,

    1). Fluoride Action Network- a highly biased antifluoridationist organization in New York

    2). Declan Waugh- an Irishman who has no degree higher than the undergraduate college level, whose “work” has not been peer-reviewed, has not been published in any respected scientific journal, and which has been totally refuted and discredited by his own Irish government through its Irish Expert Body on Fluoride and Health.

    3). The Case Against Fluoride- a “book” written by Paul Connett, a chemist who purports to be an “authority” on fluoride, yet who has published not one peer-reviewed, scientific article on the subject. Instead of publishing his work through the peer-review process, he opted instead to publish his opinions in a non peer-reviewed “book”.

    4). The Fluoride Deception- another non peer-reviewed “book” not written by a scientist, healthcare authority, or scientific researcher, but by an “investigative reporter”.

    5). The National Research Council report on Fluoride- the only reputable reference in this whole list. However, this Council was not charged with and did not engage in any evaluation of water fluoridation. It is irrelevant to water fluoridated at 0.7 ppm

    6). The “peer-reviewed” journal Fluoride- “There are some periodicals that pose as peer-reviewed scientific journals but are not. One such is the journal “Fluoride.” This quarterly publication, which is also available also on the Internet, appears biased toward anti-fluoridation opinion and presents experimental work of questionable quality. Whereas their instructions to authors (found at http://www.fluoride-journal.com/papers.htm) suggest a review process, an examination of a few dozen articles reveals that the same authors appear repeatedly (and tend to cite each other) and the experimental work is poorly describe and executed. There may be quality science aired in this journal, but ALL articles we examined have an anti-fluoride theme, and many contained significant technical or scientific errors.”

    —-Impact of Fluoridation of the Municipal Drinking Water Supply:
    Review of the Literature
    Prepared for:
    Escambia County Utilities Authority
    Prepared by:
    The Center for Environmental Diagnostics and Bioremediation
    University of West Florid
    Joe Eugene Lepo & Richard A. Snyder. May 2000

    7). “Fluoridealert.org”-the highly biased antifluoridationist website of the highly biased New York antifluoridationist organization, FAN

    8). Ffwireland.blogspot.com,au/- a biased, antifluoridationist “blog”

    9). Enviro.ie/downloads.htms- a biased, antifluoridationist website from which may be downloaded biased, antifluoridationist “literature”

    10). The Fluoride Deception- see above

    11). http://Www.nap.edu- NRC Report. See above

    12). “Fluorideresearch.org”- a highly biased antifluoridationist website.

    Readers would be far better served by obtaining accurate information from reliable, respected, and original sources, rather than that “information” filtered and edited through these antifluoridationist “good sources of information”.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Paul

    Please provide valid, documented evidence of any cases of skeletal fluorosis you believe to have been misdiagnosed or fraudulently reported on insurance claims.

    Your anecdotal tales about what you claim has been “explained” to you, are entirely meaningless in the absence of such documentation.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Seymour Butts

    f*ck you

  • Seymour Butts

    **** you, ***hole

  • Bobby Clemente

    Proud of Dallas so far, keep it up! Get educated on the dangers of fluoride, er’body! It’s a known toxin!

  • Bobby Clemente

    Another shrill from the dental community, how surprising! As if these guys actually do any research on the health consequences of fluoride exposure.

    Answer this, Doc, if fluoride is good for our teeth why do we need to ingest it?

  • Bobby Clemente

    Probably just someone in denial.

  • Seymour Butts

    Actually, his patient reviews were above average at one time, and then he commented on a Dallas Observer article about fluoride. The anti-fluoride nuts then posted bad reviews on healthgrades:

    http://www.dallasobserver.com/2014-05-08/news/in-dallas-an-anti-flouride-movement-for-once-not-dismissed/

    Read the comment from “gaiaspeaks2” on May 9th. This is how you nutcases act, in a dishonest fashion.

  • Bobby Clemente

    What about fluorosis? Oh snap!

  • Bobby Clemente

    It’s good those books aren’t written by professionals such as yourself who are brainwashed by the ADA and on the take from Big Pharma. How can you live with yourself?

    The Fluoride Deception is truly POWERFUL. I bet you’re afraid more people are going to read it and be awakened by your type.

  • Bobby Clemente

    Plenty of drones everywhere, not surprised but glad it’s low.

  • Bobby Clemente

    How’s their insides?

  • Debz Whipple Price

    yes I can fluoride is a mineral end of

  • Bobby Clemente

    Do you eat toothpaste? If not, why not? 😀

  • Debz Whipple Price

    you have3 been reading Declan Waughs rubbish None of the above conditions can be explained by a fluoride aetiology, according to
    recent major reviews, NHMRC (1999), WHO (2002), York (2000) and MRC (2002). The
    WHO report (2002) concludes “all organisms are exposed to fluoride. Epidemiological
    studies show no reasonable evidence of adverse effects of controlled fluoridation on
    morbidity, mortality, cancer, bone fractures or genotoxic effects. Neither was there
    evidence that consumption of drinking water was associated with mutagenicity,
    systemic effects on respiratory, haemopoietic, hepatic or renal systems, nor
    reproductive or developmental organs”.
    The York Report (2000) states “insufficient evidence is available to reach a conclusion
    that bone fractures, cancer, or other adverse health conditions were associated with
    fluoride in water”.

  • Bobby Clemente

    “solid scientific non government testing in place” — care to name one source? You’re totally brainwashed…

  • Debz Whipple Price

    peter thomas is also known online as shane and 1887 he is a Osteopath from the U.K living in Hamilton New Zealand According to wikipedia osteopaths are only good for back pain and are part of the alterative medicine lot

  • Steve Slott

    Nancy

    Connett’s use of Bassin’s doctoral thesis to promote his unconscionable fear-mongering about osteosarcoma is one of the best examples of his well-known propensity for cherry-picking.

    Bassin’s study was simply a subset of data from a larger Harvard study which had concluded that there is no association with fluoridated water and osteosarcoma. The lead researcher of that Harvard study, Chester Douglass, completely refuted Bassin. This may be found:

    Douglass, C.W. and K. Joshipura, Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes Control, 2006(17): p.481-482

    Connett’s confirmation bias is clearly demonstrated by his trumpeting of this one, single, doctoral thesis as “evidence” of osteosarcoma association, while completely disregarding the volume of peer-reviewed science which demonstrates the exact opposite. Here are but a few of such studies:

    1. “CONCLUSIONS:: The findings from this study provide no evidence that higher levels of fluoride (whether natural or artificial) in drinking water in GB lead to greater risk of either osteosarcoma or Ewing sarcoma.”

    —–Is fluoride a risk factor for bone cancer? Small area analysis of osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma diagnosed among 0-49-year-olds in Great Britain, 1980-2005.
    Blakey K, Feltbower RG, Parslow RC, James PW, Gómez Pozo B, Stiller C, Vincent TJ, Norman P, McKinney PA, Murphy MF, Craft AW, McNally RJ.
    Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Jan 14. [Epub ahead of print]

    2. “Logistic regression adjusted for age and sex and potential confounders of osteosarcoma was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). There was no significant difference in bone fluoride levels between cases and controls. The OR adjusted for age, gender, and a history of broken bones was 1.33 (95% CI: 0.56-3.15). ”

    ——An assessment of bone fluoride and osteosarcoma.
    Kim FM, Hayes C, Williams PL, Whitford GM, Joshipura KJ, Hoover RN, Douglass CW; National Osteosarcoma Etiology Group.

    J Dent Res. 2011 Oct;90(10):1171-6. doi: 10.1177/0022034511418828. Epub 2011 Jul 28.

    3. “The results of this study do not support the hypothesis that osteosarcoma incidence in the island of Ireland is significantly related to public water fluoridation. However, this conclusion must be qualified, in view of the relative rarity of the cancer and the correspondingly wide confidence intervals of the relative risk estimates.”

    —-Osteosarcoma Incidence on the Island of Ireland
    Harry Comber, Sandra Deady, Erin Montgomery, Anna Gavin
    Cancer Causes & Control
    June 2011, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 919-924 

    4. “Our ecological analysis suggests that the water fluoridation status in the continental U.S. has no influence on osteosarcoma incidence rates during childhood and adolescence.

    —-Fluoride in drinking water and oseosarcoma incidence rates in the continental United astates among children and adolescents
    Michael Levy, Bernard-Simon Leclerc
    Cancer Epidemiology
    April 2012, Vol.36(2):e83–e88, doi:10.1016/j.canep.2011.11.008

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Debz Whipple Price

    Prevention of Dental Caries in Children from Birth through Age 5: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.
    Moyer VA. PEDIATRICS 133:6; 2014. p1102-1111

    1. Severe fluorosis is less than 1% of fluorosis attributed to any & all fluoride sources: >99% of any fluorosis seen is mild,
    of mild cosmetic significance.

  • Paul McKinney

    But flouride does. I’ve measured at the tap prior to my filter. It’s there

  • Debz Whipple Price

    Now if the arguments against fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public scrutiny on their own ,without legal help. If they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are not

  • Susan Gist

    Dr. Slott. Respectfully, may I ask you a question? Where does your passion stem from for continuing the addition of fluoride to public water? No long scientific answer, just basic human passion short answer.

  • Boyd

    Investigate Weston Price and fluoride like most dentistry, is bunk-own it shills!

  • Peter Thomas

    Basic chemistry shows that the fluoride ion forms hydrofluoric acid (HF) in the low pH environment of the stomach – enough to cause gastrointestinal problems in some people. (Journal of Dental Medicine). HF is one of the nastiest tissue damaging toxic acids on the planet. Google hydrofluoric acid

  • Peter Thomas

    Thanks for your help Steve with the AAA statement. Nobody disputes the allergy or intolerance aspect as fluoride does not contain a protein. What people experience are toxicity side effects. Thanks for finding that statement – it’s very useful to use.

  • Peter Thomas

    So it’s a very pure poison. That makes me very happy ! LOL

  • Peter Thomas

    Well said Bobby. Zero testing is taking place.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    Dentists kill themselves at a very high rate compared to the rest of us, I wonder why? Maybe the guilt of being in an industry that is so deceptive and lies to everyone in an organized crime fashion similar to how big tobacco operated back in the day. We see how that turned out for big tobacco and the same thing is happening here as the crime of poisoning us is clearly out in the open and science has settled the fact once and for all it is not good to put fluoride in the water people never was and never will be. Everyone who is for fluoridation in an official capacity is a criminal plain and simple they are guilty of the crime of mass poisoning the population and we the people need to rise up and take them out, by any and all means necessary, If government officials will not adhere to common sense means of evaluating and acting on this situation to protect the best interests of the public it is and can only be because they are corrupted by a financial benefit. There is no other logical explanation and if this is the case then we the people have the right and the moral high ground to take control of these individuals to effect a citizens arrest and hold tribunals to decide what we need to do with these criminals. We need to expose and punish them for what they are and it is our moral duty to do so. They are responsible for the fraud being perpetrated against the citizens of this city, What punishment fits such an evil crime as poisoning the public water supply? I would think a long prison sentence and forfeiture of all financial resources to start with. I would say death but I do not believe in the death penalty and that IMHO is letting them off to easy. Those who serve us in the police force are aiding and abetting this crime should they fail to take proper action.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    Look who the real fool is here a dentist that uses his real name in public on this topic.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    why don’t you go show us how that works I here there is lots of water in Whiterock lake maybe you should go jump in the middle and see how safe it is. Now that you have proven what a mental midget you are that seems like the proper think for you to do.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    http://fluoride.mercola.com/ here go study and learn something. You seem to be either willfully ignorant because you have a stake in the financial benefits from poisoning the public or your an incredibly stupid individual. I would not be surprised to learn that you are a practicing satanist or worse.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    Your either a deceptive lying SOB or incredibly stupid or uneducated on the truth of this matter and IF your stupid and uneducated I really would never want you working on my teeth and if you are a liar and a low life SOB I really don’t want you even practicing your trade in my town. Maybe we need to camp out in front of your place of business and pass out brochures on the truth about fluoride and explain to passer by what your stance on this issue is.

  • timber72 .

    Chlorine is a disinfectant. It is not a drug. Fluoride is classified as a drug. So, yes, “that chemical is ok, and that one is ok.” The other “chemicals” being discussed treat the water ITSELF. Fluoride, however, is not added to treat the water…it does nothing to the water. It is added to treat humans, which is a dubious claim in itself.

    If you’re going to make a rebuttal, it’s important to make that rebuttal based on logic.

    Using basic reason, a person should be able to decide for themselves if they are going to consume fluoride. That’s just basic reason, every other argument and concern aside. Whether you think it’s poison, or necessary for life, the fact is, it shouldn’t be forced upon the public without their consent. We treat no other drug that way. Why on earth do we do it with fluoride? (Rhetorical question.)

  • Bryan Blackburn

    google Debz Whipple Price https://www.google.com/search?q=Debz+Whipple+Price&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS582US582&oq=Debz+Whipple+Price&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8

    Interesting you seem to be a career spokesperson for the pro fluoridation scum. numerous posts all over the country. Maybe we need to investigate your involvement here as well. I bet you are not even from this area and from my searching it appears you may not even be in the USA what do you do for a living go around full time and post stuff on articles that are against fluoride full time it appears you are a spokesperson for the fluoride chemical industry how well does that pay shill?.

  • timber72 .

    Mr. Slott…with all due respect, so what? Why do you, someone whose entire career is based on making people’s lives better through oral health, think it is acceptable to forcibly drug someone without their consent, in unregulated doses? If YOU did that, you would lose your license to practice medicine. Yet, you argue that it is perfectly acceptable to inflict on entire nations. It is madness.

    I grew up in a community that began forcibly fluoridating just before my 5th birthday (DSRSD, 1977, SF Bay Area). As a result, I ingested elevated levels of fluoride prior to the reuptions of any of my permanent teeth. And, if the science bore out, I should have a perfect mouth filled with perfectly healthy teeth…and yet, the reality is that I have obvious signs of dental fluorosis, including pitted teeth, I have lost three molars to decay, and EVERY SINGLE remaining molar has had cavities, along with most of my other teeth. Around my 12th birthday, I had 6 cavities in between 6 month checkups. I saw a dentist every 6 months, every year of my life until I was in college. And, in one single 6 month period….7 YEARS after the introduction of fluoride to my local water supply…I had 6 cavities. How did fluoride help me? Not at all.

    My mouth is a living testament to the inefficacy of fluoride, but we ignore the evidence in front of our eyes, and continue a program that has proven to not work.

    When will the madness end? All other concerns aside, if people think fluoride is good for them, LET THEM TAKE IT ON THEIR OWN. An unregulated, and scientifically dubious, drug should not be forced on the populace.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    http://fluoride.mercola.com/ go home paid shill your not even from the DFW area you do this all over the country your a liar and a criminally deceptive scumbag acting like a concerned citizen local to this community. check it out people google her name when does this creep have time to work she would rather promote toxic poison for a living. all she does is post on topics like this thousands of posts she may be AI program and not even a human being something tells me shes not a real person and only pretending to be one so her satanic overlords will be able to continue to poison the people of Dallas,

  • Bryan Blackburn

    your not from Dallas leave this discussion deceptive shill

  • timber72 .

    Mr Slott…again…so what? Why does any of that matter? As a matter of public policy, we shouldn’t be forcibly medicating the population, for ANY reason, with ANY medication. If you did that, you would lose your license to practice medicine. Yet, you advocate for it on a national scale.

    Why?

  • Bryan Blackburn

    your not from Dallas leave this discussion deceptive shill

    google her name people she is a representative of the fluoride industry obviously all she does is promote fluoride agenda for a living when does she have time to do anything else if she is nothing ether that or she is a computer program pretending to be a human.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    your not from Dallas leave this discussion deceptive shill

    google her name people she is a representative of the fluoride industry obviously all she does is promote fluoride agenda for a living when does she have time to do anything else if she is nothing ether that or she is a computer program pretending to be a human.

  • timber72 .

    My experience: I grew up with fluoridated water, and I had lots….and LOTS…or cavities. I’ve lost three molars to decay.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot

  • Bryan Blackburn

    google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot definitely not a citizen of this city

  • Bryan Blackburn

    google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot definitely not a citizen of this city. http://fluoride.mercola.com/

  • Bryan Blackburn

    http://fluoride.mercola.com/ google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot definitely not a citizen of this city.Probably not even human in any way shape or form based on how she promotes fluoride full time across the country

  • Bryan Blackburn

    http://fluoride.mercola.com/ google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot definitely not a citizen of this city.Probably not even human in any way shape or form based on how she promotes fluoride full time across the country

  • Bryan Blackburn

    http://fluoride.mercola.com/ google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot definitely not a citizen of this city.Probably not even human in any way shape or form based on how she promotes fluoride full time across the country

  • Bryan Blackburn

    http://fluoride.mercola.com/ google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot definitely not a citizen of this city.Probably not even human in any way shape or form based on how she promotes fluoride full time across the country

  • Bryan Blackburn

    http://fluoride.mercola.com/ google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot definitely not a citizen of this city.Probably not even human in any way shape or form based on how she promotes fluoride full time across the country

  • Bryan Blackburn

    http://fluoride.mercola.com/ google her name people she comes up on hundreds of sites all on this topic she is either a professional representative of the chemical industry promoting fluorides monetary interests or she is a spambot definitely not a citizen of this city.Probably not even human in any way shape or form based on how she promotes fluoride full time across the country

  • timber72 .

    Sorry, Mr. Slott, but you are not telling the entire story when you claim that “The fluoride in fluoridated water is identical to that which has existed in water since the beginning of time.” The FLUORIDE may be the same, but that doesn’t really explain the whole picture, does it? The real question is: what are the OTHER chemical elements and compounds present in the HSFA that is added to the water system?

  • timber72 .

    Miss/Mrs. Price….why are you so vehemently in favor of medicating the population without their consent? Why? What is your motive? If you are so convinced about the efficacy of fluoride, why don’t you sponsor movements to provide tablets, free of charge, which people can then take at their discretion?

    After all…isn’t that what freedom is all about? Letting people make choices for themselves?

  • timber72 .

    Miss/Mrs. Price: your argument, “other people do bad things, too!” doesn’t hold up to reason.

  • timber72 .

    Mr. Slott…are any of his claims true….? If so, and they are about your position and practice, then they aren’t “personal attacks”, are they?

  • timber72 .

    Again, Miss/Mrs. Price…so what? You are advocating adding medication, at unregulated doses, to the public without their consent. Why not simply champion a program to provide taxpayer funded personal fluoride treatments that people can accept or decline?

  • Nys Cof

    New York State Department of Health Reports and Statistics Prove that Fluoridation is Ineffective and Unsafe

    2004 NYS DofH statistics first exposed evidence that fluoridation didn’t level out decay between poor and non-poor and that non-fluoridated counties had less tooth decay than many highly fluoridated counties.”

    New statistics confirm fluoridation’s failure.When 2004 to 2012 cavity rates are compared, it has been reported that “disparities between high and low income children widened.” (page 62, National Oral Health Conference).

    Cavity rates actually went up in low-income NYS children. And cavity prevalence declined in all non-fluoridated counties.

    Despite being 100% fluoridated for decades costing approximately $24 million annually. (FOIA Page 1 and page 2), tooth loss is more prevalent in NYC than the rest of NYS which is only 40% fluoridated.

    Kumar’s research proved (page 61) that cavity prevalence in NYS is significantly associated with sugary-beverage consumption.

    No evidence links cavities to fluoride-deficiency

    “lso, an ignored 1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats about fluoride’s potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels.

    This NYS study associates fluoridation with pre-term births.

    A 2012 Kumar study reveals that emergency treatment for NYS toddlers’ severe tooth decay has grown substantially in numbers and costs. Many required general anesthesia. This despite decades of fluoridation reaching record numbers of New Yorkers.

    Kumar’s 2009 research (Journal of the American Dental Association) reveals national data indicating similar cavity rates regardless of water fluoride levels. (Table 1)

    References here:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ny-state-to-expand-fluoridation-ignoring-own-evidence-of-harm–ineffectiveness-300022836.html

  • Steve Slott

    Bobby Clemente

    So, it seems that you don’t realize that the head is connected to the rest of the body, or that teeth are connected to the blood stream.

    Fluoride works both topically and systemically to provide protection from dental decay. Ingested fluoride strengthens developing teeth, making them more resistant to decay, as well as becoming incorporated into saliva which then provides a consistent bathing of the teeth in a low concentration of fluoride all throughout the day, a very effective means of decay prevention.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Peter Thomas

    Yes, at low pH, there can be reformation of the fluoride ion with hydrogen. However, because it can occur does not mean that it does. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of HF reformation in the gut as a result of the minuscule amount of fluoride ions in fluoridated water. Even if it does, there is no valid evidence of adverse effects of this.

    Given that humans have been ingesting fluoride in water since the beginning of time, if HF reformation in the gut had been a problem, there would have been massive epidemics of destruction of the epithelial lining of the human gut all throughout history.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Bryan Blackburn

    Given that I am fully confident with the accuracy of the facts and evidence I present, I see no need to hide behind a pseudonym, and have no problem in standing behind all my comments by attaching my full name to them.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Bryan Blackburn

    Gee, what an intelligent comment……

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Bryan Blackburn

    Now, why it of no surprise that you deem Mercola to be credible……

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Bryan Blackburn

    Speaking of spelling……

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Timber72

    Chlorine is added to water to prevent human disease. Fluoride is added to water to prevent human disease.

    The local officials who are authorized to determine the content of public water supplies do not require “informed consent” to do so.

    If you do not like the content of the water in the public supply of your community, you are entirely free not to drink, or otherwise utilize it. No one will force you to do so.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Bryan Blackburn

    Gee, why is no surprise that you consider Mercola to be credible…..

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Esteban

    ……yet you seek to impose what you deem is good, on the entire population of Dallas. You contradict yourslf.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Timber72

    The “forced medication” nonsense has been rejected by the courts each and every time antifluoridationists have wasted court time and resources trotting it in. Optimal level fluoride is not a drug, and it is not forced upon anyone. It is simply a mineral identical to that which has existed in water since the beginning of time.

    Your erroneous assumption as to what fluoridated water should have done for your teeth, as well as your anecdotal rendition of your own dental problems are irrelevant to the issue and certainly constitute no valid reason to deprive the entire Dallas citizenry the benefits of a very valuable public health initiative.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Bobby Clement

    The only ones who read the non peer-reviewed book of Connett’s opinions are antifluoridationists and those who are seeking a good laugh. That you consider this book to be “truly POWERFUL” is not surprising in the least.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Esteban

    I don’t see the contradiction, Doctor. Allowing freedom of choice is the opposite of imposition.

  • Steve Slott

    Timber73

    You’ll have to ask the original commenters why “any of that matters”. I simply correct the misinformation they post.

    The courts have rejected the “forced medication” nonsense each and every time antifluoridationists have wasted court time and resources trotting it in. Optimal level fluoride is not medication. It is simply a mineral identical to that which has existed in water since the beginning of time.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Bobby Clemente

    The only fluorosis in any manner attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild dental fluorosis, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Esteban Ramirez

    Trisha, this is quite simple. Did he or did he not say “toothless wonders”?

    I don’t remember accusing him of blaming others, so I’m confused as to why you’d say that.

    I’m pretty clear on what his points are, but I appreciate you attempting to clarify them anyway.

    You’re wrong. No conclusion jumping was necessary. He used a term that was insulting, which is bullying and I addressed the bullying along with his points.

    If you care to continue to argue your point, I’ll be happy to oblige.

  • Ronnie Tanner

    Steven, are you familiar with Hexafluorosilicic acid? Would you touch a drop of it to your finger? Is the CDC report below accurate or not?

    From http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1233.html

    EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM OR REPEATED EXPOSURE:
    The substance may have effects on the bones and teeth , resulting in fluorosis.

    EXPOSURE – AVOID ALL CONTACT!

    Ingestion: “Burning sensation. Abdominal cramps. Vomiting. Shock or collapse. ”

  • T_S_

    Over 170 comments and it appears that most of the comments are from the same 5 or 6 people. This topic reminds me of some Truther topics I’ve encountered in the past (not here obviously). Some people seem to live to post about this shit.

  • Steve Slott

    Ronnie Tanner

    Yes, I am familiar with hexafluorosilic acid. It appears, however, that you are not.

    Upon addition to drinking water, HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which have existed in water forever, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts which fall far short of EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever.

    As far as I can see, the CDC report to which you provide a link, is accurate. However, it is entirely irrelevant. Properties of raw, undiluted, undissociated HFA are of no concern to consumers of fluoridated water.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Esteban

    You have personally deemed that a public health initiative which has benefitted Dallas citizens for decades, is not good. Based on this, you therefore seek suddenly deprive the entire citizenry of Dallas of the benefits of this initiative.

    There could be no more clear demonstration of your seeking to impose your will on the citizens of Dallas.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • David Green

    I have never heard of a “peer-reviewed book”. Who would be the reviewers, other authors? Scientific papers are reviewed by other scientists. Dr Connett’s book contains pages of references to such research. Instead of wasting your time trying to discredit him and his book, why don’t you contribute something useful, like a description of the mechanism for the formation of dental fluorosis? Or do you not know? If that is the case, just say so.

  • Steve Slott

    Peter Thomas

    Certainly. I’m always glad to provide you with proper information on fluoridation, as you are so obviously unable to find any of it on your own. Now, all we need to do is to educate you such that you can understand this literature. The Feltman study which was cited on the “waterloo” site to which you provided a link, was refuted by the American Academy of Allergy, as in the quote I provided.

    As for toxicity….please provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any “toxicity side effects” of optimal level fluoride. Since none exists, I will not hold my breath in anticipation.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • David Green

    A study with 4 or 5 subjects may not be completely useful. The WHO data deals with a much larger set of data. It is hard to dispute the macro picture.

  • David Green

    If I were a Dallas councillor, I would be researching how to get what is naturally in there down to less than .1 ppm or less.

  • Trisha Yates

    To be clear, I’m pointing out in a humorous way that everything is a chemical. I wish people would not keep encouraging people to think in muddy ways. You can get too much water, but in the right amounts its healthy, just like fluoride.

    As for calling me an ignoramus – it reminds me of that childhood saying- whatever you say bounces of me and sticks to you.

  • timber72 .

    Fluoride provided absolutely no protection to me, even though I began consuming it internally (by added fluoridation to the water system) at the age of about 5. I have lost three of my left side molars, and every other molar has had cavities, some with multiples, and most of my other teeth have had cavities, too. I saw the dentist every 6 months of my life, from birth to college, and that didn’t prevent anything. Where was the benefit to me? Why did fluoride fail me? Where was the purported “protection”?

  • timber72 .

    I mean, are you seriously suggesting that without this “low level fluoride bath”, my teeth would have been in even WORSE condition? That I, at the age of 42, would be toothless without fluoride? Despite, as I have said, visiting the dentist every 6 months for my entire childhood?

  • timber72 .

    Trisha Yates: why do you believe that fluoride “in the right amounts” is “healthy”? What is “the right amount” of fluoride? It is not an essential nutrient, and is not needed by the body for ANY processes, unlike iron, iodine, copper, zinc, etc. A person without fluoride, or with just exposure to naturally occurring fluoride, will not suffer any ill physical effects. Without iron, iodine, copper, zinc, cobalt, chromium, etc, we will either die, or be severely debilitated.

    Fluoride…? There’s no need for it.

  • RAB

    Dear Bobby Clemente:

    You meant “shill,” not “shrill.” I’ve been following this debate for some time trying to determine which side has the better argument. I can tell you, though, that the comments by Dr. Slott are cogent and well expressed. By contrast, yours, and quite a few of the anti-flouridians, do your argument no favors.

  • timber72 .

    Mr. Slott:

    “Chlorine is added to water to prevent human disease.
    Fluoride is added to water to prevent human disease.”

    You have grossly oversimplified the argument. It’s not nearly that simple.

    Chlorine is added to the water to prevent WATERBORNE human disease, by killing pathogens in that water that lead directly to human illness.

    Fluoride does not prevent WATERBORNE disease. That it prevents ANY disease is debatable, but the fact that it does not prevent WATERBORNE disease is not open to any dispute.

    “The local officials who are authorized to determine the content of public water supplies do not require “informed consent” to do so. ”

    Yes, that is precisely the problem under contention! That is the whole point of the discussion. The water supply is being medicated without direct consent, and that is a violation of medical ethics going back to Hippocrates.

    You have either missed the point entirely, or are purposely ignoring it.

    “If you do not like the content of the water in the public supply of your community, you are entirely free not to drink, or otherwise utilize it. No one will force you to do so. ”

    That’s an incredibly arrogant and elitist response. If I had no stake in the water system, I would agree with you, but I very much do. My tax dollars go to supporting the water infrastructure, whether I directly use a municipal water source or not, and the taxpayer shouldn’t have to be told “too bad, so sad, if you don’t like it, figure it out yourself (but, oh by the way, we’ll still take your money, thank you very much.)” And it’s not like I have a choice in finding “my own water source”: the municipality has diverted all natural water sources for its own use!

    Water is life. Without water, we die. We MUST HAVE clean water to live. It’s not an option. To tell someone “if you don’t like it, you’re free to try and find your own source”…well, it’s incredibly arrogant and elitist. I’m truly sorry that you believe this is an acceptable way to think.

    Your arguments need to be a lot better than that, if you seek to persuade anyone.

  • Esteban Ramirez

    “you therefore seek suddenly deprive the entire citizenry of Dallas of the benefits of this initiative”

    Ah, there it is. I see where you’re confused.

    Returning water delivery to it’s state before the $1,000,000 “public health initiative” would not deprive anyone of any “benefits” of fluoride nor would it hinder anyone from seeking fluoride for their own use.

    No one is deprived of anything.

    As things are now, however, the majority of the people are deprived of the choice not to pay or drink/bathe/.etc in fluoridated water.

  • SteveSlothisaTROLL

    Steve D. Slott, DDS – Internet troll: https://profile.theguardian.com/user/id/12310450

  • John Greer

    Shows that you haven’t done your research! There have been plenty of tests at the tap to prove your statement wrong SLOTH

  • Jeff Wilschut

    Steven D. Slott, DDS, Debz Whipple Price… or any others who promote pro fluoridation, my question is why, why so much time and effort to inform people that the idea of forced fluoride in the peoples drinking water is the right choice for everyone’s concerns? Is the fluoride coming from an official (EPA) hazardous toxic waste by-product of the super phosphate fertilizer industry? Is it true that it is illegal to dump it into the land, air, river, or lake, and to dispose of it, would cost over $1 a gallon. Is there an allowance for the waste to be sold to our water treatment plants? Is it true that the fluoride to be used in the drinking water for Dallas is not even pharmaceutical grade fluoride? Then why is it even promoted? Is it not clear that the only true benefit is in the lining of some peoples pockets, and not for the over all heath and benefit of the people. If pharmaceutical fluoride is a benefit to the people, vote no to forced fluoridation, and start informing people with your time, and efforts who wish to add it to there own water, how they can obtain it, and use it properly. I believe that no fluoride is needed at any level, including pharmaceutical fluoride, and suspect that all who promote it have something to gain from doing so. All those who are not benefiting from its promotion, but have said yes, are you really comfortable with the levels of fluoride going to be introduced at all times, that it will be properly monitored? Are you going to be there to make sure that this does happen as they may have promised? Be aware that no system is fail proof, and a mishap is likely to occur? But the biggest question is, is it needed, and if there are any doubts then vote NO!

  • timber72 .

    Your logic, Mr. Slott, is flawed. It starts with the presumption that there is a health benefit to water fluoridation. It ends with the presumption that the removal of something that is easily and cheaply available elsewhere, in other forms, is an “imposition.” No one is actively preventing fluoride from being available in other forms; they simply don’t want it in a form which is costly to provide, and even costlier to remove. Removing one option among other (and cheaper!) alternatives is not an imposition; by the definition of the word “imposition.”

    Forcing something upon the public, whereby the only means of avoiding it is to A. leave, or B. adapt extremely costly methods to reverse it is the very definition of the word “imposition.”

    You misuse the word “impose.”

  • timber72 .

    With all due respect, Mr. Slott, the FDA disagrees with you,

    ““Fluoride, when used in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or animal, is a drug that is subject to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation.”” (Dept of HHS, Dec 21, 2000.)

    And you contradict yourself. A substance that is intended to treat a human disease, as you correctly point out that tooth decay is, is a drug, a medication. It does not treat the water itself…it purports to treat the people consuming it. Either it IS a medication, or it’s not. You said, yourself, that “Fluoride is added to water to prevent human disease.” That is the definition of a medication when consumed or applied. You cannot have it both ways, sir.

    What is “optimal level fluoride”? Who decides what is “optimal”? Whatever is there naturally is already “optimal”, is it not? Supplementing the system to produce an artificial “optimization level” is, by definition, not natural optimization. So, then, whatever is “optimal” has to be determined, not by nature, but by man.

    And that’s what it really comes down to, does it not? Disagreement. And where there’s disagreement, why would you be in favor, at all, of forcing something on people that they may, or may not, want, but could obtain on their own?

    It is thuggery, masked as public policy, and it is against the foundations of reason and truth.

    What is your real agenda, Mr. Slott? You have contradicted yourself multiple times, trying to argue the inarguable. Why? What is your motive? Do you genuinely care for public health? Or is there something else at work here?

  • Paul McKinney

    SS, just realized the significance of those initials…so your resolution to pollution is by dilution. You throw the poison in the water so it’s below a detectable level that the EPA sets (and which all EPA scientist don’t agree with-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViNNIwmzTzI ), Then it’s good enough for you. We’ll it’s not good enough for me and lots of other people agree!

  • timber72 .

    Mr. Slott,

    Do you have any scientific studies, double-blind studies, to back up your claims here?

  • Jim Marrs

    Let’s all agree that the subject of drinking water fluoridation is a true controversy with knowledgeable and concerned proponents of both sides. So, it seems the issue is one of freedom — no one should be forced to use fluoride and no one should be forced not to use it. So, the real question becomes: Is it freedom when the State can medicate the public without their approval?

  • RAB

    Dear Bryan:

    Doubtful you’ll understand Dr. Slott’s comment below, so I’m here to help. It’s “plaque,” not “plack.” It’s “we’re,” not “were.” You might also consider using proper capitalization and punctuation when you’re trying to sling insults.

  • Steve Slott

    Timber72

    And you know fluoridation didn’t benefit you……how? What would your teeth have been like without it? You have no idea.

    Fluoridation has never been meant to eradicate all dental decay, just to reduce it.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Timber72

    Your teeth could very well have worse, without fluoridation. Visiting the dentist every 6 months is definitely prudent, but by no means guarantees you a caries free dentition, any more than regular visits to the cardiologist will guarantee that will not have a heart attack.
    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Paul

    “Resolution to pollution is by dilution”.

    Gee, did you copy/paste that from “fluoridealert” all by yourself? It probably hasn’t been used by more than 1000 other uninformed antifluoridationists who obviously have no understanding of elementary chemistry. HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed upon addition to drinking water. Go take a 10th grade chemistry course and you may begin to understand the process.

    I assume the “YouTube” video you seem to believe is valid evidence to “support” your position, is the standard “fluoridealert” video of Hirzy. So, let me enlighten you about this “EPA Scientist”.

    First, Hirzy is a long time outspoken antifluoridationist who is the current paid lobbyist for the New York activist “FAN” whose website “fluoridealert” is your one and only source of “information” on this issue. His paycheck depends on keeping this issue alive.

    Second, Hirzy was recently rebuked by the EPA in regard to a 2013 petition he filed with that agency requesting it to recommend cessation of HFA to fluoridate water systems. He based this petition on data from a recently completed study by himself and fellow antifluoridationist Robert Carton. Upon review of the petition, EPA reviewers found an elementary math error made by Hirzy in his study. This error caused a 70-fold miscalculation of his data. After correcting for this error, the reviewers found that Hirzy’s data actually demonstrated the exact opposite of what he concluded. Needless to say, the EPA rejected Hirzy’s petition. When notified of his grievous error, and rejection by the EPA, Hirzy stated that he was “embarrassed”…..as well he should be.

    Hirzy can hardly be considered objective, or credible…….just like most antifluoridationist sources.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Fine, John. Produce valid documentation of these “plenty of tests at the tap”.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Nancy Addison

    I learned about a study done in 2001 on fluoride and osteosarcoma, which was a critical study in the form of a PhD dissertation at Harvard University (Bassin, 2001). “The thesis, authored by Dr. Elise Bassin found a strong, statistically-significant relationship between “fluoride exposure during the 6th through 8th years of life (the “mid-childhood growth spurt”) and the later development of osteosarcoma among young males.” (1)

    Dr. Bassin’s research was an apparently extremely well-researched and detailed study, with accuracy on the assessment of her subjects and the content of their drinking water. Her work detected a direct association with fluoride and osteosarcoma. Her work and her findings show the fact that “bone is the principal site for fluoride accumulation within the body, and the rate of accumulation is elevated during the periods of bone development. Thus the cells in the bone, particularly during the growth spurts, may be exposed to some of the highest fluoride concentrations in the body. “ (2) Her study shows that fluoride is in fact, toxic and a carcinogen. This rare form of cancer, osteosarcoma, shows up in these young men in their late teens and early twenties. Her research and her findings have never been disproven.

  • Debz Whipple Price

    The same for me. I dont have to hide behind an alas like some people here who are frightened to use there real names Like Peter Thomas

  • Nancy Addison

    Look at the study done by leading dental researchers showing results that the mechanisms of fluoride’s benefits were mainly “topical not systemic,” meaning that it worked some, when they put it on the tooth topically. It didn’t work, if at all, when ingested.

  • Nancy Addison

    Many cities spend a great deal of money (as much as $1, 000,000.00 or more) on purchasing the toxic waste from the fertilizer plants to put into our water supply. It is actually toxic waste until the city purchases it, and then it is legally called a product, simply because it has been “purchased.”

  • Debz Whipple Price

    because I am sick of reading the lies, misquotes, and basic scaremongering from the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby

  • Debz Whipple Price

    Many fluoridation opponents will cite the toxicity of the chemical in its concentrated form. This is a fallacy as no one is ingesting this concentrated form. By this rationale, these same individuals should also be opposed to Vitamin D, B6, A & E, which are all considered toxic in concentrated form.”

    For more perspective, we contacted the CDC where Linda Orgain, a spokeswoman in its Division of Oral Health, said by e-mail that fluorosilicic acid “is not toxic waste.” She pointed us to a CDC web page on water fluoridation with a section stating: “All additives used at water treatment plants, including fluoride additives, must meet strict quality standards that assure the public’s safety. These additives are subject to a stringent system of standards, testing, and certificates by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute (NSF/ANSI). Both of these entities are nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.”

    Orgain added: “There are no health implications for community water fluoridation – at the level used for community water fluoridation (currently 0.7-1.2 mg/L) fluoridation prevents and controls tooth decay – preventing about 25 percent of decay in children and adults, throughout the lifespan.”

  • Debz Whipple Price

    It is regulated by the govenment and must pass strict regulations, It is not a medication. it is a natural mineral that is adjusted to reach the opimum level to promote tooth repair

  • Debz Whipple Price

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

    Joseph Mercola = snake oil salesman/quack

    Joseph Mercola, “doctor” of osteopathy, is a popular guru of alternative medicine and a member of the right-wing quack outfit Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. He advocates and provides a forum for many classic crank medical ideas, such as vaccine hysteria and the belief that modern (sorry, “allopathic”) medicine kills more people than it helps. His website is a veritable spring of pseudoscience, quackery, and logical fallacies. He is a promoter of the idea of an AMA/Big Pharma/FDA conspiracy.[1]

    Despite his claim that unlike real other doctors, he is not interested in profit,[2] he advertises all manner of unproven products, and has a health center that dispenses alternative medicine for a steep price.

    Mercola is nothing less than a modern-day John R. Brinkley, the fellow who made a fortune in the 1930s transplanting goat testicles into men’s scrotums. Both have gotten rich railing against science-based medicine. Who knows how many people have suffered needlessly from this sort of charlatanism

  • Debz Whipple Price

    and this is you expertise???

  • Debz Whipple Price

    Many fluoridation opponents will cite the toxicity of the chemical in its concentrated form. This is a fallacy as no one is ingesting this concentrated form. By this rationale, these same individuals should also be opposed to Vitamin D, B6, A & E, which are all considered toxic in concentrated form.”

    For more perspective, we contacted the CDC where Linda Orgain, a spokeswoman in its Division of Oral Health, said by e-mail that fluorosilicic acid “is not toxic waste.” She pointed us to a CDC web page on water fluoridation with a section stating: “All additives used at water treatment plants, including fluoride additives, must meet strict quality standards that assure the public’s safety. These additives are subject to a stringent system of standards, testing, and certificates by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the National Sanitation Foundation/American National Standards Institute (NSF/ANSI). Both of these entities are nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations.”

    Orgain added: “There are no health implications for community water fluoridation – at the level used for community water fluoridation (currently 0.7-1.2 mg/L) fluoridation prevents and controls tooth decay – preventing about 25 percent of decay in children and adults, throughout the lifespan.”

    the acid becomes toxic at concentrations of more than 100 milligrams per liter

  • Steve Slott

    Timber72

    You’ve presented nothing here but the same stale “arguments”. I’m not out to “persuade” anyone of anything. I simply correct the mounds of misinformation constantly posted by uninformed antifluoridationists such as you.

    You may certainly attempt to confuse and complicate as much as you wish, however, facts are facts. Yet once again…

    1. Chlorine is added to drinking water to prevent human disease. Fluoride is added to drinking water to prevent human disease. Your attempt to unilaterally decide which diseases are to be prevented and which are not, is irrelevant.

    2. There is nothing “debatable” about the benefits of fluoridation. Countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate its effectiveness. I will gladly cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.

    3. Optimal level fluoride is not “medication”. The courts have rejected the “forced medication” nonsense each and every time antifluoridationists have wasted court time and resources trotting it in.

    4. The only ethics in question are those of self-absorbed antifluoridationists seeking to deprive entire populations of the benefit of a very valuable public health initiative, based on nothing but personal opinion, personal ideology, and patent misinformation.

    5. Local officials are not required to have “informed consent” prior to authorizing additives to local public water supplies under their jurisdiction. They are only required to remain in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, as fluoridation most certainly does. Anyone who does not like the content of a public water supply is entirely free to not drink or otherwise utilize water from that supply.

    6. Your payment of taxes does not accord you the right to personally dictate the content of any public water supply, any more than it accords you the right to personally dictate any other public services. If you are a US citizen, you have the right to vote, or not vote, for elected officials who act on your behalf in overseeing public utilities such as water supplies, and to voice your opinions….but that’s it.

    7. You are mistaking the provision of water directly into your home as being a right. It is not. It is a convenience for which you pay a fee to enjoy. No one forces you to drink or otherwise utilize water simply because it flows from your faucet. Water “WE MUST HAVE” is readily available from sources other than public supplies. Bottled water can be purchased from any convenience store. Rainwater can be collected for free. Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force. The decision to utilize or not utilize water from the public supply in your community is entirely yours. If you choose not to do so, it is your responsibility to pay for whatever alternative you choose.

    8. Arrogance is the self-absorbed attitude of antifluoridationists who seek to deprive entire populations the benefit of a very valuable public health initiative, based on nothing more than personal opinion, personal ideology, and patent misinformation.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Peter Thomas

    Your real name is Chris Price.

  • Capt.

    It seems the “Price” of fluoridation is borne by a “Slott”! Good luck Dallas the sooner you cease fluoridating, the better.

  • Quaintance Clark

    Here is an article for you, linking fluoride to 10,000 cancer deaths and the research was done by a Doctor. http://naturalsociety.com/top-scientist-fluoride-already-shown-to-cause-10000-cancer-deaths/

  • Steve Bayless

    People of Dallas, I would like to put it out there that Steve Slott is an interloper from North Carolina who, for a Doctor of Dental Surgery, seems to have so much time on his hands that he manages to comment on just about every local article concerning fluoride nationwide. He’s either a paid troll or a psychopathy. For the record Slott, for your sake I hope you’re getting paid for this, because it’s pretty pathetic otherwise.

  • Steve Bayless

    People of Dallas, I would like to put it out there that Steve Slott is an interloper from North Carolina who, for a Doctor of Dental Surgery, seems to have so much time on his hands that he manages to comment on just about every local article concerning fluoride nationwide. He’s either a paid troll or a psychopath. For the record Slott, for your sake I hope you’re getting paid for this, because it’s pretty pathetic otherwise.

  • timber72 .

    Often, the truth is regarded as “stale” by those with an agenda. I believe that to be the case with you, Mr. Slott. That’s fine, but I would like to know your actual agenda. Concern for public health is not it.

    You have not presented any actual evidence which supports your claims, while there has been much information, from many sources, posted by those with whom you disagree, which you simply dismiss because you disagree.

    Let’s go over your points:

    “1. Chlorine is added to drinking water to prevent human disease. Fluoride is added to drinking water to prevent human disease. Your attempt to unilaterally decide which diseases are to be prevented and which are not, is irrelevant. ”

    And, as I said before, you are attempting to oversimplify that which is not as simple as you wish it to be. Chlorine is added to water expressly to kill pathogens, pathogens which are directly responsible for human disease. Fluoride is added to water on the PRSUMPTION (which has not been demonstrated in lab tests) that it “helps prevent” tooth decay.

    Chlorine actually kills actual pathogens. It is observable in the laboratory. We know what the pathogens are (such as Shigella dysenteriae, which causes dysentery), we know what they do, and we know that Chlorine kills them.

    Fluoride, however, is presumed to HELP prevent tooth decay; it’s not even known for sure if it does, it cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory, and it’s not directly related to waterborne pathogens.

    Your comparison necessarily fails, and your attempt to put words in my mouth by stating “Your attempt to unilaterally decide which diseases are to be prevented and which are not” also fails, because I said nothing of the sort. This is a straw man argument, a classic logical fallacy. Tooth decay, like any disease, should be prevented by any healthy means available. The argument is not about “deciding which diseases are to be prevented, and which are not”, and never has been. That tactic, frankly, is beneath someone who claims to be as educated as you do.

  • timber72 .

    “2. There is nothing “debatable” about the benefits of fluoridation. Countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate its effectiveness. I will gladly cite as many as you would reasonably care to read. ”

    By all means, cite them. You reject the fact that there are also many peer-reviewed scientific studies that demonstrate the opposite, and most reasonable scientists admit that “Exactly how fluoride helps protect teeth, and how much it protects them, however, isn’t completely clear” Douglas Main, Live Science 6/3/2013

    “3. Optimal level fluoride is not “medication”. The courts have rejected the “forced medication” nonsense each and every time antifluoridationists have wasted court time and resources trotting it in. ”

    I already explained how this is wrong, and from no less an authority than the Dept of HHS. Please refer to my previous answer.

    “4. The only ethics in question are those of self-absorbed antifluoridationists seeking to deprive entire populations of the benefit of a very valuable public health initiative, based on nothing but personal opinion, personal ideology, and patent misinformation. ”

    This is another straw man argument. No one is attempting to deprive anyone of any fluoride they wish to have: fluoride is readily and easily available in other forms (tablets, for example) to anyone who desires it. Repeat: no one is depriving anyone of anything. If someone wishes to have fluoride, they have easy access to it in whatever quantities they wish it. This is the opposite of deprivation.

    You are continually making a logical fallacy. Please stop doing that. If you cannot make your points without being insulting (“self-absorbed antifluoridationists”), then why bother? Again, I must ask you Mr. Slott…what are your real motives at play, here?

    “5. Local officials are not required to have “informed consent” prior to authorizing additives to local public water supplies under their jurisdiction. They are only required to remain in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, as fluoridation most certainly does. Anyone who does not like the content of a public water supply is entirely free to not drink or otherwise utilize water from that supply. ”

    Already addressed. It is extremely arrogant and elitist to suggest that someone should have to remove themselves from the public utility (which is very difficult, and very costly) because they disagree with forced fluoridation of it. It is incredibly insulting. The opposite argument…that anyone who wishes to have fluoride provided to them can easily and cheaply have it…not only makes sense from a logical point of view, it is reasonable AND preserves personal freedom, for which you have unbridled contempt.

    “6. Your payment of taxes does not accord you the right to personally dictate the content of any public water supply, any more than it accords you the right to personally dictate any other public services. If you are a US citizen, you have the right to vote, or not vote, for elected officials who act on your behalf in overseeing public utilities such as water supplies, and to voice your opinions….but that’s it. ”

    You are completely correct. And no one has suggested, or even implied, otherwise. So why bring that up?

    “7. You are mistaking the provision of water directly into your home as being a right. It is not. It is a convenience for which you pay a fee to enjoy. No one forces you to drink or otherwise utilize water simply because it flows from your faucet. Water “WE MUST HAVE” is readily available from sources other than public supplies. Bottled water can be purchased from any convenience store. Rainwater can be collected for free. Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force. The decision to utilize or not utilize water from the public supply in your community is entirely yours. If you choose not to do so, it is your responsibility to pay for whatever alternative you choose. ”

    Sorry, but on that point, you are quite mistaken. Not only do my tax dollars support public utilities and their infrastructure, which gives me the RIGHT to access the community municipal system, but by the concept of the social contract, I gave up certain other rights…such as water rights on my property, and the ability to access the water supply directly using my own equipment and methods…in exchange for the right to access the municipal system. Therefore, to suggest that I pay TWICE for access to unmolested water is absurd, arrogant, and ethically unacceptable. So long as I pay my fair share to support the water supply or any aspect of it…and I do…then I have the right to access it. Stop diverting any of my money from the support of the water utility, and return to me ancient water rights, and then you’ll have a point. Otherwise, you advocate theft.

  • timber72 .

    “8. Arrogance is the self-absorbed attitude of antifluoridationists who seek to deprive entire populations the benefit of a very valuable public health initiative, based on nothing more than personal opinion, personal ideology, and patent misinformation. ”

    You are repeating the same argument you made earlier. It is a fallacy. No one is depriving anyone of anything. Anyone who wishes to have cheap, unfettered access to fluoride already has it, and I suspect the “anti-fluoridationists” wouldn’t even mind paying for it, to remove it from the public water supply.

    Your arguments just don’t hold any water. Every single other concern aside, the inclusion of a drug, as defined by the FDA and HHS, in unregulated doses (I notice, you fail to address this), without the consent of the medicated, is a morally unacceptable practice. You, as a supposed medical health professional, should be at the forefront of defending the right of the populace to be free of unregulated medication, not advocating its forced poisoning.

  • timber72 .

    “And you know fluoridation didn’t benefit you……how? What would your teeth have been like without it? You have no idea. ”

    Exactly! That’s EXACTLY the point, Mr. Slott! I don’t…and NEITHER DO YOU!

    THAT*IS*THE*POINT.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that fluoridation was SOLD to PREVENT precisely what I have…which it clearly failed to do, while providing me with dental fluorosis.

    Fluoride FAILED to do what the fluoride crowd claimed it WOULD do: drastically lower the rate of tooth decay in my mouth. As I said before…do you imagine that my mouth would have been substantially WORSE had I not been exposed to ingested fluoride? Prove it. You cannot, and no one can.

    “Fluoridation has never been meant to eradicate all dental decay, just to reduce it. ”

    And, it clearly failed for me, even though you have absolutely no way to determine the exact rate of reduction. How much did fluoride supposedly reduce the rate of decay? 1%? 5%? 10%? 50%?

    You don’t know. No one does.

    And that is hardly the scientific basis for inflicting it on the entire population, in unregulated doses, without their consent.

    It is terrible, terrible public policy, built on terrible, terrible “science.”

  • timber72 .

    “Your teeth could very well have worse, without fluoridation. Visiting the dentist every 6 months is definitely prudent, but by no means guarantees you a caries free dentition, any more than regular visits to the cardiologist will guarantee that will not have a heart attack. ”

    And that, again, wasn’t what I said.The point is: you don’t know if my teeth would have been worse…or better…without fluoridation. You have no idea. You only have your opinion, your belief…and that doesn’t cut it in science. The point is, I did many of the things I was *supposed* to do, and that still did not prevent massive damage to my teeth from an early age…which fluoride failed to protect against. That is a fact that cannot be disputed. As I said before…how much worse could it have been? Did I need to lose every tooth in my head before the efficacy of fluoride was questioned?

    It didn’t do the job it was sold to do. That’s the point.

  • timber72 .

    I find it interesting that the comments by Mr. Slott are described as “cogent and well expressed” when he resorts to comments like these:

    “All who wish to follow the advice of foolish Joe, the link he provides is for you. Intelligent people will know better. ” – in other words, if you disagree with Mr. Slott, you aren’t intelligent?

    “Gee, why is no surprise that you consider Mercola to be credible….. ” – Grammar mistake aside, is this snide commentary “cogent and well expressed”?

    “Arrogance is the self-absorbed attitude of antifluoridationists” – so, calling people who disagree with you “self-absorbed” is a “cogent and well expressed” comment?

    “Chlorine is added to drinking water to prevent human disease. Fluoride is added to drinking water to prevent human disease.” – So, comparing two entirely unrelated processes as if they are the same thing is “cogent and well expressed”?

    I think a reasonable analysis of the comments…poor expression of some aside…would find your conclusion wanting.

  • Excess Flouride is Dangerous
  • George

    Dear RAB:

    If you are trying to correct another comment, at least get it right.

    It is “where” not “we’re”. As in “we need your address where we can ship it as well.”

  • Dubious Brother

    The life expectancy in the USA has increased by about 10 years since water flouridation began. What poison?

  • Caroline Yunker

    Please do your research. The fluoride dumped into our water supply is a hazardous byproduct. I have a thyroid condition and the first thing my doctor told me was to avoid fluoride. WTH! So now I lugged 5 one-gallon glass jugs to buy RO water every week. Even Reverse Osmosis water is problematic to one’s health. Chemical companies are making money from fluoridating water. The “prevent cavities” is a lie to con us into drinking this poison.

  • Caroline Yunker

    And I bet you’re okay if the gov’t decides to vaccinate us via our water supply? Or maybe add statin drugs in our water supply? Sheeesh. What happen to freedom?

  • Mccart Brenda

    Am here to testify what this great spell caster done for me. i never believe in spell casting, until when i was was tempted to try it. i and my husband have been having a lot of problem living together, he will always not make me happy because he have fallen in love with another lady outside our relationship, i tried my best to make sure that my husband leave this woman but the more i talk to him the more he makes me fell sad, so my marriage is now leading to divorce because he no longer gives me attention. so with all this pain and agony, i decided to contact this spell caster to see if things can work out between me and my husband again. this spell caster who was a woman told me that my husband is really under a great spell that he have been charm by some magic, so she told me that she was going to make all things normal back. she did the spell on my husband and after 5 days my husband changed completely he even apologize with the way he treated me that he was not him self, i really thank this woman her name is Dr Aluta she have bring back my husband back to me i want you all to contact her who are having any problem related to marriage issue and relationship problem she will solve it for you. her email is [email protected] she is a woman and she is great. wish you good time.
    He cast spells for different purposes like
    (1) If you want your ex back.
    (2) if you always have bad dream
    (3) You want to be promoted in your office.
    (4) You want women/men to run after you.
    (5) If you want a child.
    (6) You want to be rich.
    (7) You want to tie your husband/wife to be yours forever.
    (8) If you need financial assistance.
    (9) HIV/AIDS CURE
    Contact him today on: [email protected]

  • Mccart Brenda

    hello

  • Jan

    Drs. Yiamouiannis PhD (biochemistry) and Dr. Burk, PhD former chief chemist for the Amer. Cancer Assos, did an epidemiology study comparing the state Health Dept. results of cancer incidences after fluoridation began They found that cancers increased about 5%/year after fluoridation began.

  • Jan

    Chlorine is added to water to kill any contaminating bacteria so the water is safe to drink. Chlorine is an element the body uses to make hydrochloric acid to aid digestion. Fluorides are added supposedly to make teeth enamel more resistant to decay, not to kill the streptococcus mutans that causes tooth decay. The CDC admitted a few years ago that fluoride’s effects are topical and that little value is achieved by swallowing it. Strangely, they still promote it which is illegal for a government agency to promote a profit-making product.

  • DallasMAN
  • Jen Snook

    Even after researching this topic ad nauseum for my master’s thesis on advocacy coalitions and fluoridation, I am amazed as ever at this manufactured controversy. Fluoride is all around us in nature. You can’t get away from it. And at an optimum level in water, tooth decay is decreased. This benefits the population in general and children who have less than conscientious parents in particular. Its pretty simple. Social justice. Public health has been in the hands of government for over a century. 2/3 of the country have optimally fluoridated water and I don’t see 2 out of 3 citizens have grown an extra eye. Its been 6 decades. There are plenty of real causes to take up. This just isn’t one of them. The benefits far outweigh the whining about individual choice. If you have the luxury of whining, go buy a reverse osmosis filter, retreat to your plastic bubble, and let public health do what it does…improve the health of the community.

  • Dr. Dan

    As a Park Cities dentist, I can tell you that the kids of Highland and University Park are not plagued by rampant decay even though the Park Cities has NEVER fluoridated their municipal water supply. Fluoride is the only drug we know that is added to the Dallas water supply to treat the public. There is no control over dosage of the drug because it is dependent on how much tap water one drinks. Too much fluoride has been linked to lower IQ in children, brittle bones in adults, and thyroid issues as fluoride competes with iodine for the thyroid receptor sites. Think of that next time you pay for that small plastic bottle of “purified” water. What if blood pressure medicine was added to the water supply to aid all those with high blood pressure? Again no control over dosage or selection of recipients.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    we should take out all the fluoride rep shills and make them drink their product. Harvard came out with a study that shows it affects your IQ and not in a good way I guess you don’t care if our children grow up half retarded.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    Poison can you spell that word, that is what you are promoting toxic poison that has a major detrimental set of consequences ranging from increased risk of cancer lowered IQ for our children and no benefit to our teeth the initial study linking less cavities to fluoride usage was conducted at the Melon Institute. The Melon Family owned Melon Bank and Alcoa the aluminum company. The biggest problem that alcoa had was the expense of doing away with fluoride which was a waste by-product of the aluminum industry that cost them millions of dollars every year.
    The cattle from nearby farms and ranches were found dead eating the grass that had been contaminated with the wind blown fluoride from nearby plants because the fluoride was leaching so much calcium out of their bones they would find numerous cattle with broken legs lying out dying in the fields because of the bone becoming so weakened in their legs and these ranchers investigated and filed lawsuits against the nearby plants responsible for this toxic chemical being allowed to drift onto their property for their cattle to eat it off the grass. If fluoride leached the calcium out of their bones to that degree what do you think it is doing to your bones as you age and your teeth are made up of calcium as well when blood flows into the tooth delivering fluoride in the plasma and it contacts and leaches calcium out of your tooth from inside the living tooth does that make your tooth stronger? NO it rots it out from the inside.

    Science proves this is happening and the criminals profiting off of your being poisoned and your bones being degraded will not stop it until we the people rise up and demand the arrest and incarceration of these criminals that profit from poisoning us. They deserve to be locked up for life.

  • Bryan Blackburn

    your practice is going to be run out of business when we the people decide we have had enough of criminals promoting fraudulent proven lies like fluoride is good for your teeth. The telling of a lie over and over again does not alter the scientific fact of fluoride actually being very harmful to our health and our teeth. Your fraudulent promotion of a poison should land you in a jail cell and strip you of your right to practice dentistry.

  • BYU

    I mean here is a CDC research article outlining just why water fluoridation is a good thing. Sure, toxic levels are obviously bad, but the amount added is nowhere near the levels needed to cause fluorosis.

    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001;50(RR-14):1–42. PMID 11521913. Lay summary: CDC, 2007-08-09.

  • Tom T

    Debz Whipple Price,

    Your statement that Fluoride is a mineral is FALSE.

    You have “lower order thinking skills” and do NOT UNDERSTAND CHEMISTRY.

    Fluoride (Fluorine) is the MOST REACTIVE of all elements and it is the most electronegative element. (This means that it attracts electrons in other molecules more powerfully than any other element can.)

    So, the ion F- will react with nearly every other element, because it is the most reactive.

    When ingested, it easily “overpowers” and replaces or reacts with other chemicals, chemicals which are found throughout the body. And the body makes thousands and thousands of chemicals (an estimated 70,000 enzymes alone.)

    CDC – The CDC states that Fluoride accumulates in the water, soil, plants, animals and humans.

    CDC – The CDC states that approximately 50% of the ingested Fluoride is excreted, while the remaining 50% accumulates within the body.

    Debz Price – What kind of moron are you? Your “lower order thinking skills” look silly.

    If 50% of the ingested Fluoride accumulates within the body, then Fluoride is reacting with different body chemicals.

    After all, F is the MOST REACTIVE OF ANY ELEMENT, reacting with nearly every other element.

    It reacts with body chemicals The body makes more than 70,000 enzyme chemicals.

    Debz Price, You are silly. You actually think that F does not react with body chemicals, when the CDC states that it does.

    Debz Price, You are so dumb.

    Debz Price, If you are so CONFIDENT THAT FLUORIDE IS HARMLESS, go get a prescription for fluoride from your dentist and get it filled at the pharmacy. (You have to have a prescription per the FDA, because Fluoride is a classified drug.)

    Debz Price — Then DRINK A BUNCH OF FLUORIDE. DRINK IT a good dose.
    Then in a year, with all your medications you will be taking as a result of health problems, contact this WEBSITE…

    LOCAL ANTI-FLUORIDE WEBSITE
    Dogs Against Fluoridation
    http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com/

  • Tom T

    http://youtu.be/9IpJ7A_38nk

    ITEM # 44 – Dallas Water Fluoridation (City Council vote of Jan 28th)
    Documents in video.

    DENTIST CAUGHT ON VIDEO !!!

    EXPOSED !!!

    This esteemed 3rd generation Dentist of more than 20 years, who also has been on the Board of Directors of several dental organizations
    and is past President of “International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology”,
    goes over in great detail Item # 44 of the Dallas City Council vote on January 28th (Fluoridation of Public Water).
    DOCUMENTS ARE SHOWN IN THE VIDEO.

    Watch this Dentist discuss Dallas and what exactly is being added to the Dallas Water
    (with documents on camera).

    http://youtu.be/9IpJ7A_38nk

    …or this page
    http://www.dogsagainstfluoridation.com/hazardous-waste

    EXPOSED !!!

    EXPOSED !!!