Sslott 1 year ago on Fluoridation, streets face city

The Chinese studies of the meta-analysis of Choi, Grandjean, et al, were found in obscure Chinese scientific journals. There was information missing from the studies, and there were critical controls for which there was no accounting. It is questionable whether any of these studies were even peer-reviewed prior to their publication, and no one seems even to be able to find English translations of any of them. These studies were so flawed in this manner that the lead authors issued this statement:

"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


Yes, of course, it cannot be concluded from these studies that no risk is present. It cannot be "concluded" anything at all from them. Obscure, unreliable studies which the authors themselves state do not allow any judgment of risk in water fluoridated in the United States.

Antifluoridationists using the review of these Chinese studies as some sort of "support" for their position, is yet one more fine example of the "science" they claim supports opposition to water fluoridation.

Steven D. Slott, DDS


Sslott 1 year ago on Letter to the Editor: Fluoride debate

Mr. Boyet is being supplied with misinformation frequently found on biased antifluoridationist websites. Unlike reputable sources such as the CDC, the EPA, the ADA, the FDA, the WHO, and others of like stature from where accurate information on fluoridation can be readily obtained, antifluoridationists answer to no one for misinformation that is posted on their websites. They can and do post whatever they want, with no fear of repercussions from anywhere.

In regard to "pharmaceutical-grade", Mr. Boyet's reliance upon misinformation from antifluoridationist websites is an excellent example of the danger of not accessing accurate information from reliable, respected, and original sources.

From the CDC fluoride fact sheet:

"Some have suggested that pharmaceutical grade fluoride additives should be used for water fluoridation. Pharmaceutical grading standards used in formulating prescription drugs are not appropriate for water fluoridation additives. If applied, those standards could actually increase the amount of impurities as allowed by AWWA and NSF/ANSI in drinking water."

"Given the volumes of chemicals used in water fluoridation, a pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride for fluoridation could potentially contain much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than a NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product.


Thus, paying heed to the misinformation supplied by Mr. Boyet, could actually lead to higher levels of arsenic in the water.

As water fluoridation is a public health initiative it does not require "consent" from individuals. Raising the issues of "consent" and "mass medication" are nothing more than transparent attempts by antifluoridationists to cloud what is a clear-cut issue. The "medication/consent" gambit has been repeatedly tried on courts in frivolous lawsuits filed by antifluoridationists. It has been repeatedly rejected by those same courts as having no foundation whatsoever.

Dalles, listen to the experts who know what they are talking about. In the 68 year history of water fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects at the concentration level at which is fluoridated. The benefits have been well documented in countless peer-reviewed studies through the decades. The cost of increased dental bills to both individuals and taxpayers, through increased costs to Medicaid and other publicly funded health assistance programs, would be astronomical in comparison to what is now paid for fluoridation.

There is no valid reason to discontinue the proven beneficial public health initiative. Of water fluoridation. Listening to the misinformation of those such as Mr. Boyet, who simply regurgitate what is fed to them from antifluoridationist websites, will lead to nothing but problems.

Steven D. Slott, DDS