The student news site of Allegheny College

The Campus

Debate over fluoridation of Meadville water continues

Greinke delivers talk opposing additive

Steven Heine, Staff Writer

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Retired Chemist Ron Greinke delivered a talk on concerns with adding fluoride to local water systems on Saturday, April 8, at the Vernon Township Municipal Building.

Greinke’s talk, sponsored by the activist group Clean Water Meadville, examined scientific literature on the effects of adding fluoride in water. Greinke said that despite what many people believe, the addition of fluoride into a local water supply is actually harmful for people’s health.

“The benefits of fluoride are exaggerated, and the risks are downplayed,” Greinke said.

Seventy percent of communities in the United States add fluoride to their water, mainly in the form of hexafluorosilicic acid, according to Greinke’s talk. However, on a worldwide scale, very few countries follow this practice. Meadville currently does not add fluoride to its water, but the Meadville Water Board is considering implementing it. Allegheny College gets its water from the local network overseen by the Meadville Water Board.

Greinke said that the science justifying the use of fluoride in water is outdated and of questionable validity. He discussed recent reviews of literature that showed that the frequency of dental problems in communities with and without fluoridated water systems was so close as to be statistically insignificant. Additionally, Greinke said that recent studies suggest fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin that can contribute to diabetes, ADHD and lower IQ. Greinke said that while proponents of fluoride suggest it is a mineral with positive health benefits, hexafluorosilicic acid does not meet the scientific criteria for being considered a mineral.

“This is not a mineral,” Greinke said. “It’s not solid or natural.”

Greinke said that as a chemist, his experience with fluoride compounds such as hexafluorosilicic acid has shown that these chemicals are highly volatile. He said he has been forced to take special precautions with these sorts of chemicals, including using an antidote after working with some of them.

“What else do I know?” Greinke said. “This chemical will dissolve cement. This chemical will dissolve glass.”

Greinke said that fluoride was used in the 1930s to treat thyroid inflammation and is a potent enzyme inhibitor. These factors, plus the fact that fluoride is added to water for medical reasons, mean that it can be considered to be a medicinal drug. As a medicine, its use in water may violate the Nuremberg Accords, which state that it is illegal for anyone to administer medicine to an individual without that individual’s informed consent.

Terri Amato attended the talk with her husband, John Amato. While John felt concerned about fluoridation violating the doctrine of informed consent, Terri Amato found the effect of fluoride on ADHD to be very important.

“I’m a schoolteacher, so the ADHD talk really hit home,” Terri Amato said.

Christopher Knapp, the founder of Clean Water Meadville, said that he started the organization back in 2013 when the issue of fluoridation came up. For him, the attendance at the talk was just as significant as the message.

“My biggest takeaway was that there was no member of the water board,” Knapp said. “They’re the ones making the decision. Are they not interested in educating themselves? Does this mean that their minds are made up?”

It is not confirmed whether or not any members of the Meadville Area Water Authority were in attendance.

Print Friendly

15 Comments

15 Responses to “Debate over fluoridation of Meadville water continues”

  1. Maureen Jones on April 13th, 2017 10:31 pm

    Baby Bottle Tooth Decay aka Early Childhood Caries:

    After decades of fruitlessly promoting water fluoridation for the sake of disadvantaged children, the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry announced on December 18, 2008 they had received a record $24.4 million from the National Institutes of Health to figure out how to fight early childhood caries, also known as “baby bottle tooth decay” or “nursing caries”.

    Published Dental Literature Has Long Noted Fluoridation’s Failure:

    1) Auge, K. Denver Post Medical Writer. Doctors donate services to restore little girl’s smile. The Denver Post, April 13, 2004. (Note: Denver, CO has been fluoridated since 1954.)
    “Sippy cups are the worst invention in history. The problem is parents’ propensity to let toddlers bed down with the cups, filled with juice or milk. The result is a sort of sleep-over party for mouth bacteria,” said pediatric dentist Dr. Barbara Hymer as she applied $5,000 worth of silver caps onto a 6-year-old with decayed upper teeth. Dr. Brad Smith, a Denver pediatric dentist estimates that his practice treats up to 300 cases a year of what dentists call Early Childhood Caries. Last year, Children’s Hospital did 2,100 dental surgeries, many of which stemmed from the condition, Smith said, and it is especially pervasive among children in poor families.

    2) Shiboski CH et al. The Association of Early Childhood Caries and Race/Ethnicity Among California Preschool Children. J Pub Health Dent; Vol 63, No 1, Winter 2003.
    Among 2,520 children, the largest proportion with a history of falling asleep sipping milk/sweet substance was among Latinos/Hispanics (72% among Head Start and 65% among non-HS) and HS Asians (56%). Regarding the 30% and 33% resultant decay rates respectively; Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water.

    3) California Department of Health Services, Maternal and Child Health Branch, 1995; Our Children’s Teeth: Beyond Brushing and Braces.
    33% of Head Start children and 13% of non-Head Start preschool children had Early Childhood Caries/Baby Bottle Tooth Decay (BBTD).
    1) In non-fluoridated urban regions, 40% of Hispanic preschool children had BBTD.
    2) In fluoridated urban regions, 45% of Asian Head Start preschool children had BBTD.

    4) Allukian, M. Symposium Oral Disease: The Neglected Epidemic – What Can Be Done? Introduction: Journal of Public Health Dentistry, Vol. 53, No 1, Winter 1993. “Oral Disease is still a neglected epidemic in our country, despite improvements in oral health due to fluoridation, other forms of fluorides, and better access to dental care. Consider the following: 50 percent of Head Start children have had baby bottle tooth decay.” (Bullet #5 of 8.)

    5) Barnes GP et al. Ethnicity, Location, Age, and Fluoridation Factors in Baby Bottle Tooth Decay and Caries Prevalence of Head Start Children. Public Health Reports; 107: 167-73, 1992.
    By either of the two criterion i.e., two of the four maxillary incisors or three of the four maxillary incisors, the rate for 5-year-olds was significantly higher than for 3-year-olds. Children attending centers showed no significant differences based on fluoride status for the total sample or other variables.

    6) Kelly M et al. The Prevalence of Baby Bottle Tooth Decay Among Two Native American Populations. J Pub Health Dent; 47:94-97, 1987.
    The prevalence of BBTD in the 18 communities of Head Start children ranged from 17 to 85 percent with a mean of 53%. The surveyed communities had a mixture of fluoridated and non fluoridated drinking water sources. Regardless of water fluoridation, the prevalence of BBTD remained high at all of the sites surveyed.

    7) Watson MR et al. Caries conditions among 2-5-year-old immigrant Latino children related to parents’ oral health knowledge, opinions and practices. Community Dent Oral Epid; 27: 8-15, 1999.
    The finding of 47% of the children having experienced dental caries in their primary teeth does not differ greatly with other studies of low socioeconomic status and racial ethnic groups. (Washington D.C. has been fluoridated since 1952.)

    8) Weinstein P et al. Mexican-American parents with children at risk for baby bottle tooth decay: Pilot study at a migrant farmworkers clinic. J Dent for Children; 376-83, Sept-Oct, 1992.
    Overall, 37 of the 125 children (29.6 percent) were found to have BBTD. Compliance in putting fluoride drops in bottle once a day was identical between BBTD and non BBTD groups.

    9) Bruerd B et al. Preventing Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: Eight-Year Results. Public Health Reports: 111; 63-65, 1996.
    In 1986, a program to prevent BBTD was implemented in 12 Head Start centers in 10 states. In three years BBTD decreased from 57% to 43%. Funding was discontinued in 1990.

    10) Von Burg MM et al. Baby Bottle Tooth Decay: A Concern for All Mothers. Pediatric Nursing; 21:515-519, 1995.
    “Data from Head Start surveys show the prevalence of baby bottle tooth decay is about three times the national average among poor urban children, even in communities with a fluoridated water supply.”

    11) Blen M et al. Dental caries in children under age three attending a university clinic. Pediatric Dentistry; 21:261-64, 1999.
    Of 369 children who attended the University of Texas-Houston Health Center (Houston is fluoridated), 56% between 2 and 3 years old had decay. Among the 3 year olds, 46% had more than three decayed teeth. The children without decay were weaned from the bottle at an average age of 10 months. Those with severe decay were weaned at 16.9 months.

    12) Kong D. City to launch battle against dental ‘crisis’. Boston Globe, Nov. 27, 1999.
    18% of children 4 years old and younger seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby bottle tooth decay. Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. Boston was fluoridated in 1978.

    13) Thakib AA et al. Primary incisor decay before age 4 as a risk factor for future dental caries. Pediatric Dentistry; 19:37-41, 1997.
    In summary, initial primary incisor caries is a risk factor for developing future carious, extracted, and restored teeth.

    14) Duperon DF. Early Childhood Caries: A Continuing Dilemma. CA Dent Assoc J; 23: 15-25, 1995.
    The primary precipitating factor for this 100 year old problem is prolonged use of the bottle or breast past 9 to 12 months of age. North American Indians have reported an incidence of 53 percent, Inuit (Eskimo) children have shown a 60%-65% incidence and Mexican American migrant farm workers, 30%.

    [Reply]

    Randy Johnson Reply:

    Maureen Jones – The majority of your references do not seem to compare decay rates in optimally fluoridated communities with those in communities with lower levels of fluoride ions. They simply address the problem of dental decay in children, often due to “baby bottle tooth decay” or “nursing caries”. Fluoridation has never been promoted as a cure-all for dental decay.

    However, the overwhelming majority of evidence demonstrates that when similar optimally fluoridated and low-fluoride communities are compared and other potential confounding factors are considered, there is an overall lower rate of dental decay in fluoridated communities. In your list of 13 references (all but 2 before 2000), nine apparently mentioned nothing about fluoridation and four did not mention fluoridation status in the abstract.

    References that apparently have nothing to do with comparing decay rates in optimally fluoridated populations with those from areas with lower levels of fluoride ions: #1, #3, #4, #7, #9, #11, #12, #13, #14

    For the other studies, I will have to find the original articles and check the study design to see how the contribution of fluoridation was evaluated. Usually, when an abstract does not mention a conclusion, it is not a significant part of the study.
    #2 – abstract did not mention fluoridation status
    #5 – Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of Head Start children.
    #6 – abstract did not mention fluoridation status
    #8 – abstract did not mention fluoridation status
    #10 – abstract did not mention fluoridation status

    It seems you missed a number of studies within the last 10 years that describe the effectiveness of community water fluoridation.

    The 2016 World Health Organization report: Fluoride and Oral Health report
    “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”

    2016 – Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Fluoridation Report: “Water fluoridation within the current recommended range in Australia (0.6 to 1.1 mg/L) is effective in reducing the occurrence and severity of tooth decay in children, adolescents and adults. In Australia, water fluoridation within this range can be associated with an increase in dental fluorosis. This is often not readily visible and it has no effect on the function of teeth. There is no evidence that water fluoridation within the current Australian range is associated with any adverse health effects.”

    New international review supports community water fluoridation as an effective and safe dental health promotion measure [Peter Howat, et al. – Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 2015, 26, 1-3]
    Conclusions: Strong evidence supports the safety and efficacy of CWF. The benefits are most pronounced for low SES groups.

    Water fluoridation, dentition status and bone health of older people in Ireland [O Sullivan V1, O Connell BC – Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015 Feb;43(1):58-67]
    Conclusion: This study suggests that water fluoridation provides a net health gain for older Irish adults, though the effects of fluoridation warrant further investigation.

    Association of dental caries with socioeconomic status in relation to different water fluoridation levels [Cho HJ, et al. – Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;42(6):536-42]
    Conclusions: This study supported that water fluoridation could not only lead to a lower prevalence of dental caries, but also help to reduce the effect of SES inequalities on oral health.

    Effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries reduction in a remote Indigenous community in Far North Queensland [Johnson NW, et al. – Aust Dent J. 2014 Sep;59(3):366-71]
    Conclusions: There has been considerable improvement in child dental health in the NPA over the past 6-7 years. In light of continued poor diet and oral hygiene, water fluoridation is the most likely explanation.

    Water fluoridation and oral health [Harding MA, O’Mullane DM. – Acta Med Acad. 2013 Nov;42(2):131-9]
    Conclusion: Water fluoridation is an effective safe means of preventing dental caries, reaching all populations, irrespective of the presence of other dental services.

    Preventing Dental Caries Through Community Water Fluoridation [B. Alex White, Sharon M. Gordo – N C Med J. 2014 Nov-Dec;75(6):430-1]
    The weight of the scientific evidence in peer-reviewed literature does not support an association between community water fluoridation and any adverse health effects or systemic disorders, including an increased risk for cancer, Down syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis, bone fractures, immune disorders, low intelligence, renal disorders, Alzheimer disease, or allergic reactions. Not only is community water fluoridation safe and effective, it is also cost saving, and it is the least expensive way to deliver the benefits of fluoride to all residents of a community.

    Jarman underprivileged area scores, tooth decay and the effect of water fluoridation [Jones C, et al. – Community Dent Health. 1997 Sep;14(3):156-60]
    Conclusions: Water fluoridation was confirmed as an evidence based intervention which has halved the amount of tooth decay in 5- and 12-year-old children.

    The effect of water fluoridation and social inequalities on dental caries in 5-year-old children [Riley JC, et al. – Int J Epidemiol. 1999 Apr;28(2):300-5]
    Water fluoridation reduces dental caries experience more in materially deprived wards than in affluent wards and the introduction of water fluoridation would substantially reduce inequalities in dental health.

    Water fluoridation in the Blue Mountains reduces risk of tooth decay [Evans RW, et al. – Aust Dent J. 2009 Dec;54(4):368-73]
    CONCLUSIONS: Tooth decay reduction observed in the Blue Mountains corresponds to high rates reported elsewhere and demonstrates the substantial benefits of water fluoridation.
    Fluoridation and social equity [Burt BA.- J Public Health Dent. 2002 Fall;62(4):195-200]
    Within the social context of the United States, water fluoridation is probably the most significant step we can take toward reducing the disparities in dental caries. It therefore should remain as a public health priority.

    A 4-year assessment of a new water-fluoridation scheme in New South Wales, Australia [Blinkhorn AS, et al. – Int Dent J. 2015 Jun;65(3):156-63
    CONCLUSION: Fluoridation of public water supplies in Gosford and Wyong offers young children better dental health than those children who do not have access to this public health measure.

    The Dental Health of primary school children living in fluoridated, pre-fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in New South Wales, Australia [Blinkhorn AS, et al. – BMC Oral Health. 2015 Jan 21;15:9]
    CONCLUSION: The children living in the well-established fluoridated area had less dental caries and a higher proportion free from disease when compared with the other two areas which were not fluoridated. Fluoridation demonstrated a clear benefit in terms of better oral health for young children.

    Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland [Mullen J, et al. – Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6]
    CONCLUSIONS: The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method.

    Contemporary multilevel analysis of the effectiveness of water fluoridation in Australia [Do L, Spencer AJ, – Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015 Feb;39(1):44-50]
    CONCLUSION: Comparison of caries experience of children at the time of the extension of water fluoridation supported the rationale for this population health measure.

    Water fluoridation, dentition status and bone health of older people in Ireland [O Sullivan V, O Connell BC – Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2015 Feb;43(1):58-67]
    CONCLUSION: This study suggests that water fluoridation provides a net health gain for older Irish adults, though the effects of fluoridation warrant further investigation.

    Dental caries in 14- and 15-year-olds in New South Wales, Australia [John Skinner, et al. – BMC Public Health. 2013]
    The weighted data from this survey provides the first representative information on caries experience amongst 14- and 15-year-olds in NSW. The mean DMFT score of 1.2 is lower than recent national and international data. However there are teenagers without access to fluoridated water (DMFT 1.7), living in remote areas (DMFT 2.4), and those from lower SES groups (DMFT 1.5) who have higher a prevalence of dental disease. These findings support the NSW Department of Health strategy to increase the proportion of the population receiving fluoridated public water supplies.

    Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series [Kamel MS, et al. – Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8]
    CONCLUSIONS: Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care.

    Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005 [Lauris JR, et al – Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14]
    CONCLUSIONS: Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities.

    [Reply]

  2. chris on April 14th, 2017 7:15 am

    This is a well written and balanced article on a complex issue,

    [Reply]

    Randy Johnson Reply:

    chris – it is true fluoridation is a complex issue. It is not true that this was a well written or balanced article. It was nothing more than an in-reviewed listing of unsupported anti-F opinions. If the ‘reporter’ had taken the time to actually review some of the statements for accuracy it would have been evident that to publish the content as legitimate science is a travesty of reporting.

    Read Dr. Slott’s point-by-point exposure of the lies promoted as anti-F propaganda.

    [Reply]

  3. David Green on April 14th, 2017 9:49 am

    It wouldn’t be surprising if no one from the water board had shown up to the meeting. Many promoters of fluoride are not very knowledgeable about fluoride’s effects, but instead of learning more they often stay home and babysit their beliefs.

    [Reply]

    Steven Slott Reply:

    That members of the water board chose not to listen to the false claims and misinformation provided by Ron Greinke of the New York antiluoridationist faction, “FAN” does not indicate a lack of knowledge. It indicates their good sense in utilizing their time far more productively.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    [Reply]

  4. Janet Nagel on April 14th, 2017 5:20 pm

    Good article. Ron Greinke’s information is accurate and helpful. You may be interested to see the article I wrote: “Why Fluoridation Is Unjustified Infringement of Constitutional Rights That Is Wrongly Promoted By Federal Agencies, Professional Organizations, and Dental, Medical, and Public Health Education” with links to a lot of documentation. http://www.cleanwatergso.org/why-fluoridation-is-unjustified.html When in doubt, keep it out, Meadville! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJwV_SwLXO4

    [Reply]

    Steven Slott Reply:

    When Janet Nagel claims information on fluoridation to be “accurate” there could be no clearer indication that the information in question bears not even the slightest hint of accuracy.

    Thank you, Janet. Your endorsement of antifluoridationist nonsense is always extremely helpful.

    For those who wish to be as totally out of touch with reality as is Janet, her “article” is perfect for you. However, intelligent readers who wish for accurate information on this issue, will want to obtain such information from respected sources. The websites of the CDC, the EPA, the American Dental Association, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, each has a wealth of accurate, authoritative information on fluoridation readily available to anyone.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    [Reply]

  5. Steven Slott on April 14th, 2017 8:31 pm

    Ron Greinke is a fluoridation opponent closely affiliated with the New York antifluoridationist faction “FAN”. The false claims and misinformation he provided at the recent meeting sponsored by Meadville antifluoridation activists was nothing more than the same misinformation which can be found on any antifluoridation website.

    So, let’s look at the claims noted in this article:

    1. “Greinke said that despite what many people believe, the addition of fluoride into a local water supply is actually harmful for people’s health.”

    Facts: There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated to be “harmful for people’s health”……as evidenced by Greinke’s inability to produce any such evidence.

    2. ““The benefits of fluoride are exaggerated, and the risks are downplayed,” Greinke said.”

    Facts: The peer-reviewed science clearly demonstrating the effectiveness of water fluoridation is not “exaggerated”. I will gladly cite as many such studies, current through 2016, as Greinke would reasonably care to read.

    There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any risks of adverse effects from optimally fluoridated water to be “downplayed”…..as evidenced by Greinke’s inability to produce any such evidence.

    3. “Greinke said that the science justifying the use of fluoride in water is outdated and of questionable validity.”

    The public health initiative of water fluoridation is supported by the most current, up-to-date scientific evidence available. Greinke’s ignorance of this science does not mean that it doesn’t exist. I will be glad to provide him with science current through 2016 such that he may properly educate himself on this issue.

    While antifluoridationists frequently regurgitate this erroneous claim of “outdated science”, it is actually they who constantly provide the same, stale half-century old quotes, decades-old studies, and such “recent” testimonials as that from the 1937 President of the AMA.

    4. “He discussed recent reviews of literature that showed that the frequency of dental problems in communities with and without fluoridated water systems was so close as to be statistically insignificant.”

    Facts: Greinke obviously fails to understand that the cause and preventive measures involved in dental disease are myriad. To attempt as he does to assess but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on snapshots of data which control for no variables, is ludicrous, and indicative of a profound lack of understanding of scientific study.

    5. “Greinke said that recent studies suggest fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin that can contribute to diabetes, ADHD and lower IQ.”

    Facts: There are no valid, peer-reviewed studies which demonstrate an association of optimally fluoridated water with neurotoxicity, diabetes, ADHD, lower IQ, or any other adverse effect. This argument was attempted in the recent petition by Greinke’s antifluoridation group, “FAN” in which the petitioners put forth a litany of studies as support for their claims. In its 40 page denial of this petition, EPA reviewers systematically dismantled all the arguments of the petitioners, while pointing out in detail the irrelevance, invalidity, and misrepresentation, of the studies listed by the petitioners. This EPA document may be viewed in entirety on the Federal Register:

    https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/02/27/2017-03829/fluoride-chemicals-in-drinking-water-tsca-section-21-petition-reasons-for-agency-response

    6. “Greinke said that while proponents of fluoride suggest it is a mineral with positive health benefits, hexafluorosilicic acid does not meet the scientific criteria for being considered a mineral.”

    Facts: Greinke seems not to even understand the difference between fluoride and hexafluorosilic acid. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Hexafluorosilic acid is a compound containing these fluoride ions. An atom is not a compound. I am aware of no one with a modicum of understanding of chemistry who would consider the compound hexafluorosilic acid to be a mineral. Where Greinke got this idea is anyone’s guess.

    Additionally, HFA does not reach the tap in fluoridated water. It is therefore not ingested. The only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety for each.

    7. “He said he has been forced to take special precautions with these sorts of chemicals, including using an antidote after working with some of them.”

    Facts: There are likely few, if any, raw, undiluted substances routinely added to public water supplies for which water treatment personnel are not “forced to take special precautions”. So what? That’s what they are educated and trained to do. As far as consumers, however, the properties of HFA are irrelevant, as consumers never come into contact with this substance. Once HFA releases its fluoride ions into drinking water it no longer exists in that water. It does not make it to the tap. It is not ingested.

    For Greinke to attempt to induce unwarranted fear about a routine water additive which is not ingested, is indicative of either his own dishonesty, or his lack of understanding of even elementary chemical facts about the fluoridation process.

    8. “These factors, plus the fact that fluoride is added to water for medical reasons, mean that it can be considered to be a medicinal drug.”

    Facts: What Greinke personally deems “can be considered” about fluoride is meaningless and irrelevant…..especially in view of the lack of understanding he has exhibited about this substance.

    Fluoride has always existed in water. For antifluoridationists such as Greinke to suddenly proclaim it to be a “drug” is ludicrous……a fact with which the courts have continually agreed. No court of last resort has ever upheld the “forced medication” nonsense constantly trotted in by antifluoridationists through the decades.

    9. “As a medicine, its use in water may violate the Nuremberg Accords, which state that it is illegal for anyone to administer medicine to an individual without that individual’s informed consent.”

    Facts:

    A. As water fluoridation simply adjusts the concentration level of an existing ion in public water supplies, it is likely that the authors of the Nuremberg Accords would not look favorably on the efforts of uninformed antifluoridationists to disrespect these accords and make a mockery of the principles these authors established for defining war crimes.

    B. Informed consent applies to treatment rendered. It does not apply to a decision by local officials to adjust the concentration level of existing ions in public drinking water supplies under their jurisdiction. If Greinke deems he needs informed consent prior to raising a glass of water to his lips, he is certainly free to inform himself then give or not give consent to himself prior to “administering” that glass of water to himself.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    [Reply]

    Ronald A. Greinke Reply:

    Slott says: “Once introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water (~7), the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (decomposed). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts that are so far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainly that those detected aren’t that already exist in water naturally”.

    This sounds nice but Dr. Slott is not telling the whole story when he states that the products of this hydrolysis are just fluoride ions (anions) and trace contaminants (such as arsenic where the maximum contaminant level goal is zero). He fails to tell you about the cations (hydrogen ions) which are positively charged in order to balance the equation. According to Slott, you will get an electrical discharge when you drink a glass of water from just the negative fluoride ions. Essentially you are adding a little bit of ionized hydrofluoric acid (HF) with the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid. HF is corrosive and will lower the pH of the water. If the water facility does nothing, this corrosive nature of HF (in concentrated form it dissolves glass), could activate and solubilize dormant lead in the pipes. So the water treatment facility will have to add an anti-corrosion agent containing sodium to Meadville’s water, which is another unnecessary chemical.

    Meadville residents should read the material safety data sheets for the chronic ingestion of hydrofluoric acid. “Long term chronic exposure may cause osteofluorosis (weakened bone structure)”– Seastar Chemicals, Inc. “Prolonged exposure can cause bone and joint changes in humans. — Honeywell International. Others say it may cause joint pain and stiffness (sounds like arthritis but it is stage one fluorosis).

    In my talk to Meadville residents, I showed a study of fluoride accumulation to 2500 ppm in your rib bones after 60 years exposure by consumers of 0.8 ppm fluoride in drinking water (Jackson and Weidmann, U. of Leeds, Journal of Pathology and Bacteriology, 1958). This is the conversion of normal bones to abnormal bones.

    I don’t know if Dr. Slott’s failure to tell the whole story was intentional or just ignorance. Perhaps Dr. Slott can sit in on a high school chemistry class where you learn how to balance equations including electrons and charges. Water fluoridation policy is a 72 year old myth based on denial and pretending to be science. This is a good example.

    [Reply]

  6. Randy Johnson on April 17th, 2017 11:01 am

    Greinke claimed in a 3/27/2017 Meadville Tribune article, “I just want to stick to the pure science. What I’m going to try and do is state some of the things the pro-fluoride people will say. Hopefully, I can explain to the citizens of Meadville some of the things that are said that are simply not true about this issue.”

    Anyone who goes to the April 8 event in which Greinke will present his opinions should hold him to his promise and demand that he actually present the science and not the anti-F edited distortions of the scientific evidence.

    Specifically:

    If Greinke claims “the pure science” proves drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any health condition like, reduced IQ, cancer, thyroid problems, ADHD, allergic reactions, heart disease, etc., ask several questions.

    First challenge him to produce not only the specific reference but the quotes from the authors of the study that prove any claims of harm. Ask him if the studies he references actually PROVE (or claim to prove) that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes the specific health problems. Ask him if the studies he references have controlled for all other possible causes of the health conditions. If Greinke is honest, he will only be able to provide studies where the authors have concluded there is just a possibility of a correlation between fluoride (often at levels far higher than found in optimally fluoridated water) and a health effect. Make a note of any studies Greinke references and look them up. You will quickly discover there are considerable quality issues in all studies for a variety of reasons, and the authors never actually provided (or claimed to provide) any proof that fluoridation actually caused any health problems.

    Second, ask Greinke to list all studies that have found that drinking optimally fluoridated water does NOT cause the specific health problems he listed. There are actually numerous studies that have looked for and not found any links between drinking optimally fluoridated water (0.7 ppm) and health problems. They can be found by reading the 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water which found no health reasons to lower the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level below 2.0 ppm (three times higher than in optimally fluoridated water), and in the 2016 World Health Organization report, Fluoride and Oral Health, which concluded “The question of possible adverse general health effects caused by exposure to fluorides taken in optimal concentrations throughout life has been the object of thorough medical investigations which have failed to show any impairment of general health.”
    ~> who(dot)int/oral_health/publications/2016_fluoride_oral_health.pdf
    ~> nap(dot)edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards

    If Greinke references the 2015 Cochrane Review as “evidence” fluoridation is ineffective ask him to explain a Key results: “Our review found that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay among children. The introduction of water fluoridation resulted in children having 35% fewer decayed, missing and filled baby teeth and 26% fewer decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth. We also found that fluoridation led to a 15% increase in children with no decay in their baby teeth and a 14% increase in children with no decay in their permanent teeth.” Ask him why the authors only, “reviewed 20 studies on the effects of fluoridated water on tooth decay” out of more than 4,000 studies considered and “We judged that all the 20 studies included for the caries outcome (including disparities in caries) were at high risk of bias overall.” Ask him to fully explain the inclusion/exclusion criteria of this study. Ask him to explain the statement, “However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.” The bottom line is the Cochrane Review process work best on clinical trials where the experiments can be blinded and carefully controlled. Data of that quality is impossible to obtain in the studies that can be conducted by studying populations.
    ~> onlinelibrary(dot)wiley(dot)com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/full

    Take a look at these references for additional explanations of the Cochrane Review.
    ~> ilikemyteeth(dot)org/the-cochrane-review-of-community-water-fluoridation/
    ~> openparachute(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2015/06/20/misrepresentation-of-the-new-cochrane-fluoridation-review/
    ~> https://openparachute(dot)wordpress(dot)com/2015/06/29/cochrane-fluoridation-review-i-most-research-ignored/
    ~> drbicuspid(dot)com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=hyg&pag=dis&ItemID=318183

    Ask Greinke why the alleged “pure science” he claims supports his opinions on fluoridation has been completely unable to change the scientific consensus of experts for 70 years that fluoridation is safe and effective. That scientific consensus is the reason over 100 national and international science and health organizations (and their many thousands of members) continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay and resulting health problems. These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.
    ~> ada(dot)org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium
    ~> ilikemyteeth(dot)org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

    Ask Greinke to list all of the internationally and nationally recognized science or health organizations that support the anti-F opinions.

    Ask Greinke to provide specific “pure science” evidence that the scientific consensus of health experts ever stated that tobacco “was supposed to be very good for you”. He is completely wrong on that statement, and it further discredits anything he could possibly say regarding the practice of science. In fact, it was the same type of false science employed by fluoridation opponents (FOs) that was/is used by the tobacco industry to scam the public into believing tobacco was/is safe.
    ~> theatlantic(dot)com/politics/archive/2016/05/low-tar-cigarettes/481116/

    Unfortunately, slick presentations by Greinke and other FOs can make it seem as though they are sticking to “the pure science“ unless they are challenged to support each claim by producing actual scientific evidence and quotes of the authors in the intended context.

    [Reply]

    Ronald A. Greinke Reply:

    Randy Johnson states: “That scientific consensus is the reason over 100 national and international science and a health organizations and their many thousands of member continue to recognize the public health benefit of fluoridation as a safe and effective method to reduce dental decay and resulting health problems. A closer examination of these 100 health organizations (they’re listed in the compendium of the ADA’s Fluoridation Fact website) you will find “The National Confectioners Association and the “Chocolate Manufactures Association) So a question for Randy Johnson is: “What is the science behind the sugar industry endorsing water fluoridation?” and a better question is “What is the science behind the ADA accepting the endorsement of the sugar industry and including it in the 100 organizations?” Sugar is the cause of tooth decay. You scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours? Water fluoridation policy is a 72 year old myth pretending to be science. The above is a good example!

    “Ask Greinke to list all of the internationally and nationally recognized science or health organizations that support the anti-fluoride opinions. For a starter one organization is: the “Union of Scientists and Professionals at EPA Headquarters Office”. They’re about 2000 strong. I would rather believe the scientists than the pretenders. Some others are: “The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology”, the “American Academy of Environmental Medicine”, the “Food and Water Watch”, “Moms against Water Fluoridation”, the “Fluoride Action Network (85000 strong and growing—Meadville: if you want to examine 100’s of peer reviewed scientific papers, that’s the place to look—the scientific papers of the harms are all there!), and the “National Pure Water Association”.

    Also eight Nobel Prize winning chemists are against it: Dr. Guilic Natta, Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood, Sir Robert Robinson, Dr. James B. Sumner, Prof. Arturi Virtanen, Dr. Adolf F. J. Butenandt, Dr. Hans K. A. S. von Euler-Chelpin. When chemists examine the evidence, they get turned off quickly.

    Meadville: You should ask the following question at the fluoridation discussion at 6:30 p.m, May 4th, at the Lew Davies Community Center: “Why did the National Kidney Foundation withdraw its support for water fluoridation in 2006”. See what the fluoridationists say.

    [Reply]

    Chris knapp Reply:

    Thank you Dr. Greinke for your expertise in the face of those who serve Policy. As Dr. Paul Connett has said…when policy is king…science becomes a slave….

    [Reply]

  7. Steven Slott on April 17th, 2017 5:32 pm

    So, it seems the comments from fluoridation advocates are being censored out?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    [Reply]

  8. Evan, 2012 on April 18th, 2017 3:41 pm

    What, no talk of precious bodily fluids?!

    [Reply]

If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a gravatar.




The student news site of Allegheny College
Debate over fluoridation of Meadville water continues