October 2017 Reports and Resources

October Reports and resources

 FAN Calgary

Vindication of claim that Calgary’s decay rates did not increase when fluoridation ended. – see report 3



Oct 10th. For some reason, the Central Befordshiere page appeared amongst google alerts. It does, however, show,that some parts of Bedfordshire – not Bedford town – are currenrtly still fluoridated. This list with an accompanying map comes after a patronising explanation of ..’ what is known as artificial water fluoridation,.’

Water fluoridation in Bedfordshire

The responsibility for water fluoridation scheme lies with local authorities and is reviewed on a case by case basis. When all of the water treatment plants are dosing with fluoride, about 20% of residents have fluoridated water.

This map of Bedfordshire (PDF   shows the parish, district council and Public Water Supply Zone (PWSZ) boundaries across the county correct as of May 2017.

Here is a summary of the water supply:

  • the area supplied by Manton Lane Reservoir (shaded blue/green) is not currently artificially fluoridated
  • the area supplied by Pulloxhill PWSZ (stripy green) is also not currently artificially fluoridated
  • the area supplied by Newspring, Dunton, Meppershall and Potton water treatment work PWSZ (light green) is currently artificially fluoridated
  • the areas not shaded in Central Bedfordshire are not artificially fluoridated

Local campaigner Cynthia Bagchi is trying to unravel the increasingly complex story,in thecourse of which ., she says, the County Council have been ‘telling lies’. More to follow..


.2. Pre-natal fluoride exposure and I.Q.

One of a number of  media reports quoting the Mexico study is CNN,including a section on ‘fluoride as a neurotoxin’ but giving space to the reassurers

Sep 21

(From CNN) Increased levels of prenatal fluoride exposure may be associated with lower cognitive function in children, a new study says.

The study, published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, evaluated nearly 300 sets of mothers and children in Mexico and tested the children twice for cognitive development over the course of 12 years. Fluoride is not added to public water supplies in Mexico, but people are exposed through naturally occurring fluoride in water and fluoridated salt and supplements. …


2.1 Newsweek article

This is the start of Newseek article which although it adds comments from detractorss, is generally balanced

Sep 19

Adding fluoride to public drinking water for dental purposes has been controversial since the practice first began in 1945, and the latest findings are sure to stir that pot yet again. A new study suggests that prenatal exposure to this chemical may affect cognitive abilities and that children born to mothers exposed to high amounts of fluoride could have lower IQs.

The study, published Tuesday in Environmental Health Perspectives, found an association between lower intelligence and prenatal fluoride exposure in 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico. The team measured fluoride levels from mothers via urine samples and followed up on their children until they were between 6 and 12 years old. Even when other possible factors were taken into account, such as exposure to other chemicals, results continually showed that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was linked to lower scores on tests of cognitive function in children at age 4 and then again between 6 and 12….


2.2 Readers Digest article

And the Readers Digest weighs in with this heading, followed by a shorter piece that does not defend fluoride at all

If You Drink This Type of Water During Pregnancy, Your Child’s IQ Could Suffer

Most Americans are regularly exposed to this chemical on a daily basis.


If You Drink This Type of Water During Pregnancy, Your Child’s IQ Could Suffer




2.3 ADA release and comment

This is the crux of the press release issued by the ADA. (my emphasis). Can someone explain, in words that these people can understand, that IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE what  the source of the fluoride was, the facts established are that exposure  is harmful  to the unborn child and the greater the exposure, the greater the  harm.

…The findings, however, are not applicable to the U.S., according to the ADA’s news release, which also noted that the Association “continues to endorse fluoridation of public water as the most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.”

In responding to the study’s conclusions, the ADA noted that the intake of fluoride in Mexico “is significantly different from the U.S.,” because fluoride is added to salt and because fluoride naturally exists in varying degrees in community water. In the U.S., fluoride is not added to salt and is only added to water “in cases where the natural occurrence of fluoride is lower than the recommended level to prevent tooth decay,” the ADA said.

Furthermore, it is unknown how the subjects of the study ingested fluoride — whether through salt, water, or both — so “no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effects of community water fluoridation in the U.S.”…


2.4 FAN Comment

Sep 21

The study found a very large and significant effect. An increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/L was associated with a drop in IQ of 5 to 6 points. Such a drop of IQ in the whole population would half the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and double the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).

Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L. Studies have found that adults in the USA have between about 0.6 and 1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the high end is a difference of 1 mg/L which is what caused the 5 to 6 IQ point difference in the children of the study mothers.

This new study had fluoride exposures almost the same as what is found in fluoridating countries like the USA. The paper shows the relationship between urine fluoride and IQ in the graph (Figure 2) reproduced here:

The data in this graph has been adjusted for numerous potential confounding factors like sex, birth weight, gestational age, and whether the mother smoked. Other potential confounders had already been ruled out, including lead, mercury, alcohol consumption during pregnancy, mother’s education, mother’s IQ, and quality of home environment.

FAN has redrawn this graph in simplified form to better illustrate the relationship found between mothers’ urine fluoride and childrens’ IQ.

This simplified version of the graph highlights the range of urine fluoride levels common in women in the USA with the blue text and bracket. When comparing mothers at the low end to those at the high end of this range, the subsequent loss of IQ in their children was 6 points. The light red shaded zone around the relationship line is the 95% Confidence Interval and demonstrates that the relationship is statistically significant across the entire range of fluoride exposures.

Important Points:

  1. The loss of IQ is very large.  The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm F water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero F in it.
  2. The study measured urine F, which is usually a better indicator of total F intake than is the concentration of F in drinking water.  When drinking water is the dominant source of F,, urine F and water F are usually about the same.  So, the average urine F level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that woman was ingesting the same amount of F as a woman drinking water with 0.9 mg/L F.
  3. The range of F exposures in this study is likely to be very close to the range in a fluoridated area of the United States.  The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation.  There is no need to extrapolate downward from effects at higher doses.  The claims by fluoridation defenders that only studies using much higher doses than occur in areas with artificial fluoridation have shown a loss of IQ are squarely refuted by this study.  Those false claims range from 11 times to 30 times higher, but are based on the logical fallacy that it is the highest dose amongst several studies that is relevant, when it is the LOWEST dose amongst studies that is most relevant.
  4. This study was very carefully done, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.  This was funded by the NIH and was a multi-million dollar study.  This was the group’s first study of fluoride, their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury, and other environmental neurotoxicants.
  5. This study controlled for a wide range of potential factors that might have skewed the results and produced a false effect.  It was able to largely rule out confounding by these other factors.  The factors ruled out included Pb, Hg, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.
  6. This study offers confirmation of previous less sophisticated studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere.  Some of those studies had higher F exposures than are commonly found in the USA, but many did not.  The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation (as opposed to artificial salt fluoridation which was likely a main source of F in this new study) was by Broadbent in New Zealand.  That found no association between water F and IQ and was trumpted by fluoridation defenders.  But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL F intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with unfluoridated water, since most of the unfluoridated water children were given F supplements.
  7. The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists.  But the implications of this study are enormous.  A single study will never prove that F lowers IQ at doses found in fluoridated areas, but this is more than a red flag.  It is a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.

    2.5 VIDEO :Paul Conett’ss comment ( 3 min.)


2.6   ‘Four Questions’ from Health News Review’

Sep 22

The Health News Review justifiably points out  that association does not mean causation, but its statement  ‘fluoride could cause these problems, then again , it could not’ , that it could be ‘some unknown factor’ is itself unhelpful, particularly as most confounding factors are considered. On the other hand, the review then goes on to highlight the lack of evidence for fluoridation’s benefits. The difference being, of course,  that among reports ‘proving’ fluoridation’s efficacy  there are a large number of confounding variables, a direct motive for obscuring the facts, a wide variation of results from different reports, and much recognisably poor quality research, none of which applies to the current study,  One further reason for questioning either the statistical knowledge or impartiality of the Review statement is the apparent lack of understanding in the question; ‘Is 2.5 points difference noticeable?’  It is – see Connett’s diagram and explanation above.

Multiple news outlets are covering a new study conducted in Mexico on fluoride exposure during pregnancy and its association with lower childhood IQ.

Water fluoridation is common across the U.S. and the potential to stoke unwarranted fear is great. If you are reading or writing about this study, here are four questions you should be asking yourself:

Does the headline overstate the evidence?

This was an observational study that can only show associations between fluoride and IQ — not that fluoride exposure caused a change in IQ. Newsweek’s headline — “CHILDREN’S IQ COULD BE LOWERED BY MOTHERS DRINKING TAP WATER WHILE PREGNANT” — goes beyond what the study can tell us, as does Readers Digest’s “If You Drink This Type of Water During Pregnancy, Your Child’s IQ Could Suffer.”

Remember: If fluoride “could” cause these problems it just as easily “could not” cause them.

It’s impossible, based on the results of this one study, to know if fluoride “lowered” IQ or whether children with lower IQ in Mexico are simply more likely to have higher fluoride levels for some unknown reason. CNN gets it right with “Fluoride exposure in utero linked to lower IQ in kids, study says.” Canada’s National Post also nails it with  “Researchers urge caution over study linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy to lower IQs in children.”

Learn more by reading our primer: Observational studies: Does the language fit the evidence? Association vs. causation 

Does the story discuss the limitations of the research?

The study authors describe a long list of items that could have influenced their results, including the methods they used to collect urine samples (one-time collection rather than the more rigorous 24-hour method) and lack of information about other factors (e.g. exposure to neurotoxins like arsenic) that might impact childhood cognition. They also don’t know how the mothers in the study were exposed to fluoride or at what levels. In addition, they said, “we cannot rule out the potential for uncontrolled confounding due to other factors, including diet, that may affect urinary fluoride excretion and that may be related to cognition.”

The other point to consider is that this is a single study conducted in an area that doesn’t have fluoridated water and which might not reflect U.S. circumstances. As CNN appropriately observes, “a study done in New Zealand, a country that has community water fluoridation similar to the United States, found no connection between fluoridated water and IQ.”

Does the story explain the size of the effect?

This is an area where all of the stories I read could have done better. The researchers reported a drop of 2.5 IQ points for every 0.5 mg/dL increase in fluoride levels (average fluoride levels in these children were around 0.8 mg/dL). Obviously, any association of fluoride with reduced cognition is worrisome, but it’s important to get specific. Is a 2.5-point difference meaningful or even noticeable? None of the stories explained. Susan Molchan, MD, a psychiatrist and former NIH researcher, said “2.5 points is probably not enough to make a difference in school performance for example when you consider the range of a normal IQ would be 90-110. What’s the difference if you’re 100 or 97.5? And how one performs on an IQ test is just one small piece of how one will do in school/life—so it is a good question on how clinically or functionally significant this is.”

Does the story explain the potential benefits of water fluoridation?

CNN repeated the CDC’s claim that water fluoridation is “one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the past century.” CTV said that water fluoridation should be acknowledged as “a public health success story.” But none of the stories dug into the evidence supporting these claims, much of which comes from observational studies conducted before 1975. Just as these types of studies can’t definitively prove harm from fluoridated water, they can’t prove definitively that water fluoridation caused reductions in cavities. In fact, many didn’t account for circumstances that have clear potential to impact the effectiveness of fluoridated water — for example the introduction of fluoride toothpaste or the amount of sugar consumed by study participants. A recent systematic review of the evidence conducted by the Cochrane Collaboration found no evidence that fluoridation reduces cavities in adults and very limited evidence for a benefit in children.

There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review’s inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries. The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles.

The Cochrane authors point out that cross-sectional studies — considered a lower form of evidence because they only examine data at a single time point — have been conducted more recently but were excluded from their analysis. They also acknowledge that it may be difficult or impossible to obtain gold-standard clinical trial evidence demonstrating the benefits of water fluoridation. The practical obstacles to conducting such studies are significant. Nonetheless, they say that more contemporary studies, with more rigorous designs, and needed to determine whether water fluoridation is beneficial under current circumstances and to what extent.

How to help readers navigate uncertainty

Sometimes mountains of observational data are enough to guide sound public health recommendations and action. Observational studies documenting the harms of tobacco are an example of this. Still, the four questions raised in this piece are important for journalists and the public to consider.

Molchan believes the emerging data should prompt reflection about community fluoridation policies. “Why go through the expense of adding a chemical to the whole water supply if there is no known benefit, especially if there are questions about its safety?” she asks.

That seems to be theme running through this entire topic: questions, but few answers, on the benefits and risks of water fluoridation. Journalists who explore these questions carefully will help readers understand what’s at stake without spreading needless fear.

Note: We’ve previously examined coverage of research linking fluoride in water with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.


2.7 Jack CROWTHER: Study deals blow to fluoridation Commentary published in Rutland Herald

Oct 14

Last month, Environmental Health Perspectives published an article titled “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years in Mexico.”

The article is notable not only for its substance but also for the fact that the publication it appeared in has support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. NIEHS falls within the National Institutes of Health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Further, the study itself was supported by NIH, NIEHS and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Ministry of Health in Mexico.

In a sense, the findings of the study are not new. They indicate the likelihood that exposure to fluoride above a certain level will lower the IQ of children. Numerous earlier studies have pointed in the same direction, raising warning flags for fluoride exposure through community water fluoridation and other sources.

What is especially notable is that you have an arm of the U.S. government putting forth a study that challenges a central public health policy of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That policy is community water fluoridation.

While the NIEHS publication did not endorse the study, it saw fit to publish it. That’s significant inasmuch as promoters of fluoridation, like the American Dental Association, dismiss challenges to fluoridation as affronts to settled science.

You may ask how the fluoridation policy is challenged. How is a measure deemed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to be one of the “10 great public health achievements of the 20th century” undermined by this recent study? Here’s how:

  1. The fluoride exposures of the pregnant women in the study corresponded to exposures found in persons living in fluoridated communities.
  1. The effect found was large. At a level of 0.9 parts per million in the mothers’ urine (which would be reached by many women in fluoridated communities), the associated IQ loss was 5 to 6 points. If such a drop were to occur in the whole population, it would more than halve the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and increase by more than half the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
  1. The study demands respect. It is strong in controlling for confounding factors, that is, conditions that might affect IQ other than fluoride.

Publication of the “Prenatal Fluoride” study came close on the heels of the Sixth Annual Citizens Convention of the Fluoride Action Network in Crystal City, Virginia, from Sept. 15 to 18. The convention represented a number of states, four other countries, and the Akwesasne Territory within Canada and the United States.

Throughout our four-day gathering, we reviewed the developing science on fluoridation, the political fight and how it is best conducted, and the evidence that the fluoridation house of cards teeters ever closer to collapse.

We took heart with the reminder that the world is not embracing fluoridation, but is rejecting it. Canada, for instance, has gone from 45 percent fluoridated to 29 percent in recent years. Worldwide, 95 percent of the population is fluoridation-free, and a number of countries that once had it no longer do. The Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland are among the defectors.

Similarly, many respected organizations have either withdrawn endorsements or are neutral on fluoridation. This counters the impression fostered by the American Dental Association and public health agencies that any entity worth its salt endorses fluoridation. Outright opponents of fluoridation include the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the Environmental Working Group, Food and Water Watch, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, the League of United Latin American Citizens, and the Organic Consumers Association.

Organizations that once endorsed fluoridation but no longer do include the American Cancer Society, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, Consumers Union (Consumer Reports), the National Kidney Foundation, the National Down Syndrome Congress and the New York Academy of Medicine.

At each of our convention workshops and sessions, organizers wisely provided bottles of fluoride-free water. This allowed us to avoid the fluoridated Arlington County water supply.

But we shouldn’t have had to bring our water. Our ranks included people with known fluoride sensitivity. Nor should any citizen have to spend money and lug home drinking water to opt out of mass medication imposed by government authority.

Jack Crowther of Rutland is retired. He worked as a journalist and in corporate communications



2.8 Expanding on toxicity, is the Lund Report article by Rick North

On September 19, Environmental Health Perspectives, a highly-respected journal, published a study linking higher fluoride levels in pregnant women to lower IQ’s in their children.

The decrease was significant. Each 0.5 part per million (ppm) increase in a pregnant woman’s urine fluoride levels reduced her child’s IQ by 2.5 – 3 points. A child of a mother drinking 1 ppm of fluoridated water, close to the U.S standard of 0.7 ppm, would be expected to have a drop of 5 to 6 IQ points compared to a child of a mother drinking water with close to no fluoride in it.

This prospective study was funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health and led by researchers at the University of Toronto School of Public Health.

It was very strong, following pregnant women in Mexico and their children for 12 years, and measuring individual urine levels, a more precise method to determine fluoride exposure than drinking water concentrations. The results were undiminished even after adjusting for a wide array of confounding factors, including lead, smoking, alcohol, socio-economic status and birth weight.

The pro-fluoridation lobby, led by the American Dental Association, quickly denied the significance of the study, arguing “the findings are not applicable to the U.S.”

Mexico, like most nations, doesn’t fluoridate its water. The ADA’s stance stems from the fact that the women were mainly getting their fluoride from consuming fluoridated salt or varying natural levels of fluoride in the water. (The ADA ignores the fact that fluoride’s effects are the same once it’s inside the body, no matter the source.)

Most others felt differently. Lead author Dr. Howard Hu asserted “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.”

Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician unaffiliated with the study at New York University, agreed, saying that “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water.”

And according to CNN, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, “pointed out that it raised significant questions.”

Although this study is new, it has long been recognized that fluoride causes brain damage. The extent of harm is based on the dose, when and how often the exposure occurs, and which individuals are at greater risk.

In 2006, the National Academy of Science’s National Research Committee (NRC) published Fluoride in Drinking Water, a review of over 1,000 studies. It’s considered the most well-balanced, comprehensive, authoritative study ever done on fluoride’s toxicity. The 12-member scientific committee leading the effort, including three who favored fluoridation, stated unequivocally that “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means.” (p. 222)

In 2012, a Harvard-funded meta-analysis found that children in China exposed to higher levels of fluoride tested lower for IQ in 26 out of 27 studies. The average difference was significant – 7 IQ points lower. The quality of the studies varied and dealt with higher exposures of fluoride than in the U.S. However, several were methodologically strong, controlling for potential confounders such as lead and arsenic, and had doses close to those typically found here.

In 2014, in the British medical journal The Lancet, two world-renowned scientists, Philippe Grandjean, MD and Philip Landrigan, MD, added fluoride to the list of 11 chemicals identified as developmental neurotoxins – harming the brains of children. Grandjean, a co-author of the 2012 Harvard study, commented at the time that “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury and other poisons . . .

Last year, the Fluoride Action Network, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association and several others, including individual mothers, petitioned the EPA to ban fluoridation chemicals based on their neurotoxicity.

The petition cited 196 peer-reviewed studies – human, animal, cellular and reviews – published over the last ten years. Virtually all the studies – 189 – found harm, such as lowering IQ or increasing behavioral problems, several at levels consumed by Americans, and more at minimally higher levels.

The studies with slightly higher levels are quite relevant to common exposures in the U.S. Genetics, environmental and socio-economic factors cause significant variability among humans in their resistance to disease. It’s standard toxicological practice to divide the lowest level of harm detected by at least 10. Many studies show there is typically at least a 10-fold variation in sensitivity to any toxin among humans.

The NRC 2006 review determined that water fluoride levels of 4.0 ppm are definitely harmful to human health, so dividing by 10 wouldn’t allow more than 0.4 ppm. Yet the CDC recommends 0.7 ppm, nearly double the level, ignoring this established scientific practice.

In February, the EPA denied the petition, saying there wasn’t conclusive data that fluoride was neurotoxic, in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary. The organizations have sued the agency and the case is now in federal court.

Hu and his fellow authors don’t say, nor do I, that this one study provides conclusive proof that fluoridating water lowers IQ’s in children. But there’s no denying 30 years of hundreds of studies pointing squarely in that direction and the U. of Toronto results add even more credibility.

Moreover, there are very few studies finding that fluoride doesn’t lower IQ. The New Zealand study most often cited used an unsuitable study group with little contrast in total fluoride exposure. Many kids with unfluoridated water were ingesting fluoride tablets, making their total consumption of fluoride nearly as high as the kids drinking fluoridated water.

Fluoridation proponents believe the burden of proof is to show conclusively that a substance is harmful before it’s disallowed.

We’ve seen this misguided thinking before. In 1954, responding to numerous studies showing correlations between smoking and lung cancer, the tobacco industry asserted “there is no proof that cigarette smoking is one of the causes.” As late as 1994, industry executives again declared at a Congressional hearing that correlation wasn’t enough and smoking hadn’t been proven to be a cause of cancer.

The opposite point of view – “First do no harm” or “Better safe than sorry” – reasons that a substance should be demonstrated safe before it’s allowed. Obviously, this hasn’t happened with water fluoridation. The NRC, identified numerous other links to fluoride, including thyroid disease (p. 8), kidney disease (p. 303) and diabetes (p. 260), calling for further research.

Fluoride is now a known neurotoxin. If you put it in water, how do you control the amount people consume, the age at which they consume it and the harm to those at highest risk – born or unborn? You can’t.

The amount of this poison you ingest is determined, incredibly, by how thirsty you are. If you’ve concluded this practice is exceedingly unwise, you’re not alone. The vast majority of nations, cities and health organizations worldwide don’t support fluoridation and ethical concerns loom large as to why so many European nations oppose it. In effect, everyone drinking fluoridated water is participating, without their consent, in a continuing medical experiment.

The CDC and EPA have many qualified, well-meaning people who’ve done a lot of good work. But history is rife with examples of the U.S. government assuring us that substances like leaded paint and gas, asbestos, DDT, DES, cigarettes, etc. were safe.

It took decades of science finding harm before the government belatedly banned or restricted them. The amount of impairment, suffering, disease and death occurring in that lag time is incalculable – and unnecessary.

It’s time to be on the right side of history.   It’s time to end water fluoridation.

Rick North is the former executive vice president of the Oregon American Cancer Society and former project director for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility’s Campaign for Safe Food. Now retired, he’s a volunteer advocate for safe water, safe food and the preservation of democracy. He can be reached at hrnorth@hevanet.com.



2.9 On-line Comment It is worth including one comment, from Richard Sauerheber

This is a good article. Thank you. The neurologic effects of ingested fluoride were earlier investigated by Phyllis Mullenix in mammals and by Varner and coworkers as well. A student asked me, why then are not people being seriously poisoned by drinking fluoridated water? Very few if any fluoridation promoters understand that fluoride at any level in the blood exerts toxic effects to varying degree in man and animals. At 3-4 ppm, as happened with citizens in Hooper Bay, AK during an accidental overfeed, this level is lethal (one victim perished from fluoride-induced heart block). At 1 ppm in the blood, as occurred in kidney dialysis wards where blood levels matched the level in the feed water, patient morbidity escalated (perishing from heart failure by a different mechanism over months of time).

These events led to an FDA warning that fluoridated water cannot be used in kidney dialysis. At lower levels, around 0.1 ppm as occurs in people consuming fluoridated water, the chronic toxic effects are incorporation of fluoride into bone permanently, causing formation of bone of poor quality, and in some people hypothyroidism, and effects on the brain with IQ lowering and possible ADHD increases.

Of course adverse effects on teeth enamel, hypoplasia or dental fluorosis, continues to skyrocket in incidence in U.S. teens where blood fluoride blocks normal enamelization during teeth development in children. The FDA never approved of any fluoride intended for ingestion, and banned the sale of fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S. An FDA petition to totally ban water fluoridation remains under review. The CDC has been asked to halt recommending and requesting fluoridation.

Eating/drinking fluoride does not decrease dental decay, as learned from the most detailed studies from Ziegelbecker and from Teotia and from Yiamouyiannis. Indeed, teeth enamel hydroxyapatite is far too hard to incorporate fluoride, but bone hydroxyapatite readily does so. The fluoride level in saliva bathing teeth from drinking fluoride water is only 0.016 ppm, 94,000 times lower than the level in toothpaste. For more details please see: Journal of Environmental and Public Health 439490 at https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2013/439490

Abstract from Richard Sauerheber’s 2013 report  :

The effects of calcium ion and broad pH ranges on free fluoride ion aqueous concentrations were measured directly and computed theoretically. Solubility calculations indicate that blood fluoride concentrations that occur in lethal poisonings would decrease calcium below prevailing levels. Acute lethal poisoning and also many of the chronic effects of fluoride involve alterations in the chemical activity of calcium by the fluoride ion. Natural calcium fluoride with low solubility and toxicity from ingestion is distinct from fully soluble toxic industrial fluorides. The toxicity of fluoride is determined by environmental conditions and the positive cations present. At a pH typical of gastric juice, fluoride is largely protonated as hydrofluoric acid HF. Industrial fluoride ingested from treated water enters saliva at levels too low to affect dental caries. Blood levels during lifelong consumption can harm heart, bone, brain, and even developing teeth enamel. The widespread policy known as water fluoridation is discussed in light of these findings.

S Slott replies to R North:   https://www.thelundreport.org/content/defense-fluoride



Fluoride Warnings Issued by International Group of Dentists

October is Dental Hygiene Month, but not all dentists will be touting the alleged benefits of fluoride.  In fact, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT, www.iaomt.org) is using this month to raise awareness of the health risks associated with fluoride and to publicly release their new fluoride position paper and fluoride webpages.  The IAOMT has been a trusted ally of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) for many years, and the two organizations recently worked together as part of a coalition to petition the EPA to end fluoridation.

The IAOMT is an organization of over 800 dentists, physicians, and research professionals in more than 14 countries, and the non-profit organization has been dedicated to its mission of protecting public health since it was founded in 1984.  Since that time, the group has continually collected, examined, and reviewed studies and research articles about fluoride and other dental materials and practices

.“IAOMT and its members have been independently studying the toxicity of fluoride for decades,” Matthew Young, DDS, President of the IAOMT, explains.  “For dentistry, as an ethical profession, it is imperative to uphold the concepts of ‘do no harm.’  Fluoride has traditionally been seen as a panacea for dental disease without the knowledge of its inherent harm to the human body.  We need to seek less toxic alternatives and work to improve human health with the safest approach.”

This week, the IAOMT is officially releasing a variety of new fluoride awareness resources available for free on their website.  The materials were developed based on the group’s new Position Paper against Fluoride Use in Water, Dental Materials, and Other Products.  Hundreds of scientific studies and research articles were analyzed to create this detailed document, which includes over 500 citations supporting the potential for fluoride to cause adverse health outcomes.

The IAOMT’s official position is that given the elevated number of fluoride sources and the increased rates of fluoride intake in the American population, which have risen substantially since water fluoridation began in the 1940’s, it has become a necessity to reduce and work toward eliminating avoidable sources of fluoride exposure, including water fluoridation, fluoride-containing dental materials, and other fluoridated products.

“Ingesting synthetic fluoride, such as that added to community water, is not only ineffective at reducing tooth decay, but it also exposes our population to a number of toxins,” David Kennedy, DDS, lead author of the IAOMT Fluoride Position Paper, cautions.  “American children are already being overdosed with fluoride, as is evidenced by the increase in tooth mottling (fluorosis), which now occurs to some degree in a majority of our youth.  The National Research Council determined that many individuals are exceptionally vulnerable to the toxic effects of fluoride.  When will people realize that scientific research offers grave warnings about fluoride? Don’t we all deserve safe water?”

Visit the IAOMT’s new fluoride pages at https://iaomt.org/for-patients/fluoride-facts/, and be sure to follow the IAOMT on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn!

Oct 4

International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) press release can also be seen here . Heading: Fluoride Warnings Issued by International Group of Dentists




6th Citizens Conference on Fluoride, held September 16-18


From FAN: The conference was a great success with many informative presentations and constant interaction amongst campaigners from around the world, followed by our strongest Congressional lobby-day to date.

Over the coming weeks, Fluoride Action Network (FAN) will publish a brief summary of the conference presentations in a bulletin, and will be releasing a series of high-quality videos of most presentations.  Please stay tuned!

Conference reports1:New Video:

In the meantime, we invite you watch our first video from the conference.  FAN Senior Advisor and co-author of “The Case Against Fluoride,” Paul Connett, PhD took a few minutes during his presentation to expose pro-fluoridation quackery and propaganda.  Click the image below:

Please share the video and our webpage above.  You can do so easily by sharing FAN’s Facebook or Twitter posts with the topic.  Please also share the video anytime you see fluoride promotors commenting on social media or on news articles.


5 Confirming the evidence that ceasing fluoridation did not increase tooth decay in Calgary

(See charts above)


An authoritative confirmation that the widely quoted report used to support reintroduction in Calgary, is based on a lie.

This should not be news to SWIS readers: see Articles in both the Reports and Resources and the News sections of the February 2016 edition:


 Oct. 11,

A paper published in this journal, “Measuring the short-term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices,” by McLaren et al had shortcomings in study design and interpretation of results, and did not include important pertinent data. Its pre–post cross-sectional design relied on comparison of decay rates in two cities: Calgary, which ceased fluoridation, and Edmonton, which maintained fluoridation. Dental health surveys conducted in both cities about 6.5 years prior to fluoridation cessation in Calgary provided the baseline. They were compared to decay rates determined about 2.5 years after cessation in a second set of surveys in both cities.

A key shortcoming was the failure to use data from a Calgary dental health survey conducted about 1.5 years prior to cessation. When this third data set is considered, the rate of increase of decay in Calgary is found to be the same before and after cessation of fluoridation, thus contradicting the main conclusion of the paper that cessation was associated with an adverse effect on oral health.

Furthermore, the study design is vulnerable to confounding by caries risk factors other than fluoridation: The two cities differed substantially in baseline decay rates, other health indicators, and demographic characteristics associated with caries risk, and these risk factors were not shown to shift in parallel in Edmonton and Calgary through time. An additional weakness was low participation rates in the dental surveys and lack of analysis to check whether this may have resulted in selection biases. Owing to these weaknesses, the study has limited ability to assess whether fluoridation cessation caused an increase in decay.

The study’s findings, when considered with the additional information from the third Calgary survey, more strongly support the conclusion that cessation of fluoridation had no effect on decay rate. Consideration of the limitations of this study can stimulate improvement in the quality of future fluoridation effectiveness studies.

5.2 This is the FAN release

A commentary in yesterday’s Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology reveals tooth decay rates did not increase faster after fluoridation stopped in Calgary as claimed in a previously published study (McLaren, et al 2016). Chris Neurath led the team that reports McLaren’s study is scientifically inaccurate, uses incomplete data, and relies on two populations that are not similar, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

McLaren used older survey data from 6.5 years before Calgary stopped fluoridation and excluded more relevant data from 1.5 years before cessation. Including the more current data revealed that tooth decay rose in Calgary at the same rate both before and after fluoridation was stopped. Factors other than fluoridation must account for the steady increase in decay. This is confirmed by a large increase in decay in the “control” city of Edmonton, which had long-standing continuous fluoridation. Fluoridation was unable to prevent that increase in decay.

“These findings negate McLaren’s conclusion that fluoridation cessation caused an increase in decay,” says Neurath.

Additional problems with the McLaren study were noted:

  • The study design is vulnerable to confounding by caries risk factors other than fluoridation.
  • Baseline decay rates for the two cities differed substantially.
  • Other risk factors for decay were not controlled for in either Calgary or Edmonton.
  • There was low participation in the dental surveys and inadequate analysis to check whether this may have skewed results.

“Our commentary shows that McLaren’s study design is too weak to meet minimum quality criteria set up by the prestigious Cochrane Collaborative in their recent review of fluoridation effectiveness,” says Neurath.

McLaren has heavily promoted her work throughout Canada, and especially in Calgary where there have been efforts to reverse the city council’s 11 to 3 vote that stopped fluoridation in 2011.

FAN Senior Advisor Paul Connett, PhD noted “McLaren received over a million dollars in grant funding and salary from federal and provincial public health organizations whose policy is to promote fluoridation.”

Commentary co-author James Beck, MD PhD, who lives in Calgary, said “As a scientist, the seriously flawed science in the McLaren study disturbs me. Citizens should be concerned that their tax dollars have funded this biased work.”

Paper available here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12329/abstract

Abstract Note that the full report is only available on subscription

 These charts have been added by FAN. They were part of a presentation  that is available from the SWIS  news update – see link above – together with SWIS editorial comments on the obvious failings of the McLaren reoort.

Keep fluoride out of our tap water

The report was  published in February 2016 and the following link was shown in a subsequent SWIS update http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdoe.12215/full

5.3 Calgary Herald article

Oct 12

Edmonton has fluoride in its drinking water. Calgary does not. Take a wild guess which of the two cities’ children have more cavities?

If you said Calgary, you’d be wrong! Chew on that for a while. Despite continuing to have fluoride in their water, kids in Edmonton have more tooth decay than Calgary kids — in their baby teeth and their permanent teeth, says a University of Calgary study.

But, how can that be? Isn’t fluoride the wonder supplement that’s supposed to mean little kids will suffer less tooth decay? That’s what many proponents of adding fluoride to our drinking water would have you believe. They have also urged people to base their position on fluoridated water on scientific data. Finally, something we can agree on!

A 2016 U of C study called: Measuring the short-term impact of fluoridation cessation on dental caries in Grade 2 children using tooth surface indices  shows that fluoride isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.

You might have guessed by the above title, that this study isn’t exactly a page turner. You also might recall news coverage on this report. Pretty much the only thing mentioned in the past about this study was how there was an increase in primary tooth decay in both Edmonton and Calgary but “the magnitude of the increase was greater in Calgary” following the cessation of fluoride. What’s curious is why reporting on the study stopped there.

What was not widely published is that according to the very same study, the number of cavities in permanent teeth actually decreased in Calgary since fluoridation ended. You read that correctly. “For all tooth surfaces among permanent teeth, there was a statistically significant decrease in Calgary . . . which was not observed in Edmonton.” Interesting, isn’t it, that this juicy morsel from the report was never quoted?

So, let’s recap that last paragraph. Since May 2011, when fluoride was removed from Calgary’s drinking water but has remained in Edmonton’s water since 1967, there has been a “statistically significant decrease in Calgary” for all tooth surfaces among permanent teeth but the same decrease did not occur in Edmonton. Drink that in slowly.

Consider the following conclusion: “In permanent teeth, we elsewhere (in unpublished results) reported a decrease in caries over time in both Calgary (fluoride cessation) and Edmonton (fluoride continued), which was larger and more consistent in Calgary.” The rate of improvement was better in Calgary than Edmonton.

Yet there are those who want Calgarians heading to the polls on Oct. 16 to elect only candidates who will put fluoridation back on tap in Calgary. The group Calgarians for Kids’ Health presented anecdotal evidence of kids with tooth decay on Sept. 25, that included presenting a mother who said: “I have a four-and-a-half-year-old here and her teeth are falling out because she didn’t get fluoride from the day she was born.”

There is no reason why a young child’s teeth should be falling out unless poor diet, disease, or a lack of dental care exists.

The reason why fluoride was removed from Calgary’s drinking water in 2011 was because council was being asked to upgrade the fluoride-adding equipment at Calgary’s Glenmore and Bearspaw water treatment facilities — something that was expected to cost between $3 million to $6 million. In addition, the city spent $750,000 annually in operational costs. The debate ensued and freedom of choice to not be medicated through our water supply was rightly chosen by most of council.

Alberta Liberal MLA Dr. David Swann said recently that he’s “deeply disappointed by the level of misinformation and fear-mongering surrounding fluoridation. It flies in the face of 35 years of research that fluoride water treatment is a safe and effective way to protect our dental health.”

Swann and other proponents of fluoridation are trying to claim that the science is settled. But if you actually read recent studies about fluoridation, you will see that’s not the case. A very recent University of Toronto study is linking fluoride exposure in pregnant women to lower intelligence in their children. Another meta analysis from 2012 shows 27 other reports pointing to the same potential results.

If the science has been settled for 35 years, as Swann claims, why did medical experts recommend that fluoride in Calgary’s water and across North America be reduced from one part per million to 0.7 ppm in 1998? Why in 2006 did the American Dental Association recommend that parents not prepare baby formula with fluoridated water, something that the Centers for Disease Control still recommends? How can a scientist insist on medicating people when it’s impossible to regulate the dose?

“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,” states the U of C study.

Ingesting fluoride, rather than having it topically painted or swished around teeth, has been linked to other negative health effects including impacts to the thyroid, kidneys or bones. It’s not fear mongering.

I used to be one of those dismissive proponents of fluoride until my position was ripped out by the root when I realized fluoridated water harmed my children. Many Calgarians, including my sons, have evidence of fluorosis on their teeth. It’s evident every time they smile and that makes me frown. Those chalky white blotches and streaks on their teeth are not just cosmetic. It means that their bones have been affected after fluoride was literally forced down our throats.

Links to the studies cited in this column are embedded in Licia’s column available at CalgaryHerald.com




Oct 14 letter in Calgary Herald

“The science is not settled on water fluoridation,” Licia Corbella, Opinion, Oct. 12.

As a medical doctor who has spent much of the past two decades studying all sides of the water fluoridation issue, I am elated to see someone in the media tackle this contentious issue so boldly and directly.

Licia Corbella succinctly points out how the media and medical/dental establishment have been misled and misrepresent the infamous U of C study.

The sad reality is that dental caries are increasing in Calgary and Edmonton, and that it has nothing to do with fluoridation.

There are well over 1,000 studies revealing potential harms from fluoridation. Over 4,000 professionals worldwide have had the courage to sign an open letter against fluoridation.

The dental health in 98 per cent unfluoridated Europe, Quebec and B.C. is as good or better than in 75 per cent fluoridated U.S.A. and Ontario.

Harms from fluoridation include, but are not limited to, the neurological system, thyroid, kidney and bone.

I cannot imagine an informed parent risking the mental wellbeing of their child to perhaps prevent one cavity over their lifetime.

Robert C. Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP, Calgary


New Film: Drinking Fluoride- is it safe?

Fluoride is now known to be a developmental neurotoxin, a chemical that negatively affects a child’s developing brain. Drinking fluoridation is also known to be implicated or causing many adverse health effects. Moms Against Fluoridation (MAF) released a short film entitled Drinking Fluoride: Is It Safe?.

“This is about our drinking water and a chemical, a ‘drug’, added to the water that has never been proven safe and is now known to have many adverse health effects. This chemical can find its way into our beverages, soups, our lemonades, our sodas and baby formulas,” states the MAF team.

Drinking Fluoride: Is It Safe? engages health professionals, doctors and researchers on the safety concerns and negative health effects from drinking artificial fluoridation chemicals.

Water fluoridation was endorsed as a public health policy in the 1950s in the absence of any testing for the long-term safety of human health. Always a controversial practice, most of the world has rejected public water fluoridation on scientific or ethical grounds.

Many cities across the United States continue to add artificial fluoridation chemicals to their water supply. The justification often given by proponents to city and state leaders is for a 25% reduction in cavities. What does 25% really mean? In fact this alleged and unproven “25%” is nothing more than a tiny reduction of less than one cavity per person that could be reduced over a lifetime. Maybe.

Really,” states Moms Against Fluoridation, “who in their right mind would risk the IQ and brain health of a child, the health of a thyroid or inflammation in the body for some alleged tiny reduction of less than one cavity per person over a lifetime?”

MAF continues, “Drinking this chemical every day does not build great teeth, and to say it does, and that we all must drink it, is patently false. This is fear-mongering of the worst kind, and babies and children are being harmed. Even teeth are being harmed as the film shows.”

Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, Senior Scientist for the Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis and one of the leading experts on fluoridation, was one of the 12 National Research Council (NRC) committee members who contributed to the 2006 NRC review of fluoride toxicity. In the film she is featured challenging the notion that the science has been settled and in Dr. Thiessen’s words, “That’s a cop-out.”

This film points out the rather stunning fact that adding an unlabeled “drug” to the water supply with no informed medical consent, no control over the daily dose or regard for personal health and medical conditions, goes against all principles of modern medicine.

Angela Hind, MD, also featured in the film, states, “We used to think that fluoride only affects the teeth, but now we know it has far-reaching effects on the body. And, if you take these negative health effects and combine that with the fact that we know fluoride acts topically, it really makes no sense to drink our cavity prevention.”

The body of evidence has reached a tipping point, begging us to question the status quo chant of “Trust us; it’s safe.” This short film asks the audience to consider the evidence. The potential health risks, including disruption of thyroid function, inflammation and harmful effects to the brain, are too great to go left unquestioned.

Drinking Fluoride: Is It Safe? exposes risks that many of us never imagined decades ago and proves the importance of informing ourselves just as we did with lead, arsenic and asbestos..

Watch the 5- minute video here:




Oct 20   Article headed Should dentists continue to use fluoride/’

The article in ’Multi briefs’ ‘the leading source for targeted, industry-specific news briefs.’ gave an inadequate and  somewhat confused summary of the case.

The news can be alarming. Fluoride causes cancer. Fluoride is a neurotoxin. Fluoride will reduce IQs in children. Fluoride kills!

Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral. It is in our soils, water, and food in various amounts, depending on where you live, but our bodies don’t need it to survive.

In the 1930s, dental research showed that children who lived in areas with high concentrations of naturally occurring fluoride in the water had less tooth decay. This research led to the addition of fluoride to the municipal water supply in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945. Other municipalities followed, and the Community Water Fluoridation program began.

Suddenly tooth decay went down. Tooth extraction declined. People were saving money and keeping their teeth. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in 1999 touted the fluoridation program as one of the top 10 greatest achievements in the 20th century.

Then, links to cancer and fluoride began to emerge, specifically to a rare type of cancer, osteosarcoma.

Scientists and health boards reviewed and researched this claim made in 1975 by Dr. John A. Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Dean Burk that the artificial fluoride added to drinking water increased the rate of cancer. While some tests showed a possible association, each subsequent review and research found errors in the original claim and no definite link could be made between the use of fluoride in the drinking water and cancer.

Other research followed:

In 1983, a review of the original source of allegations of fluoride causing cancer was published in of Bulletin of the World Health Organization (WHO). The review stated several flaws and concluded that the link was inconclusive.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), published a report, in 1987, finding that no evidence conclusively proved a link to fluoride and an increase in cancer.

In 1991, the U.S. Public Health Service issued a report stating after reviewing all studies done to date none, “demonstrates no credible association between water fluoridation and the risk of cancer.”

In 1993, The National Research Council (NRC) concluded: “the weight of the evidence from the epidemiological [population-based] studies completed to date does not support the hypothesis of an association between fluoride exposure and increased cancer risk in humans.” The council suggested more through research.

The National Health Service (NHS) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, in 2000, reviewed 26 studies on the link between cancer and fluoride. At the end of their review, the center also concluded, “Overall, no clear association between water fluoridation and incidence or mortality of bone cancers, thyroid cancer, or all cancers was found.”

The National Research Council, in 2006, issued an updated review to their past 1993 study and again found, “the evidence on the potential of fluoride to initiate or promote cancers, particularly of the bone, is tentative and mixed.”

In 2010, a report published by the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) “agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general. There is no evidence from animal studies to support the link, thus fluoride cannot be classified as carcinogenic.”

California’s Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC), in 2011, conducted its own review of past studies and stated, “fluoride and its salts has not been clearly shown to cause cancer.”

In 2015, the U.S. Public Health Service again released a report that stated, “This finding is consistent with systematic reviews and three recent ecological studies that found no association between incidence of this rare cancer and the fluoride content of community water.”

It is clear that the link between fluoride and cancer is inconclusive and more research needs to be invested in finding a definitive answer beholds other health risks. Last year, The Lancet, one of the oldest medical journals, published a report classifying fluoride as a neurotoxin.

It is known that fluoride is non-essential to our bodies. Fluoride is very good at preventing tooth decay and helping re-mineralize teeth that do have the early stages of decay,but it is easy to get too much from toothpaste and fluoride treatments. More than a pea-sized portion of toothpaste is too much, ingestion of which can lead to fluorosis and other possible health risks.

Fluorosis is a hypermineralization caused by ingesting excessive amounts of fluoride. In most cases, it is a cosmetic issue, leaving teeth stained or mottled. Mild cases, the teeth are striped or dotted with white, the next stage of higher doses leads to a brown staining of the teeth. If there is a high concentration of fluoride ingested, it can lead to skeletal fluorosis, which causes symptoms of joint stiffness to severe cases of structural bone issues.

Moreover, many dentists agree diet is essential to healthy teeth, and the act of brushing and flossing is the mechanism that removes plaque from teeth. Simple baking soda alkalizes and aids in removing bacteria and plaque from teeth.

Recent dental research has led to the discovery of other substances that may be safer than fluoride and still harden tooth enamel and defend against decay. Current research is testing theobromine and its ability to prevent tooth decay.

Finally, in many other countries where fluoride is not used, data does not show an increase in cavities or dental decay.

This raises the question: With so much speculation in fluoride hazards and the difficulty in controlling the amount of fluoride each person ingests, combined with the research on promising new substances that help, why isn’t the dental industry investing more in finding a safer alternative?



Fluoride: Poison on Tap By Dr. Mercola

Story at-a-glance –

  • Since 1945, it has been widely accepted in the U.S. that fluoride is “safe and effective” to prevent tooth decay, but many health experts and scientists disagree
  • Rates of dental fluorosis among children and adolescents has spiked in recent years and, if fluoridated water is used, formula-fed infants are at particular risk for fluorosis even before their teeth are fully formed
  • The Fluoride Action Network has brought a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seeking to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride to American water supplies

Today, 74 percent of Americans on community water systems receive fluoridated water.1 Since 1945, it has been widely accepted in the U.S. that fluoride is “safe and effective” to prevent tooth decay. But is it really?

The 2015 documentary, “Fluoride: Poison on Tap,” seeks to expose what may be one of the longest-running and most successful deceptions known to mankind — adding industrial waste, in the form of fluoride, to public drinking water. You may be shocked at the lengths to which corporations, industry and government have gone to make this industrial waste product appear beneficial to your health.

Fluoride = Health: How Did We Get Here?

You may be surprised to know the first American commercial use of fluoride, in the form of sodium fluoride, was to kill insects, lice, mice and other vermin. It was quite effective. In the 1930s, aluminum industry giant Alcoa was the largest producer of fluoride, releasing vapors into the atmosphere that crippled or killed farm animals and scorched crops and other vegetation. In those early years, many lawsuits were brought against Alcoa to recover damages from lost animals and crops.

Growing concerns about the seemingly negative effects of fluoride gas on human beings motivated the company to devise a means of recycling this potent industrial byproduct. The brainchild of water fluoridation was Gerald Cox, a researcher with the Mellon Institute in Pittsburgh. He received a request to look at fluoride’s effects on teeth from Alcoa lab director Francis Frary, who was concerned about mounting lawsuits related to the fluoride pollution his plant produced.

Another motivation was the reality that disposing of fluoride waste from its aluminum plants was becoming increasingly costly for Alcoa. Previously, the Mellon Institute had been the leading defender of the asbestos industry, producing research showing asbestos was harmless and worker health problems were purportedly due to other causes. Using “science” as a smokescreen, the Mellon Institute was able to save the asbestos industry from financial catastrophe.

As a result of their success in using science to prop up the asbestos industry at that time, it makes sense Alcoa chose Cox and the Mellon Institute to craft a story around the perceived health benefits of fluoride. To ensure their success, Alcoa executives realized public opinion about fluoride had to be carefully and continuously manipulated.

In a bold move, they hired public relations pioneer Edward Bernays, who later became known as the “father of spin,” to head the U.S. water fluoridation campaign. Using psychological principles targeted at what he called, the “mass mind,” Bernays was quite successful in attracting public support for the widespread consumer use of fluoride.2

The Beginning of Water Fluoridation

By the 1950s and ’60s, when the practice of releasing fluoride vapors into the air was reined in due to the introduction of air pollution technology, fluoride had already been added to U.S. drinking water. In January 1945, the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first of thousands of U.S. municipalities to proudly add fluoride to its community water source, under the guise of preventing tooth decay.

As technology has advanced, fluoride acid, also known as hydrofluorosilicic acid, is now caught in wet scrubbers, which curtails air emissions. As such, companies like Cargill, Mosaic and Pencco are able to barrel up and sell fluoride to cities across the U.S. which, in turn, add this unrefined hazardous material to their community water supplies.3 You may be shocked to learn that the fluoride added to your water is not pharmaceutical grade.

Indeed, most of the fluoride added to municipal drinking water is simply an unrefined, highly toxic, industrial waste product. Some of the contaminants that accompany the fluoride added to your drinking water likely include aluminum, arsenic, lead and radionucleotide, among others. As noted in the film, water fluoridation was invented as a profitable recycling venue for toxic waste. Instead of having to pay for proper disposal, this industrial waste is sold for profit, and “disposed of” by being dispersed into drinking water.

Fluoride May Be in More Than Just Your Drinking Water

Should you be fortunate to live far from industrial plants where fluoride is handled and lucky enough to reside in a community where fluoride has not been added to your water, you may still get dosed with fluoride. How? Because it’s in beverages and processed foods such as cereal, beer, juice and soda. In fact, anything manufactured with fluoridated water will add to your body’s fluoride toxicity burden.

According to the late Jeff Green, former national director of Citizens for Safe Drinking Water, fluoride can also be found in selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) medications, such as the antidepressant Prozac. Additionally, it appeared in the banned diet drug Fen-Phen. Rohypnol, the so-called date-rape drug, also contains fluoride.

Green noted the teenagers responsible for the shootings at Columbine High School, in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999 were using SSRI drugs at the time, which he suspects may have impacted their mood and behavior. If you live in the U.S., nearly 95 percent of all toothpaste sold in this country also contains fluoride. Increasingly, dentists are adding fluoride to their cement and filling materials, and fluoride-containing varnishes are often added to children’s teeth.

Common Misconceptions About Water Fluoridation

It’s a common misconception that fluoride is added to drinking water worldwide. Nothing could be further from the truth. Says Paul Connett, Ph.D., retired chemistry professor and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN):4

“Water fluoridation is a peculiarly American phenomenon. It started at a time when asbestos lined our pipes, lead was added to gasoline, PCBs filled our transformers, and DDT was deemed so ‘safe and effective’ that officials felt no qualms spraying kids in school classrooms and seated at picnic tables. One by one all of those chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.”

As stated by Connett, the U.S. is one of just eight countries worldwide in which more than half of its population is exposed to fluoride through their drinking water. The other seven countries that fluoridate drinking water are Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Singapore and New Zealand.

Water fluoridation has actually been banned in most European countries, including Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, just to name a few. According to biological dentist Dr. James Rota, these countries, as well as China and Japan, have concluded the practice of adding fluoride to drinking water is “ineffective, toxic and should not be used.” FAN underscores the limited scope and value of adding fluoride to drinking water, noting:5

  • Nearly 378 million people, representing just 5 percent of the world’s population, drink artificially fluoridated water
  • More people drink fluoridated water in the U.S. than in the rest of the world combined
  • Western nations that fluoridate their water have rates of tooth decay similar to those that do not add fluoride to their water6

The Effects of Fluoride on Your Body

Given that fluoride is handled as a hazardous material and labeled accordingly, the lack of transparency about its health effects is a true public health travesty.   According to Rota, several of the scientifically proven health effects of fluoride are already known. He asserts fluoride has been shown to:

  • Accelerate the aging process
  • Cause genetic damage
  • Contribute to arthritis and joint pain
  • Increase the incidence of cancer and tumor growth
  • Interrupt DNA repair

With respect to fluoride’s presumed link to arthritis and joint pain, Connett stated:

“The first sign fluoride has poisoned your bones is that you have pain in your joints, stiffness in your joints and pain in your bones … And the doctor will simply tell you that you have joint pain … We have millions of people in the U.S. and in other fluoridated countries who have joint pain — 1 in 3 adults on average. But nobody’s ever conclusively looked to see if these arthritis cases have particularly been caused by or exacerbated by fluoride. They just don’t want to look.”

The spike in the number of cases of hypothyroidism in the U.S. has also been loosely linked to fluoride. FAN noted that studies investigating fluoride’s impact on thyroid hormone levels support the belief that fluoride has an “antithyroid” effect under certain circumstances.7

Particularly in instances where your iodine levels are low, fluoride will likely have a greater negative impact on your thyroid. About the probable link between fluoride and hypothyroidism, Dr. Spyros Mezitis, endocrinologist at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said:

“Clinicians … should emphasize to patients this association and should test patients for underactive thyroid. Patients should probably be advised to drink less fluoridated water and consume less fluoridated products, including toothpaste. … [S]tudies have also shown that iodine deficiency, that may be caused by extra ingestion of fluoride, is related to hypothyroidism.” 

Fluorosis: Are Your Children Affected?

Research8 presented at the 2017 National Oral Health Conference highlighted the reality that increasingly more young people between the ages of 6 and 19 suffer from dental fluorosis. Data from 2011 to 2012 indicate that 57 percent of youth are affected by fluorosis, while according to recorded data, just 37 percent were impacted from 1999 to 2004.

Fluorosis results when tooth enamel becomes progressively weakened and discolored. It is often characterized by white spots and yellow or brown discoloration. About fluorosis, FAN states:9

“Fluorosis is a defect of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride intake during the first eight years of life. Although fluorosis can be cosmetically treated, the damage to the enamel is permanent. Common causes of fluorosis include: fluoridated drinking water (particularly during infancy), ingestion of fluoride toothpaste, use of fluoride tablets and consumption of processed foods made with fluoridated water.”

Often, dentists and public health officials brush off fluorosis as a purely aesthetic issue, one they believe is a worthy trade-off for the supposed benefits of fluoride. In reality, fluorosis is an outward sign that fluoride is damaging not only your teeth, but also most certainly, to some degree, the rest of your body.

Caution: Fluoride Is Extremely Harmful for Infants

Fluorosis is also a huge concern for infants because it is a condition that can progress well before your baby’s teeth are visible. Instances of children developing fluorosis due to the consumption of fluoridated “nursery water” are well documented. Breast-feeding is the ideal choice for your baby for many reasons, one of which is that it contains very little, if any, fluoride.

This is by design because infants are extremely vulnerable to neurotoxins. If, however, breast-feeding is not an option for you, and you must use formula, be sure to prepare it using non-fluoridated water. In the book, “The Case Against Fluoride,” Connett explains:

“In the view of many critics of fluoridation … it is reckless to expose infants to levels of fluoride in orders of magnitude higher than that found in breast milk. In the U.S., infants who are fed formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water receive the highest levels of fluoride (per kilogram bodyweight) in the human population.

Specifically, infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated water at the current level of 1 part-per-million fluoride will receive a dose up to 250 times more than the breastfed infant.”

The Bottom Line About Fluoride in Your Drinking Water

In their closing remarks, some of the experts featured in the documentary did not mince words about their dislike and distrust of fluoridated water. As noted by Connett:

“Once you put a medicine in the drinking water, you can’t control the dose because you can’t control how much water people drink. You can’t control who gets it because it goes to everybody. If you ask your pharmacist if there’s any drug in his store that is safe enough to give to everyone — young people, old people, sick people, well people — at any dose, he’d laugh at you.”

Said Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., a pharmacologist and toxicologist: “There is absolutely no drug on the market that is given as ‘one dose fits all.'” In his earlier writings, Connett shared five reasons he believes fluoridation of community water systems is unethical:10

  1. It violates your right to informed consent to medication
  2. The municipality cannot control the dose of fluoride you personally receive
  3. The municipality cannot track the effects of fluoride on you individually
  4. It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects than others; you may suffer while others may benefit from its addition to the water supply
  5. It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation

It’s Easy to Safeguard Your Oral Health Without Fluoride

When it comes to good oral hygiene and preventing cavities, drinking fluoridated water and brushing your teeth with toxic toothpaste, which contains fluoride, is definitely not the answer. Your toothbrush and natural fluoride-free toothpaste are important, but don’t be misled by thinking they’re the only options for dental health.

Many natural substances, such as the foods you eat, also have the power to drastically improve not only the health of your teeth and gums, but the rest of your body too. The key to maintaining or improving your oral health hinges on the attention you give to your diet and proper dental care. Areas you may want to consider include:

Eating raw, organic foods
Avoiding sugary foods and processed foods, many of which contain fluoride
Brushing and flossing your teeth daily, ideally twice a day
Rinsing your mouth after meals and, at night, with a solution of baking soda and water to alkalize the pH in your mouth
Oil pulling with coconut oil, which reduces bacterial growth in your mouth, strengthens your teeth, reduces inflammation in your gums and naturally whitens your teeth
Receiving regular dental checkups, ideally from a mercury-free, biological dentist

Landmark Lawsuit Against EPA Seeks to End Fluoridation in US

FAN, along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups, has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This landmark lawsuit is something many of us have anticipated for decades! It comes in response to the EPA’s denial of a petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that seeks a ban on water fluoridation.

In November 2016, a coalition including FAN, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Food & Water Watch, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and the Organic Consumers Association, among others, petitioned the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to American drinking water under the provisions of TCSA.

The petition, which included more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human and animal health, was denied in February 2017. At that time, Michael Connett, an attorney with FAN and author of the petition, issued the following statement:

“Unfortunately, the EPA’s decision to deny our petition demonstrates that the Agency is not yet prepared to let go of the outdated assumptions it has long held about fluoride … We believe that an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk.”

Because the TSCA statute provides an opportunity for citizens to challenge an EPA denial in federal court, FAN is now suing the agency as a means of obtaining an independent legal review of the evidence. Stay tuned for further developments!  For now, you can help the coalition continue its momentum by supporting the efforts of FAN, and by joining or initiating a local campaign to end water fluoridation.

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:



Global Sodium Fluorosilicate Industry Trends and Forecast Analysis till 2021

A reminder that fluoride is big business, starts with a chilling summary of the ‘uses’ of fluorosilicate

Oct 5

Sodium fluorosilicate is granular based powder form which is white in color. It works as an agent of fluoridation in coatings for porcelain and for clean drinking water. Sodium fluorosilicate is also used for the effective treatment for lice, insecticide and rodenticide. According to the new research report titled, “Global Sodium Fluorosilicate Industry 2017, Trends and Forecast,” that has been added in the repository of Market Research Hub, sodium fluorosilicate is used as additives in few countries for ore refining, water fluoridation, raw material for opal glass and for the production of some other fluoride chemicals such as cryolite, sodium fluoride, aluminum fluoride and magnesium silicofluoride.



‘ Just thought you’d like to know…

Oct 21Letter from Potsdam dentists ended:…The American Dental Association created a wonderful video explaining the benefits of fluoridated community water, and we urge everyone to watch it.The video can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK4Fb1CGEKE.