June 2018

Updated: Click here for updated and extended version from July 9th;



Click on this picture above for a 20 minute extract  of the latest UKFFFA meeting ion Bedford, organised by local campaigner Cynthia Bagchi. Leading the talk is Paul Connett who introduced , amongst other topics, his meeting with Childsmile in Scotland. Their success has underlined the avoidance of Scotland of any fluoridation programme, but their promotion  of fluoride varnish.



Darlington From Northern Echo

Darlington Comments and latest news

Compare the latest Echo item with the May version


BATTLE lines have been drawn over the possible introduction of fluoride to the public water supply, with campaigners claiming to do so would violate human rights and “poison” residents.

As Darlington Borough Council’s children and young people’s scrutiny committee voted to recommend the authority launches a technical appraisal to consider a water fluoridation scheme either in Darlington or across the Tees Valley, members were told scientists remained divided on its safety.

Joy Warren, of the UK Freedom from Fluoride Alliance, called on the council to pause its exploration of water fluoridation to thoroughly examine the evidence. She said there were more than 50 reports worldwide showing unborn children’s intelligence was reduced by the presence of fluoride in the womb.

Darlington resident Alan Hall added fluoride’s toxicity rating was between lead and arsenic and therefore was a “poison”.

He said: “Mass medication is a violation of human rights. Why fluoridate an entire population compulsorily when it is possible to reduce dental decay by properly targeted interventions, which work at the individual level, as indeed obesity programmes work?”

The committee was also shown photographs of children with dental fluorosis, and told fluoride did wider damage to the body.

Members said they had seen widespread dental decay in the town and some type of action was needed.

David Lands, a Public Health England consultant, said water containing fluoride had been drunk for 173 years in Hartlepool and for almost 50 years in other parts of the North-East and fluorosis had not been raised as an issue by medics.

He said: “There is very clear evidence of fluoride reducing dental disease and if look at the latest statistics the lowest levels of dental disease in the North-East are in fluoridated areas. Middlesbrough has almost twice the level of dental disease than Hartlepool.”

He added the lowest levels of children with a learning disability or autism spectrum disorder in the North-East were in those districts with fluoride in the water.

The committee’s chairman, Councillor Chris Taylor said from the evidence presented it was clear fluoridation was worth exploring further.



INVESTIGATIVE work has been launched to consider whether fluoride should be added to the drinking water of a town with a high proportion of children with tooth decay.

Darlington’s director of public health Miriam Davidson said the town’s council was taking part with neighbouring authorities in a technical appraisal to look at the feasibility of introducing a community fluoridation scheme.

Among the issues being examined is whether water fluoridation can be introduced in one borough without having to introduce it in a neighbouring area.

Darlington Borough Council’s health and wellbeing board heard the authority was also gathering evidence from professionals about fluoridation.

The meeting was told while Hartlepool, which has natural fluoride in its water, had 15 per cent of five-year-olds with decayed, filled or missing teeth, the figure in Darlington was 35 per cent.

Members were told while Stockton’s figure was ten per cent below that of Darlington, part of Stockton is supplied with water by Hartlepool.

Ms Davidson said water fluoridation was both the most effective and cheapest intervention.

She added: “Water fluoridation can reduce the likelihood of experience of decay as a safe public health measure. It is suitable for consideration in localities where dental decay are a cause for concern. It is a valuable public health intervention.

“The inequality with poor oral health is stark. There are some parts of our community where oral health is much poorer.”

Ms Davidson said while some areas of the region had seen improvements in children’s oral health, there had been “no measurable improvement” in the prevalence of tooth decay experience in five-year-old children in Darlington over the past few years.

She said: “This council has not made a commitment to introducing a community water fluoridation scheme, but that responsibility since 2013 has accrued to the local authority.”





Here is the report from one week earlier , with very little opposition evident


June 28


CALLS to add fluoride to the drinking water supply in a town where more than a third of children starting primary school have several decayed teeth have moved a step forward.

Darlington Borough Council’s children and young people’s scrutiny committee is set to recommend a technical appraisal, partly funded by NHS England, is carried out.

The study will would examine if the existing water distribution network is capable of supporting a Darlington fluoridation scheme or one which covered areas of the Tees Valley not already supplied with fluoridated water.

It will also look at the potential impact on neighbouring areas.

At present, the only water fluoridation schemes in England north of Lincolnshire cover parts of north Durham, Newcastle, Northumberland and Cumbria.

The move follows a large-scale study published in the Journal of Dental Research earlier this month which found areas where more than 75 per cent of residents had water fluoridation saw a 30 per cent less decay in children’s first teeth, and 12 per cent less decay in children’s permanent teeth.

The council would fund any water fluoridation programme.





The Calgary position id frightening. How much money and time is being spent with and how many extravagant claims are encouraged? The percentage for fluoride renewal ended at 54%. This Is a current example

By June Dabbagh, Leagh Harfield, Wendy Street-Wadey and Juliet Guichon

As the school year draws to an end, it is time to consider how Calgary has been treating its children lately. In one respect, the answer is not well at all.

Calgary city council decided in 2011 to cease adjusting the fluoride levels in Calgary water. Three of us are dental specialists and can attest to the devastating consequences.

Consider, for example, Sammy’s case. On a Saturday, his mother called a dental office reporting that the eight-year-old boy was irritable, feverish and crying constantly. The mother wanted an appointment for Monday morning, but we opened the office to see him. He was not well. An infection in his tooth had crept upward to his eye, such that his lower eyelid was closing.

This is a medical emergency. Once in the eye, a dental infection can travel rapidly to the brain and, if untreated, cause death. One of us went with his mother to Rockyview Hospital. Sammy was immediately given intravenous antibiotics and admitted. The next day, he was transferred to the Children’s Hospital for continued care.

Such systemic infections caused by dental infections are not unusual these days. In fact, we have had to change how we practice dentistry. When we had fluoridation, we would watch a small soft spot or cavity; we would wait to see whether it grew before drilling and filling. Now, we must pounce on the problem because, in the six months until the next appointment, that small, soft spot will likely become a huge hole in the tooth.

Consider another scenario. We now routinely see children whose primary and permanent molars are already decayed and require fillings as soon as the teeth erupt through the gums. When the dental decay is too severe, the infected teeth must be extracted. In very young children, such work must often be done under general anaesthetic, which bears its own risks for kids and can be a horrible experience for the children and their parents.

Consequently, the child might need orthodontic care over a seven- to nine-year period to recreate a bite and to maximize the effectiveness of the remaining teeth. Prior to fluoridation cessation, we saw children in this state almost always from communities surrounding Calgary that did not have water fluoridation. Sadly, now Calgary children are losing teeth they will need throughout their adult lives.

Calgary children are not the only ones suffering. Adults need fluoridation too, especially seniors.

Fluoride is a mineral and occurs naturally in Calgary drinking water at 0.1 to 0.4 parts per million. It strengthens tooth structure, prevents decay and even reverses some decay. To be therapeutic, the fluoride level needs to be at 0.7 parts per million. At this level, fluoride remains safe and effective.

This fact is settled science, confirmed most recently in massive systematic reviews by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and the Irish Government Food Safety Authority. Indeed, 5,600 studies support adding fluoride to the 0.7 level.

Experts at the Public Health Agency of Canada, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization recommend fluoridation; so, do hundreds of leading global health and dental organizations, thereby attesting to its safety and efficacy.

Almost all U.S. cities fluoridate their water, as do major international cities. Incidentally, almost 90 per cent of NHL cities fluoridate their water.

It is time to recognize what we see every single day. Allowing the levels of fluoride in our drinking water to fall below 0.7 parts per million is a terrible mistake that hurts people: you, your children and your grandchildren, every day.

When children’s teeth are rotting, they can’t eat, sleep or develop normally. They have trouble concentrating in school and don’t want to play. Summer will not be much fun for kids with dental pain.

City councillors, please make reinstating water fluoridation a priority.

June Dabbagh and Wendy Street-Wadey are Calgary dentists. Leagh Harfield is a Calgary orthodontist. Juliet Guichon is a University of Calgary bioethicist.


This is the basis of my comment on June 27th. It appeared ahead of 23 others immediately. By the next day, it had disappeared but a selection  of comments were visible headed by a strting of ‘yes’ voters

Calgary Herald comment

It is amazing that so many readers are not giving their council support for clean, unadulterated water.

Instead of claiming the requirements of over 50% of voters, measure the amount of space taken by the pro-fluoride body, in your paper and using any other media.

Some of the claims reported from fluoride proponents are outrageous and are not backed by good statistical evidence

Ask readers or journalists to consult the huge US base fluoridealert, (created by FAN) or my UK-based safewatererinformation.org.

Give space to this: The 2017 study claiming Calgary cavities caused by lack of fluoride has been shown to be fraudulent. It used incorrect time periods and an unequal Calgary / Edmonton primary teeth sample. The study author was a proponent of fluoridation who featured in near identical articles in multiple Canadian newspapers the day it was published.

Also give space to any of the growing evidence of fluoride’s damage. A recent example is proof of the reduction in IQ in children linked to the fluoride consumed by their mothers. It is a study of large scale and with official US support.

I ask Calgary, as my father’s birth place that I would love to visit again, to keep to facts and reason and not to be bullied.


Now here is the ‘professional’ address to dentists

This is the sort of review we need to be able to detract fully, a seemingly reasoned case.

From Bicuspid

June 26, 2018 — Although the leading health and medical organizations such as the ADA, the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Pediatrics endorse community water fluoridation, critics continue to attack this public health practice. A few years ago, opponents were pleased when the U.S. government’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) proposed to conduct an animal study examining the effect of fluoride on learning and memory.

In fact, in a December 2015 release, the Fluoride Action Network predicted that NTP’s study “could end fluoridation.” So why have fluoride critics been conspicuously silent since the program released its study in the journal Neurotoxicity Research (February 5, 2018)?

The answer, in my opinion, is clear: The researchers’ findings contradict the critics’ assertions that fluoride negatively affects cognitive ability. The NTP study examined rats that consumed food and water with varying exposures of fluoride during their prenatal development through their adulthood. At these exposures, the researchers reported that they “observed no exposure-related differences in motor, sensory, or learning and memory performance” for any of the nine different tests they performed.

Yet here we are, four months after a major study was released, and critics are ignoring the NTP’s findings. This contrasts sharply with how the public health community has responded when studies have been published about fluoride. Regardless of what those studies have revealed, I have been willing to talk to news reporters and health officials, and so have many of my colleagues.

Both before and after results of a fluoride study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives (September 19, 2017), I spoke at length with a CNN staff writer on background about the study. I wanted her to understand the impressive research that has been conducted on fluoride’s effectiveness and safety. I joined others in pointing out that co-authors of the Mexican study were urging that their findings be interpreted with caution. But that didn’t stop opponents from spinning the study to fit their fear-based messages.

For the past 50 years, whenever concerns have been raised about fluoride’s safety — even ones that might seem to lack legitimacy — researchers in the public health community have responded appropriately. The NTP study is only one example.

“Any community that stops fluoridating its water is jeopardizing the health of its residents.”

Moreover, when opponents asked the Environmental Protection Agency to ban the most commonly used fluoride additive for water, the agency’s experts carefully reviewed their petition before rejecting this request. Time and time again, when the scientific analysis doesn’t fit their narrative, critics simply resume their “toxic” refrain.

Opponents will always say we haven’t conducted enough studies about fluoride and fluoridation. Never mind that nearly 57,000 studies about fluoride are cataloged in the National Library of Medicine’s database. In addition, more than 6,400 studies have been published on fluoridation specifically.

According to the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors, opponents fail about 80% of the time when they campaign to end a local water fluoridation policy. On the one hand, that’s a good percentage for those who care about healthy teeth. On the other hand, we shouldn’t accept or downplay our losses. Any community that stops fluoridating its water is jeopardizing the health of its residents. Let’s do more to get the word out, sharing the NTP findings and other compelling research showing that fluoride is a safe way to prevent tooth decay.

Johnny Johnson Jr., DMD, is the president of the American Fluoridation Society.

The comments and observations expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the opinions of DrBicuspid.com, nor should they be construed as an endorsement or admonishment of any particular idea, vendor, or organization.

And here is a genuine, factual press release.  If the creators of a piece such as this were allowed the same amount of exposure as the fanatic fluoride proponents, could there ever be a 55% vote in this way? And just how many times has the Mexican research proving fluoride’s neurotoxicity been published or supported?

New York NYSCOF Press release:

23rd May

NEW YORK, May 23, 2018 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — “[F]luoride exposures in early life could influence or originate the root-cause of certain diseases in later life,” write researchers in The Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry (5/2018), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

Nakamoto and Rawls, from the Health Sciences Centers of Louisiana State University and the University of Texas, respectively, write, “When fluoride was discovered to prevent dental caries, it was hailed as one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century. Since then, there have been numerous reports that fluoride may possibly be associated with health-related problems,” such as Autism, lowering IQ, bone diseases, thyroid, and sleep disorders, they explain.

“The greatest fluoride accumulation occurs in the hippocampus portion of the brain,” they write.

“For children and young adults, early-life exposure to fluoride could become the root of the development of neurodegenerative disease [e.g. autism] in later life,” they write.

Fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant linked to lower IQ, they explain.

Attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, “As a precaution, it’s important for pregnant women to be told they should limit their fluoride intake.”

Besides water fluoridation, fluoride is in a variety of foods and dental products, in varying and mostly unknown quantities, which has created a new problem – dental fluorosis – white-spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth afflicting 57% of 6-19-year-olds.

The researchers suggest children with fluorosis be checked for thyroid disorders.

They explain that excessive fluoride intake by the young could result in nutritional stresses during critical growth period. “Some of the body’s ‘memories’ of early fluoride exposure may become translated into pathology and thereby determine disease in later life,” they write.

They lament that it’s unfortunate fluorosis is treated as a cosmetic effect and that there isn’t more concern about the consequences of fluoride exposures to the children’s general health.

“If the root of adult disease is already seeded by the exposures of fluoride during this period, one can even argue that fetal, newborn and childhood nutritional environment is as important as adult dietary habit and lifestyle,” they write.

Beeber says, “Most fluoride research and promotion is based on dental effects. Governments must stop ignoring the science showing fluoride’s adverse health effects to other body systems and organs and stop fluoridation.”

Contact: Paul Beeber, JD, nyscof@aol.com 516-433-8882

SOURCE NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridaton

This Liverpool is NOT in the UK, but another typical Australian threat is apparent here.


June 15th

Liverpool Plains Shire Council (LPSC) will consider fluoridation of the local water supply.

Council has resolved to begin an investigation process, which will involve extensive community consultation.

It comes after NSW Health contacted the council urging it to consider fluoridation of the regional water supply and offering it’s supporting to do so, including the provision of design consultants for fluoride systems and a 100 per cent capital cost subsidy.

“The introduction of fluoridation systems can be a contentious issue within a community,” LPSC Director Engineering Services, Warren Faulkner, said.

“Accordingly, any consideration of the issue will naturally depend on, and be influenced by public consultation and feedback.

“To enable Council to make an informed decision on the possible health benefits and the feasibility of introducing fluoride, it is necessary to investigate preliminary studies on current town water drinking habits, community sentiment, and conceptual installations of fluoride systems,” he said.

In a presentation to Council, NSW Health said that in 2016-17, Quirindi residents visited Gunnedah and Tamworth public dental clinics for 144 dental examinations, receiving 291 tooth restorations and 242 extractions, while many more people would have had dental treatment from private practitioners based in Quirindi or other centres.




UPDATED-  4 June 2018

May 31

An example of taking an opportunity to use the new evidence to counter propaganda in the UK originating form the PHE is at Durham. See extract from communication just sent by Joy Warren under the UKFFFA and FAN banners.

To all members and advisors of Durham County Council’s Health and Well-Being Board

Your Board has decided to progress a Water Fluoridation proposal as an attempt to reduce dental decay amongst disadvantaged children.  A full engineered feasibility study was commissioned in December 2017 from Northumbrian Water as a precursor to going out to Public Consultation in late 2018/early 2019.  It is believed that the feasibility study will focus on the entire area of County Durham (as well as parts of Sunderland City, South Tyneside and Darlington) instead of focusing on the original proposal to explore fluoridation in isolated communities where children experience higher levels of dental decay.

Water Fluoridation is being pursued solely for the sake of attempting to reduce dental decay.  No cognizance has been taken of the various arguments against the practice due to fluoride’s well-known effects of our health.  These effects are denied by Public Health England (PHE) BUT only a few illnesses, some of which are not necessarily caused by fluoride, were the subject of their two health monitoring reports.  There are many other illnesses which are caused by systemic fluoride which were not considered by PHE.

This short paper (attached) which has been authored by Dr Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network with additions by Joy Warren of the UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance, deals with the most disturbing negative health effect caused by fluoride– a reduction in human intelligence.  We’re also sending copies of a recent book by John D MacArthur which extensively references other physical damage caused to the unborn child by maternal fluoride.

We cannot emphasise too strongly that the evidence is now so compelling that it would be completely counter-intuitive for Durham County’s H&WBB to continue to pursue Water Fluoridation.

Yours sincerely

Joy Warren, BSc. (Hons). Environmental Science; Certificate in Health and Nutrition

Joint Coordinator, UK Freedom From Fluoride Alliance

30th May 2018



  1. Bashash et al 2017

The November 2017 Safe Water News and website pages summarised the evidence produced by this U.S. government sponsored, highly authoritatively produced and controlled, study.


2, Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix

Book written by John D Mac Arthur has been obtained and an original quantity already distributed, by Joy Warren of UKFFFA. Ask for a quote for a quantity for your own use. Topics dealt with in detail show the evidence concerned with premature birth and impaired development; fluoride and preeclampsia; prenatal fluoride and autism.




From FAN

may 9,

Dear Ivor:  

Today, the Fluoride Action Network launched its Moms2B Avoid Fluoride campaign to alert pregnant women that consuming fluoride, especially from fluoridated water, can potentially harm the developing brain of their unborn child.

In a rational world it should not have been necessary for FAN to launch this campaign.

This warning should have been issued by U.S. governmental health agencies at the federal, state and local levels, since it was their own agencies that funded these important ground-breaking mother-offspring IQ studies. However, they appear to be hamstrung by their long endorsement and belief in the “safety and efficacy” of the water fluoridation program, which the vast majority of other countries have rejected. However, the matter is so urgent in our view, if they won’t do it, FAN will.

In 2017 and 2018, two “mother-offspring” studies on the cognitive effect of fluoride on the human fetus were released. Exposure was determined by measuring fluoride in the urine of the pregnant women because it’s a good measure of total fluoride exposure. Both studies reported a significant decrease in the IQs of children. The studies, by a team of respected researchers, found an IQ loss between 5 and 6 points at 4 years of age and between 6 to 12 years of age (Bashash et al. 2017) and at 1 to 3 years of age (Thomas et al. 2018).

The singular importance of these two studies is that the fluoride levels in the urine of the pregnant women are similar to what is found in adults living in fluoridated communities in the U.S.

The studies were funded by three U.S. government agencies: National Institutes of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Science.

The fetus now ranks as the most vulnerable of our species to fluoride’s toxicity.

While there are another 50 published studies reporting an association of fluoride exposure with a lowering of IQ in children, and over 200 animal-fluoride studies reporting damage to the brain and reduced learning and memory ability, the surprise came with the release of these mother-offspring fluoride studies.


May 27

…The Fluoride Action Network’s volunteer Senior Science Writer, Jack Crowther, successfully had an excellent OpEd published in the Rutland Herald this week, one of Vermont’s largest newspapers.  Please click on the link below to read and share this powerful piece:

Read & Share: “Fluoridation on Trial: Coverage Lacking”

Jack has also had two other great opinion pieces on fluoridation published in the Rutland Herald, including last October’s Study Deals Blow to Fluoridation, and last month’s The Myth of Fluoridation.
Fluoride Awareness Week

The Fluoride Action Network has teamed up with Dr. Joseph Mercola and Mercola.com to bring you our 8th Annual Fluoride Awareness Week (May 20 -27).  Dr. Mercola has been featuring articles on his website and social media sites discussing the risks associated with fluoride and the need for ending artificial water fluoridation worldwide, and will continue to do so through Sunday.

Mercola kicked off Awareness week with an article Update on the Movement Against Water Fluoridation, featuring an interview with FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD.

Early this morning, Mercola published the second feature article, Two Major Legal Victories in Federal Court Case to End Water Fluoridation

 April 30

* The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.


The Fluoride Action Network together with Food & Water Watch, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and others petitioned EPA to exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies. We made this request on the grounds that a large body of animal, cellular, and human research shows that fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities.

We have won the first two rounds in Federal Court. The first was the Dec 21, 2017, ruling to allow the case to go forward, thus ending EPA’s effort to dismiss the case. The second ruling on Feb 7, 2018, allows us to enter new studies into consideration, something that EPA argued against


May 31

Message from: Geoff.Pain

CEO sacked.

You will remember that the previous CEO of Australia’s NHMRC left under a cloud facilitated by FAN using a robot to send protests from signatories to The Prime Minister.

I do hope you will consider the latest outrageous LIE from the new CEO warrants huge and concerted action.

The most offensive quote:

“Some people ask if there is a cumulative effect of consuming fluoride over a lifetime. The toxicologists on our expert committee advised that fluoride is excreted regularly by the kidneys to achieve a ‘steady state’ that is safe for humans. This is different to lead which accumulates in the body.”

Full “Open letter” here:


New Zealand

FFNZ group

May 22

NZ Fertiliser Company Faces Big Fine for Toxic Fluoride Gas Cloud
Last week (15/5/18) CEO of Ballance Fertiliser pleaded guilty to allowing toxic fluoride to be emitted into the air.

According to this Herald article:

Ballance Agri-Nutrients is facing a large fine after a toxic gas cloud from its fertiliser manufacturing plant wafted over a group of workers and two truck drivers. Workers at the Ballance site described seeing a “huge gas cloud” , 20 to 30m wide, heading towards Mauao. Others described it as “a plume of black smoke coming towards us”.

The gas cloud drifted from the roof of the manufacturing plant and across the Hewletts Rd site towards Totara St about 7.35am on May 22 last year.

Several people at the site and working nearby were exposed to the gas cloud. They experienced coughing, a “funny taste” in their mouths, irritation of the eyes and respiratory system, but their symptoms were relatively short-lived.

It is illegal for industry to allow the fluoride released during manufacturing to be released into the air. In NZ this is mostly a result of phosphate fertiliser manufacturing. These industries normally have a cap on the chimneys and use a water spray to collect the fluoride. The fluoride gas is then turned into an acid which is sold to our councils to put in our drinking water because some people believe it is good for teeth. If they didn’t sell it to council they would have to dispose of it through a hazardous waste site.

See our TV ad that aired on TV3 in 2016 and 2017 which explains it. Members of the public complained to the Advertising Standards Authority presumably because it seemed so incredible that councils and the Government would allow a hazardous waste from industry to be added to our drinking water. However, we were able to prove that this is the case and the complaints were not upheld.