Lawmaker pushes to add fluoride to Hawaii drinking water

HONOLULU — A Hawaii lawmaker is pushing to add the mineral fluoride to the state’s public water systems in an effort to promote better dental health.

Democratic state Sen. Karl Rhoads has sponsored legislation that would require the state’s major public water suppliers to fluoridate drinking water.

ADVERTISING


Rhoads told KITV-TV that Hawaii ranks the lowest in the country for children’s dental health.

“Fluoridation is a system that’s used all over the country, all over the world, that reduces cavities if you drink water that’s fluoridated,” Rhoads said.

Fluoridating the water would be safe and cost-effective approach to address the issue, he said.

“In a big system like Honolulu’s, you could save up to $32 in reduced dental costs for every dollar that you spend fluoridating,” Rhoads said.

The legislation would require the state Department of Health to reimburse water suppliers for initial expenses incurred and provide them with technical assistance and training. It would also require the department to submit a report to the state Legislature on the implementation of fluoridating water system.

“All four counties chlorinate their water — that’s to keep us from getting gastro-intestinal diseases,” Rhoads said. “They’re very similar chemicals.”

ADVERTISING


Oahu resident Toshiko Tomasso said she supports the idea if it could help her save money.

“Dental costs for my kids were very high last time I visited. They had two cavities but I had to pay like $300,” Tomasso said. “I think it would help my children prevent cavities, so I think it’d be a good thing.”

  1. antifaHI January 30, 2019 4:49 am

    Why debating it? Should have been done 40 years ago already.


    1. McKenzie Delta January 30, 2019 6:22 pm

      absolutely.


  2. Pest Outwest January 30, 2019 6:23 am

    What next, ice cream? Childrens’ ice cream? Note the date, the same year Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez entered Congress. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy? Seriously, I have concerns whenever we talk about the inept local government messing with our drinking water.


    1. McKenzie Delta January 30, 2019 6:26 pm

      Fluoridation helps people avoid the pain, suffering and misery of dental decay.


      1. LimeyinHi January 30, 2019 8:59 pm

        So who are you McKenzie Delta? Looking at your profile, are you just some Bot that pops up every time fluoridation comes up on the media? Do you live on this island?


        1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 5:48 am

          From her comments, it obvious that McKenzie is far more intelligent and knowledgeable on this issue than the uninformed antifluoridationists posting here. You probably should read her comments. You could use the education.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


          1. LimeyinHi January 31, 2019 9:53 am

            Up yours Steven, you have no clue to the extent of my education.


          2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 10:17 am

            Judging from this comment, I would guage the extent of your education to be at the third grade level.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS


          3. LimeyinHi January 31, 2019 2:58 pm

            I replied to you in Latin but our mediators at WHT won’t print it. The gist of it was that arguing with an idiot is futile. Smile now.


          4. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 3:03 pm

            I agree. Arguing with an idiot is indeed futile. This is precisely why I don’t waste time arguing with antifluoridationists such as you. I simply post facts and evidence to correct the false claims and misinformation you disseminate.

            Steven


          5. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 10:42 am

            Well, judging from this comment of yours, I would guage the “extent of [your] education” to be around the third grade level.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS


        2. Pest Outwest January 31, 2019 7:20 pm

          Jeez, make a little “Dr. Strangelove” joke and you get all this? I haven’t had a cavity in my adult life. I moved to this island four years ago and I had two in a year! I started using flouride rinse and getting a flouride treatment at my cleaning, and nothing since.

          I was shocked to find they weren’t treating the water. That’s like third world or something.


    2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 5:45 am

      Hopefully you sleep with the light on at night in order to scare off all of those gobblins out to get you.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  3. James Reeves January 30, 2019 6:46 am

    Fluoridation results in slow poisoning over a lifetime which causes premature ageing, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones (broken hips & arthritis), kidney damage, cancer and other health dangers. Exactly why would an ADULT consume it in every glass of water every day of life?
    The big money fluoridation scheme is similar to tobacco and asbestos. It took years to reverse the illogical science. It will take some time to reverse the toxic fluoride scheme as well.
    Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.


    1. McKenzie Delta January 30, 2019 6:21 pm

      The “big money” is in opposing fluoridation. Dentists make much more money in cities without fluoridation because residents’ teeth are so bad.


      1. James Reeves January 30, 2019 7:10 pm

        Nope, being that fluoridation does not help teeth at all, the dental bill would be the same. However, fluoride causes enamel damage (dental fluorosis) in over 50% of children. The corrections may be quite expensive for families to pay.


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 4:26 am

          James Reeves – Provide specific published studies that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water “causes enamel damage … in over 50% of children” or that drinking optimally fluoridated water requires any “corrections” to be made. There is none, and you are, like always, peddling disingenuous, deceptive nonsense.


          1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 5:36 am

            Many promoters of the big money fluoridation scheme prefer that the truth about the dangers not be expressed. Everyone knows that the DOSE of fluoride cannot be controlled. Some drink 1-2 glasses of water and some 6-8 glasses.

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

            This is immoral and should be illegal.

            Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.


          2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 7:10 am

            James Reeves – Provide specific published studies that prove community water fluoridation (CWF) causes any harm. There is none, and you are, like always, simply copy/pasting disingenuous, deceptive babble. Provide details and supporting proof that there is a “big money fluoridation scheme” – of course all you have is your fabricated opinion.

            Explain how you control the “dose” of residual disinfectants (and other chemicals) and disinfection byproducts in your treated drinking water. Those chemicals, unlike fluoride ions, have not been shown to be beneficial to health at optimal levels.

            Dr. Slott’s assessment that you are “a robot programmed to spew nonsense…” seems to be spot-on – you continually make absurd statements that any rational individual with some common sense can recognize.

            For example, I challenge you to provide a study that proves chlorine (used for drinking water disinfection), disinfection byproducts (a consequence of disinfection) or even water are “safe and effective for all members of the public….”. How about providing a study that proves driving, flying, showering or even getting out of bed are “safe and effective for all members of the public…”. Statements like that that are so obviously meaningless they can only logically be attributed to a robot that is very poorly programmed to respond with random bits of anti-F propaganda to any mention of fluoride or fluoridation in any comment sections.

            What is available are over 70 years of studies that have evaluated both the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation. The scientific consensus, established by relevant experts, is that drinking optimally fluoridated water is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay and related health issues. That consensus is the reason over 100 nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF.
            ~> search on: I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say

            Explain that fact and the fact that no such organizations accept the.anti-F propaganda as legitimate.


          3. James Reeves January 31, 2019 7:27 am

            Fortunately we can all read and learn the truth.
            I recommend READING to the promoters of this toxic chemical, fluoride.
            Otherwise, maybe they could present oneone scientific study to prove fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is safe and effective for all members of the public, infants, children, sensitive, kidney problems (pre-diabetics & diabetics), elderly, etc.


          4. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 7:39 am

            James Reeves – It is certainly not obvious that you can read and learn the truth.

            Still no specific evidence from you that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water causes (or has ever caused) any health problems. Also, no study provided that proves disinfection byproducts in treated water are “safe and effective for all members of the public…” You continue to copy/paste meaningless, unsupported nonsense.


          5. James Reeves January 31, 2019 8:46 am

            It is not clear that these promoters are paid to promote the big money fluoride scheme.
            It sure seems that way.

            See below — We can all sing together.


          6. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:28 am

            James Reeves – It is very clear that your opinions are no more believable than all your other completely false and unsupportable opinions.


      2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 4:45 am

        McKenzie

        You are providing facts and evidence to a robot programmed to spew nonsense from the New York antifluoridationist faction, FAN, all over the internet. I stopped paying attention to it a good while ago.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS


    2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 4:36 am

      James Reeves – you are quick to dump unsupportable anti-F nonsense into the conversation. Provide specific citations and author quotes in context to prove any of your claims of harm. There is none, and that is why over 100 nationally and internationally respected science and health organizations (and their hundreds of thousands of members) continue to publicly recognize the benefits of CWF – – and no such organizations accept the.anti-F propaganda as legitimate.

      TCAF is a non-reviewed book that simply copy/pasted the propaganda found on all anti-F sites, and it does not contain over 80 pages of unique, legitimate citations of published studies. Apparently you haven’t bothered to fact-check those claims – like you have failed to fact-check any of your other opinions.


      1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 8:28 am

        Let us all sing — to the tune of “row, row, row your boat.”
        “Read, read, read the book.”

        Reading is not that tough


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:29 am

          Apparently reading (or at least understanding what is read) is extremely tough – to the point of impossible – for anti-science activists.


  4. Steve Herrington January 30, 2019 8:23 am

    I grew up in a small Georgia town that, unlike most at that time, flouridated its drinking water.

    I am 69, do not have premature aging, thyroid damage, dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, ADHD, brittle bones, or any other health ‘danger,’ and have never in my life had a cavity.

    If I have been subjected to ‘slow poisoning’ over my lifetime, there is no evidence to show it.


  5. CongressWorksForUs January 30, 2019 8:53 am

    Jesus, people are so stupid. If you think *drinking* fluoridated water protects your teeth you are a freakin’ idiot.


    1. McKenzie Delta January 30, 2019 6:16 pm

      Actually fluoride at 0.7 parts per million to the water would reduce dental decay up to 44%. It is a public health preventive measure that has 70 years of data supporting it.


    2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 4:10 am

      Duh…yeah!! Who wants to pay attention to what the “freakin’ idiot” healthcare experts tell us…..

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  6. James Colt January 30, 2019 9:34 am

    As a water treatment operator I was required to mix and inject Hydrofluosilicic acid daily into public water systems to provide fluoridated water to the community, I must state it was the most toxic chemical we handled. No other chemical or compound we used in the treatment of water had the skull and crossbones on the packaging. Through the years I had one operator that even using the proper PPE (personal protection equipment) ended their career with most of the calcium in the bones of the head being replaced by the fluoride ion. A painful end to a career. Make no mistake, Chlorine protects the water from bacteria, fluoride injection is an unnecessary addition of a poison.


    1. numbah10 January 30, 2019 7:27 pm

      I sense a strong stench of BS in your “operator” yarn.
      Back it up or delete it as an anecdote of no truth.
      Such an event would not be possible to hide, considering the paranoia of the low-info types today. Chem-trails and all are gospel to them.


    2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 4:26 am

      Fluoride replaced most of the calcium in his head which ended his career? Ummm, yeah… enough said with that whopper.

      Given your comment, it is highly unlikely that you have ever been a water treatment operator. However, if you were, and were clueless as to the toxicity of the numerous raw, undiluted substances which water treatment personnel routinely add to public water supplies, you had no business even being near that operation.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. James Colt January 31, 2019 5:26 am

        Stick to your dental chair, leave water to the experts, it’s a poison, when inhaled.
        In trabecular bone, the spongy interior portion of our bones, fluorine increases bone volume and thickness, but does not increase connectivity. This lack of trabecular connectivity reduces bone quality despite the increase in bone mass.
        In fact, high levels of fluorine in the body can cause skeletal fluorosis, a serious condition in which bones become hard and brittle, along with ligaments that can calcify, bone pain – and bone loss.


        1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 5:55 am

          Yeah, sure, James. I’ll be glad to leave water quality to the experts. You obviously do not qualify as such. Neither do your anatomical “assessments” qualify as anything but nonsense. The element fluorine does not become incorporated into any bone, and there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on bone from optimally fluoridated water.

          If you care to disagree, produce such evidence, properly cited to original sources.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


          1. LimeyinHi January 31, 2019 10:15 am

            There is an interesting documentary on Netflix right now called ‘The devil you know’ about teflon. It has plenty to say about fluoride and fluorine. Also I would suggest investigating the eruption of Laki in Iceland in 1783 to see what fluorine can do. It killed people as far away as Egypt (that’s at the far end of the Mediterranean for the geographically challenged readers) over 3,000 miles away. Try ‘Island on Fire’ by Alexandra Witze and Jeff Kanipe.


          2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 10:47 am

            Some “Netflix” show and an irrelevant reference to an volcano eruption 3 and a half centuries ago? That’s your argument?

            Thanks for the comic relief.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS


  7. Charlie Ireland January 30, 2019 9:53 am

    Most everyone I know drinks filtered or bottled water, they don’t drink water from the faucet


  8. LimeyinHi January 30, 2019 10:20 am

    Please don’t do this, our water is excellent just the way it is.


    1. McKenzie Delta January 30, 2019 6:16 pm

      If the water were excellent just the way it is, then Hawaii would not have the highest rate of decay in the United States.


      1. James Reeves January 30, 2019 7:21 pm

        You don’t have the correct data. Fluoridation does not help teeth.
        For example, West Virginia has been 100% fluoridated for over 60 years, yet the government reports that they have the most toothless people in the country.


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 4:19 am

          James Reeves – You, like other fluoridation opponents, use data completely out of context. Provide a specific study that shows a link between “toothless people” and fluoride levels in their drinking water. Many factors contribute to dental health.


          1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 5:34 am

            Promoters of the big money fluoridation scheme prefer that the truth about the dangers not be expressed. Everyone knows that the DOSE of fluoride cannot be controlled. Some drink 1-2 glasses of water and some 6-8 glasses.

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

            This is immoral and should be illegal.

            Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.


          2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 7:25 am

            James Reeves – You have posted this same nonsense elsewhere.

            Provide specific published studies that prove community water fluoridation (CWF) causes any harm. There is none, and you are, like always, simply copy/pasting disingenuous, deceptive babble. Provide details and supporting proof that there is a “big money fluoridation scheme” – of course all you have is your fabricated opinion.

            Explain how you control the “dose” of residual disinfectants (and other chemicals) and disinfection byproducts in your treated drinking water. Those chemicals, unlike fluoride ions, have not been shown to be beneficial to health at optimal levels.

            Dr. Slott’s assessment that you are “a robot programmed to spew nonsense…” seems to be spot-on – you continually make absurd statements that any rational individual with some common sense can recognize.

            For example, I challenge you to provide a study that proves chlorine (used for drinking water disinfection), disinfection byproducts (a consequence of disinfection) or even water are “safe and effective for all members of the public….”. How about providing a study that proves driving, flying, showering or even getting out of bed are “safe and effective for all members of the public…”. Statements like that that are so obviously meaningless they can only logically be attributed to a robot that is very poorly programmed to respond with random bits of anti-F propaganda to any mention of fluoride or fluoridation in any comment sections.

            What is available are over 70 years of studies that have evaluated both the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation. The scientific consensus, established by relevant experts, is that drinking optimally fluoridated water is a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay and related health issues. That consensus is the reason over 100 nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations continue to publicly recognize the benefits of CWF.
            ~> search on: I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say
            ~> search on:cyber-nook fluoridation references

            Explain that fact and the fact that no such organizations accept the.anti-F propaganda as legitimate.


          3. Doctor Jack February 1, 2019 9:03 pm

            There is only one thing that should be in our public water supply and consumed and that’s water.


          4. Steven Slott February 2, 2019 2:50 am

            You are entirely free to obtain distilled water from any supermarket, if that’s what you desire “Doctor” Jack.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS


        2. ypupule February 4, 2019 12:23 pm

          Your facts about WV appear to be incorrect — from what I’m seeing, it looks like they had only 50-60% fluoridation rates up until sometime between 2000-2005, when it jumped to around 90%. But the gist of what you’re suggesting — that high fluoridation rates are not necessarily correlated with better dental health — appears to have some merit in a number of states. Wonder how proponents of fluoridation can explain that… and also why we should necessarily expect good results here?


      2. LimeyinHi January 30, 2019 8:46 pm

        Too much sugar drinks and too much sugar in the diet. The water is excellent here and certainly not the cause of tooth decay.


        1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 4:01 am

          A lack of the Salk vaccine is not the cause of polio either. Yet, we have utilized that preventive measure to just about eradicate polio.

          Fluoridation simply adjusts the level of fluoride already existing in water to that concentration which will cause a significant reduction in dangerous dental infection in the entire population served by that water. We consume fluoride in our water anyway. Fluoridation just ensures that we get the benefit while so doing.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


    2. James Reeves January 31, 2019 6:37 am

      “There are over 350 published studies on fluoride’s effect on the brain: 130 human studies, over 200 animal studies, and 33 cell studies.”

      Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.


      1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 7:19 am

        James Reeves – Cite the study (with author quotes in context) that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water has any effect on the brain. Then there will be something to discuss.

        TCAF is nothing more than an unreviewed book that copy/pasted content from anti-F propaganda that has existed since the 1940s. If you were able to actually read the book, you might understand that it does not contain over 80 pages of unique, legitimate scientific references.


        1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 7:31 am

          Once again fortunately we can all read and learn the truth.
          I recommend READING to the promoters of this toxic chemical, fluoride.
          Otherwise, maybe they could present oneone scientific study to prove fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) is safe and effective for all members of the public, infants, children, sensitive, kidney problems (pre-diabetics & diabetics), elderly, etc.


          1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:25 am

            James Reeves – Exactly. If you were, indeed able to read and understand any of the propaganda produced by fluoridation opponents you would actually become aware of the paucity (actually absence) of legitimate evidence to support your position. If you could actually read and understand the “evidence” you try to reference, you would be unable to provide any legitimate evidence to support your claims.

            You still haven’t provided an example of the type of “evidence” of safety you desire. Can you provide an example of a scientific study that proves drinking disinfection byproducts is safe for everyone? How about a scientific study that proves crossing the street is safe for everyone?


          2. KonaDude January 31, 2019 10:19 am

            Eggs are good, eggs are bad, eggs are good again. You can find anything you want to believe on the internet(.Y.)


    3. ypupule February 4, 2019 12:28 pm

      Personally, I actually kinda lean towards leaving our water alone. If people want the benefits of fluoridation, they should exercise/teach better dental hygiene, and people can use fluoridated toothpastes or rinses if they want (I do).


  9. LimeyinHi January 30, 2019 10:26 am

    In the article I would ask Toshiko Tomasso “How many glasses of ‘tap’ water do your kids drink and how much sugar are you giving them everyday” Cut out the sugary drinks.


    1. McKenzie Delta January 30, 2019 6:17 pm

      Community water fluoridation, reduction in sugar consumption, daily flossing and brushing and regular dental visits are all necessary to achieve maximum protection against dental decay.


      1. LimeyinHi January 30, 2019 8:50 pm

        Cut out the sugar, it is a major contributor to bad health in this country, white processed sugar should be avoided, eat fruit instead.


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 4:48 am

          LimeyinHi – There are many factors that contribute to dental decay, and there are many factors that can reduce the risk of decay. It seems to me that factors that contribute to decay should be avoided and all factors that decreased the risk of decay should be employed. What is your problem with a balanced approach?


          1. James Reeves February 4, 2019 12:32 pm

            Promoters of the toxic chemical, fluoride, want to cover up the facts.
            West Virginia has been 100% fluoridated for over 60 years, yet the government reports that they have the most toothless people in the country. Exactly why?


    2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 4:12 am

      Ahhhh…..wouldn’t it be nice if all it took were simplistic, superficial “solutions” to rid us of our problems with complex disease…..

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  10. James Reeves January 30, 2019 11:26 am

    After 75 years of use, it is obvious that fluoridation has failed in the U.S. Even the ADA knows it. Why risk people’s health with this toxic industrial waste fluoride?

    The Journal of the American Dental Association (Dye 2017) reports, “65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively. More than 40% of children have dental cavities by the time they reach kindergarten. “… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation,” said Dye.
    “Childhood tooth decay is the #1 chronic childhood illness in America.”


    1. McKenzie Delta January 30, 2019 6:27 pm

      There is nothing failed about fluoridation. There is a reason Americans have such great teeth. Three quarters of the population benefit from fluoridation.

      The fact that tooth decay most common chronic disease of childhood is all the more reason to fluoridate the water. Just imagine how much worse the teeth would be without fluoridation.


      1. James Reeves January 30, 2019 7:15 pm

        Nope — As I reported above, after 75 years of fluoridation It has been a dramatic failure. The (ADA) Journal of the American Dental Association (Dye 2017) reports, “65% of poor 6-8 year-olds and 12-15 year-olds have cavities in their primary and permanent teeth, respectively. More than 40% of children have dental cavities by the time they reach kindergarten. “… there has been little improvement in preventing caries initiation,” said Dye.
        “Childhood tooth decay is the #1 chronic childhood illness in America.”


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 4:44 am

          James Reeves – Nope. As pointed out by McKenzie Delta, decay rates would be far higher without community water fluoridation. You apparently can’t figure out how to locate any studies that compare decay rates in fluoridated communities with those in communities with fluoride levels below optimal levels. You also, apparently, have not bothered to read three studies that have examined decay rates in communities after the fear-mongering tactics of fluoridation opponents (FOs) were successful. FOs care more about their passionate fluorine paranoia than they do about public health.
          ~> Juneau, AK – Consequences of community water fluoridation cessation for Medicaid-eligible children and adolescents in Juneau, Alaska: Jennifer Meyer, et al., BMC Oral Health201818:215
          ~> Windsor, Ontario – Oral Health Report 2018 Update, Windsor-Essex County Health Unit
          ~> Calgary, Alberta – Measuring the short‐term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices: Lindsay McLaren, et al., Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, June 2016


          1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 5:37 am

            Once again.
            Promoters of the big money fluoridation scheme prefer that the truth about the dangers not be expressed. Everyone knows that the DOSE of fluoride cannot be controlled. Some drink 1-2 glasses of water and some 6-8 glasses.

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

            This is immoral and should be illegal.

            Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.


          2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 8:20 am

            Once again.
            James Reeves provides his personal, unsupported, unsupportable opinion about a “big money fluoridation scheme”

            James Reeves fails to understand that the “dose” of fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated water is controlled in the same manner as the “dose” of chemicals like disinfection byproducts which, unlike fluoride ions, are not beneficial to health.

            James Reeves has failed to understand that “There is not one scientific study to prove” drinking disinfection byproducts “is safe and effective for all members of the public”. He posts meaningless content.

            The anti-F propaganda, which if effective would result in failure to reduce the risk of dental decay, is completely immoral.

            As noted elsewhere, TCAF is just a copy/paste republication of standard anti-F propaganda which has no relevant scientific references to prove any harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water.


          3. James Reeves January 31, 2019 8:31 am

            Everyone —- Let us all sing — to the tune of “row, row, row your boat.”
            “Read, read, read the book.”

            Reading is not that tough


          4. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:17 am

            Apparently reading (or at least understanding what is read) is extremely tough – to the point of impossible – for anti-science activists.


          5. James Reeves January 31, 2019 9:40 am

            Excuses —excuses —
            As the philosophers say: “None are so blind as those who will not see.”


          6. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 11:45 am

            James Reeves – No one proves that statement better than you and other anti-science activists.


    2. Matthew Lovein January 30, 2019 6:55 pm

      Yelp, Nothing like sugar and fulride to support mental and bone health…. :/


  11. DragonLady January 30, 2019 12:14 pm

    This is some of the info I sent to Senator Karl Rhode, Lorraine Inouye and my representative…
    …..If your goal is to reduce tooth decay in children, Why take a “shotgun” approach? Why not attack the problem at it’s source? Many sites states that swallowing fluoride does not equate to stronger teeth. Only TOPICAL CONTACT will strengthen teeth for children. So Why not give FREE fluoride treatments to any child under 18, at any dental clinic and also have student dental hygienists get some real life experience by going to all public schools and give free fluoride treatment applications to all students who’s parents allow it?

    Fluoridation is a bad medical practice

    1) Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.

    2) Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients.

    Put another way: Does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it is against that neighbor’s will)?

    3) The dose cannot be controlled. Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives because people drink different amounts of water. Being able to control the dose a patient receives is critical. Some people (e.g., manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink substantially more water than others.

    4) The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability

    Just for your info, There is already legal action to ban Fluoride in Public Water, filed in CA. Maybe we should wait to see the results before adding this toxin into Hawaii’s waters???

    You state 70% of other US states have fluoride in their municipal water systems…So if everyone jumps off a cliff, you are going to jump too?

    Hawaii already has the best water in the Nation, due to our water being from artesian wells. Changing the PH by adding chemicals to it is insane. What chemicals will be leached due to the change in PH? What damage to children and adults from long term accumulation of this toxin?

    Karl Rhodes, Please research this issue before sentencing us to more health issue due to no long term research. We already got Lead out of our gasoline, now for mercury out of out teeth, and fluoride out of our water systems all in the name of preventing neuro-toxins from damaging our health.


  12. A H January 30, 2019 12:17 pm

    What industry lobbyist/s or corporation is compensating this senator to allow this poison to be put into the water supply?


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 4:29 am

      What industry lobbyist/s is compensating you for posting uninformed nonsense about this public health initiative?

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  13. guest January 30, 2019 12:36 pm

    NO, DON’T DO IT!


  14. Truth Forme January 30, 2019 5:08 pm

    Unlike 60 years ago, Fluoride is now found in dental care products, pesticides, food fumigants, drugs, processed foods and drinks. According to the Center for Disease Control statistics, this overexposure has resulted in an increase of 40% in dental fluorosis in children, a tooth enamel defect that is not merely ‘‘cosmetic’’ but a ‘‘canary in the mine’’ foretelling other adverse health and behavioral effects. Do you want Hawaii to add an unsafe, ineffective neurotoxin drug to the drinking water???


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 5:43 am

      “Truth forme”

      Again….sigh…….

      1. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse health effects from “overexposure” of fluoride from consuming optimally fluoridated water in addition to that in all other normal sources of fluoride intake.

      2. The only dental fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.

      Now, compare the barely detectable white flecks on mildly fluorosed teeth to the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of teeth, development of serious medical conditions, and life-threatening infection directly resultant of untreated dental decay which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.

      3. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies through the decades, right up to the present, have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of fluoridation in the prevention of significant amounts of dental decay in entire populations.

      4. There are no drugs involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which already exist in water.

      5. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any neutotoxicity of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 6:27 am

        Here are reports by four dentists on the dangers of fluoride. There are many more just like them.

        “The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” – Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2007)

        “If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)
        “When I looked at the research, it was like a knee in the gut. My bias was I thought (fluoridation) was safe and effective because I had not looked at the research.” – Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2016)
        “Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and they’ll make the kid sick, too.” – Dr. David Kennedy DDS MPH, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 7:45 am

          James Reeves – Remarkable… Your “proof” of your opinions about community water fluoridation are supported by the opinions of other anti-F activists. That is to be expected, since there is no legitimate scientific evidence to support your opinions.


          1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 8:34 am

            Ho hum — nothing new
            West Virginia has been 100% fluoridated for over 60 years, yet the government reports that they have the most toothless people in the country. Exactly why?


          2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:16 am

            James Reeves – More of your opinions confirmed only by your opinions. Provide published proof of your claim that those in West Virginia who drink optimally fluoridated water have the same decay (or toothless) rates as those who drink water with lower levels of fluoride ions – after adjusting for all factors that can impact dental problems. Then there will be something to discuss besides your unsupportable opinions.


          3. James Reeves January 31, 2019 9:38 am

            A fancy tap dance cannot comfort the poor West Virginia people.
            Over 60 years of fluoridation did them no good at all.
            They have the highest toothless rate in the country.


          4. James Reeves January 31, 2019 9:29 am

            Wake up the choir to deliver a message to promoters of this toxic chemical, fluoride.
            Let us all sing — to the tune of “row, row, row your boat.”
            “Read, read, read the book.”

            Reading is not that tough


      2. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:24 pm

        Here we go again with the optimally fluoridated water! Sheesh! Don’t you know fluoride is hidden in just about everything we eat, drink as well as dental products, drugs, etc. etc.


        1. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:18 am

          Fluoride is not “hidden”. It’s in plain site along with all the other components of substances we consume.

          When you can present valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse health effects from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with fluoride intake from all other normal sources, then you may be able to enter into intelligent discourse in defense of your position. As none exists, that should prove to quite a challenge….especially for one who doesn’t understand that his internet browser can access more than just outdated, erroneous little blurbs posted on antifluoridationist websites.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


      3. no_nonsense1 February 7, 2019 1:36 am

        1 through 5 are lies Steve. Maybe you should stick to imitating a molar, it was a very believable performance.


        1. Steven Slott February 7, 2019 2:01 am

          Prove anything I have posted to be a “lie”. Your inevitable inability to do so will be clear demonstration as to whom is really providing lies here.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


    2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 5:52 am

      Anti-Truth Forme – You make a completely fraudulent, unsupportable claim that “According to the Center for Disease Control statistics, this overexposure has resulted in an increase of 40% in dental fluorosis in children, a tooth enamel defect that is not merely ‘‘cosmetic’’ but a ‘‘canary in the mine’’ foretelling other adverse health and behavioral effects.” If there were even a shred of accuracy to your claim, how do you explain the fact that over 100 nationally and internationally recognized science and health organizations continue to publically recognize the benefits of CWF – – and no such organizations accept the.anti-F propaganda as legitimate.
      ~> search on: I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say

      If you have specific evidence (citations of legitimate studies with author quotes in context) to support your anti-F nonsense, provide it. That’s the problem with anti-science activists – they are heavy on the fear-mongering and completely lacking in any legitimate supporting evidence.


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:25 pm

        Funny, how you do the fear mongering and turn it around. We have honest unbiased science on our side.


        1. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:09 am

          “Truth Forme”

          “honest unbiased science”? You mean the nonsense posted on little antifluoridationist websites.

          Hmmmm……

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


      2. Truth Forme February 2, 2019 4:17 pm

        I already explained why 100 nationally and internationally recognized biased science and health organizations continue to publically endorse CWF, even though the risks outweigh any purported benefit.
        FOLLOW THE MONEY!
        Fluoride-selling pharmaceutical giants listed include: Colgate, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, and others.

        Colgate funds the ADA research institute newly renamed after dentist Anthony R. Volpe, who recently retired as Vice President of Clinical Research and Scientific Affairs at Colgate-Palmolive Company.

        Members of the dental industry are on Boards of Directors for Dental Schools, other fluoridation promoting groups such as the Children’s Dental Health Project, Oral Health America, Dental product manufacturers are even Friends of the National Institutes of Dental Research.

        At the forefront of most fluoridation initiatives are well-meaning but mis-guided dentists who fail to read the literature and are fueled only by the endorsements of dentists at the CDC’s Oral Health Division, or endorsements by dental organizations, or endorsements lobbied by dentists or from other groups and associations. Industry-funded dental groups even lobbied the Surgeon General until she finally caved in and endorsed fluoridation.

        If a community elects to stop fluoridation, invariably a dentist and his posse shows up intimidating legislators into re-starting fluoridation. As ammunition, they state: “CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.”

        That statement may sound impressive. However, it has been promoted by the CDC’s Oral Health Division, who are paid to promote fluoridation. The CDC also says, “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.”

        It seems that organized dentistry lobbies mostly for laws that benefit their member dentists. Some legislation masquerades as a public benefit. Fluoridation wears such a mask.

        NOW you want to know who supports clean, fluoride free water? as well as the ones you stated, over 97 percent of the Western European population drinks non-fluoridated water (and yet, their tooth decay rates are generally lower than the tooth decay rates in the U.S.), Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists, Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Thousands of Medical and Scientific Professionals, Key Leaders in the Environmental Health Community, Civil Rights Leaders, The Majority of Communities in North America, and thousands of health professionals that I personally know such as my dentist and doctor.


  15. Truth Forme January 30, 2019 5:11 pm

    It is a well known FACT that about 50% of ingested fluoride remains in the body and accumulates especially in the bone causing osteoarthritis and brittle bones, as well as all the other health issues, too many to mention.
    The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug”. The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative. Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we’re already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association’s recommended daily amount.


    1. McKenzie Delta January 30, 2019 6:23 pm

      This is made up.


      1. LimeyinHi January 30, 2019 10:19 pm

        You are made up


    2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 5:30 am

      “Truth forme”

      Sigh……

      1. Approximately 50% of ingested fluoride is immediately excreted via the kidneys. The other 50% is stored in the hard tissues (bones and teeth) of the body. This storage is not a linear constant over time, however. Fluoride levels in hard tissues are in equilibrium with blood plasma fluoride levels. As the blood level decreases, fluoride is removed from the hard tissues back into the blood where it is shortly excreted via the kidneys. This process continues until equilibrium is once again met. Blood fluoride levels are determined by fluoride intake and that released from the hard tissues.

      There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any association of “osteoarthritis and brittle bones”, or of any other adverse health effect, with bioaccumulation of fluoride from optimally fluoridated water.

      2. The contents of public water supplies are under the control of the EPA, not the FDA. Such contents require no more approval from the FDA than they do from little green from Mars.

      All water from the trap, including fluoridated, must meet all of the strict, EPA mandated water quality requirements under Standard 60 of NSF International. Fluoridated water easily meets all of those requirements. If it didn’t, it would not be allowed.

      3. Yes, the amount of any substance known to man, determines its toxicity threshold. That’s precisely why the EPA regulates the amount of fluoride and other substances in public water supplies.

      4. The ADA does not set “recommended daily amount” of fluoride intake.

      The US National Academy of Medicine daily upper limit of fluoride intake before adverse effects is 10 mg. Before this level could even be neared from consuming optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with all other normal sources of fluoride intake, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 6:32 am

        “There are over 350 published studies on fluoride’s effect on the brain: 130 human studies, over 200 animal studies, and 33 cell studies.”

        Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 7:56 am

          James Reeves – Cite the study (with author quotes in context) that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water has any effect on the brain. Then there will be something to discuss.

          TCAF is nothing more than an unreviewed book that copy/pasted content from anti-F propaganda that has existed since the 1940s. If you were able to actually read the book, you might understand that it does not contain over 80 pages of unique, legitimate scientific references.


          1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 9:32 am

            Promoters are paid to cover up the big money fluoridation scheme?
            Perhaps.
            As the philosophers say: “None are so blind as those who will not see.”


          2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:41 am

            James Reeves – No one proves that statement better than you and other anti-science activists. Any evidence to prove your claim “Promoters are paid to cover up the big money fluoridation scheme”? Of course not – evidence doesn’t matter to anti-science activists.


      2. James Colt February 2, 2019 1:43 pm

        Steven, I see that the American Fluoridation Society employs you. I had wondered why many of your responses seemed to be cut and paste. In your responses I did note that you never admitted that sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid is a toxin. I would certainly hope that you would.

        The MCL’s listed by the EPA for Fluoride and Chlorine are the same 4.0 mg/L.

        Chlorine is a necessary poison as one of the only disinfectants available at reasonable cost to utilities and it keeps a residual in the system as required by the EPA. Disinfection and residuals are a requirement of the 1972 Safe Drinking Water Act. It protects the water from e-coli and diseases such as Legionnaires’ Disease. Chlorine is a toxin like sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate. Chlorine was used in WWI to kill many. Water plants of any size will use the gaseous form of chlorine. Usually shipped in 150 lbs. cylinders, one-ton cylinders or in the large communities, railcars. There is a hazard always present with pure chlorine during transport storage and injection. Water plants have learned to deal with this necessary evil.

        The EPA does not mandate fluoride, it is a toxin of choice at this point. Water quality is excellent without it. The hazards involved with transporting, storing and injecting this toxin places roadways, railways, communities and operators at risk for a small benefit, most of which ends up on the lawn or down the toilet anyway. Any amount of research will provide many examples of injury and death caused by sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid in it’s neat state, either at the plant, during transport or accidental overdosing at the water plant.

        An additional point to consider is getting this poison to Hawaii. Water systems in Hawaii are having difficulty getting gaseous chlorine shipped in, I suspect the same difficulties will be true for the different Fluoride compounds used in water plants.

        Now I would like to address the men and women working for the DWS that would be involved with the transport, storage of dosing of this toxin. It’s a different animal than chlorine, especially in powder form. An OSHA response letter stated:

        It is important to note that inhalation of gaseous vapors of aqueous hydrofluoric acid can cause severe respiratory tract irritation that may be fatal. To prevent injury or illness, all contact with the acid must be avoided by the use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment.

        In addition, hydrofluoric acid has a latency period. In concentrations greater than 50%, hydrofluoric acid burns are felt immediately, and tissue destruction is rapidly apparent. In concentrations of 20-50%, the burn becomes apparent 1-8 hours following the exposure, and in concentrations less than 20%, the pain and erythema can be latent for as long as 24 hours after the exposure. Latent symptoms can seriously delay proper treatment.

        Anyone working with anhydrous or aqueous hydrofluoric acid should have received prior instruction about its hazards, and should know the recommended procedure for treatment in the event of exposure.

        Thank you for your interest in occupational safety and health. If we may be of further assistance, please contact us.

        Sincerely,

        Raymond E. Donnelly, Director

        Office of General Industry Compliance Assistance

        There are many long term consequences (medically), make darn sure you have a fit test every year and change the cartridges often even a small spill is cause for concern. And lastly, tell your supervisors, managers, mayors and hopefully they will get word to the state. “We don’t need this toxin in our water or our state.” It’s for you and your Ohana’s safety.


  16. kenike007 January 31, 2019 4:48 am

    Fight against this hard! Fluoride is pure Rat Poison and it deadens the pineal gland, thus helping to keep the poulation dumbed down.

    Many US states are fighting to oust this poison from the tap water. Even if you don’t drink the water the flouride seeps in through the skin from bathing and showering and water filters cannot remove flouride only the chlorine. For people who want fluoride there are plenty of tooth products that have ample amounts of it in their products plus the flouride treatments at the dentist.
    SURGAR is the the main culprit in dental decay. Drink pure water and if you need to sweeten it add some organic unsweeten concentrate juice of your chioce an then sweeten it by using a natural sweetener. Do the research and take responsibility for your health and wellbeing. The governments do not have your bet interst at heart.
    Live Clean……Live Well!


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 5:59 am

      For any who trust this garbled mess of nonsense over the overwhelming consensus of respected science and healthcare…….good luck with that.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 6:29 am

        Four dentists report on the dangers of fluoride. There are many more just like them.

        “The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” – Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc, PhD, DDS, former President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, former head of Preventative Dentistry at the Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council panelist (2007)

        “If teeth are the only reason why you like fluoride, you better come up with a different reason. Fluoride hurts teeth, bones, brain, nerves, etc.” – Michael Taras, DMD, FAGD (2015)
        “When I looked at the research, it was like a knee in the gut. My bias was I thought (fluoridation) was safe and effective because I had not looked at the research.” – Dr. Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH (2016)
        “Fluorides make the germs in the mouth sick, and they’ll make the kid sick, too.” – Dr. David Kennedy DDS MPH, 3rd generation dentist and past president of IAOMT (2016)


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 7:54 am

          James Reeves – So this is the best “evidence” you can provide to support your opinions – the opinions of other anti-science, anti-F activists?


          1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 8:37 am

            As the philosophers say: “None are so blind as those who will not see.”


          2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:12 am

            James Reeves – No one proves that statement better than you and other anti-science activists.


          3. James Reeves February 4, 2019 12:37 pm

            We have to admit it, these promoters are earing their pay — by the word nno doubt.


  17. James Reeves January 31, 2019 6:01 am

    “There are over 350 published studies on fluoride’s effect on the brain: 130 human studies, over 200 animal studies, and 33 cell studies.”
    Read this excellent book, “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by three scientists, one an M.D. It contains over 1200 scientific references, over 80 pages.


    1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 7:53 am

      James Reeves – You have posted this same “over 350 published studies” claim and the Case Against Fluoride “reference” four times elsewhere in this comment section. You have provided absolutely nothing but your unsupportable opinion – supported by the equally unsupportable opinions presented in the unreviewed propaganda publication and the unsupportable opinions of other fluoridation opponents.

      Provide a specific citation of a study (complete with author quotes in context) that you believe supports your opinion that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes harm. Then there will be something besides your opinions to discuss.


      1. James Reeves January 31, 2019 8:22 am

        Let us all sing — to the tune of “row, row your boat.”
        “Read, read the book.”

        Reading is not that tough.


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:12 am

          Apparently reading (or at least understanding what is read) is extremely tough – to the point of impossible – for anti-science activists.


  18. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 9:22 am

    Fluoride has recently been listed by the Lancet, a world renowned medical journal, as a neurotoxin, and since we are now overexposed to fluoride from so many sources other than drinking water, such as toothpaste, dental products, drugs, pesticides, foods and beverages, why in the world would anyone promote adding more to the drinking water??? Do your own research and discover why hundreds of communities in the past 20 years have stopped or never added fluoride chemicals to the community drinking water. Follow the money and deceit and you will understand why lawmakes are pushing this industrial waste byproduct.


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 10:12 am

      “Truth Forme”

      1. The Lancet is a scientific journal. It does not list neurotoxic substances. It publishes scientific literature.

      2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any “overexposure” to fluoride associated with optimally fluoridated water. Water fluoridation simply increases the existing fluoride in water by a miinuscule amount to that level at which maximum benefit will be attained from this mineral which we all ingest in water anyway, with no adverse health effects upon anyone.

      3. Yes, please do your own research….from legitimate sources of accurate information. You are in dire need of proper education on this issue. Bear in mind that copy/pasting blurbs from little antifluoridationist websites does not qualify as such.

      4. And, yes….follow the money, as well. When you do so, you will find it leads right to the doorstep of New York antifluoridationist leaders who are, as is a matter of public record, paid to keep this issue alive.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:39 am

        Sigh…..

        Community water fluoridation also increases our overexposure to this toxin.


        1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 1:46 pm

          “Truth Forme”

          As evidenced by your inability to provide any…..there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse health effects associated with some non-existent “overexposure” to fluoride from optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with fluoride intake from all other normal sources.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


          1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:33 pm

            Alarming increase in Dental fluorosis is just one. Anyone can research this. Provide evidence of NO adverse health effects of total fluoride intake from all sources.


          2. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:37 am

            “Tooth Forme”

            1. Sure, anyone can research dental fluorosis, even you. So maybe you ought to do so some time. If you do you will find that the only level of such fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water is barely detectable, and of no concern. As such teeth are more resistant to dental decay, this effect is not even undesirable, much less adverse.

            2. In 74 years of fluoridation, hundreds of millions having chronically ingested optimally fluoridated water during this time, there have been no proven adverse effects. There can be no more definitive demonstration of “NO adverse effects” than that.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS


          3. James Reeves February 4, 2019 12:36 pm

            Oh yes, as the philosophers say: “None are so blind as those who will not see.”

            It is not clear that these promoters are paid to promote the big money fluoride scheme.
            It sure seems that way


        2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 1:53 pm

          Anti-Truth Forme – Provide a specific citation with author quotes in context (not just your copy/paste of anti-F propaganda) that proves drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any harm – or that fluoride ions at 0.7 ppm in drinking water are toxic. Then there will be something to discuss.


          1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:41 pm

            Can’t discuss this with a closed minded profluoridationist who thinks we only get fluoride from the drinking water.


          2. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:25 am

            Too funny!!! An antifluoridationist proclaiming someone else to be “closed minded”.

            The irony is flooding from that claim….

            Steven D. Slott, DDS


          3. James Reeves February 4, 2019 12:35 pm

            As the philosophers say: “None are so blind as those who will not see.”

            It is not clear that these promoters are paid to promote the big money fluoride scheme.
            It sure seems that way


        3. KonaDude February 1, 2019 8:26 am

          Is the earth flat or round?(.Y.)


    2. ypupule February 4, 2019 7:41 am

      Snopes fact-checked your claim about “Lancet,” and determined that it was false. I’m open to facts, but please don’t post untruths. Only weakens your argument when someone like me finds out you’re basing it on things that aren’t true (lies).


      1. Truth Forme February 4, 2019 9:37 am

        You’re false and the fact you can’t do the research yourself only weakens your argument.

        Here is what the LANCET says: “Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, FLUORIDE, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.


        1. ypupule February 4, 2019 12:12 pm

          People can search for the fact-check by Snopes (use “Snopes,” “Lancet,” “fluoride”) and decide for themselves — no point in me re-stating what they say in their thorough, detailed analysis of your claim. I got no skin in this game, just trying to sort out fact from fiction. Snopes generally does far better research and fact-checking than I could do, and is a lot more reliable source than readers believing what some random, anonymous poster like me — or you — says.


  19. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 9:24 am

    Dr. Phyllis Mullenix did research on fluoride at the Forsythe Dental Center that showed fluoride had adverse neurotoxic effects. Within the last month, Dr. Paul Connett (retired professor of toxicology) and William Hirzy (retired head of the Union of EPA Scientists) served the EPA with a petition that included 300 scientific reports (2,500 pages) showing fluoride’s neurotoxic effects on the brain and demanding water fluoridation across the U.S. be ended under the Toxic Substances Control Act.


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 10:00 am

      “Truth Forme”

      1. Neither Mullinex, nor anyone else has any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of “neurotoxic effects” of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated. In actuality, there is ample evidence demonstrating that there is no neurotoxicity of optimally fluoridated water.

      Such evidence may be viewed on the website of the American Fluoridation Society under the “research” tab.

      2. Your copy/paste blurb about Connett’s petition is way outdated. That petition was soundly rejected by the EPA nearly 2 years ago. In its 40 page rejection document, EPA reviewers cited facts and evidence to completely dismantled the claims within the petition, including detailed explanation of the invalidity, irrelevance, and misrepresentation of, the “300 scientific reports” included in the petition.

      This rejection document may be viewed on the Federal Register of the US government:

      Fluoride Chemicals in Drinking Water; TSCA Section 21 Petition; Reasons for Agency Response
      A Proposed Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 2/27/2017

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:48 am

        BEWARE OF THE NEWLY FORMED American Fluoridation Society. A group is made up, so far (and as
        far as we know), of the most prolific Rabid Responders on the Internet
        (Johnson, SLOTT, Ferre, Haynie (Budd), They may have organized because
        the mainstream doesn’t want any part of them. Or maybe mainstream
        loves what they are doing but wants to secretly fund them without being
        tainted by their foolish, unscientific and insulting words. Or maybe it
        was set up to avoid their getting individually sued for the false claims
        they make about fluoridation. Or it could be an ego thing. We’ll find
        out.


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 12:58 pm

          Anti-Truth Forme – More unsupported, unsupportable speculations and opinions. The fact that fluoridation opponents have no legitimate scientific evidence to prove their claims is the reason over 100 science and health organizations worldwide continue to recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation and only a few outlier organizations like INFOWARS [Alex Jones], Natural News [Mike Adams] and a few alternative health groups support the anti-F propaganda.

          Explain those facts.


          1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:12 pm

            Wonder why are these hundreds of biased political funded organizations support a toxic chemical, fluoride – AKA industrial waste by-product called HFSA, which they are not iiable for???? Duh!


        2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 1:41 pm

          “Truth Forme”

          Ahhh…….so when all your stale, copy/paste little blurbs have been exposed as such and completely debunked, you plumb the depths of years-old nonsense about the AFS concocted by an antifluoridationist and posted on her own little website.

          That’s hysterical!!!

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


          1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:07 pm

            Keep laughing Goliath, it won’t be long before your defeated by David


          2. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:47 am

            “David the antifluoridationist” wielding his rocks of false claims and misinformation.

            I’m utterly terrified…..

            Steven D. Slott, DDS


      2. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:15 pm

        Here we go again with the optimal level at which water is fluoridated. Guess what, there are actually other sources of hidden fluoride. Do some research. So adding this toxin to drinking water adding to our toxic load is insane!


  20. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 9:30 am

    Expert on Preventative Dentistry: “The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” – Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, retired full professor and former head of Preventive Dentistry at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research (1998-99) and served on the US National Academy of Sciences Subcommittee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 9:43 am

      “Truth Forme”

      Limeback is certainly welcome to his personal opinions on fluoridation, or anything else. However, there is nothing in the peer-reviewed science to support his claims in this quote.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:16 pm

        Why don’t you ask him yourself! He will blow you away!


        1. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:45 am

          “Truth forme”

          ‘Why don’t you ask him yourself”

          I have. His answers are no more impressive than yours…..

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


    2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:54 am

      Anti-Truth Forme – You are presenting opinions from anti-science activists in an effort to support your anti-science opinions.

      Limeback (an anti-F activist since about 1999) indeed, “served on the US National Academy of Sciences Subcommittee on Fluoride in Drinking Water” that “was asked to evaluate independently the scientific basis of EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L and secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) of 2 mg/L in drinking water and the adequacy of those guidelines to protect children and others from adverse health effects.”

      Limeback signed off on the conclusions of the 2006 NRC report “Fluoride in Drinking Water”.

      The fact is, there were no reasons, health or cosmetic, in the report to recommend lowering the SMCL below 2.0 ppm. If there were any concerns from drinking water with a fluoride content of 2.0 ppm those concerns would have been mentioned.

      Bottom line: There were no health concerns listed about drinking water that contains nearly three times the fluoride level of optimally fluoridated water.


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:52 am

        And your credentials are???


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 1:58 pm

          Anti-Truth Forme – The only credentials needed are the ability to read and understand the evidence presented on both sides and recognize why all major science and health organizations continue to recognize the safety and effectiveness of community water fluoridation – and why no such organizations recognize the anti-F opinions as legitimate.

          What exactly are your credentials besides the ability to copy/paste content from anti-F sites?


          1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:38 pm

            You can’t compare biased politically influenced organizations with independent unbiased science.


  21. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 9:31 am

    Expert on Neuroscience: “Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.” – Dr. Phillippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health. (2014)


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 9:41 am

      “Truth Forme”

      Whatever is “chemical brain drain” sonds kind of spooky. However that has no relevance to water fluoridation. Maybe you can find a chemical brain drain site somewhere or another, but let’s stay focused on the topic at hand here. Okay?

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:59 am

        Do your credentials exceed Dr. Phillippe Grandjean’s??? Or do you obviously like to use Adhomenim comments to try to win an argument?


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 1:41 pm

          Anti-Truth Forme – It is not just the credentials of Dr. Slott or me that is important We are just presenting the evidence as accepted by virtually all of the national and international science and health organizations in the world. None of which support the anti-F opinions.

          If you had any relevant credentials you might try citing a study (with author quotes in context) you believe proves your anti-F paranoia – then explain why it should not have been rejected as relevant by the scientific community. Then there would be something besides your opinions to discuss.

          The fact is that fluoridation opponents (like all anti-science activists) constitute an extremely small minority of the science or health professionals – anti-science activists are best represented by groups like , Natural News (Mike Adams), Infowars (Alex Jones) and other sites promoting various conspiracy theories.


          1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:02 pm

            Thousands of unbiased scientists opposed water fluoridation. It’s the political paid scientists that promote this neurtoxin. Just do some research and you will find how many independent studies and scientists have found fluoride to be unsafe and ineffective. No wonder 98% of Europe doesn’t add this industrial waste to the drinking water.


        2. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 2:19 pm

          “Tooth Truth”

          1. So…..when all else fails, start whining about some non-existent ad hominen attacks…..a frequently employed diversionary tactic of antifluoridationists.

          Let’s focus on the issue here, without the use of such dishonest tactics. Okay?

          2. My credentials compared with those of Phillippe Grandjean, or anyone else, are irrelevant. I provide facts supported by valid evidence which I can, and do, provide…. such evidence which is fully verifiable from independent sources. These facts and evidence are on what I expect readers to rely, not on my “credentials”.

          Now, if Grandjean can do the same, I’m fine with readers comparing facts he provides, with those which I do. Otherwise, his long since discredited meta-analysis, and unsubstantiated personal opinions of “neurotoxicity” of fluoride are of no value.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


    2. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 9:44 am

      Anti-Truth Forme – Grandjean is a recognized anti-F activist who has not provided any legitimate scientific evidence that community water fluoridation (CWF) is a cause “of chemical brain drain”. If you believe there is conclusive evidence of harm from CWF then provide it – specific citations and author quotes in context.


  22. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:17 am

    In 2006, researchers from Harvard School
    of Public Health and Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai did a
    systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as
    developmental neurotoxicants.

    This included unquestionable poisons like lead, methylmercury,
    polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since then, they’ve
    documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants and have
    added them to the list of what are now 11 known industrial chemicals
    that harm brain development in human fetuses and infants.3

    One of the recently added neurotoxicants is fluoride

    “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons
    that cause chemical brain drain… The effect of each toxicant may seem
    small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious,
    especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to
    all of us.”


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 1:37 pm

      “Truth Forme”

      More of the “chemical brain drain” nonsense.

      When you can provide any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of neurotoxicity of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated, you may be able to enter into intelligent discourse. As no such evidence exists, that will obviously not be an option for you.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  23. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:20 am

    More Americans are wising up to the risks
    of water fluoridation, and they’re using their votes to keep this
    fertilizer-industry byproduct out of their drinking water (the
    fluoride added to municipal water supplies is a toxic byproduct from the
    fertilizer industry—a rarely discussed fact!). Since 2009, about 130
    communities have stopped water fluoridation. Canada has dropped from
    about 60 percent of the population drinking fluoridated water down to
    about 32-33 percent. Victories have also been logged in Australia,
    Israel, New Zealand and across the US.


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 1:32 pm

      “Truth Forme”

      1. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is is a negatively charged atom. Such atoms are not the “by-product” of anything. They are naturally occurring, and identical to all other fluoride ions.

      2. The United States is 74.4% fluoridated. Since the year 2000 over 900 communities have either successfully defended against antifluoridationist attacks on their fluoridation programs, resumed programs that had been ceased, or initiated fluoridation where there had not been a program previously.

      3. What Americans are “wising up to” are the tactics utilized by dishonest antifluoridationists disseminating mounds of false claims and misinformation in attempts to impose their skewed, decades-old personal ideology against water fluoridation unto entire populations.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  24. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:21 am

    The Scientific World Journal published a review article by Dr. Stephen Peckham and Dr. Niyi Awofeso titled, “Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention.”

    According to the authors, “Available evidence suggests that
    fluoride has a potential to cause major adverse human health problems,
    while having only a modest dental caries prevention effect. As part of
    efforts to reduce hazardous fluoride ingestion, the practice of
    artificial water fluoridation should be reconsidered globally, while
    industrial safety measures need to be tightened in order to reduce
    unethical discharge of fluoride compounds into the environment…
    coordinated global efforts to reduce adverse human health effects on
    fluoride need to start with ensuring that its introduction into water
    supplies is prohibited.”


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 1:20 pm

      So, now you’re quoting the opinions of two long time antifluoridationists in an article of the “London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine” published in a dubious open access journal?

      Awesome! Please keep posting copy/paste junk from your little antifluoridationist websites. This is highly entertaining!

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:19 pm

        Glad I’m entertaining you. BTW your comments have all been debunked by the Scientists and Health Professionals who are unbiased and honest and and wish to make the world a healthier place for the next generation.


        1. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:42 am

          “Truth Forme”

          Oh gee……”tooth forme” has personally deemed that my evidence-based facts have all been “debunked” by some unknown entities somewhere or another. I’m heart-broken…..

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


        2. Randy Johnson February 1, 2019 10:48 am

          Anti-Truth Forme – If the evidence supporting community water fluoridation has been “debunked” by any legitimate entity, explain why all the experts in the major science and health organizations world-wide continue to publicly recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation?
          ~> Search on: “ada fluoridation facts compendium” and “I like my teeth – what do water fluoridation supporters say?”

          Explain why no major science or health organizations support the anti-F propaganda.

          Explain why such organization as INFOWARS [Alex Jones] and Natural News [Mike Adams] are very supportive of the anti-F opinions?


          1. Truth Forme February 1, 2019 10:11 pm

            As I said many times ‘Follow the Money’ Fluoride-selling pharmaceutical giants listed include: Colgate, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Procter & Gamble, Pfizer, and others.
            Colgate funds the ADA research institute newly renamed after dentist Anthony R. Volpe, who recently retired as Vice President of Clinical Research and Scientific Affairs at Colgate-Palmolive Company.
            Members of the dental industry are on Boards of Directors for Dental Schools, other fluoridation promoting groups such as the Children’s Dental Health Project, Oral Health America, Dental product manufacturers are even Friends of the National Institutes of Dental Research.
            At the forefront of most fluoridation initiatives are well-meaning but mis-guided dentists who fail to read the literature and are fueled only by the endorsements of dentists at the CDC’s Oral Health Division, or endorsements by dental organizations, or endorsements lobbied by dentists or from other groups and associations. Industry-funded dental groups even lobbied the Surgeon General until she finally caved in and endorsed fluoridation.

            If a community elects to stop fluoridation, invariably a dentist and his posse shows up intimidating legislators into re-starting fluoridation. As ammunition, they state: “CDC has recognized water fluoridation as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.”

            That statement may sound impressive. However, it has been promoted by the CDC’s Oral Health Division, who are paid to promote fluoridation. The CDC also says, “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.”
            It seems that organized dentistry lobbies mostly for laws that benefit their member dentists. Some legislation masquerades as a public benefit. Fluoridation wears such a mask.

            NOW you want to know who supports clean, fluoride free water? as well as the ones you stated, over 97 percent of the Western European population drinks non-fluoridated water (and yet, their tooth decay rates are generally lower than the tooth decay rates in the U.S.), Nobel Prize-Winning Scientists, Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Thousands of Medical and Scientific Professionals, Key Leaders in the Environmental Health Community, Civil Rights Leaders, The Majority of Communities in North America, and thousands of health professionals that I personally know such as my dentist and doctor.


  25. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:25 am

    There are many animal and human studies, which indicate that fluoride is
    a neurotoxin and 37 studies that show an association between fairly
    modest exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children. Twenty-seven of
    these studies were reviewed by a team from Harvard University (Choi et
    al., 2012). In an article in Lancet Neurology, Grandjean and Landrigan
    (2014) have since classified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxicant.
    All these papers can be accessed.


    1. Steven Slott January 31, 2019 1:06 pm

      “Truth Forme”

      You really need to find a more up-to-date little antifluoridationist website from which to copy/paste nonsense. The Choi/Grandjean meta-analysis has long since been discredited.

      The “reduced IQ studies” are a reference to a 2011 review of 27 Chinese studies dug out of obscure Chinese journals by researchers Phillippe Grandjean and Anna Choi. These studies were of the effects of high levels of fluoride (as high as 11.5 ppm) in the well-water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages.

      By the admission of Grandjean and Choi, themselves, these studies had key information missing, inadequate control for confounders, and questionable methodologies. These 27 studies were so seriously flawed that Grandjean and Choi were led to issue a public statement in March, 2012 that the studies should not be used to judge water fluoridation in the US. This obviously has not stopped antifluoridationists from doing so anyway.

      “These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

      –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:20 pm

        The anti-fluoridationists websites aren’t so little anymore. Take a look at some of them and learn something.


        1. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:40 am

          “Tooth Forme”

          “Take a look at” little antifluoridationist websites? Thanks, but there’s more reality-based information in comic books, and the pictures are more colorful.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


  26. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:29 am

    The solution to polution is dilution! If in doubt, KEEP FLUORIDE and POLITICS OUT!!! Your children deserve better!


    1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 1:48 pm

      Anti-Truth Forme – You and your children deserve water that is as effective as possible at protecting health – whether the protection is against pathogens, pipe corrosion, dental decay, etc. Why anyone would fight against any beneficial public health measure is beyond me.


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:22 pm

        B/C fluoridation is now proven to be harmful, cummulative, unnecessary, and ineffective. Update yourself!


        1. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:23 am

          Oh, gee……”truth forme” has personally deemed water fluoridation to be “ harmful…etc, etc”.

          What more evidence could one possibly need than that……

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


        2. Randy Johnson February 1, 2019 4:37 am

          anti-Truth Forme – You have provided nothing but your personal unsupported opinions.

          Provide specific evidence (citations and author quotes) to prove your opinion that “fluoridation is now proven to be harmful, cummulative, unnecessary, and ineffective”.

          Then you might try explaining why none of the alleged “evidence” fluoridation opponents present has been able to change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective.

          Then you might try explaining why virtually all (over 100) of the respected national and international science and health organizations continue to publicly recognize the benefits of community water fluoridation.

          Then you might try explaining why there are no such organizations that accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate.

          Then you might have a legitimate case for your anti-F paranoia.


      2. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 5:43 pm

        When enough toxins is too much! Clean water that has not been drugged is what our children deserve.


    2. Steven Slott February 1, 2019 3:21 am

      “Truth Forme”

      Fine, but as there is no doubt about effectiveness and safety of optimally fluoridated water, there is no reason to “leave it out”.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  27. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 10:49 am

    BEWARE OF THE NEWLY FORMED American Fluoridation Society. A group is made up, of the most prolific Rabid Responders on the Internet
    (Johnson, SLOTT, Ferre, Haynie (Budd), They may have organized because
    the mainstream doesn’t want any part of them. Or maybe mainstream
    loves what they are doing but wants to secretly fund them without being
    tainted by their foolish, unscientific and insulting words. Or maybe it
    was set up to avoid their getting individually sued for the false claims
    they make about fluoridation. Or it could be an ego thing. We’ll find
    out.


    1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 11:51 am

      Anti-Truth Forme – Look up the definition of “Gish Gallop”. You provide a remarkably good example. You dumped at least 12 copy/paste comments today containing nothing but standard anti-F opinions and “references” that have been thoroughly discounted as providing any proof that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any health issues. The specific details refuting the specific claims and studies will be provided.


      1. Truth Forme January 31, 2019 4:56 pm

        Fluoridated drinking water isn’t the only source of this neurotoxin. Do some research as you and the other fluoride pushers keep saying drinking optimally fluoridated water does not cause healtrh issues. Prove it! There are no studies that prove fluoride is absolutely safe and effective. And adding more to the drinking water is criminal.


        1. Randy Johnson January 31, 2019 5:06 pm

          Anti-Truth Forme – I’m afraid I am not sure what you are requesting. Please provide an example of a study that proves drinking disinfection byproducts is absolutely safe and effective. Or perhaps you could cite a study that proves driving a car, crossing the street, getting out of bed or drinking water is absolutely safe and effective for everyone. Just one example study would help me understand the type of study you are requesting.


  28. Doctor Jack February 1, 2019 8:59 pm

    Total BS. Poor dental hygiene goes hand in hand with the poor food/drink/medical choices which is not a part of the public discourse nor is superior nutrition taught in the school systems because it’s contrary to commercial interests both agriculturally and medically. A healthy populace does not expose itself to those who want to prey upon an unhealthy populace because it’s always profits over people just like the big money to be made by poisoning our water supply with fluoride and chloride.


    1. Steven Slott February 2, 2019 2:45 am

      Yes, “Doctor” Jack. I agree, your conspiracy/corruption nonsense is, indeed, “Total BS”. Those such as you are a true menace to the health of the public. Simplistic, superficial “solutions” to complex disease issues would certainly be nice, but bear little resemblance to reality.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  29. Nope February 2, 2019 8:22 pm

    Hehe, people on catchment are the lucky ones.The CMM for Bis Island Water company is less than 5%. I just look at the plastic pipes and other strange infrastructure. There is already to much chlorine in the county water, if you go to a restaurant which uses unfiltered water it smells like being in a swimming pool.


  30. no_nonsense1 February 3, 2019 8:35 am

    fluoridation is a farce


    1. Steven Slott February 3, 2019 11:28 am

      no_nonsense

      Obviously the “farce” is those such as you who post false claims and misinformation in regard to water fluoridation.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  31. no_nonsense1 February 3, 2019 8:37 am

    Stats from the CDC’s own website do not demonstrate any correlation between fluoridation rates and better oral health. In fact, some states with nearly 100% fluoridation rates (Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia) also have the highest rates of tooth loss. What does effect oral health outcomes is access to a dentist and proper nutrition.


    1. Steven Slott February 3, 2019 11:27 am

      no_nonsense

      1. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of dental decay in entire populations.

      2. As far as what the CDC shows:

      “Many research studies have proven the safety and benefits of fluoride. For 70 years, people in the United States have benefited from drinking water with fluoride, leading to better dental health.”

      “Drinking fluoridated water keeps teeth strong and reduces cavities (also called tooth decay) by about 25% in children and adults. By preventing cavities, community water fluoridation has been shown to save money for families and for the US health care system.”

      —Community Water Fluoridation
      US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. no_nonsense1 February 3, 2019 11:30 am

        Health Canada has not found one peer-reviewed study…but then, you are a well-funded American fluoride lobbyist who uses ridicule when you can no longer justify your arguments and so you wouldn’t know what Health Canada admitted. Fluoridation is nothing but waste management for the big phosphate industry.


        1. Steven Slott February 3, 2019 11:43 am

          no_nonsense

          1. Health Canada has “admitted” no such thing. Countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies on effectiveness are readily available to anyone. I have little doubt that Health Canada would be glad to educate you as to where you may read as many as you would like.

          2. The only fluoridation “lobbyists” are antifluoridationist leaders who are paid by their organization to keep this issue alive. I assume you are paid as well by these groups.

          3. I don’t make “arguments”. I state facts supported by valid scientific evidence. You should try the same sometime.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


  32. Sara Steiner-jackson February 3, 2019 10:52 am

    Rhodes can go get a gallon of fluoride and drink it, along with his family and friends who support this bull.

    Fluoride is a total nerve toxin and I can’t believe anyone in this modern day and age would want to poison his constituents! It has been shown to retard, and to make people subservient. Rhodes can have all the fluoride he wants, leave the rest of us alone.


    1. Steven Slott February 3, 2019 11:17 am

      Sara

      It’s difficult to find anything accurate in this ridiculous comment.

      Steven D. Slottt, DDS


  33. Sara Steiner-jackson February 3, 2019 10:54 am

    Flouride is a toxic mining waste – use your effin brains please!


    1. Steven Slott February 3, 2019 11:15 am

      Yes, Sara, please do “use your effin brains”. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Such atoms are not “toxic mining waste”. They are naturally occurring.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  34. no_nonsense1 February 3, 2019 11:32 am

    Kentucky has mandatory fluoridation and is currently experiencing an oral health crisis.


    1. Steven Slott February 4, 2019 1:59 am

      …….as is the rest of the country.

      This is a strong reason for fluoridation, not against it.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  35. no_nonsense1 February 3, 2019 11:33 am

    Lawmakers are not doctors, nor are they toxicologists.


    1. Steven Slott February 4, 2019 1:57 am

      That’s why responsible lawmakers rely on valid information from reliable sources, and recommendations from those most qualified to render appropriate ones.

      From one of the most highly respected toxicologists in the US:

      “I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”

      —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  36. no_nonsense1 February 3, 2019 11:35 am

    Chlorine is used to treat the water. It disipates easily and can be filtered with simple Brita filters or boiled out. Not so with Fluoride.


    1. Steven Slott February 4, 2019 1:53 am

      So what? There’s no need to filter out fluoride unless it exceeds 2.0 ppm in water. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  37. no_nonsense1 February 3, 2019 11:35 am

    Every dollar spent in water fluoridation is a dollar wasted. But hey, it saves the phosphate industry billions in disposal fees.


    1. Steven Slott February 4, 2019 1:51 am

      Hopefully you’re not in charge of anyone’s finances but your own. If so, you’re both in big trouble.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


  38. James Colt February 3, 2019 5:01 pm

    The MCL’s listed by the EPA for Fluoride and Chlorine are the same 4.0 mg/L.

    Chlorine is a necessary poison as one of the only disinfectants available at reasonable cost to utilities and it keeps a residual in the system as required by the EPA. Disinfection and residuals are a requirement of the 1972 Safe Drinking Water Act. It protects the water from e-coli and diseases such as Legionnaires’ Disease. Chlorine is a toxin like sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate. Chlorine was used in WWI to kill many. Water plants of any size will use the gaseous form of chlorine. Usually shipped in 150 lbs. cylinders, one-ton cylinders or in the large communities, railcars. There is a hazard always present with pure chlorine during transport storage and injection. Water plants have learned to deal with this necessary evil.

    The EPA does not mandate fluoride, it is a toxin of choice at this point. Water quality is excellent without it. The hazards involved with transporting, storing and injecting this toxin places roadways, railways, communities and operators at risk for a small benefit, most of which ends up on the lawn or down the toilet anyway. Any amount of research will provide many examples of injury and death caused by sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid in it’s neat state, either at the plant, during transport or accidental overdosing at the water plant.

    An additional point to consider is getting this poison to Hawaii. Water systems in Hawaii are having difficulty getting gaseous chlorine shipped in, I suspect the same difficulties will be true for the different Fluoride compounds used in water plants.

    Now I would like to address the men and women working for the DWS that would be involved with the transport, storage of dosing of this toxin. It’s a different animal than chlorine, especially in powder form.
    It is important to note that inhalation of gaseous vapors of aqueous hydrofluoric acid can cause severe respiratory tract irritation that may be fatal. To prevent injury or illness, all contact with the acid must be avoided by the use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment.

    In addition, hydrofluoric acid has a latency period. In concentrations greater than 50%, hydrofluoric acid burns are felt immediately, and tissue destruction is rapidly apparent. In concentrations of 20-50%, the burn becomes apparent 1-8 hours following the exposure, and in concentrations less than 20%, the pain and erythema can be latent for as long as 24 hours after the exposure. Latent symptoms can seriously delay proper treatment.

    Anyone working with anhydrous or aqueous hydrofluoric acid should have received prior instruction about its hazards, and should know the recommended procedure for treatment in the event of exposure.

    There are many long term consequences (medically), make darn sure you have a fit test every year and change the cartridges often even a small spill is cause for concern. And lastly, tell your supervisors, managers, mayors and hopefully they will get word to the state. “We don’t need this toxin in our water or our state.” It’s for you and your Ohana’s safety


  39. KonaDude February 4, 2019 4:11 am

    Maybe we can put MMR in the water(.Y.)


  40. arakara med February 4, 2019 9:03 am

    Please don’t let them add fluoride to our water. If people want to ingest fluoride, they can buy toothpaste with fluoride. Don’t poison the rest of us. Adding fluoride to our water is a really bad idea. Sen. Karl Rhoades is obviously ignorant of the studies that show just how bad it is. Somebody should educate him. Can WHT interview him about his crazy plan?


  41. James Colt February 5, 2019 4:28 pm

    The MCL’s listed by the EPA for Fluoride and Chlorine are the same 4.0 mg/L.

    Chlorine is a necessary poison as one of the only disinfectants available at reasonable cost to utilities and it keeps a residual in the system as required by the EPA. Disinfection and residuals are a requirement of the 1972 Safe Drinking Water Act. It protects the water from e-coli and diseases such as Legionnaires’ Disease. Chlorine is a toxin like sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate. Chlorine was used in WWI to kill many. Water plants of any size will use the gaseous form of chlorine. Usually shipped in 150 lbs. cylinders, one-ton cylinders or in the large communities, railcars. There is a hazard always present with pure chlorine during transport storage and injection. Water plants have learned to deal with this necessary evil.

    The EPA does not mandate fluoride, it is a toxin of choice at this point. Water quality is excellent without it. The hazards involved with transporting, storing and injecting this toxin places roadways, railways, communities and operators at risk for a small benefit, most of which ends up on the lawn or down the toilet anyway. Any amount of research will provide many examples of injury and death caused by sodium fluoride or fluorosilicic acid in it’s neat state, either at the plant, during transport or accidental overdosing at the water plant.

    An additional point to consider is getting this poison to Hawaii. Water systems in Hawaii were having difficulty getting gaseous chlorine shipped in, I suspect the same difficulties will be true for the different Fluoride compounds used in water plants.

    Now I would like to address the men and women working for the DWS that would be involved with the transport, storage of dosing of this toxin. It’s a different animal than chlorine, especially in powder form.

    It is important to note that inhalation of gaseous vapors of aqueous hydrofluoric acid can cause severe respiratory tract irritation that may be fatal. To prevent injury or illness, all contact with the acid must be avoided by the use of engineering controls and personal protective equipment.

    In addition, hydrofluoric acid has a latency period. In concentrations greater than 50%, hydrofluoric acid burns are felt immediately, and tissue destruction is rapidly apparent. In concentrations of 20-50%, the burn becomes apparent 1-8 hours following the exposure, and in concentrations less than 20%, the pain and erythema can be latent for as long as 24 hours after the exposure. Latent symptoms can seriously delay proper treatment.

    Anyone working with anhydrous or aqueous hydrofluoric acid should have received prior instruction about its hazards, and should know the recommended procedure for treatment in the event of exposure.

    There are many long term consequences (medically), make darn sure you have a fit test every year and change the cartridges often even a small spill is cause for concern. And lastly, tell your supervisors, managers, mayors and hopefully they will get word to the state. “We don’t need this toxin in our water or our state.” It’s for you and your Ohana’s safety.


  42. no_nonsense1 February 7, 2019 1:29 am

    RandyJohnson, along with Steve Slott, are part of a handful of American fluoride lobbyists who are trying desparately to keep the phosphate industry from losing the $130 billion profit they make annually by selling their toxic waste to gullible communities that have been convinced it actually helps the disadvantaged. Don’t believe it for a second. When the public realizes they’ve been duped, it’s game over for them.


    1. Steven Slott February 7, 2019 2:03 am

      …… and you accuse others of lying? That’s truly hysterical!

      One thing I’ve found in dealing with antifluoridationists…..they are masters at projecting their own traits unto others.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS


      1. no_nonsense1 February 7, 2019 2:53 am

        Now you are denying being part of the AFS? LOL good one as you used to sign your name with it and have your mug shot on the website. I’m no longer going to waste my time on you Steve molar


        1. Steven Slott February 7, 2019 3:01 am

          I see nowhere that I’ve denied being a part of the AFS. That has nothing to do with the rest of the blatant lies in that comment of yours.

          Yes, when antifluoridationists have their backs pinned against the wall, all their misinformation having been fully exposed as being such, their inevitable response is not to accept the undeniable conclusion that their position has no merit, but to simply deposit a final personal attack, and run off in a huff.

          So predictable….

          Steven D. Slott, DDS


Leave a Reply

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

*

By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the Star-Advertiser's TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. If your comments are inappropriate, you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email hawaiiwarriorworld@staradvertiser.com.