For one, I question your figure of "billions of fluoride treatments every years(sic)". I doubt it is anything close to that. In any event, that is not the issue. Your portrayal of the death of a little 3-year old boy, who's parents had to watch him die a horrible death, as a "45 cubic centimeter" problem, is a callous attempt to trivialize this very real danger. I doubt this little boy's parents saw this as a "45 cubic centimeter" problem.
Fluoride is a POISON. The American Dental Association has gone to great lengths to convince the American public and the rest of the world that fluoride is as safe as sugar, in fact, even more so than sugar.
It is quite obvious that fluoride ISN'T safe at ALL. The idea of putting a highly toxic, knowingly lethal dose of a substance in ANYONE'S mouth is beyond comprehension. It would be unethical even if it were part of a life saving procedure, let alone a DENTAL procedure. And for the ADA to use their junk science to convince people to bring their little boy's and girl's to the dentist to have this procedure done is outright madness.
A "probably toxic dose" (PTD), where immediate medical intervention is warranted, is given as 5mg fluoride for every kilogram of body weight. It is also stated in the reference that the fatal dose of fluoride is from 32 to 64 mg fluoride/kg. For the lethal dose, we'll take an average of 48 mg F/kg.
Consider the case of a 30 pound child, the average weight for a 3 year old boy.
Weight in kilograms
Child: 50 lbs. = 13.6 kg
PTD (Probably Toxic Dose)
Child: 5mg * 13.6 = 68 mg
"Known" lethal dose
Child: 48 * 13.6 = 653 mg
Fluoride treatments are labled as containing up to 22,600 ppm:
However, if you take a look at the Colgate Duraphat mentioned in the above link, you'll see that it has 50 mg of sodium fluoride, although they state a fluoride availablity of 22.6 mg, thus the 22,600 ppm figure. We know that sodium fluoride can reach 42,200 ppm in water, which is what saliva and stomach juices chiefly consists of. So IF the patient swallows the product, MOST if not ALL of the fluoride will be available, especially if when it hits the blood stream. The amount of blood in the human body is roughly 8% of body weight, so for a 30 lb. (13. 6 kg) child that would equate to roughly 1.09 kg of blood. And as plasma contitutes 60% of blood, there'd be .65 kg of plasma. One liter of water weighs one kilogram, and plama is chiefly water, let's say there's about 0.5 liters of water in the blood of a 3 year old boy. If sodium fluoride can reach 42,200 ppm in one liter of water, then that means it could reach approximately 21,100 ppm, or 21.1 grams. So we can say that 50 mg of fluoride is available if swallowed.
It is obvious that 50mg is enough to kill a 3 year old boy, so I'd say the KNOWN lethal dose is closer to 3.7 mg of fluoride per kilogram of body weight.
Toothpaste listed in the document linked below is described as to be "sent home with the child" is listed as having 4000 ppm of fluoride, and there is even some there listed as having 5000 ppm of fluoride.
Studies show that adults can absorb up to 0.5 mg per "TV ribbon" brushing. Small children, even if pea-size amount is used, will still absorb the same, more if the child is younger and has less swallowing control skills. Half a tube of toothpaste can kill a child. Current content of sodium fluoride in toothpaste in Canada and the US is up to 0.4% = 4000 ppm (parts per million). Bubblegum-flavored dentifrice obviously is especially inviting for children. Since April 1997 all toothpaste in the US must carry a warning label, advising parents what to do if their child swallows more than the pea-size brushing amount. Wholesale containers carry the poison symbol of skull and crossbones.
The ADA says that fluoride is perfectly safe. I disagree with that, and find that it is reckless to portray fluoride that way. To me, this is nothing other than a massive game of russian roulette. You mention negligence, well, there IS obviously some negligence here, reckless, gross negligence I'd say.
I see that you cut and pasted all the "references" from the ADA website.
I can see why they don't provide any links to these studies, as many of them actually provided detrimental information.
Let's look at the reference given as;
187. Mullenix PJ, Denbesten PK, Schunior A, Kernan WJ. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol 1995;17(2):169-77.
THAT study actually shows how sodium fluoride is neurotoxic...
Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats
And there are many other studies that refer to it..
Fluoride's Neurological Effects:
In Harms Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development
And of course, there are other studies that the ADA DIDN'T list..
FLUORIDE-LINKED DOWN SYNDROME BIRTHS AND THEIR ESTIMATED OCCURRENCE DUE TO WATER FLUORIDATION
It is apparent that you've tried to dazzle the readers with your long list of references, just as the ADA hopes to dazzle those who visit their website. Most people would never take the time to even give it a second thought, and simply ASSUME that those papers cited actually PROMOTE the ADA's position. What a clever ruse....
Sure, there might be a few studies performed BY the ADA that promotes their position, and there might be a few studies performed by those with a vested interest in the matter that might side with them. But the OVERWHELMING volume of evidence clearly shows that fluoride IS a poison, and has NO redeeming value WHATSOEVER.
The is analagous to someone giving a child an entire bottle of aspirin and then saying we should ban aspirin because it killed him.
As I said earlier, everything is toxic at high enough doses, even water, do you want to ban water?
It is quite obvious that fluoride ISN'T safe at ALL.
In the rest of your diatribe you completely forgot to mention that there are 3700 studies done since 1970 that show fluoride is safe.
THAT study actually shows how sodium fluoride is neurotoxic...
Well, yes and no, I should have deleted that one, however, that still leaves you with around 280 in that one list alone you've ignored. Also, as we've learned over the years (can you say "ALAR", toxicity in rats does not necessarily apply to humans). Anyway, there are some problems with that study.
In addition, the experiment also studied the offspring of rats who were injected two to three times a day with fluoride during their pregnancies in an effort to show that prenatal exposure resulted in hyperactivity in male offspring.
However, two scientists who reviewed the 1995 study188 have suggested that the observations made can be readily explained by mechanisms that do not involve neurotoxicity. The scientists found inadequacies in experimental design that may have led to invalid conclusions. For example, the results of the experiment were not confirmed by the use of control groups which are an essential feature of test validation and experimental design. In summary the scientists stated, "We do not believe the study by Mullenix et al. can be interpreted in any way as indicating the potential for NaF (sodium fluoride) to be a neurotoxicant." Another reviewer104 noted, "...it seems more likely that the unusually high brain fluoride concentrations reported in Mullenix et al. were the result of some analytical error."
So, like I said, that leaves 280 or so studies you've yet to discount.
And that still leaves 3500 studies yet to go.