One need not be a

scientist to understand that it is immoral to medicate everyone with fluoride without
permission. We should be the ones who should be deciding what we put into our
bodies and not the federal government or the local government which is putting
fluoride into our water. We should control our own destiny.

Those who desire fluoride are welcome to put it in their own glass of water, as much as they wish. Leave the rest of us out of it.

James Reeves

There is no medication involved in water fluoridation. There are simply fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water. To suddenly proclaim this fluoride to be medication could not be any more ridiculous. No court of last resort has ever affirmed the "forced medication" nonsense in spite of antifluoridationists repeatedly wasting court time and resources trotting it in over the past decades.

That you believe water flowing from your faucet somehow controls your "destiny" is indicative of a cognitive deficiency of your own, not a problem with water fluoridation.

If you wish to placate your irrational phobia of fluoride in water, you are certainly free to obtain your water from a source with content which suits you. No one is forcing you to do anything in regard to fluoridation.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Over
100 animal studies showing that prolonged exposure to varying levels of fluoride can damage the brain.

49 human studies linking moderately high
fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence; and 34 animal studies reporting that mice or rats
ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to learn
and/or remember;
"It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain." (National Research Council, 2006)

James Reeves

1. Interesting that you cannot properly cite one, single valid peer-reviewed scientific study that demonstrates any adverse effect of optimally fluoridated water on the brain, or anything else. Why can you not do this? Because none exist.

2. The 2006 NRC report does not support your position.  The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects.  The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm.  The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater.  Nothing else.  Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly.  It did not. 

Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:

"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
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

In 2006, the NRC concluded: 


“Fluoride is likely to cause decreased melatonin production and to have other effects on normal pineal function, which in turn could contribute to a variety of effects in humans. Actual effects in any individual depend on age, sex, and probably other factors although at present the mechanisms are not fully understood.



“No studies are available that specifically address the effect of fluoride exposure on pineal function or melatonin production in humans.”



That was 10 years ago. Slott, can you properly cite one, single valid peer-reviewed scientific study that demonstrates no adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water on pineal function?

Sigh......yet once again, the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water cited but three concerns with fluoride at the level of 4.0 ppm....severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride concentration of 4.0 ppm or greater. No other concerns at that level. If this Committee had any concerns with the pineal gland, or anything else, it would have been responsible for so noting and recommending accordingly. It did not.

It is not my responsibility, nor that of anyone else, to disprove unsubstantiated claims of antifluoridationists. There is no valid evidence of any adverse effect of optimal level fluoride on the pineal gland.

There are no studies that specifically address the effect of fluoride exposure on little green men from Mars, either. There is no more responsibility for anyone to provide studies that "demonstrates no adverse effect of optimally fluoridated water on pineal function", than there is to provide studies that demonstrate no adverse effects of optimally fluoridated water on little green men from Mars.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Directot
American Fluoridation Society

Once again you demonstrate that lower intelligence causes water fluoridation.

Is that your reply to Dr. Doull and the thousands of other scientific and health experts who support fluoridation?

In response to antifluoridationists constant misuse of his out-of-context statement of 2008, as you have done here, John Doull made the following statement in March of 2013 in order to make clear his position on fluoridated water.:

"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

Hahaha "thousands" such BS. Meanwhile even Health Canada admitted through a FOI request that they couldn't find one peer-reviewed study demonstrating HFSA is either safe or effective - and they've had more than 60 years to find one.

Why would Health Canada, or anyone else, have any studies of safety and effectiveness of HFSA? HFSA does not reach the tap in fluoridated water. It is not ingested. So, why, exactly would anyone deem there to be a need for studies of safety and effectiveness of a non-existent substance which is obviously of no concern?

The drama of "FOI" is frequently presented by antifluoridationists as an apparent ploy to indicate some sort of sinister "cover-up", but the truth is that there is no reason that Health Canada would not have stated these facts to anyone who asked....and probably did so repeatedly. That antifluoridationists are so ignorant of the elementary chemistry of fluoridation that they throw tantrums and go through FOIA to obtain information that is readily available to anyone who knows how to use a computer and web browzer is evidence of how ridiculous they truly are, ......not of cover-ups by Health Canada or any other such dedicated groups and individuals whom antifluoridationists constantly attempt to smear.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

It’s my reply to someone with an abnormal oral obsession. Slott can’t drill-and-fill a pineal gland, so for him it’s in the realm of “little green men from Mars.”

Reality check #1: Decreased levels of melatonin have been repeatedly described in neurodegenerative disorders, especially in Alzheimer's disease and other types of senile dementia.

But no doubt you think the risk of dementia is worth it, because swilling fluoride might save a baby tooth.

Reality check #2: Since 2006, three members of the NRC committee have gone on public record as saying that their report was relevant to water fluoridation and that the practice should be halted worldwide.

1. You still have as yet to produce any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on the pineal gland from optimally fluoridated water.

2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any association of optimally fluoridated water with "decreased levels of melatonin......neurodegenerative disorders......Alzheimer's disease and other types of senile dementia".

3. The three members of that 2006 committee were long-time fluoridation opponents before being invited to sit on that committee, remained dogmatically so during their tenure on that committee, and remain so today. However, even in 3 years of close interaction with the other 9 membets of that committee while exhaustively reviewing all of the pertinent fluoride literature to that date, they were unable to convince even one other member of that committee, of their antifluoridationist opinions. Additionally, these 3 fluoridation opponents signed on to the final recommendations of that committee along with the other 9 members.

Just to refresh your memory....... The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects.  The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm.  The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater.  Nothing else.  Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly.  It did not. 

Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:

"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
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

As cited in Scientific American ("Second Thoughts About Fluoride," Jan 2008), Dr. John Doull said:

“What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled... But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should...”

Proper studies still have not been done, so in November 2015, the US National Toxicology Program announced plans to conduct new laboratory research to evaluate the effects of fluoridated water on developmental neurobehavioral toxicity, because the existing literature is still limited in its ability to evaluate potential neurocognitive effects of fluoride in people associated with the current U.S. Public Health Service drinking water guidance (0.7 mg/L).

1. Yes, the reason that Doull made his 2013 statement was due to the out-of-context misuse of his 2007 statement....as you have done here....by antifluoridtionists as seeming support for their position. His 2013 statement was brief, and precisely to the point in order to eliminate any twisting of it by antifluorifationists.

Yet once again:

"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

2. The US NTP sgreed to include fluoride in its upcoming regular report in order to put to rest the constant unsubstantiated claims of "neurotoxicity" of optimal level fluoride.

Will this report when finalized make any difference to antifluoridationists? No, they will simply ignore it as they do all science.

Steven D. Slott
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Still waiting:

1. How is that "out-of-context misuse"?

And since you rely so heavily upon it, cite the source and link to that Doull statement.

2. That’s your silly fluoridationist opinion why. Otherwise cite where the NTP says that’s their reason.

.....and you will continue to wait until this site allows posts of url.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Funny, that hasn't stopped you before:

"The site is americanfluoridationsociety with 3 w's and a dot in front, and a dot org at the end." – Slott

Sure, if that's what you want....

Doull statement: ilikemyteeth preceded by http colon forward slash forward slash 3 w's and a dot.......and followed by dot org forward slash wp-content forward slash uploads forward slash 2013 forward slash 03 forward slash Doull-Email-on-CWF-March-2013 dot pdf

NTP: http colon forward slash forward slash 3 w's dot federalregister dot gov forward slash articles forward slash 2015 forward slash 10/07/2015-25434 forward slash nominations-to-the-report-on-carcinogens-and-office-of-health-assessment-and-translation-request-for

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

1. ilikemyteeth is not a source of the original Doull quote. For all we know, your version is another altered quote – like your buddy Billy Budd has done for years with Surgeon General Koop's (alleged) statement.

2. Thank you for verifying that it is your personal fluoridationist opinion that the NTP’s reason for investigating fluoride at 0.7 ppm is: "to put to rest the constant unsubstantiated claims."

1. The original email correspondence from Doull, as posted on "ilikemyteeth" is self-explanatory. I'm fine with the ability of intelligent readers to assess its validity.

2. The Federal Registry debunks the implication by antifluoridationists that the NTP has specifically opened an "investigation" into fluoride because of concerns with brain development. Fluoride is but one of numerous substances that the NTP has agreed to evaluate in its upcoming regular report.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Thank you for verifying that it is your personal fluoridationist opinion. Your paranoia of any opposition to your fluoridationist beliefs is obvious.

You think it just might be pro-brainists who are concerned about an EPA-designated “developmental neurotoxicant” being added to the drinking water of pregnant women and infants?

You don't need a URL. Give us a quotation from the NTP saying their reason is what you claim it is.

1. How is that "out-of-context misuse"?
And since you rely so heavily upon it, cite the source and link to that Doull statement.

2. That’s your silly fluoridationist opinion why. Otherwise cite where the NTP says that’s their reason.

First you claim HFSA is safe because the F ions hydrolize in water, then you say it's safe if concentration is lower than 4ppm. Which is it? And why did regulators recently lower concentration to 1.5ppm? You make no sense Stevey.

1. I have never claimed that "F ions hydrolize in water". Fluoride ions are atoms of fluorine. Atoms do not hydrolyze.

2. I did not state that "it's safe if concentration is lower than 4 ppm". I reported the conclusions of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.

3. Assuming you to mean fluoride concentration, I'm aware of no "regulators", or anyone else who have "recently lower concentration to 1.5 ppm".

It is obvious whom is making no sense here.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

slott, do you happen to have any financial conflicts of interests that maybe you should disclose?

Also, important to note: the mediocre dentists/ fluoride peddlers are not endocrinologists or toxicologists.

For some historical prospective:

from Wikipedia:

""Mad as a hatter" is a colloquial phrase used in conversation to refer to a crazy person. In 18th and 19th century England, mercury was used in the production of felt, which was used in the manufacturing of hats common of the time. People who patronised these hat factories were exposed daily to trace amounts of the metal, which accumulated within their bodies over time, causing some workers to develop dementia caused by mercury poisoning (called mad hatter syndrome). Thus, the phrase became popular as a way to refer to someone who was perceived as insane."

One can only ponder the long-term, cognitive effects from years of exposure to mercury vapours (from amalgamist fillings), that our dentists are exposed to on a daily basis.

Amy, I have no "financial conflicts of interest" in regard to fluoridation, or anything else. In fact, just the opposite. As a dentist, my income is negatively affected by water fluoridation. The lees dental decay, the less dental work needed.

Now, do you care to dislose your financial conflicts of interest? How much does FAN, or anyone else pay you to post misinformation about fluoridation all over the internet?

If you want the opinions of toxicologists and endocrinologists, I'm more than happy to accomodate you.

1. The following is a March, 2013 statement from one of the most highly respected toxicologists in the United States:

"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

2. The following is an August, 2013 statement from a highly respected endocrinologist from the University of Florida:

August 27, 2013

To Whom It May Concern:

As a practicing endocrinologist, I was appalled at the claims that fluoridated drinking water causes clinically significant harm to the endocrine system.

Clinically, in more than 30 years of seeing patients, I have never seen any fractures or thyroid problems associated with fluoridated water. Early puberty is more associated with obesity than anything else, though there are many endocrine disrupters that have estrogenic effect. Fluoride has not been implicated, though lavender, tea tree oil and HCG, substances found commonly in hair products, have been.

I looked at the papers cited about the effects of fluoride on thyroid function and could find none that suggested any effect on thyroid at doses used in fluoridated water. A Review of the literature published in 1986 came to the same conclusion:

“The increasing use of fluoride for prevention of dental caries poses the problem as to whether this halogen has antagonistic properties towards iodine, whereby it could hamper the success of iodine prophylaxis of endemic goitre. Review of the literature shows that some authors have found an inhibition by fluoride of various steps of thyroid hormone biosynthesis in animal experiments. By and large, the inhibition was only slight and it was elicited only with fluoride doses greatly in excess of those recommended for caries prevention. The inhibition was not consistently present and other authors could not confirm it in comparable experiments. There is no convincing evidence that fluoride produces true goitres with epithelial hyperplasia in experimental animals. There are some reports based on casual observations that fluoride is goitrogenic in man. On the other hand, several good studies with adequate exposed and control populations failed to detect any goitrogenic effect of fluoride in man. It is noteworthy in particular that fluoride does not potentiate the consequences of iodine deficiency in populations with a borderline or low iodine intake.Published data failed to support the view that fluoride, in doses recommended for caries prevention, adversely affects the thyroid.”

I hope this clarifies the issues a bit more.

Sincerely,

Janet Silverstein, MD, FAAP
University of Florida Physicians

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Keep up the good work Steven, you are doing a thankless job here and all the upvotes are going from idiots to other idiots.

Just par for the course for antifluoridationists, Cam. They have no regard for truth and accuracy.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Oh noe!! anyone who disagrees with me must be a schill working for Big Fouride!! You may want to get on medication for your paranoia problems.

Cam, Slott earns $50 k promoting fluoridation from Delta Dental. He's admitted it before and now lies about it.

Please provide exactly where I have "admitted" earning $50k from Delta Dental, or anything from anyone, for advocating for fluoridation. I've seen plenty of whoppers coming from antifluoridationists but I gotta admit, this one is definitely near the top of the list. Thanks for the comic relief.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Steve Slott tries to make people think HFSA magically becomes safe as soon as it hits water. But our Hazardous Waste Act prohibits it's direct disposal in any body of water. He wants people to believe F ions are safe but has no clue what happens when mixed with stomach acid. He gets paid to promote silicofluorides. Do not trust any of his rhetoric.

Yes one of the BIG MONEY dental groups provided a grant ($$$$) to form a new organization to keep the fluoride propaganda going. Steve Slott is the new paid boss. "Follow the money to learn the truth."
So, everyone now knows what to expect from him and the promoters.

And James Reeves presents yet one more in his loooooong list of fabrications. His nose has got to be at least a mile long by now.

The fact is that I am neither the "boss" of the AFS, nor paid in any manner. So, James, if you can produce any evidence to the contrary then do so. Your inevitable failure to produce such evidence will be taken as documented evidence of your admission that you are indeed, a very prolific liar........as is well known by any who have read your comments all over the internet.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

OK, Information Director may not be a paid position. Would you share with everyone where the grant money to your group is being used?

Information about the American Fluoridation Society is readily available on its website. You are certainly free to read it at any time. Who knows, James, you might even learn something by so doing.

The site is americanfluoridationsociety with 3 w's and a dot in front, and a dot org at the end.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

1. There is nothing "magic" about the hydrolysis of fluorosilicates. It is well documented scientific fact.

A. A 2006 University of Michigan study used nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)
technology to show that hexafluorosilicic acid (HFSA), the most commonly used
water additive, completely dissociates in water. In simple terms this means
that there is no HFSA or any fluorosilicic molecular fragments in tap water.

The products of HFSA dissociation are fluoride ions and silicon dioxide. SiO2
is the most common oxide in the earth's crust (sand) and is present naturally
in vegetative cell walls, hardly evil stuff. The only "chemicals" from water
fluoridation additives at the tap are fluoride ions, sand, and barely detectable contaminants. All are naturally present in most drinking water.

-----Reference: Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Apr 15;40(8):2572-7. Reexamination of
hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement. Finney WF, Wilson
E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan

B. "Fluoridation of drinking water is recommended in some EU Member States, and hexafluorosilicic acid and hexafluorosilicates are the most commonly used agents in drinking water fluoridation. These compounds are rapidly and completely hydrolyzed to the fluoride ion. No residual fluorosilicate intermediates have been reported. Thus, the main substance of relevance (F-)."

---SCHER, Opinion on critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health
effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water- 16 May 2011.

2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect of the optimal level of fluoride ions "when mixed with stomach acid". You are certainly free to present any such evidence you believe supports your opinions.

3. My "rhetoric" is fully supported by the peer-reviewed science, which I have fully cited all over this page. Your "rhetoric" is nothing more than your erroneous personal opinions reflective of your lack of understanding of basic science and chemistry, and your failure to even attempt to properly educate yourself on this issue.

4. Please produce proof of any payment I have received for fluoridation advocacy. Your inevitable failure to do so will be taken as your admission that you are willfully posting patently false information.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

The point is hydrolysis doesn't make it safe. F ions are the most reactive element on the periodic table. And if it was safe to dilute in water, then the Hazardous Waste Act wouldn't prohibit its disposal in bodies of water - like the ocean - and Mosaic wouldn't have nearly $2 billion to spend on environmental fines.

So, you admit that you have absolutely no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to back up any of your unsubstantiated claims?

Exactly.

Until you can produce valid evidence that optimally fluoridated water is in any manner unsafe, you have nothing of any credibility to contribute. Your unsubstantiated claims and personal opinions are obviously meaningless.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Company produces fertilizer -- Company needs to dispose of byproducts -- Company makes deal with FDA to sell byproduct instead of having to pay to dispose -- Company and FDA sponsor content to scare you into allowing it

1. Fluoridation substances are not "byproducts" of fertilizer. Hydrofluorosilic acid is a co-product of the process which produces the other co-product, phosphoric acid. The phosphoric acid co-product is utilized to make fertilizers which become incorporated in foods that we eat and in soft drinks we consume. The HFA co-product is diluted to a 23% aqueous solution which is then utilized to deliver additional fluoride ions into drinking water during fluoridation.

2. Fluoride destined for water treatment is an inconsequential portion of the mined fluoride.  The mining companies incur no special cost in the normal disposal and avoid no costs whatsoever from water additive sales.  Because the process requires energy and reagent inputs it saves no money.

3. The FDA has no authority over additives to public water supplies. This jurisdiction falls entirely under the EPA. There is thus no "deal" to be made with the FDA in regard to fluoridated water. Fluoridated water at the tap, as does all water at the tap, must meet all of the stringent EPA mandated quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of the National Sanitary Foundation. If it doesn't it is not allowed. It's that simple.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Calgary actually has less tooth decay than Edmonton, Calgary's simply rose more than Edmonton's over a certain period of time. Want to know what else rose during that time? Dental costs in Calgary. Pretty easy to see how higher dental costs would cause less dental visits, which would cause more tooth decay. But keep blaming it on a lack of ingesting the fertilizer byproduct-sodium fluoride.. (not to be confused with the naturally occurring calcium fluoride)

Zach

Fluoride is an anion of the naturally occurring element, fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Sodium fluoride is a compound containing the fluoride ion.

Calcium fluoride is a compound containing the fluoride ion.

A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the source compound from which it is released. Elementary chemistry.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Don't forget to mention the rest of my post which makes this article look like sponsored content, or the funding of the study which came from the Canadian government. But the source of the compound is relevant if you want to follow the money..all of this has to be bought. Seems like whoever provides the byproduct is making a killing on sales, not to mention getting a pass on having to safely rid of the material. Being the director of the fluoride society, can you tell me how these contracts work?

Neither the source of the fluoridation compounds, nor any conspiracy theories are of any relevance. The only pertinent questions are:

1. Does water fluoridation prevent significant amounts of dental decay in entire populations? The answer is yes. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate this fact.

2. Are there any adverse effects from optimally fluoridated water? The answer is no. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effects from optimal level fluoride.

3. Is water fluoridation cost-effective? The answer is yes. At a cost of less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, there is no other dental decay preventive measure that even approaches the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation.

4. Is there any danger from contaminants in fluoridated water at the tap? The answer is no. The amounts of contaminants in fluoridated water at the tap are in such barely detectable minuscule amounts, so far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety, that it is not even a certainty that those detected aren't the ones that alteady exist in water naturally.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society

Snake venom is naturally occurring too, What is your point?

Snake venom has no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

Steven D. Slott, DDS
Information Director
American Fluoridation Society.

Straw man, he was not implying that all things natural must be good for us.

If you understood chemistry, you'd know that calcium acts as a buffer to fluoride's toxicity. You can hold rocks of calcium fluoride in your bare hands. Holding even a teaspoon of HFSA in your bare hands would kill you.