Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

6 bald vaginas for sale.


  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#51 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 07 July 2010 - 10:36 PM

:funny1:

#52 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 11:14 PM

Posted Image

#53 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 16 December 2010 - 06:21 PM

:lol:

#54 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 17 December 2010 - 01:13 AM

There we go!:lmao:

#55 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 07 March 2011 - 10:33 PM

Just got a new shipment in. Please let me know how many you'll need. :coffee:

#56 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 08 March 2011 - 01:11 AM

Taking open bids or a set price?:funny1:

#57 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 08 March 2011 - 01:02 PM

Posted Image

#58 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 08 March 2011 - 03:38 PM

Make an offer. :coffee:

#59 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 08 March 2011 - 08:09 PM

Two goats, a fatted calf and a bottle of Turkey?:lol: (offer is for all six btw)

#60 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 09 March 2011 - 04:44 AM

Sounds like a good deal.

#61 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 09 March 2011 - 01:18 PM

custy'd :funny1:

#62 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 18 March 2011 - 08:10 PM

So what? :lol:

#63 foo

foo
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,780 posts

Posted 28 March 2011 - 01:29 AM

Two goats, a fatted calf and a bottle of Turkey?:lol: (offer is for all six btw)


dude, what ya gonna do wit em? :funny1:

#64 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 28 March 2011 - 11:07 AM

dude, what ya gonna do wit em? :funny1:


Trade them for a mud shark of course!:lol:

#65 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 24 June 2011 - 10:12 PM

Just got some more off the back of a truck. PM me for details. :coffee:

#66 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 24 June 2011 - 11:41 PM

Off the back of the truck???? What the hell? You importing cadavers to keep up with demand or something?:huh:

#67 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 04 July 2011 - 09:25 PM

Talkin' fresh or frozen here???:huh:

#68 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 05 July 2011 - 12:36 PM

Just got some more off the back of a truck. PM me for details. :coffee:


:dunno:


Posted Image

#69 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 05 July 2011 - 02:54 PM

WTF? :lmao:

#70 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 05 July 2011 - 09:06 PM

I don't know. That truck isn't even refrigerated!!!:rolleyes: What's the deal? Don't tell me dry ice and coolers.:sad:

#71 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 11 July 2011 - 12:36 AM

zxcvbnm!!

#72 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 28 September 2011 - 04:03 AM

Just got a couple more in. Last year's model...still work fine.

#73 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 28 September 2011 - 05:14 PM

Not interested! The last ones that were kept chilled on ice had minimum elasticity.:funny1:

#74 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 28 September 2011 - 06:26 PM

I'll give you 15% off the 2012 model. They've been improved.

#75 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 28 September 2011 - 06:35 PM

Been doing well here. Dumb farmers don't know the difference.

Posted Image

#76 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 29 September 2011 - 06:52 AM

Been doing well here. Dumb farmers don't know the difference.

Posted Image


Whoa!!!! Psychic blast:lol: I was driving along main st. the other day, looked over at the Nov and OST and the thought went through my mind to take a pic of the Nov and try to think of a comment to put with it to post !!!!

Go-Go girls!:lmao: Always wondered what those things were in the jar beside the pickled eggs and sausages.:funny1:

#77 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 29 September 2011 - 07:07 PM

I always went in there with the intention of dining and dancing in air conditioning but it never happened.

#78 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 30 September 2011 - 06:42 AM

I always went in there with the intention of dining and dancing in air conditioning but it never happened.


You actually entered sober???:lol:

#79 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 30 September 2011 - 02:01 PM

I never said that. :coffee:

In reality I used to have to run over there during a rush if we ran out of singles. :lol:

#80 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 01 October 2011 - 08:58 AM

In reality I don't think I've been in the Nov more than three times in my life. :lol:

#81 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 05 October 2011 - 02:52 AM

You are missing out. :lol:

#82 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 05 October 2011 - 12:31 PM

???

Posted Image

#83 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 05 October 2011 - 12:37 PM

???

Posted Image


Naw, just a seedy little "exotic dancer":lol: hole in the wall.

At least Tommy's had two cages but that was before DHJ was here.

#84 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 05 October 2011 - 12:42 PM

You are missing out. :lol:


Sophie doesn't only own the Novelty, she was a science teacher in my school. None of us that had her for a teacher ever made it a point to hang out there.:lol:

#85 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 25 April 2012 - 04:21 AM

Six. Not seven. Six.

#86 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 30 April 2012 - 02:24 AM

Almost seven.

#87 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:32 PM

Posted Image

#88 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 15 May 2012 - 01:03 AM

Ok, Earl's in for one.

#89 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 03:36 AM

Only one? :lol:

#90 manzanita stark

manzanita stark
  • VibeTribe
  • 4,470 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 03:38 AM

Then again, seeing my Split Beaver got lost in the purge maybe I'd better settle for one.

#91 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 23 June 2012 - 01:50 PM

:lol:

#92 Sensei Miller

Sensei Miller
  • VibeTribe
  • 1,267 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:14 PM

Ahhh, yes, the Ol' Australian Motorboat.

I came for the vajayjays....and stayed for the air conditioning. (bonus points to anyone that says this while exiting VIP flushies)

Oh, and:

Posted Image

#93 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 20 January 2013 - 06:47 PM

:lol: What??

#94 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:31 PM

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:14 PM

comments@apha.org • http://www.apha.org

Policy Statement Database

New Search »

Community Water Fluoridation in the United States Policy Date: 10/28/2008 Policy Number: 20087

Community Water Fluoridation in the United States

This position paper provides updated evidence for the many supportive policies held by the American Public Health Association (APHA) on community water fluoridation (CWF). This position paper provides the scientific basis and justification for the importance of continuing to support CWF for our nation’s public water supplies. It also emphasizes the critical role that public health practitioners, health care professionals, and policymakers can play with respect to this important public health practice. The position paper will enable APHA to continue as a policy leader for CWF and safe drinking water. The objectives of this position paper are for APHA to be well positioned to—

• Provide expert guidance to regulatory agencies on decision-making regarding CWF standards and regulations; • Improve public health education about the safety and efficacy of CWF, specifically education for public health and other health professionals, decision makers, and the public; and • Promote sufficient funding for federal, state, and local CWF programs.

Relationship to Existing APHA Policies The following APHA policies are updated and replaced by this position paper and are archived with the adoption of this resolution: 5005, 5508, 5904, 6912, and 7402.

The Problem Tooth decay (dental caries) is one of the most common diseases in our country, affecting almost the total population. Although the scientific evidence base supports CWF as the foundation for improving a community’s public health by minimizing the prevalence and severity of tooth decay, many communities have not successfully initiated or continued this public health measure.1–4 Those opposed to fluoridation sow doubts about the risks and benefits of CWF, often with little scientific basis. In addition, there is often insufficient advocacy for CWF in the face of ongoing media campaigns by activists opposed to fluoridation, commonly referred to in the literature as antifluoridationists.2

Support for CWF Since 1950,5 APHA has supported CWF as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay), reaffirming this policy in 1955,6 1956,7 1959,8 1963,9 1965,10 1969,11 1974,12 1975,13 1976,14 1977,15,16 1979,17 1980,18 1982,19,20 1992,21 1997,22 2000,23 2001,24 and 2006.25 In addition, more than 100 national and international organizations have recognized the public health benefits of community water fluoridation.26 Because of its health and economic benefits, CWF has been and is included in the 1990, 2000, and 2010 national health objectives (e.g., Healthy People 2010). Between 1992 and 2002, the proportion of the US population served by CWF increased from 62% to 67%. The Healthy People 2010 CWF objective [21–9] is to increase to 75% the proportion of the US population served by community water systems with optimally fluoridated water.27 More Americans have access to fluoridated drinking water than ever before; in 2006, it was estimated that 184 million or 69% of those served by public water supplies and 61.5% of the US population overall had access to optimally fluoridated water.28 More than 405 million people in more than 60 countries worldwide enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water.29 Community water fluoridation has been hailed as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.30 Because many communities have not yet adopted fluoridation, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has set as a priority the evaluation of the effectiveness of laws, policies, and incentives related to water fluoridation and other public health measures designed to promote and sustain health for all residents across diverse community settings.31 However, opposition to this well-supported public health program continues to frustrate efforts by communities to begin or to continue fluoridation.2

Safety of CWF The scientific evidence base continues to support CWF as a safe and effective public health measure. Reviews of the scientific literature on the health effects of fluoride in the last 18 years have been conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government (2007)32; National Research Council (NRC), USA (1993, 2006)33,34; World Health Organization (1994, 1996, 2006)35–37; US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)38; International Programme on Chemical Safety; WHO (2002)39; Forum on Fluoridation, Ireland (2002)40; Medical Research Council, UK (2002)41; University of York, UK (2000)42,43; Institute of Medicine, USA (1999)44; Health Canada (1999)45; Lewis and Banting, Canada (1994)46; US Public Health Service (1991)47; and Kaminsky et al., New York State Department of Health (1990).48 In addition, the environmental impact of CWF has been reviewed.49,50 All of these reviews have found CWF to be safe and effective. Opponents have claimed potential toxicity from fluoridated water, but none of these claims has been supported by studies of scientific merit.2,51 Water safety is defined and determined by federal, state, and local regulations. The main federal law that ensures the quality of US drinking water is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under SDWA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. The current maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for fluoride in water is set at 4.0 mg/L,52 well above the optimal levels (0.7 mg/L F–1.2 mg/L F) currently recommended for CWF in the United States for the prevention of tooth decay.53 It has recently been recommended by a committee of the NRC that the MCLG of 4 mg/L for naturally occurring fluoride in water should be lowered to protect against the development of severe enamel fluorosis. The majority of the NRC committee concluded that the MCLG of 4 mg/L is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. Although the NRC committee concluded that the secondary maximum contaminant level of 2 mg/L adequately protects the public from the most severe stage of enamel fluorosis (enamel pitting), there were few studies to assess bone fracture risk in populations exposed to fluoride at the same level in drinking water. However, there was evidence that none of these concerns exist at the optimal levels of fluoride for the prevention of tooth decay.34 Fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is commonly used to fluoridate water. The majority of FSA samples have no impurities, and there is no credible evidence that the use of FSA is of concern.49,54,55

Legality of CWF During the last 60 years, the legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems.56 Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health and welfare.57 No court of last resort has ever rendered an opinion against fluoridation. The highest courts of more than a dozen states have confirmed the constitutionality of fluoridation.58 In 1984, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s mandatory fluoridation law, culminating 16 years of court action at a variety of judicial levels.59 Moreover, the US Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases 13 times, citing that no substantial federal or constitutional questions were involved.58 It has been the position of the US courts that a significant government interest in the health and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to public health regulation.1 Consequently, the courts have rejected the contention that fluoridation ordinances are a deprivation of religious or individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.58,60 In reviewing the legal aspects of fluoridation, the courts have dealt with this concern by ruling that (1) fluoride is a nutrient, not a medication, and is present naturally in the environment; (2) no one is forced to drink fluoridated water because alternative sources are available; and (3) when a person believes that fluoridation interferes with religious beliefs, there is a difference between the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to practice beliefs, which may be restricted in the public’s interest.61,62 Courts have consistently ruled that water fluoridation is not a form of compulsory mass medication or socialized medicine.58,61 Recent legal decisions have upheld CWF, including the use of FSA, that there is no fundamental constitutional right to fluoride-free water, and that the use of fluoride is not forced medication.63–66

Continued Benefit and Need for Fluoridation There is a continued need for CWF to maintain and enhance the reduced prevalence and severity of dental caries. Dental caries remains the most prevalent chronic disease of childhood, with 28% of children aged 2 to 5 years affected by tooth decay. The incidence of dental caries is experienced by 6 of 10 adolescents (12–19 years) and more than 90% of adults (20–64 years).67 The prevalence and severity of dental caries has decreased significantly in the United States as a result of CWF and the nearly ubiquitous use of fluoride toothpaste. The US Task Force on Community Preventive Services strongly recommended CWF for the prevention of dental caries.68 The review that included 21 studies, considered good to fair quality, found a median decrease in dental caries of 29.1% (before-and-after measures) and 50.7% (after measures only) for children aged 4 to 17 years, with varying levels of baseline caries and socioeconomic status. The task force found the evidence of effectiveness was strong. Overall, the prevalence of dental caries among children aged 12 to 17 years declined from 90% in 1971 to 1974 to 67% in 1988 to 1991, and the mean number of teeth that were decayed, missing, or filled (DMFT) as a result of caries declined from 6.2 to 2.8 during this period. More recent data have been aggregated into different age groups of adolescents; for 12 to 19 year olds, the mean DMFT declined from 3.1 in 1988 to 1994 to 2.55 in 1999 to 2004. For 20 to 64 year-old adults, there continues to be a decline in the number of DMFT, from a mean of 12.5 in 1988 to 1994 to 10.3 in 1999 to 2004.67

Additional Considerations Diffusion/Halo Effect There is a benefit from the diffusion of fluoride from fluoridated communities to surrounding nonfluoridated communities via the export of bottled beverages and processed foods.69 This diffusion effect, also referred to as the halo effect, as well as additional sources of fluoride, have reduced the absolute and proportional benefit of water fluoridation, as measured between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, from approximately 60% in the 1950 to 1970 era to 18% to 40% since the 1980s. Based on 1986 to 1987 data,70 in regions where 75% of public water supplies are fluoridated, the benefit may not be apparent when measuring caries experience between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities because of the halo or diffusion effect.71 However, in the Pacific region of the United States where less than 20% of public water supplies were fluoridated, there was a 60% difference in tooth decay experience between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.71 Continued CWF programs are essential to maintaining this improved oral health status.

Benefit for Adults CWF benefits everyone in the community, including adults and seniors as well as children. The combined results of 9 studies (7853 participants) examining the effectiveness of water fluoridation in preventing tooth decay in adults were found to be significant at p < .001.72 Adults have more tooth and root surfaces at risk for tooth decay than children. The incidence of dental caries for adults equals or exceeds that of children.73,74 Griffin et al. summarized the need for placing increased attention on the prevention of tooth decay in adults72: Although adults are as likely to experience new caries as children, certain segments of the US adult population—those with low incomes and the elderly—may have little or no access to restorative or preventive clinical care. At present, approximately 15% of state Medicaid programs provide no adult dental benefits at all, and approximately 45% cover only tooth extraction and emergency services (Oral Health America, 2003). Routine dental care is one of the few health areas not covered by Medicare. Limited access to restorative care increases the need for effective prevention; complications and pain and suffering are more likely if caries remain untreated. The proportion of the US population comprised of older adults is increasing, most of these persons are likely to be dentate and at risk for dental caries, and many lower-income adults lack access to timely restorative care. Our finding that fluoride is effective among all adults supports the development and implementation of fluoride programs to serve this population.72, p 414-5

Cost-Effectiveness Fluoridation is a highly cost-effective means of preventing tooth decay in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.75–77 The cost of CWF can vary in each community depending on several factors: size of the community (population and water usage); number of fluoride injection points where fluoride will be added to the water system; amount and type of equipment used to add and monitor fluoride levels; amount and type of fluoride compound used, its price, and its costs of transportation and storage; and expertise of personnel at the water plant.78 The annual cost for a US community to fluoridate its water is estimated to range from approximately $3.00 per person in small communities to approximately $0.50 per person in large communities.76

Cost Savings of CWF For communities of more than 20,000 people where it costs approximately $0.50 per person per year to fluoridate the water, every $1.00 (1995) invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 savings in dental treatment costs.79 At least 60% of the US population on public water systems has received fluoridated water since 1990, translating to savings in dental treatment costs of more than $25.7 billion between 1990 and 2000.80 In analyzing annual per person cost savings resulting from fluoridation, Griffin, Jones, and Tomar found a range from $16 in very small communities to $19 in large communities.76 These authors concluded, “On the basis of the most current data available on the effectiveness and cost of fluoridation, caries increment, and the cost and longevity of dental restorations, we find that water fluoridation offers significant cost savings.”76, p78 The annual incremental mean benefit of fluoridation has been found to be 0.19 tooth surfaces (range 0.04 to 0.34). This equates to a mean of 1.9 tooth surfaces every decade, or 9.5 tooth surfaces over 50 years.76 Preventing 10 tooth surfaces from decay translates into preventing the need for 10 fillings or perhaps two molars from needing crowns (a molar has five tooth surfaces). The tooth surface index (DMFS) does not address the severity of decay in any one surface or the need for treatment, which could vary from a small filling to a root canal treatment and crown or an extraction.

Disparities Because of the multifactorial nature of tooth decay, oral health disparities within and between countries are related to sugar consumption, fluoride use, dental care, and social determinants of health.80 However, it has been shown that children with the greatest dental need and who are at highest risk for tooth decay benefit the most from water fluoridation.82–87 Therefore, CWF helps reduce disparities in tooth decay prevalence. This has been most eloquently and succinctly articulated by Burt: “There is no practical alternative to water fluoridation for reducing these disparities in the United States.”88, p195

Pre- and Post-Eruptive Benefits Fluoridation protects teeth in two ways: systemically, when delivered through the water supply to children during the tooth forming years, and topically, through direct contact with teeth throughout life.89 Animal and human studies have demonstrated the topical and systemic benefits of fluoride.90,91 Epidemiological studies using data collected between 1991 and 1995 on children in Australia have confirmed earlier findings that higher pre- than posteruptive fluoride exposure is more beneficial for overall caries experience and for pit and fissure surfaces caries reduction. In those studies, children with optimum exposure to fluoridated water both pre- and posteruption had the lowest caries levels in all surface types and there was an exposure–response relationship between preeruptive exposure and caries.92–94

Total Fluoride Intake and Enamel Fluorosis Enamel fluorosis is a biomarker of fluoride intake during tooth developing years. In a minority of children, fluoride exposure from birth through age 8, when teeth are forming, may result in changes within the outer surface of the tooth called enamel fluorosis. Fluorosis occurs only on primary and permanent teeth while they are forming under the gums; once the teeth come into the mouth, they are no longer able to develop this condition. Clinically, the appearance of enamel fluorosis may vary and is usually bilateral. In its mildest form, it appears as faint white lines or streaks visible only to trained examiners under controlled examination conditions. In its pronounced moderate form, fluorosis manifests as white mottling of the teeth in which noticeable white lines or streaks often have coalesced into larger opaque areas; brown staining of the enamel also may be present. In its most severe form, pitting and actual breakdown of the enamel may occur. The prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is very low (near zero) at fluoride concentrations in drinking water less than 2 mg/L.95 In recent years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of children seen with nonsevere enamel fluorosis in both optimally fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas of the United States. The greatest relative increase in enamel fluorosis prevalence has occurred in nonfluoridated areas.96 Although US NHANES data from 1999–2002 have shown that 32% of US children aged 6 to 19 years have some enamel fluorosis,97 few survey participants had severe enamel fluorosis and less than 4% had moderate or severe enamel fluorosis. Although professional interest in limiting the amount of fluoride toothpaste delivered to young children and supervising their toothbrushing was expressed in the 1980s as a means of reducing the risk for enamel fluorosis, only during the early 1990s was this approach adopted broadly as a public health measure, which was too late to alter the risk for fluorosis among the 12 to 19 year age cohort in NHANES 1999–2002.97 Although it has been estimated that only approximately 2% of US schoolchildren may experience perceived esthetic problems related to enamel fluorosis that could be attributed to the currently recommended levels of fluoride in drinking water,98 in more recent studies, it has been found that mild fluorosis does not have a negative association on the perception of dental appearance.99 Children and their parents who had mild fluorosis were even better off in perception of oral health when other factors were controlled for in multivariate models. This rather unexpected finding, the authors suggest, might be explained by the fact that better oral health was often perceived as being without caries.99 Various studies in Canada, Australia, and the United States have shown a relationship between young children swallowing too much fluoride from fluoride toothpaste and subsequent enamel fluorosis development.96,100,101 In a study of 10- to 14-year-old children in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Pendrys found that enamel fluorosis in the optimally fluoridated study sample was attributed to early toothbrushing behaviors, inappropriate fluoride supplementation, and the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate.96 Enamel fluorosis in the nonfluoridated study sample was attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol and early toothbrushing behaviors. In the nonfluoridated study sample, 65% of the enamel fluorosis cases were attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol. An additional 34% was explained by the children swallowing fluoride toothpaste when they brushed more than once per day during the first 2 years of life. In the optimally fluoridated study sample, 68% of the enamel fluorosis cases were explained by the children using more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste during the first year of life, 13% by having been inappropriately given a fluoride supplement, and 9% by the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate. Recommendations have been made to reduce the occurrence of enamel fluorosis by controlling identified risk factors.78

Fluoride Intake From Foods and Beverages Water and water-based beverages are the chief source of dietary fluoride intake. Conventional estimates are that approximately 65% to 75% of dietary fluoride comes from water and water-based beverages.102 In 1997, the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine developed a comprehensive set of reference values for dietary nutrient intakes.44 The adequate intake (AI) establishes a goal for intake to sustain a desired indicator of health without causing side effects. In the case of fluoride, the AI is the daily intake level required to reduce dental decay without causing moderate enamel fluorosis. The AI for fluoride from all sources (fluoridated water, food, beverages, fluoride-containing dental products and dietary fluoride supplements) is set at 0.05 mg/kg/day.44 Using the established AI of 0.05 mg/kg, the amount of fluoride for optimal health to be consumed each day has been calculated by gender and age group (expressed as average weight).103 The tolerable upper intake levels (UL) are higher than the AI and are not the recommended level of intake. The UL is the estimated maximum intake level that should not produce unwanted effects on health. The UL for fluoride from all sources (fluoridated water, food, beverages, fluoride-containing dental products and dietary fluoride supplements) is set at 0.10 mg/kg/day for infants, toddlers, and children through 8 years of age. For older children and adults, who are no longer at risk for enamel fluorosis, the UL for fluoride is set at 10 mg/day, regardless of weight.44 Dietary fluoride intakes by adults from food, water, and beverages, where the concentration is 1.0 parts per million (ppm) fluoride in water, range from 1.4 to 3.4 mg/day; where the concentration is less than 0.3 ppm fluoride, the range is from 0.3 to 1.0 mg/day.44 USEPA has set the MCLG for fluoride in drinking water at 4 mg/L; by converting the MCLG of 4.0 mg/L to a mg/kg/day basis using standard water consumption estimates and body weight data from the NHANES III survey, EPA has concluded that dietary exposure to fluoride, including food exposure to sulfuryl fluoride used as an insecticide, uses 35% of the MCLG (expressed as mg/kg/day) for the US population; 23% of the MCLG (expressed as mg/kg/day) for youth 13 to 19 years, 37% of the MCLG (expressed as mg/kg/day) for children 3 to 5 years, 28% of the MCLG (as mg/kg/day) for children 1 to 2 years, and 35% of the MCLG (expressed as mg/kg/day) for all infants younger than 1 year old. These risk estimates are below the USEPA’s level of concern.104

Infant Formula and the Risk for Enamel Fluorosis Although only a small factor in the risk for enamel fluorosis, the American Dental Association (ADA) (and the CDC) has issued guidance for parents and caregivers of infants younger than 12 months of age to consult with their pediatrician, family physician, or dentist on the most appropriate type of water to use to reconstitute infant formula.105 Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis for infants primarily fed in this way may increase the chance of a child’s developing the faint white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis. Occasional use of water containing optimal levels of fluoride should not appreciably increase a child’s risk for fluorosis. Studies have not shown that teeth are likely to develop more esthetically noticeable forms of fluorosis, even with regular mixing of formula with fluoridated water.106

CWF and Fluoride Toothpaste Because frequent exposure to small amounts of fluoride each day will best reduce the risk for dental caries in all age groups, all people are recommended to drink water with an optimal fluoride concentration and to brush their teeth twice daily with fluoride toothpaste.78 Fluoride is the only nonprescription toothpaste additive proven to prevent dental caries.78 Because water fluoridation is not available in many countries, toothpaste might be the most important source of fluoride globally.78 There is an additive benefit of fluoride toothpaste. Combined use of fluoride toothpaste and fluoridated water offers protection greater than either used alone.78 In the United States, the standard concentration of fluoride in fluoride toothpaste is 1,000 to 1,100 ppm. Fluoride toothpaste is helpful to all age groups and should be used at least twice a day. Since 1991, manufacturers of fluoride toothpaste marketed in the United States have, as a requirement for obtaining the ADA Seal of Acceptance, placed instructions on the package label stating that children aged younger than 6 years should use only a pea-sized amount of fluoride toothpaste. This is reported to sharply reduce the role of fluoride toothpaste as a risk factor for enamel fluorosis.107 Toothpaste labeling requirements mandated by FDA in 1996 also direct parents of children aged younger than 2 years to seek advice from a dentist or physician before introducing their child to fluoride toothpaste.108 Children younger than 6 years of age should have parents supervise and apply the toothpaste so as to limit the amount that may be swallowed; fluoride toothpaste should be spit out rather than swallowed. The propensity of young children to swallow toothpaste has led to development of “child-strength” toothpaste with lower fluoride concentrations. Such a product, not currently available in the United States, would be a desirable alternative to currently available products for many young children. Toothpaste containing 500 to 550 ppm fluoride might be almost as efficacious as that containing 1,000 ppm fluoride.109 A British study reported that the prevalence of diffuse enamel opacities (an indicator of mild enamel fluorosis) in the upper incisors was substantially lower among children who used toothpaste containing 550 ppm fluoride than among those who used toothpaste containing 1,050 ppm fluoride.110 An Australian study reported a decrease in the prevalence of enamel fluorosis and no increase in caries after steps were taken to promote use of toothpaste for children containing 400 ppm fluoride and reduce dosages for dietary supplements.111 Adults benefit considerably from CWF and fluoride toothpaste. A review of adult studies after 1980 found that any fluoride, whether self-applied, professionally applied, via water fluoridation, or in combination, averted 0.51 carious coronal and root surfaces per year.72

Fluoridation and Dental Sealants The effectiveness of dental sealants in community-based programs may be further improved when coupled with lifetime exposure to optimally fluoridated water.112

Bottled Water In 2006, the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition issued a Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries.113 Labels on bottled water with 0.6 to 1.0 mg/L fluoride may claim “Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay].” In addition, the health claim is not intended for use on bottled water products specifically marketed for use by infants. Because the use of bottled water has increased and because the majority of commercial bottled water is low in fluoride, there is the potential for an increase in dental caries.114,115 To encourage bottled water manufacturers to provide optimally fluoridated water, the ADA has introduced a certification program for foods and beverages that are beneficial to oral health, including fluoridated bottled water.116 Per capita consumption of bottled water has increased from approximately 190 mL/person/day in 2001 to approximately 285 mL/person/day in 2006.117 Considering water from all sources, EPA surveys in 1994 to 1998 found the mean per capita daily average total water ingestion was 1.233 L.118 In the EPA surveys, 75% was from community water, 13% from bottled water, 10% from other sources (e.g., well, spring, and cistern), and 2% from unidentified sources. Assuming no general increase in overall water consumption, bottled water use has increased from 15% in 2001 to 23% in 2006 as a proportion of total water consumption. ADA recommends that dentists ask their patients about bottled water use and advise them about the possible removal of fluoride by some home water treatment systems.118 Further, ADA and CDC recommend labeling of bottled water with the fluoride concentration of the product.78,119

Salt Fluoridation Salt fluoridation is practiced as a community-based alternative to water fluoridation in many countries where there are few central water systems, water infrastructure is otherwise not appropriate, or where other factors preclude the use of water fluoridation. It has been estimated that 40 million people use salt fluoridation, mainly in European, South American, and Central American countries.120 A concentration of 200 to 250 mg fluoride per kg salt is typically used in fluoridated salt. It is recommended that a national fluoride program use only one of these approaches.121

Fluoride Supplements Where community water fluoridation is not feasible because there is no central water supply or because there are a large number of wells and a small population, school-based fluoride supplement programs are an alternative for communities with suboptimal fluoride in drinking water.122 Prescription fluoride supplements (of 0.25 mg/day, 0.5 mg/day, or 1 mg/day, depending on the age of the child and the concentration of fluoride in the water supply—whether less than 0.3 mg/L or between 0.3 and 0.6 mg/L, and all sources of fluoride) are currently recommended daily for children between 6 months of age and 16 years where the fluoride concentration of the water supply is less than 0.6 mg/L (ppm).78 Currently, in addition to age and fluoride concentration of drinking water, all sources of fluoride should be evaluated with a thorough fluoride history when physicians or dentists prescribe fluoride supplements. Patient exposure to multiple water sources can make proper prescribing complex.123 Home compliance with use of fluoride supplements can be challenging. Health care providers must educate parents, or school personnel in the case of school-based programs, about the appropriate use of the fluoride supplements; moreover, parents and recipients must understand the importance of fluoride supplements, the recommended dose, and the need for compliance on a daily basis for many years. Concomitantly, fluoride supplements are not always prescribed as recommended; studies have found more than one third of children receive prescriptions with incorrect dosage or do not receive prescriptions.124,125 Long-term compliance with daily fluoride supplements has been reported as poor.126,127 As a public health measure, because of poor compliance by individual providers and patients in the private sector, fluoride supplements are less effective than water fluoridation for providing caries prevention. Because inappropriate prescribing of fluoride supplements in fluoridated communities and high doses of fluoride supplements have been found to contribute to enamel fluorosis, alternative doses and schedules have been proposed and are being used in other countries.128

Comparative Costs of Community-Based Tooth Decay Prevention Programs The costs of school-based fluoride supplement programs have been compared with the cost of CWF, noting that school-based programs affect children only, whereas CWF benefits all age groups of children and adults. The cost to achieve the same level of benefit of prevention of tooth decay was three times higher for fluoride supplements provided in a school-based program compared with water fluoridation for all residents.129 The largest US study conducted to determine the cost and effectiveness of various tooth decay prevention strategies for schoolchildren was conducted between 1977 and 1982. The National Preventive Dentistry Demonstration Program found that dental health lessons, brushing and flossing, fluoride tablets and mouthrinsing, and professionally applied topical fluorides were not effective in reducing a substantial amount of dental decay, even when all of these procedures were used together. Occlusal sealants prevented 1 to 2 carious surfaces in 4 years. Children who were especially susceptible to decay did not benefit appreciably more from any of the preventive measures than did children in general. However, CWF was reaffirmed as the most cost-effective means of reducing tooth decay in children. By contrast to the $23 per year cost of maintaining a child in a sealant program, the annual per capita cost (in 1981 dollars) of water fluoridation in 5 US communities ranged from $0.06 in Denver, Colorado, to $0.80 in rural West Virginia.73

Topical Fluorides Because of the adoption of water fluoridation and widespread use of fluoride toothpaste, approximately 75% of the US public is at low risk for dental caries. Therefore, the use of any professionally applied fluoride, including fluoride varnish, should be limited to those individuals and communities deemed to be at moderate to high risk for developing dental caries.130 A targeted approach offers additional opportunities toward improving the prevention and control of dental caries.130 The use of fluoride varnish to prevent and control dental caries in young children and seniors is expanding in both public and private dental practice settings and in nondental settings that incorporate health risk assessments and counseling. These settings include Head Start programs and Special Supplemental Nutrition Programs for Women, Infants, and Children; medical offices; well-child clinics and home visits conducted by public health nurses; child care programs; and other, sometimes overlapping, community programs.

Public Information on CWF Public opinion polls have consistently shown 70% or more of the adult US population supports fluoridation.131 Several organizations provide detailed information on CWF on Web sites, including the CDC132 and ADA.133 The ADA periodically updates Fluoridation Facts, a review of fluoridation literature in question and answer format.134 In addition, ADA has a resource list of materials.135 However, a review of Web sites providing information on CWF revealed that, of 59 sites meeting specific criteria from a list of the first 100 Web sites found when searching “water fluoridation” using the Google search engine (www.google.com) on February 15, 2003, 54% recommend water fluoridation compared with 31% that oppose it.136 Armfield analyzed Web information on fluoridation from Australia in 2006 using 5 search engines—Google, Yahoo, MSN, AOL, and Ask—and found that of the first 20 results from each Web site, searching for “water fluoridation,” 29 of the sites were for fluoridation, 55 were against it, with 9 reviews and 7 others.2 Armfield stated, “Although the overwhelming majority of scientific enquiry supports the benefits of water fluoridation, members of the public who type the term ‘water fluoridation’ into any of the major search engines would immediately be presented with a disproportionate percentage of anti-fluoridation websites.”2, p3 Thus, there may be an increasing number of Web sites providing information that is in opposition to established public health policy on water fluoridation. Water fluoridation opponents are said to use multiple techniques to undermine the scientifically established effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation. The materials they use are often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation. Despite an extensive body of literature, both studies and results within studies are often selectively reported, giving a biased portrayal of water fluoridation effectiveness. Positive findings are downplayed or trivialized, and the population implications of these findings misinterpreted. Ecological comparisons are sometimes used to support spurious conclusions. Opponents of water fluoridation frequently repeat that water fluoridation is associated with adverse health effects and studies are selectively picked from the extensive literature to convey only claimed adverse findings related to water fluoridation.2

Ethics of CWF Several reviews have considered the ethics of CWF.137–140 The reviews rely on the preponderance of scientific evidence of benefit and lack of harm and have concluded that CWF is ethical, in part, because it leads to the reduction of health inequalities and the reduction of ill health, particularly among vulnerable groups, and provides an economic benefit to both society and to individuals. With water fluoridation, a whole area either receives fluoridated water or does not. Populations do not remain static, as people move to and from an area. In practical terms, it would therefore not be feasible to seek individual consent. The most appropriate way of deciding whether fluoride should be added to water supplies is to rely on democratic decisionmaking procedures, with public input informing those empowered by the public to make such public health decisions (e.g., local health board, city council, water board, or state legislature). These procedures should be implemented at the local and regional, rather than national, levels because the need for and perception of water fluoridation varies in different areas.138 Account should be taken of relevant evidence and of alternative ways of achieving the intended benefit in the area concerned. Whatever policy is adopted, dental health and any adverse effects of fluoridation should be monitored. The Nuffield Council found there is a need for better and more balanced information for the public and policymakers.138 From an ethical perspective, fluoridating water supplies can be seen as replicating the benefits already conferred on those communities receiving water naturally containing 1 part per million of fluoride. Moreover, the greatest benefit of all goes to that section of the population least able to help themselves—children. Drinking fluoride-free water is not a basic human right but a question of individual preference. In a society where people come together for mutual benefit, it is a question of balancing such personal preferences against the common good arising from less disease, less pain, less suffering, and better health that fluoridation brings.139

Summary Dental caries (tooth decay) continues to be the most common chronic disease of childhood, and dental caries incidence for adults exceeds that of children. Although there are gross oral health disparities for minorities, eliminating health disparities is an overarching priority area for APHA. Community water fluoridation has been shown to be the most cost-effective public health measure for the primary prevention of dental caries and has been shown to be the most effective public health strategy to reduce disparities in dental caries between ethnic and racial groups. Yet, the US public is generally uninformed about the appropriate use of fluoride and community water fluoridation, and information available to the public on community water fluoridation is not always evidence based.

Therefore be it resolved that APHA—

• Reiterates its strong endorsement and recommendation for the fluoridation of all community water systems as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of tooth decay; • Recommends that federal, state, and local agencies and organizations in the United States promote water fluoridation as the foundation for better oral health; • Recommends promotion and increased support by federal, state, and local entities for adequate public health infrastructure to ensure safe and effective water fluoridation practices, including monitoring, training, technical and financial assistance, and promotion to expand and maintain water fluoridation programs; • Recommends increased support by federal agencies for continued research on the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation and other measures to deliver fluoride to communities and individuals, including effective programs and long-term outcomes; • Supports efforts to educate public health and other health professionals, decisionmakers, and the public on community water fluoridation and other appropriate uses of fluoride in the prevention of tooth decay; • Recommends that bottled water manufacturers offer an option of bottled water with an optimal level of fluoride, all bottled water be labeled with its fluoride concentration, and APHA collaborate with other professional groups to promote this recommendation; • Recommends that the FDA consider all US and non-US evidence-based studies concerning low-concentration fluoride toothpaste for children under age 6 during tooth developing years to reduce the risk of enamel fluorosis and tooth decay; and • Should collaborate with other professional groups to encourage the National Institutes of Health to study the efficacy and safety of low fluoride toothpastes.

References 1. Newbrun E. The fluoridation war: a scientific dispute or a religious argument? J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(5 Spec No):246–252. 2. Armfield JM. When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4(1):25. Available at: www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/4/1/25. Accessed June 9, 2008. 3. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Question 54. Why does community water fluoridation sometimes lose when it is put to a public vote? Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 4. Fluoride Action Network. More communities throw out fluoridation. December 21, 2006. Available at: www.fluoridealert.org/press/communities.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 5. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 50-05. Fluoridation of public water supplies. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1950. 6. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 55-08. Fluoridation of public water supplies. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1955. 7. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 56-07. Commendation for support of fluoridation. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1956. 8. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 59-04. Adjustment of fluorides in water supplies. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1959. 9. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 63-13. Dietary fluoride supplement. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1963. 10. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 65-26(PP). The State public health agency. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1965. 11. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 69-12. The National Fluoridation Act. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1969. 12. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 74-02. Fluoridation. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1974. 13. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 75-20(PP). The establishment of standards of performance for environmental laboratories. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1975. 14. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 76-33(PP). Policy statement on prevention. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1976. 15. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 77-11. Dental health in a national health program. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1977. 16. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 77-21. Development of a national policy of primary prevention. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1977. 17. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 79-11. Fluoridated communities for the meeting sites of national health organizations. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1979. 18. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 80-13. Public information role of health officials. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1980. 19. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 82-01. Engineering safeguards for school fluoridation installations. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1982. 20. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 82-07. Maintenance of specialty status: dental public health. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1982. 21. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 92-02. The prevention of diet-related chronic diseases: a national plan for meeting the Year 2000 objectives. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1992. 22. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 97-06. Evidence-based dental care. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1997. 23. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 2000-5. Effective interventions for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2000. 24. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 2001-17. Support the Framework for Action on Oral Health in America: a report of the surgeon general. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2001. 25. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 2006-4. Support for the Alaska dental health aide therapist and other innovative programs for underserved populations. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2006. 26. American Dental Association (ADA). Compendium. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/compendium.asp. Accessed June 9, 2008. 27. Progress Toward Healthy People 2010 Targets. Available at: www.healthypeople.gov/data/midcourse/html/focusareas/FA21ProgressHP.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Populations receiving optimally fluoridated public drinking water—United States, 1992–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008 Jul 11;57(27):737–741 Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5727a1.htm. Accessed July 13, 2008. 29. British Fluoridation Society. The extent of water fluoridation. In: One in a Million. The Facts About Water Fluoridation. 2nd ed. London, UK: The British Fluoridation Society, The UK Public Health Association, The British Dental Association, and The Faculty of Public Health; 2004: 55–80. Available at: www.bfsweb.org/One%20in%20a%20million/7%20extent.pdf. Accessed on June 9, 2008. 30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Ten great public health achievements—United States, 1900–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(12):241–243. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Advancing the Nation’s Health: A Guide to Public Health Research Needs, 2006–2015. December 2006. Available at: www.cdc.gov/od/science/PHResearch/cdcra/AdvancingTheNationsHealth.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 32. Australian Government. National Health and Medical Research Council. A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation; 2007. Available at: www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 33. National Research Council (NRC). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/c...rd_id=2204#toc. Accessed November 18, 2008. 34. National Research Council (NRC). Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC; The National Academies Press; 2006. Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571. Accessed June 9, 2008. 35. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Technical Report Series #846: Report of a WHO Expert Committee on Oral Health Status and Fluoride Use. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1994 36. World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. 2nd ed. Vol 2. Health criteria and other supporting information. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1996. Available at: www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/2edvol2p2b.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 37. Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y. Fluoride in Drinking-water. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO); 2006. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who...563192_eng.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 38. US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine. Atlanta, Ga: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; 2003. Available at: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 39. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). Environmental Health Criteria, No. 227. Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002. Available at: www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc227.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 40. Forum on Water Fluoridation in Ireland 2002. Dublin, Ireland: Government of Ireland; 2002. Available at: www.dohc.ie/publications/fluoridation_forum.html. Accessed June 9, 2008. 41. Medical Research Council. Medical Research Council Working Group Report: Water Fluoridation and Health. September 2002. Available at: www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002482. Accessed June 9, 2008. 42. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. York, UK: York Publishing Services Ltd; 2000. Available at: www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 43. McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. 2000;321(7265):855–859. 44. Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Fluoride: Background Information. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Report of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php? isbn=0309063507&page=288. Accessed June 9, 2008. 45. Locker, D. Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-Committee Report. Prepared under contract for the Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health, First Nations Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada. University of Toronto: Community of Dental Health Services Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry; 1999. Available at: www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/fluoridation/fluor.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 46. Lewis DW, Banting DW. Water fluoridation: current effectiveness and dental fluorosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:153–158. 47. US Public Health Service. Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the subcommittee on fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service; 1991. Available at: www.health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/default.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 48. Kaminsky LS, Mahoney MC, Leach J, Melius J, Miller MJ. Fluoride: benefits and risks of exposure. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1990;1:261–281 Available at: http://crobm.iadrjou...eprint/1/4/261. Accessed June 9, 2008. 49. Pollick HF. Water fluoridation and the environment: current perspective in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004;10:343–350. 50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Community Water Fluoridation. Health Effects and Environmental Impact. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/health_effects.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 51. American Dental Association. Fluoridation Facts. Question 41. What are some of the erroneous health claims made against water fluoridation? 2005. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 52. US Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Contaminants. Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html. Accessed June 9, 2008. 53. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Engineering and administrative recommendations for water fluoridation, 1995. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1995;44(RR-13):1–40. Available at: www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00039178.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 54. NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals. February 2008. Available at: www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2008. 55. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Water Fluoridation Additives, Available at: www.cdc.gov/Fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#7. Accessed October 26, 2008. 56. American Dental Association. Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Question 51. Has the legality of water fluoridation been upheld by the courts? Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 57. Safe Water Association, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Fond Du Lac. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. 184 Wis. 2d 365; 516 N.W.2d 13; 1994 Wisc. App. LEXIS 529. Available at: www.actionpa.org/fluoride/lawandcourts/wi-fond-du-lac.html. Accessed June 9, 2008. 58. Block LE. Antifluoridationists persist: the constitutional basis for fluoridation. J Public Health Dent. 1986;46(4):188–198. 59. Christoffel T. Fluorides, facts and fanatics: public health advocacy shouldn’t stop at the courthouse door. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:888–891. 60. McMenamin JP. Fluoridation of water in Virginia: the tempest in the teapot. J Law Ethics Dent. 1988;1(1):42–46. 61. Roemer R. Water fluoridation: public health responsibility and the democratic process. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1965 Sep;55:1337–1348. 62. Strong GA. Liberty, religion, and fluoridation. J Am Dent Assoc. 1968;76(6):1398–1409. 63. Jesus F. Quiles, Appellant, v. The City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. 802 So. 2d 397; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16389. 64. Paul Coshow et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. City of Escondido et al., Defendants and Respondents. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. 132 Cal. App. 4th 687; 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 19; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1420. 65. City Of Watsonville, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. State Department of Health Services, Defendant and Respondent; California Dental Association, Intervener and Respondent. Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District. 133 Cal. App. 4th 875; 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1664. 66. Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland, Inc., Et Al. V. Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, Maryland, et al. Civil No. JFM-01–2611. United States District Court for the District of Maryland. 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15830. 67. Dye BA, Tan S, Smith V, et al. Trends in oral health status: United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2004. Vital Health Stat 11. 2007;No. 248:1–92. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_248.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 68. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Promoting oral health: interventions for preventing dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. A report on recommendations of the task force on community preventive services. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001;50(RR-21):1–13 Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5021a1.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 69. Griffin SO, Gooch BF, Lockwood SA, Tomar SL. Quantifying the diffused benefit from water fluoridation in the United States. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29(2):120–129. 70. Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. J Dent Res. 1990; 69 (special issue):723–727. 71. Newbrun E. Current regulations and recommendations concerning water fluoridation, fluoride supplements, and topical fluoride agents. J Dent Res. 1992;71:1255–1265. 72. Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley V. Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res. 2007;86:410–415. 73. Griffin SO, Griffin PM, Swann JL, Zlobin N. New coronal caries in older adults: implications for prevention. J Dent Res. 2005;84:715–720. 74. Griffin SO, Griffin PM, Swann JL, Zlobin N. Estimating rates of new root caries in older adults. J Dent Res. 2004;83:634–638. 75. Klein SP, Bohannan HM, Bell RM, Disney JA, Foch CB, Graves RC. The cost and effectiveness of school-based preventive dental care. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:382–391. 76. Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Public Health Dent. 2001;61(2):78–86. 77. O’Connell JM, Brunson D, Anselmo T, Sullivan PW. Costs and savings associated with community water fluoridation programs in Colorado. Prev Chronic Dis [serial online]. 2005 Nov [date cited]. Available at: www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2005/nov/05_0082.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 78. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001 17;50(RR-14):1–42. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/fl_caries.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 79. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cost savings of community water fluoridation. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 80. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing dental caries with community programs. Available at: www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/factsheets/dental_caries.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 81. Edelstein BL. The dental caries pandemic and disparities problem. BMC Oral Health. 200615;6(Suppl 1):S2. 82. Jones CM, Taylor GO, Whittle JG, Evans D, Trotter DP. Water fluoridation, tooth decay in 5 year olds, and social deprivation measured by the Jarman score: analysis of data from British dental surveys. BMJ. 1997;315(7107):514–517. 83. Jones C, Taylor G, Woods K, Whittle G, Evans D, Young P. Jarman underprivileged area scores, tooth decay and the effect of water fluoridation. Community Dent Health. 1997;14:156–156. 84. Jones CM, Worthington H. The relationship between water fluoridation and socioeconomic deprivation on tooth decay in 5-year-old children. Br Dent J. 1999;186:397–400. Erratum in: Br Dent J. 2000;189:390. 85. Jones CM, Worthington H. Water fluoridation, poverty and tooth decay in 12-year-old children. J Dent. 2000;28:389–393. 86. Riley JC, Lennon MA, Ellwood RP. The effect of water fluoridation and social inequalities on dental caries in 5-year-old children. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:300–305. 87. Evans DJ, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Tabari ED, Butler T. The effect of fluoridation and social class on caries experience in 5-year-old Newcastle children in 1994 compared with results over the previous 18 years. Community Dent Health. 1996;13(1):5–10. 88. Burt BA. Fluoridation and social equity. J Public Health Dent. 2002;62(4):195–220. 89. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community Water Fluoridation. Benefits. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/benefits.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 90. Larson RH, Mellberg JR, Senning R. Experiments on local and systemic action of fluoride in caries inhibition in the rat. Arch Oral Biol. 1977;22:437–439. 91. Groeneveld A, Van Eck AA, Backer Dirks O. Fluoride in caries prevention: is the effect pre- or post-eruptive? J Dent Res. 1990;69 (special issue):751–755; discussion 820–823. 92. Singh KA, Spencer AJ, Brennan DS. Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Caries Res. 2007;41(1):34–42. 93. Singh KA, Spencer AJ. Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on caries experience by surface type of permanent first molars. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:435–446. 94. Singh KA, Spencer AJ, Armfield JM. Relative effects of pre- and posteruption water fluoride on caries experience of permanent first molars. J Public Health Dent. 2003;63(1):11–19. 95. National Research Council (NRC). Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006. Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571. Accessed June 9, 2008. 96. Pendrys DG. Risk of enamel fluorosis in nonfluoridated and optimally fluoridated populations: considerations for the dental professional. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131:746–755. 97. Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker LK, Canto MT, et al. Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis—United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2002. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2005;54(3):1–43. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 98. Griffin SO, Beltrán ED, Lockwood SA, Barker LK. Esthetically objectionable fluorosis attributable to water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30:199–209. 99. Do LG, Spencer A. Oral health-related quality of life of children by dental caries and fluorosis experience. J Public Health Dent. 2007;67(3):132–139. 100. Osuji OO, Leake JL, Chipman ML, Nikiforuk G, Locker D, Levine N. Risk factors for dental fluorosis in a fluoridated community. J Dent Res. 1988;67(12):1488–1492. 101. Do LG, Spencer AJ. Risk-benefit balance in the use of fluoride among young children. J Dent Res. 2007;86:723–728. 102. US Department of Agriculture. USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods. Beltsville, Md: Agricultural Research Service. Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center. Nutrient Data Laboratory; 2004. Available at: www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/fluoride.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 103. American Dental Association. Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Table 3: Dietary Reference Intakes for Fluoride; Page 25. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 104. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Sulfuryl Fluoride; Pesticide Tolerance. 40 CFR Part 180. [OPP-2003-0373; FRL-7342-1]. Available at: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2004/January/Day-23/p1540.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 105. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoride and Infant Formula Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/infantsformula_faq.asp. Accessed November 19, 2008. 106. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background: Infant Formula and the Risk for Enamel Fluorosis. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 107. Pendrys DG. Risk for fluorosis in a fluoridated population: implications for the dentist and hygienist. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126:1617–1624. 108. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Anticaries drug products for over-the-counter human use. 21 CFR Part 355. Code of Federal Regulations 1999:280–285. 109. Winter GB, Holt RD, Williams BF. Clinical trial of a low-fluoride toothpaste for young children. Int Dent J. 1989;39:227–235. 110. Holt RD, Morris CE, Winter GB, Downer MC. Enamel opacities and dental caries in children who used a low fluoride toothpaste between 2 and 5 years of age. Int Dent J. 1994;44:331–341. 111. Riordan PJ. Dental fluorosis decline after changes to supplement and toothpaste regimens. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30:233–240. 112. Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. Community effectiveness of fissure sealants and the effect of fluoridated water consumption. Community Dent Health. 2007;24(1):4–11. 113. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries. Available at: www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flfluoro.html. Accessed June 9, 2008. 114. Broffitt B, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Cavanaugh JE. An investigation of bottled water use and caries in the mixed dentition. J Public Health Dent. 2007;67:151–158. 115. Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. Consumption of nonpublic water: implications for children’s caries experience. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:283–296. 116. American Dental Association (ADA). New ADA program tags Smile Healthy products. Posted Jan. 23, 2008. Available at: www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=2851. Accessed June 9, 2008. 117. International Bottled Water Association. Statistics and water quality. Beverage Marketing’s 2007 Market Report Findings. Available at: www.bottledwater.org/public/statistics_main.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 118. US Environmental Protection Agency. Estimated per Capita Water Ingestion and Body Weight in the United States—An Update. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. EPA-822-R-00-001. October 2004. Available at: www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinking/percapita/2004.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 119. American Dental Association. ADA Policy on Bottled Water, Home Water Treatment Systems and Fluoride Exposure. 2002. Available at: www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/bottledwater.asp. Accessed June 9, 2008. 120. Petersen PE. The World Oral Health report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century—the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31(Suppl 1):3–24. 121. Horowitz HS. Decision-making for national programs of community fluoride use. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2000;28:321–329. 122. Horowitz HS. The role of dietary fluoride supplements in caries prevention. J Public Health Dent. 1999;59:205–210. 123. American Dental Association. Fluoride Supplement Dosage Schedule—1994. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride_article01.asp#dosage. Accessed June 9, 2008. 124. Levy SM, Muchow G. Provider compliance with recommended dietary fluoride supplement protocol. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:281–283. 125. Osso D, Tinanoff N, Romberg E, Syme S, Roberts M. Relationship of naturally occurring fluoride in Carroll County, Maryland, to aquifers, well depths, and fluoride supplementation prescribing behaviors. J Dent Hyg. 2008;82(1):10. 126. Levy SM, Kiritsy MC, Slager SL, Warren JJ., Patterns of dietary fluoride supplements use during infancy. J Public Health Dent. 1998;158:228–233. 127. Newbrun E. Water fluoridation and fluoridation supplements in caries prevention. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1980;838–847. 128. Newbrun E. The case for reducing the current Council on Dental Therapeutics fluoride supplementation schedule. J Public Health Dent. 1999;59:263–268. 129. Newbrun E. Fluorides and Dental Caries. 3rd ed. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas; 1986:143. 130. Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors. Fluorides Committee. Fluoride Varnish: An Evidence-Based Approach Research Brief. September 2007. Available at: www.astdd.org/docs/FluorideVarnishPaperASTDDSept2007.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 131. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Question 52. Why does opposition to community water fluoridation continue? Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 132. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Community Water Fluoridation. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/. Accessed June 9, 2008. 133. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoride and Fluoridation. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/index.asp. Accessed June 9, 2008. 134. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 135. American Dental Association (ADA). Community water fluoridation resources. Available at: www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/topics_fluoridation_resources.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 136. Kim C, Yamamoto LG. Water fluoridation information found on the World Wide Web. Hawaii Med J. 2004;63(6):185–186. 137. McNally M, Downie J. The ethics of water fluoridation. J Can Dent Assoc. 2000;66:592–593. 138. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public Health: Ethical Issues. 2007. Available at: www.nuffieldbioethics.org. Accessed June 9, 2008. 139. British Fluoridation Society. One in a Million—the Facts About Water Fluoridation. 2nd ed. Chapter 10. The ethics of water fluoridation. Available at: www.bfsweb.org/onemillion/onemillion.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 140. Mendoza VC. The ethical dilemma of water fluoridation. Rev Med Chil. 2007;135:1487–1493. Epub 2008 Jan 16. Translation available at: http://www.scielo.cl...lng=es&nrm=iso. Accessed on December 7, 2008.

2013 © American Public Health Association



#95 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,691 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:40 PM

Posted 18 January 2013 - 07:14 PM

comments@apha.org • http://www.apha.org

Policy Statement Database

New Search »

Community Water Fluoridation in the United States Policy Date: 10/28/2008 Policy Number: 20087

Community Water Fluoridation in the United States

This position paper provides updated evidence for the many supportive policies held by the American Public Health Association (APHA) on community water fluoridation (CWF). This position paper provides the scientific basis and justification for the importance of continuing to support CWF for our nation’s public water supplies. It also emphasizes the critical role that public health practitioners, health care professionals, and policymakers can play with respect to this important public health practice. The position paper will enable APHA to continue as a policy leader for CWF and safe drinking water. The objectives of this position paper are for APHA to be well positioned to—

• Provide expert guidance to regulatory agencies on decision-making regarding CWF standards and regulations; • Improve public health education about the safety and efficacy of CWF, specifically education for public health and other health professionals, decision makers, and the public; and • Promote sufficient funding for federal, state, and local CWF programs.

Relationship to Existing APHA Policies The following APHA policies are updated and replaced by this position paper and are archived with the adoption of this resolution: 5005, 5508, 5904, 6912, and 7402.

The Problem Tooth decay (dental caries) is one of the most common diseases in our country, affecting almost the total population. Although the scientific evidence base supports CWF as the foundation for improving a community’s public health by minimizing the prevalence and severity of tooth decay, many communities have not successfully initiated or continued this public health measure.1–4 Those opposed to fluoridation sow doubts about the risks and benefits of CWF, often with little scientific basis. In addition, there is often insufficient advocacy for CWF in the face of ongoing media campaigns by activists opposed to fluoridation, commonly referred to in the literature as antifluoridationists.2

Support for CWF Since 1950,5 APHA has supported CWF as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of dental caries (tooth decay), reaffirming this policy in 1955,6 1956,7 1959,8 1963,9 1965,10 1969,11 1974,12 1975,13 1976,14 1977,15,16 1979,17 1980,18 1982,19,20 1992,21 1997,22 2000,23 2001,24 and 2006.25 In addition, more than 100 national and international organizations have recognized the public health benefits of community water fluoridation.26 Because of its health and economic benefits, CWF has been and is included in the 1990, 2000, and 2010 national health objectives (e.g., Healthy People 2010). Between 1992 and 2002, the proportion of the US population served by CWF increased from 62% to 67%. The Healthy People 2010 CWF objective [21–9] is to increase to 75% the proportion of the US population served by community water systems with optimally fluoridated water.27 More Americans have access to fluoridated drinking water than ever before; in 2006, it was estimated that 184 million or 69% of those served by public water supplies and 61.5% of the US population overall had access to optimally fluoridated water.28 More than 405 million people in more than 60 countries worldwide enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water.29 Community water fluoridation has been hailed as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.30 Because many communities have not yet adopted fluoridation, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has set as a priority the evaluation of the effectiveness of laws, policies, and incentives related to water fluoridation and other public health measures designed to promote and sustain health for all residents across diverse community settings.31 However, opposition to this well-supported public health program continues to frustrate efforts by communities to begin or to continue fluoridation.2

Safety of CWF The scientific evidence base continues to support CWF as a safe and effective public health measure. Reviews of the scientific literature on the health effects of fluoride in the last 18 years have been conducted by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Government (2007)32; National Research Council (NRC), USA (1993, 2006)33,34; World Health Organization (1994, 1996, 2006)35–37; US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)38; International Programme on Chemical Safety; WHO (2002)39; Forum on Fluoridation, Ireland (2002)40; Medical Research Council, UK (2002)41; University of York, UK (2000)42,43; Institute of Medicine, USA (1999)44; Health Canada (1999)45; Lewis and Banting, Canada (1994)46; US Public Health Service (1991)47; and Kaminsky et al., New York State Department of Health (1990).48 In addition, the environmental impact of CWF has been reviewed.49,50 All of these reviews have found CWF to be safe and effective. Opponents have claimed potential toxicity from fluoridated water, but none of these claims has been supported by studies of scientific merit.2,51 Water safety is defined and determined by federal, state, and local regulations. The main federal law that ensures the quality of US drinking water is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under SDWA, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. The current maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for fluoride in water is set at 4.0 mg/L,52 well above the optimal levels (0.7 mg/L F–1.2 mg/L F) currently recommended for CWF in the United States for the prevention of tooth decay.53 It has recently been recommended by a committee of the NRC that the MCLG of 4 mg/L for naturally occurring fluoride in water should be lowered to protect against the development of severe enamel fluorosis. The majority of the NRC committee concluded that the MCLG of 4 mg/L is not likely to be protective against bone fractures. Although the NRC committee concluded that the secondary maximum contaminant level of 2 mg/L adequately protects the public from the most severe stage of enamel fluorosis (enamel pitting), there were few studies to assess bone fracture risk in populations exposed to fluoride at the same level in drinking water. However, there was evidence that none of these concerns exist at the optimal levels of fluoride for the prevention of tooth decay.34 Fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is commonly used to fluoridate water. The majority of FSA samples have no impurities, and there is no credible evidence that the use of FSA is of concern.49,54,55

Legality of CWF During the last 60 years, the legality of fluoridation in the United States has been thoroughly tested in our court systems.56 Fluoridation is viewed by the courts as a proper means of furthering public health and welfare.57 No court of last resort has ever rendered an opinion against fluoridation. The highest courts of more than a dozen states have confirmed the constitutionality of fluoridation.58 In 1984, the Illinois Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the state’s mandatory fluoridation law, culminating 16 years of court action at a variety of judicial levels.59 Moreover, the US Supreme Court has denied review of fluoridation cases 13 times, citing that no substantial federal or constitutional questions were involved.58 It has been the position of the US courts that a significant government interest in the health and welfare of the public generally overrides individual objections to public health regulation.1 Consequently, the courts have rejected the contention that fluoridation ordinances are a deprivation of religious or individual freedoms guaranteed under the Constitution.58,60 In reviewing the legal aspects of fluoridation, the courts have dealt with this concern by ruling that (1) fluoride is a nutrient, not a medication, and is present naturally in the environment; (2) no one is forced to drink fluoridated water because alternative sources are available; and (3) when a person believes that fluoridation interferes with religious beliefs, there is a difference between the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to practice beliefs, which may be restricted in the public’s interest.61,62 Courts have consistently ruled that water fluoridation is not a form of compulsory mass medication or socialized medicine.58,61 Recent legal decisions have upheld CWF, including the use of FSA, that there is no fundamental constitutional right to fluoride-free water, and that the use of fluoride is not forced medication.63–66

Continued Benefit and Need for Fluoridation There is a continued need for CWF to maintain and enhance the reduced prevalence and severity of dental caries. Dental caries remains the most prevalent chronic disease of childhood, with 28% of children aged 2 to 5 years affected by tooth decay. The incidence of dental caries is experienced by 6 of 10 adolescents (12–19 years) and more than 90% of adults (20–64 years).67 The prevalence and severity of dental caries has decreased significantly in the United States as a result of CWF and the nearly ubiquitous use of fluoride toothpaste. The US Task Force on Community Preventive Services strongly recommended CWF for the prevention of dental caries.68 The review that included 21 studies, considered good to fair quality, found a median decrease in dental caries of 29.1% (before-and-after measures) and 50.7% (after measures only) for children aged 4 to 17 years, with varying levels of baseline caries and socioeconomic status. The task force found the evidence of effectiveness was strong. Overall, the prevalence of dental caries among children aged 12 to 17 years declined from 90% in 1971 to 1974 to 67% in 1988 to 1991, and the mean number of teeth that were decayed, missing, or filled (DMFT) as a result of caries declined from 6.2 to 2.8 during this period. More recent data have been aggregated into different age groups of adolescents; for 12 to 19 year olds, the mean DMFT declined from 3.1 in 1988 to 1994 to 2.55 in 1999 to 2004. For 20 to 64 year-old adults, there continues to be a decline in the number of DMFT, from a mean of 12.5 in 1988 to 1994 to 10.3 in 1999 to 2004.67

Additional Considerations Diffusion/Halo Effect There is a benefit from the diffusion of fluoride from fluoridated communities to surrounding nonfluoridated communities via the export of bottled beverages and processed foods.69 This diffusion effect, also referred to as the halo effect, as well as additional sources of fluoride, have reduced the absolute and proportional benefit of water fluoridation, as measured between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities, from approximately 60% in the 1950 to 1970 era to 18% to 40% since the 1980s. Based on 1986 to 1987 data,70 in regions where 75% of public water supplies are fluoridated, the benefit may not be apparent when measuring caries experience between fluoridated and nonfluoridated communities because of the halo or diffusion effect.71 However, in the Pacific region of the United States where less than 20% of public water supplies were fluoridated, there was a 60% difference in tooth decay experience between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.71 Continued CWF programs are essential to maintaining this improved oral health status.

Benefit for Adults CWF benefits everyone in the community, including adults and seniors as well as children. The combined results of 9 studies (7853 participants) examining the effectiveness of water fluoridation in preventing tooth decay in adults were found to be significant at p < .001.72 Adults have more tooth and root surfaces at risk for tooth decay than children. The incidence of dental caries for adults equals or exceeds that of children.73,74 Griffin et al. summarized the need for placing increased attention on the prevention of tooth decay in adults72: Although adults are as likely to experience new caries as children, certain segments of the US adult population—those with low incomes and the elderly—may have little or no access to restorative or preventive clinical care. At present, approximately 15% of state Medicaid programs provide no adult dental benefits at all, and approximately 45% cover only tooth extraction and emergency services (Oral Health America, 2003). Routine dental care is one of the few health areas not covered by Medicare. Limited access to restorative care increases the need for effective prevention; complications and pain and suffering are more likely if caries remain untreated. The proportion of the US population comprised of older adults is increasing, most of these persons are likely to be dentate and at risk for dental caries, and many lower-income adults lack access to timely restorative care. Our finding that fluoride is effective among all adults supports the development and implementation of fluoride programs to serve this population.72, p 414-5

Cost-Effectiveness Fluoridation is a highly cost-effective means of preventing tooth decay in the United States, regardless of socioeconomic status.75–77 The cost of CWF can vary in each community depending on several factors: size of the community (population and water usage); number of fluoride injection points where fluoride will be added to the water system; amount and type of equipment used to add and monitor fluoride levels; amount and type of fluoride compound used, its price, and its costs of transportation and storage; and expertise of personnel at the water plant.78 The annual cost for a US community to fluoridate its water is estimated to range from approximately $3.00 per person in small communities to approximately $0.50 per person in large communities.76

Cost Savings of CWF For communities of more than 20,000 people where it costs approximately $0.50 per person per year to fluoridate the water, every $1.00 (1995) invested in this preventive measure yields approximately $38 savings in dental treatment costs.79 At least 60% of the US population on public water systems has received fluoridated water since 1990, translating to savings in dental treatment costs of more than $25.7 billion between 1990 and 2000.80 In analyzing annual per person cost savings resulting from fluoridation, Griffin, Jones, and Tomar found a range from $16 in very small communities to $19 in large communities.76 These authors concluded, “On the basis of the most current data available on the effectiveness and cost of fluoridation, caries increment, and the cost and longevity of dental restorations, we find that water fluoridation offers significant cost savings.”76, p78 The annual incremental mean benefit of fluoridation has been found to be 0.19 tooth surfaces (range 0.04 to 0.34). This equates to a mean of 1.9 tooth surfaces every decade, or 9.5 tooth surfaces over 50 years.76 Preventing 10 tooth surfaces from decay translates into preventing the need for 10 fillings or perhaps two molars from needing crowns (a molar has five tooth surfaces). The tooth surface index (DMFS) does not address the severity of decay in any one surface or the need for treatment, which could vary from a small filling to a root canal treatment and crown or an extraction.

Disparities Because of the multifactorial nature of tooth decay, oral health disparities within and between countries are related to sugar consumption, fluoride use, dental care, and social determinants of health.80 However, it has been shown that children with the greatest dental need and who are at highest risk for tooth decay benefit the most from water fluoridation.82–87 Therefore, CWF helps reduce disparities in tooth decay prevalence. This has been most eloquently and succinctly articulated by Burt: “There is no practical alternative to water fluoridation for reducing these disparities in the United States.”88, p195

Pre- and Post-Eruptive Benefits Fluoridation protects teeth in two ways: systemically, when delivered through the water supply to children during the tooth forming years, and topically, through direct contact with teeth throughout life.89 Animal and human studies have demonstrated the topical and systemic benefits of fluoride.90,91 Epidemiological studies using data collected between 1991 and 1995 on children in Australia have confirmed earlier findings that higher pre- than posteruptive fluoride exposure is more beneficial for overall caries experience and for pit and fissure surfaces caries reduction. In those studies, children with optimum exposure to fluoridated water both pre- and posteruption had the lowest caries levels in all surface types and there was an exposure–response relationship between preeruptive exposure and caries.92–94

Total Fluoride Intake and Enamel Fluorosis Enamel fluorosis is a biomarker of fluoride intake during tooth developing years. In a minority of children, fluoride exposure from birth through age 8, when teeth are forming, may result in changes within the outer surface of the tooth called enamel fluorosis. Fluorosis occurs only on primary and permanent teeth while they are forming under the gums; once the teeth come into the mouth, they are no longer able to develop this condition. Clinically, the appearance of enamel fluorosis may vary and is usually bilateral. In its mildest form, it appears as faint white lines or streaks visible only to trained examiners under controlled examination conditions. In its pronounced moderate form, fluorosis manifests as white mottling of the teeth in which noticeable white lines or streaks often have coalesced into larger opaque areas; brown staining of the enamel also may be present. In its most severe form, pitting and actual breakdown of the enamel may occur. The prevalence of severe enamel fluorosis is very low (near zero) at fluoride concentrations in drinking water less than 2 mg/L.95 In recent years, there has been an increase in the prevalence of children seen with nonsevere enamel fluorosis in both optimally fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas of the United States. The greatest relative increase in enamel fluorosis prevalence has occurred in nonfluoridated areas.96 Although US NHANES data from 1999–2002 have shown that 32% of US children aged 6 to 19 years have some enamel fluorosis,97 few survey participants had severe enamel fluorosis and less than 4% had moderate or severe enamel fluorosis. Although professional interest in limiting the amount of fluoride toothpaste delivered to young children and supervising their toothbrushing was expressed in the 1980s as a means of reducing the risk for enamel fluorosis, only during the early 1990s was this approach adopted broadly as a public health measure, which was too late to alter the risk for fluorosis among the 12 to 19 year age cohort in NHANES 1999–2002.97 Although it has been estimated that only approximately 2% of US schoolchildren may experience perceived esthetic problems related to enamel fluorosis that could be attributed to the currently recommended levels of fluoride in drinking water,98 in more recent studies, it has been found that mild fluorosis does not have a negative association on the perception of dental appearance.99 Children and their parents who had mild fluorosis were even better off in perception of oral health when other factors were controlled for in multivariate models. This rather unexpected finding, the authors suggest, might be explained by the fact that better oral health was often perceived as being without caries.99 Various studies in Canada, Australia, and the United States have shown a relationship between young children swallowing too much fluoride from fluoride toothpaste and subsequent enamel fluorosis development.96,100,101 In a study of 10- to 14-year-old children in Massachusetts and Connecticut, Pendrys found that enamel fluorosis in the optimally fluoridated study sample was attributed to early toothbrushing behaviors, inappropriate fluoride supplementation, and the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate.96 Enamel fluorosis in the nonfluoridated study sample was attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol and early toothbrushing behaviors. In the nonfluoridated study sample, 65% of the enamel fluorosis cases were attributed to fluoride supplementation under the pre-1994 protocol. An additional 34% was explained by the children swallowing fluoride toothpaste when they brushed more than once per day during the first 2 years of life. In the optimally fluoridated study sample, 68% of the enamel fluorosis cases were explained by the children using more than a pea-sized amount of toothpaste during the first year of life, 13% by having been inappropriately given a fluoride supplement, and 9% by the use of infant formula in the form of a powdered concentrate. Recommendations have been made to reduce the occurrence of enamel fluorosis by controlling identified risk factors.78

Fluoride Intake From Foods and Beverages Water and water-based beverages are the chief source of dietary fluoride intake. Conventional estimates are that approximately 65% to 75% of dietary fluoride comes from water and water-based beverages.102 In 1997, the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine developed a comprehensive set of reference values for dietary nutrient intakes.44 The adequate intake (AI) establishes a goal for intake to sustain a desired indicator of health without causing side effects. In the case of fluoride, the AI is the daily intake level required to reduce dental decay without causing moderate enamel fluorosis. The AI for fluoride from all sources (fluoridated water, food, beverages, fluoride-containing dental products and dietary fluoride supplements) is set at 0.05 mg/kg/day.44 Using the established AI of 0.05 mg/kg, the amount of fluoride for optimal health to be consumed each day has been calculated by gender and age group (expressed as average weight).103 The tolerable upper intake levels (UL) are higher than the AI and are not the recommended level of intake. The UL is the estimated maximum intake level that should not produce unwanted effects on health. The UL for fluoride from all sources (fluoridated water, food, beverages, fluoride-containing dental products and dietary fluoride supplements) is set at 0.10 mg/kg/day for infants, toddlers, and children through 8 years of age. For older children and adults, who are no longer at risk for enamel fluorosis, the UL for fluoride is set at 10 mg/day, regardless of weight.44 Dietary fluoride intakes by adults from food, water, and beverages, where the concentration is 1.0 parts per million (ppm) fluoride in water, range from 1.4 to 3.4 mg/day; where the concentration is less than 0.3 ppm fluoride, the range is from 0.3 to 1.0 mg/day.44 USEPA has set the MCLG for fluoride in drinking water at 4 mg/L; by converting the MCLG of 4.0 mg/L to a mg/kg/day basis using standard water consumption estimates and body weight data from the NHANES III survey, EPA has concluded that dietary exposure to fluoride, including food exposure to sulfuryl fluoride used as an insecticide, uses 35% of the MCLG (expressed as mg/kg/day) for the US population; 23% of the MCLG (expressed as mg/kg/day) for youth 13 to 19 years, 37% of the MCLG (expressed as mg/kg/day) for children 3 to 5 years, 28% of the MCLG (as mg/kg/day) for children 1 to 2 years, and 35% of the MCLG (expressed as mg/kg/day) for all infants younger than 1 year old. These risk estimates are below the USEPA’s level of concern.104

Infant Formula and the Risk for Enamel Fluorosis Although only a small factor in the risk for enamel fluorosis, the American Dental Association (ADA) (and the CDC) has issued guidance for parents and caregivers of infants younger than 12 months of age to consult with their pediatrician, family physician, or dentist on the most appropriate type of water to use to reconstitute infant formula.105 Recent evidence suggests that mixing powdered or liquid infant formula concentrate with fluoridated water on a regular basis for infants primarily fed in this way may increase the chance of a child’s developing the faint white markings of very mild or mild enamel fluorosis. Occasional use of water containing optimal levels of fluoride should not appreciably increase a child’s risk for fluorosis. Studies have not shown that teeth are likely to develop more esthetically noticeable forms of fluorosis, even with regular mixing of formula with fluoridated water.106

CWF and Fluoride Toothpaste Because frequent exposure to small amounts of fluoride each day will best reduce the risk for dental caries in all age groups, all people are recommended to drink water with an optimal fluoride concentration and to brush their teeth twice daily with fluoride toothpaste.78 Fluoride is the only nonprescription toothpaste additive proven to prevent dental caries.78 Because water fluoridation is not available in many countries, toothpaste might be the most important source of fluoride globally.78 There is an additive benefit of fluoride toothpaste. Combined use of fluoride toothpaste and fluoridated water offers protection greater than either used alone.78 In the United States, the standard concentration of fluoride in fluoride toothpaste is 1,000 to 1,100 ppm. Fluoride toothpaste is helpful to all age groups and should be used at least twice a day. Since 1991, manufacturers of fluoride toothpaste marketed in the United States have, as a requirement for obtaining the ADA Seal of Acceptance, placed instructions on the package label stating that children aged younger than 6 years should use only a pea-sized amount of fluoride toothpaste. This is reported to sharply reduce the role of fluoride toothpaste as a risk factor for enamel fluorosis.107 Toothpaste labeling requirements mandated by FDA in 1996 also direct parents of children aged younger than 2 years to seek advice from a dentist or physician before introducing their child to fluoride toothpaste.108 Children younger than 6 years of age should have parents supervise and apply the toothpaste so as to limit the amount that may be swallowed; fluoride toothpaste should be spit out rather than swallowed. The propensity of young children to swallow toothpaste has led to development of “child-strength” toothpaste with lower fluoride concentrations. Such a product, not currently available in the United States, would be a desirable alternative to currently available products for many young children. Toothpaste containing 500 to 550 ppm fluoride might be almost as efficacious as that containing 1,000 ppm fluoride.109 A British study reported that the prevalence of diffuse enamel opacities (an indicator of mild enamel fluorosis) in the upper incisors was substantially lower among children who used toothpaste containing 550 ppm fluoride than among those who used toothpaste containing 1,050 ppm fluoride.110 An Australian study reported a decrease in the prevalence of enamel fluorosis and no increase in caries after steps were taken to promote use of toothpaste for children containing 400 ppm fluoride and reduce dosages for dietary supplements.111 Adults benefit considerably from CWF and fluoride toothpaste. A review of adult studies after 1980 found that any fluoride, whether self-applied, professionally applied, via water fluoridation, or in combination, averted 0.51 carious coronal and root surfaces per year.72

Fluoridation and Dental Sealants The effectiveness of dental sealants in community-based programs may be further improved when coupled with lifetime exposure to optimally fluoridated water.112

Bottled Water In 2006, the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition issued a Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries.113 Labels on bottled water with 0.6 to 1.0 mg/L fluoride may claim “Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of [dental caries or tooth decay].” In addition, the health claim is not intended for use on bottled water products specifically marketed for use by infants. Because the use of bottled water has increased and because the majority of commercial bottled water is low in fluoride, there is the potential for an increase in dental caries.114,115 To encourage bottled water manufacturers to provide optimally fluoridated water, the ADA has introduced a certification program for foods and beverages that are beneficial to oral health, including fluoridated bottled water.116 Per capita consumption of bottled water has increased from approximately 190 mL/person/day in 2001 to approximately 285 mL/person/day in 2006.117 Considering water from all sources, EPA surveys in 1994 to 1998 found the mean per capita daily average total water ingestion was 1.233 L.118 In the EPA surveys, 75% was from community water, 13% from bottled water, 10% from other sources (e.g., well, spring, and cistern), and 2% from unidentified sources. Assuming no general increase in overall water consumption, bottled water use has increased from 15% in 2001 to 23% in 2006 as a proportion of total water consumption. ADA recommends that dentists ask their patients about bottled water use and advise them about the possible removal of fluoride by some home water treatment systems.118 Further, ADA and CDC recommend labeling of bottled water with the fluoride concentration of the product.78,119

Salt Fluoridation Salt fluoridation is practiced as a community-based alternative to water fluoridation in many countries where there are few central water systems, water infrastructure is otherwise not appropriate, or where other factors preclude the use of water fluoridation. It has been estimated that 40 million people use salt fluoridation, mainly in European, South American, and Central American countries.120 A concentration of 200 to 250 mg fluoride per kg salt is typically used in fluoridated salt. It is recommended that a national fluoride program use only one of these approaches.121

Fluoride Supplements Where community water fluoridation is not feasible because there is no central water supply or because there are a large number of wells and a small population, school-based fluoride supplement programs are an alternative for communities with suboptimal fluoride in drinking water.122 Prescription fluoride supplements (of 0.25 mg/day, 0.5 mg/day, or 1 mg/day, depending on the age of the child and the concentration of fluoride in the water supply—whether less than 0.3 mg/L or between 0.3 and 0.6 mg/L, and all sources of fluoride) are currently recommended daily for children between 6 months of age and 16 years where the fluoride concentration of the water supply is less than 0.6 mg/L (ppm).78 Currently, in addition to age and fluoride concentration of drinking water, all sources of fluoride should be evaluated with a thorough fluoride history when physicians or dentists prescribe fluoride supplements. Patient exposure to multiple water sources can make proper prescribing complex.123 Home compliance with use of fluoride supplements can be challenging. Health care providers must educate parents, or school personnel in the case of school-based programs, about the appropriate use of the fluoride supplements; moreover, parents and recipients must understand the importance of fluoride supplements, the recommended dose, and the need for compliance on a daily basis for many years. Concomitantly, fluoride supplements are not always prescribed as recommended; studies have found more than one third of children receive prescriptions with incorrect dosage or do not receive prescriptions.124,125 Long-term compliance with daily fluoride supplements has been reported as poor.126,127 As a public health measure, because of poor compliance by individual providers and patients in the private sector, fluoride supplements are less effective than water fluoridation for providing caries prevention. Because inappropriate prescribing of fluoride supplements in fluoridated communities and high doses of fluoride supplements have been found to contribute to enamel fluorosis, alternative doses and schedules have been proposed and are being used in other countries.128

Comparative Costs of Community-Based Tooth Decay Prevention Programs The costs of school-based fluoride supplement programs have been compared with the cost of CWF, noting that school-based programs affect children only, whereas CWF benefits all age groups of children and adults. The cost to achieve the same level of benefit of prevention of tooth decay was three times higher for fluoride supplements provided in a school-based program compared with water fluoridation for all residents.129 The largest US study conducted to determine the cost and effectiveness of various tooth decay prevention strategies for schoolchildren was conducted between 1977 and 1982. The National Preventive Dentistry Demonstration Program found that dental health lessons, brushing and flossing, fluoride tablets and mouthrinsing, and professionally applied topical fluorides were not effective in reducing a substantial amount of dental decay, even when all of these procedures were used together. Occlusal sealants prevented 1 to 2 carious surfaces in 4 years. Children who were especially susceptible to decay did not benefit appreciably more from any of the preventive measures than did children in general. However, CWF was reaffirmed as the most cost-effective means of reducing tooth decay in children. By contrast to the $23 per year cost of maintaining a child in a sealant program, the annual per capita cost (in 1981 dollars) of water fluoridation in 5 US communities ranged from $0.06 in Denver, Colorado, to $0.80 in rural West Virginia.73

Topical Fluorides Because of the adoption of water fluoridation and widespread use of fluoride toothpaste, approximately 75% of the US public is at low risk for dental caries. Therefore, the use of any professionally applied fluoride, including fluoride varnish, should be limited to those individuals and communities deemed to be at moderate to high risk for developing dental caries.130 A targeted approach offers additional opportunities toward improving the prevention and control of dental caries.130 The use of fluoride varnish to prevent and control dental caries in young children and seniors is expanding in both public and private dental practice settings and in nondental settings that incorporate health risk assessments and counseling. These settings include Head Start programs and Special Supplemental Nutrition Programs for Women, Infants, and Children; medical offices; well-child clinics and home visits conducted by public health nurses; child care programs; and other, sometimes overlapping, community programs.

Public Information on CWF Public opinion polls have consistently shown 70% or more of the adult US population supports fluoridation.131 Several organizations provide detailed information on CWF on Web sites, including the CDC132 and ADA.133 The ADA periodically updates Fluoridation Facts, a review of fluoridation literature in question and answer format.134 In addition, ADA has a resource list of materials.135 However, a review of Web sites providing information on CWF revealed that, of 59 sites meeting specific criteria from a list of the first 100 Web sites found when searching “water fluoridation” using the Google search engine (www.google.com) on February 15, 2003, 54% recommend water fluoridation compared with 31% that oppose it.136 Armfield analyzed Web information on fluoridation from Australia in 2006 using 5 search engines—Google, Yahoo, MSN, AOL, and Ask—and found that of the first 20 results from each Web site, searching for “water fluoridation,” 29 of the sites were for fluoridation, 55 were against it, with 9 reviews and 7 others.2 Armfield stated, “Although the overwhelming majority of scientific enquiry supports the benefits of water fluoridation, members of the public who type the term ‘water fluoridation’ into any of the major search engines would immediately be presented with a disproportionate percentage of anti-fluoridation websites.”2, p3 Thus, there may be an increasing number of Web sites providing information that is in opposition to established public health policy on water fluoridation. Water fluoridation opponents are said to use multiple techniques to undermine the scientifically established effectiveness and safety of water fluoridation. The materials they use are often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation. Despite an extensive body of literature, both studies and results within studies are often selectively reported, giving a biased portrayal of water fluoridation effectiveness. Positive findings are downplayed or trivialized, and the population implications of these findings misinterpreted. Ecological comparisons are sometimes used to support spurious conclusions. Opponents of water fluoridation frequently repeat that water fluoridation is associated with adverse health effects and studies are selectively picked from the extensive literature to convey only claimed adverse findings related to water fluoridation.2

Ethics of CWF Several reviews have considered the ethics of CWF.137–140 The reviews rely on the preponderance of scientific evidence of benefit and lack of harm and have concluded that CWF is ethical, in part, because it leads to the reduction of health inequalities and the reduction of ill health, particularly among vulnerable groups, and provides an economic benefit to both society and to individuals. With water fluoridation, a whole area either receives fluoridated water or does not. Populations do not remain static, as people move to and from an area. In practical terms, it would therefore not be feasible to seek individual consent. The most appropriate way of deciding whether fluoride should be added to water supplies is to rely on democratic decisionmaking procedures, with public input informing those empowered by the public to make such public health decisions (e.g., local health board, city council, water board, or state legislature). These procedures should be implemented at the local and regional, rather than national, levels because the need for and perception of water fluoridation varies in different areas.138 Account should be taken of relevant evidence and of alternative ways of achieving the intended benefit in the area concerned. Whatever policy is adopted, dental health and any adverse effects of fluoridation should be monitored. The Nuffield Council found there is a need for better and more balanced information for the public and policymakers.138 From an ethical perspective, fluoridating water supplies can be seen as replicating the benefits already conferred on those communities receiving water naturally containing 1 part per million of fluoride. Moreover, the greatest benefit of all goes to that section of the population least able to help themselves—children. Drinking fluoride-free water is not a basic human right but a question of individual preference. In a society where people come together for mutual benefit, it is a question of balancing such personal preferences against the common good arising from less disease, less pain, less suffering, and better health that fluoridation brings.139

Summary Dental caries (tooth decay) continues to be the most common chronic disease of childhood, and dental caries incidence for adults exceeds that of children. Although there are gross oral health disparities for minorities, eliminating health disparities is an overarching priority area for APHA. Community water fluoridation has been shown to be the most cost-effective public health measure for the primary prevention of dental caries and has been shown to be the most effective public health strategy to reduce disparities in dental caries between ethnic and racial groups. Yet, the US public is generally uninformed about the appropriate use of fluoride and community water fluoridation, and information available to the public on community water fluoridation is not always evidence based.

Therefore be it resolved that APHA—

• Reiterates its strong endorsement and recommendation for the fluoridation of all community water systems as a safe and effective public health measure for the prevention of tooth decay; • Recommends that federal, state, and local agencies and organizations in the United States promote water fluoridation as the foundation for better oral health; • Recommends promotion and increased support by federal, state, and local entities for adequate public health infrastructure to ensure safe and effective water fluoridation practices, including monitoring, training, technical and financial assistance, and promotion to expand and maintain water fluoridation programs; • Recommends increased support by federal agencies for continued research on the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation and other measures to deliver fluoride to communities and individuals, including effective programs and long-term outcomes; • Supports efforts to educate public health and other health professionals, decisionmakers, and the public on community water fluoridation and other appropriate uses of fluoride in the prevention of tooth decay; • Recommends that bottled water manufacturers offer an option of bottled water with an optimal level of fluoride, all bottled water be labeled with its fluoride concentration, and APHA collaborate with other professional groups to promote this recommendation; • Recommends that the FDA consider all US and non-US evidence-based studies concerning low-concentration fluoride toothpaste for children under age 6 during tooth developing years to reduce the risk of enamel fluorosis and tooth decay; and • Should collaborate with other professional groups to encourage the National Institutes of Health to study the efficacy and safety of low fluoride toothpastes.

References 1. Newbrun E. The fluoridation war: a scientific dispute or a religious argument? J Public Health Dent. 1996;56(5 Spec No):246–252. 2. Armfield JM. When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007;4(1):25. Available at: www.anzhealthpolicy.com/content/4/1/25. Accessed June 9, 2008. 3. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Question 54. Why does community water fluoridation sometimes lose when it is put to a public vote? Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 4. Fluoride Action Network. More communities throw out fluoridation. December 21, 2006. Available at: www.fluoridealert.org/press/communities.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 5. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 50-05. Fluoridation of public water supplies. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1950. 6. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 55-08. Fluoridation of public water supplies. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1955. 7. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 56-07. Commendation for support of fluoridation. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1956. 8. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 59-04. Adjustment of fluorides in water supplies. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1959. 9. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 63-13. Dietary fluoride supplement. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1963. 10. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 65-26(PP). The State public health agency. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1965. 11. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 69-12. The National Fluoridation Act. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1969. 12. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 74-02. Fluoridation. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1974. 13. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 75-20(PP). The establishment of standards of performance for environmental laboratories. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1975. 14. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 76-33(PP). Policy statement on prevention. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1976. 15. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 77-11. Dental health in a national health program. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1977. 16. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 77-21. Development of a national policy of primary prevention. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1977. 17. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 79-11. Fluoridated communities for the meeting sites of national health organizations. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1979. 18. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 80-13. Public information role of health officials. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1980. 19. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 82-01. Engineering safeguards for school fluoridation installations. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1982. 20. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 82-07. Maintenance of specialty status: dental public health. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1982. 21. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 92-02. The prevention of diet-related chronic diseases: a national plan for meeting the Year 2000 objectives. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1992. 22. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 97-06. Evidence-based dental care. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 1997. 23. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 2000-5. Effective interventions for reducing racial and ethnic disparities in health. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2000. 24. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 2001-17. Support the Framework for Action on Oral Health in America: a report of the surgeon general. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2001. 25. American Public Health Association. APHA Governing Council Resolution 2006-4. Support for the Alaska dental health aide therapist and other innovative programs for underserved populations. Washington, DC: American Public Health Association; 2006. 26. American Dental Association (ADA). Compendium. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/compendium.asp. Accessed June 9, 2008. 27. Progress Toward Healthy People 2010 Targets. Available at: www.healthypeople.gov/data/midcourse/html/focusareas/FA21ProgressHP.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 28. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Populations receiving optimally fluoridated public drinking water—United States, 1992–2006. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2008 Jul 11;57(27):737–741 Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5727a1.htm. Accessed July 13, 2008. 29. British Fluoridation Society. The extent of water fluoridation. In: One in a Million. The Facts About Water Fluoridation. 2nd ed. London, UK: The British Fluoridation Society, The UK Public Health Association, The British Dental Association, and The Faculty of Public Health; 2004: 55–80. Available at: www.bfsweb.org/One%20in%20a%20million/7%20extent.pdf. Accessed on June 9, 2008. 30. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Ten great public health achievements—United States, 1900–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1999;48(12):241–243. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 31. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Advancing the Nation’s Health: A Guide to Public Health Research Needs, 2006–2015. December 2006. Available at: www.cdc.gov/od/science/PHResearch/cdcra/AdvancingTheNationsHealth.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 32. Australian Government. National Health and Medical Research Council. A Systematic Review of the Efficacy and Safety of Fluoridation; 2007. Available at: www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/eh41syn.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 33. National Research Council (NRC). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1993. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/c...rd_id=2204#toc. Accessed November 18, 2008. 34. National Research Council (NRC). Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC; The National Academies Press; 2006. Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571. Accessed June 9, 2008. 35. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Technical Report Series #846: Report of a WHO Expert Committee on Oral Health Status and Fluoride Use. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1994 36. World Health Organization (WHO). Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality. 2nd ed. Vol 2. Health criteria and other supporting information. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 1996. Available at: www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/2edvol2p2b.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 37. Fawell J, Bailey K, Chilton J, Dahi E, Fewtrell L, Magara Y. Fluoride in Drinking-water. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization (WHO); 2006. Available at: http://whqlibdoc.who...563192_eng.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 38. US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine. Atlanta, Ga: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; 2003. Available at: www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 39. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). Environmental Health Criteria, No. 227. Fluorides. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002. Available at: www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc227.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 40. Forum on Water Fluoridation in Ireland 2002. Dublin, Ireland: Government of Ireland; 2002. Available at: www.dohc.ie/publications/fluoridation_forum.html. Accessed June 9, 2008. 41. Medical Research Council. Medical Research Council Working Group Report: Water Fluoridation and Health. September 2002. Available at: www.mrc.ac.uk/Utilities/Documentrecord/index.htm?d=MRC002482. Accessed June 9, 2008. 42. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. York, UK: York Publishing Services Ltd; 2000. Available at: www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluores.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 43. McDonagh MS, Whiting PF, Wilson PM, et al. Systematic review of water fluoridation. BMJ. 2000;321(7265):855–859. 44. Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Fluoride: Background Information. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Report of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php? isbn=0309063507&page=288. Accessed June 9, 2008. 45. Locker, D. Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-Committee Report. Prepared under contract for the Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health, First Nations Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada. University of Toronto: Community of Dental Health Services Research Unit, Faculty of Dentistry; 1999. Available at: www.health.gov.on.ca/english/public/pub/ministry_reports/fluoridation/fluor.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 46. Lewis DW, Banting DW. Water fluoridation: current effectiveness and dental fluorosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:153–158. 47. US Public Health Service. Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the subcommittee on fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services. Public Health Service; 1991. Available at: www.health.gov/environment/ReviewofFluoride/default.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 48. Kaminsky LS, Mahoney MC, Leach J, Melius J, Miller MJ. Fluoride: benefits and risks of exposure. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1990;1:261–281 Available at: http://crobm.iadrjou...eprint/1/4/261. Accessed June 9, 2008. 49. Pollick HF. Water fluoridation and the environment: current perspective in the United States. Int J Occup Environ Health. 2004;10:343–350. 50. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Community Water Fluoridation. Health Effects and Environmental Impact. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/health_effects.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 51. American Dental Association. Fluoridation Facts. Question 41. What are some of the erroneous health claims made against water fluoridation? 2005. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 52. US Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Contaminants. Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html. Accessed June 9, 2008. 53. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Engineering and administrative recommendations for water fluoridation, 1995. MMWR Recomm Rep. 1995;44(RR-13):1–40. Available at: www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00039178.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 54. NSF Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals. February 2008. Available at: www.nsf.org/business/water_distribution/pdf/NSF_Fact_Sheet.pdf. Accessed October 26, 2008. 55. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Water Fluoridation Additives, Available at: www.cdc.gov/Fluoridation/fact_sheets/engineering/wfadditives.htm#7. Accessed October 26, 2008. 56. American Dental Association. Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Question 51. Has the legality of water fluoridation been upheld by the courts? Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 57. Safe Water Association, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Fond Du Lac. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin. 184 Wis. 2d 365; 516 N.W.2d 13; 1994 Wisc. App. LEXIS 529. Available at: www.actionpa.org/fluoride/lawandcourts/wi-fond-du-lac.html. Accessed June 9, 2008. 58. Block LE. Antifluoridationists persist: the constitutional basis for fluoridation. J Public Health Dent. 1986;46(4):188–198. 59. Christoffel T. Fluorides, facts and fanatics: public health advocacy shouldn’t stop at the courthouse door. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:888–891. 60. McMenamin JP. Fluoridation of water in Virginia: the tempest in the teapot. J Law Ethics Dent. 1988;1(1):42–46. 61. Roemer R. Water fluoridation: public health responsibility and the democratic process. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1965 Sep;55:1337–1348. 62. Strong GA. Liberty, religion, and fluoridation. J Am Dent Assoc. 1968;76(6):1398–1409. 63. Jesus F. Quiles, Appellant, v. The City of Boynton Beach, Florida. Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. 802 So. 2d 397; 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 16389. 64. Paul Coshow et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. City of Escondido et al., Defendants and Respondents. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One. 132 Cal. App. 4th 687; 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 19; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1420. 65. City Of Watsonville, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. State Department of Health Services, Defendant and Respondent; California Dental Association, Intervener and Respondent. Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District. 133 Cal. App. 4th 875; 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 216; 2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1664. 66. Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland, Inc., Et Al. V. Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, Maryland, et al. Civil No. JFM-01–2611. United States District Court for the District of Maryland. 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15830. 67. Dye BA, Tan S, Smith V, et al. Trends in oral health status: United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2004. Vital Health Stat 11. 2007;No. 248:1–92. Available at: www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_248.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 68. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Promoting oral health: interventions for preventing dental caries, oral and pharyngeal cancers, and sports-related craniofacial injuries. A report on recommendations of the task force on community preventive services. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001;50(RR-21):1–13 Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5021a1.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 69. Griffin SO, Gooch BF, Lockwood SA, Tomar SL. Quantifying the diffused benefit from water fluoridation in the United States. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29(2):120–129. 70. Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. J Dent Res. 1990; 69 (special issue):723–727. 71. Newbrun E. Current regulations and recommendations concerning water fluoridation, fluoride supplements, and topical fluoride agents. J Dent Res. 1992;71:1255–1265. 72. Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley V. Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res. 2007;86:410–415. 73. Griffin SO, Griffin PM, Swann JL, Zlobin N. New coronal caries in older adults: implications for prevention. J Dent Res. 2005;84:715–720. 74. Griffin SO, Griffin PM, Swann JL, Zlobin N. Estimating rates of new root caries in older adults. J Dent Res. 2004;83:634–638. 75. Klein SP, Bohannan HM, Bell RM, Disney JA, Foch CB, Graves RC. The cost and effectiveness of school-based preventive dental care. Am J Public Health. 1985;75:382–391. 76. Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Public Health Dent. 2001;61(2):78–86. 77. O’Connell JM, Brunson D, Anselmo T, Sullivan PW. Costs and savings associated with community water fluoridation programs in Colorado. Prev Chronic Dis [serial online]. 2005 Nov [date cited]. Available at: www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2005/nov/05_0082.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 78. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2001 17;50(RR-14):1–42. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/fl_caries.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 79. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cost savings of community water fluoridation. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/fact_sheets/cost.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 80. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Preventing dental caries with community programs. Available at: www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/factsheets/dental_caries.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 81. Edelstein BL. The dental caries pandemic and disparities problem. BMC Oral Health. 200615;6(Suppl 1):S2. 82. Jones CM, Taylor GO, Whittle JG, Evans D, Trotter DP. Water fluoridation, tooth decay in 5 year olds, and social deprivation measured by the Jarman score: analysis of data from British dental surveys. BMJ. 1997;315(7107):514–517. 83. Jones C, Taylor G, Woods K, Whittle G, Evans D, Young P. Jarman underprivileged area scores, tooth decay and the effect of water fluoridation. Community Dent Health. 1997;14:156–156. 84. Jones CM, Worthington H. The relationship between water fluoridation and socioeconomic deprivation on tooth decay in 5-year-old children. Br Dent J. 1999;186:397–400. Erratum in: Br Dent J. 2000;189:390. 85. Jones CM, Worthington H. Water fluoridation, poverty and tooth decay in 12-year-old children. J Dent. 2000;28:389–393. 86. Riley JC, Lennon MA, Ellwood RP. The effect of water fluoridation and social inequalities on dental caries in 5-year-old children. Int J Epidemiol. 1999;28:300–305. 87. Evans DJ, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Tabari ED, Butler T. The effect of fluoridation and social class on caries experience in 5-year-old Newcastle children in 1994 compared with results over the previous 18 years. Community Dent Health. 1996;13(1):5–10. 88. Burt BA. Fluoridation and social equity. J Public Health Dent. 2002;62(4):195–220. 89. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Community Water Fluoridation. Benefits. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/benefits.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 90. Larson RH, Mellberg JR, Senning R. Experiments on local and systemic action of fluoride in caries inhibition in the rat. Arch Oral Biol. 1977;22:437–439. 91. Groeneveld A, Van Eck AA, Backer Dirks O. Fluoride in caries prevention: is the effect pre- or post-eruptive? J Dent Res. 1990;69 (special issue):751–755; discussion 820–823. 92. Singh KA, Spencer AJ, Brennan DS. Effects of water fluoride exposure at crown completion and maturation on caries of permanent first molars. Caries Res. 2007;41(1):34–42. 93. Singh KA, Spencer AJ. Relative effects of pre- and post-eruption water fluoride on caries experience by surface type of permanent first molars. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:435–446. 94. Singh KA, Spencer AJ, Armfield JM. Relative effects of pre- and posteruption water fluoride on caries experience of permanent first molars. J Public Health Dent. 2003;63(1):11–19. 95. National Research Council (NRC). Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2006. Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571. Accessed June 9, 2008. 96. Pendrys DG. Risk of enamel fluorosis in nonfluoridated and optimally fluoridated populations: considerations for the dental professional. J Am Dent Assoc. 2000;131:746–755. 97. Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker LK, Canto MT, et al. Surveillance for dental caries, dental sealants, tooth retention, edentulism, and enamel fluorosis—United States, 1988–1994 and 1999–2002. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2005;54(3):1–43. Available at: www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5403a1.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 98. Griffin SO, Beltrán ED, Lockwood SA, Barker LK. Esthetically objectionable fluorosis attributable to water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30:199–209. 99. Do LG, Spencer A. Oral health-related quality of life of children by dental caries and fluorosis experience. J Public Health Dent. 2007;67(3):132–139. 100. Osuji OO, Leake JL, Chipman ML, Nikiforuk G, Locker D, Levine N. Risk factors for dental fluorosis in a fluoridated community. J Dent Res. 1988;67(12):1488–1492. 101. Do LG, Spencer AJ. Risk-benefit balance in the use of fluoride among young children. J Dent Res. 2007;86:723–728. 102. US Department of Agriculture. USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods. Beltsville, Md: Agricultural Research Service. Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center. Nutrient Data Laboratory; 2004. Available at: www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/fluoride.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 103. American Dental Association. Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Table 3: Dietary Reference Intakes for Fluoride; Page 25. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 104. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Sulfuryl Fluoride; Pesticide Tolerance. 40 CFR Part 180. [OPP-2003-0373; FRL-7342-1]. Available at: www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-PEST/2004/January/Day-23/p1540.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 105. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoride and Infant Formula Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/infantsformula_faq.asp. Accessed November 19, 2008. 106. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Background: Infant Formula and the Risk for Enamel Fluorosis. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 107. Pendrys DG. Risk for fluorosis in a fluoridated population: implications for the dentist and hygienist. J Am Dent Assoc. 1995;126:1617–1624. 108. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Anticaries drug products for over-the-counter human use. 21 CFR Part 355. Code of Federal Regulations 1999:280–285. 109. Winter GB, Holt RD, Williams BF. Clinical trial of a low-fluoride toothpaste for young children. Int Dent J. 1989;39:227–235. 110. Holt RD, Morris CE, Winter GB, Downer MC. Enamel opacities and dental caries in children who used a low fluoride toothpaste between 2 and 5 years of age. Int Dent J. 1994;44:331–341. 111. Riordan PJ. Dental fluorosis decline after changes to supplement and toothpaste regimens. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30:233–240. 112. Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. Community effectiveness of fissure sealants and the effect of fluoridated water consumption. Community Dent Health. 2007;24(1):4–11. 113. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. Health Claim Notification for Fluoridated Water and Reduced Risk of Dental Caries. Available at: www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/flfluoro.html. Accessed June 9, 2008. 114. Broffitt B, Levy SM, Warren JJ, Cavanaugh JE. An investigation of bottled water use and caries in the mixed dentition. J Public Health Dent. 2007;67:151–158. 115. Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. Consumption of nonpublic water: implications for children’s caries experience. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004;32:283–296. 116. American Dental Association (ADA). New ADA program tags Smile Healthy products. Posted Jan. 23, 2008. Available at: www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=2851. Accessed June 9, 2008. 117. International Bottled Water Association. Statistics and water quality. Beverage Marketing’s 2007 Market Report Findings. Available at: www.bottledwater.org/public/statistics_main.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 118. US Environmental Protection Agency. Estimated per Capita Water Ingestion and Body Weight in the United States—An Update. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology. EPA-822-R-00-001. October 2004. Available at: www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/drinking/percapita/2004.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 119. American Dental Association. ADA Policy on Bottled Water, Home Water Treatment Systems and Fluoride Exposure. 2002. Available at: www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/bottledwater.asp. Accessed June 9, 2008. 120. Petersen PE. The World Oral Health report 2003: continuous improvement of oral health in the 21st century—the approach of the WHO Global Oral Health Programme. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003;31(Suppl 1):3–24. 121. Horowitz HS. Decision-making for national programs of community fluoride use. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2000;28:321–329. 122. Horowitz HS. The role of dietary fluoride supplements in caries prevention. J Public Health Dent. 1999;59:205–210. 123. American Dental Association. Fluoride Supplement Dosage Schedule—1994. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride_article01.asp#dosage. Accessed June 9, 2008. 124. Levy SM, Muchow G. Provider compliance with recommended dietary fluoride supplement protocol. Am J Public Health. 1992;82:281–283. 125. Osso D, Tinanoff N, Romberg E, Syme S, Roberts M. Relationship of naturally occurring fluoride in Carroll County, Maryland, to aquifers, well depths, and fluoride supplementation prescribing behaviors. J Dent Hyg. 2008;82(1):10. 126. Levy SM, Kiritsy MC, Slager SL, Warren JJ., Patterns of dietary fluoride supplements use during infancy. J Public Health Dent. 1998;158:228–233. 127. Newbrun E. Water fluoridation and fluoridation supplements in caries prevention. J Calif Dent Assoc. 1980;838–847. 128. Newbrun E. The case for reducing the current Council on Dental Therapeutics fluoride supplementation schedule. J Public Health Dent. 1999;59:263–268. 129. Newbrun E. Fluorides and Dental Caries. 3rd ed. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas; 1986:143. 130. Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors. Fluorides Committee. Fluoride Varnish: An Evidence-Based Approach Research Brief. September 2007. Available at: www.astdd.org/docs/FluorideVarnishPaperASTDDSept2007.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 131. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Question 52. Why does opposition to community water fluoridation continue? Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 132. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Community Water Fluoridation. Available at: www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/. Accessed June 9, 2008. 133. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoride and Fluoridation. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/index.asp. Accessed June 9, 2008. 134. American Dental Association (ADA). Fluoridation Facts. 2005. Available at: www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts/fluoridation_facts.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 135. American Dental Association (ADA). Community water fluoridation resources. Available at: www.ada.org/prof/resources/topics/topics_fluoridation_resources.pdf. Accessed June 9, 2008. 136. Kim C, Yamamoto LG. Water fluoridation information found on the World Wide Web. Hawaii Med J. 2004;63(6):185–186. 137. McNally M, Downie J. The ethics of water fluoridation. J Can Dent Assoc. 2000;66:592–593. 138. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. Public Health: Ethical Issues. 2007. Available at: www.nuffieldbioethics.org. Accessed June 9, 2008. 139. British Fluoridation Society. One in a Million—the Facts About Water Fluoridation. 2nd ed. Chapter 10. The ethics of water fluoridation. Available at: www.bfsweb.org/onemillion/onemillion.htm. Accessed June 9, 2008. 140. Mendoza VC. The ethical dilemma of water fluoridation. Rev Med Chil. 2007;135:1487–1493. Epub 2008 Jan 16. Translation available at: http://www.scielo.cl...lng=es&nrm=iso. Accessed on December 7, 2008.

2013 © American Public Health Association

Did Harold Camping write this?



#96 Spidergawd

Spidergawd
  • VibeTribe
  • 14,442 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 01:52 PM

:lol:  Well played.  I knew I could count on you.



#97 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,691 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:00 PM

:lol:  Well played.  I knew I could count on you.

Nothing says "Thread Ender" like Harold Camping

 

44


Theudas declared himself the Messiah, taking 400 people with him into the desert. T beheaded by Roman soldiers. Josephus records this.

53


Even before all the books of the Bible were written, there was talk that Christ's return had already taken place. The Thessalonians panicked on Paul, when they heard a rumor that the day of the Lord was at hand, and they had missed the rapture.

80


Ben Zakkai died about 80, and expected the Messiah about the time of his death

100 -200


Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus (1-2 Cent) thought the days of the Messiah would last 40 years. Before Bar Kochba the Mess. age was short; longer afterward

130


Rabbi Jose, the Galilean, a contemporary of Hyrcanus and Azariah, thought the Messiah would come in three generations (60 years), after the destruction; namely 130 (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

381


Return of Christ; Tichonus a writer of the 4th Cent (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

400


Hippolytus "calculated that 5,500 years separated Adam and Christ and that the life of the world was 6,000 six full 'days' of years until the seventh the day of rest." His calculations in 234 indicted there were still two centuries left. (from A History of the End of the World, Rubinsky and Wiseman, 1982)

400


Rabbi Dosa (2-3rd Century) said the Messiah would come at the end of 400 years. This was based (?) on Gen. 15:13 (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

435


Messiah comes; Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi (135-220) believed Messiah would come 365 years after Temple destroyed in 70 (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

470


Messiah would come; Rabbi Hanina (3rd C), though Messiah would come 400 years after Temple Destruction. (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

500


A Roman priest and theologian in the second and third centuries, predicted Christ would return in A.D. 500, based on the dimensions of Noah's ark.

500


Return of Christ; Hyppolytus (170-236) and Lactantius (250-330) said 500 would be the time for the second coming of Christ (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

950


Acrostic on the end of the world, predecessor of Celano's "Dies irae," found in a ms. from Aniane (second half of the tenth century, ed. Paulin Blanc,"Nouvelle Prose sur le Dernier Jour, Compose avec chant not, vers l'An Mille..." Mmoires de la Socit Archologique de Montpellier, 2 (1850), 451-509, second copy located by Michel Huglo: BN lat. 1928 f.178, Fcamp c.1040).

950


"Treatise on the Antichrist" by Adso of Montier-en-Der, c.950, a response to a variety of crises at mid-century that provoked widespread apocalyptic disquiet, and rapidly become a central text in the European eschatological literature (ed. by Verhelst, CCSL, Cont. med. aeui 40; study in the context of 1000, by Verhelst, "Adso van Montier-en-Der en de angst voor het jaar Duizend," Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, 90 (1977), 1-10); and C. Carozzi, La fin des temps: Terreurs et prophties au Moyen Age (Paris: Stock, 1982), pp.186-94. See below # .

950-80:


Letter on the Hungarians that speaks of widespread apocalyptic reactions among the population, Ac primum dicendum opinionem quae innumeros tam in vestra quam in nostra regione persuasit frivolam esse et nihil veri in se habere, qua putatur Deo odibilis gens Hungrorum esse Gog et Magog ceteraeque gentes quae cum eis describuntur... Dicunt enim nunc esse novissimum saeculi tempus finemque imminere mundi, et idcirco Gog et Magog esse Hungros, qui numquam antea auditi sunt, sed modo, in novissimo temporum apparuerunt. R.B.C. Huygens, "Un tmoin" [n.11], p.231, lines 94-106; letter from the bishop of Auxerre to the bishop of Verdun (commentary by Huygens, p.236f). Dated variously early tenth century, or, according to Huygens, to second half of the tenth ("Un tmoin de la crainte de l'an 1000: La lettre sur les Hongrois," Latomus, 15 (1956), 224-38); considered the background of Adso's treatise (see below #3).

950


In A.D. 950 Adso of Montier-en-Der wrote a "Treatise on the Antichrist" which was a response to a number of mid-century crises that had provoked widespread alarm and fear of an end-time apocalypse.(5) Five years later, Abbo of Fleury heard a preacher in Paris who announced that the Antichrist would be unleashed in the year 1000 and that the Last Judgment would soon follow.(6) At about the same time a panic occurred in the German army of Emperor Otto I because of a solar eclipse that the soldiers mistook as a sign of the end of the world.(7) And when the last Carolingian dynasty fell with the death of King Louis V in 987, many saw this event as a precursor to the arrival of the Antichrist. King Otto II of Germany had Charlemagne's body exhumed on Pentecost in the year 1000 supposedly in order to forestall the apocalypse. Both Halley's comet in A.D. 989 and a super nova in A.D. 1006 were interpreted as signs of the end. About the same time, the Moslem caliph, Al Hakim, destroyed the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem prompting apocalyptic fear in the west as well as violent anti-Jewish outbursts.(8)

964:


"Dum saeculum transit finis mundi appropinquat..." [As the saeculum (century?) passes, the end of the world approaches.] Cartulaire de Saint-Jouin-de-Marnes, pp.1, 11, 17.

965:


Abbo hears a preacher in Paris announcing the unleashing of Antichrist for 1000 AD and the Last Judgment for shortly thereafter (see below # 7, 17).

968:


Panic in Otto's army at an eclipse the soldiers took to portend the end of the world (Gesta episcoporum Leodensium, MGH SS IX, p.202)

968-9:


Annalists note in the margin of Easter tables: mille anni a nativitate Christi, based on a "misreading" of the base year in the Easter Tables as Anno passionis. Three years earlier unusual events with apocalyptic tonality (fire from heaven, release of demons) occur. (Annales de Saint Florent de Saumur, et de Vendme, Halphen Recueil d'annales angevines, p.58 n.2, 116 n.6.) Note that, in typical capstone style, Halphen does not include the note, with its millennial consciousness in the text of his edition, nor even in a footnote to that year, but appended to a footnote for another year, and explained away as a mistake.

969 and/or 980:


widespread apocalyptic expectation in Lotharingia at the coincidence of the Annunciation and the Crucifixion agaist which Abbo writes a letter.

979:


Igneae acies visae sunt in caelo per totam noctem 5 Kalendas Novembris. Hoc anno complentur mille anni a nativitate Christi, secundum veritatem evangelii, qui secundum cyclum Dionisii anno abhinc 21 finiuntur; sicque in anno domincae passionis veritati evangelicae contraitur. Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronicon universale c.1114, PL 160 c.194 (here using Abbo's correction of the date AD; see next item).

983-4:


Abbo redates the year 1000 four years into the past (true AD 1000 = Dionysus' 979) using the apocalyptic beliefs above (#7, see also #17) as the basis of his calculations.

987-91:


The last Carolingian dynasty (the final hindrance to the arrival of Antichrist according to Adso) falls; the capture of the last potential ruler occurs under most dastardly cirumstances. Southern charters begin to date AD, with Christ reigning, a traditional interregnal formula with apocalyptic antecedants (Kantarowicz, The King's Two Bodies, p. ).

989, August:


Halley's Comet appears, cited in Annales divionenses, MGH SS V, p. ; and Annales Quedlinburgenses MGH SS III, p.68; Thietmar of Mersebourg, Chronicon IV, 10; (also Glaber III, 3? acc. to France, p.110-11, and n.4, but see below under 1006, #29); P. Moore and J. Mason, The Return of Halley's Comet (Cambridge, 1984), p.46)

989-1000:


First wave of peace councils in the South (see below).

990s:


mention of apocalyptic beliefs leading to violent seizure of church property at St. Hilaire.

990s-1010s:


Preaching of Aelfric and Wulfistan, filled with images of Last Judgment, explicity linked at points to the year 1000 and the unleashing of Antichrist (Gatch, Milton McC., Preaching and Theology in Anglo-Saxon England: Aelfric and Wulfstan (Toronto, U. Press, 1977).

992:


Coincidence of Crucifixion and Annunciation; Nouaill begins its charters for the next decade with "Appropinquante finem mundi..."; Adso, an old man, leaves on a one-way pilgrimage to Jerusalem; German chronicles report light from north at dawn like the sun, rumor among many that 3 suns, 3 moons and stars were fighting, indicating heavy mortality and famine (Thietmar IV, 19; An. Quedl. ad an. 993, MGH SS III, 69; Annales Augustani, ibid. p.124).

994-1000:


Outbreaks of sacer ignis throughout France, associated in Limoges with the Peace of God.

994-5:


various signs (including a monstrous child), famines, plagues and mortality in Saxony, referred to as the biblical "tria iudicia pessima" (Annales Quedlinburgenses, MGH SS, III p.94; also Thietmar IV, 17; Annales Augustani, MGH SS III, 124).

994-6:


De fine quoque mundi coram populo sermonem in Ecclesia Parisiorum adolescentulus audivi, quod statim finito mille annorum numero Antichristus adveniret, et non longo post tempore universale iudicium succederet: cui praedicationi ex Evangeliis ac Apocalypsi et libro Danielis, qua potui virtute, resistiti. Denique et errorem qui de fine mundi inolevit abbas meus beatae memoriae Richardus sagaci animo propulit, post quam litteras a Lothariensibus accepit, quibus me respondere iussit; Nam fama pene totum mundum impleverat, quod, quando Annuntiatio Dominica in Parasceve contigisset absque ullo scrupulo finis saeculi esset. De initio etiam Adventus qui ante Nativitatem Domini per singulos annos agitur, aliquando error gravissimus extitit, aliis inchoantibus post v. Kalendas Decembris aliis ante, cum numquam plus quatuor ebdomadas, saltem unam diem Adventus habeat; cumque de huiusmodi diversitate soleant contempiones in Ecclesia crescere, concilio determinandum est, ut omnes qui in ea viviumus unum sapiamuis quod vestra industria CONCEDAT qui nos unanimes VULT HABERE IN DOMO SUA." Abbo of Fleury, Apologeticus ad hugonem et rodbertum reges francorum, London, BM 10972, f.22v; PL 139 c.471-2; dated before 996 by Vidier (p.105- 7); 994-5 by Mostert (p.48-51). Concerning the end of the world, as a youth (adolescentulus) I heard a sermon in a [the?] church in Paris that as soon as the number of a thousand years should come, the Antichrist would come, and not long thereafter, the Last Judgment would follow; which preaching I resisted with all my strength from the Evangels and the Apocalypse and the book of Daniel.

994-999:


Otto III engages in elaborate program of renovatio imperii romani that, from the apocalyptic scenario, would reaffirm the existence of the "barrier" to Antichrist, particulary important given the demise of the last of the Carolingians in the previous decade (see above # 3, 9). In this he recapitulated many of Charlemagne's responses to the coming of the year 6000 (see below # 14, 17).

999


"Iste fuit Girbertus, tempore cuius inpletus est annus millesimus ab incarnatione Domini." Annales Pragenses ad an. 999, MGH SS III, 120.

1000


This year goes down as one of the most pronounced states of hysteria over the return of Christ. All members of society seemed affected by the prediction that Jesus was coming back on Jan 1, 1000 AD. There really weren't any of the events required by the Bible transpiring at that time. The magical number 1000 was primarily the sole reason for the expectation. During December 999 AD, everyone was on their best behavior; worldly goods were sold and given to the poor, swarms of pilgrims headed east to meet the Lord at Jerusalem, buildings went unrepaired, crops were left unplanted, and criminals were set free from jails. The year 999 AD turned into 1000 AD and nothing happened.

1000


Annales Elnonenses, ad an. 1000; MGH SS V, p.12; contemporary hand; noted in mid-11th century by the Annales Laubienses and Leodinienses, MGH SS 5, 18. Anno dominicae incarnationis 1000, ind. 13. epacta 12. concurrente 1. termino pascali 9. Kal. Apr. 4 Kal Apr. feria 6, celebrantibvus christicolis sacrosanctae passionis ac redemtionis illius misterium, terraemotus magnus factus est, non ita ut pepe accidere solet, vento in benas terrae condito, ubi concava terrarum viscera his motibus subiacent veluti venti capacia; sed generali et vasto tremore totius obrbis magnitudo passim contremuit, ut cunctis fieret manifestum, quod ore veritatis fuerat ante promissum. His namque et aliis signis quae praenuntiata fuerunt opere completis, hinc iam fit nostra spes certior omni visu, de his quae restant ordine complendis.

1000


Otto returns to Aachen where he exumes Charlemagne's body on Pentecost of the year 1000.

1000


Gerbert/Sylvester and Otto III carry out an unusual procession on August 15, 1000: "In assumptione sancte Mariae nocte quando tabula portatur" (Bamberger manuscript from 1067 published in Giesebrecht, Geschichte der Deutchen Kaiserzeit II, Documents; also see Lausser, Gerbert, p.325; Molinier II, Mabillon II, 226, 334; Histoire littraire XIII, 600;

1000


Outbreak of heresies in France, Italy, south-west Mediterranean that Glaber interprets as the unleashing of Satan according to Revelations (Historiarum, II, 22-23; ed. France, p.88-93).

1000


All the references, still poorly known, from computist texts that privilege the year 1000, which, coming in the middle of a 19 year cycle (988 1006) should neither begin nor end any Easter table: cf. Vat.reg.lat.1127 f.10v, from 920 to "MILLE"; St. Gall 902, 817-999; St. Gall 387, 1001-1129.

1000


"Tertio Ottone imperante. Millesimus annus supercrescens statute computationis numerum, secundum illud quod legitur scriptum: Millesimus exsuperat et transcendit omnia annus." Annales Hildesheimenses III, Prface (MGH SS III, ), written c.1040.

1000


"Interea millesimus ab incarnatione Domini annus feliciter impletus est et hic est annus archiepiscopi 12." Adam of Bremen, Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum (II, xl; MGH SS 7.320) late eleventh century.3

1000


"Data mense augusto, regnante Rotberto rege, anni ab Incarnatione Domni nostri Jesu Christi usque in presentem diem mille et I." (Charter of Saint- Hilaire of Poitiers, ed. Redet, #67, p.76).

1000


references to 1000 taken from Sigebert in later medieval chroniclers: see the collection in Bouquet, Historiens des Gaules de de la France, 10.xcix, 28de, 28de,197b, 205b, 217c, 271c, 282a, 290b, 291a, 299c, 319b.

1000


Five reasons why 1000AD was not a significant date:

1. People did not even know the date -- peasants had no notion of chronological time, elites used a variety of systems and even those using AD disagreed.
2. There are no theological reasons for 1000 to have eschatological significance.
3. There is almost no surviving evidence of any apocalyptic terrors from the period.
4. The little that survives is not directly related to 1000, but to dates such as 968, 1010 and 1033.
5. Therefore we should not be surprised to find 1000 was a "year like any other" in which the normal train of medieval life -- wars, councils, ploughing, and praying -- went on in uninterrupted flow.

The utter absence of documentation attesting to apocalyptic beliefs and movements is, in this view, decisive proof. How can one possibly argue that a whole generation is obsessed with something about which they do not talk? by Richard Landes

1002,


December: aparuit in aere portentum mirabile, species uidelict seu ipsa moles immensi draconis a septemtrionali plaga egrediens cum nimia coruscatione petebat austrum. Quod prodigium pene homines uniuersos qui uidere infra Gallias terruit. (Glaber, Historiarum 2.8.15; France p. 78, with further references in Chronicon sci petri vivi, p.107 n.7; Hugh of Flavigny, p.368; cf. St. Arnulf (Geary, Phantoms); ipse vero anno antequam moreretur, multa prodigia in caelo visa sunt. nam quadam die 19 kal. ian., circa horam 9 quasi quedam facula ardens viso celo cum longo tractu instar fulguris terris delabitur, tanto sane splendore ut non modo qui foras in agris, verumetiam in tectis erupto per quaeque patentia lumine, occuli ferirentur. ipsa vero caeli fissura dum elementis in se invicem propinquantibus sensim evanesceret, interim, mirabile dictu, quasi in similitudine serpentis, crescente quidem capite cum cerruleis pedibus visa est figurare. et hoc non sine grande admiratione multis spectantibus paulo post his parvit... ipso etiam anno cometae apperuerunt. imperator contra romanos... obiit." Gesta episcoporum Cameracensium 1.114; MGH SS 7.451.

1003


According to Glaber Europe covers self in white mantle of Churches (Historiarum III, 4; ed. France, p.114-17)

1003:


Annales de Saint-Benot-sur-Loire, [= 1000 + 3,5 years of Antichrist] (BN lat. 5543, f.22; ed. MGH SS II, p.255; PL 139 col.583, cf. Augustin, De civ. Dei, XX, 13. See also Miracula s. Benedicti, III, 9; ed. de Certain, p.150-53. Note that this text is evidence of how little impact Abbo's efforts to correct Dionysus Exiguus (above #10) was: even his own disciples ignored his proposed calculations.

1004:


Post salutiferum intemerate virginis partum millenarii numeri linea consummata et in quinto cardinalis ordinis loco et in eiusdem quarte ebdomade inicio clarum mane illuxit seculo (Thietmar de Meersebourg, Chronicon VI, 1; ed. Holtzmann and Trillmich, p.243 and n.7). cf: "Nempe haec assidue. Iam clarum mane fenestras intrat et augustus extendit lumine rimas." (A Persius Flaccus, Satires III, 1)

1005-1006:


Terrible famine throughout Europe, associated with apocalyptic portents in several texts: Annales Sangallienses by Hepidannus "Ecce fames qua per secla non saevior ulla" (MGH SS 1.81); Annales Leodinienses and Laubienses, MGH SS IV, p.18; Annales Quedlinbourgenses ad an. 1009 MGH SS 3.80; Annales Hildesheimenses, ad an.1006); Glaber, Quinque libri, 2.9 (5 years ca. 1001-1006); Hugh of Flavigny (based on Glaber); Chronicon Turonensis ad an. 1006; Sigebert of Gembloux ad an. 1006);

1006,


May: New star sighted in heavens (Super Nova of 1006), at same time a chapelain of the Emperor converts to Judaism (Albert of Metz, De diversitate temporum, I, 6-7; II, 22-3 ed. MGH SS IV, p.704, 720-3; Annales Leodinienses and Laubienses, MGH SS IV, p.18; Annales Mosomagenses, MGH SS 3.161; Annales Beneventani, ibid., p.177; probably Radulphus Glaber Quinque libri 3.3.9; Chronicon Venetum, MGH SS 7.36). B. Goldstein, "The Supernova of A.D. 1006," The Astronomical Journal 70 (1965): 105-111.

1009-10:


Destruction in Jerusalem of Holy Sepulchre by the chiliastic Moslem caliph Al Hakim, apocalyptic reaction in West including violent anti- Jewish outbursts (Glaber, Ademar, Annales Lemovicenses, ad an. 1010; Annales Beneventani, ad an. 1010, MGH SS III, p.177;

1009


Rain of blood; sun turns red and fails to shine for three days; plague and death follow (Annales Quedlinbourgenses ad an. 1009 MGH SS 3.80).4

1010:


Brythfird commentaries note that the 1000 years of the Apocalypse are completed according to human calculations, therefore supporting Augustine's allegorical reading

1011-1012:


apocalyptic vision of monk at St-Vaast recorded by Richard of Saint-Vanne (Hugh of Fleury, MGH SS 8.***)

1012-1014:


Various prodigies and natural disasters provoke the expulsion of the Jews from Mainz and lead some to believe that the world was "returning to its original chaos." (Annales Quedlinburgenses, MGH SS, III p.82-3.

1018:


Pre-dawn panic and trampling at St. Martial followed by outbreak of heresy throughout the south, seen as agents of Antichrist by Ademar of Chabannes (Historia 3.**, ; see below II-8).first third eleventh century: Heribert the monk reports a heresy from the Perigord, apocalyptic tone to the letter (see Head and Landes, Peace of God, pp. 347-50)

1022:


Burning of heretics at Orlans, described in several texts in apocalyptic tones (John of Ripoll, Ademar of Chabannes, Radulphus Glaber; cf. I Corinthians)

1024?:


Letter from heaven calling for Peace Councils circulates throughtout Northern France (Gesta episcoporum cameracensium, II, 52; MGH SS V, p. .)

1025:


Radulphus Glaber begins a world history that, under the guidance of William of Volpiano, explicitly makes the year 1000 the focal point: "Ipsius namque imperio maxima iam ex parte eventuum ac prodigiorum, quae circa et infra Incarnati Salvatoris annum contigere millesimum, descripseram." (Vita Willelmi Divionensis of Radulphus Glaber, 28; ed., PL 142, col. 718; Niethard Bulst, Deutsches Archiv, 30 (1974), p.485; France, p.294-7).

1025:


Admar de Chabannes begins a world history whose major theme from 1010 on is apocalyptic signs and prodigies (Historia 3.46-7, 49, 52, 56, 59, 62; see Landes, Relics, chap. 6).

1026-7:


Large collective pilgrimage to Jerusalem led by Richard of St. Vaast.

1028:


Rain of Blood (classic apocalyptic sign) on the Aquitanian shore provokes letters from William V to Robert, Robert to Gauzlin of Bourges and Fulbert of Chartres on their opinion (correspondance of latter two in Bautier Vita Gauzlini, p.159-67; see treatment in Fried, "Endzeiterwartung," pp.385-87)

1029-32:


Ademar of Chabannes produces some 500 folios of historical fiction in which apocalyptic themes play a major role.

1030-33:


terrible famine throughout France (Glaber, Ademar, et al.)

1030-46:


Mention of heresies throughout Christendom (Italy, Gaul, Greece, Hungary) by Gerard, bishop of Csand (Deliberatio supra hymnum trium puerorum, IV, ll.447-75 (associated in his commentary with Revelation 19:17- 21 (ll. 489ff); ed. G. Silagi, CCSL Cont. med. aeui, 49, pp.50-1; cf. also VI, ll.704ff, where similar anti-ecclesiastical phenomena are associated with Revelation 20:7; ed. p.96f).

1031-3:


wave of peace councils throughout France, starting in Aquitaine (documents from Vich, Poitiers, Limoges, Burgundy, Arras?), associated with millennium of Passion by Glaber IV, 4.

1033


This year was sighted as the beginning of the millennium because it marked 1000 years since Christ's crucifixion.

1033 -36


Deacon of Orleans leaves for Jerusalem on pilgrimage out of apocalyptic expectations.

1033:


prodigies, eclipse, ignis ardentium, massive earthquake etc. leads to penitential procession in Jouarre-Rebais, dated millennium of the Passion, Miracles de Saint-Ayeul (Miracula sancti agili abbatis, 1, 3; AA SS Aot VI, p.588);

1033:


Mass pilgrimage to Jerusalem noted in Ademar and Glaber (who associates it with apocalyptic expectation)

1114


Sigebert of Gembloux, Chronicon universale c.1114, PL 160.198; MGH SS 6.353-4 Anno Jesu Christi millesimo secundum supputationem Dionisii multa prodigia visa sunt. Terraemotus factus est permaximus; cometes apparuit; 19 Kalendas Januarii circa horam 9 fisso caelo quasi facula ardens cum longo tractu instar fulguris illabitur terris, tanto splendore, ut non modo qui in agris erant, sed etiam in tectis, irrupto lumine ferirentur. Qua caeli fissura sensim evanescente, interim visa est figura quasi serpentis, capite quidem crescente, cum ceruleis pedibus.

1135-1202


The Calabrian monk, Joachim of Fiore (ca. A.D. 1135 1202) stands out as a key figure in medieval apocalypticism. On Easter Sunday in 1183 he was inspired to write his massive Exposition on Revelation. Later near the end of his life, he summarized his prophetic knowledge in the Book of Figures. His writings influenced a wide range of medieval events. The Franciscan order was founded on the basis that they would be the spiritual elite described in Joachim's "Age of the Spirit," a future time when God would send revelation directly to believers. Using Joachim's hints, writers concluded that the "Age of Grace" would end and the "Age of the Spirit" would begin in A.D. 1260. This prophecy, mixed with German social unrest, created a myth surrounding Frederick II. Having ruled from 1220 to 1250, many believed that Frederick was the "Emperor of the Last Days" who would usher in the new Millennium.The myth gained force when Frederick seized Jerusalem in 1229. When he died in 1250, a new myth started that Frederick would return from the dead. Two pseudo-Fredericks were burned at the stake by his successor to the throne. The Book of a Hundred Chapters stated that the returned Frederick would lead a fight against corruption in the state and the church, and that he will instruct his followers to "Go on hitting them" (referring to the Pope and his students) and to "Kill every one of them!" (Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, Harvard University, 1992, p. 53-55)

1186


The "Letter of Toledo" warned everyone to hide in the caves and mountains. The world would be destroyed and only a few would be spared.

1415


The Taborites, founded in A.D. 1415, also looked back to Joachim for their prophetic beliefs. They believed that once their persecutors were defeated, Christ would return and rule the world from Mount Tabor, a mountain they had renamed south of Prague. Their communal activities eventually turned bloody, prompted by tracts with lines like, "Accursed be the man who withholds his sword from shedding the blood of the enemies of Christ." (Paul Boyer, When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture, Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press, Harvard University, 1992, p. 53-55) After a crushing defeat at the hands of the German army, the group quickly disbanded. Although all of these prophecies were misguided, it would be a mistake to doubt the sincerity of the individuals. However, the events surrounding the end of the first millennium should temper our desire to make predictions about the coming new millennium. Next, we will look at more recent predictions that have been just as wrong.

1420


The Taborites of Czechoslovakia predicted every city would be annihilated by fire. Only five mountain strongholds would be saved.

1524-1526


Muntzer, a leader of German peasants, announced that the return of Christ was near. After he and his men destroyed the high and mighty, the Lord would return. This belief led to an uneven battle with government troops where he was strategically out-numbered. Muntzer claimed to have a vision from God where the Lord promised that He would catch the cannon balls of the enemy in the sleeves of His cloak. The vision turned out to be false when Muntzer and his followers were mowed down by cannon fire.

1533


Beginning of the Millennium, Anabaptists (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

1533


Christ's Coming and Judgment at 8:00 AM October 19, 1533; Michael Stiefel (1486-1567) Acq. with Martin Luther, and taken into Luther's home when he had not given away all possessions. (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

1533


End of the world, preceded by 3-1/2 years of apocalyptic tribulation. (Melchoir Hoffman, from S German Imperial Free City of Schwabish Hall.) Associated with Srousbourg Anabaptists, some called Melchoirites Emphasized "inner" word to "outer" written word (Gary K. Waite "David Joris and Dutch Anabaptism 1524-1543" Wilfrid Laurier University Press (Waterloo, Ontario), 1990.)

1534


A repeat of the Muntzer affair occurred a few years late. This time Jan Matthys took over the city of Munster. The City was to be the only one spared destruction. The inhabitants of Munster, chased out by Matthys and his men, regrouped and lay siege to the city. Within a year everyone in the city was dead.

1534


Easter: April 5, 1534 Return of Christ; Jan Mattijs, a "prophet" replacing Melchoir Hoffman (see 1533) who was imprisoned. Claimed Munster, not Strasbourg was the New Jerusalem; later Amsterdam. (Gary K. Waite "David Joris and Dutch Anabaptism 1524-1543" Wilfrid Laurier University Press (Waterloo, Ontario), 1990.)

1572


Benedictus Aretius of Berne (1505-1547) calculated that 1260 years added to the year Constantine made Christianity the official religion (312+1260=1572) should be the year. (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

1621


Soon after 1621; Sir Henry Finch; (Book: The World's Great Restauration or The Calling of the Jews) Peter Toon noted that 80 books were published in England by 1649

1650-1660


The Fifth Monarchy Men looked for Jesus to establish a theocracy. They took up arms and tried to seize England by force. The movement died when the British monarchy was restored in 1660.

1656


Conversion and Return of the Jews; Mary Cary; mentioned in Armageddon Now! by Dwight Wilson

1656


End of the World; Christopher Columbus; Book: Book of Prophecies (99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Christ Will Return, by B J Oropeza, Foreward by Hank Hanegraaff, IVP publishing, 1994)

1666


To the citizens of London, 1666 was not a banner year. A bubonic plague outbreak killed 100,000 and the Great Fire of London struck the same year. The world seemed at an end to most Londoners. The fact that the year ended with the Beast's number (666), didn't help matters either.

1666


generated much discussion as it was 1000 + 666 (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

1715


Christ's coming; Isaac Newton, a note in his research on the Law of Gravity (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

1715


Coming of Christ; William Whiston, who succeeded Newton as the Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge; also trans. Josephus removed from his professorship (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

1809


Mary Bateman, who specialized in fortune telling, had a magic chicken that laid eggs with end time messages on them. One message said that Christ was coming. The uproar she created ended when she was caught forcing an egg into the hen's oviduct by an unannounced visitor. Mary later was hanged for poisoning a wealthy client.

1814


Spiritualist Joanna Southcott made the startling claim that she, by virgin birth, would produce the second Jesus Christ. Her abdomen began to swell and so did the crowds of people around her. The time for the birth came and passed - she died soon after. An autopsy revealed it had been a false pregnancy.

1836


John Wesley wrote that "the time, times and half a time" of Revelation 12:14 were 10581836, "when Christ should come" (apud A. M. Morris, The Prophecies Unveiled, p. 361)

1836


Millenium begins; John Wesley, founder of Methodism; see 1836, J A Bengel (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

1836


Millennium begins; Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-1752) divided 666 by 42 (months) and came outh that each month = 15-6/7 years. Came up with date using this formula (Luther Martin, Date Setters, Guardian of Truth, Sept. 15, 1994)

1843-1844


William Miller was the founder of an end-times movement that was so prominent it received its own name-- Millerism. From his studies of the Bible, Miller determined that the second coming would happen sometime between 1843-1844. A spectacular meteor shower in 1833 gave the movement a good push forward. The build up of anticipation continued until March 21, 1844, when Miller's one year time table ran out. Some followers set another date of Oct 22, 1844. This too failed, collapsing the movement. One follower described the days after the failed predictions, "The world made merry over the old Prophet's predicament. The taunts and jeers of the 'scoffers' were well-nigh unbearable."

1859


Rev Thomas Parker, a Massachusetts Minister, looked for the millennium to start about 1859.

1874


invisible return of Christ; Original position of the Watchtower. Then Charles Taze Russell predicted the Rapture in 1910, followed by End of the World in 1914--later interpreted as invisible return of Christ. (99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Christ Will Return, by B J Oropeza, Foreward by Hank Hanegraaff, IVP publishing, 1994)

1881


Someone called Mother Shipton 400 years earlier claimed the world would end in 1881. A controversy hangs over the Shipton writings, as to whether or not publishers doctored the text. If the date was wrong, should it matter anyway?

1910


The revisit of Haley's comet was, for many, an indication of the Lord's second coming. The earth actually passed through the gaseous tail of the comet. One enterprising man sold comet pills to people for protection against the effects of the toxic gases.

1914


was one of the more important estimates of the start of the war of Armageddon by the Jehovah's Witnesses (Watchtower Bible and Tract Society). They computed 1914 from prophecy in the book of Daniel, Chapter 4. The writings referred to "seven times". The WTS interpreted each "time" as equal to 360 days, giving a total of 2520 days. This was further interpreted as representing 2520 years, measured from the starting date of 607 BCE. This gave 1914 as the target date.

1914


Charles Russell, after being exposed to the teachings of William Miller, founded his own organization - the Jehovah's Witnesses. In 1914 Russell predicted the return of Jesus Christ.

1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, 1975 and 1994


Jws: Here are other dates that the Watchtower Society predicted. 1975 looked likely as it was computed as the 6000th anniversary of the creation of Adam in the Garden of Eden in 4026 BCE. They interpreted Psalms 90:10 as defining the length of a generation to be 80 years. Since 1914 plus 80 equals 1994, they predicted Armageddon would occur around that year. The latest estimate was 6000 years after the creation of Eve, for which no date can be determined with any accuracy.

1914


End of World; Charles T. Russel, Jehovah's Witnesses; later explained that Michael (ie Jesus) had defeated Satan in heaven

1914


; Jesus invisible and quiet return to the Earth. (Jehovah's Witnesses, Book: This Means Everlasting Life, page 221) "So A.D. 1914 marks the time of Christ's invisible return in spirit." Explained after they said he would return in 1914

1917


Nov. 1917, rebirth of God's people Israel and awakening of Russia

1918


In 1918, new math didn't help the Jehovah's Witnesses from striking out again.

1920


NO DATE ON BOOKLET early this century, periods after names and sections. Franklin Ferguson of New Zealand Booklet: The Lord is Coming (23rd Ed.) "Our Lord's long-promised Return appears to be at hand....We are not warranted in giving a date...we find the startling truth that everything predicted is now abundantly evident." (inside cover)

1925


The Witnesses had no better luck in 1925. They already possessed the title of most wrong predictions. They would expand upon it in the years to come.

1953-AUG:


David Davidson wrote a book titled "The Great Pyramid, Its Divine Message". In it, he predicted that the world would end in 1953-AUG.

1957-APR:


The Watchtower magazine, quoted (1) a pastor from California, Mihran Ask, as saying in 1957-JAN that "Sometime between April 16 and 23, 1957, Armageddon will sweep the world! Millions of persons will perish in its flames and the land will be scorched.'

1960:


Piazzi Smyth, a past astronomer royal of Scotland, wrote a book circa 1860 titled "Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid." It was responsible for spreading the belief in pyramidology throughout the world. This is the belief that secrets are hidden in the dimensions of the great pyramids. He concluded from his research that the millennium would start before the end of 1960.

1967


When the city of Jerusalem was reclaimed by the Jews in 1967, prophecy watchers declared that the "Time of the Gentiles" had come to an end.

1970s


This 1970s tract says: "very likely going to happen in the very near future" Ron Reese

1970's:


The late Moses David (formerly David Berg) was the founder of the Christian religious group, The Children of God. He predicted that a comet would hit the earth, probably in the mid 1970's and destroy all life in the United States.

1970


The True Light Church of Christ made its claim to fame by incorrectly forecasting the return of Jesus. A number of church members had quit their livelihoods ahead of the promised advent.

1973


A comet that turned out to be a visual disappointment, nonetheless, compelled one preacher to announce that it would be a sign of the Lord's return.

1975


The Jehovah's Witnesses were back at it in 1975. The failure of the forecast did not affect the growth of the movement. The Watchtower magazine, a major Witness periodical, has over 13 million subscribers.

1975


Armageddon, 1975; Jehovah's Witnesses; (Various publication, cited in Newsweek Oct. 15, 1984)

1977


We all remember the killer bee scare of the late 70's. One prophecy prognosticator linked the bees to Rev 9:3-12. After twenty years of progression and the bees are still in Texas, I'm beginning to think of them as the killer snails.

1979


Sept. 10, 1979; Walter M. Simmons; (Booklet: The Day of the Lord, 1978, The final warning sign: June 28, 1967) "Therefore, adding the 12 years, 75 days to the June 28, 1967 date ends on September 10, 1979." (p. 24).

1981


Lindsey boldly declared that "The Rapture" would occur before Dec. 31, 1981, based on Christian prophesy, astronomy and a dash of ecological fatalism. He pegged the date to Jesus' promised to return to Earth a generation after Israel's rebirth. He also made references to the "Jupiter Effect," a planetary alignment that occurs every 179 years, that would supposedly lead to earthquakes and nuclear plant meltdowns.

1981


Rapture June 28, 1981; Bill Maupin & The Lighthouse Gospel Tract Foundation, Tucson. Figured a miscalculation; changed to Aug. 7, 1981; Return of Christ to occur May 14, 1988; based on Founding State of Israel, May 15, 1948 (Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction, Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1988.)

1982


It was all going to end in 1982, when the planets lined up and created magnetic forces that would bring Armageddon to the earth.

"Scientists are forecasting that soon our solar system will experience some unique and sobering events. This forecast concerning 1982 comes from the scientific investigations of astronomers and is in no way related to astrology and fortune telling. The news is quoted from the September 16, 1974 edition of "Newsweek" magazine, science section. These are the conclusions of John Gribbin, science editor of "Nature" magazine, and of Stephen Plagemann of NASA's Goddard Space Center in Maryland. These reputable scientists are pointing out that in the latter part of 1982 there will take place an event unique in our solar system. At that time all nine planets will be on the same side of the sun. That happens once every 179 years, but in 1982 the nine planets will not only be on the same side of the sun, but in perfect alignment. "Newsweek" referred to this situation as "An Apocalyptic Prediction:' In the book that these men have co-authored, "The Jupiter Effect", they point out that, just as the moon affects earth tides by its gravitational pull, so do the planets affect each other, and particularly Jupiter, because of its great size. This has been linked to the earthquake frequency on our planet earth. What will happen when all the planets come into one line and exert a united gravitational pull on our earth? These scientists speak of eight probable effects: 1) A disturbed magnetic activity in the sun, producing huge firestorms; 2) That the ionosphere of earth will be changed; 3) That radio and television communications will be disrupted; 4) That there will be weird lighting effects from aurora borealis; 5) There will be vast changes in wind patterns; 6) Rainfall and temperature patterns will change; 7) Earth's rotation, and the length of the days may change; 8) Many earthquakes will occur. "There will be many earthquakes, large and small... and one region where one of the greatest fault systems lies today, under great strain, long overdue for a giant leap forward, and just waiting for the necessary kick, is California." This is the frightening, apocalyptic vision of the scientists as quoted in "Newsweek." (Evangelical Tract Distributors, Edmonton, Alta., Canada)"

1982


A group called the Tara Centers placed full-page advertisements in many major newspapers for the weekend of April 24-25, 1982, announced: "The Christ is Now Here!" and predicted that he was to make himself known "within the next two months." After the date passed, they said that the delay was only because the "consciousness of the human race was not quite right..." Boy, all these years and we're still not ready.

1984


The Jehovah's Witnesses made sure in 1984 that no one else would be able to top their record of most wrong doomsday predictions. The Witnesses record is currently holding at nine. The years are: 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1984. Lately, the JW's are claiming they're out of the prediction business, but it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. They'll be back.

1984 to 1999:


In 1983, Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Guru of the Rajneesh movement predicted massive destruction on earth, including natural disasters and man-made catastrophes. Floods larger than any since Noah, extreme earthquakes, very destructive volcano eruptions, nuclear wars etc. will be experienced. Tokyo, New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Bombay will all disappear.

1986:


Moses David of The Children of God faith group predicted that the Battle of Armageddon would take place in 1986. Russia would defeat Israel and the United States. A worldwide Communist dictatorship would be established. In 1993, Christ would return to earth.

1987


The Harmonic Convergence planned for Aug. 16-17, 1987, and several New Age events were to occur at that time. The second coming of the serpent god of peace and the Hopi dance awakening were two examples.

1988


The book "88 Reasons Why the Rapture is in 1988" came out only a few months before the event was to take place. What little time the book had, it used effectively. By the time Sept 11-13 rolled around, whole churches were caught up in the excitement the book generated. I personally had friends who were measuring themselves for wings. In the dorm where we lived, my friends were also openly confronting all of the unsaved. It became my job to defuse to situations. In one case, an accosted sinner was contemplating dispensary action against my now distant friends. Finally, the days of destiny dawned and then set. No Jesus. The environment was not the same as Miller's 1844 failure. To my surprise, the taunting by the unsaved was very brief. I took it that people have very little understanding of the Bible, so they had nothing to taunt my friends with. I made one other interesting observation. The time for the rapture was a 3 day window from Sept 11 to the 13 - my friends had given up hope on the morning of 12. I pointed out that they still had 2 days left, but they had been spooked nonetheless.

1988


Rapture in Rosh Hashanna Sept. 1988 before Sept 21, Edgar C. Whisenant (Book: 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will be in 1988 (cites Joe Civelli as agreeing with his conclusions)

1988

ANNOUNCING... "ONE OF THE MOST ASTOUNDING BOOKS OF THE GENERATION." Colin Deal, Author of best-seller. Christ Returns by 1988. "When Your money fails" "This book will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are in the last moments of time. It is a catalog of fascinating facts. This extraordinary and explosive HANDBOOK OF THE END TIME may well be the means of the preservation of you and your family." Rev. Simon Polar Cameron, Founder/ President, Now Hope Bible College (Faith Acres), Peterhead, Scotland. WORLD WIDE MONEYCARD 666 110 205 419 386 968 Your FINAL CARD and NUMBER Is Ready! Is Assigned! Date U.S. plans to insert MARK on body. The Head/Hand Scan Machines are ready! Learn how YOU and others are NOW using the -666 SYSTEM,- including MASTERCARD, VISA, SEARS, PENNEYS, BELKS, Supermarkets, U.S. Government, European Common Market, Sadat. etc. "This book offers proof that we are in the initial stages of the Final Government System.'' Colin Deal, Author of best-seller. Christ Returns by 1988. "The dollar will be rendered utterly worthless. probably within 3 years." J.F. Smith. The Coming Currency Collapse. "HANDBOOK OF THE END TIME" Rev. Simon Pelar Cameron "THE DOLLAR WILL BE CANCELLED." Willard Cantelon

1988


Return of Christ: May 14, 1988; based on Founding State of Israel, May 15, 1948 Bill Maupin & The Lighthouse Gospel Tract Foundation, Tucson.; Rapture June 28, 1981; Figured a miscalculation; changed to Aug. 7, 1981 (Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction, Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1988.)

1988


Tribulation begins in 1988; J R Church (Book: Hidden Prophecies in the Psalms, clearly hints that 1988 will be the year.) "Psalms 88-94 seem to describe the future seven years of Jacob's Trouble in chronological order. This is not to say that the Tribulation Period will begin in 1988" (p, 246).

1989


After the passing of the deadline in 88 Reason's, the author, Edgar Whisenaunt, came out with a new book called "89 Reasons why the Rapture is in 1989." This book sold only a fraction of his prior release.

1989


Rapture in Sept. 1989; Edgar C. Whisenant (Book: 88 Reasons Why the Rapture Will be in 1988; The Final Shout: Rapture Report 1989) Revised his thinking after it did not happen in 1988; documented in book Soothsayers of the Second Advent, Wm. Alnor

1990's:


In 1992, David Koresh of the Branch Davidian group in Waco Texas changed the name of their commune from Mt. Carmel to Ranch Apocalypse, because of his belief that the final all-encompassing battle of Armageddon mentioned in the Bible would start at the Branch Davidian compound. They had calculated that the end would occur in 1995. After a 51-day standoff, on 1993-APR-10, 76 members died as a result of a deliberately set fire.

1991


A local group in Australia predicted Jesus would return through the Sydney Harbor at 9:00 am on 31st March, 1991.

1991


Nation of Islam Leader Louis Farrakhan proclaimed the Gulf War would to be "the War of Armageddon ... the final War."

1991


Menachem Schneerson, a Russian born rabbi, called for the Messiah to come by Sept 9, 1991, the start of the Jewish New Year.

1992


A Korean group called Mission For The Coming Days had the Korea Church a buzz in the fall of 1992. They foresaw Oct 28, 1992 as the time for the Rapture. Numerology was the basis for the date. Several camera shots that left ghostly images on pictures was thought to be a supernatural confirmation of the date.

1992


Oct. 28, 1992, Rapture; Full page ad in USA Today, on Oct. 20, 1991, placed by the Hyoo-go (Rapture) movement. EP News service quoted one sect, "50 million people will die in earthquakes, 50 million from collapsed buildings, 1.4 billion from World War III and 1.4 billion from a separate Armageddon." (99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Christ Will Return, by B J Oropeza, Foreward by Hank Hanegraaff, IVP publishing, 1994)

1992


"Some argue that nobody will know the coming of Jesus because the Bible says He will come as a thief. However, be alert, for He will come as a thief only to those who live in darkness, not to those who are in the light." The tract then quotes 1 Thessalonians 5;2,4 and Revelation 3:3 as proof for this assertion. Questions: Am I now "in the light" because I now "know" (??) it will be October 1992? Did the Thessalonians know this? What if an atheist read this tract? Ridiculous, isn't it!!! Our anonymous author continues. Jesus "knows and has revealed to thousands already!"

1993


If the year 2000 is the end of the 6000 year cycle, then the rapture must take place in 1993, because you would need 7 years of the tribulation. This was the thinking of a number of prophecy writers.

1994


In the book "1994 the Year of Destiny" F. M. Riley foretold of God's plan to rapture His people. The name of his ministry is The Last Call and he operates out of Missouri.

1994


Pastor John Hinkle of Christ Church Los Angels caused quite a stir when he announced he had received a vision for God that warned of apocalyptic event on June 9th, 1994. Hinkle, quoting God, said, "On Thursday June the 9th, I will rip the evil out of this world." At the time, I knew Hinkle's vision didn't match up with scripture. From a proper reading of Bible prophecy, the only thing that God could possible rip from the earth would be the Christian Church, and I don't think God would refer to the Church as "evil." Some people tried to reinterpret the Hinkle's unscriptural vision to mean that God would the rip evil out of our hearts when he raptured us. Well, the date came and went with no heart surgery or rapture.

1994


Harold Camping in his book "Are You Ready?" predicted the Lord's return in Sept 1994. The book was full of numerology that added up to 1994 as the date of Christ's return.

1994


After promising themselves they would not make any more end time predictions, the Jehovah's Witnesses fell off the wagon and proclaimed 1994 as the conclusion of an 80 year generation - the year 1914 was the starting point.

1994


John Hinkle On Trinity Broadcasting Network quote: "The most cataclysmic experience that the world has ever known sine the resurrection is going to happen." He said, God said, "On Thursday, June the ninth, I will rip the evil out of this world." TBN's Paul Crouch later said maybe something was happening invisibly. (99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Christ Will Return, by B J Oropeza, Foreward by Hank Hanegraaff, IVP publishing, 1994)

1994


Sept. 15, 1994: Last Day and Return of Christ; Harold Camping; Book: 1994 (pub in 1992) "Last Day and return of Christ sometime on or between September 15, 1994...and September 27, 1994." (p. 531) "I will be surprised if we reach October 1, 1994" (p. 533)

1995


Armageddon Delayed! Jws

In early November 1995 Jehovah's Witnesses made newspaper headlines around the world. This time it was not a record crowd at a stadium convention or even a controversial blood transfusion case that attracted international attention, but the postponement of the End. One headline read: "Armageddon Not Coming," and the related article stated that Jehovah's Witnesses had announced that "Armageddon [had] been delayed and [that] the end of the world [was] no longer nigh." (Victoria Times-Colonist, Sunday 12 November 1995, p. A2)

1996


This had a special month, according to one author. He foresaw the month of Sept as the time for our Lord's return. The Church Age will last 2000 years from the time of Christ's birth in 4 BC.

1996


California psychic Sheldon Nidle predicted the end would come when 16 million space ships converged upon the Earth on Dec. 17, 1996, along with a host of angels. Nidle explained the passing of the date by claiming the angles placed us in a holographic projection to preserve us and give us a second chance.

1996:


The book "The Return of Jupiter: End of the world in the light of the Bible" Dorrance Publishing, Pittsburgh PA predicted a disaster starting in the Pacific Ocean: "A terrible earthquake is going to break the oceanic earth crust under the Pacific Ocean by the year 1996 AD

1996


Millennium Begins; Morgan Edwards (Book: Two Academical Exercises on Subjects Bearing the Following Titles: Millennium, and Las-Novelties written between 1742 adn 1744; pub 1788) Millennium to begin 3-1/2 years after the Rapture; (cited by John Bray reading The Life and Works of M Edwards, Thom. McKibbens Jr)

1996-OCT-23:


Since 1658, many Christians have accepted the calculations of James Ussher, an Irish archbishop, who estimated that the first day of creation occurred on 4004-OCT-23 BCE. This would make the time interval between the creation of the world and a common estimate of the birth of Christ to be precisely 4000 years. Some people believe that Ussher fudged the data to make it come out neatly. He also estimated that the end of the world would occur exactly 6000 years later, in the fall of 1996.

1997


In regard to 1997, I've received several e-mail messages that pointed to a date when Jesus will return for his church. Two of the more widely known time frames was Monte Judah's FEB/MAR tribulation start and a May 14 rapture which was based on numerology and the Psalms.

1997


When Rabin and Arafat signed their peace pact on the White House lawn on Sept 13, 1993, some saw the events as the begin of tribulation. With signing of the peace agreement Daniel's 1260 day countdown was underway. By Adding 1260 days to Sept, 1993; you get Feb 24, 1997.

1997


Stan Johnson of the Prophecy Club saw a 90 percent chance that the tribulation would start Sept 12, 1997. He bases his conclusion on several end-time signs. The date of September 12 was chosen by Johnson because it will be Jesus' 2000th birthday and it will also be the day of atonement, although not what is currently the Jewish Day of Atonement. Further supporting evidence came from Romanian pastor Dumitru Duduman. In several heavenly visions, Dumitru claimed to had seen the book of life. In one of his earlier visions, there were several pages yet to be completed. In his last vision he noticed the book of life only had one page left. Doing some rough calculating, Johnson and friends figured the latest time frame for the completion of the book of life would have to be September 1997.

1997 or early 1998:


The 1997-JUL-29 issue of the Weekly World News carried a statement by a spokesperson of the International Association of Psychics. 92% of their 120,000 members have had the same "end time" vision. Spokesperson Madame Vredeau predicts: A rise in religious belief. Prophets and saints will appear and lead the faithful to safety The oceans will shrink. Deserts expand. Crops will fail; there will be massive starvation Widespread emotional and mental collapse; increase in crime and violence Changing weather patterns; basic laws of nature will be disrupted Satanic demons will appear in broad daylight. War, pestilence, a worldwide plague Mankind will disappear around the year 2001 CE.

1997:


Superdave the Wonderchemist (5) takes the magic number 1331 and adds it to 666 the "Number of the Beast" from the Book of Revelation to get the year of the arrival of the Antichrist and the end of the world. Why is 1331 a magic number? 1331 is the same backwards as forwards. It displays the unlucky number 13 when read in either direction. it is the fourth row in Pascal's Triangle:

1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
1331 is 11 cubed

1997-1999


Russian scientist Vladimir Sobolyovhas of the Rerikh Academy has analyzed prophesies made by Russian saints, by Nostradamus etc. (6) He announced his conclusions in1997-SEP: that the earth's axis will suddenly tilt about 30 degrees sometime during the next two years. This will submerge the Scandinavian countries and Britain under water, in what is termed the Armageddon Flood. Siberia will be spared. He expects that aliens will intervene and lead the world into the fourth dimension. Right now, these aliens are on earth, but in hiding. Sobolyovhas said: "If we completely believed in them, we would get lazy. So they are clever. They stay hidden in the fourth dimension and only show themselves from time to time.''

1997


End of World in 1997; Japanese Religious Sect: Aum Shinri Kyo 3000 members; located at base of Mt. Fuji. The words "shinri kyo" mean "supreme truth" and in English it is known as Aum Supreme Truth. Said by ABC News to be radical group; thought to be manufacturing nerve gas ABC World News Tonight, Mar. 21, 1995 Also info from AOL news.

1997-APR-10:


Dan Millar, of Surrey, BC, Canada and Bob Wadsworth of the Biblical Astronomy newsletter are two religious researchers. They are following the age-old tradition of looking for signs in the heavens for the arrival of the Antichrist, return of Christ, etc. Ancient prophecies told of heavenly events and even a cross in the sky in advance of momentous developments. Millar and Wadsworth have predicted the arrival of the Antichrist on APR-10. Dan suggested that we watch news from the Vatican and from Jerusalem on that day, because he expects some sort of coup by the Antichrist. He is expected to come to power in the Vatican as Pope Peter II. One heavenly indicator is the intersection by two comets of the star Algol in the constellation Perseus. Comets Hyakutake and Hale-Bopp intersected the star on the same date (APR-11) on two adjacent years (Hyakutake in 1996 and Hale-Bopp in 1997). Plotting the two comets' trajectories over the period APR-1 to APR-30 on the two years forms an almost perfect cross. They intersect between the eyes of the Medusa head that Perseus is holding in his left hand. "Algol" means "Demon Star" in Arabic. The head is known as Rosh Satan (the head of Satan) in Hebrew. There will be one further heavenly sign: on the evening of APR-10, there will be a lunar occultation of the star Aldebaran in the constellation Taurus.

1997-DEC-31:


The 1997-JUL-29 issue of the Weekly World News reported that the biggest end of the world scare since the Cuban missile crisis was circulating through Washington. President Clinton called a secret meeting with leading Bible scholars for the week of JUL-27. A confidential Pentagon memo sparked the scare; it predicts a worldwide cataclysm of unprecedented proportions. Earthquake activity is on a rise and will peak at year-end; the earth's crust is shifting ominously.

1997-MAR-8:


The Vortex of the Star of David religious sect of Luskville, Quebec was quoted (2) as predicting the end of the world on Saturday, MAR-8. A father, Jean Leon Marcoux, was interviewed; he was worried because his children will be visiting their mother at the sect's commune on that weekend. He approached the Quebec police but was unable to get them to take any action. A spokesperson for the sect stated that they do not have a doomsday scenario.

1997-NOV-27:


The Sacerdotal Knights of National Security report that "A space alien captured at a UFO landing site in eastern Missouri cracked under interrogation by the CIA and admitted that an extraterrestrial army will attack Earth on November 27 with the express purpose of stripping our planet of every natural resource they can find a use for -- and making slaves of every man, woman and child in the world!"

1997-OCT-20


A Jewish group, called theTemple Mount and Land of Israel Faithful Movement were expected to attempt to place the cornerstone of a new temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. This is a small piece of real estate that is the most sacred spot in the world to Jews, and one of the most sacred to Muslims. The Rapture Ready home page has predicted that the "Tribulation" would be triggered by that event. Previous attempts had failed either because of riots, or police action. There was one report that they were going to try to airlift the stone by helicopter this time. On OCT-20, several thousand police officers were deployed throughout Jerusalem; they successfully prevented access to the Temple Mount.

1998


Numerology: Because 666 times three equals 1998 some people point to this years as being a prophetically significant year. I had someone call me long distance just so they could pass on to me this earth shattering news.

1998


A Taiwanese cult operating out of Garland Texas predicted Christ would return on Mar 31 of 1998. The group's leader, Heng-ming Chen, announced God would return, and then invite the cult members aboard a UFO. The group abandoned their second coming prediction when a precursor event failed to take place. The cult's leader said God would appear on every channel 18 of every TV in the world. Maybe God realized at the last minute, the Playboy Network was channel 18 on several cable systems, and he didn't want to have Christians watching a porn channel.

1998


On Apr 30, 1998 - when Israel will be age 50 - The tribulation could start. The reasoning for this date has to do with God's age requirement for priesthood, which is between 30-50.

1998


Marilyn Agee in her book "The End of the Age" has her sights set on May 31, 1998. This date will conclude the 6000 year cycle from the time of Adam. Agee looks for the Rapture to take place on Pentecost also known as the feast of weeks. Another indicator is the fact that the Holy Spirit did not descend upon the until 50 days from Christ's resurrection before descending on the Church. Israel was born in 1948, add the 50 days and you come up with 1998. If this prophecy fails, numerology will mark itself as one of the most unreliable method of foretelling and yet the most repeated. After her May 31 rapture date failed, Agee, lacking the ability to face up to her error, continued her date setting by using various scripture references to pointing to June 7, 14, and 21.

1998:


Centro is a very active religious organization, largely centered in the Philippines. They predict that the world will come to an end in 1998. They recommend that their followers retreat to safe places.

1998:


The famous psychic Edgar Cayce predicted that a secret, underground chamber would be discovered between the paws of the Great Sphinx. Inside, there will be documents revealing the history of Atlantis. This revelation will trigger the Second Coming of Christ. This prediction is rather interesting, because two independent studies have revealed that there is in fact an underground structure just where Cayce said it would be!

1998-FEB-26:


Edgar Casey predicted that the earth would have a new pole during the winter of 1997-1998. Since the earth spins like a gyroscope, this would take an enormous amount of energy to achieve. That amount of energy would cause a massive disruption to the oceans and the earth's crust. That could, in turn, cause very serious, worldwide tidal waves, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

1998-JUL-5


The Church of the Subgenius predicts that on "X Day", the end of the world will occur. At that time, "the Men from Planet X, or XISTS, will arrive on Earth, close a deal with "Bob," rupture the card-carrying Ordained SubGenii up to the Escape Vessels of the Sex Goddesses, and destroy the remaining population of Earth, VERY VERY SLOWLY." Bob is J.R. Dobbs, leader and High Epopt of the Church of the SubGenius, Living Avatar of Slack, the Saint of Sales. He was responsible for founding the Church on a shifting, sandy beach of hypocrisy."

1998-MAR-31:


About 150 followers of a Taiwanese Christian-Buddhist spiritual sect have moved into Garland TX (a suburb in northern Dallas) to await God's arrival. On MAR-25, God is expected to broadcast a commercial on Channel 18 in Garland. He will then be reincarnated into a man on MAR-31 at 10:00 AM, local time. They expect to draw a crowd of about one million who want to be touched by God. Their leader, Hoh-Ming Chen, selected Garland because it sounds like "God land". News reports from Taiwan indicated that the group plans to commit mass suicide if God does not appear. These appear to be unfounded.

1998-OCT


The House of Yahweh, Abilene () predicts that an end-of-world scenario will start during 1998-OCT. By mid-2001, they predict that 80% of the world's population will have been killed as a result of nuclear warfare.

1999


TV newscaster-turned-psychic Charles Criswell King said in 1968 that the world as we know it will cease to exist on August 18, 1999.

1999


1999 - Sept - 30: Second Coming of Jesus Christ predicted by Kirk Nelson using Edgar Cayce's Predictions in correlation with the Christian Bible.

1999:


Hon-Ming Chen has founded God's Salvation Church in Texas. The group believes that a nuclear war will destroy parts of Earth in 1999. They have identified a nine-year old boy as the "Jesus of the East", a reincarnation of Jesus Christ. They believe that if they can link him up with the "Jesus of the West" then 100 million lives will be spared. The second Jesus is supposed to live in Vancouver BC, look like Abraham Lincoln, and have been born in late 1969. Their search was unsuccessful.

1999-AUG-11 etc.:


The WWW site CALENdeRsign lists a number of astronomical events that will happen as the millennium closes. There has always been an association between such alignments and momentous events in the mind of the public. Starting in late 1999, the following will be observed: 1999-AUG-11: total solar eclipse; visible from Europe 2000-JAN-21: total lunar eclipse; visible in Europe and US 2000-APR: Triple planetary conjunction involving Mars, Jupiter & Saturn 2000-MAY: "Great Conjunction" of Jupiter and Saturn. This also occurred in 7 BCE and is thought by some to be the star that some of the Gospels mentioned as leading the three wise men to Jesus.

1999-AUG-11:


According to the 1997-MAY-27 issue of Sun Magazine, the Anti-Christ is alive today and living in the Middle East. On AUG-11, the time of an eclipse of the sun, he will make himself known to the world. "It will be the ultimate war." Many will perish, and their souls will travel to Heaven or Hell, depending upon which side that they supported during the conflict.

1999-AUG-6:


According to the latest interpretation of Biblical prophecy by the Branch Davidian sect, 5 months of major torment will begin as the sixth seal is fulfilled.

1999-DEC-19:


Sun Magazine listed a prediction of "Bible expert" Dotson Meade. He predicts that "something will happen that brings about the war which will end the world as we know it... There will be a vicious cycle of storms and earthquakes that lead to the final battle the world has awaited." This date was derived from information in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

1999-JAN:


According to the 1997-JUN-24 issue of Sun Magazine Pope John XXIII predicted in 1962 that visitors from outer space will arrive in chariots of flaming steel and will share their advanced knowledge with humanity. Our life span will be increased to 150 years or longer. Most diseases will be wiped out.

2000


????? What's next?

soon


The House of Yahweh A former kibbutz worker named Jacob now Yisrael Hawkins started the House of Yahweh, a group that prophesies that the end of the world will arrive very soon if the laws of Yahweh set down in the Bible are not universally obeyed, and the temple in Jerusalem not rebuilt to lie side by side with the Dome of the Rock Mosque. Hawkins has about 3,000 followers who believe he will announce the second coming of Jesus before being murdered by Satan. (Apocalypse Really Soon: ABC news, Jan 5, 1999)

1999


Concerned Christians This group, whose members were ordered deported from Israel, was started by Monte Kim Miller, who used to run an anti-cult network in Denver. People who know the cult say Miller believes he is the last prophet on Earth before Armageddon. Miller, who reportedly believed he talked to God each morning before he went to work, was said to claim that America was Satan and the government evil. Miller has predicted he will die on the streets of Jerusalem in December 1999 but will rise from the dead three days later. (Apocalypse Really Soon: ABC news, Jan 5, 1999)

2000


Sukyo Mahikari A secretive Japanese group said by former members to spread a neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic dogma, it has established itself as a charitable organization in England. A group leaflet says as the year 2000 approaches, "mankind might be annihilated by the baptism of fire." Similar language turned up in Aum Shinrikyo materials. Aum Shinrikyo was the cult famous for the deadly sarin gas attack in Tokyo. A spokesman for Sukyo Mahikiri has denied the cult is linked to Aum Shinrikyo or that it is anti-Semitic. (Apocalypse Really Soon: ABC news, Jan 5, 1999)

2000


Elohim City In the Cookson Hills of eastern Oklahoma lies the fortress-town of Elohim City, where about 100 heavily armed inhabitants work, pray and conduct paramilitary drills. A former Mennonite preacher named Robert Millar, 73, who envisions a white Christian nation in North America, runs Elohim City in anticipation of an Asiatic invasion of the United States, an attack he considers inevitable. Millar, inspired by fundamentalist Christianity, KKK-style racism and astrology, believes that Christ has been revealing himself for the last two millennia. He also preaches that a series of disasters is about to strike, probably soon after the year 2000, during which time the unworthy and wicked will be cleansed from the Earth. Convicted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh phoned friends of his in Elohim City before the blast. (Apocalypse Really Soon: ABC news, Jan 5, 1999)

2000


Numerology: If you divide 2000 by 3, you will get the devil's number 666.66666666666667.

2000


The names of the people and organizations that have called for the return of Christ, at the turn of the century, is too long to be listed here. I would say that if there is day that Christ cannot come back on, it must be Jan 1, 2000. To come at an unknown time means an unknown time. I think Jan 2, 2000 would be a more likely day for Him to call His Church home - right after the big let down.

2000


On May 5, 2000, all the planets are supposed to be in alignment. This will cause the earth to suffer earthquakes, volcanic eruption, and various other nasty stuff. A similar alignment occurred in 1982 and nothing happened. People fail to realize that the other 9 planets only exert a very tiny gravitation pull on the earth. If you were to add up the gravitational force from the rest of the planets, the total would be only amount to fraction of the tug the moon has on the earth.

2000:


Michael Drosnin, author of "The Bible Code," found a hidden message in the Pentateuch (the first five books in the Bible) that predicts that World War III, involving a worldwide atomic [sic] holocaust, will start in 2000 (or perhaps 2006).

2000-2001


Dr. Dale Sumburru looks for March 22, 1997, to be "the date when all the dramatic events leading through the tribulation to the return of Christ should begin" The actual date of Christ's return could be somewhere between July 2000 and Mar 2001. Dr. Sumburru is more general about the time of the Christ's second coming than most writers. He states, "The day the Lord returns is currently unknown because He said [Jesus] these days are cut short and it is not yet clear by how much and in what manner they are cut short. If the above assumptions are not correct, my margin of error would be in weeks, or perhaps months."

2000


Begin of Jesus' reign from Jerusalem; Lester Sumerall; Book: I Predict 2000 AD; "I predict the absolute fullness of man's operation on planet Earth by the year 2000 AD. Then Jesus Christ shall reign from Jerusalem for 1000 years." (99 Reasons Why No One Knows When Christ Will Return, by B J Oropeza, Foreward by Hank Hanegraaff, IVP publishing, 1994)

2000


Rapture; Implied in Hal Lindsay's revision. 1st said 1948+40=1988; Later Israel did not have land until 1967 War; 1967+40=2007; Rapture seven years earlier.

2000-DEC-25:


According to the 1997-JUN-24 issue of Sun Magazine Pope John XXIII predicted in 1962 that Christ would appear in the sky over New York City. He will announce the creation of a 1000-year paradise, to be proceeded by six months of great sorrow.

2000-JAN-1:


According to the 1997-JUN-24 issue of Sun Magazine Pope John XXIII predicted in 1961 that Doomsday will begin with the detonation of an atomic bomb in a major European city by a Libyan terrorist group. This will trigger a massive six-month war that will cause the deaths of millions of people.

2000-JAN-1:


William Cooper, head of a militia group in St. John's AZ, predicted that on this date the secret chambers of the Pyramid at Giza will be opened. Its secrets will be revealed and Satan will become a public figure. The American militia will engage in a massive war at this time. This, and the previous prediction, are the only two that we have been able to find which agree on the same day. Of course, it is an obvious date to select, because most people believe that the next millennium begins then. It doesn't; it starts one year later on 2001-JAN-1.

2000-JAN-11:


According to Weekly World News of 1997-NOV-18, the CIA has caught a space alien who had crash-landed on JUN-20 in a New Mexico desert. He is from a species that is considerably more developed, both mentally and spiritually, than mankind. He is only survivor of the destruction of his world - a planet some 200 light years from Earth. He reports that God is "furious with His creations everywhere." Apparently none of the species that he created turned out at all well. So, god is systematically working his way across the galaxies, setting fires to the planets and exploding them one by one. Earth will be next!

2000-MAY-31:


The Great Conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in front of Taurus and the coming back of the Star of Bethlehem like 7.B.C. Some people expect a supernatural event comparable to the birth of Jesus.

2000-SEP-21:


Dan Millar, mentioned above, estimates this date as that of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. Four events happen on that day, a Thursday. The sidereal day is reset. It is also the Jewish New Year, using the Canaanite calendar that was in use within ancient Israel prior to the Babylonian Captivity. It is the time of the Jewish "Feast of Jubilees" according to a message given by the Virgin Mary to Father Stefan Gobbi. This feast occurs only once every fifty years. This date is also the Autumn Equinox.

2001


Jack Van Impe Ministries sponsors the largest Evangelical Christian program devoted to end-time prophecy. In his home page, he discusses his book "On the Edge of Eternity" in which he predicts that the year 2001 will "usher in international chaos such as we've never seen in our history." He predicts that in 2001, and the years following, the world will experience "drought, war, malaria, and hunger afflicting entire populations throughout the [African] continent...By the year 2001, there will be global chaos." Islam will become much larger than Christianity. (That would take a sudden growth spurt; Islam is currently followed by 19% of the world's population vs 33% for Christianity). A one-world church will emerge; it will be "controlled by demonic hosts." Temple rituals (presumably including animal sacrifice) will resume in Israel.

2001


Because there was no year 0, the true millennium will not start until Jan 1, 2001. Most prophetic watchers still have their sights set on 2000. If the date passes uneventful, I'm sure they'll realize their error and refocus on this year.

2001:


Charles Spiegel, a retired psychology professor, preaches from a small town near San Diego CA that the ancient land of Atlantis will emerge from the Caribbean circa 2001 CE. Shortly thereafter, 1000 extra-terrestrials from "Myton" in 33 spaceships will land there and bring new knowledge to humanity.

2001-2012


Beginning of the Millennium, not the end of the world, 1000yrs yet to go. Jack Van Impe; TV show: JVI Presents week of 1-15-1995l; Rather Vague but cites Jewish Catholic and Christians as well as Notradamus

2001-JAN-31:


Sun Magazine reported in its 1997-OCT-14 issue that Noah's Ark has been discovered intact in undamaged form on a slope near Mount Ararat in Turkey. Inside were a group of 6 copper-gold-silver scrolls, each 12" square. Scroll 2 reveals that the sun will superheat the earth, melting both polar ice caps, and creating a world-wide flood. Scroll 3 reveals that Doomsday is set for 2001-JAN-31. Good people who repent of their sins will be saved; cruel tyrants will be cast into the burning fires of Hell.

2004


This date for Jesus' return is based upon Psalmology, numerology, the biblical 360 days per year, Jewish holidays, and "Biblical astronomy." To figure out this date you'll need a calculator, a slide rule, and plenty of scratch paper.

2004:


Arnie Stanton noted on 1997-SEP-16 that that evening was the fourth Jewish festival since 1996-APR-3 on which a lunar eclipse occurred. (7) He quotes Luke 21:25-26 which mentions "signs in the sun, in the moon and in the stars and on the earth distress of nations" He believes that "these recent lunar eclipses are the last known astronomical signs that will preceed a 7 year (360 day/year) countdown to Armageddon/Christ's return to the Earth." He expects that Christ's return will occur within a few months of 2004-SEP-29 when Asteroid Toutatis will make a very close approach to the Earth - perhaps even a collision!

2007


End of world; Implied in Hal Lindsay's revision. 1st said 1948+40=1988; Later Israel did not have land until 1967 War; 1967+40=2007; Rapture seven years earlier. Also now says generation from 60-80 yrs. Puts it also at 2040, 2047

2007


Chronological List of Coming End-time Events Falling Within a Ten-year Period and their most likely dates by Marilyn J. Agee

1. Pre-Trib Rapture of the Church Saints, Bride of Christ, most likely, Pentecost, 1999
2. Beginning of the Tribulation on Pentecost/Feast of Weeks, Sivan 6, 5761, May 28, 2001
3. God's two men,
4. the two witnesses Moses and Elijah, begin their 1,260-day ministry Satan's two men,
5. the Beast and False Prophet, come to power and confirm a 7-year peace treaty The Beast is made head over World Church and World Government
6. Mid-Tribulation, 3 1/2 years into the seven, Sunday, Cheshvan 23, Nov. 7, 2004
7. Satan is cast out of Heaven and down to Earth
8. The Beast has an incapacitating accident
9. Satan enters into False Prophet
10. The False Prophet takes over as head of World Church and World Government
11. The False Prophet desecrates the Temple, kills Moses and Elijah, who are resurrected and ascend to Heaven
12. 3 1/2 days later
13. The False Prophet makes war on the saints
14. The end of this Age Elul 29, 5767, our Sept. 12, 2007
15. Beginning of the millennial Day of the Lord
16. Feast of Trumpets, Tishri 1, 5768, our Sept. 13, 2007, the 2,300th day of the Shortened Tribulation, Jesus' birthday
17. Coronation of Jesus Christ in Heaven
18. Marriage of the Lamb in Heaven
19. Pre-Wrath Rapture of Tribulation Saints, remainder of Body of Christ--saved out of a fiery furnace
20. Judgment Seat of Christ in Heaven
21. Saints in Heaven given rewards for belief, unbelievers on Earth given their just rewards
22. A binary asteroid impacts at noon, and the dead lay around the Earth
23. The Marriage Supper of the Lamb in Heaven
24. All Israel born in a day, "that day" (the Remnant who will live on into the Millennium)
25. Israel buries the dead for seven months to cleanse the land
26. The return of our Lord Jesus Christ with his saints first day of Jewish Regnal Year, Nisan 1, 5768, our Apr. 6, 2008
27. Passover kept, Saturday Sabbath, Nisan 14, 5768
28. End of 7 years and of 2nd 1,260 days, Feast of Unleavened Bread, Easter Sunday, Nisan 15, 5768, our Apr. 20, 2008
29. Judgment of the Nations, dominion taken from Satan, beginning of Armageddon, Satan's last-ditch stand, his army against Christ's forces (Feast of Firstfruits, Monday, Nisan 16, 5768, our Apr. 21, 2008
30. Armageddon lasts 40 days and 40 nights, ends Friday, Iyar 25, 5768 (our May 30, 2008) anniversary of Christ's ascension in 30 A.D.
31. Satan chained on Ascension Day
32. The Beast and False Prophet cast alive into a "lake of fire furning with brimstone" on Ascension Day
33. True lasting world peace begins Iyar 26, 5768,
34. our May 31, 2008, 10 yrs. after Rapture I Afterward, the atmospheric heavens and Earth are refreshed, restored, to make Earth habitable again

2010 or 2012


"discontinuous event coming -- they peg it to the date 2010 or 2012" Scott Mandelker, who claims to have an ET soul; (from CNI News Vol. 3 No. 13, Part 2, an email newsletter)

2012


New Age writers cite Mayan and Aztec calendars which predict the end of the age on Dec 21, 2012.

2012:


Michael Drosnin, author of "The Bible Code," found a hidden message in the Pentateuch (the first five books in the Bible) that predicts that a comet will crash into the earth in 2012 and annihilate all life.

2012-DEC-22:


The Mayan calendar has many divisions of time: months of 20 days, years of 360 days, katun of 7200 days and a baktun of 144,000 days. Their calendar started on 3114-AUG-13 BCE with the birth of Venus. They expected the world to last for exactly 13 baktun cycles. They anticipated the end of the world near the Winter Solstice of 2012         
 



#98 TheDHJ

TheDHJ
  • VibeTribe
  • 30,619 posts
  • LocationSouthern Colorado

Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:41 PM

You two are assholes. :lol:

#99 Depends

Depends
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,691 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 04:44 PM

You two are assholes. :lol:

This is news?  :bowl:



#100 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,436 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 05:54 PM

This is news?  :bowl:

 

PICT4084w%20-%20Gnus.jpg