February 2016 Lies, damn lies and statistics


Commentary: Reports and resources


Glaring errors are evident in a report claiming cessation of fluoridation increased dental decay rates in Calgary, Canada.

The  picture above of downtown Calgary, was taken from the top of Calgary tower,  on a recent visit to Calgary, home of my grandparents and close to the birthplace of my father a hundred years ago. I was delighted to know that the citizens of current-day Calgary had the good sense to throw out fluoridation in 2011..

Below are the two tables and ‘results’ paragraph  from Calgary  v Edmonton report referred to in the news section. It is quite clear that the comparison  period  showing the change in decay rates was from 2004/5, some seven years before fluoridation ceased, making it quite impossible to show the cessation as a cause for the change.

See the News section for examples of the extreme reactions provoked by the report and the comments logged by a lone sceptic – and by SWIS.

For link to the full report, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12215/abstract


  Calgary 2004/2005 Calgary 2013/2014 Calgary change (2013/2014 – 2004/2005) Edmonton 2004/5 Edmonton 2013/4 Edmonton change (2013/2014 – 2004/2005) Year x city interaction term: Rate ratio and 95% confidence interval from Poisson regression
Mean (95% CI),n Mean (95% CI),n Mean (95% CI),n Mean (95% CI),n
1 defs = decayed, extracted (due to caries), filled primary tooth surfaces; DMFS = decayed, missing (due to caries), filled permanent tooth surfaces.a  Statistically significant difference between 2004/2005 and 2013/2014, based on non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals (CI).Omits occlusal surfaces whenever present; omits buccal (vestibular) surfaces for teeth 46 and 36; omits lingual surfaces for teeth 16 and 26.Interaction terms based on zero-inflated Poisson regression.
  1. a) All tooth surfaces
Mean defs 2.6 (2.2–3.0) n = 599 6.4 (5.9–6.9) n = 3230 3.8a 4.5 (4.1–4.8) n = 6445 6.6 (6.0–7.2) n = 2307 2.1a 1.6 (1.4–1.8), P < 0.01c
Mean defs among those with defs>0 5.4 (5.0–5.7) n = 273 11.3 (10.6–12.0) n = 1835 5.9a 8.3 (7.8–8.8) n = 3415 11.2 (10.5–11.9) n = 1334 2.9a 1.6 (1.4–1.8), P < 0.01
Mean DMFS 0.45 (0.37–0.52) n = 590 0.15 (0.13–0.17) n = 3182 −0.3a 0.25 (0.22–0.28) n = 6373 0.21 (0.17–0.25) n = 2263 −0.04 0.8 (0.6–1.1), P = 0.3c
Mean DMFS among those with DMFS>0 2.2 (2.0–2.5) n = 99 2.0 (1.8–2.2) n = 253 −0.2 2.4 (2.2–2.6) n = 652 2.2 (2.0–2.4) n = 201 −0.2 0.96 (0.8–1.2), P = 0.6
  1. b) Smooth surfaces onlyb
Mean defs 1.4 (1.2–1.6) n = 599 4.3 (3.9–4.7) n = 3230 2.9a 2.8 (2.5–3.0) n = 6445 4.4 (3.9–4.8) n = 2307 1.6a 1.8 (1.6–2.2), P < 0.01c
Mean defs among those with defs>0 3.3 (3.0–3.6) n = 236 8.6 (8.0–9.2) n = 1583 5.3a 5.9 (5.4–6.4) n = 2999 8.9 (8.2–9.6) n = 1109 3.0a 1.7 (1.5–2.0), P < 0.01
Mean DMFS 0.04 (0.00–0.07), n = 590 0.02 (0.01–0.03), n = 3182 −0.02 0.02 (0.01–0.02) n = 6373 0.02 (0.01–0.03) n = 2263 0.0 2.7 (1.0–7.4), P = 0.06c
Mean DMFS among those with DMFS>0 1.7 (1.4–2.0) n = 12 2.0 (1.5–2.6) n = 40 0.3 1.7 (1.4–2.1) n = 59 1.7 (1.3–2.1) n = 28 0.0 1.2 (0.8–1.8), P = 0.3
Table 1. Dental caries summary measures in Calgary and Edmonton, 2004/2005 and 2013/2014, Grade 2 students. Weighted estimates. Full sample



Results for primary teeth were based on the following sample sizes: n = 599 for Calgary 2004/2005; n = 6445 for Edmonton 2004/2005; n = 3230 for Calgary 2013/2014; and n = 2307 for Edmonton 2013/2014. The sample sizes for permanent teeth were slightly smaller because the denominator included those with at least one permanent tooth. Sample sizes for the 2013/2014 subsample (lifelong residents who reported usually drinking tap water) were: n = 930 and n = 916 for Calgary defs and DMFS, respectively, and n = 575 and n = 565 for Edmonton defs and DMFS, respectively.

The summary data for Calgary and Edmonton, in 2004/2005 (pre-cessation) and 2013/2014 (post-cessation) are shown in Table 1. For primary teeth (defs), a statistically significant increase was apparent in both Calgary and Edmonton, although the absolute magnitude of the increase was greater in Calgary (F-cessation). This was true for all primary tooth surfaces (Table 1a) and for primary smooth surfaces only (Table 1b). In all cases (mean defs, mean defs among those with defs>0; all surfaces and smooth surfaces only), the greater increase in Calgary compared to Edmonton was confirmed in a Poisson regression that showed a statistically significant year x city interaction term (far right hand column in Table 1), indicating that the increase in primary tooth decay in Calgary (F-cessation) over time was significantly greater than that in Edmonton.

Table 1 also contains permanent tooth summary data (DMFS). For all tooth surfaces among permanent teeth (Table 1a), there was a statistically significant decrease in Calgary, for the overall mean DMFS, which was not observed in Edmonton. For permanent tooth smooth surfaces only (Table 1b), there was no statistically significant change over time in Calgary or Edmonton. However, we noted a trend (non-significant) towards an increase in permanent tooth smooth surface decay severity in Calgary, among those affected (mean DMFS among those with DMFS > 0 increased by 0.3 between 2004/2005 and 2013/2014). There were no statistically significant (at P < 0.05) year x city interaction terms for permanent teeth measures.

Table 2 shows summary data for 2013/2014, but this time estimates were restricted to the subsample of lifelong residents who reported usually drinking tap water. In general, the estimates for the subsample (Table 2) tended to be similar to or lower than for the full sample (Table 1) for both Calgary and Edmonton, with few exceptions (permanent tooth measures for smooth surfaces in Calgary). The 2013/2014 subsample estimates in Table 2 could not be compared directly to 2004/2005 data, due to lack of questionnaire data which with to define a comparable subsample in 2004/2005.

  Calgary 2013/2014 Edmonton 2013/4
Mean (95% CI), n Mean (95% CI), n
  1. defs = decayed, extracted (due to caries), filled primary tooth surfaces; DMFS = decayed, missing (due to caries), filled permanent tooth surfaces; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval.
  2. a

Omits occlusal surfaces whenever present; omits buccal (vestibular) surfaces for teeth 46 and 36; omits lingual surfaces for teeth 16 and 26.

  1. a) All tooth surfaces
Mean defs 5.2 (4.5–5.8), n = 930 5.5 (4.5–6.5), n = 575
Mean defs among those with defs>0 9.9 (8.9–11.0), n = 477 10.5 (9.0–12.0), n = 289
Mean DMFS 0.14 (0.09–0.18), n = 916 0.11 (0.07–0.16), n = 565
Mean DMFS among those with DMFS>0 2.0 (1.5–2.4), n = 63 1.8 (1.4–2.2), n = 37
  1. b) Smooth surfaces onlya
Mean defs 3.3 (2.8–3.8), n = 930 3.6 (2.9–4.4), n = 575
Mean defs among those with defs>0 7.3 (6.4–8.3), n = 409 9.0 (7.5–10.4), n = 225
Mean DMFS 0.04 (0.01–0.07), n = 916 0.01 (0.00–0.02), n = 565
Mean DMFS among those with DMFS>0 3.0 (1.9–4.0), n = 12 1.0 (variance could not be computed), n = 7
Table 2. Dental caries summary measures in Calgary and Edmonton, Grade 2 students, 2013/2014 only. Weighted estimates. Estimates are for the subsample of lifelong residents who reported usually drinking tap water


Extract ( final paragraph)

Our findings contribute to the published literature on fluoridation cessation and impact on dental caries. While several studies showed an increase in caries following cessation of fluoridation[17, 30], several others did not[31, 32]. Among the studies that did observe an increase in caries, several were many years or decades old[33, 34], and it is important to question whether an adverse effect of fluoridation cessation on caries experience is apparent contemporarily. Our results were somewhat different from the one other Canadian study[16, 35] which, based on repeated cross-sectional data, did not observe an adverse trend in tooth decay in the cessation community, following cessation in 1992. However, that finding may have reflected changes over time in treatment and preventive practices such as an increase in application of protective sealants, and the importance of investigating smooth surfaces. Collectively, the literature (including our study) indicates that the impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries is not uniformly positive or negative but varies by time and place, and sorting out the reasons for different patterns is important.

Measuring the short-term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices [Lindsay McLaren, Steven Patterson, Salima Thawer, Peter Faris, Deborah McNeil, Melissa Potestio and Luke Shwart/Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology]


 2 From FAN

Feb 10

Fluoride Can Increase the Uptake & Toxicity of Lead

Fluoridation intensifies lead poisoning in tap water

FAN’s report follows the revelations that residents of Flint, Michigan their tap water has been poisoned with dangerous levels of lead. and suggests that Fluorosilicic acid (FSA), a corrosive fluoride chemical captured in the emission scrubbers of the phosphate industry,  is contributing to the effects of poisoning in many US towns.

The FAN Special Report can be read in  full here:



Main  headings:

          Fluoridation: Worsening the Lead Crisis in Flint, and Beyond

          Fluorosilicic What?

          Fluoridation Increases the Acidity of Water

          Fluoridation Can Leach Lead from Pipes, Even in Non-Acidic Water

FSA Linked to Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children

Press Release

NEW YORK, Feb. 11, 2016 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — While the nation focuses on the catastrophic health effects caused by Flint Michigan’s lead-poisoned drinking water, fluoride chemicals are still purposely added to public water supplies even though studies show they leach lead from water pipes and increase lead levels in children, according to a report from the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).   Fluorosilicic acid (FSA), a corrosive fluoride byproduct of the phosphate industry, is added to public water supplies, including Flint’s, in a failed effort to prevent tooth decay.

“Studies show that FSA-spiked water is contributing to children’s unsafe lead exposures and making the lead crisis worse,” says attorney Michael Connett, FAN Executive Director. “The nation is rightfully shocked by the lead crisis in Flint and the systematic failure of health authorities to prevent it, but the problem with lead poisoning is not a Flint problem, it’s a national problem,” Connett adds.

Lead service pipes were banned in 1986, but America’s water infrastructure is still laden with lead-containing pipes and fixtures. The FSA circulating through these aging pipes intensify their corrosion, according to laboratory experiments.  Studies have found that children living in areas with FSA-treated water have higher levels of lead in their blood. Data collected by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show that children drinking water treated with FSA and other fluorosilicate chemicals are 20 percent more likely to have dangerous levels of lead in their blood.

The CDC has yet to warn the public about the fluoridation/lead risk. Instead, as it did during the Washington D.C. lead crisis, the CDC has gone out of its way to downplay the hazard. “The failure of public health authorities to warn the public about the hazards of lead in tap water has a long history that extends beyond fluoridation and Flint,” notes Connett.

A study by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA) scientists found that fluoride facilitates the uptake of lead into the blood of rats, and magnifies lead’s toxic effects on the body. The study was conducted in the 1970s, but the NIH and FDA failed to take any follow-up action.  Recent animal experiments confirm the NIH/FDA findings showing that fluoride exposure “consistently increases the concentrations of lead in whole blood,” and intensifies lead’s poisonous effects on the brain.     http://www.FluorideAction.Net    SOURCE Fluoride Action Network



Well worth revisiting is this case argued with force by Andreas Sculd in 2000. Schuld is  uncompromising and does not believe we should be accepting a place for fluoride even in toothpaste.

Joy Warren has distributed the 2000 report by Andreas Schuld and suggests it should be read alongside Steven Peckham’s report on hypothyroidism in the West Midlands compared with Manchester.  The article was first published by the Weson A Proce Foundations and covers the nature of fluoride, its claim to be a nutrient, its consumption in tea and other products, the reality of its ‘discovery’, fluorosis  and the dangers of fluoridation . Available from UKAOWF or  contact SWIS for  a link



Erin Brockovich has also been a semi-regular guest on the Dr. Oz show, discussing issues related to household and environmental toxins, including recent appearances to discuss the Flint water crisis.  On Monday, February 1st, Brockovich was an in-studio guest on the the show.  During her appearance, she spent an entire 13-minute segment discussing her opposition to water fluoridation and exposure to fluoride from other sources, including foods, beverages, and toothpaste.

Watch Brockovich on Dr. Oz

Also forwarded by FAN

Government Officials Notified About Fluoridation Failure

Recently, Erin Brockovich joined a number of medical and scientific experts in signing a letter to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Science, notifying them that they have failed the public in the performance of their duties regarding the ongoing poisoning of public water supplies with fluoride.  Fluoride, a neurotoxin, is dumped into our drinking water in hazardous industrial waste batches that include hydrofluorosilicic acid, sodium fluorosilicate, sodium fluoride and a host of contaminants that include aluminum, arsenic, barium, and lead.  Other signers included Daniel A. Eyink, M.D.; the American Academy of Environmental Medicine; Jean Nordin-Evans, DDS; David P. Mathews, JD; and Stephanie Seneff, PhD



Feb 1Water Technology’ article


A technical viewpoint with fairly balanced comment.


POU and POE treatment options are available for citizens who prefer to remove this from their water.

The opposition

The water fluoridation controversy arises from political, moral, ethical and safety concerns in public water. While some countries, particularly in Europe, have ceased water fluoridation, the controversy persists in others. Those opposed argue that water fluoridation might cause serious health problems, is not effective enough to justify the costs, and has a dosage that cannot be precisely controlled throughout the water distribution system.1,2,3Proponents point to reduced cavity rates among children, but several European countries have seen cavity rates stay the same or decline after ceasing fluoridation in water supplies. Additionally, some argue that children who do not have regular dental check-ups or brush their teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride, more typically in poverty stricken areas, benefit from a fluoridated water supply.

Water fluoridation is still used in the U.S., U.K., Ireland, Canada, Australia and a handful of other countries. By contrast, the nations below stopped fluoridating their water and are listed with the years they practiced fluoridation:

  • Federal Republic of Germany
  • Sweden (1952-1971)
  • Netherlands (1960-1973)
  • Czechoslovakia (1955-1990)
  • German Democratic Republic
  • Soviet Union (1960-1990)
  • Finland (1959-1993)
  • Japan (1952-1972)
  • Israel (1981-2014)

In the Netherlands, water was fluoridated in parts of the country from 1960 to 1973, at which time its Supreme Court decided authorities had no legal basis for adding chemicals to drinking water if they did not also improve safety. It was also stated that consumers did not have the option of choosing a different tap water provider.9

More complex effects

More adverse effects come when fluoride occurs naturally above recommended concentration levels. These include severe dental fluorosis, skeletal fluorosis (which causes pain and damage to the joints) and weakened bones.The WHO’s recommendation of a maximum 1.5 mg/L fluoride value is still being debated.6 In fact, in April 2015, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services lowered its recommended dosage of fluoride in drinking water to 0.7 mg/L for the whole country. The change was the first since 1962 when the federal government suggested up to 1.2 mg/L in cooler climates and 0.7 mg/L in warmer areas where people consume more water.

In rare cases improper implementation of water fluoridation can result in over-fluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. Three such outbreaks reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998 were caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L. In a 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died.8 Then in 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina, in 90 minutes — an amount intended to be released in a 24-hour period.

Water filtration options

Not all water filtration technologies, including carbon-based products, will remove fluoride from water. Proven methods for removal include reverse osmosis, activated alumina, deionization and distillation, but deionization and distillation are generally not best for home applications because of the space required and cost. Deionized water is more suitable for industrial, laboratory and other uses because it strips all minerals from the water and leaves a taste most find objectionable. Distillation’s larger footprint and energy requirements can make it impractical, and many people think the taste too flat as well.

For full article: http://www.watertechonline.com/to-fluoridate-or-not-to-fluoridate/



Feb 1 Red Orbit article

5 reasons why you may want to avoid fluoride by Mari-Chris Savage, MS, RD, LD, who is  a ‘licensed and registered dietitian with years of experience in nutritional consultation and corporate wellness’. A couple of her reasons reproduced here..

 Serving size of fluoride is a huge miss: Back to the whole “read the label on the back of the toothpaste bottle”. The directions first read “Do not swallow”, then “use a pea-sized” amount. Wait, a pea-sized amount? Have you seen a toothpaste commercial in the past 20 years? There is clearly more than a pea size on the pretty people modeling the toothpaste. There is also much more on mine at home. To take serving size to our water supply, a pea size of tooth paste equals approximately a quarter of milligram of fluoride. According to the FDA, this quarter of milligram of fluoride represents the max amount of fluoride that can be ingested at one time. This quarter of milligram of fluoride is present in an eight ounce glass of water. So for those of you who are getting your 8 glasses of water per day…SOL.

  Fluoride is not defined as a “nutrient” This may not seem like a big distinction; however, it brings to light a subtle point. Since fluoride is not an essential nutrient, it must be deemed either a medication or supplement. This means local governments are determining to medicate the entire population regardless of other normal prescription based practices. Specifically, the amount of fluorine in our water supply is not recommended for all age brackets. A two-year-old child consuming multiply glasses of water could be overdosing.

Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1113412351/5-reasons-why-you-may-want-to-avoid-fluoride-020116/#7KYGBWJsTKpbBCDf.99



Feb 1

 The article hardly lives up to its headline. It deals with pesticides,chlorine,lead and hormones and concludes that none of them pose any great risks. However, it starts and ends with praise for fluoride. The article was forwarded by Ann. Wills who comments:  we could reply about the fluoride part, but it’s hard to know who to reply to, as it seems to be online & it’s hard to know whether to write to “Letters” at Daily Express or Sunday Express, as it was written on a Daily Express day but ‘updated’ on the day of the Sunday Express.  My comment:’ And what sort of expert advice comes from  ‘Harvey’s Water Softerners’?

The Express (online)  What’s lurking in YOUR water? The shocking truth of what is hiding in our taps REVEALED. 

According to research, our water supply might not be all we think it is.  Data released by Harvey Water Softeners has uncovered the truth of what might be in our water supplies. The aggregated data reveals many people are missing out on fluoride in their tap water.  The chemical compound prevents tooth decay and is found naturally in the water of some UK regions; in others, it’s added during the treatment.  This collection of research reveals less than 10% of the UK population is supplied with tap water that will benefit their dental health.

… Only 10% of UK households are supplied with water that will benefit their teeth.  The collection of research also highlighted how oestrogen used in birth control can make its way in to UK rivers, where it’s having an adverse effect on male fish. It has also been suggested that these same hormones can be found in drinking water….r: Fluoride benefits dental health.   Less than 10 per cent of the UK population is supplied with tap water that will benefit their dental health. Is this figure less than thought?   “The addition of fluoride into a drinking water supply follows a request from the local health authorities and a process of public consultation. A strong system is in place to ensure the careful use of fluoride in drinking water sources.”


A translation of Viktor Gorlitzer von Mundy’s 1932 article on the treatment of thyrotoxicosis with hydrofluoric acid.  Where there’s an abundance of fluoride and a deficiency of iodide, hypothyroidism will occur.



Knowing your enemy department. Extract from the dentists’ site, DrBicuspid

January 29, 2016 — Johnny Johnson Jr., DMD, president of the newly formed American Fluoridation Society (AFS) got into the fluoridation fight when local officials in his community of Pinellas County, FL, voted in 2011 to discontinue water fluoridation, citing concern that residents might be ingesting too much fluoride.

Dr. Johnson, who retired his pediatric practice when he became disabled with a wrist injury from a cycling accident, led the effort to get fluoride back into community water.

You might enjoy the knowledge that in the US there is someone like this Johnny Johnson Jr., DMD, president of the American Fluoridation Society.

Dr. Johnson had done master’s degree work in college regarding fluoride and was asked by the Florida Dental Association to become a spokesman on the issue.

“I worked a year trying to get the fluoridation policy changed,” he told DrBicuspid.com.

“A local politician brought his child to my office and said he wouldn’t change his mind because of government politics,” Dr. Johnson recalled. The politician then told a newspaper that there was doubt about fluoride’s safety. But when reporters called the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), they were told those concerns were 100% wrong.

,” Dr. Johnson said. “People are making conspiracy claims against it, and it’s the same group of people who’ve taken up with the antivaccination folks.”

Society’s goals

In addition to Dr. Johnson, the society includes Massachusetts dentist Myron Allukian Jr., DDS; Oregon physician Chuck Haynie, MD; Oregon dentist Kurt Ferre, DDS; and North Carolina dentist Steve Slott, DDS. Dr. Johnson said they wanted to form an independent group to offer healthcare providers accurate information about fluoride.

Healthcare organizations tell people to ask their dentist or physician about it, Dr. Johnson said.

“But frankly, we’re not trained well on how to speak to the anti-fluoride side; we’re trained on what the science behind it is,” he noted.

The AFS’s main goal is helping communities fight attempts to roll back community water fluoridation. Opponents to community water fluoridation have sent mass emails and approach officials who are sympathetic to their arguments, Dr. Johnson said. They also bring up the issue during budget meetings, claiming fluoridation is too expensive and doesn’t work.

“That’s a common ploy,” Dr. Johnson said.

The main thing that healthcare professionals can do is be aware of what’s going on in their communities regarding water fluoridation, Dr. Johnson advised. Letters to newspapers and noticing what people are saying about the issue are tip-off’s about efforts against community water fluoridation.

People should contact the AFS for help, Dr. Johnson recommended.

“We’ll spring into action with every other group that needs to know about it,” he promised.

Until now there hasn’t been one group that can provide resources, he noted. People can go to local health departments, but a lot gets lost along the way, Dr. Johnson said.

“Unfortunately, it gets going in different directions and gets sidetracked. We can help coordinate their efforts locally,” he said.

The group has received a grant from the Delta Dental Foundation of California and will seek additional funding from other foundations and individual donors. Dr. Johnson noted that none of the board members will be paid, other than for travel-related

Copyright © 2016 DrBicuspid.com



Jan 27,

 From FAN

Some more about the planned National Toxicology Programme in the US,  to  which FAN is contributing and seems cautiously  optimistic.

As the Fluoride Action Network reported back in December, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is planning on conducting an extensive study to investigate fluoride’s effect on the brain, including learning and memory. Unlike the countless government whitewashes on fluoridation that we have seen in the past, we remain cautiously optimistic that the NTP is approaching its fluoride investigation with integrity.

Earlier this month, FAN submitted additional information to the NTP to explain why “high dose” animal studies can be relevant to the neurotoxic risks that vulnerable humans face in fluoridated communities. Fluoridation proponents like to dismiss any animal study that exposes animals to more than 1 ppm fluoride in the water; FAN’s submission explains why this reasoning is superficial and flawed.

The NTP is also currently considering a re-examination of fluoride’s potential to cause or contribute to cancer, including bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in children.  In response to this tentative proposal, FAN submitted extensive information to the NTP, including a detailed discussion of the recent studies that have investigated the relationship between fluoride and osteosarcoma. As we discuss at length in our submission, many of the studies that are cited by fluoridation proponents as disproving the fluoride/osteosarcoma connection had little, if any, power to do so. In fact, when the limitations of these studies are taken into account, some of the studies actually support the fluoride/osteosarcoma link. As we explain, “the current epidemiological evidence linking fluoride to childhood osteosarcoma is much stronger than currently recognized.”

For those interested in getting a better understanding of the recent science on fluoride and cancer, FAN’s submission and accompanying appendices can be accessed here. I particularly recommend the appendices in which Chris Neurath explains the glaring problems with the studies by Kim (2011)Blakey (2014); and Gelberg (1995). Chris also addresses the obvious weaknesses of the studies by Young (2015)Levy (2012); and Comber (2011). Chris did a phenomenal job with these critiques, proving once again why we are so lucky to have him on our team!

The American Dental Association (ADA), which paid $200,000 in lobbying efforts to prevent California from classifying fluoride as a carcinogen, has — not surprisingly — submitted its usual “everything is fine and dandy” info to the NTP, which you can read here.

Inside EPA (publication)

Advocates Back NTP Fluoride Review, Citing Risk To Developing Brain

January 20, 2016

Advocacy groups are backing the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) plan to evaluate fluoride’s possible neurodevelopmental risks, arguing the review should be a high priority and consider all sources of exposure to the substance, though consumer product and dental industry officials contend current levels of exposure pose no risk.

NTP, part of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, took comment through Jan. 8 on a proposal to review fluoride’s potential neurodevelopmental risks after studies in other countries have found adverse effects to IQ, though the studies were of areas with higher levels of exposure than commonly found in the United States.

In recent comments to NTP, groups including the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and Parents of Fluoride-Poisoned Children argue fluoride exposures result from multiple sources, ranging from toothpaste to pharmaceuticals, and that numerous studies show the substance poses health risks including to children’s developing brains.

In Jan. 8 comments, the Parents of Fluoride-Poisoned Children say NTP “should place the review of developmental neurotoxicity as a high priority.”

And in Nov. 30 commentsFAN says “a large body of published scientific research … shows that fluoride can damage the developing brain at worryingly modest levels of exposure.” The group also notes that the National Academy of Sciences has identified fluoride as an endocrine disruptor.

During a Dec. 2 meeting of NTP’s Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), the advisors backed the NTP Office of Health Assessment and Translation’s plans for a literature review and experimental animal studies to determine the level at which fluoride may pose a risk of neurodevelopmental effects, but questioned the level of resources the project justifies.

Some advisors said the NTP review would face complicating factors, such as estimating exposures given the prevalence of fluoride in consumer products, flaws in published epidemiology studies and difficulties extrapolating risks to humans from animal studies. The panel considered the review a “high to medium” priority.

NTP’s plan to review fluoride’s potential for developmental neurobehavioral effects comes as EPA is reviewing its maximum contaminant level (MCL) for the substance, currently set at 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to review MCLs every six years to ensure safe levels in drinking water, and says the review should consider “occurrence, health effects and other factors.”

The MCL regulates drinking water systems with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride but does not apply to local decisions to add fluoride to drinking water to prevent dental cavities. The U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends an optimal fluoridation level of 0.7 mg/L.

Environmentalists’ Concerns

Environmentalists have long argued fluoride increases risks of bone damage, and studies in other countries have also flagged the mineral as a potential neurotoxicant, linking fluoride in drinking water to lowered IQ in children. NTP is also considering future literature reviews of other effects possibly linked to fluoride exposure including cancer and endocrine disruption, but those efforts have not progressed as far as the evaluation of neurdevelopmental risks, NTP staff told the BOSC last month.

In comments, FAN calls NTP’s plan to review a potential neurodevelopmental risk for fluoride “warranted and timely,” noting that dozens of studies have found an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ.

Specifically, FAN says 23 studies have found reductions in IQ among children consuming water with fluoride levels at or below EPA’s current MCL of 4 ppm. The group also says dozens of animal studies suggest fluoride exposure can impair learning and or memory.

In additional comments, filed Jan. 8, FAN says humans are more susceptible to fluoride exposure than rodents used in animal testing, which require greater amounts of the substance to achieve a similar internal dose.

Officials with the dental and consumer products industries have argued in public comments to NTP that current levels of exposure to fluoride do not pose a neurodevelopmental risk, and that the review is of questionable utility.

A representative of the Consumer Healthcare Products Association told the Dec. 2 BOSC meeting the review could have unintended consequences, such as leading to hazard warnings that fail to account for dose or level of exposure.



From Ann Wills, who notes that some antidepressants, such as Prozac, contain fluoride. 

-Telegraph 28.1.16 “DEPRESSION DRUGS MAKE SUICIDE MORE LIKELY”   by Sarah Knapton, Science Editor.

Antidepressants drugs can raise the risk of suicide, the largest ever review of its kind has found.  Pharmaceutical co’s are accused of failing to report side-effects & deaths linked to antidepressants.   The review of 70 trials of the most common antidepressants involved over 18,000 people & found they double the risk of suicide & aggressive behaviour in under-18s.  Families have claimed for years that antidepressants drove their loved ones to suicide, but this was dismissed by Pharma co’s & doctors, who said it was unproven.  The review was by the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Denmark, & was analysed by University College London (UCL), which endorsed the findings in the British Medical Journal.   Prof Peter Gotzche was the lead author. He spoke of the “colossal under-reporting of suicides” & said that antidepressants “are likely to increase suicide in all ages.”   Dr Joanna Moncrief from UCL said that people in UK are prescribed more than 4 times as many antidepressants as they were 20 years ago. This costs £200 million a year. The drugs reviewed were Duloxetine, Fluoxetine (Prozac), Paroxetine, Sertraline  & Ventafaxine.

 Three further notes from Ann Wills. The first  refers to Blackpool. where a fluoridated school milk programme was recently agreed by councilors.

Plans to add fluoride to school milk gives us a good opportunity to publicise the toxicity of fluoride chemicals.  I think that parents should have to give their informed consent & have a choice of non-fluoridated milk.  We could write to the “Letters” page of local newspapers in the areas concerned.

From Soil Assoc.  Email news 22.1.16.  “PLASTIC MICROBEADS BANNED IN USA” 

On the 28th December, President Obama signed a bill to phase out plastic microbeads in face-wash, toothpaste & shampoo by July 1st, 2017.  Beauty products containing microbeads will no longer be for sale after July 1st, 2018. “The Microbead-Free Waters Act” prevents beauty product manufacturers from including plastic microbeads (including those made from so-called “biodegradable plastics”) in their products.   My comment:  The plastic beads are being washed into the seas & being eaten by sea creatures, so enter the human food chain.)

TBN “700 Club Interactive”. TV Channel 65. Shown January 2016.

The programme reported that Israel recycles 80% of its water & recycles more of its water than any other country.  It treats the water with ultraviolet light to make it safe.   Israel desalinates sea water & it also uses trays to collect dew & direct it onto plants & shrubs each morning.   Waste water is used to irrigate their crops.  They use water from under the desert which is too salty to desalinate & this water is used for ponds for salt water fish & no chemicals are used.  The fish waste is used for non-chemical fertiliser for their crops. They also use ‘drip irrigation’ in the desert to water plants & shrubs. Only small drops of water are used but it is effective in making plants grow.   Drip irrigation can work by gravity so no electricity etc. is needed.   Despite the dryness of their country, Israel will soon be a net exporter of water & already sends water to countries which don’t have enough.  Israel has taken these innovative ideas to over 100 poor countries.






The Health Minister responsible for dentistry has backed mass fluoridation of tap water to cut tooth decay – but warned MPs will never vote for it.

Alistair Burt said he was ‘perfectly convinced by the science’, which concludes there are huge benefits to oral health from adding fluoride, which currently reaches just 10% of the population. But, speaking in a Commons debate, Mr Burt reminded MPs that fluoridation had been debated ‘bitterly’ at Westminster as far back as the 1980s.And he said: ‘I do not think there is any prospect of pushing the matter through the House at present.

The comments came during a debate on what Sir Paul Beresford, the chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Dentistry, called the ‘disgrace’ of child dental health. Sir Paul poured scorn on growing support for a ‘sugar tax’, Instead, Sir Paul called for:

  • A ‘national oral health programme’ – along the lines of Scotland’s initiative to distribute of fluoride toothpaste and toothbrushes at nursery and in the first year of primary school
  • Schools to be required to check that every primary school pupil ‘has visited the dentist once a year’ – while admitting some dentists would have to be ‘bullied’ into it
  • Oral health training of midwives, health visitors and pharmacists – including ‘persuasion on fluoride’
  • A campaign to persuade food and drink producers to cut the sugar content
  • Promotion of oral fluoride for children ‘until such time as the water supply in the area in which the children live is fluoridated’

…In response, Mr Burt ..insisted overall levels of oral health in in five-year-olds is ‘better than it has ever been, with 72% of five-year-old children in England decay free….Between 2008 and 2012, the number of five-year-old children who showed signs of decay fell by approximately 10%.’







BOISE • A resolution was introduced Tuesday into the Idaho House recognizing the dental health benefits of fluoridated water.

The resolution recognizes the “significant public health effort” and the role Idaho played in the development of a scientific understanding of fluoride, r Rep. Kelly Packer, R-McCammon, told the Health and Welfare Committee. When Oakley built a communal water pipe to a warm springs in 1923, brown stains began appearing on residents’ teeth. It turned out to be because of high levels of fluoride in the water. In low levels, though, fluoride helps to prevent tooth decay, Packer said.

Only a few cities in Idaho add fluoride to their water because in much of Idaho, including much of the Magic Valley, the water is naturally fluoridated. Minority Leader John Rusche, …said he likes that Idaho leaves the decision on whether to fluoridate up to municipalities.“It allows localities to have a local option on their policies, something that we don’t always understand here in this legislative body,” he said.

The committee voted unanimously to send the resolution to the full House’s second reading calendar, which skips holding a full committee hearing.


A signature to a comment now reveals how Mr Slott is now being employed

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Information Director

American Fluoridation Society


Feb 13

Fluoridation: Worsening the Lead Crisis in Flint, and Beyond

Food Consumer  article: The lead crisis, and fluoridation’s exacerbation of it, is not just a Flint problem, it’s a national problem,


 based on a FAN press release. See Resources section 2 above for links to the full FAN report:. Here is a brief summary in a nyscof comment  om the Idaho item

Studies show that fluoride makes lead poisoning worse

While the nation focuses on the catastrophic health effects caused by Flint Michigan’s lead-poisoned drinking water, fluoride chemicals are still purposely added to public water supplies even though studies show they leach lead from water pipes and increase lead levels in children

Fluorosilicic acid (FSA), a corrosive fluoride byproduct of the phosphate industry, is added to public water supplies, including Flint’s, in a failed effort to prevent tooth decay.

Lead service pipes were banned in 1986, but America’s water infrastructure is still laden with lead-containing pipes and fixtures. The FSA circulating through these aging pipes intensify their corrosion, according to laboratory experiments.
Studies have found that children living in areas with FSA-treated water have higher levels of lead in their blood. Data collected by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) show that children drinking water treated with FSA and other fluorosilicate chemicals are 20 percent more likely to have dangerous levels of lead in their blood.

The CDC has yet to warn the public about the fluoridation/lead risk. Instead, as it did during the Washington D.C. lead crisis, the CDC has gone out of its way to downplay the hazard.

A study by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA) scientists found that fluoride facilitates the uptake of lead into the blood of rats, and magnifies lead’s toxic effects on the body. The study was conducted in the 1970s, but the NIH and FDA failed to take any follow-up action.

Recent animal experiments confirm the NIH/FDA findings showing that
fluoride exposure “consistently increases the concentrations of lead in whole blood,” and intensifies lead’s poisonous effects on the brain.




House Bills Reported to the Senate : from a blog by State Representative Donna Lichtenegger

* My fluoridation notification (HB 1717) bill is once again on its way to the Senate. This bill does not mandate fluoridation be added nor removed; it simply requires public water system officials to notify the public when a planned change in fluoridation level is proposed. The bill has bi-partisan support


Port Angeles, Washington

 Feb .19

A second ethics complaint has been filed against Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd after she adjourned a contentious Feb. 2 City Council meeting. The complaint from Our Water, Our Choice! also names Councilman Dan Gase.   Edna Willadsen, vice president of the anti-fluoridation group, filed the complaint Friday on behalf of the organization.“When you stand up there, say the meeting is over and storm out, that’s not the way to close a professional public meeting,” Willadsen said later Friday.

The Feb. 2 meeting was dominated by citizens who spoke against fluoridation at two public comment sessions.Both were marked by the audience interrupting Kidd, who presided over the meeting, and Kidd interrupting speakers. Kidd ended the second public comment session — the last item on the agenda — during a comment by a citizen who was being critical of pro-fluoridation council members, including Kidd.

The highly charged council meetings grew out of the City Council’s 4-3 Dec. 15 decision to continue fluoridation through June 30, 2026, despite a November water-connection survey showing overwhelming opposition to the practice.



PORT ANGELES — A majority of the Port Angeles City Council has backed the structure of an ad hoc committee that will look for alternatives to municipal water fluoridation.
Meanwhile, the council also Tuesday appointed a three-member ethics board to consider a complaint against Deputy Mayor Cherie Kidd that stemmed from her handling of public testimony on fluoride during a Feb. 2 council meeting.

Five of the six council members who were present Tuesday directed staff to coordinate the ad hoc fluoride committee under the direction of council members Brad Collins and Sissi Bruch. A crowd of more than 100 packed the council chambers for the 2½-hour meeting. Many held signs lamenting the council’s prior decision to continue fluoridation despite the opposition of a majority of respondents in a survey of city water customers.

“We have voted,” said Kidd, who opposed the continuation of the ad hoc committee. “I need to be getting information from the Clallam County Board of Health that they’re against fluoride, that the Surgeon General is against fluoride, [that] the Dental Association is against fluoride. I have to see some information from the authorities.”  “We are the authorities,” said one audience member from the back of the room.



Port Orange, FL

Jan 27

PORT ORANGE — City leaders inched a bit closer to wrapping up what has been a bit of a marathon discussion on the pros and cons of community water fluoridation.

In a workshop Tuesday night at City Hall, the City Council decided to make a push to wrap the subject up with a possible vote at a February council meeting.

The update added to a number of city meetings that have broached the subject since around 2012, including a heated November workshop featuring Dr. Paul Connett, Ph.D., former director of the Fluoride Action Network and lead author of “The Case Against Fluoride,” and an October workshop featuring Stephen J. Duranceau, an associate professor from the University of Central Florida’s College of Engineering and Computer Sciences and an expert in water treatment, who presented facts about the benefits and concerns of adding fluoride to the water supply.

Port Orange has fluoridated its water since 1983. The supply reaches more than 68,000 people. In the past few years, whenever the city needed to decide whether to re-purchase chemicals such as fluoride for the water supply, the debate resurfaced. The topic was scrutinized in the summer of 2013 and in February 2014.

City Manager Jake Johansson told council members that since the Volusia County Supervisor of Elections is gearing up for November, “They have determined that the referendum would not cost the City of Port Orange, this time, any money,” Johansson said.

Council members can choose to end the chemical additive practice. If that happens, the city would also have to choose whether to have the remaining fluorosilicic acid removed from the water treatment tank at a cost of around $1,000 or they can simply let the remaining amount be used up and not refilled. Additionally, the remaining funds from a $30,800 state grant received in 2013 to update fluoridation equipment would need to be returned — around $16,000 — if they end the practice now, years before the grant term ends.

The council can also vote to continue the fluoridation process. But council members have been dealing with pressure from a number of residents to stop using the additive.

Another option is to put it on the ballot and allow the city’s voters to decide.

That option didn’t seem to receive much support from the audience, especially Jason Larkin, president of the Volusia-Flagler Dental Association, who appeared with a number of other area health professionals to speak in support of keeping fluoridation and attempting to debunk Connett.

“I’m a little frustrated that I’m back here again,” said Larkin, who has visited Port Orange city chambers over the past several years as the debate has raged on.

Larkin said he believed it should be the City Council’s job to do the research and make the decision for their voters. That is a reversal of what Larkin said in November.

“If they want to they should just ask the voters for a vote,” Larkin said at the time.

But on the subject of a voter referendum, one of the main voices of opposition to fluoridation agreed with Larkin’s current stance.

“The referendum is a bad idea,” said Ted Noftall, who is currently running for council on an anti-fluoridation platform. “People would be no happier that 51 percent of the people voted to put poison in their water than they would if it was 70 percent or 90 percent.”



Rutland, Vermont


Voters in Rutland will be asked whether or not they want the city to continue adding fluoride to municipal water. Dentists and state experts tout decades of improved oral health, but opponents believe possible negative effects are being brushed aside.

Last year, Rutland resident Jack Crowther created Rutland Fluoride Action, to raise awareness of what he considers the risks of water fluoridation. If fluoridating drinking water is such a no-brainer, why, he wonders, do countries like Belgium, France, Germany, Japan, and Norway not do it?

Kathleen Krevestki, a registered nurse who lives in Rutland, calls the hydrofluorosilicic acid that’s used to fluoridate Rutland’s water supply a hazardous waste product that is wrongly being forced on the public.“My concern is that there is no dosage,” says Krevetski. “If you drink two cups of water today and I drink one we have a different dosage.”

Krevetski and Crowther also believe too little is known about potential adverse side affects of fluoride on the body.

…While Rutland voters will be able to weigh in on fluoridation on Town Meeting Day, the city’s charter dictates the final decision rests with the Public Works Commissioner, Jeff Wennberg.  Wennberg says he considers the vote advisory, adding, “Absent a vote that is persuasive, that the public doesn’t want to do this, I’m going to listen to the public health officials who do have the qualifications – who have the right letters after their name.”

Residents in nearby Proctor will also be voting on whether or not to continue fluoridating their public water supply – something the town has done since the early 1960s.



Utica , NY

Jan 25

Mohawk Valley :The fluoride debate rages on after the chemical spill at the MV Water Treatment Plant – See more at: http://www.wktv.com/news/local/The_fluoride_debate_rages_on_after_the_Prospect_chemical_spill_in_the_Mohawk_Valley.html#sthash.iLQjXAgv.dpuf 3 minute TV spot with text







Extract from CBC News

Calgary stopped adding fluoride to its water supply in 2011 but that doesn’t mean the fluid from your faucet is fluoride-free.

Naturally occurring fluoride is still present in the city’s drinking water at levels ranging from about one-tenth to one-third the amount found prior to council’s decision to stop artificial fluoridation….

Regular testing of Calgary’s treated water in 2014 found fluoride levels between 0.08



 Feb 22

See Resource section 1 for extract and link to the report

As dentists and parents bare teeth around the recent resurfacing of Calgary’s fluoridation debate, Mayor Naheed Nenshi urges those who feel strongly to seek a plebiscite.

Last week Alberta Health Services’ Medical Officer of Health Dr. Richard Musto urged council to go back to the drawing board and re-introduces fluoride into Calgary’s drinking water. Musto’s comments came after a local independent study by the University of Calgary found the removal of fluoride in water had a negative impact on children’s health.

The study — conducted by researchers from the University of Calgary, University of Alberta and AHS — found cavity rates increased in Calgary since the city discontinued the fluoridation of drinking water in 2011…



Calgary city council is open to revisiting the issue of putting fluoride back in the city’s water after a recent study showed tooth decay was worse in Calgary than in Edmonton.

Multiple council members were asked about the study Monday, and Mayor Naheed Nenshi said there is always an opportunity for this to go to a plebiscite.

“Today, based on the science that we’ve got, I would vote in favour of putting it back, but I would like to see a bigger lit study,” said Nenshi.



Two  comments

The following nations previously fluoridated their water, but stopped the practice, with the years when water fluoridation started and stopped in parentheses:
• Federal Republic of Germany (1952–1971)
• Sweden (1952–1971)
• Netherlands (1953–1976)
• Czechoslovakia (1955–1990)
• German Democratic Republic (1959–1990)
• Soviet Union (1960–1990)
• Finland (1959–1993)
• Japan (1952–1972)
• Israel 1981–2014)

And there teeth are as good or better then our s according to WHO data.

Peter Thomas:So the Mayor wants a perverted type of democracy where voters medicate other voters.

There is pseudoscience that is going on. One study doesn’t change the body of evidence that shows that with the cessation of fluoridation decay doesn’t go up.

The study’s own data shows that children in non-fluoridated Calgary still have better teeth than those in fluoridated Edmonton; that the researchers’ interpretation failed to point out that most of the increase in decay occurred PRIOR to Calgary ending fluoridation; and that the lead author of the study is an advocate of fluoridation who is currently the President of the Alberta Public Health Association (APHA), made the motion to have the APHA lobby in favor of fluoridation 3-years ago, and has a career that is based on supporting fluoridation and heavily financed for doing so.

(My emphasis)

This seems to the the only sane comment, with the Mayor and everyone suddenly panicking, rather than questioning the survey.  On behalf of SWIS, I read the report carefully and was amazed to note that the first two points raised by Mr Thomas are both  correct – and clearly so – the before and after periods used make any conclusions  completely invalid and table 2 shows Edmonton still worse off.

Comparison was for 2004/5 to 2013/14 ( school years)  8 years)

Flouridation ceased in 2011 so the effect would have been 2.5 to 3 years maximum. The figures quoted in the headlines were for primary teeth only, with secondary teeth showing a positive figure. The selection of ‘smooth surfaces’ also made a co nsiderable diference. Look at the original tables. The conclusoion  overall was  of a ‘non-significent trend’ and comparisons with other studies  adding further caution.. However, some writers coud not contain themselves and only one commentator – not a journalist – was able to point out the most obvious defect in the statistics.:’Grade 2 ‘ presumably is 5-6 year olds.


Extracts  from  a typical report:from the Calgary Herald

Calgary children are paying a price for city council’s decision to stop adding fluoride to drinking water. It’s an unfortunate outcome that Alberta Health Services and many dentists predicted in 2011: that children’s dental health would deteriorate without the presence of the cavity fighter.

City dentists reported greater rates of tooth decay two years ago, and now a new study finds that the teeth of Calgary children are in poorer condition than those who live in Edmonton, which continues to fluoridate its water.

“Our results show that even after a relatively short period of time, we have seen a negative effect of removing fluoride from the drinking water,” says Lindsay McLaren, a public health researcher at the University of Calgary and the study’s lead author.

The study involved open mouth exams of approximately 5,000 Grade 2 pupils in the two cities. Because similar inspections took place in 2004-05, researchers were able to compare the rates of decay. Neither of the cities fared particularly well, but the number of tooth surfaces with decay in Calgary pupils increased by a greater amount than for those in Edmonton.


SWIS does not normally comment on non-UK sites, but this was resistible:

This survey compared rates of decay in the school year 2004-5 with 2013-4, a period of 9 years, during which fluoridation existed for at least 6 years ( to 2011), so it is statistical nonsense to take the differences shown as proof of fluoride’s ‘effectivenes’. Refer to the report itself, freely available, and see that the authors also in their final paragraphs are aware that other research does not support this conclusion. Nor do those anxious to reintroduce hydrofluorosilicic acid into Calgary’s drinking water show any concern for the harm that fluoride does to large subsets of the population . So do not panic Calgary, keep it out!



 Feb 19

meanwhile, here is the most extreme example of reporting – accompanied by a horror picture of a dentist seemingly torturing a patient,

Pseudoscientific terror ended fluoridation in Calgary, now kids’ teeth are rotting

Five years ago, the city of Calgary gave in to a scientifically illiterate campaign against fluoride in its water supply; five years later, Calgary’s grade two children each have an average of 3.8 extra cavities.A study published in the journal Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology shows that Grade 2 students in Calgary had an average of 3.8 more cavities in 2013-14 than they did in 2004-05. In Edmonton (which continued to fluoridate its water), during the same time period, the number of dental caries (or cavities) increased by 2.1, on average.

…So, why did Calgary city councilors make a decision that has caused a lot of children unnecessary pain and that will cost their parents a good chunk of change in dental bills?They essentially bought into the unscientific rantings and overblown fears of a small but loud minority of self-centered chemophobes.



Feb 22

And one interesting addition. The ‘programme leader’ mentioned her is not anti-fluoride but does show that there is another way to spend money saved on stopping it.

Fluoride debate: The Alex sees growing demand for dental services

alex bus calgaryPicture:The Alex – a non-profit group that provides dental care to underprivileged children – has seen a spike in demand for service.

Denise Kokaram — program lead for The Alex Dental Health Bus The organization received municipal funding in 2011 to tackle tooth decay in children— said even though the organization is helping more kids with dental issues every year, she knows there’s a vast majority of kids who aren’t getting proper dental care.

In fact, the Alex is serving families who fall under the working disadvantaged class — those who don’t qualify for government benefits but can’t afford health insurance.

“When it comes to $1,000 — the cost of treatment many of these kids need — families can’t pay that; they have to put food on the table and pay bills,” she said.


Included in Resources:






A Chatham-Kent health official agrees with Health Minister Eric Hoskins that municipalities should be cautious about doing away with water fluoridation, given the benefits that it provides to the public.

Last month, Hoskins sent a letter to municipalities urging them to support the fluoridation of drinking water in their communities “so that everyone can enjoy the long-term health benefits.”The letter was also signed by David C. Williams, the province’s acting chief medical officer of health.

David Colby of the Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit said it’s hard to argue with the points made in the letter..Further down Highway 401 in Windsor, however, a decision was made several years ago to stop the fluoridation of water.

Colby said this idea has been “raised from time to time” in the Chatham-Kent area, but so far, fluoridation has continued.



Cornwall, Ontario


City hall wants medical professionals to give their opinion on the fluoridation of Cornwall water – again.

Councillors voted Monday night to request medical officer of health Paul Roumeliotis appear at city hall and advocate for a return to municipal water fluoridation.

Cornwall’s water has been without fluoride for more than two years after a faulty valve at the water treatment plant forced officials to stop adding hydrofluorosilicic acid to the system. In that time councillors have been back and forth over the issue several times.

Coun. Elaine MacDonald agreed.

“What we need here is an expert in medical opinion,” she said. “There are many people who are opposed to it, but when it comes to their credentials…our medical officer of health stands behind this.”

It would cost taxpayers $300,000 in up-front costs and $50,000 annually to return to water fluoridation in Cornwall.




Feb .14

Another example of ‘research’ that gives no evidence of causation. What’s tghe betting that the socio-economic profile of Dorval isa very diffeernt fropm the rest of Montreal?

Children in Dorval are three times less likely to develop cavities than in other parts of Montreal, thanks to the city’s fluoridating the drinking water — according to a study out of McGill’s dental school.

The study analyzed the dental records of 415 children in nine jurisdictions. Dorval was the only one of them where fluoride gets added to the drinking water.

The study found the DMFT score for Dorval was 0.04 — three times below the city-wide average of 0.11.

Just under 3 per cent of Quebec cities and towns have access to fluoridated drinking water — including much of the West Island and Chateauguay


Neepawa. Manitoba


The Town of Neepawa is examining whether it should continue to add fluoride to its water. A presentation was made to council on Tuesday, Jan. 19 by wastewater supervisor Howard Buffi, outlining the impact the fluoridation program has had on the system.

During his presentation, Buffi outlined a number of issues with the fluoridation program such as cost increases and the undiluted chemical compound actually being damaging to the lines. Mayor Adrian de Groot agreed that both sides of the issue need to be brought forward The desire of council is that a recommendation on the use of fluoride in the water will be presented before they present the 2016 town budget.



Parry Sound, Ontario

Jan 30

From FAN:

After adding fluoride to the public drinking water for over 50 years, the council in Parry Sound, Ontario voted to end the practice on Tuesday.  The vote came after more than six months of debate, which was initiated by a June vote to resume fluoridation at a cost of $5,000 annually after a necessary $250,000 was to be spent on fluoride injection upgrades at the water plant.  Concerned residents overwhelmingly expressed their opposition to the practice, and organized the group Parry Sounders for Progressive Water Management to oppose the plan.  The group collected petition signatures, wrote great letters-to-editors (another one), and made multiple presentations to the council, including showing the 20-minute video Our Daily Dose.   Residents from the neighboring town of McDougall, which purchases its drinking water from Parry Sound, also shared their opposition.  A survey that was sent to McDougall residents found that more than 90% opposed fluoridation.  The combined population of both towns is approximately 9,000.

While the Parry council vote was almost unanimous, they still have to formally approve a bylaw next month, then post the change for 21 days for public comment before the fluoridation prohibition takes effect.  The fluoride lobby didn’t hesitate to comment.  On Wednesday, a regional medical officer sent a letter supporting fluoridation and calling


Peel, Toronto


Reexamination of the benefits and potential health risks that come from adding fluoride to Peel’s drinking water is officially underway.

Almost five years after Peel Regional councillors closed lengthy debate on the merits of municipal water fluoridation by unanimously voting to continue the longstanding practice,council members have reopened the issue.

Members of the Region’s newly established Oral Health in Peel Committee formally met for the first time last week. Mississauga councillor Carolyn Parrish will serve as chair and Brampton councillor John Sprovieri, an ardent fluoridation critic, is the vice-chair.

Sprovieri has been fervent in his opposition to continued fluoridation of the municipality’s drinking water. He has given those in the community who believe the longstanding practice is harmful to the health of residents a loud and persistent political voice on council.

“Based on the information that I have gathered the last five years, I am convinced that artificial water fluoridation should be discontinued,” he said in an email to The Guardian.



Extract fdrom TORONTO SUN


…Peel Region is considering stopping the practice of adding fluoride to its drinking water.

The regional council — which oversees Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon — formed the “Oral Health in Peel Committee” in late January. During its first meeting on Feb. 11, it began “examining practices” surrounding fluoride use, region spokesman Scott Fry said.

Public consultations about fluoride will happen over the next four months.

Toronto Public Health said it’s not likely to drop fluoride.

“Fluoride has been flowing through Toronto’s taps since 1963. Right now, the city is following Health Canada’s recommendation to add 0.3 to 0.6 parts per million of fluoride into its water supply.

But Danny Litterst, the founder of End Fluoride Toronto, said there hasn’t been any conclusive study to show fluoride is safe.The group has created a petition “to end chemical fluoridation in Toronto.” So far, the petition has more than 5,700 signatures.

“(The government) has never done the studies because if they do them, they’re going to be on the hook for putting poison in the water supply,” he said. “I don’t want politicians playing doctor with my water.”



A special Jan. 21 meeting was organized to educate council members about the fluoridation of municipal drinking water.Experts on both sides of the debate, which has rekindled on the health benefits and risks that may come from the longstanding practice in Peel, offered informed opinion and scientific research on community water fluoridation. Council also heard from municipal staff on the subject.

The meeting was well publicized in advance – even providing the community with an agenda detailing the time, location and list of delegates scheduled to appear.However, council members voted to conduct the proceedings behind closed doors.

The decision upset some members of the community, especially those who have been advocating for an end to local water fluoridation for years and have even gone so far as to launch a court challenge.

A week after the education session, councillors convened for their regular meeting and agreed to form an ad hoc committee that is now taking a deeper look at the benefits and possible health risks of water fluoridation and seeking broad community engagement to establish a Regional position on the issue.



Regina, Saskatchewan


The City of Regina has no plans to hold a referendum on fluoridation any time soon.

Regina has never fluoridated its water, but has asked residents for their take at least three times during referendums in the city’s history.

The issue hasn’t come up until a recent report showed that tooth decay in children increased faster in Calgary than in Edmonton over the past decade. The study, conducted between researchers from the University of Alberta and Alberta Health Services, linked the disparity to Calgary’s decision to stop fluoridating its water.

“We as an administration and council would want to see what the report actually says,” said Mayor Michael Fougere. “I have not seen the report.”

Of the city’s three referendums on the subject, the closest vote was in 1958 when 11,941 residents voted yes, 12,566 voted no. Support for the anti-fluoridation movement gained traction in 1965 when 12,218 residents voted yes while 16,801 voted no.

In 1985, a bylaw to provide for the fluoridation of the water supplied by the City of Regina was defeated by a vote of 31,526 to 25,631.




Terrace B.C.


THE CITY is spending $10,000 to upgrade its fluoridation system so that city staff will receive an alarm via their cellphones should too much of the substance be injected into the city’s water supply.The upgrade should be finished in a week or so, ending a period of several months when when the substance has been only sporadically placed in the water supply.

News of the new fluoride pumping system comes at a time when the city has been asked to stop the practice which is meant to reduce or prevent tooth decay.

Terrace is only one of four municipalities in British Columbia to still put the chemical in the water supply.

Appearing before city council Feb. 9, local anti-fluoride campaigner Barry Prince presented a petition containing more than 400 signatures of Terrace and Thornhill residents.

This was his third attempt to convince council that the city should join the tide of municipalities around Canada who are stopping their fluorination programs.

Prince was vaccompanied by local naturopath Daniel Yee who said stopping fluorinating was a “no brainer.”“I was actually quite shocked and really surprised that Terrace is still fluorinating their water,” Yee said during his presentation.

Prince concluded by saying he would challenge the city in court if no referendum is held, or if fluoride is not removed from Terrace water.“This practice is going to stop one way or another, or we will be back again,” he told council.

City officials counted the number of names on the petition presented by Prince and found that the total was 260 Terrace residents, 109 from the regional district and 38 of unknown residency, for a total of 422.

The city’s fluoride program costs an average of $30,000 per year. The fluorosilicic acid itself is purchased in barrels from a supplier called Cleartech Industries Inc. at an annual cost of approximately $20,000, according to the city.



Windsor Essex

Feb 19

The Health Unit says it’s too early to determine if removing fluoride from the area’s water supply is having an impact on tooth decay in the region.A recent study found a worsening in the decay of baby teeth in Calgary children compared to children in Edmonton where water still contains fluoride.Medical Officer of Health Dr. Gary Kirk says the health unit is collecting data to present to city council when they revisit the issue in 2018.

“We’ll have a better idea if those concerns are realized locally as we get closer to the five year moratorium,” says Kirk.

The Windsor Utilities Commission stopped adding fluoride to the water in March 2013 after a lengthy debate at Windsor City Council.





Another good decision overturned for no apparent reason,

 First this..

 Jan 28

The Whakatane District Council’s Policy Committee has voted to stop adding fluoride to any of the district’s public water supplies.

After hearing submissions for and against fluoridation, a report on future options for district water supplies sparked passionate debate, with six of the 11 members subsequently voting to cease fluoridating the Whakatane and Ohope supply and not extend fluoridation to other community water schemes.

The committee has also called for a further report on the possibility of using the savings resulting from ceasing fluoridation, estimated at $3,500 a year for the Whakatane and Ohope supply, to promote dental health activities in District schools and preschools.

…Speaking against the practice, Ms Byrne submitted that only seven countries worldwide fluoridated the water supplied to more than half of their populations and that a number of developed countries had ceased fluoridating water supplies.

She also said no other Bay of Plenty councils and only 23 of the 67 New Zealand councils currently fluoridate their water supplies; that fluoridation is effective through topical contact rather than by ingestion; that fluoride is a recognised neurotoxin; and that no adverse oral health effects have been experienced in communities where fluoridation has ceased.




 From Radio NZ

Associate Health Minister Peter Dunne said fluoridation is the most effective way to limit tooth decay, particularly in young people.

Whakatane district council is the latest local body to adopt a no-fluoridation policy, with councillors voting six to five to scrap fluoride, despite majority support for adding it to the water from residents in three referendums during the past 20 years.

Anti-fluoridation lobby figures show only 23 of 67 councils still fluoridate their water.


Then this

A national anti-fluoridation lobby group has slammed a recent Whakatane District Council decision to put fluoride back into the Whakatane and Ohope water supplies.

In January, councillors voted six to five in favour of scrapping the practice, despite referendum results showing strong support from residents in favour of the practice from both towns.

But during a special meeting of the policy committee last Thursday,councillors voted six to four in favour of adopting a notice of motion to revoke the January decision.




Feb 13

The source of  this release: Making Sense of Fluoride – not clear who they are, maybe they influenced the one change of vote..

More Strikes Against the Credibility of Fluoride Free NZ as Whakatane Councillors reconsider their decision

Two more rulings released today find Fluoride Free New Zealand is not a reliable source of information – and MSoF president Daniel Ryan is urging Whakatane District Councillors to pay attention to the rulings when they revisit the issue of fluoridation tomorrow.

The decisions by the Advertising Standards Authority relate to an information leaflet distributed by fluoridation opponents during November’s referendum in Thames and to their newspaper advertising at the time.

The leaflet made a number of claims such as ‘fluoride is harmful to health’ and ‘fluoridation does not reduce dental decay’, which the ASA found to be misleading and alarmist, while parts of the newspaper ads were found to unjustifiably play on consumers’ fears….

These ASA statements are being quoted in the US to attack FAN there. It would be interesting to know what advice the ASA had in making the decisions, and what opportunity there was for the FANNZ case to be defended, as well as the source of the complaints and the amount that was spent on them




A shameful day it was, for those Whakatane District Councillors who voted to reverse the decision to stop fluoridation. The Council decision to support the District Health Board in starting a targeted dental health programme, based on the successful Scottish CHILDSMILE programme, was also reversed.

Non-fluoridated Scotland has cut the number of general anaesthetic surgeries needed by children for severe dental decay in half, saving 5 million pounds a year. Only two weeks before this shameful flip-flop, Whakatane Council had agreed to pledge the money currently used on adding toxic fluoridation chemicals to the drinking water, to the DHB to help them set up a scheme similar to CHILDSMILE.

Despite knowing and clearly acknowledging that fluoridation does not reduce dental decay, Cr Gerard Van Beek reversed his vote from the 28th of January to stop fluoridation, to keeping it. Correspondence from Cr Van Beek shows he understands that fluoridation does not reduce dental decay. Ultimately though, Cr Van Beek’s fear of election pressure caused him to cave in and vote against his better judgement.

“My concern is with the DHB, they need to deliver dental services better. Healthy teeth don’t need fluoride, mouths with good hygiene don’t need fluoride because there’s no dental decay. Even if there is dental decay, I’m not sure that fluoride fixes it,” he said.

Unfortunately for him, a person who apparently has the intelligence to understand the issue, he will more than likely deeply regret his flip-flop vote every time a new study comes out which shows fluoride’s harm to health and the environment.

The other councillors who voted for fluoridation did not even grasp the basics of the issue, such as the fact that the theory that fluoridation is based on has been thoroughly discredited, and is no longer touted even by fluoridation promoters. It was originally claimed that fluoride needed to be incorporated into the tooth enamel as teeth were growing to make them more resistant to decay. However, the US Centers for Disease Control published research in 1999 which showed this change to teeth did not make them more resistant to decay. Since then, all fluoride promoters around the world, including in New Zealand, have accepted that as the truth. To justify their continued refusal to admit fluoridation’s failure, the Ministry of Health and various Dental Associations now grasp at new straws – theories about needing to swallow fluoride so that it contacts the outside of the teeth. These new theories are not plausible or scientific

Fluoride Free New Zealand (FFNZ) provided the Council with Ministry of Health data that show children in fluoridated Whakatane have about the same average number of fillings as children in the rest of Bay of Plenty that is non-fluoridated. FFNZ also provided data from the DHB that show Whakatane children have more GA surgeries for severe dental decay than non fluoridated Tauaranga, non fluoridated Opotiki and a similar amount to non fluoridated Kawerau, one of the poorest communities in the country.

The Bay of Plenty DHB has refused to release data giving a breakdown on how severely children are affected by dental decay, even though every other DHB has provided this information and they have been ordered by the Ombudsman to release it. Obviously, the DHB does not want this information getting out, as it will no doubt put paid to their ridiculous claims that fluoridation helps poor children.

The Scottish CHILDSMILE programme provides supervised school tooth brushing, education for parents and children, and ensures regular dental check-ups. Whakatane councillors have thrown away this golden opportunity to really help children in their region and instead, the unfortunate Whakatane public will continue to be poisoned via the public water supply.

Mary Byrne

National Coordinator and Media Contact

Fluoride Free New Zealan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *