Bruce. You are a very talented communicator. I love these kinds of videos. Yes, please tackle fluoride on its own. Fluoride is a tougher toxicant to regulate because it is considered beneficial at certain exposures. As a dental researcher who has published on fluoride and potential substitutes, I say you can now treat it like it was lead...no benefits to intake whatsoever.
Interested to know why Fluoride was not included in this group of toxins dangerous at low levels, as in the current debate, 0.7 mg/L is touted as “safe and effective” while 1.5 mg/L is problematic. That premise, of course, completely discounts and ignores the usual safety factor of 10.
Fluoride toxicity is near to or similar to that of arsenic and lead. Doesn’t it deserve a place here?
When we talk about fluoride (as in drinking water) we are talking about all the others (As, Hg, Pb, Cd and Al) influencing the brain of the developing child, singly and collectively. This requires special regard (HR of the Child). All of which are totally ignored by regulatory authorities. Thanks for your good work.
Bruce, thank you for this thought-provoking article. I appreciate the depth of research and the clarity with which you present a complex and often uncomfortable issue.
One point that particularly resonates with me is the tendency to minimize or obscure problems simply because they seem difficult to solve. That mindset is deeply counterproductive—especially in public health, where honest and accurate communication about risks in the community is fundamental. We may not have all the answers, but we can’t afford to ignore or downplay threats simply because they are persistent or politically inconvenient.
Your piece is a powerful reminder of the responsibility we share to confront hard truths, even when solutions are not immediately clear. Keep up the important work!
Paul: Thank you for the thoughtful response. These threats are not only real; reducing them is almost always cost-effective. My concern is that industry influence, not lack of evidence, keeps us from acting. Best regards, Bruce
948302: Indeed! Mercury deserves many posts. If permitted, I'll share the story of Grassy Narrows; the poisoning of a proud First Nations community in Canada.
Thank you, Bruce, for your straightforward discussion about the disease continuum, population and clinical treatments, and profit-driven medicine. I appreciate your discussions because they provide so much information to think about and act on.
Bruce. You are a very talented communicator. I love these kinds of videos. Yes, please tackle fluoride on its own. Fluoride is a tougher toxicant to regulate because it is considered beneficial at certain exposures. As a dental researcher who has published on fluoride and potential substitutes, I say you can now treat it like it was lead...no benefits to intake whatsoever.
Great article, Bruce!
Interested to know why Fluoride was not included in this group of toxins dangerous at low levels, as in the current debate, 0.7 mg/L is touted as “safe and effective” while 1.5 mg/L is problematic. That premise, of course, completely discounts and ignores the usual safety factor of 10.
Fluoride toxicity is near to or similar to that of arsenic and lead. Doesn’t it deserve a place here?
Thanks for your great work, Dr Bob
www.safewatercalgary.com
Bob: Fluoride, one of the most contentious topics in public health today, deserves its own post.
Agree, but it would have nice to get at least an honourable mention along with these baddies 😊
When we talk about fluoride (as in drinking water) we are talking about all the others (As, Hg, Pb, Cd and Al) influencing the brain of the developing child, singly and collectively. This requires special regard (HR of the Child). All of which are totally ignored by regulatory authorities. Thanks for your good work.
Bruce, thank you for this thought-provoking article. I appreciate the depth of research and the clarity with which you present a complex and often uncomfortable issue.
One point that particularly resonates with me is the tendency to minimize or obscure problems simply because they seem difficult to solve. That mindset is deeply counterproductive—especially in public health, where honest and accurate communication about risks in the community is fundamental. We may not have all the answers, but we can’t afford to ignore or downplay threats simply because they are persistent or politically inconvenient.
Your piece is a powerful reminder of the responsibility we share to confront hard truths, even when solutions are not immediately clear. Keep up the important work!
Paul: Thank you for the thoughtful response. These threats are not only real; reducing them is almost always cost-effective. My concern is that industry influence, not lack of evidence, keeps us from acting. Best regards, Bruce
Informative and thought-provoking article. What about mercury & mercury-containing compounds? Perhaps they deserve their own post, like fluoride?
948302: Indeed! Mercury deserves many posts. If permitted, I'll share the story of Grassy Narrows; the poisoning of a proud First Nations community in Canada.
Thank you, Bruce, for your straightforward discussion about the disease continuum, population and clinical treatments, and profit-driven medicine. I appreciate your discussions because they provide so much information to think about and act on.
Best regards,
Thank you Howard. Keep up your outstanding work.
Yay!