In a first-of-its-kind debate on Wednesday night two experts gave Phoenix residents a lot to think about before they drink their next glass of water.

Dr. Howard Farran, DDS, MBA, MAGD, an Ahwatukee Foothills dentist and one of the original proponents for fluoridating Phoenix’s water supply, faced Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D., a retired professor of environmental chemistry and toxicology and director of the Fluoride Action Network, on the issue of whether or not the city should continue to fluoridate the water supply.

Phoenix has been fluoridating its water since 1989, adjusting the fluoride levels in tap water from .3 parts per million to .7 ppm. On Tuesday, the Phoenix Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee, chaired by City Councilwoman Thelda Williams, will vote on whether or not to continue this practice. In order to give a balanced view of the issue a group of Phoenix residents asked the two experts to debate publicly at Phoenix College.

Farran said in dental school in Missouri in 1987 he had a hard time finding kids with baby teeth that needed root canals, a requirement he needed to graduate. When he moved to Phoenix and began his own practice he was shocked by the amount of root canals he saw in children. He did some research and found Phoenix was one of the only major cities in the U.S. that didn’t fluoridate its water. He became a proponent of fluoride and once the city began fluoridating its water he said the amount of cavities reduced drastically. Now Farran compares removing fluoride from water to removing Vitamin D from milk.

“I don’t want you to relearn the history lessons we learned 20 years ago,” Farran said. “We don’t want to take iodine, another element, not a medication, out of salt. We put that in salt and we got rid of goiter.”

Farran said the ocean naturally has 1.5 ppm of fluoride but the city’s water has around .3 ppm. In Phoenix that level is adjusted to .7 ppm. That fluoride in the water gets into the blood stream and helps build strong teeth, he said. Farran used mostly studies published on PubMed and quotes from well known groups like the Center for Disease Control and the American Dental Association to prove his points.

Connett argued that when fluoride is placed in water people are being exposed to much more fluoride than what is natural, which is the .004 ppm that is found in a mother’s milk. That overdose of fluoride can actually damage a baby’s enamel. If fluoride is affecting enamel Connett said it would be reckless to assume it’s not affecting anything else. He shared studies from China, India and Iran that showed lowered IQ and organ problems for children exposed to more fluoride.

Connett explained that fluoride is not a nutrient but a medicine. If it were a nutrient there would be a disease caused by lack of fluoride.

“It’s a poor medical practice to use the water supply to administer medicine for obvious reasons,” Connett said. “Once you’ve put it in the water you can’t control the dose. You can’t control who gets it.”

The two experts shared studies and debated the facts for over an hour and then answered questions from the audience. At the end of the night there were still many questions left unanswered.

The final decision will be made during the Phoenix Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee meeting at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, Sept. 11. During that meeting there will be a presentation from city staff and public comment will also be allowed. The city currently spends $582,000 on fluoridation.

Williams, who chairs the subcommittee, was not able to attend the debate. She was chairing the City Council Formal Meeting, which took place at the same time. The debate was not sponsored by the city.

 

• Contact writer: (480) 898-7914 or ahurtado@ahwatukee.com

(16) comments

trisha
trisha

Thank you Allison for reporting on the fluoride debate, definitely an exciting evening.

Dr. Howard Farran is passionate about oral health and well informed on the science of water fluoridation. Dr. Connett is both passionate and evangelical, but not scientifically based. He discussed reports of lower IQ scores in children living in China in an area with natural levels of fluoride at 2.4ppm - this is three and half times higher than the current Phoenix water fluoridation level. Analysis of the findings suggested the IQ differences reported were not statistically significant. No similar findings are evident in any of the cities in the USA with water fluoridation.

Think about this. Dentists who support water fluoridation are reducing the potential number of teeth needing fillings. If dentists didn’t care about oral health, they would be against fluoride and very busy drilling and filling more teeth!

Trisha E. O'Hehir, RDH, MS

EJFDDS
EJFDDS

I attended this debate as a dentist, showing my support for what has been described by the Centers for Disease Control as "one of the 10 great achievements in public health in the 20th century" by community water fluoridation preventing tooth decay. The Motto for the CDC is: Saving Lives, Protecting People.

When listening to Dr. Paul Connett debate Dr. Howard Farran, Dr. Connett discounted all the many studies done in the United States on fluoride, including work by the CDC and the ADA, and all studies published on PubMed. If the CDC's motto is saving lives, protecting people, isn't this the goal of organization?

Dr. Connett instead cites studies from China, India and other foreign countries, and recommends that the audience read his book, The Case Against Fluoride, to hear "the truth."

Removing fluoride from the community drinking water in Phoenix would be a mistake in my opinion, and the children would be the ones that would suffer the most from the decrease in fluoride exposure to their developing teeth.

Elizabeth Fleming, DDS

Dagny
Dagny

Wake up people! What is being put in the water for fluoridation purposes is not pharmaceutical grade fluoride . . . it's Fluorosilicic Acid and most of what the USA receives comes from China and Japan. And not only does it contain fluoride, it also contains arsenic and heavy metals, delicious! If you want to brush with it or rinse your mouth with it, be my guest. Just don't force it on those who don't want it. There is more evidence that it does more harm than good. And here's a direct quote from the CDC:

“fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children.”

There's also a big difference between treating the water to keep us from getting sick and medicating the water as with fluoridation in attempt to prevent cavities. There's no way to control the dosage, no way to know if one's health is already compromised, i.e. kidney disease. We do not want this in our water! I always thought fluoride was a good thing until two years ago after I spent time reading everything I could get my hands on. The information is out there if you take the time to do your own research.

David Banks DDS
David Banks DDS

Fluoride works primarily though topical application to the teeth. When it is delivered systemically the concentration in the saliva is far too low (.02ppm) to have a topical effect. As Dr. Connett pointed out, decay rates have declined all over the world at a similar rate in both fluoridated and non fluoridated communities.

Delivery of fluoride though the water supply does not allow control of the individual dose and does not allow for differences in water intake and susceptibility among population subsets. If fluoride causes a problem at a concentration of three or four times the concentration placed in our water supply, how is that going to effect someone who drinks three or four times as much water? What about those with impaired kidney clearance or infants who drink a huge amount of fluid relative to their body weight?

A common misconception about fluoride is that it is necessary in human nutrition, but no fluoride deficiency has ever been demonstrated. Fluoride is no more necessary than lead or arsenic as evidenced by its virtual absence
in nature's perfect food, mother's milk.

I applaud and share the passion of Dr. Farran for better dental health for our children, but I do believe that Dr. Connett has raised serious concerns regarding the addition of (even if in small amounts) of a known toxin along with its associated industrial contaminants into our water supply.

David Banks, DDS

LeahReal
LeahReal

Thank you, Dr. Farran for all your hard work 20 years ago through to today!

FluorideTruth
FluorideTruth

Dr. Farran completely ignores one immutable fact: Hydrofluorosilicic acid is a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry and is not refined before it is added to our water. It is heavily contaminated with toxins and heavy metals (including the cancerous arsenic, lead and cadmium) and radioactive materials. This substance is the waste residue from the superphosphate fertilizer industry, and about 70 to 75 percent of this stuff comes from the Cargill fertilizer manufacturing company or is imported from Mexico or China or it is purchased from Brentag Chemical...all of whom have federal protection from damages caused by their chemicals.

I was at the debate. While Dr. Farran was clearly indoctrinated into the ADA / Delta Dental / CDC / FDA sponsored fluoridation culture of pro fluoride politics he ignores the citizen / customer's / consumers right to refuse forced medication. The right to choose is completely ignored in his arguments. He ignores any new science from anyone but official government organizations who all back fluoridation one hundred percent. He also ignores alternative means of using fluoride if citizens wish to do so. This was very suspicious indeed. Unbiased independent science states there are more problems with unrefined, non-pharmaceutical grade industrial waste product hydrofluorosilicic acid (the actual product added to our water) than with pharmaceutical sodium fluoride because hydrofluorosilicic acid contains many a broad spectrum of toxic chemicals that are not removed from the compound. It contains these chemicals because it is cheaper to buy, and more profitable to the sellers, in this crude form. Dr. Farran ignores this fact completely in the debate which makes the rest of his argument COMPLETELY void and irrelevant. He appeared to be a nice, and a sincere man, but sadly he is sincerely wrong. You can not compare apples with oranges. Until Dr. Farran acknowledges the product that is added to our water is not sodium fluoride but rather a toxic slurry of unrefined chemicals that also contains some fluoride his argument is irrelevant. His argument was evasive, digressive, immaterial to the actual reality of the compound put directly in our water. When he said "fluoride isn't going anywhere" he revealed a suspicious arrogance. His argument, while calculated and compelling for the fully indoctrinated lacked any credibility for those who know anything about the actual content of hydrofluorosilicic acid. In the final analysis his logic was consistent but utterly inapplicable to the discussion and far beneath the dignity of Dr. Connett or any serious discussion of fluoridation for that matter. When asked if they want chemicals like this in their water people ALWAYS SAY NO.

The good doctor Farran also ignored healthful alternatives to fluoride's ill effects. Much of Europe protects their teeth with gum and tooth paste containing Xylitol. It is truly safe and effective along with many other oral methods for keeping your families teeth white and disease free. What Dr. Farran omits from the discussion is indeed more relevant TO the discussion that his droning on about a the old boy network status quo, politically driven doctrine of death cloaked in images of helping the poor, loving his family and being a "good citizen." Dr. Farran in my opinion is nothing more than another blow-hard talking head for a billion dollar industry. Nice as he might be, he is a sadly mis-inforemed guy with blinders the size of notebooks hanging from his face. I have no doubt that Dr Farran cares about his family, loves children and humanity but his agenda was steeped in politics and towing the line for the age old fluoride deception, a culture of death and disease whether he knows it or not. Anybody who would defend dental amalgam (which he did briefly in the debate) sets himself apart from a more informed and educated public. He has much to loose if he flip flops and tells the truth about fluoride and mercury fillings. He is part of a large group of people who are culpable for systemic liability if they capitulate to the truth. They stand to lose credibility and their own dignity for having supported this lie for so long... IF AND WHEN they ever decide that health is more important than ego. Hence, Dr Farran must MUST MUST perpetuate the great lie and support fluoridation AT ALL COST! The hydrofluorosilicic acid industrial waste disposal solution is dilution into our water supply. It has nothing to do with health, cavity prevention in the poor or bone health. Quite the contrary. It is harming our citizens and adding to the burden of toxins every citizen is exposed to in this modern heavily polluted world. The best Dr. Farran can hope for is society reacting to this affront with a trust for government and a healthy mass illusion of denial. Those who simply can not psychologically handle the truth about this issue are what they want. He, as all fluoride proponents do, hope society would rather believe the great lie rather than face the truth and deal with it. America will never heal until we begin to face the great lies like this and hold accountable those who have perpetrated them. This is why the fluoride debate is so very important. I thank Dr. Farran and Dr. Connett for taking the time to address the issue and to raise consciousness concerning fluoride.

Dr Tom
Dr Tom

Everyone is entitled to fight against things that are done for their own well-being. It is odd to say this is forced on them when a simple water filter would remove the fluoride from your water. Let's face it, everyone that has posted against fluoride in the water is drinking bottled water or reverse osmosis water from their home. You can avoid the fluoride if you so choose. Stop making decisions for the people that need it the most.

Whenever there is a debate, I think it is wise to look at 'what's in it for each side'. On one hand you have a dentist that could profit from an increase in tooth decay, begging for the addition of fluoride to the water. On the other side is a guy who currently speaks to the evils of fluoride, claims he does not profit from his book on the topic and yet he makes a very good living lecturing on this topic. Not very credible in my opinion.

nyscof
nyscof

Dentist Farran made many errors clearly indicating he didn't bone up on fluoride science

These are some of his mistakes

1) fluoride works by ingesting. It does not. The CDC says fluoride hardens outer enamel by topical means and the fluoride levels that emerge from saliva to bathe teeth topically are too low to be beneficial. Also the Cochran report says 500 ppm fluoride does not reduce tooth decay so how can 1 ppm reduce tooth decay. See: http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/topical_systemic/

2) Fluoride isn't linked to C-reactive proteins, an indicator of inflammation linked to cancer and arthritis. Yes it is. One such study is here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22926451

3) Endorsing organizations represent ALL their members belief in fluoridation. That's not true as many professionals who oppose fluoridation still belong to their specialty associations for business and learning reasons. Besides most decisions are made by a small governing body.

4) All 6,000 hits he received when he plugged in "fluoridation" into pubmed prove fluoridation is safe and and effective. Not true - besides many studies showing harm, most of the 6,000 studies were about teeth. At least 3 studies show dentists are still wrong about fluoride's mode of action - topical not systemic. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22918012 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899898

Sauerheber
Sauerheber

Farron is incorrect in most statements. Fluorosilicic acid is a distinct chemical species that can be observed spectroscopically in solution, but it cannot be isolated free of aqueous solvent because this causes the complex to re-dissociate back to HF and SiF4. The original correlation by Trendley Dean that fluoride might affect teeth caries has been disproven in vast studies (Teotia; Hileman; see Thiessen reports to EPA and HHS, 2012, among others), even when the Dean data are included, which was found to be scatter among the complete population of cities in detailed analyses by Ziegelbecker (see Connett, 2011 textbook for brief description of that work). Calcium builds strong teeth, not fluoride, which is not a mineral nutrient of any kind (NRC, 2006; FDA), and the water in Hereford, Texas where the false correlation was introduced contained over 300 ppm calcium and magnesium.
Calcium minimizes fluoride assimilation from ingestion and any fluoride found naturally in some fresh waters is always accompanied with much caicium from which it ionizes. Maximum solubility for calicum fluoride is only 8ppm fluoride and if calcium fluoride had been used as a fluoridating agent then we would not have had the Hooper Bay, AK fluoridated water poisoning disaster with 302 life-flighted victims of an overfeed and one fatality (Gessner, New Eng. J. Med. 330, 1994). Calcium fluoride is not a listed toxic on poisons registries, but all industrial fluorides lack calcium and are listed toxic calcium chelators with a low LD50 of 125 mg/kg single oral dose in test mammals. For Farron's information the lethal level of fluoride in the bloodstream which causes blockage of heart contraction due to reduction in calcium activity is a mere 5 ppm. Blood levels of consumers in 1 ppm fluoridated cities averages 0.2 ppm but varies widely because waters in the U.S. vary widely in calcium content (7 ppm in the Pacific Northwest, 50 ppm U.S. average, 500 ppm in areas in Texas).
It is calcium which determines the toxicity of ingested fluoride. For example, the Columbia River salmon collapse in the 1970s was caused by only 0.3 ppm industrial fluoride from a smelter, where fluoride narcotizes salmon brain and prevents navigation. Fluoride in sea water does not bother salmon in the slightest because of the massive levels of calcium in the water preventing assimilation. The salmon returned after the discharges were halted. South Sacramento began fluoridating in 2007 and in 2008 there was a salmon collapse, the first since the 19th century. The rest of the city became fluoridated later and salmon runs still do not exist anymore here. This seems to not matter to dentists who are intent on protecting teeth at any cost, who traditionally have overlooked facts that bone is weakened when fluoride accumulates to 3,000 mg/kg (NRC, 2006) during lifetime consumpton of 1 ppm fluoride water average in humans, and brain degeneration is slow and progressive in animal studies at similar low levels (Varner, Brain Research, 1986, Reddy, 2011, etc.) and tooth fluorosis is abnormal enamel hypoplasia due to systemic fluoride blockage of protein removal during enamelization that is now endemic in the U.S. with 41% of teens having this ugly condition as of 2004 (CDC).
The FDA ruled from 1963-1993 correctly that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, does not strengthen bone (as promoters had hoped it would) and addition into water is an ucontrolled use of an unapproved drug. Hopefully the industrial fluoride-in-water ban petition or the petition to ensure that any proposal to take fluoride internally require a prescription, as required for Luride, will be honored by the FDA soon.
If the IQ deficits that occurred in the higher fluoride water Chinese village were due to waste emissions from another region, as suggested by Farron, then why did only the fluoride village become the one most affected?
Drinking water does not affect teeth caries by bathing teeth with fluoride. Toothpaste contains 75,000 times more concentrated fluoride (1,500 ppm) than the fluoride in saliva (0.02 ppm) from drinking 1 ppm treated water, that continuously bathes teeth topically. CDC dental officials were asked how it is justified to spend 300 million dollars annually in the U.S. to achieve only 0.02 ppm, 75,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste, a level perceived to affect caries topically. The CDC responded that they would send the question to someone else to try to find an answer.
Farron never answered the public question on why we fluoridate water when pineal gland calcification is so high in the U.S. and fluoride causes calcification of the pineal gland. He implies that fluoride that accumulates in bone and brain is low enough to never affect anyone’s health, but the NRC reported that fluoride accumulates lifetime permanently into bone to 3-4,000 mg/kg and there is no doubt that pineal gland fluoride is very high at the same time bone fluoride is.
Sincerely, Dr. Sauerheber

Karench
Karench

Thanks for an interesting and objective report on the fluoridation debate. It's amazing that after nearly 70 years of water fluoridation, and tens of thousands of evidence-based research studies on this public health measure, there is still doubt and debate about it. Fluoridation is merely the adjustment of the amount of fluoride that's already naturally present in the water. In the 1930's & '40's, the natural fluoride content in water supplies in cities and towns where people had good dental health and little tooth decay was determined. By copying nature, this is how the practice of water fluoridation began. We now enjoy better dental health with the majority of children never even experiencing dental decay!
Karen Christen, RDH, MEd

David Banks DDS
David Banks DDS

Anyone who still believes fluoridation is "safe and effective" needs to carefully study the difference between naturally occurring calcium fluoride and the contaminated silicon fluorides obtained from the phosphate fertilizer industry which are characterized as hazardous waste by the U.S. EPA. Calcium fluoride is far less toxic. Dr. Sauerheber's comment below is a good place to begin your education.

FluorideTruth
FluorideTruth

Dr. Richard Sauerheber is a Ph.D from the University of California San Marcos who wrote the groundbreaking paper "On The Toxicity of Fluoridated Water" and works tielessly in the pursuit of truth behind fluoridation, of water rights, and water safety in the interest of national health. Here is Dr. Sauerhebers commentary on the debate sent to the steering committee of San Diegans for Safe Drinking Water. The following piece was also accepted for publication in a major Phoenix newspaper:

  "Farran is incorrect in most statements. Fluorosilicic acid is a distinct chemical species that can be observed spectroscopically in solution, but it cannot be isolated free of aqueous solvent because this causes the complex to re-dissociate back to HF and SiF4. The original correlation by Trendley Dean that fluoride might affect teeth caries has been disproven in vast studies (Teotia; Hileman; see Thiessen reports to EPA and HHS, 2012, among others), even when the Dean data are included, which was found to be scatter among the complete population of cities in detailed analyses by Ziegelbecker (see Connett, 2011 textbook for brief description of that work). Calcium builds strong teeth, not fluoride, which is not a mineral nutrient of any kind (NRC, 2006; FDA), and the water in Hereford, Texas where the false correlation was introduced contained over 300 ppm calcium and magnesium.
  Calcium minimizes fluoride assimilation from ingestion and any fluoride found naturally in some fresh waters is always accompanied with much caicium from which it ionizes. Maximum solubility for calicum fluoride is only 8ppm fluoride and if calcium fluoride had been used as a fluoridating agent then we would not have had the Hooper Bay, AK fluoridated water poisoning disaster with 302 life-flighted victims of an overfeed and one fatality (Gessner, New Eng. J. Med. 330, 1994).   Calcium fluoride is not a listed toxic on poisons registries, but all industrial fluorides lack calcium and are listed toxic calcium chelators with a low LD50 of 125 mg/kg single oral dose in test mammals. For Farran's information the lethal level of fluoride in the bloodstream which causes blockage of heart contraction due to reduction in calcium activity is a mere 5 ppm. Blood levels of consumers in 1 ppm fluoridated cities averages 0.2 ppm but varies widely because waters in the U.S. vary widely in calcium content (7 ppm in the Pacific Northwest, 50 ppm U.S. average, 500 ppm in areas in Texas).
 It is calcium which determines the toxicity of ingested fluoride. For example, the Columbia River salmon collapse in the 1970s was caused by only 0.3 ppm industrial fluoride from a smelter, where fluoride narcotizes salmon brain and prevents navigation. Fluoride in sea water does not bother salmon in the slightest because of the massive levels of calcium in the water preventing assimilation. The salmon returned after the discharges were halted. South Sacramento began fluoridating in 2007 and in 2008 there was a salmon collapse, the first since the 19th century. The rest of the city became fluoridated later and salmon runs still do not exist anymore here. This seems to not matter to dentists who are intent on protecting teeth at any cost, who traditionally have overlooked facts that bone is weakened when fluoride accumulates to 3,000 mg/kg (NRC, 2006) during lifetime consumpton of 1 ppm fluoride water average in humans, and brain degeneration is slow and progressive in animal studies at similar low levels (Varner, Brain Research, 1986, Reddy, 2011, etc.) and tooth fluorosis is abnormal enamel hypoplasia due to systemic fluoride blockage of protein removal during enamelization that is now endemic in the U.S. with 41% of teens having this ugly condition as of 2004 (CDC). 
 The FDA ruled from 1963-1993 correctly that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient, does not strengthen bone (as promoters had hoped it would) and addition into water is an ucontrolled use of an unapproved drug. Hopefully the industrial fluoride-in-water ban petition or the petition to ensure that any proposal to take fluoride internally require a prescription, as required for Luride,  will be honored by the FDA soon.
  If the IQ deficits that occurred in the higher fluoride water Chinese village were due to waste emissions from another region, as suggested by Farran, then why did only the fluoride village become the one most affected?
  Drinking water does not affect teeth caries by bathing teeth with fluoride. Toothpaste contains 75,000 times more concentrated fluoride (1,500 ppm) than the fluoride in saliva (0.02 ppm) from drinking 1 ppm treated water, that continuously bathes teeth topically.  CDC dental officials were asked how it is justified to spend 300 million dollars annually in the U.S. to achieve only 0.02 ppm, 75,000 times less concentrated than in toothpaste, a level perceived to affect caries topically. The CDC responded that they would send the question to someone else to try to find an answer. 
    Farran never answered the public question on why we fluoridate water when pineal gland calcification is so high in the U.S. and fluoride causes calcification of the pineal gland. He implies that fluoride that accumulates in bone and brain is low enough to never affect anyone’s health, but the NRC reported that fluoride accumulates lifetime permanently into bone to 3-4,000 mg/kg and there is no doubt that pineal gland fluoride is very high at the same time bone fluoride is."

FluorideTruth
FluorideTruth

From the post below. Dr Tom says "Everyone is entitled to fight against things that are done for their own well-being. It is odd to say this is forced on them when a simple water filter would remove the fluoride from your water. Let's face it, everyone that has posted against fluoride is drinking bottled water or reverse osmosis water from their home. You can avoid the fluoride if you so choose. Stop making decisions for the people that need it the most.
Whenever there is a debate, I think it is wise to look at 'what's in it for each side'. On one hand you have a dentist that could profit from an increase in tooth decay, begging for the addition of fluoride to the water. On the other side is a guy who currently speaks to the evils of fluoride, claims he does not profit from his book on the topic and yet he makes a very good living lecturing on this topic. Not very credible in my opinion."

First of all how do you know how much Dr. Connett makes on his lecture circuit? And why deny a man financial rewards for supremely excellent service to society? Secondly many doctors and dentists write books about what they know. And last I checked they were not unrewarded financially for it.

If dentists actually cared about poor people they who have limited or no access to quality dentistry, they would do far more free dentistry for them than they do now - which is practically none. They would focus especially in cosmetic dentistry, much of which is required by 41% of children who get dental fluorosis from....wait for it...FLUORIDE. But profit and money get in the way as dental practices enjoy a comfortable business model supported by insurance companies and a paradigm that does not service those who can not pay market rates for dental work.

FURTHERMORE, if poor people, who dentists deem to be sad and alone in a terrifying world of decay and cruelty, then why do dentists not offer the poor heavy duty education, nutritional counseling and free Xylitol snd REAL tooth decay programs as they do in countries like Sweeden where socialized medicine levels the greed factor and pushes forward real solutions to real problems without such encumbrances. Why do they support the add toxic chemicals to water that nobody should be drinking unfiltered from the tap with or without fluroide in the first place. The carcinogenic attributes of water without fluroide are well documented. Everyone should be filtering their water anyway. This just makes the problem worse and smacks of a larger conspiracy of control over society in general.

The problem with many dentists and medically trained professnal is they have been indoctrinated into a tunnel vision mentality. They are obsessed with teeth and have no training in general physiology as do general practitioner medical doctors. It astounds me that their science is accepted when they do not have and MD degree. The level of voluntary ignorance in the dental community is all too convenient to maintain credibility. I believe it all goes back to a basic survival instinct. Anything that threatens the survival of an individual polarizes any opinion he or she might form in favor of the best outcome for the individual. In this case anything that threatens the status quo paradigm is terrifying especially when so much ego is attached to credibility for having supported fluoridation for so long. How do you go back? You can't. So you side with the devil, metaphorically speaking. You side with industry and a government that supports bad science, and those would subdue the public good. We know this because they ignore new science but mire importantly they need to protect their reputations at all cost. They know the science they have been reporting to be safe and effective so long is bad science and they spend millions to protect this lie. To retract this position would bring on an avalanche of law suits that could ostensibly go on for decades if not longer.

If, as non medical professional, I know these things in toxic detail. Why is it these dentists do not? Consider what they, the CDC, FDA and ADA have to lose? This is the smoking gun.

Tooth Truth
Tooth Truth

Dr. Farran,
Thank you for standing up for Public Dental Health, especially standing up to Dr. Connett, an intenation fluoridation assassin.
It boils down who are you going to trust? Someone such as yourself, who has lived in this community for 20+ years and cared deeply about improving the oral health of the citizens of Phoenix, vs Connett, who will attempt to spread his "fearmongering" to the citizens of Phoenix, and he's off on the next jet to wherever to spread his propaganda in another community.
He doesn't give a hoot about Phoenix.

FluorideTruth
FluorideTruth

Yes trust the good dentist, trust the good doctors, trust your government to make all your decisions for you. Don't do any research on your own. Do not study, the good doctor has done all that for you. You can rest assured he will take good care of you.

Picker22
Picker22

I don't know what references Sauerheber cites with respect to hexafluorosilicic acid.

Nuclear magnetic resonance studies show complete hydrolysis.

It completely dissociates into fluoride ions and silicon dioxide. Paul Connett in one of his many YouTube appearances acknowledges this.

see: Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Apr 15;40(8):2572-7. Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement. Finney WF et al. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16683594

A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion. They are all the same regardless of whether they came from natural geology or a water additive.

Dr. S says that CaF2 allows 8 ppm fluoride ion in equilibrium. Milk fluoridation prevents cavities . . those studies included milk in both the experimental and control groups so the effect of loads of calcium in milk was not the reason the cavities were prevented.

This individual crusades can be written off because if what they believe is true it will in pretty short order become generally believed. The half life of baloney in today's open information science is very short.

"Ruthlessness towards mistakes has always been one of the engines of scientific enterprise" - G. Farmelo in "To Err is Human" New Scientist, 28, NOv 1998

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.