Concepts of “natural” and “unnatural” or “artificial” ( or even “industrial”) fluoride often come up in the fluoride debates. Some fluoridation opponents claim “natural” calcium fluoride is quite safe, maybe even necessary for the body, but “artificial fluorides” are toxic. For example, a recent commenter stated:
“I understand that the addition of calcium fluoride to our water supply could be a safe alternative as its use in the small quantities needed would not be harmful. It is not very reactive, but has the desired effect on teeth.”
One of the arguments used is that the presence of calcium is what makes calcium fluoride (CaF2) good, whereas its supposed absence with “artificial” or “industrial” fluorides makes these bad. Anti-fluoride campaigner Eron Brokovich put it this way in here recent “open letter” to the US Institute of Medicine / National Academy of Sciences:
“The 2013 study of chemist Dr. Richard Sauerheber examined the differences between aturally occurring Calcium Fluoride and the highly toxic Industrial Fluoride used in water supplies. Dr. Sauerheber confirmed that the calcium in CaF(sic) makes the fluoride much less absorbable by the human body and therefore less toxic when ingested in that form, whereas the industrial fluoride is . . . highly absorbable . . .”
Sauerheber’s paper (which Brockovich relies on as “evidence”) is a meandering and naive anti-fluoridation rant, published in a shonky journal. But anti-fluoridation propagandists treat “peer-reviewed friendly papers like this as pure gold, so they do tend to rely on them. But don’t take my word for this – here is the citation for anyone wanting to check out the paper
Sauerheber’s (and therefore Brockovich’s) argument is that calcium in CaF2 reduces assimilation of fluoride into the body and, therefore, renders it non-toxic. He says, for example:
“Natural mineral fluorides are not absorbed well when ingested because of the natural metal cations that accompany fluoride. Having no biologic similarity at all with natural fluoride minerals, industrial manufactured fluoride compounds have cations that replaced those in the natural mineral. . . . . Free fluoride ion in some water supplies as a contaminant is naturally present
from natural fluoride minerals that exhibit low solubility. The equilibrium double-arrow natural partial dissolution of the insoluble solid into some waters is given by:
CaF2(s) ↔ Ca2+(aq) + 2F−(aq).
Industrial fluorides stripped of natural mineral cations lack antidote calcium and are fully assimilated from artificially treated water with insufficient calcium.”
And:
“Fluoride minerals are not neurotoxins, because fluoride is not absorbed from ingested minerals. Free fluoride ion in drinking water can be so classified, but industrial fluoride sources are assimilated more readily than fluoride from hard water or from natural calcium fluoride.”
So, “natural” fluoride, CaF2, is good because the calcium present stops it getting into your blood stream. But “industrial” fluoride is bad because it has no calcium present to inhibit assimilation.
True, the most commonly used fluoridating chemicals are fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluosilicate or sodium fluoride. These do not contain calcium. But wait a minute! These chemicals are drastically diluted in the water supply which already contains calcium from natural sources, and sometimes from water treatment chemicals like lime.
Sauerheber sort of hints at this in his reference to “hard water.” Water “hardness” refers to its mineral content and is usually expressed as the calcium, or calcium carbonate, concentration. It is a common measure of water quality so data is readily available from water treatment plants. In the graph below I compare the calcium concentration from some typical New Zealand water treatment plants with the calcium concentration of a saturated CaF2 solution and the theoretical calcium concentration of “pure” water fluoridated with CaF2 to produce a fluoride concentration of 0.75 ppm (mg/L).
Notes:
The majority of NZ waters are considered “soft” with a hardness of 30 ppm (expressed as Ca) or less. I have used this for the NZ maximum.
The Te Marua, Wainuiomata and Waterloo treatment plants are in the Wellington region. The Hamilton treatment plant is in Hamilton city.
CaF2 is only slightly soluble so a saturated solution contains approximately 7.5 ppm Ca and 7.5 ppm F, depending on pH and temperature.
Conclusion
All this talk about “natural” CaF2 somehow being “safe” because it contains calcium, whereas the fluoridation chemicals used do not contain calcium, is hogwash There is plenty of calcium even in “soft” drinking water – far more calcium that could be derived from “natural” CaF2 if it were used to produce the optimum concntration fo fluoride used in community water fluoridation.
Sauerheber is the “Scientific Advisor” for antifluoridationist attorney, James Deal. Deal, who has close ties with the “Fluoride Action Network” maintains a website he calls “fluoride class action” for the apparent sole purpose of stirring up class action lawsuits against fluoridation. Obviously he has had no success in this venture, but that fact does not absolve Sauerheber’s blatant conflict of interest.
Sauerheber discredits himself in the first paragraph of his “paper” when he states “The fluoride compounds, sodium fluoride NaF and fluorosilicic acid H2SiF6, added into municipal water for human ingestion purposes are synthesized artificially by industrial reaction and have been used as rodenticides, insecticides, and pediculicides, with acute oral lethal doses in experimental animals comparable to arsenic and lead (LD50 ~ 125 mg/kg) (The Merck Index [4]) due to the fluoride at ~60–90 mg/kg.”
First of all, the fluoridation compounds are not added for human ingestion purposes. They do not reach the tap and are thus, not ingested. They are added to increase the level of existing fluoride ions in water systems up to the optimal level. Even if one argues that the substances are added for the purpose of indirect human ingestion, his language clearly indicates his desire to imply that the fluoridation compounds, themselves, are ingested, when he knows better.
Second, his reference to “rodenticides, insectisides, and pediculicides” is nothing but fear-mongering. Warfarin is the active ingredient in many current rat poisons. Warfarin, under the brand name “Coumadin” is prescribed by doctors to tens of millions of patients with cardio-vascular disease.
In regard to Sauerheber’s attempts to differentiate fluoride ions released from CaF from those released from fluorosilicates, Ken stated it very eloquently……..hogwash. All other considerations aside, there are not enough fluoride ions involved in 0.7 ppm concentration of drinking water for any “neutralizing” effect of calcium to have a significant impact of any kind. . Sauerheber’s argument for HF reformation in the gut falls flat by his inability to provide any valid evidence that this occurs at the minuscule optimal level, or even if it does, that there are any adverse effects caused by it.
If Erin Brokovich is hinging her claims on Sauerheber and his theories, she is in for a very short court appearance. He will be ripped to shreds in short order.
Hi.This is the author of the 19 year study, Dr. Sauerheber. I hate to burst your bubble, but you have committed errors in this analysis, I never published that calcium fluoride consumption is safe! Lifelong consumption of calcium fluoride rich water in Turkey and in India have produced endemic skeletal fluorosis of various stages. Instead, the article points out that water with calcium fluoride is safer than water with industrial fluoride, for any fluoride concentration they share. It is the ratio of calcium ion to fluoride ion in the water that determines the % of ingested fluoride that is assimilated. The fluoride ion is of course exactly the same in structure in both chemicals, but the toxicity of fluoride depends on its surroundings, namely how hard or soft the water is. Calcium rich water causes lower blood fluoride levels to exist when the water is consumed, at any fluoride concentration the water contains, compared to softer water with less calcium. I see that NZ water typically is low in calcium. This is most unfortunate for those consuming industrial fluoridated water, since blood fluoride levels will be higher than blood levels for those consuming fluoridated hard water. Thank you for providing that information.
As far as the difference between natural calcium fluoride and industrial fluoride compounds, notice that acute lethal poisoning does not exist for the natural compound, but occurs at only 65 mg/kg fluoride single oral dose for the industrial compounds (Merck Index, Rahway, NJ). Differences in fluoride behavior also occur for chronic low level consumption of natural vs. industrial fluorides. Far more bone fluoride accumulates from soft water industrial fluoridated consumers than for those consuming hard water with fluoride at the same level (NRC,2006). As far as the idea that the chemistry of fluoride does not form hydrofluoric acid at acidic pH, as argued by Slott in the comments section, is absurd. It is the formation of HF in the acidic stomach that provides the mechanism by which ingested fluoride gains entry into the bloodstream.
Yes coumadin is a drug. But it is approved by the FDA for use by prescription only and only when regular tests are made to assess for side effects of internal bleeding. All drugs have side effects, including fluoride. But fluoride is not approved by the FDA for ingestion in the U.S., its side effects are numerous, and mass treatment of people through water supplies for this non-nutrient to attempt to treat dental decay, as though ti were an oral ingestible dental prophylactic, bypasses the subscription and monitoring process that coumadin use is required to follow.
I answer questions for James Deal and Deal follows my work. That is not a conflict of interest on my part.
1. You continue to confuse compounds with ions. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. The fluoride existing in water is this fluoride ion. It is not calcium fluoride. As groundwater flows over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions which have been leached from CaF and fluorosilicates in those rocks. In areas high in igneous rock, these ions come predominately from the fluorosilicates in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring” fluoride. It is not the compound calcium fluoride.
When hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water, the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those “naturally occurring” fluoride ions, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts which fall far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After that point, HFA no longer exists in that water. Your continual effort to claim fluoride ions released from CaF as being “natural” while those released from HFA as being “industrial” is ridiculous. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound.
2. In regard to HF reformation in the gut, I did not say that it could not occur at that low pH, I said that you have no valid evidence that it does at the minuscule optimal level of fluoride, and that even if it does reform, there is no valid evidence of adverse effects from it at this low concentration. If you have such valid evidence, then present it, properly cited. Bear in mind that your own study for which you were charged $800 to have published in an open access journal, does not qualify as valid evidence of anything.
3. FDA approval of Coumadin has nothing to do with the use of this as an example to expose the complete irrelevance of the fact that fluoride was used as a rat poison. Warfarin is used as a rat poison as well, yet it is safely ingested at its proper use level, for the treatment of cardiovascular disease…..just as fluoride is safely ingested at its proper use level. It is truly remarkable that someone with your level of education does not seem to understand the difference between concentration levels of all substances we ingest.
In regard to FDA approval:
“The FDA is just one of several regulatory agencies that ensure public safety. The FDA’s authority is limited to products sold to the public and fluoride has been approved for use in toothpastes, mouth rinses and even bottled water. The FDA has no role in approving drinking water additives pursuant to their agreement with the EPA in the early 1980’s. Additives are covered by state regulation’s. It should be noted that the FDA does not have the authority to approve many of the products we use every day. For more information on what the FDA does, and does not regulate, visit: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_quiz.html. ”
“The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 confers the authority for ensuring the safety of public drinking water to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is responsible for setting drinking water standards and has the authority to regulate the addition of fluoride to the public drinking water. ”
4. There are no “side effects” of optimal level fluoride, as evidenced by your inability to cite valid evidence of any “side effects”.
5. The addition to water of fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water and which humans have been ingesting in their water since the beginning of time, requires no prescription.
6. Being the “Scientific Advisor” for a personal injury attorney who maintains a website named “fluoride class action”, presumably for the purpose of stirring up lawsuits against fluoridation from which he would profit……with your opinions posted all over that website……is, indeed a conflict of interest when you publish supposedly “objective” papers on fluoridation.
Richard, while we have your attention could you provide some information which seems lacking?
In the cited paper you give your affiliation as “Department of Chemistry, University of California” Yet I could not find any evidence that you are employed at that university. Also I note you are using a Hotmail email address and provide a web site affiliation which is an anti-fluoride activist group – sort of suggesting you are not affiliated with that university.
This raises the question of why you claimed such an affiliation.
This came as a personal email to me by mistake. It is from James Robert Deal:
“In our meeting with three pro-fluoride representatives in the Seattle City Hall, the water engineer said that the amount of SiF added to water only slightly lowered pH, not enough to require a significant increase in soda ash used. “
Thais for comments, Richard. I have already requested clarification about your affiliation but here are a few more questions/responses to your comment.
1: 19 year study? Really. Surely the data you presented could have been produced in an afternoon in a high school chemistry lab. It is essentially just a school project to confirm already known relationships between Ca, F and pH. What took you 19 years?
2: Glad you accept that the hydrated fluoride anion is just that, whatever its origin. Given that it is no different if derived from CaF2 than derived from fluorosilicic acid. Your argument about the role of Ca, if at all relevant, applies equally to F from either source. As I have shown at the minuscule concentrations of F used for CWF the Ca concentration in the water is the same whatever the F source because of the already existing Ca in the water.
3: My understanding is that F- cannot transfer across most, but not all, membranes, whereas HF can. Therefore at the molecular level the formation of HF molecules in the stomach because of low pH enables transfer of F ocross the membrane to the bloodstream. Any Ca present will have a minimal effect because the F- concentration is very low (existing mainly as HF). By the way, the Ca concentration in the stomach is only minimally influenced by the hardness of drinking water because of the greater amount coming from food.
4: I agree with Steven Slott’s comment that you are confusing compounds with ions. There is no such thing as calcium fluoride in solution – it exists only in the solid form. It breaks down to its constituent cations and anions on dissolution and the origin of the Ca2+ ion is completely irrelevant (far more comes from other sources than from the CaF2). This makes your attempt to define a “natural” fluoride (CaF2) and a “industrial” fluoride completely meaningless in this real world situation.
1. I’m not confused at all. Whether fluoride anion is naturally present in fresh water from calcium fluoride or from any other natural source, it is a contaminant of fresh water. The fluoride anions that dissolve from any source into water exhibit toxicity after ingestion, but the effect of the anion is determined by how hard the water is. The higher the calcium ion concentration, the lower is the amount assimilated form the GI tract after ingestion. Natural sources of fluoride anion in water are typically accompanied by plentiful calcium. This helps minimize fluoride assimilation. (Calcium is the antidote to oral poisoning by the fluoride anion from industrial fluoride sources). Artificial fluoride infusions with industrial compounds, made from reacting rock with sulfuric acid and trapping the toxic gases HF and SiF4 in a water solution of 23% fluosilicic acid H2SiF6, is not accompanied with appreciable calcium. This is why the (otherwise identical in structure) fluoride anion is more readily assimilated than it would have been in a water solution containing more calcium cation. Far less sodium fluoride is required to achieve any given, thousands of ppm, level of fluoride in bone after ingestion than is required for calcium fluoride, for the same amount of fluoride ingested from each.
Of course fluosilicic acid at alkaline pH is completely hydrolyzed in water. Who doesn’t know this? (as you have been told many times in previous discussions). As usual you write what you want me to say, rather than what is actually said.
As stated before, fluoride ion at identical concentrations in two containers, one calcium fluoride and the other fluosilicic acid fluoride or sodium fluoride, the first has a far lower entropy (chemical potential or activity) than the latter two (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics). Thus it is no surprise that studies prove that ingesting the first produces significantly lower blood fluoride levels than the latter for an equal fluoride bolus. I can’t change the facts and neither can anyone else. Calcium ion buffers the assimilation of fluoride anion even at low concentrations where the effect does not depend on precipitation of the calcium fluoride salt. The industrial fluoride compounds used in “water fluoridation” do not precipitate even at massive concentrations. This is how sodium fluoridation during an overfeed killed the 42 year old Coast Guardsman in Hooper Bay, AK. If calcium fluoride would have been used, this death would not have been possible. This is the initial point made in the JEPH article.
2. Please don’t insult me. The second part of the JEPH peer reviewed published article were my data collected with low levels of fluoride from sodium fluoride (1 ppm) demonstrating that as the pH is lowered the anion concentration decreases because of protonation to hydrofluoric acid HF. At pH 2-3 of the stomach, 100% of the 1 ppm fluoride anion is protonated to HF, which is freely permeable across the cell membrane at this stomach pH. I didn’t pay the publication fee that is required for all open access journals. And the publication fee was not what you claimed either. We’ve covered this also several times before. Do you need a copy of the invoice? And some of the best data ever discovered in science are often times published in journals other than those considered “the best.” I stand by my data and in fact it is unchallengeable. Read the EPA brief report on fluosilicic acid and you will see that HF begins to form from fluoride anion (from industrial sodium fluoride, not calcium fluoride) around pH 4 and lower, consistent with my published more detailed findings. But the EPA didn’t think to continue to stomach pH of 2. Nor did they examine the inhibitory effect on the protonation reaction caused by the presence of calcium. Fluoride is an anion (as you state) which is why it is attracted to the divalent positive calcium cation.That’s their fault, not mine.
3. Yes industrial fluoride and warfarin were both used as rat poisons. So what? Warfarin has found clinical use in blood disease but is only given by prescription, and patients need to be closely monitored because of side effects. Industrial fluoride is given without a prescription and without monitoring the known side effects while it is ingested lifelong. A key side effect is its abnormal incorporation into bone, permanently, causing conversion of normal bone apatite to abnormal fluoroapatite, as well as formation of bone of poor quality (NRC, 2006). Breaks in fluoridated bone heal far more slowly than in normal bone. The accumulation reaches thousands of mg/kg fluoride in bone during chronic ingestion where it is a contaminant and causes abnormal simultaneous elevations in both calcitonin and parathyroid hormone. Yes someone with my education knows full well the pathologic difference between concentration and accumulated dose. Lifetime doses of fluoride cause bony ingrowths into marrow in mammals at fluoride levels of about 500 ppm. Human bone is not monitored by fluoridationists who treat the drinking water for a population for lifelong accumulation of fluoride. Yes, it’s not the water concentration (used to be 1.2, now it’s 0.7 ppm), but rather it’s the total accumulated dose that determines the degree of skeletal fluorosis present. And those with bone disorders such as osteoporosis or brittle bone disease, etc. are more adversely affected by lifelong fluoride accumulation than others are.
The comments about the FDA are laughable. The MOU between the FDA and EPA was dissolved by the EPA decades ago. The EPA Office of Water in writing many times confirms that water fluoridation is not under their control because they regulate pollutants, not diluted substances used to treat body parts. The EPA has no clinical staff to evaluate either safety or effectiveness of materials added into water to elevate its blood level in an attempt to mitigate a problem. That, according to the EPA OW, is the purview of only the FDA. And they are correct. The FDA ruled fluoride intentionally added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, ruled in 1975 it is unsafe to add to foods, and in 1966 banned the sale of any fluoride compound (natural or industrial) intended to be ingested by pregnant women in the U.S. (JEPH 439490).
The original Congressionally-approved statutes of the Safe Drinking Water Act apply to contaminants present in U.S. waters for which the EPA produces MCL’s. And it applies to water additives which are substances used to sanitize water. Fluoride anion is not a water additive added to sanitize water, like chlorine is. The purpose of adding fluoride, its only stated purpose, is to elevate the blood level of fluoride in an attempt to alter teeth. The EPA has no pharmaceutical, medical, or dental staff that have a Congressional mandate to regulate oral ingestible dental prophylactics added into drinking water to treat people. That is the sole purview of the FDA, who has already not given its approval for the ingestion of any fluoride compound, natural or industrial.
4. No side effects? Tell that to the kidney dialysis ward victims who were slaughtered before it was realized that fluoridated water at optimal levels cannot be used in kidney dialysis equipment. Tell that to the massive number of US citizens now afflicted with bone pain who have had to have knee, hip, and elbow replacement surgeries and whose extracted bone has thousands of ppm fluoride where it does not belong. Fluoride from industrial compounds is a toxic calcium chelator (calcium is the antidote to oral fluoride poisoning). Fluoride anion is not a normal component of the human bloodstream, but is a contaminant. Fluoride incorporation into bone is a side effect of the ingestion of water treated with industrial fluoride compounds (that of course freely dissociate into water at alkaline pH). Are you trying to tell the public that a stated purpose of eating fluoride is to fluoridate peoples’ skeleton? If fluoridated bone is not a side effect, then this appears to be the claim. Recall that the NIH proved in careful experiments that fluoridated bone is not strengthened bone, as was hoped early on by fluoridationists who have pre-defined assimilated fluoride as being “good”.
To Ken, I received my B.A.in Biology (1971) and Ph.D. in Chemistry (1976) from the University of CA, San Diego. Since that time I have been in the UCSD Alumni Association who constantly asks for updates from its graduates on professional work, research discoveries, etc. My first position in science was with UCSD’s Dr. Andrew Benson (discoverer of the carbon fixation reaction in plant photosynthesis and the Calvin-Benson cycle). He did his Ph.D. work on fluoridated thyroxine hormones and was appalled at the idea of intentionally consuming industrial fluoride compounds that are all toxic calcium chelators (as opposed to fluoride in the presence of calcium). After the 19 year JEPH study was completed, which set out to determine how the 302 victims of the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed were sickened, I was having extreme difficulty getting the materials published in those American journals I had contacted, who routinely stated that the work was not “appropriate” for their journal.
I pretty much gave up on publishing the work until I began to visit Dr. Benson, still at age 93, working in his lab at UCSD. He asked why I had not published anything on the fluoridation of San Diego water supplies. Quite embarrassed, I re-committed myself to finishing the task. I submitted the work to the American Chemical Society and although they did not want to print it, they insisted that the work needed to be published, perhaps in an environmental journal. I heard that JEPH was calling for papers on drinking water issues and sent it to them. Dr. Peckham was the senior editor and after several adjustments and additional materials that were asked for were included, the article was published.
The reason I included the UCSD Chemistry Dept. is not only because of being an Alumni, and working with Dr. Benson in the latter stages of the article, but also because of discussions with my former Chemistry Professor Dr Russell Doolittle. I asked if it would be allowed to list the affiliation with the Chemistry Dept. even though I receive no compensation from the Dept. He said I could of course list the affiliation with the UCSD Chemistry Department on articles I publish. And that was that.
Sadly, Dr. Benson passed away early this year at 96, but he was quite pleased with the JEPH article. He was appalled at the prospect of letting dentists control public drinking water supplies.
I use the hotmail address because I have found that firewalls at my institution (Palomar College) are quite restrictive and block incoming emails too severely. Also my UCSD alumni email I could use, but I most often use the hotmail account anyway, so I see no issue with that. In the words of Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make? The data are what they are. The fluoride action network contains a wide variety of published data. I see no problem when the sources used there are vetted.
Thanks for asking.
Richard, you are confused and your meandering explanation does not successfully hide that confusion.
1: Natural sources of F are indeed accompanied by Ca, but not necessarily “plentiful.” Solubility product considerations mean that the natural fluoride levels tend to be higher in waters low in Ca. Phosphate is also a consideration because of the solubility product of fluoroapatite which is far less soluble than CaF2.
Sometimes our source water in my city has close to the optimum F concentration of 0.7 ppm but it is often about 0.2 ppm. In the later situation fluorosilicic acid is added to top up to 0.7 ppm. Given you accept complete hydrolysis of the fluoridating chemical and the identity of the hydrated fluoride anion irrespective of its source, together with the fact that the Ca levels are about the same at these two times and are independent of F source, how can you say these fluoride anions behave differently?
The fact that the concentrated fluoridating agent contains low levels of Ca is irrelevant given the Ca already in the water.
But a few points to clarify your claims.
What table title are you referring to in the CRC manual for your claim that the “entropy” (no this is not the same as chemical potential or chemical activity) is different in a solution depending on source? I ask for table title because the page number is probably different in my edition. I wish to attempt to understand the point you are trying to make with this. And how one could make claims about assimilation of fluorosilicic acid when it is not possible to prepare a dilute solution is weird from my viewpoint.
How can Ca2+ “buffer” assimilation if fluoride anions when we have agreed that they are not transported across most membranes? The relevant species, you agree is HF. Again can you give a citation for the claim you are making here.
I also would like you to give citations for your claims of an effect of Ca on assimilation (that is a comparison of blood F as an indication of assimilation depending on source of F. Especially as the Ca concentration in the stomach probably has very little relationship to water hardness.
You claim that “industrial fluoride compounds do not precipitate even at massive concentrations. Are you really attempting to claim that the fluoride derived from fluorosilicic acid cannot be precipitated by Ca? Surely you are not that naive.
I also think your reference to the death via overfeed in Alaska is a naive point. It is impossible to get much of an overfeed with CaF2 as the maximum concentration one would have in the stock solution is about 7 ppm F. This is simply a matter of F concentration and has nothing to do with “natural” or “industrial” sources.
2: You say you “stand by your data and in fact it is unchallengeable.” Will, true, but isn’t it a bit childish to call it “your data.” After all it was hardly new – you were just demonstrating well known and understood chemical relationships in what was nothing more than a school project.
I still cannot for the life of me see why it took 19 yet as to do that simple project.
3: One of the things I found frustrating about your paper were the numerous assertion claimed by you won’t out any citation or data. You demonstrate that habit again in your comments. Vague comments to the CCC handbook or the NRC are not proper citations (but they do have the advantage for your that they can’t be checked). It is normal to be a lot more specific when one cites material.
You should, for example support claims like fluoride anions from whatever source exhibit toxicity after ingestion (most intelligent people realise that is only true above a certain concentration). Similarly you calm at “hard” water somehow mitigates the effect. I have already mentioned you claim about entropy.
4: Finally, could you please explain why you gave a university as your affiliation in the paper when you do not appear to be employed at this university.
Richard, this does not explain why you gave this university as your affiliation. It would be like me claiming affiliation to Victoria University of Wellngton despite the fact that I have not been employed there since 1970 when I finished my PhD research. I would think that is a very dishonest thing to do because it implies an affiliation which does not exist. You are the first person I have come across doing this.
Your story about the paper’s publication also raises questions. It appears that you could not get this paper published in any other journal but in the end had to use a shonky journal with a senior editor who is a well-known anti-fluoride known activist.
I can understand why no other journal would accept your paper – it is naive and rambling and does not contain any original work. As a reviewer I would have knocked it back for those reasons.
I didn’t pay the publication fee that is required for all open access journals. And the publication fee was not what you claimed either. We’ve covered this also several times before. Do you need a copy of the invoice?
But there was an invoice.
Who did paid for publication then? Maybe we should see the invoice.
Surely it is easier to just disclose the identity of whoever coughed up the fee when the question arises, rather than to beat about the bush leaving readers suspicious.
The 19 year statement is related to the fact that the need for the article was first recognized in 1994 after the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed disaster cost a life. The NEJM article stated that the mechanism by which the fluoride ion at 4 ppm killed the victim is not known. It could be either calcium fluoride precipitation, or it could be due to interference with magnesium or calcium metabolism, or it could be a different more direct effect of the anion. The authors didn’t know. So I investigated it.
And 19 years later the article was finally published in its final form. So what?
The Ksp calculations were simple, yes but who else has done them for the physiologic range of calcium in human blood?
And where are these studies you say were already known so there was no need to publish the data? If the data are so common as to be known to a high school student, then why are we bothering discussing it?
The data indicating that low level calcium inhibits the conversion of fluoride anion to HF is not in the article but I’ve done it. Your definition of it being insignificant is not my definition of it, because it indeed is significant.
The CRC Handbook I use is at work and I’m now at home. The reference is in the thermodynamics tables indicating the entropy of ionic solutions. Sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride have totally different entropies at the same ionic strength. This is due to the attraction that fluoride anion has for calcium cation that is far stronger than for the sodium cation. The increased entropy is related to the increased chemical potential of the anion in sodium fluoride because of this, where the activity coefficient for calcium fluoride in solution is far smaller than for sodium fluoride in solution.
In Southern CA the calcium level in the water is 60 ppm. Adding fluoride from industrial sources lacking calcium from 0.2 ppm to 1 ppm, a 5 fold increase, causes the calcium to fluoride ratio to be drastically lowered and causes far more fluoride assimilation into the blood after ingestion than would have been assimilated if the water were harder.
Perhaps you could re-read the article and get back with me. The Goodman and Gilman reference is accurate, that calcium fluoride ingestion leads to lower fluoride blood levels than the ingestion of sodium fluoride for any given total fluoride dose ingested. I don’t know how else to say it. If you don’t believe it, that’s not my fault.
You are the ones who are confused about calcium fluoride vs. fluosilicic acid fluoride, that both as molecules contain the exact same fluoride anion. A calcium fluoride solution, even if not saturated and only contains calcium ions and separate fluoride ions, is a solution of calcium fluoride. Calling it a solution of just fluoride is false. There is no such thing as a solution of fluoride. It can be calcium fluoride in solution, or sodium fluoride in solution, or arsenic fluoride in solution, or fluosilicic acid fluoride in solution, etc. These solutions do not have the same toxicity, even though the same fluoride free ion concentration is present. Of course it matters what type of fluoride solution you are drinking. Why are ionic strength effects on chemical potential and toxicity so difficult for you to grasp? And by the way, are you the author of this article that appears to be un-named and does not even list an affiliation? Who am I communicating with?
Me naïve? Hardly. Of course fluoride from fluosilicic acid can be precipitated with sufficient calcium ion. Who said otherwise? I’m referring to pure industrial fluorides that lack calcium.
You might want to read the articles in Fluoride that describe in detail the poisoning of all the prized horses in Pagosa Springs Colorado by fluoride ion from industrial fluosilicic acid (the identical fluoride anion found in calcium fluoride, but without calcium). The river water there is so soft that there is virtually no calcium in it. If the water had been harder, the horses would have survived longer.
I have no idea what you mean, that the Hooper Bay disaster has nothing to do with the difference between calcium fluoride and industrial fluoride from fluosilicic acid. Of courses it does, as your own words indicate. If calcium fluoride had have been used the people could not have been acutely poisoned because calcium fluoride is only soluble to about 7-8 ppm fluoride.
If you still do not understand, I suspect there’s not much I can do for you.
A “shonky” journal? That published nothing new? Again, if it’s “nothing new” then why don’t you still understand the difference in toxicity between calcium fluoride and fluoride from industrial sources? Many water supplies such as the Pacific Northwest are too soft to be adding industrial fluoride. Those water not only are calcium deficient but because of that they are also naturally zero fluoride. Waters containing fluoride also have significant natural calcium from salts other than calcium fluoride. The overall ratio of calcium to fluoride is what determines toxicity. Low calcium waters with an added 1 ppm fluoride level are more toxic than high calcium waters with added 1 ppm fluoride.
Of course it was difficult to publish this material (19 years). It has nothing to do with its truthfulness (that even a high school student could demonstrate). It has to do with the fact that water “fluoridation” is thought to be a Federal approved program that is a great public health achievement according to former Surgeons General and that reduces tooth decay by 20-40% (except for those who have no cavities?) and is necessary for teeth health and is harmlessly so low it can’t affect any function systemically but yet is so high that it can actually perturb the caries process in the hardest substance in the body, enamel.
If I owned a journal I would prefer not to publish the data either. But publishing it is all the more necessary when the truth hurts. And who are you to disagree with the editors of the Journal of the American Chemical Society who stated that this needs to be published?
To RIchard Christie, suspicious about what? Every open access journal in exlstence I know of has publication fees. What is your point? That this somehow makes the data wrong? What are you implying?
Ken. I explained the affiliation with UCSD, that still exists. I live within minutes of UCSD and within minutes from Palomar College. Dr. Benson permitted me to work with him until he passed away early this year.
To you also, what are you implying? Is this some sort of threat?
Ken, your statement that I am being dishonest is bizarre. (” I would think that is a very dishonest thing to do because it implies an affiliation which does not exist.”) Are you implying i can’t do voluntary work at UCSD anymore because if anything is published I can’t name the department?
I am giving credit where credit is due, to the institution that trained me and where I learned at the outset that industrial fluorides are listed toxic substances on poisons registries, while natural calcium fluoride is not a listed toxic. Both have differing chronic low level toxicity. And only the industrial fluorides are listed poisons because of acute fluoride toxic potential that calcium fluorlde does not have. In the lab we have a stainless steel table where live specimens are kept, in a room in which industrial fluoride compounds like sodium fluoride are forbidden to be present. Do you expect me to change the lab protocols for them because, as you claim there is no difference in the toxicity of the fluoride anion when the ion comes from fluosilicic acid, compared to when it comes from calcium fluoride, as long as it is dilute? Because (truthfully) the anion is exactly of the same structure from both compounds after dissolution? Not a chance, and that’s precisely why the JEPH article needed to be published. Ionic strength effects matter.
Richard C., In what way does it matter? When Slott accused me of “buying the journal space to publish whatever I wanted” I responded with the truth, that I didn’t pay the publishing fees. Whether UCSD, or Palomar, or friends, or someone else, I don’t have to state who paid for it until I know who I’m speaking with and why it is so important to you and why it “is relevant.”
It’s interesting how this site has introduced an ad hominem attack on Dr. Peckham referring to him as an anti fluoride activist. This appears to be a way to attempt to falsify his data, but using character assassination to attempt to discredit factual data is a logical fallacy. If you have proof that the Peckham study in the U.K. on diagnosed hypothyroidism cases correlating with artificial water fluoridation in the few cities that fluoridate there, then be specific as to why, or publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I’m criticized for not supplying references, but this notion about Peckham goes without either explanation or reference?
And by the way, there is nothing wrong with being anti artificial fluoridation, when you understand that it is useless, harmful, and illegal. The attack here though implies that it is somehow “wrong” to be anti artificial fluoridation. Nonsense. This is a free country, and people are free to object to the ongoing whole body fluoride dosing of mass populations who have fluoride circulating in their entire system for no functional purpose whatsoever.
The HHS recommendation to lower the allowed fluoride water level to 0.7 ppm is an admission that 1 ppm has caused too much dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia in U.S. innocent citizens. But instead of an apology, the idea is to simply use less of the toxic calcium chelator than what has been used thus far. And Peckham and millions of others are to be ridiculed and criticized for being opposed to this? They should be given medals, having to deal with fluoridationists who ridicule and criticize and continue to insist on altering natural water into a solution with more added fluoride than what was already present (or in cases of pristine clean fresh water had none of this contaminant at all).
I repeat, Richard Sauerheber, this is the first time I have seen an author give their affiliation as the university where they studied for their degree but no longer worked for or are studying at. It is deceitful as it attempts to use institutional credibility to support their work (and implied current affiliations would not support,y credibility). I don’t know what you mean by “some sort of threat.” Of course, in my comments on your paper I will make your deceit clear. Anti-fluoride propagandists are continually attempting to imply credibility for their claims in this sort of manner and that always needs to be exposed for what it is.
Then again this sort of deceit is of interest to the institution involved. It would perhaps be appropriate for someone to bring attention to the University that you have done this and are attempting to ride in their credibility or even pass responsibility on to them for your shonky work.
Richard has asked who paid for the publication of your work. Clearly it was not the University of California, as your false attribution would give the impression, as employers would normally pay. But your refusal to say who did pay for it confirms suspicions that ideological motivated, and possibly big business financed, activist groups made the payment. As you say that does not disqualify the research but I think the “research” itself (which is no more than a high-school science project) in itself discredits the paper. The poor quality of the paper made it unacceptable to reputable journals and you therefore bought publication, whoever paid for it.
Richard Sauerheber, where have I attempted to falsify Peckham’s data by reference to his activism? In truth, nowhere. My critique of his work (seehttps://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/paper-claiming-water-fluoridation-linked-to-hypothyroidism-slammed-by-experts/) has been based in its own inadequacies. In the case of his hypothyroidism paper I was not the only one who pointed out the problem of the lack of information on dietary iodine as an important confounding factor which should behave been included – a fundamental problem with the paper. Personally I would be interested in publishing that critique but that would require me hunting down the data that Peckham neglected to. Now why is it forbidden for me to refer to Peckham’s activism! He actually referred to it himself in his declaration of conflicts of interest.
Peckham’s paper suffered the same problems that Malin & Till’s paper did – they are both of poor quality but that doesn’t stop anti-fluoride propagandists promoting them.
There is certainly nothing more that I can add in regard to your calcium theories. Ken has completely debunked that. Just a couple of things, however:
1. You are falsely attributing a quote to me which I did not make. I have never stated the you are “buying journal space to publish whatever I wanted”. Those are your words, not mine. Neither did I say that you paid a fee to have your work published. I stated the you were charged a fee. You have admitted to me in the past that others had paid the fee for you. I strongly suspect that it was paid by “FAN” or someone afiliated with them. If so, then there is yet another blatant conflict of interest. This bears further investigation.
2. It seems that Ken has exposed your “affiliation” with UCSD to be nothing more than being a member of its alumni association. If UCSD officials are unaware that you are using their name in such manner, they soon will be. Verification of your academic degrees also bears scrutiny.
The JEPH journal policy is to list who the senior editor is for their published materials, and it is public knowledge who the editor of my article is because it is stated in the journal lissue. Did you actually read the article? Or do we have here the George Bernard Shaw description “the problem with communication is that you think it was accomplished.”
Calling any person an anti fluoridation activist (AFA) from the lips of one who opposes those who promote non-drugged drinking water is denigration. The term AFA implies that the person is insanely or nonsensically opposed to fluoride, which is absurd. Fluoride in the ocean where it belongs at 12 ppm is natural and harmless to fish due to the thousands of ppm calcium and magnesium in which it is present which buffer or block the assimilation of fluoride..
The term AFA is a denigration.
i read your critique of the iodine issue you brought up and it itself has flaws. Most papers have some flaws, and those that are pro fluoridation are the most flawed of all.
I read the anti clean water nonsense posted on the listed site about bottom feeding journals. Included in the list is Fluoride in New Zealand. Also included are references to the group called quackwatch. Quackwatch claims that Dr. John Yiamouyiannis’ work on fluoride are all false. Why? Because of an off the wall comment he had made about AIDS that was incorrect Quackwatch throws the baby out with the bathwater, being unable to filter out incorrect material from the truth it contains.
And I suppose you denigrated my racehorse breakdown article data because it was published in the journal Fluoride that you condemn?
That data summarizes nearly a quarter million horse racing starts and I also stand by that data and its interpretation.
Good day to you.
Steve, Ken has debunked nothing that is in the JEPH article in the slightest.
He merely makes the point that it doesn’t matter where the calcium comes from to neutralize fluoride assimilation, not that calcium is unable to mitigate fluoride assimilation. This debunks nothing that was said in the article.
It does not do you well to claim someone paid for the article from the Fluoride Action Network, when they most certainly did not. Where do you get this stuff? Before you have claimed I am a paid “science advisor” for James Deal. Show me. And if donors prefer to remain anonymous I can now see why, with the politics that go with this topic being threatening and oppressive.
Furthermore, don’t change your intent. Please read Ken’s article in WordPress that goes into length about “bottom feeding journals” who publish anything that “authors pays for.”
And now I see your true intention, that you are threatening me and even claiming I am not affiliated with UCSD through Dr. Benson who advised me with the JEPH article, or with Dr. Doolittle. My degrees from UCSD need scrutiny? Of course, because I am opposed to what you believe in, whole body fluoride dosing of everyone on earth, whether sick with kidney or bone disease or not, and whether having zero cavities or not, or even whether having teeth or not. Again, it’s a free country, and this scientist is free to state the truth about the nonsensical and illegal practice of “community water fluoridation.” Attack me ad nauseum. You can’t change the truth but you can certainly throw dirt on it.
And I am ready to submit three articles for publication done in collaboration with Dr.Heinz, Chemistry Dept. Palomar College. She retired 5 days ago and my salary now comes from a different department. So since the articles have not been published yet, am I supposed to drop the affiliation with the Chemistry Department?
The chief reason for publishing Calculus articles in the International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology with the Chemistry Dept affiliation was to ensure that my training in the Calculus was from UCSD. The IJMEST Journal asked about it and was fine with it. So in your estimation is IJMEST also a bottom feeding journal?
Bottom line, the Conclusion section of the WordPress article under discussion claim that “There is plenty of calcium even in “soft” drinking water” — as though somehow all water treated with industrial fluorides will automatically be safe to consume lifetime because of the calcium it will contain for protection against too much being assimilated. That is what the hogwash is. Try telling that hogwash to the Justus family who lost their expensive horses from industrial fluoridated water from the Pagosa River that contained less than 5 ppm protective calcium ion. Don’t make such false claims where the public can read it on WordPress, but rather investigate the whole truth first.
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, I took a quick glance at the Justus case but haven’t had a chance to read extensively. Could you please tell me if there was a lawsuit to compensate for the loss of their expensive horses?
Richard, your ridiculous rants are meaningless. Yes, your credentials and purported “affiliations” will be verified. Since you continue to fail to disclose whom paid your open access fee, it can only be assumed that you have something to hide with that, as well.
Ken, your description of “the reality” is not the whole truth. Waters that contain natural fluoride at 1 ppm typically contain plentiful calcium to go with it, from calcium salts other than calcium fluoride that are also present. On the contrary, water deemed to “need” added fluoride by fluoridation promoters are typically much lower in protective calcium, as one would expect. Adding fluoride drastically lowers the calcium to fluoride ratio to a lower level than present in the water that contained the natural 1 ppm fluoride. The artificially fluoridated water is more harmful than the natural.
This is not rocket science and is easily understood by all High Schoolers around here. Too bad the WordPress article hides it.
David, I can give you a quick answer but bear with me until I get more details for the entire story soon.
My understanding is that the losses were not recovered. But the good thing was the city of Pagosa Springs had citizens who know what they are talking about and ordered the local water district to stop the infusions. They are worthless since eating fluoride all day long won’t prevent and can’t prevent a single dental cavity, and the infusions are harmful causing bone in-growths within the marrow and eventual cancers that killed most of the horses who suffered for years with HF induced colic before fluoride poisoning was finally recognized, not being taught in veterinary school.
The Hooper Bay overfeed disaster litigation is STILL ongoing and may never be settled. The city blames the State of Alaska for making them “fluoridate” with industrial sodium fluoride (if calcium fluoride had been used, the maximum fluoride level in any accident could never have exceeded 7-8 ppm due to poor solubility). Meanwhile, the State blames the city for doing the fluoridating. So it’s an endless impasse. The soft Yukon River water treated with sodium fluoride corrosive and was too much for the fluoridation feed system which corroded and caused fluoride levels to reach an estimated 100 ppm which killed Dominic Smith and sickened 302 others who were life-flighted to the hospital. The fluoride promoters still want to begin “fluoridation” there again, but the Eskimo natives refuse to let them (thank God for Eskimos). But no, the lawsuit has not led to any collection for loss of life and other damages. it is difficult to deal with what many officials actually believe is some sort of National Fluoridation Policy, as dictated by the Surgeon General and the OHD within the CDC.
I see now that teriparatide is FDA approved since 2002 to induce 8% bone growth in one year of treatment and is being considered to be used in cases of skeletal fluorosis to attempt to remodel bone due to the presence of fluoroapatite. It of course would be better to avoid fluoride consumption in the first place. There is no purpose behind fluoridation of bone that always accompanies ingestion of 1 ppm fluoride water and accumulates during lifelong consumption to thousands of mg/kg in bone (NRC, 2006 p. 94). Higher concentrations in bone occur for industrlal sodium fluoride treatment than for calcium fluoride, where 50 grams total chronic intake of fluoride from sodium fluoride led to 10,000 mg/kg in bone but from natrual calcium fluoride reached 7,000 mg/kg (NRC, 2006 p. 97).
Wow, Richard! With hundreds of millions of citizens of the 74.6% fluoridated United States having chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water over the past 70 years, the US must be constantly overrun with skeletal fluorosis by now…….right??
“Several of the more recent reviews on the safety of fluoride intake have discussed skeletal fluorosis, which is extremely rare in the United States. Epidemiological studies in the U.S. of communities with naturally occurring fluoride in the water 3.3 to 8 times the amount in optimally adjusted water supplies found no evidence of skeletal fluorosis. Pages 45-47 of the 1991 Department of Health and Human Services document Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks discusses the topic of skeletal fluorosis topic in more detail and provides references. Only 5 cases of skeletal fluorosis have ever been reported in the U.S. In these cases, the total fluoride intake was 15 to 20 mg./fluoride per day for 20 years.”
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, I’m confused. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like a very well off family in Sonoma, California lost some very expensive horses because of fluoride ingestion from a municipal water supply. The municipality was adding fluoride that killed the horses. The EPA allows up to 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water. Is any of this incorrect so far? What I don’t understand is, with such a substantial loss, and with financial means at their disposal, why wouldn’t the family go after somebody for damages if all of this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? This sounds like an open and shut, slam dunk, no brainer to me. They could obviously afford a pretty good law firm. They could go after the EPA; they could go after the municipality. What am I missing here? This whole story raises some red flags for me.
Regarding the Alaska incident. Yes, overfeeds have occured. Today there are redundancies in water systems to prevent such occurances. In some cases a flow switch is used as a secondary verification of water flow. To say that water fluoridation is unsafe because of that incident would be like saying that ocean travel is unsafe because the Titanic only had half the necessary lifeboats in 1912.
Steve, These are old arguments you and I have already had numerous times. First you claim that I’m somehow unaware that fluoride ion in natural and industrial compounds after dissociation is the same structure from either compound. This proves that you have not even actually read the JEPH article that you love to criticize. The first two sentences in section 3.3 state the fact that the released anion from either compound are structurally identical (not for covalent compounds, but any ionic fluoride compound).
After numerous arguments you still proclaim my lack of understanding of this even in the current blog.
Now you still argue that skeletal fluorosis with fluoride in harder water being minimal in incidence, somehow “proves” that fluoride in softer water is also equally safe. This claim has so many egregious distortions that it would take a week to decipher them for you. 1) Diagnosed fluorosis in various stages is not an accurate science with wide variation in calcium content causing any and each stage with vast overlap as well. Everyone who consumes fluoridated water has some form of at least preclinical skeletal fluorosis because of the fact that at first insult with fluoride in bone, osteoblasts are abnormally stimulated to produce bone of poor quality to r respond to the insult, even in the absence of any feeling of pain yet that would cause one to visit a doctor to seek any diagnosis. You act as though everything is now magically known by the U.S. medical profession about pathologic fluoride incorporation into bone that now is endemic in U.S. citizens who consume fluoride water. Again, find someone in Grand Rapids who has indeed consumed the drugged water their entire life of say 60 years, and someone who only drank re-de-fluoridated water or regular water without fluoride. Apply a force just under that required to break normal bone, and see of the fluoridated skeletal bone withstands that force without a break or crack. These data would be of course be unethical to obtain but are needed before you can claim that artificially fluoridated people behave exactly the same as whether water is consumed that has either no fluoride, or artificially added fluoride, or natural fluoride from calcium rich rock dissolution. The “town without a toothache” farce in Hereford,TX contained 1 ppm natural fluoride and of course was accompanied with vast amounts of calcium and magnesium in the water, as expected. Of course bone fluoride accumulation there would be less than for an artificially fluoridated city at the same 1 ppm level in a city with much softer water than Hereford. Some cities in Texas areas are as high as 500 ppm calcium and water districts refer to that officially as “hard water.”
This is a stab at achieving some sort of communication on this with you that could help you, but this is not very likely. The theory that the vast cases of arthritis extant in this Nation have absolutely zero to do with mass fluoridation of the bony skeletons of our citizens is absurd, but from you it is absolute fact.
You as a fluoridation advocate/activist have your hopes and beliefs, and I have my understanding. Such is life.
And the issue of my “affiliation” with UCSD and degrees subject to “scrutiny”, there are many other ways I am affiliated with UCSD besides working with Dr.Benson on the JEPH article. I have donated a small amount to the campus many years ago. I have for 24 years now trained students who obtained scholarships and in even more cases paid work research laboratory internships at UCSD, mostly at the School of Medicine and at the Jacobs School of Engineering. I have written contributions for the UCSD Alumni magazine which by the way has announced all recent publications including the JEPH and Fluoride articles, among the others. To you my affiliation is somehow dubious, to me it’s quite productive.
Sorry Steve, but the Hooper Bay disaster is not a case with zero merit. You might want to present your opinions to the citizens who lived through it.
Sorry David, but the titanic event was a unique one. Fluoridation overfeeds have occurred in cities across the fluoridated U.S. numerous times. What you seem not to understand also is that community water fluoridation never had a functional purpose in the first place. Fluoride in saliva bathing teeth topically at 0.016 ppm (NRC 2006, p. 73) from 1 ppm fluoride water consumption is useless at affecting dental caries. Fluoridation advocates have attempted recently to change their mechanism of action that even this low level could incorporate into plaque where it could help toothpaste fluoride fight decay. But most dentists argue that plaque should be removed from teeth, not retained to incorporate fluoride to help fight caries. And even topical fluoride gels at 12,000 ppm don’t actually incorporate fluoride into the enamel matrix. Studies in Europe with Xray analysis prove that the enamel surface is merely coated with calcium fluoride globules that are quickly washed off upon eating and swallowed. Why would anyone, in the face of poisoning from an overfeed that took place, and increased morbidity in kidney dlalysis wards from water with target levels of fluoride that required an FDA ruling against it, and chronic fluoridation of bone when the U.S. has an endemic of arthritis, bone replacement surgeries and other bone/tendon related issues, continue “fluoridation” with a hazardous waste as source material for fluoride which can reach lethal concentrations in accidents, when it doesn’t even have a useful purpose? Decreased dental decay in Europe and the U.S. during the years the U.S., but not Europe, expanded artificial fluoridation is explainable to improved tooth brushing and increased sales of toothbrushes and tooth powders, but fluoride eating has absolutely nothing to do with it and never has.
Richard, I’m tired of dealing with your mostly irrelevant verbiage, false claims, misrepresentation of my statements, and utter nonsense. Your comments speak for themselves in regard to your misunderstanding of even the basic elements of fluoridation chemistry.
Richard Sauerheber, you now seem to have veered away from somehow claiming that the only way to ensure adequate levels of Ca in water is to use CaF2 rather than fluorosilicates as a fluoridating agent. That is weird given that the fluoridating agent contributes extremely little to the Ca content of the water – which you acknowledge elsewhere.
As for Hooper Bay you seem to want to draw the lesson that such setups should use saturated CaF2 solution as the feed to avoid the problems of poisoning. Given that this would present mechanical problems the obvious conclusion is that the feed fluorosilicate or NaF solutions should have a restricted maximum concentration – say 7 or 8 ppm F. You happy with that?
Oh, and if you do suddenly remember the role of Ca in you pet theory then the obvious solution, if your idea has any credibility, is simply to add a soluble Ca salt to bring the concentration up to what you define as the optimum level for drinking water.
Now what is the optimum level of Ca for drinking water that your 19 year long high school project experiments enabled you to determine?
This suggestion of mine (continuing use of “industrial” fluoridating agents but defining a optimum Ca concentration using added soluble calcium salts) is far better than switching to “natural” CaF2 because such unprocessed material contains impermissible levels of contaminants. It would require a lot of processing – conversion to HF and reprecipitation of CaF2 to produce the regulated levels of purity which are already defined for the “industrial” fluoridating chemicals.
And wouldn’t that upset the ideologically motivated – your “natural” CaF2 would have become an “industrial” fluoride.
If you like analogies like the Titanic, then what about this one. Any persons who have lived their entire lives without a cavity, and plan to continue keeping their mouth clean to never have one, Intentionally ingest fluoride ion water treated for the purpose of whole body fluoride dosing is like tenting a house that doesn’t have termites while using the wrong chemical that doesn’t work anyway, or it’s like taking any chemical therapy when one doesn’t have the disease that it is advertised for. Fluoridation en masse without a prescription and with FDA approval compares to medical malpractice at best and in reality is irrational, unethical, and illegal.
And the TItanic argument is not worth much because ships at least serve a useful purpose, transportation. Whole body fluoridation has no effective purpose, never will and never has. Fluoride ion does not belong in any living organism.
Richard, anti-fluoride-activist is a perfectly valid term. Someone who is actively anti fluoridation. The only missing qualification are the words ‘community water’ in respect of fluoridation, which is perfectly obvious from context.
Ken, you have no idea what is even presented in the JEPH article. Nowhere does it state that use of calcium fluoride is an acceptable way to adjust fluoride concentrations in water supplies. Fluoride in water is a contaminant, not a desirable material. The anion does not belong in any living organism or tissue. it has no physiologic purpose and in mammals it accumulates abnormally in a biochemically irreversible, permanent manner, where it causes synthesis of bone of poor quality in response to the insult.
I do not suggest calcium fluoride should be used at all. The statement was to indicate that if it had been used, there would not have been the death. Adding 7-8 ppm fluoride from sodium fluoride into Yukon River very soft water would be insane. It is the ratio of calcium to fluoride ion that determines fluoride toxicity. You missed the point of the entire article. A level of about 300 to 1 is typical, for the Colorado and many U.S. rivers. But some rivers are devoid of fluoride and calcium. Adding industrial fluoride at 8 ppm without calcium,forming a ratio far lower than 300 to 1? Really Ken?
The first part of the article on natural calcium fluoride minerals vs industrial synthetic fluoride compounds, where one is not capable of acute lethal poisoning and the second one is, is an introduction to the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed disaster that gave the original impetus to the article in the first place and that produced lethal 4-5 ppm blood fluoride levels in the deceased victim.
The second section deals with fluoride toxicity at intermediate blood levels around 1 ppm as occurred in kidney dialysis victims using fluoridated water in the dialysis equipment.
The third section deals with chronic lower level fluoride toxicity, at blood levels around 0.2 ppm from typical persons consuming 1 ppm fluoride water chronically lifetime with the bone accumulation where it does not belong and serves no purpose.
The fourth section deals with the information requested by the journal editors regarding U.S. fluoridation policy. Foreign countries do not and never will understand dentist obsessions with whole body fluoride dosing through treated public drinking water, and the journal wanted to know what the rationale for this useless practice is.
This Steve is not “utter nonsense” or “misunderstanding.”
Richard, AFA is not an acceptable term unless its meaning is defined. And you did not define it in the beginning. Many argue the term refers to those who hate fluoride anywhere and everywhere, including advocating the removal of natural fluoride from rivers, lakes and even the ocean. That is absurd and is an insult to a biochemist. You now define it better, but it is acceptable and only non-insulting if you mean AFA refers to one who opposes community water fluoridation for the purpose of whole body fluoride dosing in an attempt to treat dental decay by elevating fluoride in the blood where it is a non-nutrient contaminant. If that is your definition of AFA, then you could refer to me as an AFA. if any part of that is removed from the meaning, then you have no right to call me by those letters which would be a misrepresentation. And opposing water fluoridation is not the only activity I do, so the label AFA still is not that good anyway, but does describe an activity in which I am involved.
Topical fluoride does not “remineralize” teeth enamel. Normal teeth enamel contains no fluoride, and fluoridated bone from systemic fluoride is abnormal bone. Useless, harmful, illegal, and an expensive waste of taxpayers’ and others’ money and time. Got the picture?
Many argue the term refers to those who hate fluoride anywhere and everywhere, including advocating the removal of natural fluoride from rivers, lakes and even the ocean
Many (in my opinion, fools) might argue that, but few or none advocate such removal (can you name any?). You cannot ignore common usage. Doing so exposes a very weak argument, one based on pedantry only. You risk looking stupid.
I repeat it is a perfectly valid term.
There is no need to define what the words mean, it is implicit in the meaning of the words.
Anti: prefix, against
Fluoridation: act of adding fluoride to something (note that this by definition excludes natural sources)
Activist: one who actively advocates
Richard, for anyone who misrepresents himself on published scientific literature, as “Chemistry Department, University of California-San Diego” when that affiliation amounts to nothing more than membership in an alumni association of that school, fails to disclose his affiliation with a personal injury attorney who maintains a website called “fluoride-class-action”, fails to disclose the funding source for his published paper, and who spews the utter nonsense that you do……..”antifluoridationist” is an entirely acceptable and appropriate description.
Stupid? How? Yes I can name some but why would I expose their names to you, to be called names as you did here? I can correct their misunderstandings with rational discussion, unlike with the people who support and who wrote the WordPress attack article under consideration here. And please notice you’ve already changed the term in your own words. You first said it meant anti fluoride activist. Which of course is absurd. God Created fluoride compounds. Who can dispute God?
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist, which is more acceptable, but only if you mean what I described above, not some other meaning for it. Fluoridation chemicals used vary from sodium fluoride to fluosilcic acid lilquid to solid sodium fluosilicate salt, as you know, where the first does not increase the dissolution of lead ion from lead salts on plumbing , but fluosilicic acid most certainly does, in spite of what you’ll I suspect hear soon from Slott. Released silicic acid at water pH remains the intact protonated acid. And why do you suggest I risk “looking stupid”? You’re the one who first stated what you meant.
One simple question Richard S. So as to avoid rambling diversions.
After 19 years of research what is the optimum concentration you have found which will counter what you see as the toxic effects of optimum fluoride concentration (0.75 ppm) in drinking water. Simple question simple answer.
I also know many misinformed people who are anti fluoridation activists who refuse to drink fluoridated water, and say they would do so even if they were in the desert without any other water source. Even temporary ingestion they oppose, to their own detriment. So AFA that refers to them does not refer to me. And it is usually those who are sensitive to fluoride who reject it totally so understand the origination of their position. And yes industrial fluoride from fluosilicic acid in soft water can cause hypersensitive reactions in a small percent of people. It can be dealt with, but it is an unnecessary life complication.
Richard S, I recognise another hobby horse of yours. 🙂
The aqueous chemistry of silica compounds is very complex and the chemical forms are often operationally defined. For example we often use the term “monomeric” to cover the molybdate reactive silica in solution. But of course the system is dynamic with olation and oxolation reactions leading to solid silica and it is difficult to define at what degree of polymerisation the species becomes non-reactive.
You may wish to assume all the silica produced in the hydrolytic decomposition of fluorosilicic acid remains as monomeric silica. However, if you do so you must also recognise that it will exist in drinking water as a small fraction of the total monomeric silica present and derived from natural sources.
If you are going to scaremonger about the reactive silica released from hydrolysis of fluorosilicates then to be honest you have to be far more concerned about the greater amounts of reactive silica naturally present in drinking water – including un-fluoridated drinking water.
Now I have obtained a more detailed answer to your original question.
No, the owners never got any kind of a settlement. They told the water municipality that if they ceased fluoridation, they would not sue. At that point they had lost nearly a million dollars, for all the lost horses, vet/medical/necropsy costs, travel taking horses to CO State Univ., medicines, etc. and couldn’t afford more expense getting a lawyer, The chronic slow poisoning went on for years until the last horse with skeletal fluorosis, fibromyalgia, skin disorders, etc. was lost. The expert fluoride toxicologist who diagnosed this suggested a lawsuit because it was so cut and dried. But the owners were then part of a homeowners association lawsuit and it was blatantly clear how corrupt the court system is non this issue, no matter how cut and dried the case. These are the reasons they didn’t sue and their prime goal was to have regular water back again anyway, which it has been ever since, and all horses since then have been fully normal of course.
Again, fluoride toxicology depends on prevailing conditions. The softer the water, the more is assimilated. Understand?
By the way it was the poisoning of these horses that caused my concern for the possible effect of fluoridated water on racehorses not allowed to pasture graze, as at racetracks in Cypress and Inglewood. Indeed, the breakdown incidence increase after fluoridated water began caused Hollywood Park to eventually close down. And Los Alamitos halted purchases of the L.A. drugged water, and switched to use only well water.
(Fluoride, Racehorse Breakdowns and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles, 2013).
Dr. Richard Sauerhaber, much of what you have said is laughable. Dr. Slott rightly pointed out that Skeletal Fluorosis in the U.S. is extremely rare. There have been less than a dozen documented cases in a nation of over 425 million, in the nation that has been practicing CWF longer than any place on Earth. Your response, if I understood you correctly, is that much of the arthritis in the U.S. is undiagnosed SF. At best this is speculation, but more likely it is reaching on your part. It is not my intent to sound cheauvinistic, but medical diagnostics in India, where SF is common, are simply not superior to those in the U.S. Your speculation is a load of crap.
I brought up the incident of the Justus family who lost their expensive horses because it smacked of an anecdote, fed to you through the Fluoride Action Network with no scrutinization, so you could throw it in Dr. Perrott’s face with such self-righteousness (How did you put it? “Try telling that hogwash to the Justus family who lost their expensive horses . . “) that one would have expected you to have a firm grasp on the story. So tell me, Dr. Richard, why didn’t they sue anybody?
My point in questioning your story is that if you lose credibility anywhere, you lose credibility everywhere.
And of course you know that I pointed to the Titanic as an example of archaic standards that have since improved. Industrial accidents happen in every area. Infinitely more people have been injured and killed by chlorine than all forms of fluoride put together. Water system treatment equipment and standards have improved drastically since the Alaska incident, and you probably know that too.
Apologies, Dr. Sauerhaber, I was posting my comment before I had seen your answer to my original question. So, if I understand you correctly, the family decided that it was in their best interests to have the municipality end CWF, after they had lost millions of dollars worth of property.
Wouldn’t it have been better in their financial interest to seek the millions of dollars of compensation that, according to you, they could have easily gotten in court since it was clearly provable, and to have just gotten an inexpensive water filter?
Yeah, Richard, the horse tale was as “cut and dried” as are all other frivolous antifluoridationist nonsense. The woman had at least 6 vets who had examined her horses pre- and post-mortem tell her that their illness was not due to fluoride. Undaunted, she shopped around until she found one who agreed that the symptoms she described to him, which she had deemed her animals to have exhibited, could be consistent with fluoride poisoning.
I don’t know how much you know about the legal system in the U.S., but if anybody has a cut and dried case, easily provable, and millions of dollars are on the line, it is not difficult to find a law firm that will initially take the case pro bono. I submit: Your story is full of holes.
Some relevant information about this horsey story.
Cathy Justus of Pagosa Springs, Colorado (the owner of the horses) is Fluoride Action Network’s National Spokesperson against Fluoride Poisoning in Animals. Given her “activism” and beliefs one would have thought she would litigate like hell. Especially as there are backers (like those who paid for publication of Richard S’s paper) only too interested in supporting a worthwhile case.
Perhaps she didn’t have anything to go on as far as the water supply was concerned as it is usually thought that fluorosis in horses is caused by other things like “ingestion of forages or waters contaminated with fluoride-containing industrial waste, high-fluorine rock-phosphate supplements in animal feeds, and fluoride-containing rodenticides, insecticides, and other chemicals ( see Expert discusses fluoridated water and horses ) in http://horsetalk.co.nz/
Stupid? How? Yes I can name some but why would I expose their names to you, to be called names as you did here?…
You know people who advocate removing fluoride from rivers lakes and the oceans.
…..Ohhh Kaaay….
Good luck to them with that.
And I completely understand that you want to protect their identities.
I also know many misinformed people who are anti fluoridation activists who refuse to drink fluoridated water, and say they would do so even if they were in the desert without any other water source. Even temporary ingestion they oppose, to their own detriment.
Yes, that sounds like a watertight example of stupidity to me.
You appear comfortable saying misinformed people are anti fluoridation activists, are you implying that informed people on the subject can’t be anti fluoridation activists? Just trying to get my head around where you are coming from, it seems to be all over the place.
..blah, blah blah…God Created fluoride compounds. Who can dispute God?
(rolls eyes)
Many do. Not all of us live in the USA where the god superstition is endemic.
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist, which is more acceptable, but only if you mean what I described above, not some other meaning for it.
No. Read carefully.
You disputed the term anti fluoridation activist, arguing it was pejorative.
The term AFA implies that the person is insanely or nonsensically opposed to fluoride, which is absurd. Fluoride in the ocean where it belongs at 12 ppm is natural and harmless to fish due to the thousands of ppm calcium and magnesium in which it is present which buffer or block the assimilation of fluoride..
See?
In case you missed it:
The term AFA is a denigration.
You even provided the “AFA’ as a convenient initialism.
Which leads us to
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist,which is more acceptable
Cross out the word “instead” from the sentence and it would be accurate description of what I said. Yes, I say that anti fluoridation activist means anti fluoridation activist.
I even supplied the dictionary meaning of the words. They mean the same as they did last week and the decade before then: Someone who actively opposes fluoridation.
<blather blather….
And why do you suggest I risk “looking stupid”?
For the exact same reason as I wrote earlier: a weak and pedantic objection to the use of anti fluoridation activist as a descriptive term.
Yes, she and her friendly vet even published a paper on the poisoning, in the journal Fluoride! Absolutely no checking for sources of the poisoning – we just have to take their word for it that it was fluoridated water.
Fluoride poisoning of farm animals is not unknown in NZ and is often caused by releasing animals into freshly fertilised pasture without the recommended withholding period. I am not yet aware pf any NZ farmer suggesting fluoridated water is to blame.
“Controlling for covariates, water fluoridation method was significant only in the models that included dwellings built before 1946 and dwellings of unknown age. Across stratum- specific models for dwellings of known age, neither hydrofluosilicic acid nor sodium silicofluoride were associated with higher geometric mean PbB concentrations or prevalence values. Given these findings, our analyses, though not definitive, do not support concerns that silicofluorides in community water systems cause higher PbB concentrations in children. Current evidence does not provide a basis for changing water fluoridation practices, which have a clear public health benefit.”
—-Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994
Environ Health Perspec. 2006 January; 114 (1): 130-134
Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Delores M. Malvitz
“Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(I1) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”
——Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.
Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2000, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
a. I did not say that medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Where do you guys get the right to distort things I say, to retain the luxury of continuing to argue? I was referring to the fact that no one in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) has sufficient knowledge to know at precisely what level for example fluoride in bone will cause pain. It’s a seemingly simple question but yet varies widely among different people and between various bones. This is because fluoridation of bone can be considered a quite random process. It’s sort of like ingestion of tritium water, where there is no useful MCL for it and its biologic effect too is random. If tritium water molecules emit beta decay onto a point in DNA that is critical, then a deleterious result can occur at even a modest tritium water systemic concentration. If it hits less critical areas then the result is completely different—the luck of the draw. The same with fluoridated locations in the bony skeleton. Some regions are enriched in nerves, others are less enriched, hence some have severe bone pain at low total fluoride overall average levels in bone than others at that overall average level without pain. Bone growths in the Pagosa horses inward into the marrow occurred at bone fluoride levels of only about 4-500 mg/kg. Some fluoride incorporates into compact bone, some in spongy bone, some causing spicules to grow inward, some causing bony outgrowths, but all fluoride incorporation is abnormal and biochemically not reversible. The NRC 2006 Report lists stage II skeletal fluorosis occuring even at as low as 4,300 mg/kg in bone (p. 173) in some individuals but lists a very broad range for it because people are so different and fluoridated scattering of bone is again the luck of the draw. The differentiation between prediabetes and diagnosed diabetes (Type II) is also similarly problematic. There is no easy paradigm to determine whether one should be labeled in a diabetic state, a prediabetic state, or simply an elevated normal, etc. The ADA uses 130 mg% as a cutoff for glucose levels 13 hours after fasting to distinguish, but this depends on whether the patient ate a huge amount of wedding cake the night before or not, etc. Other agencies use a completely different number. Likewise, the point where pre-skeletal fluorosis becomes skeletal fluorosis with boen weakening or bone pain occurs over even a more broad fluoride incorporation range. How does one decide if a hip should be replaced when one has pain? Should the bone fluoride level be above X or above Y? Neither the U.S. nor anyone has adequate answers for that—it’s a game of intuition or art, and in the U.S. this is brought on intentionally because of water “fluoridation” which is unnecessary and useless in the first place. The fluoride content of the bloodstream in fluoridated U.S. consumers is about 75% due to water fluoride consumption (NRC).
.
b. I already told you why they did not sue in Pagosa Springs, but you refuse to accept the truth, so there is little point in repeating it. As for myself, I don’t believe in suing people unless there were absolutely no other recourse for some tragic event. And I would be even more reluctant to sue a public facility, because they are supposed to be public service agencies that can’t go bankrupt because they simply charge the customer for it. Why sue a water utility, when you pay are the one who pays their bills anyway? Sue yourself? Ridiculous. Notice, the owners got what they demanded. Pagosa Springs remains non-fluoridated to this day and their horses are now fine. You can claim Dr. Krook lied if you choose, but you can count me out. No it would not have been likely to “win” a court case against a water district. Did you even comprehend what I posted? The U.S. Surgeon general announces regularly “fluoridation” is considered a great public health achievement, and water districts announce to customers how great fluoridation is to reduce dental decay by 40%, while not harming a single bodily function when ingested for the rest of your lives no matter who you are. Win a court case? Wow.
There were three rare separate court cases where fluoride water was determined beyond reasonable doubt to have exacerbated cancer mortality, but even this did not halt water fluoridation in those locations. One was overruled by a higher court with the proclamation that a court cannot “decide what people drink.” (the ultimate in irony). Again, the horse owners got what the demanded, which is a permanent end to water “fluoridation” in their home town. Got it fluoride pushers? You can leave soft water Pagosa Springs alone now, thank you.
David, it’s not “my story”, it’s “the” story. When were you in Pagosa?
c. The handling of noxious chlorine is nothing as difficult as the handling of corrosive fluosilicic acid with HF. Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine. And by the way employees handling the toxic corrosive are in far more danger living their lives working daily with that than with natural calcium fluoride, another reason why calcium fluoride is preferable to noxious fluosilicic acid for you “fluoridation” nonsense, for the improved safety of the employees, the protection of district equipment and facilities and plumbing fixtures, etc. And again, don’t twist these words into what you want, which is “Richard said it’s better to use calcium fluoride than fluosilicic acid fluoride for fluoridation”. Not true. I denounce “fluoridation” in its entirety. But if you insist on doing it to people, then why not use the safe source material calcium fluoride which is not an officially recognized poison, while fluosilicic acid most certainly is. And calcium fluoride does not leech lead like released silicic acid does (see below).
d. Richard, I’m not “all over the place.” The term anti fluoride activist is different than anti fluoridation activist. If one doesn’t define what he refers to, then he is the one who is “all over the place.” That’s why labels usually have only limited use. Hence your present confusion. You wrote “You disputed the term anti fluoridation activist, arguing it was pejorative.” No, I wrote “AFA” ( defined in your first use context as anti fluoride activist, not anti fluoridation activist). In that sense yes it’s absurd. Again, there are people who hate all fluoride, even that in the ocean, and if the term AFA means that, then it is absurd. If the term means as you later stated, anti fluoridation activist, that is completely different because fluoridation is an intentional act committed by uninformed humans using industrial fluosilicic acid infusions into water supplies which dissociates into silicic acid, sodium ion, and fluoride ion, none of which belong in or are found in clean pristine fresh drinking water (see JEPH 49490, 2013). And BTW I own several dictionaries.
e. As stated by Macik, the analysis was not definitive. That is an understatement. Lead levels in school drinking fountains and in sinks of many homes here in North County skyrocketed after fluosilicic acid infusions began. Those detected were replaced, but the water district stopped testing after that and declared “homeowners will be required to check their own water for lead and to mitigate as needed.” How convenient. “Lead free plumbing” was adopted legally in CA years ago, but who spends money to refit their entire home plumbing systems to accommodate senseless “fluoridation”? (hint—almost no one). And whatever the heck are homes of “unknown age?” What a bizarre attempt to cover over the fact that silicic acid reacts with lead salts on lead-containing plumbing, the older the more lead salts accumulate on the fixture. And notice that “lead free plumbing” is a false name anyway. Here in CA we lead the Nation in procuring such fixtures, but they ALL contain lead, just at lower levels than before.
f. This idea that the U.S. is not a Godly Nation, or as you claim that God is a “superstition,” are common misunderstandings. There is no need to discuss that with you because the AFA comments above, for which this was brought up, have been made clear for the reader.
And Fluoride is not a “bottom feeding” journal as claimed. Is my article worthless or somehow incorrect in totality because (as argued here for the Pagosa horse article) it too is published in Fluoride? That 7 year analysis of 12 years of racing in So CA involved nearly a quarter million horse racing starts and is not “bottom feeding” caliber. What you seem not to understand is that even a journal of “lesser esteem” than another can contain accurate data and good analysis. “Activists” still make statements that are correct. Those who exaggerate to make a point make other statements that are correct. Even a broken watch is correct two times a day. There is no such thing as anyone who should in reality ever be classified as a “liberal” or a “conservative” because no one is only conservative on every issue that exists, and vice versa. Labels for persons who all have infinite minds are very misleading. For example, this discussion began with the assumption that I promote use of calcium fluoride for water fluoridation. Where did this nonsense come from? Someone misquoting me or labeling me with a label that has no exact meaning, like a political term?
Again, GB Shaw said the problem with communication is that it seems to be achieved. When does one person ever actually totally understand another? .
I agree that just because something is written by activist or published in a shonky journal does not, by itself, discredit the work. Although it is natural to ask why it wasn’t submitted to a real journal.
I believe any paper must be analysed for its content – good journal or bad journal. After all, there is plenty of bad work in good journals.
That is something I advocate strongly here – the scientific literature must always be approach intelligently and critically. And that is what I have attempted to do in the articles where I evaluate papers.
I believe I have taken that approach to you paper and have judged it naive and rambling in the process.
As for your little rant about someone assuming you are promoting CaF2 for fluoridation – I think you are mistaken and are diverting.
You have claimed that Ca in drinking water somehow prevents the toxic effects you have claimed for the optimum levels of F. All I have asked, several times, is what is the concentration you claim necessary to “neutralise” the F and what is the evidence for that figure? I could not see that in your paper – that is why I asked.
Its a simple question and you should be able to provide a sensible answer if you indeed have a rational theory on the subject.
I simply observe the fact that the overwhelming majority of USA citizens self identify as having faith in a god. Mostly the christian one, although others claim that their non christian one is the real one.
or as you claim that God is a “superstition,” are common misunderstandings.
QED
There is no need to discuss that with you because the AFA comments above, for which this was brought up, have been made clear for the reader.
Dr. Sauerhaber, I am convinced now, more than ever, that anti-fluoridation activists believe as they do because they can’t read. Your quote: “I did not say that medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Where do you guys get the right to distort things I say, to retain the luxury of continuing to argue?” Please, copy and paste my text – so that I can see it – where I accused you of saying medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Ok. No, sir, it is you who distort things that I say to retain the luxury of continued argument.
The horse story: Yes, you explained why they didn’t sue. Let’s recap. The Justus’ lost millions of dollars worth of horses because of CWF which originated at the municipality. First you said that they had run out of money after all the vet bills. So I pointed out that any normal law firm would drool at the chance to get millions of dollars in damages for a client – pro bono, initially. Then your story was that they didn’t sue because they believed it was in the best interest of the community to get the municipality to end the evil practice of CWF. Wow, this is the stuff of movies. One plot flaw . . If the Justus family really wanted to end CWF, it would have made more sense to sue the EPA for the millions of dollars. After all, its the EPA which allows up to 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water, and a blow to the EPA would have done much more to end CWF, nationwide, than suing one small municipality.
Oh yeah, the courts are corrupt. The courts are part of the conspiracy of silence. Even though you said that this case was cut and dried, and so I’m not accused of misquoting I will copy & paste your text: “No it would not have been likely to “win” a court case against a water district. Did you even comprehend what I posted? The U.S. Surgeon general announces regularly “fluoridation” is considered a great public health achievement, and water districts announce to customers how great fluoridation is to reduce dental decay by 40%, while not harming a single bodily function when ingested for the rest of your lives no matter who you are. Win a court case? Wow.” Wow is right. Dude, any good lawfirm would have jumped at the chance. After all, look what can happen with the right lawfirm. A guy slashes up his wife and another guy. There’s enough DNA to put him away for life. Up steps F. Lee Baily and he gets away with murder because he pretends that his own glove doesn’t fit him. End of story? Not quite. Now he is sitting in prison for trying to steal back his own stuff in Las Vegas. In the U.S. Court System, anything is possible. Everyone knows that.
By the way, there’s some lunatic in Dallas who want’s to sue the City because of CWF. You might want to let her onto your little insight that it’s a lost cause.
Your quote: “The handling of noxious chlorine is nothing as difficult as the handling of corrosive fluosilicic acid with HF. Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine. And by the way employees handling the toxic corrosive are in far more danger …” You’re trying to bullshit the wrong guy on this. When was the last time you handled either bulk sodium hypochlorite or FSA? “Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine.” Wow that sounds pretty bad. I guess you forgot to mention that chlorine is considered a weapon of mass destruction, not HF. (that sounds worse, doesn’t it) I guess you forgot to mention that many millions more have been killed by chlorine than by the handful killed or injured by FSA. This argument is a joke.
I have handled both FSA and sodium hypochlorite, and you’re right. I was injured by handling FSA. I hurt my back by trying to lift a fifteen gallon carboy onto a scale. My fault, I should have gotten help.
The fact that you note FSA is used for glass etching does, however, counter the anti fluoride conspiracy theory that CWF is the only means of disposal for industry.
I’m done with you. You either lie to yourself, in which case you are not rational, or purposely lie to everybody else, which would probably mean there is some money in it for you somewhere.
Mercola – Please tell me I’m wrong and that you were being evasive, when questioned about funding, for another reason. Please tell me it had nothing to do with Mercola. What are your views on vaccinations?
Ken wrote: “I thought it was very noticeable that despite you own pet “theories” about calcium in drinking water you refused to come to the aid of Sauerheber who was putting forward his own pet “theories” on Ca. Surely if you were really interested in a discussion (rather than planting links) you would have done so.”
I’ve spent time with Steve Slott on this before. Perhaps now we could look at whether reductionist thinking needs to be considered here. Physicist Fritjoff Capra was looking into it 30 years ago. (Just listening to “Mindwalk.”)
Even if water may be considered the sum of its parts in its effects. they still need to be thought of in balance. It’s like vitamin B1 can make a person feel great until they run out of the synergistic other B vitamin store in the body. If you eat natural food and use propoer ways of cooking you may get the balance better.
So it’s what other minerals which we may be lucky to get in balance in water, molybdenum &c even for teeth.
Now we eat food which sticks to the teeth. From previous discussion here that seems to have be accepted as one or the postulates that cannot be changed. So we increase fluoride which increases some tooth health. We see fluoride in the tooth structure but do not really know how it gets there.
(I have written on this before but Sauerheber may not have come across it. This seems to be a thread of long articles so I hope that is OK. If you want links please ask.)
I report of Dunedin dentist DB Ritchie reporting that mature pellicle on the tooth surface has biota which concentrate fluoride on the tooth surface and incorporate phosphate with help of magnesium and calcium to apatite. I have also noted pH changes occur in the process.
Nowadays we tend to abrade the pellicle off the tooth with paste and brush though some has softer abrasive. Maori in the Ureweras had very good teeth (about 1% decay) till they went to Auckland. I don’t know if they used abrasive toothpaste but I presume food, (as opposed to complex pellicle) stuck on their teeth and stopped the saliva getting to them.
I have reported that I think, after reading some papers/theses, that fluoride blocks the switch off of the saliva stimulating hormone.
The message is something else is needed to go with sticky food. Now I’ve stated some of the minerals which work together in the mouth.
The talk of calcium and fluoride in water is a bit difficult since often, as Ken says, a calcium compound is used to adjust the pH. That has incidental effects on lead in drinking water which can be increased if the water is left too acid. So when Steve says it is not the fluoridation making the difference he needs to remember that when water starts to be fluoridated the opportunity may also taken to adjust pH and often one without the other does not occur. However his point is about the small quantity from fluoridation. But then when you get rid of reductionist thinking you realise that seawater has 0.05ppm iodine but the seaweed which grows in it extremely concentrates that to some 10,000ppm so sometimes iodine was obtained by burning seaweed. So its really hard to know about water and its effect.
I was an early poster on this thread and asked about Gosford water. I have posted this table before, now I add the sodium levels. Gosford said they adjust pH with Sodium Carbonate. But that is hard to see in the figures.
I can understand that to swallow a calcium fluoride tablet would likely be different from a sodium fluoride tablet. But things are a bit different in water, in my viewpoint.
The lack of understanding the dissociation constant of CaF2 implications to free fluoride ions in drinking water with 0.7 ppm F- and the physiologic naivete with respect to the total unimportance to health of the dynamic changes of HF concentration as the fluoride ion is absorbed utterly discredits this paper.
Billy Budd, Whitford’s article loses power when it writes such as: “Contrary to the author’s claim, fluoride is a normal constituent of the blood and therefore it is present in all tissues of the body including the hydroxyapatite of enamel.”
What about sodium and potassium? Just because something is in blood does not dictate its functional presence in all tissues of the body.
Fluoride is concentrated on the tooth surface with magnesium, calcium and phosphate by the biota in the mature pellicle on the tooth. Its concentration is high compared to in blood or saliva.
There’ll be a bit of sodium and potassium in tooth enamel.
Whitford’s article is written in a sort of put down news style. So it loses power.
“Contrary to his assertion, fluoride has been a measurable component in every substance, animate or inanimate, that has ever been analyzed including sea water, polar ice caps and the atmosphere.”
Besides pandering to two-valued thinking rather than quantity.
Sauerheber says wrong things in my view, but answering ought to be more academic.
On p24 of the book below a figure shows the non-soil fluoride content of some polar ice to be less than 0.05 parts per billion for a lot of the first half of last century.
There was a spike of 1.5 parts per billion in 1947 owing to the Hekla volcano. But by 1990 the general level had been constantly hovering near 0.2 parts per billion or more since 1960. As opposed to sea water which is more like 1,000 parts per billion fluoride. Coal burning?
Ken, thanks for the link to Sauerheber’s article:
“The chief ingredient in normal teeth enamel is hydroxyapatite that contains calcium phosphate, not fluoride.”
That seems a confusing sentence.
Teeth contain hydoxyapatite and fluorapatite. (Amongst other things.) Both of those have calcium phosphate as building block.
fluorapatite: Ca10(PO4)6F2
two fluorine atoms against 6 phosphates.
hydroxyapatite: Ca5(PO4)3OH
Ken do you have access to this?:
S.H. Yoon, F. Brudevold, D.E. Gardner, and F.A. Smith
“Distribution of Fluoride in Teeth from Areas with Different Levels of Fluoride in the Water Supply”
J DENT RES July 1960 39: 845-856, doi:10.1177/00220345600390041101
Brian, I am surprised you found so little to critique in Sauerheber’s article.
I agree he is wrong to describe teeth enamel as “hydroxyapatite” – that idea is very naive. But I disagree that it is a mixture of fluorapatite and hydroxyapatite. In the real world things are never that simple, although they sometimes described that way to make explanations simpler.
The pure end members, fluorapatite and hydroxyapatite will be rare in natural systems like bones and teeth. In reality these will be apatites – or in more detail fluorocarbanotohydroxy apatites where there are variable amounts of carbonate, hydroxide and fluoride substituting. And of course other cations and anions will substitute in small amounts.
Maybe a detail but I think mistakes have been made in the past where hydroxyapatite a have been used a model systems for tooth surfaces.
But, come on Brian. Surely you found far more to criticise in that article?
Since fluoridation seems not to make much difference to the fluoride in the tooth surface, then how does it affect teeth? Could it be that it is only protecting by shutting off the hormone which stops saliva flow?
Another Sauerheber fault: “Ironically, the level of fluoride in saliva that filters from the bloodstream after swallowing water with 1 ppm fluoride is a miniscule 0.02 ppm average ([9] p. 71, personal communication K. Theissen, co-author of NRC Report). This is unable to influence teeth caries at 75,000 times lower concentration than in toothpaste at 1,500 ppm.”
Here learn about how helpful bacteria on the tooth surface can concentrate salivary fluoride on the tooth surface from the very low levels in normal saliva:
Something I have taken the liberty of copying before and posting, for thought, and maybe adjustment. I wonder if Sauerheber is still reading:
Deficient plaque?
I had always thought that plaque was a bothersome layer on the teeth which should be got rid of.
I quote from “Balance of Health 1 Care of Teeth”, by D.B.Ritchie,
University of New Zealand Dental Degree.
page 1. -‘by the skin of our teeth!’-
Teeth, like any other component structures of all forms of life, have a skin, a very special sin. It may be, and often is, called the ENAMEL INTEGUMENT. More often, it is called the DENTAL PLAQUE. It is an invisible, strong and extremely thin membrane covering the enamel and is anatomically and naturally an enduring part of the tooth. It has important vital significance in maintaining health just as the skin of
our face preserves the health of the underlying tissue.”
-“magnesium is the most important di-valent cation of all tissues” –
Paterson, 1974
Twenty years ago, when patients were beginning to copy my initial experiments in the supplemental mineralization of teeth, it was noticed that those who still used tooth paste had an undiminished rate of tooth decay; while those who did not use tooth paste developed a much more caries resistant tooth. This matter was put to Dental School Authorities, who were unable to explain it. Under Prof. Edwards,
Chemistry Dept, Otago University, many repeated tests of this phenomenon showed that saliva from these two classes of patients was significantly different in magnesium content. Under Prof Campbell, I developed a highly technical analytical test for tooth-surface magnesium. I clearly
demonstrated a highly significant deficiency of this element in tooth-surfaces which had suffered abrasion by tooth paste. On the other hand there was a very high magnesium in whole, unabraded tooth-surfaces which naturally retained their dental plaque. Such whole tooth surfaces were
characteristically from teeth free from decay or fillings. Teeth which had suffered toothpaste abrasion (known in research circles as having artificially altered tooth-surfaces) were almost always broken down by intense dental caries. About 5% of the many teeth investigated seemed out of line with these observations. In later years it had been
considered that these lucky few were of children born with almost perfectly constructed teeth, which were apparently unaffected by toothpaste abrasion. The above study was reported (1) (1961) and well received internationally.
-“blind leading the blind”-
Interest was aroused in these results, and the Dental School was requested (2) to carry out a high-level investigation of this phenomenon of abrasion related to the preservation of the dental plaque and subsequent mineralization. After a two-year double blind study carried out on 140 children at the Half Way Bush Primary School, Dunedin, it was
found that children who used toothpaste, regularly or even indifferently suffered a high rate of tooth decay. Children who did not use tooth paste, had almost no tooth decay. The result was highly significant as testified by the Otago Medical School Statistician. (3)
An interesting side-issue was the fact that children whose diet was supplemented by a phosphate mineral powder and who used no toothpaste had 16 times less decay experience than children who did use toothpaste whether with, or without, a phosphate mineral supplement! This latter
result was also highly significant.(4)
The Experimental Salt Mixture in the Half Way Bush study
Mag phos tribas 16 : Calcii phos 8 : Potass phos 4 : Sod phos 1 : Ferri phos sacch. 0.5 : Sod sulphate 2.
Control (No Paste) 2.2 2.2 2.7 1.2 1.3
Mineral Salts (No Paste) 2.2 2.2 1.7 0.3 0.2
The table shows the results reported by D.B.Ritchie of a two year double blind experiment carried out on 140 children at Half Way Bush Primary School, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand, years 1959 -1961.
The high peaks of caries incidence in the toothpaste section (deficient plaque) coincides significantly with the summer acid-fruit season in Otago.
-“strands of research” –
In the years which followed, reports of similar studies appeared in many scientifically prominent research journals. Nizel and Harris (5) reported over 100 studies in which phosphates successfully reduced the incidence of tooth decay. In these test, animals were used where their
dental plaques were kept intact and capable of storing the supplementary mineral obtained from special diets.
page 4.
A.E.Russell (10) of the National Institute of Dental Research, Bethesda, U.S.A. travelled the world studying the teeth of children and adolescents of different nations. These indigenous children wereuntouched by the customary procedures of dental care (no tooth pastes, no dental supervision), as carried out in the U.S.A. He stated “the very
low caries experience of children and adolescents in different parts of the world as compared with the decay rate seen in America and similar western countries, cannot be explained by diet alone”. The natural tooth-surfaces of these native children compared with the toothpasted, altered tooth-surfaces of American children, explained the great
difference.
pages 9-10. It is born out by many native populations, and is certainly my experience professionally, that children’s teeth, maturing in a natural, healthy environment, should be kept clean by the eating of fibrous foods, including fruits and vegetables, at the end of a meal.
Perhaps starting at 8 or 9, the use of a soft nylon brush could be helpful at night time. The brush is dipped into a simple mineralizing solution of baking soda (1 teaspoon) plus crude sea salt to taste (up to about half a teaspoon) in half a cup of water… Bacteriologic tests (7) have shown the survival in this solution of larger proteolytic organisms
which are helpful in “policing the plaque”… can be slightly improved by a small amount of strontium chloride, and a very little fluoride (below 50 ppm). Only a faulty diet will leave unsightly debris (possibly materia alba), and then brushing becomes a necessity.
For adult dental hygiene, I have long recommended a mixture of phosphate powders (Dentamin), quickly soluble and reactive with saliva, which produce an excellent mineralising effect within the dental
plaque….However such dentrifice powders have a very restricted use for children, as the possible hurried application to anterior teeth before the careful mixing with saliva might give these powders a slightly abrasive effect on the young teeth. Instead I have produced a safe gel-paste (Biodentamin-C) based on the research of Dr Wei (8) who has demonstrated the possibility of using a “pre-enamel” formula in restoring defect enamel surfaces.
-‘pre-enamel, one stage removed from true enamel’-
Dicalcium phosphate dihydrate is such a pre-enamel compound, and it has been formulated into a pleasantly acid gel. It can be safely brushed upon the young teeth, using a very tiny amount, and gives a highly
successful build up of plaque mineral which appears to stabilize even visible defects in the enamel surface. It is followed, of course, by a copious flow of saliva which washes the teeth, and should be swallowed.
It contains traces of dicalcium\dimagnesium phosphate dihydrate, a very important mineral nutrient, particularly for a growing child. The bicarbonate of the saliva raises the tooth-surface pH to a point where the pre-enamel is converted to true enamel, or hydroxy-apatite. Also in the presence of the high plaque fluoride (possibly as magnesium
fluoride) the hydroxy-apatite is converted to fluor-apatite, the most stable form of enamel known to man. This simple biochemical sequence need not worry you, it all happens automatically. The pre-enamel gel paste is best used at night time, as resting saliva (when a child is asleep) becomes highly alkaline, and will help the more thorough
conversion to fluorapatite. After breakfast, a quick brush with the baking-soda-salt solution would ensure a safe plaque environment throughout the day..
Home dental care in these terms is the practical enhancement of natural protective oral conditions, and produces clean shining teeth with a sweet mouth odour.
” – “what about fluoride?” – public query
What about fluoride? The dental authorities have neglected to inform the public many things about fluoride, the most important being of course, that a natural concentration of fluoride (much higher than in our common
foods) exists at the tooth surface – and this fluoride is destroyed quickly and completely by abrasion with common toothpastes. The importance of fluoride in relation to maturing of young enamel lies in its natural concentration, form, and location in the plaque at the
enamel surface. Gedalia (9) of the Hebrew College of Medicine, Hadassah, has shown that the tooth-surface fluoride varies little, indeed, whether
a person has been born and bred in a region of high fluoride (1-2 ppm) or in a region of low fluoride (0.1 – 0.2 ppm) in the water supplies.
In South Africa, some 20 miles from Johannesburgh, native high school students were surveyed for dental caries. Their decay experience was extremely low, mostly that from teenage girls who used abrasive clay and
ashes to clean stains from their front teeth. Such stains were due to fluoride in their drinking water (3ppm). In the neighbouring district, a similar survey again showed a low caries experience. But in this latter district, there was no fluoride in the drinking water/ In both districts
a lightly-milled (whole grain) mealie meal was the staple diet. No toothpaste was used. Surely this is a most revealing research study of the value(?) of high fluoride in water supplies!”
(1) D.B.Ritchie, “Nature” 190 : 4774; 456 – 458, (1961).
(2) Otago University Council (1959).
(3) G.Spiers, Official Statistical Report, H.W.B. Research Study, Otago
Daily Times, 4 August 1961
(5) Nizel and Harris, Journal of Dental Research; 1123 – 1136, 1964
(6) T.Koulourides, Arch. Oral Biol., 14; 1407 -1417 (1969)
(7) Otago Univ. Bacteriology Dept., (circa 1964).
(8) Wei and Wefel, Journal of Dental Research, 55 : 1; 135-141 (Jan
1976)
(9) J. Dent. Res. 39; 4; 849 (1960)
(10) A.E.Russell, Journal of Dental Research, 40; 3,602 (1961).
Apologies for confusions caused as I look at this little known, but possibly very significant, and emotionally charged, topic.
I am probably spoiling this a lot by taking these short abstracts from this 12 page booklet.
What is current thinking on this?
Colgate in New Zealand now make a tooth paste with calcium phosphate in it as a mild abrasive. Their gels have no calcium but rougher silica abrasive.
Triclosan is an antibacterial agent in them, and I wonder how that affects the “larger proteolytic organisms”. They also now make a toothpaste with baking soda, but no calcium, and some other abrasive ingredient, titanium dioxide, which I wasn’t too sure about for myself.
With all due respect for the education and intelligence of the posters here, a lot of this reads like “this is your society on fluoride”. No competent medical prescription should ever be given without a complete patient profile, and that means at the individual level. And if you want to say that “well, this is more like an OTC medication” then ABSOLUTELY no such product should ever be allowed promotion on the basis “everyone use as much as you need all day every day, lifetime sentence, double or triple the dosage if you try to stay healthy with vigorous exercise.” Should any cancer patient of any kind ever be given entirely indiscriminate doses of an EPA carcinogen in something as essential as the bathing/cooking/drinking water? Absolutely not. Blowing it all out of proportion with extremely complicated over-analysis is a great way to cloud the issue, but in reality it is just plain dirt simple. Abortion is murder, so is fluoridation, just much longer and slower, especially given the near impossibility of ever getting a fluorosis diagnosis out of an AMA doctor or ADA dentist much less an effective root-cause-addressing therapy recommendation out of them.
Hello, Ken. I realize I came in a bit from left field above and I have only very recently discovered the materials on this board so I have quite a bit of study yet to do.
One form that “murder” may take is to not kill them outright but make their lives a living hell. Fluoride certainly does appear to work that way.
I was born in 1953 in Evanston, IL which was fluoridated in 1947, so I never had a chance to opt out of the program. The predominantly Jewish “enclave” of Skokie was right next door, and their muni supply was all from Evanston, which would seem to be an important historical consideration. I was never in the loop but I am very skeptical they would have been either disinformed or uninformed about the agenda, and I at times imagine there may have been some clandestine large-scale filtering implemented, but that’s pure speculation on my part.
As a lifetime sufferer of allergies and other immune-related issues, I have certainly deal with my share of the living hell, and I always suspected fluoride was playing a role but could not find accredited professional support in those concerns. This “caries” even to the point of having been prescribed Flonase for allergic rhinitis, which is a fluorinated medication, which produced some rather strange and mixed results, none of which were ever professionally attributed to the Flo aspect of the flonase. Also switching off fluoride toothpaste did not seem to provide the expected relief, although it certainly is fluoride-toxic in other ways.
I had tossed the towel on ever finding a safe and manageable fluoride detox method until a recent episode with CFC refrigerant release in my home prompted new readings and I discovered the information on tamarind, which prompted some personal experimentation with an Asian import tamarind paste purchased at the local food coop.
At no point in my readings on tamarind did I find any suggestion that it might provide rhinitis relief, although it is documented to provide therapeutic benefit for much of the laundry list of ailments most often suggested by your “psychos” to be at least in part caused by fluoride toxicity. Lo and behold, I have found that loratadine alone has never been any better than marginally effective in managing my rhinitis, but when I consume tamarind paste, all rhinitis symptoms vanish for 6 hours or more. In season, I am now finding I can detect allergenic fluoride content in any food, most notably some varieties of sea salt which have a very aggressive sensitization capability even in organic food products.
No attempt has been made as yet to develop “accredited evidence” regarding this. I would be greatful for any understanding the distinguished participants on this board might provide.
And as well, given I was originally looking for enlightenment “in-topic” as regards soft water, calcium and membranes, any comments that anyone here might have on how fluoride might transport into the inner ear, and what the consequences might be, would be greatly appreciated.
Fluoride ionicly bounds to calcium. That’s why it leaches calcium from our bodies and leads to ostiperosis.
Dentists spend a fortune pushing it in our water supply because brittle teeth is good for business. Same reason why many dentist traditionally give kids sugar candy such as lollipops after a checkup.
The real issue here is fluoride in drinking water should be a personal choice not mandated by some idiot politician. I was subjected to fluoridated water when growing up and it made my teeth yellow but did nothing to prevent tooth decay. My entire family has had thyroid problems including thyroid cancer. I should have a choice that doesn’t involve spending a small fortune on a whole house filter.
Sorry “Osteoporosis” That was a late nite typo. Les is right we should have a say in what goes in our water or at least a vote. Why do the Dental Association and chemical company Lobbyist get to choose for us? One a brighter note, In the future chemical companies may make more money selling their fluoride salts to power companies running Thorium reactors rather then selling it to the public water utility districts.
Todd, who the hell is suggesting we not have a say on issues like community water fluoridation (CWF)? Certainly not me – you are raising a red herring – and in the wrong place.
I came into this issue for 2 reasons:
1: Our local council, under pressure from anti-fluoride campaigners stopped fluoridation of our drinking water – despite clear support for this effective and safe social health measure as shown by a previous referendum and council polling. After protests and petitions the council eventually allowed a referendum which showed 70% of the voters wanted community water fluoridation so it was eventually returned. The council ended up looking silly – and undemocratic.
2: I became aware that the anti-fluoride activists were telling lies about the science behind community water fluoridation. As a chemist I have been writing articles, like this one, to correct that misinformation.
You are wrong in your scientific claims too. The low concentration used in CWF is well below the solubility of CaF2 – it does not cause leaching of Ca from our bodies. It does not cause osteoporosis – Who the hell told you that.
In fact, fluoride is a normal and natural component of the bioapatites (bones and teeth) in our bodies. Without it our bones would be weak and too soluble.
You are also mistaken if you think there is no market for fluorine compounds – they are essential in the chemical, pharmaceutical, electronic and other industries. We don’t have to wait around for molten fluoride reactors to find a marker.
As for you conspiracy theory about dentists and the chemical industry somehow pressuring local bodes – also wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. The anti-fluoride campaigners are actually financed and ideological/commercially supported by the “natural”/alternative health industry – big business.
Sorry that was “On a brighter note”. The reason Cacium Fluoride is safer is because the two Fluoride molecules have already made their ionic bond to one Calcium molecule and no longer need to rob a Calcium molecule from your body.
No, Todd, you are wrong. CaF2 will maintain a fluoride concentration of about 8ppm – much higher than used in CWF and well above safe levels. In areas of endemic fluorosis such as in China, India, etc., it is the CaF2 mineral which supplies the excessive fluoride concentration.
In solution the hydrated F-, Ca2+, etc., exist quite independently – they are only bound in an ionic bond when in the solid form.
Actually, apatites have a far lower solubility than CaF2.
F in CWF does not “rob” Ca from the body – that is ludicrous.
You claimed: “two Fluoride molecules have already made their ionic bond to one Calcium molecule and no longer need to rob a Calcium molecule from your body.” You seem not to understand the nature of ions in solution. Calcium in blood, bones and teeth exists as an ion – not a molecule. And F in fluoridated water does not “rob” Ca from the body.
The Sodium Fluoride MSDS classification is TOXIC (lethal in small doses)
In comparison the Calcium Fluoride MSDS is classified as Xi (Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin) So one is lethal in small doses and the other is just an irritant. I would call that a difference. Also found several .gov sites that says Calcium neutralizes the bioavailability of Fluoride. According to the CDC Lime neutralizes fluoride. Every science site i found says Calcium fluoride is insoluble but Sodium Fluoride is. Seams like there are a lot of differences between these two Fluoride compounds. If Calcium Oxide neutralizes Fluoride what is the chemical reaction?
tkolin, Material Safety Data sheets do not describe the problems of chemicals in small doses. They are meant for people who handle, transport or manufacture the concentrated chemicals. These safety data sheets are irrelevant to the question of safety of the water that comes out of your tap.
The concentration of a chemical determines its toxicity. Calcium fluoride has a low solubility but can support a concentration of about 8 ppm F. That is why it is responsible for the problems in regions of endemic fluorosis. Yet the usual target for community water fluoridation is 0.7 ppm. At this concentration fluoride is not toxic.
Ken, you say that Flouride in CWF does not rob the body of calcium, however this is straight from the CDC.gov website. “the fluoride ion, which is able to penetrate tissues and bind intracellular calcium and magnesium. This results in cell destruction and local bone demineralization. Systemic deficiency of calcium and magnesium and excess of potassium can occur.”
Isn’t bone demineralization part of osteoporosis? Ken you may be a scientist but your not a nutrionalist, or an expert in human biology.
That quotation is about hydrogen fluoride. It has nothing to do with CWF.
Ken does not need to be an expert in human biology to understand there is a major difference between the effects of hydrofluoric acid on human tissues and the effects of community tap water on the same tissues.
OK tkolin, I have found the section you quoted from the CDC. It is on their page âMedical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Fluoride
(HF):â
âAcute Exposure
The toxic effects of hydrogen fluoride are due primarily to the fluoride ion, which is able to penetrate tissues and bind intracellular calcium and magnesium. This results in cell destruction and local bone demineralization. Systemic deficiency of calcium and magnesium and excess of potassium can occur. Hypocalcemia can cause tetany, decreased myocardial contractility, and possible cardiovascular collapse, while hyperkalemia has been suggested to cause ventricular fibrillation leading to death. The adverse action of the fluoride ion may progress for several days before symptoms appear.â
Now, isn’t it a bit dishonest to omit the section referring to hydrogen fluoride, or hydrofluoric acid, and imply the quote is relevant to CWF??
Actually, I think it is very dishonest to make the implications you have with this quote and it is obvious why you refused to provide a link.
tkolin – I disapproved of your dishonesty in using a quote referring to hydrofluoric acid to justify your claim that community water fluoridation is harmful. It surprises me that you have not even apologised for this deception.
There is absolutely no evidence I have seen to support the claim that F at concentrations used in CWF is harmful to the body – quite opposite. I suggest you have not seen any evidence for that claim either – otherwise you would not have sunk to the deception of using an out of context quote to justify you position.
Ken, I apologize about the hydrofluoride reference. The point I was trying to make with the reference was that free Fluoride ions do in fact negatively effect the bioavailability of Calcium.
To spend this much time debating the pros of CWF you must be real passionate about dental carriers. Seems like several members of this blog have a real vested interest in CWF or just WAY to much free time on their hands.
Debating CWF on this blog is paramount to arguing religion. The true believers will never convince the Atheists that God exists and the Atheist will never get the believers to loose thier faith. No empirical evidence of any kind will get the other side to sway from thier core beliefs. This is why I am going to bow out of this debate. Also because my specialty is integrated electric propulsion systems and not science or biology although I find both fascinating. Adios Amigos 🙂
tkolin, you are “bowing out” because you didn’t have empirical evidence and manufactured some by using an inappropriate quote. That is completely against the scientific ethos.
Worse, you then try to accuse others of refusing to accept evidence.
This is not the first time I have had commenters do this here. It doesn’t win my respect.
Ken wrote: “There is absolutely no evidence I have seen to support the claim that F at concentrations used in CWF is harmful to the body – quite opposite. I suggest you have not seen any evidence for that claim either ”
Ken recently you linked to an old TED presentation which gave statistics of large numbers of deaths in the world from measles. The bulk of those come from malnourished peoples. You made no complaint about that dietary consequence not being explored.
Previous studies I have posted suggest fluoride worsens effect of too little or too much iodine. You disagree, but here is a study with fairly average iodine (iodised salt)
“Fluoride, a goitrogenic substance in drinking
water, is another contributing factor to high GP (goiter prevalence). The fluoride concentration of drinking water was as high as 1.00 mg/kg in
Chongqing municipality, which led Chongqing to have the
highest GP (18.37%, 18 of 98)”
Interesting, Brian. You have followed my exchnnage with tkollin yet you have not commented on his lies and the way he was caught out. What is your view of commenters who misrepresent the facts this way? What is your view of commenters who do this then accuse others of approaching the issue like a relgionist who ignores the facts?
This was a very informative set of comments. Even without being a chemist or having any background in biology, I learned a lot about fluoride. Also the endless logical fallacies spouted by Ken and Steve combined with the clear, concise, and patient rebuttals by Richard Sauerheber makes me side with the anti-flouride crowd it seems.
Kaisha, what specifically did you object to in my article? I am happy to clarify but, at the moment, I can only interpret your lack of example as indicating a bias.
I am sure Steve would also be happy to respond to specific examples or questions.
Possibly the most powerful toxic effect of fluoride is to be an ENZYME INHIBITOR in the human body. Particularly, fluoride inhibits trypsin and chymotrypsin -pancreatic proteases needed for protein digestion- (Penn et al. 2007; Fahrney and Gold 1963); esterases -enzymes needed for fat metabolism and anti-oxidant role- (Myers and Kemp 1954); the antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase (Morales-González et al. 2010); and phosphatases – enzymes needed for phosphorus metabolism- (Yamaguti et al. 2013).
In the human body, enzymes are needed for the basic work of nutrition which is predominantly an enzyme hydrolytic process. Enzymes are also needed for detoxification, as for example, the Cytochrome P450 activity. The immune system relies on enzyme activity for its control on antigen substances. The first line of defense against oxidative stress is provided mainly by antioxidant enzymes. Certainly, fat metabolism is also dependent on enzyme activity, thus low levels of certain enzymes may predispose individuals to obesity. Particularly, obesity, diabetes and cancer are associated with low levels of pancreatic enzymes (Partelli et al. 2012; Teichmann et al. 2011; Bilgin et al. 2009).
Furthermore, low levels of antioxidative enzymes are associated with cancer, obesity, diabetes, autism, ADD/ADDH and Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases (de Carvalho and De Mesquita 2013; Battisti et al. 2011; Matés et al. 1999).
REFERENCES FROM MEDLINE
Battisti V, Maders LD, Bagatini MD, Reetz LG, Chiesa J, Battisti IE, Gonçalves JF, Duarte MM, Schetinger MR, Morsch VM (2011); “Oxidative stress and antioxidant status in prostate cancer patients: relation to Gleason score, treatment and bone metastasis”; Biomed Pharmacother.; 65(7):516-24.
Bilgin M, Balci NC, Momtahen AJ, Bilgin Y, Klör HU, Rau WS (2009); “MRI and MRCP findings of the pancreas in patients with diabetes mellitus: compared analysis with pancreatic exocrine function determined by fecal elastase 1”; . J Clin Gastroenterol.; 43(2):165-70.
de Carvalho MD, De Mesquita JF (2013); “Structural modeling and in silico analysis of human superoxide dismutase 2”; PLoS One. 2013 Jun 13;8(6):e65558.
Fahrney DE, Gold AM (1963). Sulfonyl Fluorides as Inhibitors of Esterases. I. Rates of Reaction with Acetylcholinesterase, α-Chymotrypsin, and Trypsin. J. Am. Chem. Soc.; 85 (7), pp 997–1000.
Matés JM, Pérez-Gómez C, Núñez de Castro I (1999); “Antioxidant enzymes and human diseases”; Clin Biochem.; 32(8):595-603.
Morales-González JA, Gutiérrez-Salinas J, García-Ortiz L, Del Carmen Chima-Galán M, Madrigal-Santillán E, Esquivel-Soto J, Esquivel-Chirino C, González-Rubio MG (2010). Effect of sodium fluoride ingestion on malondialdehyde concentration and the activity of antioxidant enzymes in rat erythrocytes.Int J Mol Sci.;11(6):2443-52.
Myers DK, Kemp A (1954). Inhibition of Esterases by the Fluorides of Organic Acids. Nature;173, 33 – 34.
Partelli S, Frulloni L, Minniti C, Bassi C, Barugola G, D’Onofrio M, Crippa S, Falconi M (2012); “Faecal elastase-1 is an independent predictor of survival in advanced pancreatic cancer”. Dig Liver Dis.; 44(11):945-51.
Penn AH, Hugli TE, Schmid-Schönbein GW (2007). Pancreatic enzymes generate cytotoxic mediators in the intestine. Shock.;27(3):296-304
Teichmann J, Riemann JF, Lange U (2011); “Prevalence of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency in Women with Obesity Syndrome: Assessment by Pancreatic Fecal Elastase 1”; ISRN Gastroenterol.; 2011: 951686.
Yamaguti PM, Simões A, Ganzerla E, Souza DN, Nogueira FN, Nicolau J (2013). Effects of single exposure of sodium fluoride on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzymes in salivary glands of rats. Oxid Med Cell Longev.;2013:674593.
Ken, Regarding risks and benefits of water fluoridation, I have been observing that the role of fluoride as an enzyme inhibitor in the human body is not reported. Its inhibitory effect is dose dependent and there is no a low safe concentration that prevents enzyme inhibition. Again, enzyme activity drives all metabolic pathways in the plant and animal kingdom, so any exogenous agent that reduce/block enzyme activity in the human body implies a risk for various types of diseases. Briefly, if pancreatic enzymes for example (amylase, lipase and protease), are reduced by an external factor, an individual may be at risk of suffering pancreatitis, with intestinal dysbiosis, which leads to small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, intestinal bacteria/yeast translocation to the portal system and derived pathologies, which may include intestinal inflammation, colitis, obesity, diabetes and cancer.
Victor, I am suprised at your claims that aspects of health effects of fluoride are “not reported.” If they haven’t been – then what is the source of you list of possible effects?
I note that in fact there have been several scientific reviews of the possible health effects of community water flupodiation. An excellent one I recommend to you was that done by the Royal Scociety of NZ and the Office of the NZ Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. It is Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence.
Ken, thanks for the paper. It allows me to highlight my point: there is no any single comment on enzymes inhibition. My way of thinking is the following: I found various papers in MedLine indicating that fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor. Those papers reported inhibition of pancreatic enzymes, esterases, anti-oxidative enzymes and phosphatases. Then, I can look at MedLine for physiological/pathological consequences of low levels of enzyme activity. I did that. Thus, the complete concept is: Fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor and see what happens in the human body when enzymes are inhibited. Regarding enzymes deficit in the human body, I have a good review on that, so I can provide several MedLine references about diseases linked to low levels of enzyme activity in the human body. That is why I posted some of the references. Just, please, take a brief look. Besides this discussion, one may discover the important role of enzymes in keeping a healthy body.
Victor, you did not post any references. You have not provided anything to look at.
One has to interpret the literature sensibly and critically to establish if they are relevant to community water fluoridation – without citations how can one do that?
Fluoridation in NZ began in 1957. Other places in the world began earlier.
The reason fluoridation started was that people in areas of naturally occurring high water fluoride were observed to have greater resistance to tooth decay, although they had some tooth mottling (fluorosis). No other effects were noted.
We’ve been observing the health of people in naturally high fluoride areas for over four generations, those with CWF for over two generations.
None of the enzyme inhibition that you find so interesting in the Petrie dish have been observed to have an effect in populations with fluoridated water. Possibly because they are dose related and only occur at doses in excess of those found in fluoridated water?
Subtle enzyme inhibition found in the Petrie dish, where fluoride concentrations are well above those seen in CWF, have not been found to have an effect in humans exposed to CWF or even in those exposed to higher concentrations of naturally occurring water fluoride.
Tens (hundreds?) of millions of people with fluoridated water supplies have been observed for multiple generations. Effects found: teeth that are more resistant to decay, dental fluorosis in areas with high naturally occurring fluoride, possible dental fluorosis in areas with CWF.
I believe we have to ask if there is a dosage level beneath which there is no enzyme inhibition in vivo.
There are certainly many prescription medications that need to be prescribed at a certain level before they have any effect on the human organism, no matter their effect on human cells in the Petrie dish.
I believe there have been many potential medications, based on Petrie dish results, that have had no effect on animal models and so their development has been halted by their respective developers.
After reading the comment that “Fluoridation in NZ began in 1957”, I was thinking for myself that if the fact is true, then there shall be a high prevalence of obesity in NZ. So, I visited the web site of the NZ Ministry of Health (http://www.health.govt.nz/) and sadly found the following:
“New Zealand has the third highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, and our rates are rising. Almost one in three adult New Zealanders (over 15 years) is obese, and one in ten children”.
“The adult obesity rate increased from 27% in 2006/07 to 31% in 2014/15”.
After finding this data, and without any pre-judgment, one should ask: what is happening in NZ?. Why this high prevalence of obesity? What is happening in NZ that differentiates this country from others with lower incidence of obesity?
But before somebody says that I am postulating that fluoride exposure is the cause of obesity, I need to clarify some points: Regarding enzymes in the body, there are three factors that account for the overall level of enzyme activity:
1) Exposure to high levels of dietary antigens: In 1945, Paul Kouchakoff received the Nobel Prize for its research on the phenomenon called “digestive leukocytosis”. Kouchakoff found that cooked/processed foods are received by the body as antigen substances, thus activating an immune response upon digestion of those foods. Then, digestive leucocytosis refers to an increase of white blood cells after having a meal with cooked/processed foods. It is an immune response similar to a case of infection. Kouchakoff also reported that raw foods do not produce digestive leukocytosis. The briefing of the Kouchakoff research can be found in the paper “Influence of Food on the Human Blood Formula”. Translation is mine from the French “L’Influence de l’Alimentation sur la Formule Sanguine de l’Homme” (Kouchakoff, 1937). If an individual is having three meals per day with cooked/processed food, it implicates a continuous activation of the immune system and, as the immune system relies on enzymes for antigens destruction (i.e. phagocytosis by using lysosomal enzymes), it involves an excessive expense of enzymes.
2) Exposure to high levels of xenobiotics. The body has a mechanism to detoxify xenobiotics. It is the Cytochrome P450, a group of enzymes that produces chemical changes that make a toxic compound more hydrophilic, so it can be effectively eliminated by the kidneys. Enzymatic activity of the Cytochrome P450 usually involves hydrolysis, oxidation or reduction mechanisms. An excess of xenobiotics such as plaguicides, naphthalenes or any other endocrine-disrupting substance implicates also an excessive expense of enzymes in the body. Fluoride shall be considered as a xenobiotic having the particularity that it links to the active site of enzymes, thus impeding the enzymes to continue to do their job.
3) As enzymes are used, they shall be replaced through dietary sources. In fact, enzymes shall be considered a kind of ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT. Furthermore, the body is so sensible to this way of recharging body enzymes that our first source of enzyme ‘reload’ is through the maternal milk. An interesting paper from Shahani et al. (1980) reported 23 enzymes present in maternal milk. An individual that do not have an adequate consumption of enzyme-rich foods such as raw vegetables, fruits or fermented foods is at risk of developing disorders associated to low levels of enzymes, such as obesity.
As a conclusion, an individual having a basic diet of cooked/processed foods, that is exposed to various xenobiotics – between them, the fluoride – and that did not take a sufficient amount of enzyme-rich foods is at high risk of developing disorders associated to low level of enzymes, between them, obesity.
In order to emphasize the point of obesity and its relation to low level of enzymes, the research from Teichmann et al. (2011) found that human body mass index is associated with the loss of pancreatic enzyme production. Nakajima et al. (2011) also found reduced pancreatic enzyme output in obese subjects, additionally reporting that the condition is also noticeable in subjects with type 2 diabetes.
The most important enzymes in charge of fat metabolism are found reduced in obese subjects:
For example, the lipoprotein lipase (LPL) an enzyme in charge of promoting the cellular uptake of chylomicron remnants, cholesterol-rich lipoproteins, and free fatty acids is reduced in obesity (Wang and Eckel 2009; Mead et al. 2002). Particularly Mead et al. (2002) also reported LPL deficiency in atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and dyslipidemia associated with diabetes, insulin resistance, and infection. Saiki et al. (2007) reported that LPL deficiency reflect systemic oxidative stress and might be a biomarker of metabolic syndrome.
The adipose triglyceride lipase and the hormone-sensitive lipase are specific enzymes of the adipose tissue, they are in charge of triglyceride hydrolysis in order to produce and deliver fatty acids to the blood. Both enzymes are reduced in obese subjects (Jocken et al. 2007; Steinberg et al. 2007; Coppack et al. 1992).
Anti-oxidative enzymes are also reduced in obesity. In obese subjects, antioxidant defenses are lower than normal weight counterparts and their levels inversely correlate with central adiposity. Recently, the paraoxonase (PON) enzyme family has emerged as a new class of antioxidant enzymes, playing an important role in obesity-associated illnesses, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus (Savini et al. 2013). PON expression is reduced in obese subjects as reported by Aslan et al. (2011) and Ferretti et al. (2010).
Anyway, I found two papers (one in MedLine, the other in Researchgate) linking obesity to dental fluorosis: Merdad (2013) found that overweight/obese subjects were more likely to have dental fluorosis than subjects with healthy weight or underweight. Finally, a recent study in Russia (Galkina et al. 2015) found high prevalence of fluorosis in children and adolescents diagnosed with obesity.
For New Zealand, a study by Gentles et al. (2007) reported that “The prevalences of metabolic syndrome were significantly higher in Pacific people and Maori compared to Others and measures of obesity accounted for most of the ethnic differences”.
Another study for New Zealand developed by Coppell et al. (2013) and published in the Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association reported that “overall, prevalence of diabetes was 7.0%, and prevalence of prediabetes 25.5%. Prevalence of diabetes was higher in men than in women and was higher among the obese, compared with the normal weight group”.
Finally, in the NZ Ministry of Health website and regarding colorectal cancer, it is reported that “New Zealand has one of the highest bowel cancer rates in the world”.
Regarding this last data, I want to add that any agent that promotes pathological changes in the normal gut microbiota (bacteria/yeasts) may produce intestinal dysbiosis and consequent inflammation of the bowel tissue. Systemic inflammation is then a big risk for cancer. The loss of pancreatic enzymes normally produces intestinal dysbiosis. Both pancreatic enzymes and bicarbonate helps to maintain a normal symbiotic microbiota.
Oral ingested fluoride may be one of the main agents that reduce pancreatic enzyme activity as well as other enzymes located ‘downstream’ of the gastrointestinal tract, thus exposing an individual to a high risk of obesity and associated disorders.
CITED REFERENCES
Aslan M, Horoz M, Sabuncu T, Celik H, Selek S (2011); “Serum paraoxonase enzyme activity and oxidative stress in obese subjects”; Pol Arch Med Wewn.; 121(6):181-6.
Coppack S, Evansa R, Fishera R, Frayn K, Gibbonsa G, Humphreys S, Kirka M, Pottsa J, Hockadaya T (1992); “Adipose tissue metabolism in obesity: Lipase action in vivo before and after a mixed meal”; Metabolism; Vol. 41, No. 3, 264–272.
Coppell KJ, Mann JI, Williams SM, Jo E, Drury PL, Miller J, Parnell WR (2013). Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes in New Zealand: findings from the 2008/09 Adult Nutrition Survey; NZMJ; Vol 126 No 1370; ISSN 1175 8716.
Jocken JW, Langin D, Smit E, Saris WH, Valle C, Hul GB, Holm C, Arner P, Blaak EE (2007); Adipose triglyceride lipase and hormone-sensitive lipase protein expression is decreased in the obese insulin-resistant state. Clin Endocrinol Metab.; 92(6):2292-9.
Ferretti G, Bacchetti T, Masciangelo S, Bicchiega V (2010); “HDL-paraoxonase and membrane lipid peroxidation: a comparison between healthy and obese subjects”; Obesity (Silver Spring).; 18(6):1079-84.
Galkina IuV, Gavrilova OA, Piekalnits IIa, Dianov OA (2015). Dental status in children and adolescents diagnosed with obesity. Stomatologiia (Mosk). ;94(1):57-8. (Abstract).
Gentles D, Metcalf P, Dyall L, Sundborn G, Schaaf D, Black P, Scragg R, Jackson R (2007). Metabolic syndrome prevalence in a multicultural population in Auckland, New Zealand. N Z Med J.;120(1248):U2399.
Mead JR, Irvine SA, Ramji DP (2002); “Lipoprotein lipase: structure, function, regulation, and role in disease”; J Mol Med (Berl).; 80(12):753-69.
Merdad, HE (2013). Predicting Dental Fluorosis Using Indicators of Childhood Obesity. Conference Paper. Conference: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session and Exhibition 2013.
Nakajima K, Muneyuki T, Munakata H, Kakei M (2011); “Revisiting the cardiometabolic relevance of serum amylase’; BMC Res Notes.; 4:419.
Savini, I., Catani, M. V., Evangelista, D., Gasperi, V., & Avigliano, L. (2013). Obesity-Associated Oxidative Stress: Strategies Finalized to Improve Redox State. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 14(5), 10497–10538.
Shahani KM, Kwan AJ, Friend BA (1980); “Role and significance of enzymes in human milk”; Am. I Clin. Nutr. 33: 1861-1868, 1980.
Steinberg GR, Kemp BE, Watt MJ (2007); Adipocyte triglyceride lipase expression in human obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab.;293(4):E958-64.
Wang H, Eckel RH (2009). Lipoprotein lipase: from gene to obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab.;297(2):E271-88.
Ken, interestingly, regarding your question I was thinking the same of you: it is diversionary tangent about the main topic. So, I would say that all together the presented references provide a support to what I wanted to expose.
Second, the concern of fluoride toxicity against enzymes has been already established by various scientists, as indicated in the following link: http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question23.html. I just wanted to clarify the idea with more references.
Third, I am considering that as a human normal behavior, you want to take care of yourself and your relatives (family), so that is why you support water fluoridation. Your idea is that fluoride will prevent your caries and those of your relatives without any secondary effect. I am just considering that your intention is good but that you don’t have the complete information. For example, that happens to Dr. John Colquhoun who was the Principal Dental Officer of Auckland and head of the Fluoridation Promotion Group that changed his mind about fluoridation after receiving more complete information.
Finally, instead of personal attacks it may be wiser to request your government for a study of a possible link between fluorosis and obesity. The results may discredit the presented thesis or in any case they will provide more information for taking decisions on the fluoridation topic.
Victor – it amazes me that you consider diversionary my straightforward question:
“Could you please indicate which of them you consider relevant to CWF – in terms of concentration etc., and I will have a look at them.”
You had provided a long list of citations which did not seem relevant to CWF from their titles so I was asking for a simple clarification. It is surely impolite to request me to read papers which may be completely irrelevant (have you read them all yourself? 🙂 ).
Now that is simply an observation and polite request- it is not a personal attack. How the hell could such a request for evidence be considered that way.
Let’s just take the first citation you mentioned:
“Battisti V, Maders LD, Bagatini MD, Reetz LG, Chiesa J, Battisti IE, Gonçalves JF, Duarte MM, Schetinger MR, Morsch VM (2011); “Oxidative stress and antioxidant status in prostate cancer patients: relation to Gleason score, treatment and bone metastasis”; Biomed Pharmacother.; 65(7):516-24.”
– I checked the abstract and the word “fluoride” does not even occur!
So surely you can see my point. I have no wish to waste time on irrelevant papers – but I will read the ones you identify as relevant to CWF. I you are unwilling or unable to identify such papers I must only conclude you are actually not familiar with the papers yourself.
We are familiar with John Colquhoun and his arguments here in NZ – I am also aware of how bad many of those arguments were.
You should not make assumptions about either my motives or level of understanding. In fact, I am driven more by the need to counter the misrepresentation and distortion of the science that anti-fluoride campaigners indulge in. as for CWF itself – I think that is a decision for communities – at least in this country.
You say I lack the complete information – could you specifically show me where I have made a mistake – I am always happy to check out any claim and reconsider. But general comments like that are unhelpful.
Our health authorities are already concerned about obesity and there is ongoing research on the topic. They are not concerned about dental fluorosis as the moderate and severe forms are almost non-existent here.
If you think they need to look at dental fluorosis as a factor in obesity could you point me to a specific research report that is relevant to the extremely low level of moderate and severe forms typical of NZ, rather than the more serious forms in China and India.
You understand my request for specific reports – not a long list of irrelevant papers obtained by thoughtless literature searchers.
It says No Ad Hominems but it is obvious that the supporters of fluoride only speak with swords and attacks.
Just reading the conversation here is proof that fluoride supporters only wish to discredit those who wish to avoid water with added pharmaceuticals (whether it be rat poison or medicine).
Discrediting opposition seems to be the name of the game. Talking about college and publications like that really matters? Sounds like these fluoride supporters are paid or have a vested interest in water fluoridation. It seems odd that anyone would push adding chemicals to water with such zeal.
It saddens me to see so much wasted energy promoting an obviously corrupt and bankrupt policy. The public health is at an all time low and we have supposed accredited “scientists” supporting practices like this. Might as well put the fascist bumper sticker right on.
Also, I recommend all fluoride supporters to take a look in the mirror. Simply to analyze the symmetry of the face. Most of you will have faces that are tight on one side, causing twist. As we all know symmetry is natural beauty. Fluoridation (among other ingested toxins), however, distorts the vertical integrity of the spine and of the mind. This is what causes facial imbalance. This is also the source for the narrow-minded, science-is-god, mentality as fluoride activates the left-brain, only.
Get off the toxins and one day you might be able to dream again, or even visualize images within the mind. Until then, be aware that you can heal your dis-ease if you let go of the knowledge that you worship. Remember, knowledge and science can be used to prove completely different sides to an argument. Truth comes from a higher power. Kundalini. DMT. Pineal gland. Creativity. Kindness.
Michael, there is also something to be said for the truth. If it wasn’t for scientific truth we would all still be living in caves and your statement that, “public health is at an all time low,” would actually be correct. The fact is that human beings are living longer now than at any other time in history.
By all means, get yourself a time machine and go back to Europe in the 1350s if you think you will have a healthier lifestyle.
Your comments are in reference to statements made to and about Dr. Richard Sauerheber, correct?
If you place a title like that in front of your name, it carries a certain responsibility . . a regard for the truth. Lay people see that title and expect credibility. People can reasonably expect that title to carry with it the truth.
I had a private email correspondence with Dr. Sauerheber after I read a statement by him that in the United States the EPA does not have regulatory authority over water fluoridation; therefore, water fluoridation is illegal in the U.S. This was news to me. So I asked him for evidence of this claim. I would be very happy to produce those emails for you, Michael.
Long story short, there is no evidence for that bizarre claim; and while I am not a mental health professional, I can say that there are either two possibilities with that guy. Either he has no regard for the truth, or he is unbalanced.
So, Michael, if you want to allow untruthful or unbalanced people to make authoritative claims without being challenged, find yourself a nice island where truth has no meaning – where the average lifespan would be about 30 years. I for one, enjoy a world in which people are expected to be able to support what they say with actual evidence.
How will the amount of fluoride in water effect a person who has a untreated exposure to industrial HF? And what if that same person also swallowed toothpaste as a child?
The EPA does “not” support the use of fluoride in drinking water.
Take a look at this video of the EPA telling congress that they no longer support water fluoridation
Tony, someone burned by hydrofluoric acid (HF) in an industrial accident has a lot more to worry about than the extremely low concentration of fluoride in drinking water.
Swallowing toothpaste as a child may slightly increase the risk of mild dental fluorosis – but again the fluoride in drinking water has an extremely minor effect.
Tony, you are wrong. This video does not show the EPA saying anything. It is a video of Bill HIrzy – who had a union position at the time. He is speaking for his union (and probably an extreme minority of the union, not for the EPA.
Bill Hirzy is currently a paid worker for the Fluoride Action Network , an activist group financed by the “natural”/alternative health industry. He has no scientific credibility.
This is the most ad hominem blog I’ve seen yet, with all the “experts” attacking Dr. Sauerheber while providing precious little relevant scientific response to his warnings: this blog reads like a propaganda clinic aimed at Dr. Sauerheber. Admittedly though my understanding is that fluoride is considered an essential mineral/has an established RDA.
Have you done the research? Or just looked into this one researcher? I’ve done some digging in PubMed — independent of any proponents or opponents — and what I’ve found in the actual research suggests that:
1. Fluoride is most definitely toxic, to numerous body systems (neurotoxin, reproductive toxin, etc.) when taken in, in excess.
2. (Not from the research, but just common sense: the dosage cannot be accurately controlled when it’s simply dumped into the water supply, because not everyone consumes the same amount of water.)
3. Calcium is essential to detoxifying *excess* fluoride from the body. Thus calcium fluoride is probably less toxic because what isn’t needed is more likely to be eliminated, while other forms of fluoride simply build up.
4. *Calcium* fluoride helps teeth, probably to a large extent by providing the *calcium*. When compared in studies, the phosphorus fluoride typically used in the dental industry is of negligible benefit — but calcium fluoride makes a notable difference. Calcium fluoride is simply *not* the same substance as phosphorus fluoride or sodium fluoride.
1: All substances are toxic in excess – including, for example, water. Your comment is irrelevant.
2: The term dosage is not applicable to deficient elements like fluorine, iodine, etc. There is no need for such precise control and intake is usually satisfactory over a broad range.
3: We never consumes “calcium fluoride” as this chemical only exists in the solid form. When dissolved the ions exist separately as the hydrated Ca2+ and F- ions. For a relatively simple overview of the chemistry involved read this Fluoridation: Some simple chemistry
4: Both calcium and fluoride “help” teeth – both elements are natural and normal constituents of bio apatites like bones and teeth.
Could you please explain what chemical you refer to by the name “phosphorus fluoride?” Such compounds just do not exist normally and are not used by the dental industry. Sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride are simple ionic salts – when dissolved the fluoride is exactly the same – the hydrated fluoride anion. But your “phosphorous fluoride” is a mystery to me – and I am a chemist.
1. It is not “irrelevant.” Yes, even water is toxic in excess, but the point is, the body is not designed to *eliminate* such excess fluoride as is often found when it’s artificially added to things like drinking water — especially without the accompanying calcium that’s necessary for carrying it out of the body. This is why there is study after study showing neurological issues and more in areas where there’s too much fluoride in the water. Sodium doesn’t help the body excrete any excess of the fluoride (and, in fact, most people already have too much sodium, so that’s a double whammy — build-up of fluoride *and* increase in sodium-potassium imbalance).
2. Baloney. The FDA doesn’t set recommended upper intake limits for necessary vitamins and minerals because dosage is “not applicable.” Water fluoridation is mass medication — or at least mass supplementation — without consent, which is both problematic when the consumption rate cannot be controlled for, and unethical.
3. This is beside the point. Whether the substance is taken in whole, or already dissociated, the fact remains that the duo is different than other mineral salts containing fluorine. (See point 1.) Consider this study which demonstrates not only that dosage matters (and yes, that’s the term the researchers used), but that different fluoride salts caused damage at *different* dosage levels.
4. I haven’t the foggiest idea, to be honest. I’m not a chemist; I’m a nutritionist (or soon to be). I just know I’ve come across it in the literature. I’ve done a little bit of digging since you asked, and although it appears “phosphorus fluoride” is actually a “thing” (although a slight misnomer), I’m not certain if what’s used in dentistry (when it isn’t simply NaF being used) is truly “phosphorus fluoride” or just product containing both substances and poorly-named.
Ken all substances are toxic in excess but what is excess for one person may not be for another. And it depends what be in the water. People working hard like sheep shearers in hot weather have been said in one of my nutrition books not to drink enough water if it is not slightly salted.
!! In other words in Ken’s language it is short on sodium ions and chloride ions. Going by your theory of the ions only being important they could be added from potassium chloride and hydrochloric acid. Well they could not because the potassium ions could be a problem with a sodium balance and the hydrogen ions could be a problem.
Water with sodium fluoride added is different in effect on diabetes from water with a silicofluoride added. I am not sure if it be the silicon compound reducing the diabetic effect or what, but the sodium fluoride was found to be bad for diabetes.
Fluoridated water is often treated with a calcium compound to raise the pH. But sometimes just sodium hydroxide is used I think.
I invite you to think of an analogy of composite dental fillings in which correct balance of hardener is required or toxic amounts of unreacted substance may remain in the filling to be eluted out into the mouth in slow fashion (which may be worse than a fast pulse.)
It needs to be known, and I don’t know if experiments have been attempted, about balances of osmotic pressures and electropotentials to which the human organism may have developed adaptation.
“The term dosage is not applicable to deficient elements like fluorine, iodine, etc. There is no need for such precise control and intake is usually satisfactory over a broad range.”
I think fluoride is not homeostatically controlled as for example sodium and potassium are (within limits.) So there needs to be more care with intake levels. That will depend on the individual health, kidney function that people may not know about, and other nutrient intakes such as calcium.
Other substances for which there is a narrow window of use between deficiency and excess are copper, selenium, that I know of. Selenium deficiency produces white muscle disease in sheep and Keshan disease in humans if Cocksackie virus is present at the same time. Or Kashin-Beck arthritis. Excess can cause a number of serious problems and also stained teeth. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Selenium-Consumer/ An interesting point is that the toxin mercury can alleviate some selenium excess problems.
So to say that it to be no different adding sodium fluoride to water compared to calcium fluoride you need to include restrictions about the prior history of the water and what else is being added and taken out. Else you only look like a propagandist.
Sorry I meant adding potassium chloride and sodium hydroxide to water is not the same as adding salt, even though it adds sodium ions and and chloride.ions.
1 is very relevant Titus. We are always hearing claims of toxicity for fluoride in excess – but excess is not the issue with community water fluoridation (CWF).
Fluoride, like all nutrients, goes through the body – some is incorporated into growth (bone and teeth in the case of F which is a natural and normal constituent of bioapatites) and the rest excreted. Excess fluoride is excreted providing the intake is not excessive.
Calcium exists as a separate in – it is not connected to fluoride in solution.
There is no credible study indicating a neurological effect from community water fluoridation – quite the opposite – see Broadbent, J. M., Thomson, W. M., Ramrakha, S., Moffitt, T. E., Zeng, J., Foster Page, L. A., & Poulton, R. (2014). Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 72–76. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857
In fact, the poor quality studies from China suggesting IQ differences are from areas of endemic fluorosis where fluoride intake is excessive – nothing to do with CWF. I have suggested this may be simply a physical development effect rather than a chemical poisoning effect – see Perrott, K. W. (2015). Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 48, 78–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2015.01.001
2. Your reference to consent and medication have nothing to do with the science. In this country communities are consulted before fluoridation is started. In most cases referenda have shown support for CWF.
The added fluoride in community water fluoridation is minuscule and has no effect on sodium or potassium levels which are naturally much higher. You can check this out mathematically.
3: What study are you referring to? I am always to keen to read genuine scientific studies.
“Phosphorus fluoride” is not a thing regarding dental practice. You may be thinking of the use of sodium fluorophosphate in toothpastes – which contain a number of chemicals you might find surprising.
Inevitably those who do half an hour of “research” on google and find themselves in opposition to the position statements of the planet’s entire medical, public health and scientific establishment on a particular subject, have failed to ask themselves a pertinent question that “the planet’s entire medical, public health and scientific organisations might know something I don’t?”
I invite you to identify a single credible scientific body, public health system or professional medical dental organisation, anywhere, that disagrees that properly instituted* CWF is not a safe and effective means of improving community dental health.
* Not including areas where CFW is undesirable or unnecessary e.g. areas of high naturally occurring fluoride or communities using other means of delivery such as addition to table salt or foodstuffs.
I think you might find the nernst equation and GABA receptors interesting. My nerves seem to have a bit of extra spark, from my mothers insistence on avoiding sodium chloride will drinking fluoridated water.
Hey, here are two books I highly recommend you to read:
1. The fluoride deception by Christopher Bryson
2. The case against Fluoride by 3 PhDs
I’m in the process of developing our toothpastes and the ingredient called “fluoride” was such a hot topic I started digging very deep on this issue.
Antifluoridation myth? We’ve all been human experiment rats!!! Brainwashed by the propaganda promoted using exactly the same tactics and strategies that are used now. It was never about the public health or science but it was all about the politics. During early 20 century, professionals opposed to/against fluoride/water fluoridation were all fired from their positions (doctors, scientists, researchers). Their researches were never published and if published, those journals and scientific data were never disclosed to the public for several decades.
“Our” government does not exist for us Americans. The government is to pursue their own interests and for the rich and the powerful (Corporate America). Gosh…… Shame on ADA (American Dental Association). Shame on Public Health Department. Shame on National Health Institutes. Shame on Environment Protection Agency. Shame on federal regulators. Shame on top researchers and scientist who were involved in fluoridation projects. Lastly, SHAME ON CORPORATE AMERICA (that are involved with all this mess)!!!!!! You can buy top lawyers with your rich status and cover up the mess you are responsible for. You are nothing but criminals. Know that?
Hanna Jun, why have you made this specific comment here? It is not at all related to my post. I can only conclude you are blatantly using my post to post your own anti-science propaganda.
All the claims you make are patently untrue and you don’t even attempt to support them.
Come on . . I welcome people making comments and criticising my posts. But please stop this blatant and opportunist propaganda. Discuss the issues properly.
Christopher Bryson’s “The Fluoride Deception.” Yes. Excellent recommendation. In this book, Mr. Bryson implies that Community Water Fluoridation has its roots in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program. A very well-thought out, rational theory.
What he didn’t say is that Crest Toothpaste, which has over 2000 times the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, was part of U.S. efforts to weaponize anthrax.
In fact, in the 1971 Charlton Heston Film, “The Omega Man” which explores the possibility of mankind destroying itself with biological weapons, you will notice that Not One Tube of Crest Toothpaste can be seen anywhere in the film. . . Did you ever ask yourself Why?
The problems also come down to the amount of sodium flouride in toothpaste on top of the sodium flouride in water. Toothpaste sits under your tongue while you brush for two minutes. Readily being absorbed . The studies done showing that flouride helped with healthier teeth is flawed. Other countries during the studies had just as good dental health as countries using flouride and they did not use flouride. There is no need to force people to have sodium flouride put in there water . There no dose regulation. As a child I played ice hockey and I drank a lot of water and was smaller. Where is the regulation of my dosage of water? How did this affect my mind and body . Most countries have stop the flouridated of water. I do not drink flourdated water or use flouridated toothpaste and my teeth have never been healthier . I floss and never get cavities and my dentist says I have perfect teeth . I refuse there flouride teeth cleaning though 🙂 I have sole in the morning and at sea salt to my ketogenic diet and I’m golden 🙂
Calcium Fluoride is LESS harmful than Sodium Fluoride, because Sodium Fluoride has high solubility (4%) while Calcium Fluoride has vey low Solubility =.0016%, – almost insoluble- and MFP (in some toothpastes) 25% then, if water contains NaF, the energy of water dissolves the chrystals easily so many trillions of Fluoride ions are free and able to attach to Calcium (or other metal ions) they find on their path. Since CaF2 is much LESS soluble, much fewer Fluoride ions separate and thus it is less harmful. That is why if someone has Fluoride poisoning (for example if one children ate toothpaste or drank some fluoride gel) he must drink MILK or other compounds with Calcium ions, so each Calcium ion will bind to 2 Fluoride ions to form the almost insoluble CaF2 that will be sent out of the body. All free fluoride ions in blood may attach to positive ions in the body, bones, teeth, pineal gland, etc. so the LESS fluoride ions we have in the body, it is better for us. We only need a little amount in the external layer of enamel to form some fluorapatite and make it less soluble to a low pH of liquids or dental plaque. The NaF is more soluble because it is polar while Calcium Fluoride is non polar (or much less polar) so it is not easily dissolved by water, a polar compound.
The absorption of Fluoride ions on enamel needs an acidic environment, that is why dentists use generally Acidulated Gels (APF) with pH of about 3.5, and for 4 minutes of contact, and those gels contain 12,300 ppm of Fluoride, so I dont see how can enamel absorb “protective” Fluoride ions from drinking water, since people only keeps the water in mouth, when drinking it, for only a few seconds, only at 0.7 – 2 ppm concentration, and in an oral pH of about 6.5. so that “protection” by fluoridated water does not exist, it is a big lie. Even great experts of Preventive Dentistry like Dr Featherstone, say that the benefits from Fluoride are obtained by topical applications. NOT systemic. I think Fluoridation of water should stop everywhere, it is useless. A last point, since NaF is soluble, it means that in water, the Fluoride ions separate from Sodium ions, in that moment, they can bind to Hydrogen ions, it is logic, since Fluoride ions have negative charge and Hydrogen ions are positive, like metal ions. So Hydrogen Fluoride can be formed. Fluoride ions can react with all positive ions, so if F ions are in blood, they can bind to Calcium ions of bones, making them less soluble but brittle. (sorry for spelling mistakes)
Miguel, I am not sure what point you are making. Yes, CaF2 is less soluble than NaF – but so what? Naturally high levels of F in drinking water usually originate from the mineral fluorite (CaF2) – a saturated solution will maintain about 8 mg/L F – and in alkaline solutions even higher. This is well above the recommended safe level of F in drinking water (1.5 mg/L).
Yes, in cases of poisoning Ca from milk etc helps reduce the F concentration. But toxic concentrations are well above the optimum levels recommended for community water fluoridation.
Fluoride does not indiscriminately “attach to positive ions in the body, bones, teeth, pineal gland.” It reacts with active forms of calcium – bones, teeth, and calcified tissues. It does not cause calcification but can be used to detect calcified areas.
In fact, F is a normal and natural component of bioapatites – the minerals in our bones and teeth. At normal levels F confers strength to the bioapatites.
You may not see how the low concentration of F in saliva can help prevent mineralisation but the fact is that it does. Research shows that – it is not a lie. And the source of the F in saliva is fluoridated beverages, food, etc.
Yes, research shows that the beneficial effects of fluoridated water for existing teeth are mainly duer to reactions at the tooth surface, rather than incorporation after ingestion. But research also shows that ingested F has a beneficial effect on developing teeth, before eruption. Anmd, of course, ingested F is involved in the turnover of minerals in bone so has a beneficial effect for bones – provided the dietary intake is not too low or too high.
Yes, the hydrated fluoride ion in solution (from whatever source) exists in equilibrium with other species – including HF. But the concentration of HF is minuscule at normal pH values. It really only exists in acidic solution.
Ken, but you mention a *saturated solution*, and drinkable water is NOT a saturated solution of Fluoride. It contains much less Fluoride to be saturated, so if for example, one liter of water is fluoridated with 2 miligrams of Calcium Fluoride, it would be less harmful than if it is fluoridated with 2 miligrams of NaF. I mean, the toxicity of the water is different depending of the type of Fluoride they put in it. I think that if water of a city contains 2 mg of CaF per liter, it does not cause any damage because the Fluoride ions are strongly bound to Calcium ions, but if each liter contains 2 mg of NaF, it will be above the safe level of 1.5 mg per liter, as you say, so it is toxic. What you say is correct regarding the 8ppm of CaF2, but only in a *saturated* solution of CaF2.
But 2 mg of Calcium Fluoride per liter will NOT produce a level of free Fluoride ions of 8ppm. But using NaF, all the molecules would separate in Fluoride ions and Sodium ions, because NaF has a much higher solubility than CaF2.
I think the degree of solubility of Fluorides makes them more or less dangerous. If Zero solubility, zero danger.
As far as I have read, most cities use Sodium fluoride or Fluorosilicic Acid, not Calcium Fluoride.
My point is only that CaF is less harmful than other types of Fluoride. and that Fluoridation is not necessary, cities should stop adding fluoride to water, besides, since many foods contain fluoride in a higher level than 1.5 ppm, that is another factor in favor of the anti-fluoridation movement. If people is consuming many different types of food that contain much more fluoride than water, then there is no reason to add Fluoride to water. It only leads to an excess of Fluoride ions entering the organism. I think it is more convenient to use filters to eliminate Fluoride from water because it may contain soluble Fluorides from natural sources.
There are a lot of scientific articles about the damages Fluoride causes in several organs. And scientific information seems to confirm that antifluoridationists are right.
There is also a lot of information that in many countries that don’t fluoridate water, children have less decay than in fluoridated countries.
.
I think also, that since the purpose of fluoridation is to have less possibilities of dental caries, it is NOT necessary because 1- systemic fluoride does not make humans immune to caries, it only decreases a little, the possibilities to have caries. Even enamel of sharks, that contain much more fluoride – 30,000ppm – than human enamel, suffers demineralization if it is placed in a human mouth. And since dental decay, as you surely know, is produced by the combination of 4 factors, host conditions (tooth anatomy, pits and fissures) acidogenic bacteria (Streptococcus, Lactobacilli) substrate (sugar, food for bacteria) and TIME, we can prevent it by eliminating at least one of the 4 factors, without using any Fluoride.
If at least one of these factors is eliminated, caries does not occur. It is like a car of 4 wheels, you eliminate one wheel and the car does not run. We may avoid caries eliminating only one, for example, by mechanical removal of bacteria (brushing) or avoding sugars to stay enough time in mouth, or sealing the pits and fissures, flossing the teeth, etc. and we dont need to consume fluoridated water. The use of fluoride implies collateral damage.
2018-02-11 21:23 GMT-06:00 Open Parachute :
> Ken commented: “Miguel, I am not sure what point you are making. Yes, CaF2 > is less soluble than NaF – but so what? Naturally high levels of F in > drinking water usually originate from the mineral fluorite (CaF2) – a > saturated solution will maintain about 8 mg/L F – and in” >
MQ – you seem unaware that it is the hydrated fluoride anion in the solution that is toxic at high concentrations. CaF can amintain concentrations of fluoride high enough to do harm
A solution containing about 8 mg/L of the hydrated F anion is used in community water fluodiation – it is quite safe – whatever the origin – solid NaF or solid CaF2. It makes no difference when dissolved what the source is.
No, in solution F is not strongly bound to Ca. Only at higher concentrations when it precipitates. In soluitoin both the Ca and F exist as the hydrated ions – they are quite separate from each other.
CaF2 is only described as more toxic than NaF because it can only maintain a relatively low concentration of F – but still high enough to be harmful as the health problems of people living in endemic fluorosis areas shows.
CaF2 is not suitable for fluodiation because of its low solubility and the presence of impurities. Fluorosilicic acid is very pure and liquid making addition much easier. NaF is only used nowadays in small treatment plants.
Decisions on community water fluoridation, of course, take into account local dietary intakes. There is no point in fluoridating water if the dietary intake is high enough
As a chemist, I can assure you the anti-fluoridationist argument of harm from community water fluoridation is just scaremongering. These people are well known for misrepresenting and distorting the science.
I think I have previously explained to you how ingested F in food and beverages help maintain concentrations of F in saliva which have a beneficial effect on existing teeth. And that ingested fluoride also contributes to strong enamel during tooth development in children.
Ken, thanks for the link, I will read it. But in your response you write this: ” CaF2 is only described as more toxic than NaF because it can only maintain a relatively low concentration of F – “- Are you sure that CaF2 is MORE TOXIC than NaF? Or that some people describe CaF2 as more Toxic than NaF? they say that? And that is because it mantains a relatively low concentration of F-? ???? I think it is a mistake. If CaF mantains a low concentration of Fluoride ions then it is safer than NaF as I said before. It is not more toxic. Maybe you meant LESS toxic instead of MORE toxic. If you put 20 miligrams of CaF2 in a glass of water and 20 miligrams of Fluorosilicic Acid in other, which one is more toxic? I am sure the one with Fluorosilicic Acid. Am I wrong?
If you agree, then the people anti-Fluoridation is right if they prefer
more Calcium in water, NOT Fluorosilicic Acid or Sodium. I think more Calcium ions in water would combine with Fluoride ions and diminish
its toxicity. Of course, within safe limits for Calcium. Or maybe it is convenient to add some harmless compound that releases Magnesium
ions in water. This Magnesium would help also to reduce the toxicity of Fluoride, just like it protects the animals that eat grass. I hope I am not wrong.
Also, if as you say, “No, in solution F is not strongly bound to Ca. Only at higher concentrations when it precipitates”- OK, that is why dentists use 12,300 ppm And therefore, fluoridated water is not useful to help teeth to form fluorapatite. It is clear that since the Fluoride in water is only 1 ppm, it can not make any benefit to the enamel in the amounts used to fluoridate the water. IN saliva the concentration of Fluoride is even lower than in drinkable water I think it is something like 0.021 ppm ( I am not sure but it is much less than 1 ppm). This amount of F- in saliva can not protect the teeth. In general I think fluoridated water is too much risk for very litte benefit. But if some people prefer to drink Fluoridated water, it is their decision.
I have no internet coverage at the moment but you seem to misunderstand my point. It is the hydrated fluoride in water which is toxic at high concentrations. CaF2 can maintain a hstmfk concentration if F – 8 ppm or so. Nag us more soluble so can maintain an even higher concentration if F in solution.
The reaction at the tooth surface is not precipitation of CaF2 but incorporation of F into the apatite crystal structure. This occurs at much lower concentrations and the appetite surface becomes more resistant to Did attack.
Ken, all your doing is deconstructing everything Richard is saying. You’re a pathetic fuck. Even by the EPA’s own standards, we’re getting way too much fluoride exposure on a daily basis in areas where water is fluoridated. Every time you take a shower, fluoride is absorbed by your skin and the vapors are inhaled which also contain fluoride.
Every time you boil pasta or make rice with fluoridated water, you’re also ingesting fluoride. It’s all cumulative.
Furthermore, fluoridation of water violates people’s rights and is unethical. You can not force a medicine or treatment on someone, which is exactly what fluoridation is doing.
Thanks for this article. If I am able I will share with some friends who are discussing this issue and have similar misunderstandings of the chemistry.
This couldn’t be a more incorrect conclusion. Yea there is calcium occurring in the same water supplies that are fluoridated, but that doesn’t mean they are compounding into calcium fluoride. It’s just calcium AND industrial fluoride, which cannot bind the same way calcium fluoride naturally does. This entire article is obviously got intentions of suppressing the truth whether the author knows it or not. This article isn’t even combating the obvious problem that fluoridated water is toxic it’s just saying that the doctors are wrong about calcium fluoride being a healthy alternative, which it would be, and is why it got so much backlash.. Ask yourself, honestly, they are fluoridating water to prevent your and my tooth decay? Open your eyes.
Anthony, could you please explain the difference between “industrial fluoride: and “natural fluoride.” Specifically the electronic structure of the F- anion which determines its chemical properties.
Concepts of “natural” and “unnatural” or “artificial” ( or even “industrial”) fluoride often come up in the fluoride debates. Some fluoridation opponents claim “natural” calcium fluoride is quite safe, maybe even necessary for the body, but “artificial fluorides” are toxic. For example, a recent commenter stated:
Open Parachute 
Sauerheber is the “Scientific Advisor” for antifluoridationist attorney, James Deal. Deal, who has close ties with the “Fluoride Action Network” maintains a website he calls “fluoride class action” for the apparent sole purpose of stirring up class action lawsuits against fluoridation. Obviously he has had no success in this venture, but that fact does not absolve Sauerheber’s blatant conflict of interest.
Sauerheber discredits himself in the first paragraph of his “paper” when he states “The fluoride compounds, sodium fluoride NaF and fluorosilicic acid H2SiF6, added into municipal water for human ingestion purposes are synthesized artificially by industrial reaction and have been used as rodenticides, insecticides, and pediculicides, with acute oral lethal doses in experimental animals comparable to arsenic and lead (LD50 ~ 125 mg/kg) (The Merck Index [4]) due to the fluoride at ~60–90 mg/kg.”
First of all, the fluoridation compounds are not added for human ingestion purposes. They do not reach the tap and are thus, not ingested. They are added to increase the level of existing fluoride ions in water systems up to the optimal level. Even if one argues that the substances are added for the purpose of indirect human ingestion, his language clearly indicates his desire to imply that the fluoridation compounds, themselves, are ingested, when he knows better.
Second, his reference to “rodenticides, insectisides, and pediculicides” is nothing but fear-mongering. Warfarin is the active ingredient in many current rat poisons. Warfarin, under the brand name “Coumadin” is prescribed by doctors to tens of millions of patients with cardio-vascular disease.
In regard to Sauerheber’s attempts to differentiate fluoride ions released from CaF from those released from fluorosilicates, Ken stated it very eloquently……..hogwash. All other considerations aside, there are not enough fluoride ions involved in 0.7 ppm concentration of drinking water for any “neutralizing” effect of calcium to have a significant impact of any kind. . Sauerheber’s argument for HF reformation in the gut falls flat by his inability to provide any valid evidence that this occurs at the minuscule optimal level, or even if it does, that there are any adverse effects caused by it.
If Erin Brokovich is hinging her claims on Sauerheber and his theories, she is in for a very short court appearance. He will be ripped to shreds in short order.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Any idea why Gosford would control pH with sodium carbonate as opposed to Wyong’s calcium carbonate?
LikeLike
Hi.This is the author of the 19 year study, Dr. Sauerheber. I hate to burst your bubble, but you have committed errors in this analysis, I never published that calcium fluoride consumption is safe! Lifelong consumption of calcium fluoride rich water in Turkey and in India have produced endemic skeletal fluorosis of various stages. Instead, the article points out that water with calcium fluoride is safer than water with industrial fluoride, for any fluoride concentration they share. It is the ratio of calcium ion to fluoride ion in the water that determines the % of ingested fluoride that is assimilated. The fluoride ion is of course exactly the same in structure in both chemicals, but the toxicity of fluoride depends on its surroundings, namely how hard or soft the water is. Calcium rich water causes lower blood fluoride levels to exist when the water is consumed, at any fluoride concentration the water contains, compared to softer water with less calcium. I see that NZ water typically is low in calcium. This is most unfortunate for those consuming industrial fluoridated water, since blood fluoride levels will be higher than blood levels for those consuming fluoridated hard water. Thank you for providing that information.
As far as the difference between natural calcium fluoride and industrial fluoride compounds, notice that acute lethal poisoning does not exist for the natural compound, but occurs at only 65 mg/kg fluoride single oral dose for the industrial compounds (Merck Index, Rahway, NJ). Differences in fluoride behavior also occur for chronic low level consumption of natural vs. industrial fluorides. Far more bone fluoride accumulates from soft water industrial fluoridated consumers than for those consuming hard water with fluoride at the same level (NRC,2006). As far as the idea that the chemistry of fluoride does not form hydrofluoric acid at acidic pH, as argued by Slott in the comments section, is absurd. It is the formation of HF in the acidic stomach that provides the mechanism by which ingested fluoride gains entry into the bloodstream.
Yes coumadin is a drug. But it is approved by the FDA for use by prescription only and only when regular tests are made to assess for side effects of internal bleeding. All drugs have side effects, including fluoride. But fluoride is not approved by the FDA for ingestion in the U.S., its side effects are numerous, and mass treatment of people through water supplies for this non-nutrient to attempt to treat dental decay, as though ti were an oral ingestible dental prophylactic, bypasses the subscription and monitoring process that coumadin use is required to follow.
I answer questions for James Deal and Deal follows my work. That is not a conflict of interest on my part.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Richard
1. You continue to confuse compounds with ions. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. The fluoride existing in water is this fluoride ion. It is not calcium fluoride. As groundwater flows over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions which have been leached from CaF and fluorosilicates in those rocks. In areas high in igneous rock, these ions come predominately from the fluorosilicates in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being “naturally occurring” fluoride. It is not the compound calcium fluoride.
When hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA) is introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water, the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed. The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those “naturally occurring” fluoride ions, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts which fall far below EPA mandated maximum levels of safety. After that point, HFA no longer exists in that water. Your continual effort to claim fluoride ions released from CaF as being “natural” while those released from HFA as being “industrial” is ridiculous. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound.
2. In regard to HF reformation in the gut, I did not say that it could not occur at that low pH, I said that you have no valid evidence that it does at the minuscule optimal level of fluoride, and that even if it does reform, there is no valid evidence of adverse effects from it at this low concentration. If you have such valid evidence, then present it, properly cited. Bear in mind that your own study for which you were charged $800 to have published in an open access journal, does not qualify as valid evidence of anything.
3. FDA approval of Coumadin has nothing to do with the use of this as an example to expose the complete irrelevance of the fact that fluoride was used as a rat poison. Warfarin is used as a rat poison as well, yet it is safely ingested at its proper use level, for the treatment of cardiovascular disease…..just as fluoride is safely ingested at its proper use level. It is truly remarkable that someone with your level of education does not seem to understand the difference between concentration levels of all substances we ingest.
In regard to FDA approval:
“The FDA is just one of several regulatory agencies that ensure public safety. The FDA’s authority is limited to products sold to the public and fluoride has been approved for use in toothpastes, mouth rinses and even bottled water. The FDA has no role in approving drinking water additives pursuant to their agreement with the EPA in the early 1980’s. Additives are covered by state regulation’s. It should be noted that the FDA does not have the authority to approve many of the products we use every day. For more information on what the FDA does, and does not regulate, visit: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/095_quiz.html. ”
“The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 confers the authority for ensuring the safety of public drinking water to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA is responsible for setting drinking water standards and has the authority to regulate the addition of fluoride to the public drinking water. ”
—-http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/Pages/FluorideandApproval.aspx
4. There are no “side effects” of optimal level fluoride, as evidenced by your inability to cite valid evidence of any “side effects”.
5. The addition to water of fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water and which humans have been ingesting in their water since the beginning of time, requires no prescription.
6. Being the “Scientific Advisor” for a personal injury attorney who maintains a website named “fluoride class action”, presumably for the purpose of stirring up lawsuits against fluoridation from which he would profit……with your opinions posted all over that website……is, indeed a conflict of interest when you publish supposedly “objective” papers on fluoridation.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Richard, while we have your attention could you provide some information which seems lacking?
In the cited paper you give your affiliation as “Department of Chemistry, University of California” Yet I could not find any evidence that you are employed at that university. Also I note you are using a Hotmail email address and provide a web site affiliation which is an anti-fluoride activist group – sort of suggesting you are not affiliated with that university.
This raises the question of why you claimed such an affiliation.
Could you clarify this please.
LikeLike
This came as a personal email to me by mistake. It is from James Robert Deal:
“In our meeting with three pro-fluoride representatives in the Seattle City Hall, the water engineer said that the amount of SiF added to water only slightly lowered pH, not enough to require a significant increase in soda ash used. “
LikeLike
Thais for comments, Richard. I have already requested clarification about your affiliation but here are a few more questions/responses to your comment.
1: 19 year study? Really. Surely the data you presented could have been produced in an afternoon in a high school chemistry lab. It is essentially just a school project to confirm already known relationships between Ca, F and pH. What took you 19 years?
2: Glad you accept that the hydrated fluoride anion is just that, whatever its origin. Given that it is no different if derived from CaF2 than derived from fluorosilicic acid. Your argument about the role of Ca, if at all relevant, applies equally to F from either source. As I have shown at the minuscule concentrations of F used for CWF the Ca concentration in the water is the same whatever the F source because of the already existing Ca in the water.
3: My understanding is that F- cannot transfer across most, but not all, membranes, whereas HF can. Therefore at the molecular level the formation of HF molecules in the stomach because of low pH enables transfer of F ocross the membrane to the bloodstream. Any Ca present will have a minimal effect because the F- concentration is very low (existing mainly as HF). By the way, the Ca concentration in the stomach is only minimally influenced by the hardness of drinking water because of the greater amount coming from food.
4: I agree with Steven Slott’s comment that you are confusing compounds with ions. There is no such thing as calcium fluoride in solution – it exists only in the solid form. It breaks down to its constituent cations and anions on dissolution and the origin of the Ca2+ ion is completely irrelevant (far more comes from other sources than from the CaF2). This makes your attempt to define a “natural” fluoride (CaF2) and a “industrial” fluoride completely meaningless in this real world situation.
>
LikeLike
James deal, you need to actually comment in the comments section – reply to an automatic email does not work.
Could you please explain the relevance of your comment to the situation of calcium?
LikeLike
1. I’m not confused at all. Whether fluoride anion is naturally present in fresh water from calcium fluoride or from any other natural source, it is a contaminant of fresh water. The fluoride anions that dissolve from any source into water exhibit toxicity after ingestion, but the effect of the anion is determined by how hard the water is. The higher the calcium ion concentration, the lower is the amount assimilated form the GI tract after ingestion. Natural sources of fluoride anion in water are typically accompanied by plentiful calcium. This helps minimize fluoride assimilation. (Calcium is the antidote to oral poisoning by the fluoride anion from industrial fluoride sources). Artificial fluoride infusions with industrial compounds, made from reacting rock with sulfuric acid and trapping the toxic gases HF and SiF4 in a water solution of 23% fluosilicic acid H2SiF6, is not accompanied with appreciable calcium. This is why the (otherwise identical in structure) fluoride anion is more readily assimilated than it would have been in a water solution containing more calcium cation. Far less sodium fluoride is required to achieve any given, thousands of ppm, level of fluoride in bone after ingestion than is required for calcium fluoride, for the same amount of fluoride ingested from each.
Of course fluosilicic acid at alkaline pH is completely hydrolyzed in water. Who doesn’t know this? (as you have been told many times in previous discussions). As usual you write what you want me to say, rather than what is actually said.
As stated before, fluoride ion at identical concentrations in two containers, one calcium fluoride and the other fluosilicic acid fluoride or sodium fluoride, the first has a far lower entropy (chemical potential or activity) than the latter two (CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics). Thus it is no surprise that studies prove that ingesting the first produces significantly lower blood fluoride levels than the latter for an equal fluoride bolus. I can’t change the facts and neither can anyone else. Calcium ion buffers the assimilation of fluoride anion even at low concentrations where the effect does not depend on precipitation of the calcium fluoride salt. The industrial fluoride compounds used in “water fluoridation” do not precipitate even at massive concentrations. This is how sodium fluoridation during an overfeed killed the 42 year old Coast Guardsman in Hooper Bay, AK. If calcium fluoride would have been used, this death would not have been possible. This is the initial point made in the JEPH article.
2. Please don’t insult me. The second part of the JEPH peer reviewed published article were my data collected with low levels of fluoride from sodium fluoride (1 ppm) demonstrating that as the pH is lowered the anion concentration decreases because of protonation to hydrofluoric acid HF. At pH 2-3 of the stomach, 100% of the 1 ppm fluoride anion is protonated to HF, which is freely permeable across the cell membrane at this stomach pH. I didn’t pay the publication fee that is required for all open access journals. And the publication fee was not what you claimed either. We’ve covered this also several times before. Do you need a copy of the invoice? And some of the best data ever discovered in science are often times published in journals other than those considered “the best.” I stand by my data and in fact it is unchallengeable. Read the EPA brief report on fluosilicic acid and you will see that HF begins to form from fluoride anion (from industrial sodium fluoride, not calcium fluoride) around pH 4 and lower, consistent with my published more detailed findings. But the EPA didn’t think to continue to stomach pH of 2. Nor did they examine the inhibitory effect on the protonation reaction caused by the presence of calcium. Fluoride is an anion (as you state) which is why it is attracted to the divalent positive calcium cation.That’s their fault, not mine.
3. Yes industrial fluoride and warfarin were both used as rat poisons. So what? Warfarin has found clinical use in blood disease but is only given by prescription, and patients need to be closely monitored because of side effects. Industrial fluoride is given without a prescription and without monitoring the known side effects while it is ingested lifelong. A key side effect is its abnormal incorporation into bone, permanently, causing conversion of normal bone apatite to abnormal fluoroapatite, as well as formation of bone of poor quality (NRC, 2006). Breaks in fluoridated bone heal far more slowly than in normal bone. The accumulation reaches thousands of mg/kg fluoride in bone during chronic ingestion where it is a contaminant and causes abnormal simultaneous elevations in both calcitonin and parathyroid hormone. Yes someone with my education knows full well the pathologic difference between concentration and accumulated dose. Lifetime doses of fluoride cause bony ingrowths into marrow in mammals at fluoride levels of about 500 ppm. Human bone is not monitored by fluoridationists who treat the drinking water for a population for lifelong accumulation of fluoride. Yes, it’s not the water concentration (used to be 1.2, now it’s 0.7 ppm), but rather it’s the total accumulated dose that determines the degree of skeletal fluorosis present. And those with bone disorders such as osteoporosis or brittle bone disease, etc. are more adversely affected by lifelong fluoride accumulation than others are.
The comments about the FDA are laughable. The MOU between the FDA and EPA was dissolved by the EPA decades ago. The EPA Office of Water in writing many times confirms that water fluoridation is not under their control because they regulate pollutants, not diluted substances used to treat body parts. The EPA has no clinical staff to evaluate either safety or effectiveness of materials added into water to elevate its blood level in an attempt to mitigate a problem. That, according to the EPA OW, is the purview of only the FDA. And they are correct. The FDA ruled fluoride intentionally added into water is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug, ruled in 1975 it is unsafe to add to foods, and in 1966 banned the sale of any fluoride compound (natural or industrial) intended to be ingested by pregnant women in the U.S. (JEPH 439490).
The original Congressionally-approved statutes of the Safe Drinking Water Act apply to contaminants present in U.S. waters for which the EPA produces MCL’s. And it applies to water additives which are substances used to sanitize water. Fluoride anion is not a water additive added to sanitize water, like chlorine is. The purpose of adding fluoride, its only stated purpose, is to elevate the blood level of fluoride in an attempt to alter teeth. The EPA has no pharmaceutical, medical, or dental staff that have a Congressional mandate to regulate oral ingestible dental prophylactics added into drinking water to treat people. That is the sole purview of the FDA, who has already not given its approval for the ingestion of any fluoride compound, natural or industrial.
4. No side effects? Tell that to the kidney dialysis ward victims who were slaughtered before it was realized that fluoridated water at optimal levels cannot be used in kidney dialysis equipment. Tell that to the massive number of US citizens now afflicted with bone pain who have had to have knee, hip, and elbow replacement surgeries and whose extracted bone has thousands of ppm fluoride where it does not belong. Fluoride from industrial compounds is a toxic calcium chelator (calcium is the antidote to oral fluoride poisoning). Fluoride anion is not a normal component of the human bloodstream, but is a contaminant. Fluoride incorporation into bone is a side effect of the ingestion of water treated with industrial fluoride compounds (that of course freely dissociate into water at alkaline pH). Are you trying to tell the public that a stated purpose of eating fluoride is to fluoridate peoples’ skeleton? If fluoridated bone is not a side effect, then this appears to be the claim. Recall that the NIH proved in careful experiments that fluoridated bone is not strengthened bone, as was hoped early on by fluoridationists who have pre-defined assimilated fluoride as being “good”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To Ken, I received my B.A.in Biology (1971) and Ph.D. in Chemistry (1976) from the University of CA, San Diego. Since that time I have been in the UCSD Alumni Association who constantly asks for updates from its graduates on professional work, research discoveries, etc. My first position in science was with UCSD’s Dr. Andrew Benson (discoverer of the carbon fixation reaction in plant photosynthesis and the Calvin-Benson cycle). He did his Ph.D. work on fluoridated thyroxine hormones and was appalled at the idea of intentionally consuming industrial fluoride compounds that are all toxic calcium chelators (as opposed to fluoride in the presence of calcium). After the 19 year JEPH study was completed, which set out to determine how the 302 victims of the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed were sickened, I was having extreme difficulty getting the materials published in those American journals I had contacted, who routinely stated that the work was not “appropriate” for their journal.
I pretty much gave up on publishing the work until I began to visit Dr. Benson, still at age 93, working in his lab at UCSD. He asked why I had not published anything on the fluoridation of San Diego water supplies. Quite embarrassed, I re-committed myself to finishing the task. I submitted the work to the American Chemical Society and although they did not want to print it, they insisted that the work needed to be published, perhaps in an environmental journal. I heard that JEPH was calling for papers on drinking water issues and sent it to them. Dr. Peckham was the senior editor and after several adjustments and additional materials that were asked for were included, the article was published.
The reason I included the UCSD Chemistry Dept. is not only because of being an Alumni, and working with Dr. Benson in the latter stages of the article, but also because of discussions with my former Chemistry Professor Dr Russell Doolittle. I asked if it would be allowed to list the affiliation with the Chemistry Dept. even though I receive no compensation from the Dept. He said I could of course list the affiliation with the UCSD Chemistry Department on articles I publish. And that was that.
Sadly, Dr. Benson passed away early this year at 96, but he was quite pleased with the JEPH article. He was appalled at the prospect of letting dentists control public drinking water supplies.
I use the hotmail address because I have found that firewalls at my institution (Palomar College) are quite restrictive and block incoming emails too severely. Also my UCSD alumni email I could use, but I most often use the hotmail account anyway, so I see no issue with that. In the words of Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make? The data are what they are. The fluoride action network contains a wide variety of published data. I see no problem when the sources used there are vetted.
Thanks for asking.
LikeLike
Richard, you are confused and your meandering explanation does not successfully hide that confusion.
1: Natural sources of F are indeed accompanied by Ca, but not necessarily “plentiful.” Solubility product considerations mean that the natural fluoride levels tend to be higher in waters low in Ca. Phosphate is also a consideration because of the solubility product of fluoroapatite which is far less soluble than CaF2.
Sometimes our source water in my city has close to the optimum F concentration of 0.7 ppm but it is often about 0.2 ppm. In the later situation fluorosilicic acid is added to top up to 0.7 ppm. Given you accept complete hydrolysis of the fluoridating chemical and the identity of the hydrated fluoride anion irrespective of its source, together with the fact that the Ca levels are about the same at these two times and are independent of F source, how can you say these fluoride anions behave differently?
The fact that the concentrated fluoridating agent contains low levels of Ca is irrelevant given the Ca already in the water.
But a few points to clarify your claims.
What table title are you referring to in the CRC manual for your claim that the “entropy” (no this is not the same as chemical potential or chemical activity) is different in a solution depending on source? I ask for table title because the page number is probably different in my edition. I wish to attempt to understand the point you are trying to make with this. And how one could make claims about assimilation of fluorosilicic acid when it is not possible to prepare a dilute solution is weird from my viewpoint.
How can Ca2+ “buffer” assimilation if fluoride anions when we have agreed that they are not transported across most membranes? The relevant species, you agree is HF. Again can you give a citation for the claim you are making here.
I also would like you to give citations for your claims of an effect of Ca on assimilation (that is a comparison of blood F as an indication of assimilation depending on source of F. Especially as the Ca concentration in the stomach probably has very little relationship to water hardness.
You claim that “industrial fluoride compounds do not precipitate even at massive concentrations. Are you really attempting to claim that the fluoride derived from fluorosilicic acid cannot be precipitated by Ca? Surely you are not that naive.
I also think your reference to the death via overfeed in Alaska is a naive point. It is impossible to get much of an overfeed with CaF2 as the maximum concentration one would have in the stock solution is about 7 ppm F. This is simply a matter of F concentration and has nothing to do with “natural” or “industrial” sources.
2: You say you “stand by your data and in fact it is unchallengeable.” Will, true, but isn’t it a bit childish to call it “your data.” After all it was hardly new – you were just demonstrating well known and understood chemical relationships in what was nothing more than a school project.
I still cannot for the life of me see why it took 19 yet as to do that simple project.
3: One of the things I found frustrating about your paper were the numerous assertion claimed by you won’t out any citation or data. You demonstrate that habit again in your comments. Vague comments to the CCC handbook or the NRC are not proper citations (but they do have the advantage for your that they can’t be checked). It is normal to be a lot more specific when one cites material.
You should, for example support claims like fluoride anions from whatever source exhibit toxicity after ingestion (most intelligent people realise that is only true above a certain concentration). Similarly you calm at “hard” water somehow mitigates the effect. I have already mentioned you claim about entropy.
4: Finally, could you please explain why you gave a university as your affiliation in the paper when you do not appear to be employed at this university.
>
LikeLike
Richard, this does not explain why you gave this university as your affiliation. It would be like me claiming affiliation to Victoria University of Wellngton despite the fact that I have not been employed there since 1970 when I finished my PhD research. I would think that is a very dishonest thing to do because it implies an affiliation which does not exist. You are the first person I have come across doing this.
Your story about the paper’s publication also raises questions. It appears that you could not get this paper published in any other journal but in the end had to use a shonky journal with a senior editor who is a well-known anti-fluoride known activist.
I can understand why no other journal would accept your paper – it is naive and rambling and does not contain any original work. As a reviewer I would have knocked it back for those reasons.
>
LikeLike
I didn’t pay the publication fee that is required for all open access journals. And the publication fee was not what you claimed either. We’ve covered this also several times before. Do you need a copy of the invoice?
But there was an invoice.
Who did paid for publication then? Maybe we should see the invoice.
Surely it is easier to just disclose the identity of whoever coughed up the fee when the question arises, rather than to beat about the bush leaving readers suspicious.
LikeLike
The 19 year statement is related to the fact that the need for the article was first recognized in 1994 after the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed disaster cost a life. The NEJM article stated that the mechanism by which the fluoride ion at 4 ppm killed the victim is not known. It could be either calcium fluoride precipitation, or it could be due to interference with magnesium or calcium metabolism, or it could be a different more direct effect of the anion. The authors didn’t know. So I investigated it.
And 19 years later the article was finally published in its final form. So what?
The Ksp calculations were simple, yes but who else has done them for the physiologic range of calcium in human blood?
And where are these studies you say were already known so there was no need to publish the data? If the data are so common as to be known to a high school student, then why are we bothering discussing it?
The data indicating that low level calcium inhibits the conversion of fluoride anion to HF is not in the article but I’ve done it. Your definition of it being insignificant is not my definition of it, because it indeed is significant.
The CRC Handbook I use is at work and I’m now at home. The reference is in the thermodynamics tables indicating the entropy of ionic solutions. Sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride have totally different entropies at the same ionic strength. This is due to the attraction that fluoride anion has for calcium cation that is far stronger than for the sodium cation. The increased entropy is related to the increased chemical potential of the anion in sodium fluoride because of this, where the activity coefficient for calcium fluoride in solution is far smaller than for sodium fluoride in solution.
In Southern CA the calcium level in the water is 60 ppm. Adding fluoride from industrial sources lacking calcium from 0.2 ppm to 1 ppm, a 5 fold increase, causes the calcium to fluoride ratio to be drastically lowered and causes far more fluoride assimilation into the blood after ingestion than would have been assimilated if the water were harder.
Perhaps you could re-read the article and get back with me. The Goodman and Gilman reference is accurate, that calcium fluoride ingestion leads to lower fluoride blood levels than the ingestion of sodium fluoride for any given total fluoride dose ingested. I don’t know how else to say it. If you don’t believe it, that’s not my fault.
You are the ones who are confused about calcium fluoride vs. fluosilicic acid fluoride, that both as molecules contain the exact same fluoride anion. A calcium fluoride solution, even if not saturated and only contains calcium ions and separate fluoride ions, is a solution of calcium fluoride. Calling it a solution of just fluoride is false. There is no such thing as a solution of fluoride. It can be calcium fluoride in solution, or sodium fluoride in solution, or arsenic fluoride in solution, or fluosilicic acid fluoride in solution, etc. These solutions do not have the same toxicity, even though the same fluoride free ion concentration is present. Of course it matters what type of fluoride solution you are drinking. Why are ionic strength effects on chemical potential and toxicity so difficult for you to grasp? And by the way, are you the author of this article that appears to be un-named and does not even list an affiliation? Who am I communicating with?
Me naïve? Hardly. Of course fluoride from fluosilicic acid can be precipitated with sufficient calcium ion. Who said otherwise? I’m referring to pure industrial fluorides that lack calcium.
You might want to read the articles in Fluoride that describe in detail the poisoning of all the prized horses in Pagosa Springs Colorado by fluoride ion from industrial fluosilicic acid (the identical fluoride anion found in calcium fluoride, but without calcium). The river water there is so soft that there is virtually no calcium in it. If the water had been harder, the horses would have survived longer.
I have no idea what you mean, that the Hooper Bay disaster has nothing to do with the difference between calcium fluoride and industrial fluoride from fluosilicic acid. Of courses it does, as your own words indicate. If calcium fluoride had have been used the people could not have been acutely poisoned because calcium fluoride is only soluble to about 7-8 ppm fluoride.
If you still do not understand, I suspect there’s not much I can do for you.
A “shonky” journal? That published nothing new? Again, if it’s “nothing new” then why don’t you still understand the difference in toxicity between calcium fluoride and fluoride from industrial sources? Many water supplies such as the Pacific Northwest are too soft to be adding industrial fluoride. Those water not only are calcium deficient but because of that they are also naturally zero fluoride. Waters containing fluoride also have significant natural calcium from salts other than calcium fluoride. The overall ratio of calcium to fluoride is what determines toxicity. Low calcium waters with an added 1 ppm fluoride level are more toxic than high calcium waters with added 1 ppm fluoride.
Of course it was difficult to publish this material (19 years). It has nothing to do with its truthfulness (that even a high school student could demonstrate). It has to do with the fact that water “fluoridation” is thought to be a Federal approved program that is a great public health achievement according to former Surgeons General and that reduces tooth decay by 20-40% (except for those who have no cavities?) and is necessary for teeth health and is harmlessly so low it can’t affect any function systemically but yet is so high that it can actually perturb the caries process in the hardest substance in the body, enamel.
If I owned a journal I would prefer not to publish the data either. But publishing it is all the more necessary when the truth hurts. And who are you to disagree with the editors of the Journal of the American Chemical Society who stated that this needs to be published?
LikeLike
To RIchard Christie, suspicious about what? Every open access journal in exlstence I know of has publication fees. What is your point? That this somehow makes the data wrong? What are you implying?
LikeLike
Ken. I explained the affiliation with UCSD, that still exists. I live within minutes of UCSD and within minutes from Palomar College. Dr. Benson permitted me to work with him until he passed away early this year.
To you also, what are you implying? Is this some sort of threat?
LikeLike
You made a point of stating you didn’t pay for publication, yet you say someone paid for it to be published.
Who was that ?
It is of relevance.
.
LikeLike
Ken, your statement that I am being dishonest is bizarre. (” I would think that is a very dishonest thing to do because it implies an affiliation which does not exist.”) Are you implying i can’t do voluntary work at UCSD anymore because if anything is published I can’t name the department?
I am giving credit where credit is due, to the institution that trained me and where I learned at the outset that industrial fluorides are listed toxic substances on poisons registries, while natural calcium fluoride is not a listed toxic. Both have differing chronic low level toxicity. And only the industrial fluorides are listed poisons because of acute fluoride toxic potential that calcium fluorlde does not have. In the lab we have a stainless steel table where live specimens are kept, in a room in which industrial fluoride compounds like sodium fluoride are forbidden to be present. Do you expect me to change the lab protocols for them because, as you claim there is no difference in the toxicity of the fluoride anion when the ion comes from fluosilicic acid, compared to when it comes from calcium fluoride, as long as it is dilute? Because (truthfully) the anion is exactly of the same structure from both compounds after dissolution? Not a chance, and that’s precisely why the JEPH article needed to be published. Ionic strength effects matter.
LikeLike
Richard C., In what way does it matter? When Slott accused me of “buying the journal space to publish whatever I wanted” I responded with the truth, that I didn’t pay the publishing fees. Whether UCSD, or Palomar, or friends, or someone else, I don’t have to state who paid for it until I know who I’m speaking with and why it is so important to you and why it “is relevant.”
LikeLike
Your reluctance is not a good look.
It suggests that you have something to hide.
So yes, please, may we see the invoice? Thank you for the offer.
If you scan and email it to Ken I’m sure he will be able to post it on line for us.
As to me, I’m a lay person, real name over my comments, interested in this debate.
LikeLike
It’s interesting how this site has introduced an ad hominem attack on Dr. Peckham referring to him as an anti fluoride activist. This appears to be a way to attempt to falsify his data, but using character assassination to attempt to discredit factual data is a logical fallacy. If you have proof that the Peckham study in the U.K. on diagnosed hypothyroidism cases correlating with artificial water fluoridation in the few cities that fluoridate there, then be specific as to why, or publish it in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I’m criticized for not supplying references, but this notion about Peckham goes without either explanation or reference?
And by the way, there is nothing wrong with being anti artificial fluoridation, when you understand that it is useless, harmful, and illegal. The attack here though implies that it is somehow “wrong” to be anti artificial fluoridation. Nonsense. This is a free country, and people are free to object to the ongoing whole body fluoride dosing of mass populations who have fluoride circulating in their entire system for no functional purpose whatsoever.
The HHS recommendation to lower the allowed fluoride water level to 0.7 ppm is an admission that 1 ppm has caused too much dental fluorosis abnormal enamel hypoplasia in U.S. innocent citizens. But instead of an apology, the idea is to simply use less of the toxic calcium chelator than what has been used thus far. And Peckham and millions of others are to be ridiculed and criticized for being opposed to this? They should be given medals, having to deal with fluoridationists who ridicule and criticize and continue to insist on altering natural water into a solution with more added fluoride than what was already present (or in cases of pristine clean fresh water had none of this contaminant at all).
LikeLike
It’s interesting how this site has introduced an ad hominem attack on Dr. Peckham referring to him as an anti fluoride activist.
The funny thing is, if you search the page, Richard Sauerheber is the only person to mention Dr Peckham by name.
LikeLike
Real scientists go to great lengths to avoid any hint of vested interest.
That’s because their work is stronger for it.
LikeLike
I repeat, Richard Sauerheber, this is the first time I have seen an author give their affiliation as the university where they studied for their degree but no longer worked for or are studying at. It is deceitful as it attempts to use institutional credibility to support their work (and implied current affiliations would not support,y credibility). I don’t know what you mean by “some sort of threat.” Of course, in my comments on your paper I will make your deceit clear. Anti-fluoride propagandists are continually attempting to imply credibility for their claims in this sort of manner and that always needs to be exposed for what it is.
Then again this sort of deceit is of interest to the institution involved. It would perhaps be appropriate for someone to bring attention to the University that you have done this and are attempting to ride in their credibility or even pass responsibility on to them for your shonky work.
Richard has asked who paid for the publication of your work. Clearly it was not the University of California, as your false attribution would give the impression, as employers would normally pay. But your refusal to say who did pay for it confirms suspicions that ideological motivated, and possibly big business financed, activist groups made the payment. As you say that does not disqualify the research but I think the “research” itself (which is no more than a high-school science project) in itself discredits the paper. The poor quality of the paper made it unacceptable to reputable journals and you therefore bought publication, whoever paid for it.
>
LikeLike
Richard Sauerheber, where have I attempted to falsify Peckham’s data by reference to his activism? In truth, nowhere. My critique of his work (seehttps://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/paper-claiming-water-fluoridation-linked-to-hypothyroidism-slammed-by-experts/) has been based in its own inadequacies. In the case of his hypothyroidism paper I was not the only one who pointed out the problem of the lack of information on dietary iodine as an important confounding factor which should behave been included – a fundamental problem with the paper. Personally I would be interested in publishing that critique but that would require me hunting down the data that Peckham neglected to. Now why is it forbidden for me to refer to Peckham’s activism! He actually referred to it himself in his declaration of conflicts of interest.
I did refer to the way that Peckham, himself, used shonky journals to attempt to give credibility to his activism in my article here https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/10/08/anti-fluoridation-propagandists-promoting-shonky-review/
I also critiqued the similar paper on ADHD (Malin and Till, 2015) you people are promoting, which suffers from a similar inadequacy. I was seriously thinking of publishing my analysis showing that when other factors were considered the relationship with fluoridation disappeared (see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/03/22/adhd-linked-to-elevation-not-fluoridation/) – but someone else has beaten me to it reporting the more important relations with elevation that I also found (see https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2015/04/21/adhd-link-to-fluoridation-claim-undermined-again/).
Peckham’s paper suffered the same problems that Malin & Till’s paper did – they are both of poor quality but that doesn’t stop anti-fluoride propagandists promoting them.
>
LikeLike
Richard
There is certainly nothing more that I can add in regard to your calcium theories. Ken has completely debunked that. Just a couple of things, however:
1. You are falsely attributing a quote to me which I did not make. I have never stated the you are “buying journal space to publish whatever I wanted”. Those are your words, not mine. Neither did I say that you paid a fee to have your work published. I stated the you were charged a fee. You have admitted to me in the past that others had paid the fee for you. I strongly suspect that it was paid by “FAN” or someone afiliated with them. If so, then there is yet another blatant conflict of interest. This bears further investigation.
2. It seems that Ken has exposed your “affiliation” with UCSD to be nothing more than being a member of its alumni association. If UCSD officials are unaware that you are using their name in such manner, they soon will be. Verification of your academic degrees also bears scrutiny.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
The JEPH journal policy is to list who the senior editor is for their published materials, and it is public knowledge who the editor of my article is because it is stated in the journal lissue. Did you actually read the article? Or do we have here the George Bernard Shaw description “the problem with communication is that you think it was accomplished.”
LikeLike
Calling any person an anti fluoridation activist (AFA) from the lips of one who opposes those who promote non-drugged drinking water is denigration. The term AFA implies that the person is insanely or nonsensically opposed to fluoride, which is absurd. Fluoride in the ocean where it belongs at 12 ppm is natural and harmless to fish due to the thousands of ppm calcium and magnesium in which it is present which buffer or block the assimilation of fluoride..
The term AFA is a denigration.
i read your critique of the iodine issue you brought up and it itself has flaws. Most papers have some flaws, and those that are pro fluoridation are the most flawed of all.
LikeLike
I read the anti clean water nonsense posted on the listed site about bottom feeding journals. Included in the list is Fluoride in New Zealand. Also included are references to the group called quackwatch. Quackwatch claims that Dr. John Yiamouyiannis’ work on fluoride are all false. Why? Because of an off the wall comment he had made about AIDS that was incorrect Quackwatch throws the baby out with the bathwater, being unable to filter out incorrect material from the truth it contains.
And I suppose you denigrated my racehorse breakdown article data because it was published in the journal Fluoride that you condemn?
That data summarizes nearly a quarter million horse racing starts and I also stand by that data and its interpretation.
Good day to you.
LikeLike
Steve, Ken has debunked nothing that is in the JEPH article in the slightest.
He merely makes the point that it doesn’t matter where the calcium comes from to neutralize fluoride assimilation, not that calcium is unable to mitigate fluoride assimilation. This debunks nothing that was said in the article.
It does not do you well to claim someone paid for the article from the Fluoride Action Network, when they most certainly did not. Where do you get this stuff? Before you have claimed I am a paid “science advisor” for James Deal. Show me. And if donors prefer to remain anonymous I can now see why, with the politics that go with this topic being threatening and oppressive.
Furthermore, don’t change your intent. Please read Ken’s article in WordPress that goes into length about “bottom feeding journals” who publish anything that “authors pays for.”
And now I see your true intention, that you are threatening me and even claiming I am not affiliated with UCSD through Dr. Benson who advised me with the JEPH article, or with Dr. Doolittle. My degrees from UCSD need scrutiny? Of course, because I am opposed to what you believe in, whole body fluoride dosing of everyone on earth, whether sick with kidney or bone disease or not, and whether having zero cavities or not, or even whether having teeth or not. Again, it’s a free country, and this scientist is free to state the truth about the nonsensical and illegal practice of “community water fluoridation.” Attack me ad nauseum. You can’t change the truth but you can certainly throw dirt on it.
LikeLike
And I am ready to submit three articles for publication done in collaboration with Dr.Heinz, Chemistry Dept. Palomar College. She retired 5 days ago and my salary now comes from a different department. So since the articles have not been published yet, am I supposed to drop the affiliation with the Chemistry Department?
The chief reason for publishing Calculus articles in the International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology with the Chemistry Dept affiliation was to ensure that my training in the Calculus was from UCSD. The IJMEST Journal asked about it and was fine with it. So in your estimation is IJMEST also a bottom feeding journal?
LikeLike
Bottom line, the Conclusion section of the WordPress article under discussion claim that “There is plenty of calcium even in “soft” drinking water” — as though somehow all water treated with industrial fluorides will automatically be safe to consume lifetime because of the calcium it will contain for protection against too much being assimilated. That is what the hogwash is. Try telling that hogwash to the Justus family who lost their expensive horses from industrial fluoridated water from the Pagosa River that contained less than 5 ppm protective calcium ion. Don’t make such false claims where the public can read it on WordPress, but rather investigate the whole truth first.
LikeLike
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, I took a quick glance at the Justus case but haven’t had a chance to read extensively. Could you please tell me if there was a lawsuit to compensate for the loss of their expensive horses?
LikeLike
Richard, your ridiculous rants are meaningless. Yes, your credentials and purported “affiliations” will be verified. Since you continue to fail to disclose whom paid your open access fee, it can only be assumed that you have something to hide with that, as well.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Steve, Of course I’m hiding something. I’m protecting the donors from you.
What did you think I’m “hiding?
LikeLike
Ken, your description of “the reality” is not the whole truth. Waters that contain natural fluoride at 1 ppm typically contain plentiful calcium to go with it, from calcium salts other than calcium fluoride that are also present. On the contrary, water deemed to “need” added fluoride by fluoridation promoters are typically much lower in protective calcium, as one would expect. Adding fluoride drastically lowers the calcium to fluoride ratio to a lower level than present in the water that contained the natural 1 ppm fluoride. The artificially fluoridated water is more harmful than the natural.
This is not rocket science and is easily understood by all High Schoolers around here. Too bad the WordPress article hides it.
LikeLike
David, I can give you a quick answer but bear with me until I get more details for the entire story soon.
My understanding is that the losses were not recovered. But the good thing was the city of Pagosa Springs had citizens who know what they are talking about and ordered the local water district to stop the infusions. They are worthless since eating fluoride all day long won’t prevent and can’t prevent a single dental cavity, and the infusions are harmful causing bone in-growths within the marrow and eventual cancers that killed most of the horses who suffered for years with HF induced colic before fluoride poisoning was finally recognized, not being taught in veterinary school.
The Hooper Bay overfeed disaster litigation is STILL ongoing and may never be settled. The city blames the State of Alaska for making them “fluoridate” with industrial sodium fluoride (if calcium fluoride had been used, the maximum fluoride level in any accident could never have exceeded 7-8 ppm due to poor solubility). Meanwhile, the State blames the city for doing the fluoridating. So it’s an endless impasse. The soft Yukon River water treated with sodium fluoride corrosive and was too much for the fluoridation feed system which corroded and caused fluoride levels to reach an estimated 100 ppm which killed Dominic Smith and sickened 302 others who were life-flighted to the hospital. The fluoride promoters still want to begin “fluoridation” there again, but the Eskimo natives refuse to let them (thank God for Eskimos). But no, the lawsuit has not led to any collection for loss of life and other damages. it is difficult to deal with what many officials actually believe is some sort of National Fluoridation Policy, as dictated by the Surgeon General and the OHD within the CDC.
LikeLike
Gee, Richard, you don’t suppose the reason that antifluoridationist lawsuits have a zero success rate is because they have zero merit, do you?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I see now that teriparatide is FDA approved since 2002 to induce 8% bone growth in one year of treatment and is being considered to be used in cases of skeletal fluorosis to attempt to remodel bone due to the presence of fluoroapatite. It of course would be better to avoid fluoride consumption in the first place. There is no purpose behind fluoridation of bone that always accompanies ingestion of 1 ppm fluoride water and accumulates during lifelong consumption to thousands of mg/kg in bone (NRC, 2006 p. 94). Higher concentrations in bone occur for industrlal sodium fluoride treatment than for calcium fluoride, where 50 grams total chronic intake of fluoride from sodium fluoride led to 10,000 mg/kg in bone but from natrual calcium fluoride reached 7,000 mg/kg (NRC, 2006 p. 97).
LikeLike
Wow, Richard! With hundreds of millions of citizens of the 74.6% fluoridated United States having chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water over the past 70 years, the US must be constantly overrun with skeletal fluorosis by now…….right??
“Several of the more recent reviews on the safety of fluoride intake have discussed skeletal fluorosis, which is extremely rare in the United States. Epidemiological studies in the U.S. of communities with naturally occurring fluoride in the water 3.3 to 8 times the amount in optimally adjusted water supplies found no evidence of skeletal fluorosis. Pages 45-47 of the 1991 Department of Health and Human Services document Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks discusses the topic of skeletal fluorosis topic in more detail and provides references. Only 5 cases of skeletal fluorosis have ever been reported in the U.S. In these cases, the total fluoride intake was 15 to 20 mg./fluoride per day for 20 years.”
—–http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoquality/request&response/1d.shtml
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Dr. Richard Sauerheber, I’m confused. Please correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like a very well off family in Sonoma, California lost some very expensive horses because of fluoride ingestion from a municipal water supply. The municipality was adding fluoride that killed the horses. The EPA allows up to 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water. Is any of this incorrect so far? What I don’t understand is, with such a substantial loss, and with financial means at their disposal, why wouldn’t the family go after somebody for damages if all of this was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? This sounds like an open and shut, slam dunk, no brainer to me. They could obviously afford a pretty good law firm. They could go after the EPA; they could go after the municipality. What am I missing here? This whole story raises some red flags for me.
Regarding the Alaska incident. Yes, overfeeds have occured. Today there are redundancies in water systems to prevent such occurances. In some cases a flow switch is used as a secondary verification of water flow. To say that water fluoridation is unsafe because of that incident would be like saying that ocean travel is unsafe because the Titanic only had half the necessary lifeboats in 1912.
LikeLike
My mistake, the family was from Colorado. Nevertheless, the questions remain.
LikeLike
Steve, These are old arguments you and I have already had numerous times. First you claim that I’m somehow unaware that fluoride ion in natural and industrial compounds after dissociation is the same structure from either compound. This proves that you have not even actually read the JEPH article that you love to criticize. The first two sentences in section 3.3 state the fact that the released anion from either compound are structurally identical (not for covalent compounds, but any ionic fluoride compound).
After numerous arguments you still proclaim my lack of understanding of this even in the current blog.
Now you still argue that skeletal fluorosis with fluoride in harder water being minimal in incidence, somehow “proves” that fluoride in softer water is also equally safe. This claim has so many egregious distortions that it would take a week to decipher them for you. 1) Diagnosed fluorosis in various stages is not an accurate science with wide variation in calcium content causing any and each stage with vast overlap as well. Everyone who consumes fluoridated water has some form of at least preclinical skeletal fluorosis because of the fact that at first insult with fluoride in bone, osteoblasts are abnormally stimulated to produce bone of poor quality to r respond to the insult, even in the absence of any feeling of pain yet that would cause one to visit a doctor to seek any diagnosis. You act as though everything is now magically known by the U.S. medical profession about pathologic fluoride incorporation into bone that now is endemic in U.S. citizens who consume fluoride water. Again, find someone in Grand Rapids who has indeed consumed the drugged water their entire life of say 60 years, and someone who only drank re-de-fluoridated water or regular water without fluoride. Apply a force just under that required to break normal bone, and see of the fluoridated skeletal bone withstands that force without a break or crack. These data would be of course be unethical to obtain but are needed before you can claim that artificially fluoridated people behave exactly the same as whether water is consumed that has either no fluoride, or artificially added fluoride, or natural fluoride from calcium rich rock dissolution. The “town without a toothache” farce in Hereford,TX contained 1 ppm natural fluoride and of course was accompanied with vast amounts of calcium and magnesium in the water, as expected. Of course bone fluoride accumulation there would be less than for an artificially fluoridated city at the same 1 ppm level in a city with much softer water than Hereford. Some cities in Texas areas are as high as 500 ppm calcium and water districts refer to that officially as “hard water.”
This is a stab at achieving some sort of communication on this with you that could help you, but this is not very likely. The theory that the vast cases of arthritis extant in this Nation have absolutely zero to do with mass fluoridation of the bony skeletons of our citizens is absurd, but from you it is absolute fact.
You as a fluoridation advocate/activist have your hopes and beliefs, and I have my understanding. Such is life.
And the issue of my “affiliation” with UCSD and degrees subject to “scrutiny”, there are many other ways I am affiliated with UCSD besides working with Dr.Benson on the JEPH article. I have donated a small amount to the campus many years ago. I have for 24 years now trained students who obtained scholarships and in even more cases paid work research laboratory internships at UCSD, mostly at the School of Medicine and at the Jacobs School of Engineering. I have written contributions for the UCSD Alumni magazine which by the way has announced all recent publications including the JEPH and Fluoride articles, among the others. To you my affiliation is somehow dubious, to me it’s quite productive.
LikeLike
Sorry Steve, but the Hooper Bay disaster is not a case with zero merit. You might want to present your opinions to the citizens who lived through it.
Sorry David, but the titanic event was a unique one. Fluoridation overfeeds have occurred in cities across the fluoridated U.S. numerous times. What you seem not to understand also is that community water fluoridation never had a functional purpose in the first place. Fluoride in saliva bathing teeth topically at 0.016 ppm (NRC 2006, p. 73) from 1 ppm fluoride water consumption is useless at affecting dental caries. Fluoridation advocates have attempted recently to change their mechanism of action that even this low level could incorporate into plaque where it could help toothpaste fluoride fight decay. But most dentists argue that plaque should be removed from teeth, not retained to incorporate fluoride to help fight caries. And even topical fluoride gels at 12,000 ppm don’t actually incorporate fluoride into the enamel matrix. Studies in Europe with Xray analysis prove that the enamel surface is merely coated with calcium fluoride globules that are quickly washed off upon eating and swallowed. Why would anyone, in the face of poisoning from an overfeed that took place, and increased morbidity in kidney dlalysis wards from water with target levels of fluoride that required an FDA ruling against it, and chronic fluoridation of bone when the U.S. has an endemic of arthritis, bone replacement surgeries and other bone/tendon related issues, continue “fluoridation” with a hazardous waste as source material for fluoride which can reach lethal concentrations in accidents, when it doesn’t even have a useful purpose? Decreased dental decay in Europe and the U.S. during the years the U.S., but not Europe, expanded artificial fluoridation is explainable to improved tooth brushing and increased sales of toothbrushes and tooth powders, but fluoride eating has absolutely nothing to do with it and never has.
LikeLike
Richard, I’m tired of dealing with your mostly irrelevant verbiage, false claims, misrepresentation of my statements, and utter nonsense. Your comments speak for themselves in regard to your misunderstanding of even the basic elements of fluoridation chemistry.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Richard Sauerheber, you now seem to have veered away from somehow claiming that the only way to ensure adequate levels of Ca in water is to use CaF2 rather than fluorosilicates as a fluoridating agent. That is weird given that the fluoridating agent contributes extremely little to the Ca content of the water – which you acknowledge elsewhere.
As for Hooper Bay you seem to want to draw the lesson that such setups should use saturated CaF2 solution as the feed to avoid the problems of poisoning. Given that this would present mechanical problems the obvious conclusion is that the feed fluorosilicate or NaF solutions should have a restricted maximum concentration – say 7 or 8 ppm F. You happy with that?
Oh, and if you do suddenly remember the role of Ca in you pet theory then the obvious solution, if your idea has any credibility, is simply to add a soluble Ca salt to bring the concentration up to what you define as the optimum level for drinking water.
Now what is the optimum level of Ca for drinking water that your 19 year long high school project experiments enabled you to determine?
This suggestion of mine (continuing use of “industrial” fluoridating agents but defining a optimum Ca concentration using added soluble calcium salts) is far better than switching to “natural” CaF2 because such unprocessed material contains impermissible levels of contaminants. It would require a lot of processing – conversion to HF and reprecipitation of CaF2 to produce the regulated levels of purity which are already defined for the “industrial” fluoridating chemicals.
And wouldn’t that upset the ideologically motivated – your “natural” CaF2 would have become an “industrial” fluoride.
>
LikeLike
If you like analogies like the Titanic, then what about this one. Any persons who have lived their entire lives without a cavity, and plan to continue keeping their mouth clean to never have one, Intentionally ingest fluoride ion water treated for the purpose of whole body fluoride dosing is like tenting a house that doesn’t have termites while using the wrong chemical that doesn’t work anyway, or it’s like taking any chemical therapy when one doesn’t have the disease that it is advertised for. Fluoridation en masse without a prescription and with FDA approval compares to medical malpractice at best and in reality is irrational, unethical, and illegal.
And the TItanic argument is not worth much because ships at least serve a useful purpose, transportation. Whole body fluoridation has no effective purpose, never will and never has. Fluoride ion does not belong in any living organism.
LikeLike
Richard, anti-fluoride-activist is a perfectly valid term. Someone who is actively anti fluoridation. The only missing qualification are the words ‘community water’ in respect of fluoridation, which is perfectly obvious from context.
LikeLike
Ken, you have no idea what is even presented in the JEPH article. Nowhere does it state that use of calcium fluoride is an acceptable way to adjust fluoride concentrations in water supplies. Fluoride in water is a contaminant, not a desirable material. The anion does not belong in any living organism or tissue. it has no physiologic purpose and in mammals it accumulates abnormally in a biochemically irreversible, permanent manner, where it causes synthesis of bone of poor quality in response to the insult.
I do not suggest calcium fluoride should be used at all. The statement was to indicate that if it had been used, there would not have been the death. Adding 7-8 ppm fluoride from sodium fluoride into Yukon River very soft water would be insane. It is the ratio of calcium to fluoride ion that determines fluoride toxicity. You missed the point of the entire article. A level of about 300 to 1 is typical, for the Colorado and many U.S. rivers. But some rivers are devoid of fluoride and calcium. Adding industrial fluoride at 8 ppm without calcium,forming a ratio far lower than 300 to 1? Really Ken?
The first part of the article on natural calcium fluoride minerals vs industrial synthetic fluoride compounds, where one is not capable of acute lethal poisoning and the second one is, is an introduction to the Hooper Bay fluoridation overfeed disaster that gave the original impetus to the article in the first place and that produced lethal 4-5 ppm blood fluoride levels in the deceased victim.
The second section deals with fluoride toxicity at intermediate blood levels around 1 ppm as occurred in kidney dialysis victims using fluoridated water in the dialysis equipment.
The third section deals with chronic lower level fluoride toxicity, at blood levels around 0.2 ppm from typical persons consuming 1 ppm fluoride water chronically lifetime with the bone accumulation where it does not belong and serves no purpose.
The fourth section deals with the information requested by the journal editors regarding U.S. fluoridation policy. Foreign countries do not and never will understand dentist obsessions with whole body fluoride dosing through treated public drinking water, and the journal wanted to know what the rationale for this useless practice is.
This Steve is not “utter nonsense” or “misunderstanding.”
LikeLike
Richard, AFA is not an acceptable term unless its meaning is defined. And you did not define it in the beginning. Many argue the term refers to those who hate fluoride anywhere and everywhere, including advocating the removal of natural fluoride from rivers, lakes and even the ocean. That is absurd and is an insult to a biochemist. You now define it better, but it is acceptable and only non-insulting if you mean AFA refers to one who opposes community water fluoridation for the purpose of whole body fluoride dosing in an attempt to treat dental decay by elevating fluoride in the blood where it is a non-nutrient contaminant. If that is your definition of AFA, then you could refer to me as an AFA. if any part of that is removed from the meaning, then you have no right to call me by those letters which would be a misrepresentation. And opposing water fluoridation is not the only activity I do, so the label AFA still is not that good anyway, but does describe an activity in which I am involved.
Topical fluoride does not “remineralize” teeth enamel. Normal teeth enamel contains no fluoride, and fluoridated bone from systemic fluoride is abnormal bone. Useless, harmful, illegal, and an expensive waste of taxpayers’ and others’ money and time. Got the picture?
LikeLike
Many argue the term refers to those who hate fluoride anywhere and everywhere, including advocating the removal of natural fluoride from rivers, lakes and even the ocean
Many (in my opinion, fools) might argue that, but few or none advocate such removal (can you name any?). You cannot ignore common usage. Doing so exposes a very weak argument, one based on pedantry only. You risk looking stupid.
I repeat it is a perfectly valid term.
There is no need to define what the words mean, it is implicit in the meaning of the words.
Anti: prefix, against
Fluoridation: act of adding fluoride to something (note that this by definition excludes natural sources)
Activist: one who actively advocates
LikeLike
Richard, for anyone who misrepresents himself on published scientific literature, as “Chemistry Department, University of California-San Diego” when that affiliation amounts to nothing more than membership in an alumni association of that school, fails to disclose his affiliation with a personal injury attorney who maintains a website called “fluoride-class-action”, fails to disclose the funding source for his published paper, and who spews the utter nonsense that you do……..”antifluoridationist” is an entirely acceptable and appropriate description.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Stupid? How? Yes I can name some but why would I expose their names to you, to be called names as you did here? I can correct their misunderstandings with rational discussion, unlike with the people who support and who wrote the WordPress attack article under consideration here. And please notice you’ve already changed the term in your own words. You first said it meant anti fluoride activist. Which of course is absurd. God Created fluoride compounds. Who can dispute God?
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist, which is more acceptable, but only if you mean what I described above, not some other meaning for it. Fluoridation chemicals used vary from sodium fluoride to fluosilcic acid lilquid to solid sodium fluosilicate salt, as you know, where the first does not increase the dissolution of lead ion from lead salts on plumbing , but fluosilicic acid most certainly does, in spite of what you’ll I suspect hear soon from Slott. Released silicic acid at water pH remains the intact protonated acid. And why do you suggest I risk “looking stupid”? You’re the one who first stated what you meant.
LikeLike
One simple question Richard S. So as to avoid rambling diversions.
After 19 years of research what is the optimum concentration you have found which will counter what you see as the toxic effects of optimum fluoride concentration (0.75 ppm) in drinking water. Simple question simple answer.
>
LikeLike
I also know many misinformed people who are anti fluoridation activists who refuse to drink fluoridated water, and say they would do so even if they were in the desert without any other water source. Even temporary ingestion they oppose, to their own detriment. So AFA that refers to them does not refer to me. And it is usually those who are sensitive to fluoride who reject it totally so understand the origination of their position. And yes industrial fluoride from fluosilicic acid in soft water can cause hypersensitive reactions in a small percent of people. It can be dealt with, but it is an unnecessary life complication.
LikeLike
Richard S, I recognise another hobby horse of yours. 🙂
The aqueous chemistry of silica compounds is very complex and the chemical forms are often operationally defined. For example we often use the term “monomeric” to cover the molybdate reactive silica in solution. But of course the system is dynamic with olation and oxolation reactions leading to solid silica and it is difficult to define at what degree of polymerisation the species becomes non-reactive.
You may wish to assume all the silica produced in the hydrolytic decomposition of fluorosilicic acid remains as monomeric silica. However, if you do so you must also recognise that it will exist in drinking water as a small fraction of the total monomeric silica present and derived from natural sources.
If you are going to scaremonger about the reactive silica released from hydrolysis of fluorosilicates then to be honest you have to be far more concerned about the greater amounts of reactive silica naturally present in drinking water – including un-fluoridated drinking water.
>
LikeLike
Now I have obtained a more detailed answer to your original question.
No, the owners never got any kind of a settlement. They told the water municipality that if they ceased fluoridation, they would not sue. At that point they had lost nearly a million dollars, for all the lost horses, vet/medical/necropsy costs, travel taking horses to CO State Univ., medicines, etc. and couldn’t afford more expense getting a lawyer, The chronic slow poisoning went on for years until the last horse with skeletal fluorosis, fibromyalgia, skin disorders, etc. was lost. The expert fluoride toxicologist who diagnosed this suggested a lawsuit because it was so cut and dried. But the owners were then part of a homeowners association lawsuit and it was blatantly clear how corrupt the court system is non this issue, no matter how cut and dried the case. These are the reasons they didn’t sue and their prime goal was to have regular water back again anyway, which it has been ever since, and all horses since then have been fully normal of course.
Again, fluoride toxicology depends on prevailing conditions. The softer the water, the more is assimilated. Understand?
LikeLike
By the way it was the poisoning of these horses that caused my concern for the possible effect of fluoridated water on racehorses not allowed to pasture graze, as at racetracks in Cypress and Inglewood. Indeed, the breakdown incidence increase after fluoridated water began caused Hollywood Park to eventually close down. And Los Alamitos halted purchases of the L.A. drugged water, and switched to use only well water.
(Fluoride, Racehorse Breakdowns and Artificially Fluoridated Water in Los Angeles, 2013).
LikeLike
Dr. Richard Sauerhaber, much of what you have said is laughable. Dr. Slott rightly pointed out that Skeletal Fluorosis in the U.S. is extremely rare. There have been less than a dozen documented cases in a nation of over 425 million, in the nation that has been practicing CWF longer than any place on Earth. Your response, if I understood you correctly, is that much of the arthritis in the U.S. is undiagnosed SF. At best this is speculation, but more likely it is reaching on your part. It is not my intent to sound cheauvinistic, but medical diagnostics in India, where SF is common, are simply not superior to those in the U.S. Your speculation is a load of crap.
I brought up the incident of the Justus family who lost their expensive horses because it smacked of an anecdote, fed to you through the Fluoride Action Network with no scrutinization, so you could throw it in Dr. Perrott’s face with such self-righteousness (How did you put it? “Try telling that hogwash to the Justus family who lost their expensive horses . . “) that one would have expected you to have a firm grasp on the story. So tell me, Dr. Richard, why didn’t they sue anybody?
My point in questioning your story is that if you lose credibility anywhere, you lose credibility everywhere.
And of course you know that I pointed to the Titanic as an example of archaic standards that have since improved. Industrial accidents happen in every area. Infinitely more people have been injured and killed by chlorine than all forms of fluoride put together. Water system treatment equipment and standards have improved drastically since the Alaska incident, and you probably know that too.
LikeLike
Apologies, Dr. Sauerhaber, I was posting my comment before I had seen your answer to my original question. So, if I understand you correctly, the family decided that it was in their best interests to have the municipality end CWF, after they had lost millions of dollars worth of property.
Wouldn’t it have been better in their financial interest to seek the millions of dollars of compensation that, according to you, they could have easily gotten in court since it was clearly provable, and to have just gotten an inexpensive water filter?
LikeLike
Yeah, Richard, the horse tale was as “cut and dried” as are all other frivolous antifluoridationist nonsense. The woman had at least 6 vets who had examined her horses pre- and post-mortem tell her that their illness was not due to fluoride. Undaunted, she shopped around until she found one who agreed that the symptoms she described to him, which she had deemed her animals to have exhibited, could be consistent with fluoride poisoning.
Could this tale even be any more ridiculous?
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
I don’t know how much you know about the legal system in the U.S., but if anybody has a cut and dried case, easily provable, and millions of dollars are on the line, it is not difficult to find a law firm that will initially take the case pro bono. I submit: Your story is full of holes.
LikeLike
Some relevant information about this horsey story.
Cathy Justus of Pagosa Springs, Colorado (the owner of the horses) is Fluoride Action Network’s National Spokesperson against Fluoride Poisoning in Animals. Given her “activism” and beliefs one would have thought she would litigate like hell. Especially as there are backers (like those who paid for publication of Richard S’s paper) only too interested in supporting a worthwhile case.
Perhaps she didn’t have anything to go on as far as the water supply was concerned as it is usually thought that fluorosis in horses is caused by other things like “ingestion of forages or waters contaminated with fluoride-containing industrial waste, high-fluorine rock-phosphate supplements in animal feeds, and fluoride-containing rodenticides, insecticides, and other chemicals ( see Expert discusses fluoridated water and horses ) in http://horsetalk.co.nz/
LikeLike
Oh dear me.
Stupid? How? Yes I can name some but why would I expose their names to you, to be called names as you did here?…
You know people who advocate removing fluoride from rivers lakes and the oceans.
…..Ohhh Kaaay….
Good luck to them with that.
And I completely understand that you want to protect their identities.
I also know many misinformed people who are anti fluoridation activists who refuse to drink fluoridated water, and say they would do so even if they were in the desert without any other water source. Even temporary ingestion they oppose, to their own detriment.
Yes, that sounds like a watertight example of stupidity to me.
You appear comfortable saying misinformed people are anti fluoridation activists, are you implying that informed people on the subject can’t be anti fluoridation activists? Just trying to get my head around where you are coming from, it seems to be all over the place.
..blah, blah blah…God Created fluoride compounds. Who can dispute God?
(rolls eyes)
Many do. Not all of us live in the USA where the god superstition is endemic.
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist, which is more acceptable, but only if you mean what I described above, not some other meaning for it.
No. Read carefully.
You disputed the term anti fluoridation activist, arguing it was pejorative.
The term AFA implies that the person is insanely or nonsensically opposed to fluoride, which is absurd. Fluoride in the ocean where it belongs at 12 ppm is natural and harmless to fish due to the thousands of ppm calcium and magnesium in which it is present which buffer or block the assimilation of fluoride..
See?
In case you missed it:
The term AFA is a denigration.
You even provided the “AFA’ as a convenient initialism.
Which leads us to
And now you say it instead means anti fluoridation activist,which is more acceptable
Cross out the word “instead” from the sentence and it would be accurate description of what I said. Yes, I say that anti fluoridation activist means anti fluoridation activist.
I even supplied the dictionary meaning of the words. They mean the same as they did last week and the decade before then: Someone who actively opposes fluoridation.
<blather blather….
And why do you suggest I risk “looking stupid”?
For the exact same reason as I wrote earlier: a weak and pedantic objection to the use of anti fluoridation activist as a descriptive term.
LikeLike
Cathy Justus of Pagosa Springs
She shopped around for quite a while before she found an expert to agree with her a priori bias.
LikeLike
Yes, she and her friendly vet even published a paper on the poisoning, in the journal Fluoride! Absolutely no checking for sources of the poisoning – we just have to take their word for it that it was fluoridated water.
Fluoride poisoning of farm animals is not unknown in NZ and is often caused by releasing animals into freshly fertilised pasture without the recommended withholding period. I am not yet aware pf any NZ farmer suggesting fluoridated water is to blame.
Perhaps FFNZ should get onto this.
>
LikeLike
Ok, Sauerheber, ask and ye shall receive……..
“Controlling for covariates, water fluoridation method was significant only in the models that included dwellings built before 1946 and dwellings of unknown age. Across stratum- specific models for dwellings of known age, neither hydrofluosilicic acid nor sodium silicofluoride were associated with higher geometric mean PbB concentrations or prevalence values. Given these findings, our analyses, though not definitive, do not support concerns that silicofluorides in community water systems cause higher PbB concentrations in children. Current evidence does not provide a basis for changing water fluoridation practices, which have a clear public health benefit.”
—-Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988-1994
Environ Health Perspec. 2006 January; 114 (1): 130-134
Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Delores M. Malvitz
“Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(I1) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions.”
——Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.
Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2000, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
a. I did not say that medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Where do you guys get the right to distort things I say, to retain the luxury of continuing to argue? I was referring to the fact that no one in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) has sufficient knowledge to know at precisely what level for example fluoride in bone will cause pain. It’s a seemingly simple question but yet varies widely among different people and between various bones. This is because fluoridation of bone can be considered a quite random process. It’s sort of like ingestion of tritium water, where there is no useful MCL for it and its biologic effect too is random. If tritium water molecules emit beta decay onto a point in DNA that is critical, then a deleterious result can occur at even a modest tritium water systemic concentration. If it hits less critical areas then the result is completely different—the luck of the draw. The same with fluoridated locations in the bony skeleton. Some regions are enriched in nerves, others are less enriched, hence some have severe bone pain at low total fluoride overall average levels in bone than others at that overall average level without pain. Bone growths in the Pagosa horses inward into the marrow occurred at bone fluoride levels of only about 4-500 mg/kg. Some fluoride incorporates into compact bone, some in spongy bone, some causing spicules to grow inward, some causing bony outgrowths, but all fluoride incorporation is abnormal and biochemically not reversible. The NRC 2006 Report lists stage II skeletal fluorosis occuring even at as low as 4,300 mg/kg in bone (p. 173) in some individuals but lists a very broad range for it because people are so different and fluoridated scattering of bone is again the luck of the draw. The differentiation between prediabetes and diagnosed diabetes (Type II) is also similarly problematic. There is no easy paradigm to determine whether one should be labeled in a diabetic state, a prediabetic state, or simply an elevated normal, etc. The ADA uses 130 mg% as a cutoff for glucose levels 13 hours after fasting to distinguish, but this depends on whether the patient ate a huge amount of wedding cake the night before or not, etc. Other agencies use a completely different number. Likewise, the point where pre-skeletal fluorosis becomes skeletal fluorosis with boen weakening or bone pain occurs over even a more broad fluoride incorporation range. How does one decide if a hip should be replaced when one has pain? Should the bone fluoride level be above X or above Y? Neither the U.S. nor anyone has adequate answers for that—it’s a game of intuition or art, and in the U.S. this is brought on intentionally because of water “fluoridation” which is unnecessary and useless in the first place. The fluoride content of the bloodstream in fluoridated U.S. consumers is about 75% due to water fluoride consumption (NRC).
.
b. I already told you why they did not sue in Pagosa Springs, but you refuse to accept the truth, so there is little point in repeating it. As for myself, I don’t believe in suing people unless there were absolutely no other recourse for some tragic event. And I would be even more reluctant to sue a public facility, because they are supposed to be public service agencies that can’t go bankrupt because they simply charge the customer for it. Why sue a water utility, when you pay are the one who pays their bills anyway? Sue yourself? Ridiculous. Notice, the owners got what they demanded. Pagosa Springs remains non-fluoridated to this day and their horses are now fine. You can claim Dr. Krook lied if you choose, but you can count me out. No it would not have been likely to “win” a court case against a water district. Did you even comprehend what I posted? The U.S. Surgeon general announces regularly “fluoridation” is considered a great public health achievement, and water districts announce to customers how great fluoridation is to reduce dental decay by 40%, while not harming a single bodily function when ingested for the rest of your lives no matter who you are. Win a court case? Wow.
There were three rare separate court cases where fluoride water was determined beyond reasonable doubt to have exacerbated cancer mortality, but even this did not halt water fluoridation in those locations. One was overruled by a higher court with the proclamation that a court cannot “decide what people drink.” (the ultimate in irony). Again, the horse owners got what the demanded, which is a permanent end to water “fluoridation” in their home town. Got it fluoride pushers? You can leave soft water Pagosa Springs alone now, thank you.
David, it’s not “my story”, it’s “the” story. When were you in Pagosa?
c. The handling of noxious chlorine is nothing as difficult as the handling of corrosive fluosilicic acid with HF. Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine. And by the way employees handling the toxic corrosive are in far more danger living their lives working daily with that than with natural calcium fluoride, another reason why calcium fluoride is preferable to noxious fluosilicic acid for you “fluoridation” nonsense, for the improved safety of the employees, the protection of district equipment and facilities and plumbing fixtures, etc. And again, don’t twist these words into what you want, which is “Richard said it’s better to use calcium fluoride than fluosilicic acid fluoride for fluoridation”. Not true. I denounce “fluoridation” in its entirety. But if you insist on doing it to people, then why not use the safe source material calcium fluoride which is not an officially recognized poison, while fluosilicic acid most certainly is. And calcium fluoride does not leech lead like released silicic acid does (see below).
d. Richard, I’m not “all over the place.” The term anti fluoride activist is different than anti fluoridation activist. If one doesn’t define what he refers to, then he is the one who is “all over the place.” That’s why labels usually have only limited use. Hence your present confusion. You wrote “You disputed the term anti fluoridation activist, arguing it was pejorative.” No, I wrote “AFA” ( defined in your first use context as anti fluoride activist, not anti fluoridation activist). In that sense yes it’s absurd. Again, there are people who hate all fluoride, even that in the ocean, and if the term AFA means that, then it is absurd. If the term means as you later stated, anti fluoridation activist, that is completely different because fluoridation is an intentional act committed by uninformed humans using industrial fluosilicic acid infusions into water supplies which dissociates into silicic acid, sodium ion, and fluoride ion, none of which belong in or are found in clean pristine fresh drinking water (see JEPH 49490, 2013). And BTW I own several dictionaries.
e. As stated by Macik, the analysis was not definitive. That is an understatement. Lead levels in school drinking fountains and in sinks of many homes here in North County skyrocketed after fluosilicic acid infusions began. Those detected were replaced, but the water district stopped testing after that and declared “homeowners will be required to check their own water for lead and to mitigate as needed.” How convenient. “Lead free plumbing” was adopted legally in CA years ago, but who spends money to refit their entire home plumbing systems to accommodate senseless “fluoridation”? (hint—almost no one). And whatever the heck are homes of “unknown age?” What a bizarre attempt to cover over the fact that silicic acid reacts with lead salts on lead-containing plumbing, the older the more lead salts accumulate on the fixture. And notice that “lead free plumbing” is a false name anyway. Here in CA we lead the Nation in procuring such fixtures, but they ALL contain lead, just at lower levels than before.
f. This idea that the U.S. is not a Godly Nation, or as you claim that God is a “superstition,” are common misunderstandings. There is no need to discuss that with you because the AFA comments above, for which this was brought up, have been made clear for the reader.
LikeLike
And Fluoride is not a “bottom feeding” journal as claimed. Is my article worthless or somehow incorrect in totality because (as argued here for the Pagosa horse article) it too is published in Fluoride? That 7 year analysis of 12 years of racing in So CA involved nearly a quarter million horse racing starts and is not “bottom feeding” caliber. What you seem not to understand is that even a journal of “lesser esteem” than another can contain accurate data and good analysis. “Activists” still make statements that are correct. Those who exaggerate to make a point make other statements that are correct. Even a broken watch is correct two times a day. There is no such thing as anyone who should in reality ever be classified as a “liberal” or a “conservative” because no one is only conservative on every issue that exists, and vice versa. Labels for persons who all have infinite minds are very misleading. For example, this discussion began with the assumption that I promote use of calcium fluoride for water fluoridation. Where did this nonsense come from? Someone misquoting me or labeling me with a label that has no exact meaning, like a political term?
Again, GB Shaw said the problem with communication is that it seems to be achieved. When does one person ever actually totally understand another? .
LikeLike
Richard S, no need to climb out of your tree.
I agree that just because something is written by activist or published in a shonky journal does not, by itself, discredit the work. Although it is natural to ask why it wasn’t submitted to a real journal.
I believe any paper must be analysed for its content – good journal or bad journal. After all, there is plenty of bad work in good journals.
That is something I advocate strongly here – the scientific literature must always be approach intelligently and critically. And that is what I have attempted to do in the articles where I evaluate papers.
I believe I have taken that approach to you paper and have judged it naive and rambling in the process.
As for your little rant about someone assuming you are promoting CaF2 for fluoridation – I think you are mistaken and are diverting.
You have claimed that Ca in drinking water somehow prevents the toxic effects you have claimed for the optimum levels of F. All I have asked, several times, is what is the concentration you claim necessary to “neutralise” the F and what is the evidence for that figure? I could not see that in your paper – that is why I asked.
Its a simple question and you should be able to provide a sensible answer if you indeed have a rational theory on the subject.
LikeLike
Richard S, you are now spinning on the difference in meaning between anti fluoride and anti fluoridation.
Ohhh Kaaay,… if you really, truly, think that is reasonable in the context of the articles in question.
Speaking of the articles in question, you wrote
It’s interesting how this site has introduced an ad hominem attack on Dr. Peckham referring to him as an anti fluoride activist.
Let’s examine the contexts.
Can you please provide a link to Ken doing as you claim (or it didn’t happen).
LikeLike
f. This idea that the U.S. is not a Godly Nation,
“godly” is a faithist term. I’d never use it.
I simply observe the fact that the overwhelming majority of USA citizens self identify as having faith in a god. Mostly the christian one, although others claim that their non christian one is the real one.
or as you claim that God is a “superstition,” are common misunderstandings.
QED
There is no need to discuss that with you because the AFA comments above, for which this was brought up, have been made clear for the reader.
One wonders why you brought it up then.
LikeLike
Dr. Sauerhaber, I am convinced now, more than ever, that anti-fluoridation activists believe as they do because they can’t read. Your quote: “I did not say that medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Where do you guys get the right to distort things I say, to retain the luxury of continuing to argue?” Please, copy and paste my text – so that I can see it – where I accused you of saying medical diagnostics in India are “superior” to that in the U.S. Ok. No, sir, it is you who distort things that I say to retain the luxury of continued argument.
The horse story: Yes, you explained why they didn’t sue. Let’s recap. The Justus’ lost millions of dollars worth of horses because of CWF which originated at the municipality. First you said that they had run out of money after all the vet bills. So I pointed out that any normal law firm would drool at the chance to get millions of dollars in damages for a client – pro bono, initially. Then your story was that they didn’t sue because they believed it was in the best interest of the community to get the municipality to end the evil practice of CWF. Wow, this is the stuff of movies. One plot flaw . . If the Justus family really wanted to end CWF, it would have made more sense to sue the EPA for the millions of dollars. After all, its the EPA which allows up to 4 ppm of fluoride in drinking water, and a blow to the EPA would have done much more to end CWF, nationwide, than suing one small municipality.
Oh yeah, the courts are corrupt. The courts are part of the conspiracy of silence. Even though you said that this case was cut and dried, and so I’m not accused of misquoting I will copy & paste your text: “No it would not have been likely to “win” a court case against a water district. Did you even comprehend what I posted? The U.S. Surgeon general announces regularly “fluoridation” is considered a great public health achievement, and water districts announce to customers how great fluoridation is to reduce dental decay by 40%, while not harming a single bodily function when ingested for the rest of your lives no matter who you are. Win a court case? Wow.” Wow is right. Dude, any good lawfirm would have jumped at the chance. After all, look what can happen with the right lawfirm. A guy slashes up his wife and another guy. There’s enough DNA to put him away for life. Up steps F. Lee Baily and he gets away with murder because he pretends that his own glove doesn’t fit him. End of story? Not quite. Now he is sitting in prison for trying to steal back his own stuff in Las Vegas. In the U.S. Court System, anything is possible. Everyone knows that.
By the way, there’s some lunatic in Dallas who want’s to sue the City because of CWF. You might want to let her onto your little insight that it’s a lost cause.
Your quote: “The handling of noxious chlorine is nothing as difficult as the handling of corrosive fluosilicic acid with HF. Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine. And by the way employees handling the toxic corrosive are in far more danger …” You’re trying to bullshit the wrong guy on this. When was the last time you handled either bulk sodium hypochlorite or FSA? “Window glass is etched by HF, not by chlorine.” Wow that sounds pretty bad. I guess you forgot to mention that chlorine is considered a weapon of mass destruction, not HF. (that sounds worse, doesn’t it) I guess you forgot to mention that many millions more have been killed by chlorine than by the handful killed or injured by FSA. This argument is a joke.
I have handled both FSA and sodium hypochlorite, and you’re right. I was injured by handling FSA. I hurt my back by trying to lift a fifteen gallon carboy onto a scale. My fault, I should have gotten help.
The fact that you note FSA is used for glass etching does, however, counter the anti fluoride conspiracy theory that CWF is the only means of disposal for industry.
I’m done with you. You either lie to yourself, in which case you are not rational, or purposely lie to everybody else, which would probably mean there is some money in it for you somewhere.
LikeLike
Mercola – Please tell me I’m wrong and that you were being evasive, when questioned about funding, for another reason. Please tell me it had nothing to do with Mercola. What are your views on vaccinations?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ken wrote: “I thought it was very noticeable that despite you own pet “theories” about calcium in drinking water you refused to come to the aid of Sauerheber who was putting forward his own pet “theories” on Ca. Surely if you were really interested in a discussion (rather than planting links) you would have done so.”
I’ve spent time with Steve Slott on this before. Perhaps now we could look at whether reductionist thinking needs to be considered here. Physicist Fritjoff Capra was looking into it 30 years ago. (Just listening to “Mindwalk.”)
Even if water may be considered the sum of its parts in its effects. they still need to be thought of in balance. It’s like vitamin B1 can make a person feel great until they run out of the synergistic other B vitamin store in the body. If you eat natural food and use propoer ways of cooking you may get the balance better.
So it’s what other minerals which we may be lucky to get in balance in water, molybdenum &c even for teeth.
Now we eat food which sticks to the teeth. From previous discussion here that seems to have be accepted as one or the postulates that cannot be changed. So we increase fluoride which increases some tooth health. We see fluoride in the tooth structure but do not really know how it gets there.
(I have written on this before but Sauerheber may not have come across it. This seems to be a thread of long articles so I hope that is OK. If you want links please ask.)
I report of Dunedin dentist DB Ritchie reporting that mature pellicle on the tooth surface has biota which concentrate fluoride on the tooth surface and incorporate phosphate with help of magnesium and calcium to apatite. I have also noted pH changes occur in the process.
Nowadays we tend to abrade the pellicle off the tooth with paste and brush though some has softer abrasive. Maori in the Ureweras had very good teeth (about 1% decay) till they went to Auckland. I don’t know if they used abrasive toothpaste but I presume food, (as opposed to complex pellicle) stuck on their teeth and stopped the saliva getting to them.
I have reported that I think, after reading some papers/theses, that fluoride blocks the switch off of the saliva stimulating hormone.
The message is something else is needed to go with sticky food. Now I’ve stated some of the minerals which work together in the mouth.
The talk of calcium and fluoride in water is a bit difficult since often, as Ken says, a calcium compound is used to adjust the pH. That has incidental effects on lead in drinking water which can be increased if the water is left too acid. So when Steve says it is not the fluoridation making the difference he needs to remember that when water starts to be fluoridated the opportunity may also taken to adjust pH and often one without the other does not occur. However his point is about the small quantity from fluoridation. But then when you get rid of reductionist thinking you realise that seawater has 0.05ppm iodine but the seaweed which grows in it extremely concentrates that to some 10,000ppm so sometimes iodine was obtained by burning seaweed. So its really hard to know about water and its effect.
I was an early poster on this thread and asked about Gosford water. I have posted this table before, now I add the sodium levels. Gosford said they adjust pH with Sodium Carbonate. But that is hard to see in the figures.
Gosford water average milligrams per litre
1 jul – 30 jun magnesium calcium pH sodium
2005-06 6.04 11.44 7.78 30
2006-07 7.26 8.86 7.82 61
2007-08 3.6 7.23 7.8 39 Fluoridation started January.
2008-09 3.94 9.27 8.1 42
2009-10 5.65 14.1 8.1 55
2010-11 3.965 15.377 7.87 33
2011-12 3.4492 15.2 7.87 31
2012-13 3.4967 13.6583 7.76 34
2013-14 3.8592 15.0083 7.81 33
Need to look at the other minerals, too.
I can understand that to swallow a calcium fluoride tablet would likely be different from a sodium fluoride tablet. But things are a bit different in water, in my viewpoint.
Brian Sandle
LikeLike
Sorry if my writing does not adapt to all your requirements. Been to a worrying Salinger lecture yesterday evening.
LikeLike
I am asking a question of analysis which may have some relevance here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!topic/sci.stat.math/D8-FI3mIyjk
LikeLike
There is a very useful critical analysis of this paper written by toxicologist Gary Whitford. http://www.fluoridescience.org/assets/FullReview_Sauerheber2013.pdf
The lack of understanding the dissociation constant of CaF2 implications to free fluoride ions in drinking water with 0.7 ppm F- and the physiologic naivete with respect to the total unimportance to health of the dynamic changes of HF concentration as the fluoride ion is absorbed utterly discredits this paper.
LikeLike
Billy Budd, Whitford’s article loses power when it writes such as: “Contrary to the author’s claim, fluoride is a normal constituent of the blood and therefore it is present in all tissues of the body including the hydroxyapatite of enamel.”
What about sodium and potassium? Just because something is in blood does not dictate its functional presence in all tissues of the body.
Fluoride is concentrated on the tooth surface with magnesium, calcium and phosphate by the biota in the mature pellicle on the tooth. Its concentration is high compared to in blood or saliva.
Brian Sandle
LikeLike
^ Do we have to put up with this nonsense.^
LikeLike
There’ll be a bit of sodium and potassium in tooth enamel.
Whitford’s article is written in a sort of put down news style. So it loses power.
“Contrary to his assertion, fluoride has been a measurable component in every substance, animate or inanimate, that has ever been analyzed including sea water, polar ice caps and the atmosphere.”
Besides pandering to two-valued thinking rather than quantity.
Sauerheber says wrong things in my view, but answering ought to be more academic.
LikeLike
On p24 of the book below a figure shows the non-soil fluoride content of some polar ice to be less than 0.05 parts per billion for a lot of the first half of last century.
There was a spike of 1.5 parts per billion in 1947 owing to the Hekla volcano. But by 1990 the general level had been constantly hovering near 0.2 parts per billion or more since 1960. As opposed to sea water which is more like 1,000 parts per billion fluoride. Coal burning?
Fluoride in the atmosphere can be strong near a fertiliser plant in west Christchurch and make glass windows go cloudy. I also suspect it gets rained into an upper aquifer making that water stronger in fluoride than some fluoridated water.
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=SgrpCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=fluoride+%22polar+ice%22&source=bl&ots=l85qHEFCeF&sig=VViSMQWb5c8K7YaKmIngZDpDMLI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBGoVChMIlauD88WHxgIVkC-8Ch2hYwA9#v=onepage&q=fluoride%20%22polar%20ice%22&f=false
LikeLike
Brian, what about telling us where Sauerheber is wrong?
>
LikeLike
Ken, thanks for the link to Sauerheber’s article:
“The chief ingredient in normal teeth enamel is hydroxyapatite that contains calcium phosphate, not fluoride.”
That seems a confusing sentence.
Teeth contain hydoxyapatite and fluorapatite. (Amongst other things.) Both of those have calcium phosphate as building block.
fluorapatite: Ca10(PO4)6F2
two fluorine atoms against 6 phosphates.
hydroxyapatite: Ca5(PO4)3OH
Ken do you have access to this?:
S.H. Yoon, F. Brudevold, D.E. Gardner, and F.A. Smith
“Distribution of Fluoride in Teeth from Areas with Different Levels of Fluoride in the Water Supply”
J DENT RES July 1960 39: 845-856, doi:10.1177/00220345600390041101
Brian Sandle
LikeLike
Here’s another: little difference in fluoride content of outer layers of enamel at less than 10 micrometers depth, when comparing low fluoride area 0.1 mg/L with an area at 1.9 mg/L.
http://www.aobjournal.com/article/0003-9969%2894%2990101-5/abstract
LikeLike
Brian, I am surprised you found so little to critique in Sauerheber’s article.
I agree he is wrong to describe teeth enamel as “hydroxyapatite” – that idea is very naive. But I disagree that it is a mixture of fluorapatite and hydroxyapatite. In the real world things are never that simple, although they sometimes described that way to make explanations simpler.
The pure end members, fluorapatite and hydroxyapatite will be rare in natural systems like bones and teeth. In reality these will be apatites – or in more detail fluorocarbanotohydroxy apatites where there are variable amounts of carbonate, hydroxide and fluoride substituting. And of course other cations and anions will substitute in small amounts.
Maybe a detail but I think mistakes have been made in the past where hydroxyapatite a have been used a model systems for tooth surfaces.
But, come on Brian. Surely you found far more to criticise in that article?
>
LikeLike
Since fluoridation seems not to make much difference to the fluoride in the tooth surface, then how does it affect teeth? Could it be that it is only protecting by shutting off the hormone which stops saliva flow?
LikeLike
Another Sauerheber fault: “Ironically, the level of fluoride in saliva that filters from the bloodstream after swallowing water with 1 ppm fluoride is a miniscule 0.02 ppm average ([9] p. 71, personal communication K. Theissen, co-author of NRC Report). This is unable to influence teeth caries at 75,000 times lower concentration than in toothpaste at 1,500 ppm.”
Here learn about how helpful bacteria on the tooth surface can concentrate salivary fluoride on the tooth surface from the very low levels in normal saliva:
Something I have taken the liberty of copying before and posting, for thought, and maybe adjustment. I wonder if Sauerheber is still reading:
Deficient plaque?
I had always thought that plaque was a bothersome layer on the teeth which should be got rid of.
I quote from “Balance of Health 1 Care of Teeth”, by D.B.Ritchie,
University of New Zealand Dental Degree.
page 1. -‘by the skin of our teeth!’-
Teeth, like any other component structures of all forms of life, have a skin, a very special sin. It may be, and often is, called the ENAMEL INTEGUMENT. More often, it is called the DENTAL PLAQUE. It is an invisible, strong and extremely thin membrane covering the enamel and is anatomically and naturally an enduring part of the tooth. It has important vital significance in maintaining health just as the skin of
our face preserves the health of the underlying tissue.”
-“magnesium is the most important di-valent cation of all tissues” –
Paterson, 1974
Twenty years ago, when patients were beginning to copy my initial experiments in the supplemental mineralization of teeth, it was noticed that those who still used tooth paste had an undiminished rate of tooth decay; while those who did not use tooth paste developed a much more caries resistant tooth. This matter was put to Dental School Authorities, who were unable to explain it. Under Prof. Edwards,
Chemistry Dept, Otago University, many repeated tests of this phenomenon showed that saliva from these two classes of patients was significantly different in magnesium content. Under Prof Campbell, I developed a highly technical analytical test for tooth-surface magnesium. I clearly
demonstrated a highly significant deficiency of this element in tooth-surfaces which had suffered abrasion by tooth paste. On the other hand there was a very high magnesium in whole, unabraded tooth-surfaces which naturally retained their dental plaque. Such whole tooth surfaces were
characteristically from teeth free from decay or fillings. Teeth which had suffered toothpaste abrasion (known in research circles as having artificially altered tooth-surfaces) were almost always broken down by intense dental caries. About 5% of the many teeth investigated seemed out of line with these observations. In later years it had been
considered that these lucky few were of children born with almost perfectly constructed teeth, which were apparently unaffected by toothpaste abrasion. The above study was reported (1) (1961) and well received internationally.
-“blind leading the blind”-
Interest was aroused in these results, and the Dental School was requested (2) to carry out a high-level investigation of this phenomenon of abrasion related to the preservation of the dental plaque and subsequent mineralization. After a two-year double blind study carried out on 140 children at the Half Way Bush Primary School, Dunedin, it was
found that children who used toothpaste, regularly or even indifferently suffered a high rate of tooth decay. Children who did not use tooth paste, had almost no tooth decay. The result was highly significant as testified by the Otago Medical School Statistician. (3)
An interesting side-issue was the fact that children whose diet was supplemented by a phosphate mineral powder and who used no toothpaste had 16 times less decay experience than children who did use toothpaste whether with, or without, a phosphate mineral supplement! This latter
result was also highly significant.(4)
The Experimental Salt Mixture in the Half Way Bush study
Mag phos tribas 16 : Calcii phos 8 : Potass phos 4 : Sod phos 1 : Ferri phos sacch. 0.5 : Sod sulphate 2.
Average Incremental Smooth Enamel Decay
Months 0 6 12 19 26
Sub-Control (Paste) 2.1 2.1 2.7 4.4 2.2
Control (No Paste) 2.2 2.2 2.7 1.2 1.3
Mineral Salts (No Paste) 2.2 2.2 1.7 0.3 0.2
The table shows the results reported by D.B.Ritchie of a two year double blind experiment carried out on 140 children at Half Way Bush Primary School, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand, years 1959 -1961.
The high peaks of caries incidence in the toothpaste section (deficient plaque) coincides significantly with the summer acid-fruit season in Otago.
-“strands of research” –
In the years which followed, reports of similar studies appeared in many scientifically prominent research journals. Nizel and Harris (5) reported over 100 studies in which phosphates successfully reduced the incidence of tooth decay. In these test, animals were used where their
dental plaques were kept intact and capable of storing the supplementary mineral obtained from special diets.
page 4.
A.E.Russell (10) of the National Institute of Dental Research, Bethesda, U.S.A. travelled the world studying the teeth of children and adolescents of different nations. These indigenous children wereuntouched by the customary procedures of dental care (no tooth pastes, no dental supervision), as carried out in the U.S.A. He stated “the very
low caries experience of children and adolescents in different parts of the world as compared with the decay rate seen in America and similar western countries, cannot be explained by diet alone”. The natural tooth-surfaces of these native children compared with the toothpasted, altered tooth-surfaces of American children, explained the great
difference.
pages 9-10. It is born out by many native populations, and is certainly my experience professionally, that children’s teeth, maturing in a natural, healthy environment, should be kept clean by the eating of fibrous foods, including fruits and vegetables, at the end of a meal.
Perhaps starting at 8 or 9, the use of a soft nylon brush could be helpful at night time. The brush is dipped into a simple mineralizing solution of baking soda (1 teaspoon) plus crude sea salt to taste (up to about half a teaspoon) in half a cup of water… Bacteriologic tests (7) have shown the survival in this solution of larger proteolytic organisms
which are helpful in “policing the plaque”… can be slightly improved by a small amount of strontium chloride, and a very little fluoride (below 50 ppm). Only a faulty diet will leave unsightly debris (possibly materia alba), and then brushing becomes a necessity.
For adult dental hygiene, I have long recommended a mixture of phosphate powders (Dentamin), quickly soluble and reactive with saliva, which produce an excellent mineralising effect within the dental
plaque….However such dentrifice powders have a very restricted use for children, as the possible hurried application to anterior teeth before the careful mixing with saliva might give these powders a slightly abrasive effect on the young teeth. Instead I have produced a safe gel-paste (Biodentamin-C) based on the research of Dr Wei (8) who has demonstrated the possibility of using a “pre-enamel” formula in restoring defect enamel surfaces.
-‘pre-enamel, one stage removed from true enamel’-
Dicalcium phosphate dihydrate is such a pre-enamel compound, and it has been formulated into a pleasantly acid gel. It can be safely brushed upon the young teeth, using a very tiny amount, and gives a highly
successful build up of plaque mineral which appears to stabilize even visible defects in the enamel surface. It is followed, of course, by a copious flow of saliva which washes the teeth, and should be swallowed.
It contains traces of dicalcium\dimagnesium phosphate dihydrate, a very important mineral nutrient, particularly for a growing child. The bicarbonate of the saliva raises the tooth-surface pH to a point where the pre-enamel is converted to true enamel, or hydroxy-apatite. Also in the presence of the high plaque fluoride (possibly as magnesium
fluoride) the hydroxy-apatite is converted to fluor-apatite, the most stable form of enamel known to man. This simple biochemical sequence need not worry you, it all happens automatically. The pre-enamel gel paste is best used at night time, as resting saliva (when a child is asleep) becomes highly alkaline, and will help the more thorough
conversion to fluorapatite. After breakfast, a quick brush with the baking-soda-salt solution would ensure a safe plaque environment throughout the day..
Home dental care in these terms is the practical enhancement of natural protective oral conditions, and produces clean shining teeth with a sweet mouth odour.
” – “what about fluoride?” – public query
What about fluoride? The dental authorities have neglected to inform the public many things about fluoride, the most important being of course, that a natural concentration of fluoride (much higher than in our common
foods) exists at the tooth surface – and this fluoride is destroyed quickly and completely by abrasion with common toothpastes. The importance of fluoride in relation to maturing of young enamel lies in its natural concentration, form, and location in the plaque at the
enamel surface. Gedalia (9) of the Hebrew College of Medicine, Hadassah, has shown that the tooth-surface fluoride varies little, indeed, whether
a person has been born and bred in a region of high fluoride (1-2 ppm) or in a region of low fluoride (0.1 – 0.2 ppm) in the water supplies.
In South Africa, some 20 miles from Johannesburgh, native high school students were surveyed for dental caries. Their decay experience was extremely low, mostly that from teenage girls who used abrasive clay and
ashes to clean stains from their front teeth. Such stains were due to fluoride in their drinking water (3ppm). In the neighbouring district, a similar survey again showed a low caries experience. But in this latter district, there was no fluoride in the drinking water/ In both districts
a lightly-milled (whole grain) mealie meal was the staple diet. No toothpaste was used. Surely this is a most revealing research study of the value(?) of high fluoride in water supplies!”
(1) D.B.Ritchie, “Nature” 190 : 4774; 456 – 458, (1961).
(2) Otago University Council (1959).
(3) G.Spiers, Official Statistical Report, H.W.B. Research Study, Otago
Daily Times, 4 August 1961
(5) Nizel and Harris, Journal of Dental Research; 1123 – 1136, 1964
(6) T.Koulourides, Arch. Oral Biol., 14; 1407 -1417 (1969)
(7) Otago Univ. Bacteriology Dept., (circa 1964).
(8) Wei and Wefel, Journal of Dental Research, 55 : 1; 135-141 (Jan
1976)
(9) J. Dent. Res. 39; 4; 849 (1960)
(10) A.E.Russell, Journal of Dental Research, 40; 3,602 (1961).
Apologies for confusions caused as I look at this little known, but possibly very significant, and emotionally charged, topic.
I am probably spoiling this a lot by taking these short abstracts from this 12 page booklet.
What is current thinking on this?
Colgate in New Zealand now make a tooth paste with calcium phosphate in it as a mild abrasive. Their gels have no calcium but rougher silica abrasive.
Triclosan is an antibacterial agent in them, and I wonder how that affects the “larger proteolytic organisms”. They also now make a toothpaste with baking soda, but no calcium, and some other abrasive ingredient, titanium dioxide, which I wasn’t too sure about for myself.
Brian R.Sandle. Please teach me.
LikeLike
With all due respect for the education and intelligence of the posters here, a lot of this reads like “this is your society on fluoride”. No competent medical prescription should ever be given without a complete patient profile, and that means at the individual level. And if you want to say that “well, this is more like an OTC medication” then ABSOLUTELY no such product should ever be allowed promotion on the basis “everyone use as much as you need all day every day, lifetime sentence, double or triple the dosage if you try to stay healthy with vigorous exercise.” Should any cancer patient of any kind ever be given entirely indiscriminate doses of an EPA carcinogen in something as essential as the bathing/cooking/drinking water? Absolutely not. Blowing it all out of proportion with extremely complicated over-analysis is a great way to cloud the issue, but in reality it is just plain dirt simple. Abortion is murder, so is fluoridation, just much longer and slower, especially given the near impossibility of ever getting a fluorosis diagnosis out of an AMA doctor or ADA dentist much less an effective root-cause-addressing therapy recommendation out of them.
LikeLike
Dave – you comment is completely irrelevant to the post.
So you claim that community water is murder – well show us the bodies.
But, I guess the last thing you will rely on is actual evidence.
LikeLike
Hello, Ken. I realize I came in a bit from left field above and I have only very recently discovered the materials on this board so I have quite a bit of study yet to do.
One form that “murder” may take is to not kill them outright but make their lives a living hell. Fluoride certainly does appear to work that way.
I was born in 1953 in Evanston, IL which was fluoridated in 1947, so I never had a chance to opt out of the program. The predominantly Jewish “enclave” of Skokie was right next door, and their muni supply was all from Evanston, which would seem to be an important historical consideration. I was never in the loop but I am very skeptical they would have been either disinformed or uninformed about the agenda, and I at times imagine there may have been some clandestine large-scale filtering implemented, but that’s pure speculation on my part.
As a lifetime sufferer of allergies and other immune-related issues, I have certainly deal with my share of the living hell, and I always suspected fluoride was playing a role but could not find accredited professional support in those concerns. This “caries” even to the point of having been prescribed Flonase for allergic rhinitis, which is a fluorinated medication, which produced some rather strange and mixed results, none of which were ever professionally attributed to the Flo aspect of the flonase. Also switching off fluoride toothpaste did not seem to provide the expected relief, although it certainly is fluoride-toxic in other ways.
I had tossed the towel on ever finding a safe and manageable fluoride detox method until a recent episode with CFC refrigerant release in my home prompted new readings and I discovered the information on tamarind, which prompted some personal experimentation with an Asian import tamarind paste purchased at the local food coop.
At no point in my readings on tamarind did I find any suggestion that it might provide rhinitis relief, although it is documented to provide therapeutic benefit for much of the laundry list of ailments most often suggested by your “psychos” to be at least in part caused by fluoride toxicity. Lo and behold, I have found that loratadine alone has never been any better than marginally effective in managing my rhinitis, but when I consume tamarind paste, all rhinitis symptoms vanish for 6 hours or more. In season, I am now finding I can detect allergenic fluoride content in any food, most notably some varieties of sea salt which have a very aggressive sensitization capability even in organic food products.
No attempt has been made as yet to develop “accredited evidence” regarding this. I would be greatful for any understanding the distinguished participants on this board might provide.
And as well, given I was originally looking for enlightenment “in-topic” as regards soft water, calcium and membranes, any comments that anyone here might have on how fluoride might transport into the inner ear, and what the consequences might be, would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Fluoride ionicly bounds to calcium. That’s why it leaches calcium from our bodies and leads to ostiperosis.
Dentists spend a fortune pushing it in our water supply because brittle teeth is good for business. Same reason why many dentist traditionally give kids sugar candy such as lollipops after a checkup.
LikeLike
The real issue here is fluoride in drinking water should be a personal choice not mandated by some idiot politician. I was subjected to fluoridated water when growing up and it made my teeth yellow but did nothing to prevent tooth decay. My entire family has had thyroid problems including thyroid cancer. I should have a choice that doesn’t involve spending a small fortune on a whole house filter.
LikeLike
Sorry “Osteoporosis” That was a late nite typo. Les is right we should have a say in what goes in our water or at least a vote. Why do the Dental Association and chemical company Lobbyist get to choose for us? One a brighter note, In the future chemical companies may make more money selling their fluoride salts to power companies running Thorium reactors rather then selling it to the public water utility districts.
LikeLike
Todd, who the hell is suggesting we not have a say on issues like community water fluoridation (CWF)? Certainly not me – you are raising a red herring – and in the wrong place.
I came into this issue for 2 reasons:
1: Our local council, under pressure from anti-fluoride campaigners stopped fluoridation of our drinking water – despite clear support for this effective and safe social health measure as shown by a previous referendum and council polling. After protests and petitions the council eventually allowed a referendum which showed 70% of the voters wanted community water fluoridation so it was eventually returned. The council ended up looking silly – and undemocratic.
2: I became aware that the anti-fluoride activists were telling lies about the science behind community water fluoridation. As a chemist I have been writing articles, like this one, to correct that misinformation.
You are wrong in your scientific claims too. The low concentration used in CWF is well below the solubility of CaF2 – it does not cause leaching of Ca from our bodies. It does not cause osteoporosis – Who the hell told you that.
In fact, fluoride is a normal and natural component of the bioapatites (bones and teeth) in our bodies. Without it our bones would be weak and too soluble.
You are also mistaken if you think there is no market for fluorine compounds – they are essential in the chemical, pharmaceutical, electronic and other industries. We don’t have to wait around for molten fluoride reactors to find a marker.
As for you conspiracy theory about dentists and the chemical industry somehow pressuring local bodes – also wrong. In fact, quite the opposite. The anti-fluoride campaigners are actually financed and ideological/commercially supported by the “natural”/alternative health industry – big business.
LikeLike
Sorry that was “On a brighter note”. The reason Cacium Fluoride is safer is because the two Fluoride molecules have already made their ionic bond to one Calcium molecule and no longer need to rob a Calcium molecule from your body.
LikeLike
No, Todd, you are wrong. CaF2 will maintain a fluoride concentration of about 8ppm – much higher than used in CWF and well above safe levels. In areas of endemic fluorosis such as in China, India, etc., it is the CaF2 mineral which supplies the excessive fluoride concentration.
In solution the hydrated F-, Ca2+, etc., exist quite independently – they are only bound in an ionic bond when in the solid form.
Actually, apatites have a far lower solubility than CaF2.
F in CWF does not “rob” Ca from the body – that is ludicrous.
Who has been telling you this stuff?
LikeLike
I never said CaF2 robs calcium.
LikeLike
Nor did I, Todd.
You claimed: “two Fluoride molecules have already made their ionic bond to one Calcium molecule and no longer need to rob a Calcium molecule from your body.” You seem not to understand the nature of ions in solution. Calcium in blood, bones and teeth exists as an ion – not a molecule. And F in fluoridated water does not “rob” Ca from the body.
Here is an article that might help you get your head around the subject – Some chemistry issues involved in the fluoridation debate
Have a read of it and get back to me if you have questions.
LikeLike
The Sodium Fluoride MSDS classification is TOXIC (lethal in small doses)
In comparison the Calcium Fluoride MSDS is classified as Xi (Irritating to eyes, respiratory system and skin) So one is lethal in small doses and the other is just an irritant. I would call that a difference. Also found several .gov sites that says Calcium neutralizes the bioavailability of Fluoride. According to the CDC Lime neutralizes fluoride. Every science site i found says Calcium fluoride is insoluble but Sodium Fluoride is. Seams like there are a lot of differences between these two Fluoride compounds. If Calcium Oxide neutralizes Fluoride what is the chemical reaction?
LikeLiked by 1 person
tkolin, Material Safety Data sheets do not describe the problems of chemicals in small doses. They are meant for people who handle, transport or manufacture the concentrated chemicals. These safety data sheets are irrelevant to the question of safety of the water that comes out of your tap.
The concentration of a chemical determines its toxicity. Calcium fluoride has a low solubility but can support a concentration of about 8 ppm F. That is why it is responsible for the problems in regions of endemic fluorosis. Yet the usual target for community water fluoridation is 0.7 ppm. At this concentration fluoride is not toxic.
LikeLike
Ken, you say that Flouride in CWF does not rob the body of calcium, however this is straight from the CDC.gov website. “the fluoride ion, which is able to penetrate tissues and bind intracellular calcium and magnesium. This results in cell destruction and local bone demineralization. Systemic deficiency of calcium and magnesium and excess of potassium can occur.”
Isn’t bone demineralization part of osteoporosis? Ken you may be a scientist but your not a nutrionalist, or an expert in human biology.
LikeLike
tkollin,
That quotation is about hydrogen fluoride. It has nothing to do with CWF.
Ken does not need to be an expert in human biology to understand there is a major difference between the effects of hydrofluoric acid on human tissues and the effects of community tap water on the same tissues.
LikeLike
Tkolin â I cannot find any quote like this on the CDC site. Can you provide a link? That is always good practice anyway.
A google search showed such quotes on pages describing the toxicity of hydrofluoric acid â a very different animal to CWF.
LikeLike
OK tkolin, I have found the section you quoted from the CDC. It is on their page âMedical Management Guidelines for Hydrogen Fluoride
(HF):â
Now, isn’t it a bit dishonest to omit the section referring to hydrogen fluoride, or hydrofluoric acid, and imply the quote is relevant to CWF??
Actually, I think it is very dishonest to make the implications you have with this quote and it is obvious why you refused to provide a link.
LikeLike
So Ken, you disagree with the statement that Flouride negatively effects the bio-availability of calcium in the body?
LikeLike
Beware internet experts talking about something called flouride.
LikeLike
tkolin – I disapproved of your dishonesty in using a quote referring to hydrofluoric acid to justify your claim that community water fluoridation is harmful. It surprises me that you have not even apologised for this deception.
There is absolutely no evidence I have seen to support the claim that F at concentrations used in CWF is harmful to the body – quite opposite. I suggest you have not seen any evidence for that claim either – otherwise you would not have sunk to the deception of using an out of context quote to justify you position.
ilh
LikeLike
Ken, I apologize about the hydrofluoride reference. The point I was trying to make with the reference was that free Fluoride ions do in fact negatively effect the bioavailability of Calcium.
To spend this much time debating the pros of CWF you must be real passionate about dental carriers. Seems like several members of this blog have a real vested interest in CWF or just WAY to much free time on their hands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Debating CWF on this blog is paramount to arguing religion. The true believers will never convince the Atheists that God exists and the Atheist will never get the believers to loose thier faith. No empirical evidence of any kind will get the other side to sway from thier core beliefs. This is why I am going to bow out of this debate. Also because my specialty is integrated electric propulsion systems and not science or biology although I find both fascinating. Adios Amigos 🙂
LikeLike
tkolin, you are “bowing out” because you didn’t have empirical evidence and manufactured some by using an inappropriate quote. That is completely against the scientific ethos.
Worse, you then try to accuse others of refusing to accept evidence.
This is not the first time I have had commenters do this here. It doesn’t win my respect.
LikeLike
Ken wrote: “There is absolutely no evidence I have seen to support the claim that F at concentrations used in CWF is harmful to the body – quite opposite. I suggest you have not seen any evidence for that claim either ”
Ken recently you linked to an old TED presentation which gave statistics of large numbers of deaths in the world from measles. The bulk of those come from malnourished peoples. You made no complaint about that dietary consequence not being explored.
Previous studies I have posted suggest fluoride worsens effect of too little or too much iodine. You disagree, but here is a study with fairly average iodine (iodised salt)
“Fluoride, a goitrogenic substance in drinking
water, is another contributing factor to high GP (goiter prevalence). The fluoride concentration of drinking water was as high as 1.00 mg/kg in
Chongqing municipality, which led Chongqing to have the
highest GP (18.37%, 18 of 98)”
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081294
Assessment of Iodine Status in Children, Adults, Pregnant Women and Lactating Women in Iodine-Replete Areas of China
Fangang Meng,
Rencheng Zhao,
Peng Liu,
Lixiang Liu,
Shoujun Liu
The circumstantial evidence is building up.
Jilin had slightly lower median urinary iodide (just below 200 vs Chongquing just above) but fluoride not detected in Jilin.
It would be nice to see a few more figures.
LikeLike
Interesting, Brian. You have followed my exchnnage with tkollin yet you have not commented on his lies and the way he was caught out. What is your view of commenters who misrepresent the facts this way? What is your view of commenters who do this then accuse others of approaching the issue like a relgionist who ignores the facts?
LikeLike
This was a very informative set of comments. Even without being a chemist or having any background in biology, I learned a lot about fluoride. Also the endless logical fallacies spouted by Ken and Steve combined with the clear, concise, and patient rebuttals by Richard Sauerheber makes me side with the anti-flouride crowd it seems.
LikeLike
Kaisha, what specifically did you object to in my article? I am happy to clarify but, at the moment, I can only interpret your lack of example as indicating a bias.
I am sure Steve would also be happy to respond to specific examples or questions.
LikeLike
Possibly the most powerful toxic effect of fluoride is to be an ENZYME INHIBITOR in the human body. Particularly, fluoride inhibits trypsin and chymotrypsin -pancreatic proteases needed for protein digestion- (Penn et al. 2007; Fahrney and Gold 1963); esterases -enzymes needed for fat metabolism and anti-oxidant role- (Myers and Kemp 1954); the antioxidant enzymes superoxide dismutase, catalase, and glutathione peroxidase (Morales-González et al. 2010); and phosphatases – enzymes needed for phosphorus metabolism- (Yamaguti et al. 2013).
In the human body, enzymes are needed for the basic work of nutrition which is predominantly an enzyme hydrolytic process. Enzymes are also needed for detoxification, as for example, the Cytochrome P450 activity. The immune system relies on enzyme activity for its control on antigen substances. The first line of defense against oxidative stress is provided mainly by antioxidant enzymes. Certainly, fat metabolism is also dependent on enzyme activity, thus low levels of certain enzymes may predispose individuals to obesity. Particularly, obesity, diabetes and cancer are associated with low levels of pancreatic enzymes (Partelli et al. 2012; Teichmann et al. 2011; Bilgin et al. 2009).
Furthermore, low levels of antioxidative enzymes are associated with cancer, obesity, diabetes, autism, ADD/ADDH and Alzheimer and Parkinson diseases (de Carvalho and De Mesquita 2013; Battisti et al. 2011; Matés et al. 1999).
REFERENCES FROM MEDLINE
Battisti V, Maders LD, Bagatini MD, Reetz LG, Chiesa J, Battisti IE, Gonçalves JF, Duarte MM, Schetinger MR, Morsch VM (2011); “Oxidative stress and antioxidant status in prostate cancer patients: relation to Gleason score, treatment and bone metastasis”; Biomed Pharmacother.; 65(7):516-24.
Bilgin M, Balci NC, Momtahen AJ, Bilgin Y, Klör HU, Rau WS (2009); “MRI and MRCP findings of the pancreas in patients with diabetes mellitus: compared analysis with pancreatic exocrine function determined by fecal elastase 1”; . J Clin Gastroenterol.; 43(2):165-70.
de Carvalho MD, De Mesquita JF (2013); “Structural modeling and in silico analysis of human superoxide dismutase 2”; PLoS One. 2013 Jun 13;8(6):e65558.
Fahrney DE, Gold AM (1963). Sulfonyl Fluorides as Inhibitors of Esterases. I. Rates of Reaction with Acetylcholinesterase, α-Chymotrypsin, and Trypsin. J. Am. Chem. Soc.; 85 (7), pp 997–1000.
Matés JM, Pérez-Gómez C, Núñez de Castro I (1999); “Antioxidant enzymes and human diseases”; Clin Biochem.; 32(8):595-603.
Morales-González JA, Gutiérrez-Salinas J, García-Ortiz L, Del Carmen Chima-Galán M, Madrigal-Santillán E, Esquivel-Soto J, Esquivel-Chirino C, González-Rubio MG (2010). Effect of sodium fluoride ingestion on malondialdehyde concentration and the activity of antioxidant enzymes in rat erythrocytes.Int J Mol Sci.;11(6):2443-52.
Myers DK, Kemp A (1954). Inhibition of Esterases by the Fluorides of Organic Acids. Nature;173, 33 – 34.
Partelli S, Frulloni L, Minniti C, Bassi C, Barugola G, D’Onofrio M, Crippa S, Falconi M (2012); “Faecal elastase-1 is an independent predictor of survival in advanced pancreatic cancer”. Dig Liver Dis.; 44(11):945-51.
Penn AH, Hugli TE, Schmid-Schönbein GW (2007). Pancreatic enzymes generate cytotoxic mediators in the intestine. Shock.;27(3):296-304
Teichmann J, Riemann JF, Lange U (2011); “Prevalence of Exocrine Pancreatic Insufficiency in Women with Obesity Syndrome: Assessment by Pancreatic Fecal Elastase 1”; ISRN Gastroenterol.; 2011: 951686.
Yamaguti PM, Simões A, Ganzerla E, Souza DN, Nogueira FN, Nicolau J (2013). Effects of single exposure of sodium fluoride on lipid peroxidation and antioxidant enzymes in salivary glands of rats. Oxid Med Cell Longev.;2013:674593.
LikeLike
Victor – I have deleted your duplicate comment.
Can you please let us know the relevance of your comment to this article?
LikeLike
Ken, Regarding risks and benefits of water fluoridation, I have been observing that the role of fluoride as an enzyme inhibitor in the human body is not reported. Its inhibitory effect is dose dependent and there is no a low safe concentration that prevents enzyme inhibition. Again, enzyme activity drives all metabolic pathways in the plant and animal kingdom, so any exogenous agent that reduce/block enzyme activity in the human body implies a risk for various types of diseases. Briefly, if pancreatic enzymes for example (amylase, lipase and protease), are reduced by an external factor, an individual may be at risk of suffering pancreatitis, with intestinal dysbiosis, which leads to small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, intestinal bacteria/yeast translocation to the portal system and derived pathologies, which may include intestinal inflammation, colitis, obesity, diabetes and cancer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victor, I am suprised at your claims that aspects of health effects of fluoride are “not reported.” If they haven’t been – then what is the source of you list of possible effects?
I note that in fact there have been several scientific reviews of the possible health effects of community water flupodiation. An excellent one I recommend to you was that done by the Royal Scociety of NZ and the Office of the NZ Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. It is Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence.
LikeLike
Ken, thanks for the paper. It allows me to highlight my point: there is no any single comment on enzymes inhibition. My way of thinking is the following: I found various papers in MedLine indicating that fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor. Those papers reported inhibition of pancreatic enzymes, esterases, anti-oxidative enzymes and phosphatases. Then, I can look at MedLine for physiological/pathological consequences of low levels of enzyme activity. I did that. Thus, the complete concept is: Fluoride is an enzyme inhibitor and see what happens in the human body when enzymes are inhibited. Regarding enzymes deficit in the human body, I have a good review on that, so I can provide several MedLine references about diseases linked to low levels of enzyme activity in the human body. That is why I posted some of the references. Just, please, take a brief look. Besides this discussion, one may discover the important role of enzymes in keeping a healthy body.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victor, you did not post any references. You have not provided anything to look at.
One has to interpret the literature sensibly and critically to establish if they are relevant to community water fluoridation – without citations how can one do that?
LikeLike
Sorry – checking back I find you have posted a list of general citations some time ago.
Could you please indicate which of them you consider relevant to CWF – in terms of concentration etc., and I will have a look at them.
LikeLike
Victor,
Fluoridation in NZ began in 1957. Other places in the world began earlier.
The reason fluoridation started was that people in areas of naturally occurring high water fluoride were observed to have greater resistance to tooth decay, although they had some tooth mottling (fluorosis). No other effects were noted.
We’ve been observing the health of people in naturally high fluoride areas for over four generations, those with CWF for over two generations.
None of the enzyme inhibition that you find so interesting in the Petrie dish have been observed to have an effect in populations with fluoridated water. Possibly because they are dose related and only occur at doses in excess of those found in fluoridated water?
Subtle enzyme inhibition found in the Petrie dish, where fluoride concentrations are well above those seen in CWF, have not been found to have an effect in humans exposed to CWF or even in those exposed to higher concentrations of naturally occurring water fluoride.
Tens (hundreds?) of millions of people with fluoridated water supplies have been observed for multiple generations. Effects found: teeth that are more resistant to decay, dental fluorosis in areas with high naturally occurring fluoride, possible dental fluorosis in areas with CWF.
LikeLike
My first glance at Victor’s list of papers suggested they were not relevant to CWF for a number of reasons.
That is why I am asking him to specify the ones he considers most relevant so that we can look at them in detail.
LikeLike
Victor seems to base his speculative concerns upon the following mechanism
Its inhibitory effect is dose dependent and there is no a low safe concentration that prevents enzyme inhibition.
And from that all his concern follows.
Of course this simply fails to consider if there is a ‘dosage level’ where enzyme inhibition has negligible effect on human health.
LikeLike
I believe we have to ask if there is a dosage level beneath which there is no enzyme inhibition in vivo.
There are certainly many prescription medications that need to be prescribed at a certain level before they have any effect on the human organism, no matter their effect on human cells in the Petrie dish.
I believe there have been many potential medications, based on Petrie dish results, that have had no effect on animal models and so their development has been halted by their respective developers.
LikeLike
After reading the comment that “Fluoridation in NZ began in 1957”, I was thinking for myself that if the fact is true, then there shall be a high prevalence of obesity in NZ. So, I visited the web site of the NZ Ministry of Health (http://www.health.govt.nz/) and sadly found the following:
“New Zealand has the third highest adult obesity rate in the OECD, and our rates are rising. Almost one in three adult New Zealanders (over 15 years) is obese, and one in ten children”.
“The adult obesity rate increased from 27% in 2006/07 to 31% in 2014/15”.
An article in the on-line Guardian Journal (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/19/new-zealand-battles-obesity-epidemic-as-third-fattest-country-in-the-world) pointed that “New Zealand battles obesity epidemic as third fattest country in the world – Country ranks third behind US and Mexico for worldwide rates of obesity in its population”.
After finding this data, and without any pre-judgment, one should ask: what is happening in NZ?. Why this high prevalence of obesity? What is happening in NZ that differentiates this country from others with lower incidence of obesity?
But before somebody says that I am postulating that fluoride exposure is the cause of obesity, I need to clarify some points: Regarding enzymes in the body, there are three factors that account for the overall level of enzyme activity:
1) Exposure to high levels of dietary antigens: In 1945, Paul Kouchakoff received the Nobel Prize for its research on the phenomenon called “digestive leukocytosis”. Kouchakoff found that cooked/processed foods are received by the body as antigen substances, thus activating an immune response upon digestion of those foods. Then, digestive leucocytosis refers to an increase of white blood cells after having a meal with cooked/processed foods. It is an immune response similar to a case of infection. Kouchakoff also reported that raw foods do not produce digestive leukocytosis. The briefing of the Kouchakoff research can be found in the paper “Influence of Food on the Human Blood Formula”. Translation is mine from the French “L’Influence de l’Alimentation sur la Formule Sanguine de l’Homme” (Kouchakoff, 1937). If an individual is having three meals per day with cooked/processed food, it implicates a continuous activation of the immune system and, as the immune system relies on enzymes for antigens destruction (i.e. phagocytosis by using lysosomal enzymes), it involves an excessive expense of enzymes.
2) Exposure to high levels of xenobiotics. The body has a mechanism to detoxify xenobiotics. It is the Cytochrome P450, a group of enzymes that produces chemical changes that make a toxic compound more hydrophilic, so it can be effectively eliminated by the kidneys. Enzymatic activity of the Cytochrome P450 usually involves hydrolysis, oxidation or reduction mechanisms. An excess of xenobiotics such as plaguicides, naphthalenes or any other endocrine-disrupting substance implicates also an excessive expense of enzymes in the body. Fluoride shall be considered as a xenobiotic having the particularity that it links to the active site of enzymes, thus impeding the enzymes to continue to do their job.
3) As enzymes are used, they shall be replaced through dietary sources. In fact, enzymes shall be considered a kind of ESSENTIAL NUTRIENT. Furthermore, the body is so sensible to this way of recharging body enzymes that our first source of enzyme ‘reload’ is through the maternal milk. An interesting paper from Shahani et al. (1980) reported 23 enzymes present in maternal milk. An individual that do not have an adequate consumption of enzyme-rich foods such as raw vegetables, fruits or fermented foods is at risk of developing disorders associated to low levels of enzymes, such as obesity.
As a conclusion, an individual having a basic diet of cooked/processed foods, that is exposed to various xenobiotics – between them, the fluoride – and that did not take a sufficient amount of enzyme-rich foods is at high risk of developing disorders associated to low level of enzymes, between them, obesity.
In order to emphasize the point of obesity and its relation to low level of enzymes, the research from Teichmann et al. (2011) found that human body mass index is associated with the loss of pancreatic enzyme production. Nakajima et al. (2011) also found reduced pancreatic enzyme output in obese subjects, additionally reporting that the condition is also noticeable in subjects with type 2 diabetes.
The most important enzymes in charge of fat metabolism are found reduced in obese subjects:
For example, the lipoprotein lipase (LPL) an enzyme in charge of promoting the cellular uptake of chylomicron remnants, cholesterol-rich lipoproteins, and free fatty acids is reduced in obesity (Wang and Eckel 2009; Mead et al. 2002). Particularly Mead et al. (2002) also reported LPL deficiency in atherosclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and dyslipidemia associated with diabetes, insulin resistance, and infection. Saiki et al. (2007) reported that LPL deficiency reflect systemic oxidative stress and might be a biomarker of metabolic syndrome.
The adipose triglyceride lipase and the hormone-sensitive lipase are specific enzymes of the adipose tissue, they are in charge of triglyceride hydrolysis in order to produce and deliver fatty acids to the blood. Both enzymes are reduced in obese subjects (Jocken et al. 2007; Steinberg et al. 2007; Coppack et al. 1992).
Anti-oxidative enzymes are also reduced in obesity. In obese subjects, antioxidant defenses are lower than normal weight counterparts and their levels inversely correlate with central adiposity. Recently, the paraoxonase (PON) enzyme family has emerged as a new class of antioxidant enzymes, playing an important role in obesity-associated illnesses, including cardiovascular disease and diabetes mellitus (Savini et al. 2013). PON expression is reduced in obese subjects as reported by Aslan et al. (2011) and Ferretti et al. (2010).
Anyway, I found two papers (one in MedLine, the other in Researchgate) linking obesity to dental fluorosis: Merdad (2013) found that overweight/obese subjects were more likely to have dental fluorosis than subjects with healthy weight or underweight. Finally, a recent study in Russia (Galkina et al. 2015) found high prevalence of fluorosis in children and adolescents diagnosed with obesity.
For New Zealand, a study by Gentles et al. (2007) reported that “The prevalences of metabolic syndrome were significantly higher in Pacific people and Maori compared to Others and measures of obesity accounted for most of the ethnic differences”.
Another study for New Zealand developed by Coppell et al. (2013) and published in the Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association reported that “overall, prevalence of diabetes was 7.0%, and prevalence of prediabetes 25.5%. Prevalence of diabetes was higher in men than in women and was higher among the obese, compared with the normal weight group”.
Finally, in the NZ Ministry of Health website and regarding colorectal cancer, it is reported that “New Zealand has one of the highest bowel cancer rates in the world”.
Regarding this last data, I want to add that any agent that promotes pathological changes in the normal gut microbiota (bacteria/yeasts) may produce intestinal dysbiosis and consequent inflammation of the bowel tissue. Systemic inflammation is then a big risk for cancer. The loss of pancreatic enzymes normally produces intestinal dysbiosis. Both pancreatic enzymes and bicarbonate helps to maintain a normal symbiotic microbiota.
Oral ingested fluoride may be one of the main agents that reduce pancreatic enzyme activity as well as other enzymes located ‘downstream’ of the gastrointestinal tract, thus exposing an individual to a high risk of obesity and associated disorders.
CITED REFERENCES
Aslan M, Horoz M, Sabuncu T, Celik H, Selek S (2011); “Serum paraoxonase enzyme activity and oxidative stress in obese subjects”; Pol Arch Med Wewn.; 121(6):181-6.
Coppack S, Evansa R, Fishera R, Frayn K, Gibbonsa G, Humphreys S, Kirka M, Pottsa J, Hockadaya T (1992); “Adipose tissue metabolism in obesity: Lipase action in vivo before and after a mixed meal”; Metabolism; Vol. 41, No. 3, 264–272.
Coppell KJ, Mann JI, Williams SM, Jo E, Drury PL, Miller J, Parnell WR (2013). Prevalence of diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes and prediabetes in New Zealand: findings from the 2008/09 Adult Nutrition Survey; NZMJ; Vol 126 No 1370; ISSN 1175 8716.
Jocken JW, Langin D, Smit E, Saris WH, Valle C, Hul GB, Holm C, Arner P, Blaak EE (2007); Adipose triglyceride lipase and hormone-sensitive lipase protein expression is decreased in the obese insulin-resistant state. Clin Endocrinol Metab.; 92(6):2292-9.
Ferretti G, Bacchetti T, Masciangelo S, Bicchiega V (2010); “HDL-paraoxonase and membrane lipid peroxidation: a comparison between healthy and obese subjects”; Obesity (Silver Spring).; 18(6):1079-84.
Galkina IuV, Gavrilova OA, Piekalnits IIa, Dianov OA (2015). Dental status in children and adolescents diagnosed with obesity. Stomatologiia (Mosk). ;94(1):57-8. (Abstract).
Gentles D, Metcalf P, Dyall L, Sundborn G, Schaaf D, Black P, Scragg R, Jackson R (2007). Metabolic syndrome prevalence in a multicultural population in Auckland, New Zealand. N Z Med J.;120(1248):U2399.
Mead JR, Irvine SA, Ramji DP (2002); “Lipoprotein lipase: structure, function, regulation, and role in disease”; J Mol Med (Berl).; 80(12):753-69.
Merdad, HE (2013). Predicting Dental Fluorosis Using Indicators of Childhood Obesity. Conference Paper. Conference: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session and Exhibition 2013.
Nakajima K, Muneyuki T, Munakata H, Kakei M (2011); “Revisiting the cardiometabolic relevance of serum amylase’; BMC Res Notes.; 4:419.
Savini, I., Catani, M. V., Evangelista, D., Gasperi, V., & Avigliano, L. (2013). Obesity-Associated Oxidative Stress: Strategies Finalized to Improve Redox State. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 14(5), 10497–10538.
Shahani KM, Kwan AJ, Friend BA (1980); “Role and significance of enzymes in human milk”; Am. I Clin. Nutr. 33: 1861-1868, 1980.
Steinberg GR, Kemp BE, Watt MJ (2007); Adipocyte triglyceride lipase expression in human obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab.;293(4):E958-64.
Wang H, Eckel RH (2009). Lipoprotein lipase: from gene to obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab.;297(2):E271-88.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victor – there is an otustanding issue.
In my last comment I said:
Could you please respond to that before going off on a speculative diversionary tangent about obesity using the very naive Declan Waugh approach.
One thing at a time please.
LikeLike
Ken, interestingly, regarding your question I was thinking the same of you: it is diversionary tangent about the main topic. So, I would say that all together the presented references provide a support to what I wanted to expose.
Second, the concern of fluoride toxicity against enzymes has been already established by various scientists, as indicated in the following link: http://www.fluoridedebate.com/question23.html. I just wanted to clarify the idea with more references.
Third, I am considering that as a human normal behavior, you want to take care of yourself and your relatives (family), so that is why you support water fluoridation. Your idea is that fluoride will prevent your caries and those of your relatives without any secondary effect. I am just considering that your intention is good but that you don’t have the complete information. For example, that happens to Dr. John Colquhoun who was the Principal Dental Officer of Auckland and head of the Fluoridation Promotion Group that changed his mind about fluoridation after receiving more complete information.
Finally, instead of personal attacks it may be wiser to request your government for a study of a possible link between fluorosis and obesity. The results may discredit the presented thesis or in any case they will provide more information for taking decisions on the fluoridation topic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Victor,
Asking you to clarify your references is not a personal attack. Neither is asking you to stick to the topic.
Which of your references do you consider applicable to CWF?
LikeLike
Victor – it amazes me that you consider diversionary my straightforward question:
You had provided a long list of citations which did not seem relevant to CWF from their titles so I was asking for a simple clarification. It is surely impolite to request me to read papers which may be completely irrelevant (have you read them all yourself? 🙂 ).
Now that is simply an observation and polite request- it is not a personal attack. How the hell could such a request for evidence be considered that way.
Let’s just take the first citation you mentioned:
“Battisti V, Maders LD, Bagatini MD, Reetz LG, Chiesa J, Battisti IE, Gonçalves JF, Duarte MM, Schetinger MR, Morsch VM (2011); “Oxidative stress and antioxidant status in prostate cancer patients: relation to Gleason score, treatment and bone metastasis”; Biomed Pharmacother.; 65(7):516-24.”
– I checked the abstract and the word “fluoride” does not even occur!
So surely you can see my point. I have no wish to waste time on irrelevant papers – but I will read the ones you identify as relevant to CWF. I you are unwilling or unable to identify such papers I must only conclude you are actually not familiar with the papers yourself.
LikeLike
We are familiar with John Colquhoun and his arguments here in NZ – I am also aware of how bad many of those arguments were.
You should not make assumptions about either my motives or level of understanding. In fact, I am driven more by the need to counter the misrepresentation and distortion of the science that anti-fluoride campaigners indulge in. as for CWF itself – I think that is a decision for communities – at least in this country.
You say I lack the complete information – could you specifically show me where I have made a mistake – I am always happy to check out any claim and reconsider. But general comments like that are unhelpful.
Our health authorities are already concerned about obesity and there is ongoing research on the topic. They are not concerned about dental fluorosis as the moderate and severe forms are almost non-existent here.
If you think they need to look at dental fluorosis as a factor in obesity could you point me to a specific research report that is relevant to the extremely low level of moderate and severe forms typical of NZ, rather than the more serious forms in China and India.
You understand my request for specific reports – not a long list of irrelevant papers obtained by thoughtless literature searchers.
LikeLike
It says No Ad Hominems but it is obvious that the supporters of fluoride only speak with swords and attacks.
Just reading the conversation here is proof that fluoride supporters only wish to discredit those who wish to avoid water with added pharmaceuticals (whether it be rat poison or medicine).
Discrediting opposition seems to be the name of the game. Talking about college and publications like that really matters? Sounds like these fluoride supporters are paid or have a vested interest in water fluoridation. It seems odd that anyone would push adding chemicals to water with such zeal.
It saddens me to see so much wasted energy promoting an obviously corrupt and bankrupt policy. The public health is at an all time low and we have supposed accredited “scientists” supporting practices like this. Might as well put the fascist bumper sticker right on.
Also, I recommend all fluoride supporters to take a look in the mirror. Simply to analyze the symmetry of the face. Most of you will have faces that are tight on one side, causing twist. As we all know symmetry is natural beauty. Fluoridation (among other ingested toxins), however, distorts the vertical integrity of the spine and of the mind. This is what causes facial imbalance. This is also the source for the narrow-minded, science-is-god, mentality as fluoride activates the left-brain, only.
Get off the toxins and one day you might be able to dream again, or even visualize images within the mind. Until then, be aware that you can heal your dis-ease if you let go of the knowledge that you worship. Remember, knowledge and science can be used to prove completely different sides to an argument. Truth comes from a higher power. Kundalini. DMT. Pineal gland. Creativity. Kindness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael, there is also something to be said for the truth. If it wasn’t for scientific truth we would all still be living in caves and your statement that, “public health is at an all time low,” would actually be correct. The fact is that human beings are living longer now than at any other time in history.
By all means, get yourself a time machine and go back to Europe in the 1350s if you think you will have a healthier lifestyle.
Your comments are in reference to statements made to and about Dr. Richard Sauerheber, correct?
If you place a title like that in front of your name, it carries a certain responsibility . . a regard for the truth. Lay people see that title and expect credibility. People can reasonably expect that title to carry with it the truth.
I had a private email correspondence with Dr. Sauerheber after I read a statement by him that in the United States the EPA does not have regulatory authority over water fluoridation; therefore, water fluoridation is illegal in the U.S. This was news to me. So I asked him for evidence of this claim. I would be very happy to produce those emails for you, Michael.
Long story short, there is no evidence for that bizarre claim; and while I am not a mental health professional, I can say that there are either two possibilities with that guy. Either he has no regard for the truth, or he is unbalanced.
So, Michael, if you want to allow untruthful or unbalanced people to make authoritative claims without being challenged, find yourself a nice island where truth has no meaning – where the average lifespan would be about 30 years. I for one, enjoy a world in which people are expected to be able to support what they say with actual evidence.
LikeLike
How will the amount of fluoride in water effect a person who has a untreated exposure to industrial HF? And what if that same person also swallowed toothpaste as a child?
LikeLike
The EPA does “not” support the use of fluoride in drinking water.
Take a look at this video of the EPA telling congress that they no longer support water fluoridation
LikeLike
Tony, someone burned by hydrofluoric acid (HF) in an industrial accident has a lot more to worry about than the extremely low concentration of fluoride in drinking water.
Swallowing toothpaste as a child may slightly increase the risk of mild dental fluorosis – but again the fluoride in drinking water has an extremely minor effect.
LikeLike
Tony, you are wrong. This video does not show the EPA saying anything. It is a video of Bill HIrzy – who had a union position at the time. He is speaking for his union (and probably an extreme minority of the union, not for the EPA.
Bill Hirzy is currently a paid worker for the Fluoride Action Network , an activist group financed by the “natural”/alternative health industry. He has no scientific credibility.
LikeLike
This is the most ad hominem blog I’ve seen yet, with all the “experts” attacking Dr. Sauerheber while providing precious little relevant scientific response to his warnings: this blog reads like a propaganda clinic aimed at Dr. Sauerheber. Admittedly though my understanding is that fluoride is considered an essential mineral/has an established RDA.
LikeLike
Ramon, did you not read the post?
If you did, what specifically do you object to in my scientific discussion?
Yes, I did call Saueerheber’s paper a “meandering and naive anti-fluoridation rant.” But I think I justified that description.
If you don’t agree, please tell me specifically how I have not.
I think Sauerheber has been criticised because he has misrepresented the science. That is not ad hominem.
LikeLike
Have you done the research? Or just looked into this one researcher? I’ve done some digging in PubMed — independent of any proponents or opponents — and what I’ve found in the actual research suggests that:
1. Fluoride is most definitely toxic, to numerous body systems (neurotoxin, reproductive toxin, etc.) when taken in, in excess.
2. (Not from the research, but just common sense: the dosage cannot be accurately controlled when it’s simply dumped into the water supply, because not everyone consumes the same amount of water.)
3. Calcium is essential to detoxifying *excess* fluoride from the body. Thus calcium fluoride is probably less toxic because what isn’t needed is more likely to be eliminated, while other forms of fluoride simply build up.
4. *Calcium* fluoride helps teeth, probably to a large extent by providing the *calcium*. When compared in studies, the phosphorus fluoride typically used in the dental industry is of negligible benefit — but calcium fluoride makes a notable difference. Calcium fluoride is simply *not* the same substance as phosphorus fluoride or sodium fluoride.
LikeLike
Titus, yes I have researched this issue. You can find my articles on various aspects of the topic at https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/fluoridation-articles/
1: All substances are toxic in excess – including, for example, water. Your comment is irrelevant.
2: The term dosage is not applicable to deficient elements like fluorine, iodine, etc. There is no need for such precise control and intake is usually satisfactory over a broad range.
3: We never consumes “calcium fluoride” as this chemical only exists in the solid form. When dissolved the ions exist separately as the hydrated Ca2+ and F- ions. For a relatively simple overview of the chemistry involved read this Fluoridation: Some simple chemistry
4: Both calcium and fluoride “help” teeth – both elements are natural and normal constituents of bio apatites like bones and teeth.
Could you please explain what chemical you refer to by the name “phosphorus fluoride?” Such compounds just do not exist normally and are not used by the dental industry. Sodium fluoride and calcium fluoride are simple ionic salts – when dissolved the fluoride is exactly the same – the hydrated fluoride anion. But your “phosphorous fluoride” is a mystery to me – and I am a chemist.
Look forward to your reply.
LikeLike
1. It is not “irrelevant.” Yes, even water is toxic in excess, but the point is, the body is not designed to *eliminate* such excess fluoride as is often found when it’s artificially added to things like drinking water — especially without the accompanying calcium that’s necessary for carrying it out of the body. This is why there is study after study showing neurological issues and more in areas where there’s too much fluoride in the water. Sodium doesn’t help the body excrete any excess of the fluoride (and, in fact, most people already have too much sodium, so that’s a double whammy — build-up of fluoride *and* increase in sodium-potassium imbalance).
2. Baloney. The FDA doesn’t set recommended upper intake limits for necessary vitamins and minerals because dosage is “not applicable.” Water fluoridation is mass medication — or at least mass supplementation — without consent, which is both problematic when the consumption rate cannot be controlled for, and unethical.
3. This is beside the point. Whether the substance is taken in whole, or already dissociated, the fact remains that the duo is different than other mineral salts containing fluorine. (See point 1.) Consider this study which demonstrates not only that dosage matters (and yes, that’s the term the researchers used), but that different fluoride salts caused damage at *different* dosage levels.
4. I haven’t the foggiest idea, to be honest. I’m not a chemist; I’m a nutritionist (or soon to be). I just know I’ve come across it in the literature. I’ve done a little bit of digging since you asked, and although it appears “phosphorus fluoride” is actually a “thing” (although a slight misnomer), I’m not certain if what’s used in dentistry (when it isn’t simply NaF being used) is truly “phosphorus fluoride” or just product containing both substances and poorly-named.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Phosphorus_trifluoride
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Pentafluorophosphorane (Pretty sure this, at least, is NOT the substance in question!)
https://books.google.com/books?id=K_ULBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA585&lpg=PA585&dq=%22phosphorus+fluoride%22+rinse&source=bl&ots=8DbyKgwlCx&sig=nvZgsD2D4xRDhC-pSyrrWkHOIuQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd8OS918nQAhVEOSYKHbyfAwwQ6AEIdDAC#v=onepage&q=%22phosphorus%20fluoride%22%20rinse&f=false
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27050937
Maybe you can make more sense of the nomenclature than I can.
LikeLike
Ken all substances are toxic in excess but what is excess for one person may not be for another. And it depends what be in the water. People working hard like sheep shearers in hot weather have been said in one of my nutrition books not to drink enough water if it is not slightly salted.
!! In other words in Ken’s language it is short on sodium ions and chloride ions. Going by your theory of the ions only being important they could be added from potassium chloride and hydrochloric acid. Well they could not because the potassium ions could be a problem with a sodium balance and the hydrogen ions could be a problem.
Water with sodium fluoride added is different in effect on diabetes from water with a silicofluoride added. I am not sure if it be the silicon compound reducing the diabetic effect or what, but the sodium fluoride was found to be bad for diabetes.
Fluoridated water is often treated with a calcium compound to raise the pH. But sometimes just sodium hydroxide is used I think.
I invite you to think of an analogy of composite dental fillings in which correct balance of hardener is required or toxic amounts of unreacted substance may remain in the filling to be eluted out into the mouth in slow fashion (which may be worse than a fast pulse.)
It needs to be known, and I don’t know if experiments have been attempted, about balances of osmotic pressures and electropotentials to which the human organism may have developed adaptation.
“The term dosage is not applicable to deficient elements like fluorine, iodine, etc. There is no need for such precise control and intake is usually satisfactory over a broad range.”
I think fluoride is not homeostatically controlled as for example sodium and potassium are (within limits.) So there needs to be more care with intake levels. That will depend on the individual health, kidney function that people may not know about, and other nutrient intakes such as calcium.
Other substances for which there is a narrow window of use between deficiency and excess are copper, selenium, that I know of. Selenium deficiency produces white muscle disease in sheep and Keshan disease in humans if Cocksackie virus is present at the same time. Or Kashin-Beck arthritis. Excess can cause a number of serious problems and also stained teeth. https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Selenium-Consumer/ An interesting point is that the toxin mercury can alleviate some selenium excess problems.
So to say that it to be no different adding sodium fluoride to water compared to calcium fluoride you need to include restrictions about the prior history of the water and what else is being added and taken out. Else you only look like a propagandist.
LikeLike
Sorry I meant adding potassium chloride and sodium hydroxide to water is not the same as adding salt, even though it adds sodium ions and and chloride.ions.
LikeLike
1 is very relevant Titus. We are always hearing claims of toxicity for fluoride in excess – but excess is not the issue with community water fluoridation (CWF).
Fluoride, like all nutrients, goes through the body – some is incorporated into growth (bone and teeth in the case of F which is a natural and normal constituent of bioapatites) and the rest excreted. Excess fluoride is excreted providing the intake is not excessive.
Calcium exists as a separate in – it is not connected to fluoride in solution.
There is no credible study indicating a neurological effect from community water fluoridation – quite the opposite – see Broadbent, J. M., Thomson, W. M., Ramrakha, S., Moffitt, T. E., Zeng, J., Foster Page, L. A., & Poulton, R. (2014). Community Water Fluoridation and Intelligence: Prospective Study in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health, 105(1), 72–76. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301857
In fact, the poor quality studies from China suggesting IQ differences are from areas of endemic fluorosis where fluoride intake is excessive – nothing to do with CWF. I have suggested this may be simply a physical development effect rather than a chemical poisoning effect – see Perrott, K. W. (2015). Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 48, 78–79. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2015.01.001
2. Your reference to consent and medication have nothing to do with the science. In this country communities are consulted before fluoridation is started. In most cases referenda have shown support for CWF.
The added fluoride in community water fluoridation is minuscule and has no effect on sodium or potassium levels which are naturally much higher. You can check this out mathematically.
3: What study are you referring to? I am always to keen to read genuine scientific studies.
“Phosphorus fluoride” is not a thing regarding dental practice. You may be thinking of the use of sodium fluorophosphate in toothpastes – which contain a number of chemicals you might find surprising.
LikeLike
@titus2homemaker
Inevitably those who do half an hour of “research” on google and find themselves in opposition to the position statements of the planet’s entire medical, public health and scientific establishment on a particular subject, have failed to ask themselves a pertinent question that “the planet’s entire medical, public health and scientific organisations might know something I don’t?”
I invite you to identify a single credible scientific body, public health system or professional medical dental organisation, anywhere, that disagrees that properly instituted* CWF is not a safe and effective means of improving community dental health.
* Not including areas where CFW is undesirable or unnecessary e.g. areas of high naturally occurring fluoride or communities using other means of delivery such as addition to table salt or foodstuffs.
LikeLike
I think you might find the nernst equation and GABA receptors interesting. My nerves seem to have a bit of extra spark, from my mothers insistence on avoiding sodium chloride will drinking fluoridated water.
LikeLike
Nice try. Pointing to water hardness is a different topic than molecular make up fluoride topicals. Ha!
LikeLike
Well, D, redress the balance. Tell us all about the “molecular make up fluoride topicals.” I am just aching to find out what you mean by this.
LikeLike
Hey, here are two books I highly recommend you to read:
1. The fluoride deception by Christopher Bryson
2. The case against Fluoride by 3 PhDs
I’m in the process of developing our toothpastes and the ingredient called “fluoride” was such a hot topic I started digging very deep on this issue.
Antifluoridation myth? We’ve all been human experiment rats!!! Brainwashed by the propaganda promoted using exactly the same tactics and strategies that are used now. It was never about the public health or science but it was all about the politics. During early 20 century, professionals opposed to/against fluoride/water fluoridation were all fired from their positions (doctors, scientists, researchers). Their researches were never published and if published, those journals and scientific data were never disclosed to the public for several decades.
“Our” government does not exist for us Americans. The government is to pursue their own interests and for the rich and the powerful (Corporate America). Gosh…… Shame on ADA (American Dental Association). Shame on Public Health Department. Shame on National Health Institutes. Shame on Environment Protection Agency. Shame on federal regulators. Shame on top researchers and scientist who were involved in fluoridation projects. Lastly, SHAME ON CORPORATE AMERICA (that are involved with all this mess)!!!!!! You can buy top lawyers with your rich status and cover up the mess you are responsible for. You are nothing but criminals. Know that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hanna Jun, why have you made this specific comment here? It is not at all related to my post. I can only conclude you are blatantly using my post to post your own anti-science propaganda.
All the claims you make are patently untrue and you don’t even attempt to support them.
Come on . . I welcome people making comments and criticising my posts. But please stop this blatant and opportunist propaganda. Discuss the issues properly.
LikeLike
and down with Obamacare!!!!!
(sarc)
LikeLike
Hanna Jun,
Christopher Bryson’s “The Fluoride Deception.” Yes. Excellent recommendation. In this book, Mr. Bryson implies that Community Water Fluoridation has its roots in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Program. A very well-thought out, rational theory.
What he didn’t say is that Crest Toothpaste, which has over 2000 times the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water, was part of U.S. efforts to weaponize anthrax.
In fact, in the 1971 Charlton Heston Film, “The Omega Man” which explores the possibility of mankind destroying itself with biological weapons, you will notice that Not One Tube of Crest Toothpaste can be seen anywhere in the film. . . Did you ever ask yourself Why?
LikeLike
Did you ever ask yourself Why?,/i>
I bet Brian Soundhill knows why.
LikeLike
The problems also come down to the amount of sodium flouride in toothpaste on top of the sodium flouride in water. Toothpaste sits under your tongue while you brush for two minutes. Readily being absorbed . The studies done showing that flouride helped with healthier teeth is flawed. Other countries during the studies had just as good dental health as countries using flouride and they did not use flouride. There is no need to force people to have sodium flouride put in there water . There no dose regulation. As a child I played ice hockey and I drank a lot of water and was smaller. Where is the regulation of my dosage of water? How did this affect my mind and body . Most countries have stop the flouridated of water. I do not drink flourdated water or use flouridated toothpaste and my teeth have never been healthier . I floss and never get cavities and my dentist says I have perfect teeth . I refuse there flouride teeth cleaning though 🙂 I have sole in the morning and at sea salt to my ketogenic diet and I’m golden 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Calcium Fluoride is LESS harmful than Sodium Fluoride, because Sodium Fluoride has high solubility (4%) while Calcium Fluoride has vey low Solubility =.0016%, – almost insoluble- and MFP (in some toothpastes) 25% then, if water contains NaF, the energy of water dissolves the chrystals easily so many trillions of Fluoride ions are free and able to attach to Calcium (or other metal ions) they find on their path. Since CaF2 is much LESS soluble, much fewer Fluoride ions separate and thus it is less harmful. That is why if someone has Fluoride poisoning (for example if one children ate toothpaste or drank some fluoride gel) he must drink MILK or other compounds with Calcium ions, so each Calcium ion will bind to 2 Fluoride ions to form the almost insoluble CaF2 that will be sent out of the body. All free fluoride ions in blood may attach to positive ions in the body, bones, teeth, pineal gland, etc. so the LESS fluoride ions we have in the body, it is better for us. We only need a little amount in the external layer of enamel to form some fluorapatite and make it less soluble to a low pH of liquids or dental plaque. The NaF is more soluble because it is polar while Calcium Fluoride is non polar (or much less polar) so it is not easily dissolved by water, a polar compound.
The absorption of Fluoride ions on enamel needs an acidic environment, that is why dentists use generally Acidulated Gels (APF) with pH of about 3.5, and for 4 minutes of contact, and those gels contain 12,300 ppm of Fluoride, so I dont see how can enamel absorb “protective” Fluoride ions from drinking water, since people only keeps the water in mouth, when drinking it, for only a few seconds, only at 0.7 – 2 ppm concentration, and in an oral pH of about 6.5. so that “protection” by fluoridated water does not exist, it is a big lie. Even great experts of Preventive Dentistry like Dr Featherstone, say that the benefits from Fluoride are obtained by topical applications. NOT systemic. I think Fluoridation of water should stop everywhere, it is useless. A last point, since NaF is soluble, it means that in water, the Fluoride ions separate from Sodium ions, in that moment, they can bind to Hydrogen ions, it is logic, since Fluoride ions have negative charge and Hydrogen ions are positive, like metal ions. So Hydrogen Fluoride can be formed. Fluoride ions can react with all positive ions, so if F ions are in blood, they can bind to Calcium ions of bones, making them less soluble but brittle. (sorry for spelling mistakes)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Miguel, I am not sure what point you are making. Yes, CaF2 is less soluble than NaF – but so what? Naturally high levels of F in drinking water usually originate from the mineral fluorite (CaF2) – a saturated solution will maintain about 8 mg/L F – and in alkaline solutions even higher. This is well above the recommended safe level of F in drinking water (1.5 mg/L).
Yes, in cases of poisoning Ca from milk etc helps reduce the F concentration. But toxic concentrations are well above the optimum levels recommended for community water fluoridation.
Fluoride does not indiscriminately “attach to positive ions in the body, bones, teeth, pineal gland.” It reacts with active forms of calcium – bones, teeth, and calcified tissues. It does not cause calcification but can be used to detect calcified areas.
In fact, F is a normal and natural component of bioapatites – the minerals in our bones and teeth. At normal levels F confers strength to the bioapatites.
You may not see how the low concentration of F in saliva can help prevent mineralisation but the fact is that it does. Research shows that – it is not a lie. And the source of the F in saliva is fluoridated beverages, food, etc.
Yes, research shows that the beneficial effects of fluoridated water for existing teeth are mainly duer to reactions at the tooth surface, rather than incorporation after ingestion. But research also shows that ingested F has a beneficial effect on developing teeth, before eruption. Anmd, of course, ingested F is involved in the turnover of minerals in bone so has a beneficial effect for bones – provided the dietary intake is not too low or too high.
Yes, the hydrated fluoride ion in solution (from whatever source) exists in equilibrium with other species – including HF. But the concentration of HF is minuscule at normal pH values. It really only exists in acidic solution.
LikeLike
Ken, but you mention a *saturated solution*, and drinkable water is NOT a saturated solution of Fluoride. It contains much less Fluoride to be saturated, so if for example, one liter of water is fluoridated with 2 miligrams of Calcium Fluoride, it would be less harmful than if it is fluoridated with 2 miligrams of NaF. I mean, the toxicity of the water is different depending of the type of Fluoride they put in it. I think that if water of a city contains 2 mg of CaF per liter, it does not cause any damage because the Fluoride ions are strongly bound to Calcium ions, but if each liter contains 2 mg of NaF, it will be above the safe level of 1.5 mg per liter, as you say, so it is toxic. What you say is correct regarding the 8ppm of CaF2, but only in a *saturated* solution of CaF2.
But 2 mg of Calcium Fluoride per liter will NOT produce a level of free Fluoride ions of 8ppm. But using NaF, all the molecules would separate in Fluoride ions and Sodium ions, because NaF has a much higher solubility than CaF2.
I think the degree of solubility of Fluorides makes them more or less dangerous. If Zero solubility, zero danger.
As far as I have read, most cities use Sodium fluoride or Fluorosilicic Acid, not Calcium Fluoride.
My point is only that CaF is less harmful than other types of Fluoride. and that Fluoridation is not necessary, cities should stop adding fluoride to water, besides, since many foods contain fluoride in a higher level than 1.5 ppm, that is another factor in favor of the anti-fluoridation movement. If people is consuming many different types of food that contain much more fluoride than water, then there is no reason to add Fluoride to water. It only leads to an excess of Fluoride ions entering the organism. I think it is more convenient to use filters to eliminate Fluoride from water because it may contain soluble Fluorides from natural sources.
There are a lot of scientific articles about the damages Fluoride causes in several organs. And scientific information seems to confirm that antifluoridationists are right.
There is also a lot of information that in many countries that don’t fluoridate water, children have less decay than in fluoridated countries.
.
I think also, that since the purpose of fluoridation is to have less possibilities of dental caries, it is NOT necessary because 1- systemic fluoride does not make humans immune to caries, it only decreases a little, the possibilities to have caries. Even enamel of sharks, that contain much more fluoride – 30,000ppm – than human enamel, suffers demineralization if it is placed in a human mouth. And since dental decay, as you surely know, is produced by the combination of 4 factors, host conditions (tooth anatomy, pits and fissures) acidogenic bacteria (Streptococcus, Lactobacilli) substrate (sugar, food for bacteria) and TIME, we can prevent it by eliminating at least one of the 4 factors, without using any Fluoride.
If at least one of these factors is eliminated, caries does not occur. It is like a car of 4 wheels, you eliminate one wheel and the car does not run. We may avoid caries eliminating only one, for example, by mechanical removal of bacteria (brushing) or avoding sugars to stay enough time in mouth, or sealing the pits and fissures, flossing the teeth, etc. and we dont need to consume fluoridated water. The use of fluoride implies collateral damage.
2018-02-11 21:23 GMT-06:00 Open Parachute :
> Ken commented: “Miguel, I am not sure what point you are making. Yes, CaF2 > is less soluble than NaF – but so what? Naturally high levels of F in > drinking water usually originate from the mineral fluorite (CaF2) – a > saturated solution will maintain about 8 mg/L F – and in” >
LikeLiked by 1 person
MQ – you seem unaware that it is the hydrated fluoride anion in the solution that is toxic at high concentrations. CaF can amintain concentrations of fluoride high enough to do harm
A solution containing about 8 mg/L of the hydrated F anion is used in community water fluodiation – it is quite safe – whatever the origin – solid NaF or solid CaF2. It makes no difference when dissolved what the source is.
No, in solution F is not strongly bound to Ca. Only at higher concentrations when it precipitates. In soluitoin both the Ca and F exist as the hydrated ions – they are quite separate from each other.
Here is an article which provides a simple description of the chemistry involved – https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/fluoridation-some-simple-chemistry/
CaF2 is only described as more toxic than NaF because it can only maintain a relatively low concentration of F – but still high enough to be harmful as the health problems of people living in endemic fluorosis areas shows.
CaF2 is not suitable for fluodiation because of its low solubility and the presence of impurities. Fluorosilicic acid is very pure and liquid making addition much easier. NaF is only used nowadays in small treatment plants.
Decisions on community water fluoridation, of course, take into account local dietary intakes. There is no point in fluoridating water if the dietary intake is high enough
As a chemist, I can assure you the anti-fluoridationist argument of harm from community water fluoridation is just scaremongering. These people are well known for misrepresenting and distorting the science.
I think I have previously explained to you how ingested F in food and beverages help maintain concentrations of F in saliva which have a beneficial effect on existing teeth. And that ingested fluoride also contributes to strong enamel during tooth development in children.
LikeLike
Ken, thanks for the link, I will read it. But in your response you write this: ” CaF2 is only described as more toxic than NaF because it can only maintain a relatively low concentration of F – “- Are you sure that CaF2 is MORE TOXIC than NaF? Or that some people describe CaF2 as more Toxic than NaF? they say that? And that is because it mantains a relatively low concentration of F-? ???? I think it is a mistake. If CaF mantains a low concentration of Fluoride ions then it is safer than NaF as I said before. It is not more toxic. Maybe you meant LESS toxic instead of MORE toxic. If you put 20 miligrams of CaF2 in a glass of water and 20 miligrams of Fluorosilicic Acid in other, which one is more toxic? I am sure the one with Fluorosilicic Acid. Am I wrong?
If you agree, then the people anti-Fluoridation is right if they prefer
more Calcium in water, NOT Fluorosilicic Acid or Sodium. I think more Calcium ions in water would combine with Fluoride ions and diminish
its toxicity. Of course, within safe limits for Calcium. Or maybe it is convenient to add some harmless compound that releases Magnesium
ions in water. This Magnesium would help also to reduce the toxicity of Fluoride, just like it protects the animals that eat grass. I hope I am not wrong.
Also, if as you say, “No, in solution F is not strongly bound to Ca. Only at higher concentrations when it precipitates”- OK, that is why dentists use 12,300 ppm And therefore, fluoridated water is not useful to help teeth to form fluorapatite. It is clear that since the Fluoride in water is only 1 ppm, it can not make any benefit to the enamel in the amounts used to fluoridate the water. IN saliva the concentration of Fluoride is even lower than in drinkable water I think it is something like 0.021 ppm ( I am not sure but it is much less than 1 ppm). This amount of F- in saliva can not protect the teeth. In general I think fluoridated water is too much risk for very litte benefit. But if some people prefer to drink Fluoridated water, it is their decision.
LikeLike
I have no internet coverage at the moment but you seem to misunderstand my point. It is the hydrated fluoride in water which is toxic at high concentrations. CaF2 can maintain a hstmfk concentration if F – 8 ppm or so. Nag us more soluble so can maintain an even higher concentration if F in solution.
The reaction at the tooth surface is not precipitation of CaF2 but incorporation of F into the apatite crystal structure. This occurs at much lower concentrations and the appetite surface becomes more resistant to Did attack.
LikeLike
Ken, all your doing is deconstructing everything Richard is saying. You’re a pathetic fuck. Even by the EPA’s own standards, we’re getting way too much fluoride exposure on a daily basis in areas where water is fluoridated. Every time you take a shower, fluoride is absorbed by your skin and the vapors are inhaled which also contain fluoride.
Every time you boil pasta or make rice with fluoridated water, you’re also ingesting fluoride. It’s all cumulative.
Furthermore, fluoridation of water violates people’s rights and is unethical. You can not force a medicine or treatment on someone, which is exactly what fluoridation is doing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for this article. If I am able I will share with some friends who are discussing this issue and have similar misunderstandings of the chemistry.
Regards Bob.
LikeLike
This couldn’t be a more incorrect conclusion. Yea there is calcium occurring in the same water supplies that are fluoridated, but that doesn’t mean they are compounding into calcium fluoride. It’s just calcium AND industrial fluoride, which cannot bind the same way calcium fluoride naturally does. This entire article is obviously got intentions of suppressing the truth whether the author knows it or not. This article isn’t even combating the obvious problem that fluoridated water is toxic it’s just saying that the doctors are wrong about calcium fluoride being a healthy alternative, which it would be, and is why it got so much backlash.. Ask yourself, honestly, they are fluoridating water to prevent your and my tooth decay? Open your eyes.
LikeLike
Anthony, could you please explain the difference between “industrial fluoride: and “natural fluoride.” Specifically the electronic structure of the F- anion which determines its chemical properties.
LikeLike