Indian Children Blinded, Crippled By Fluoride In Water

Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Indian Children Blinded, Crippled By Fluoride In Water 230610top

The controversy over adding sodium fluoride to water supplies in both the U.S. and the UK is intensifying as two separate stories out of India reveal that children are being blinded and crippled partly as a result of the neurotoxin being artificially added to drinking water.

In the Indian village of Gaudiyan, well over half of the population have bone deformities, making them physically handicapped. Children are born normally but after they start drinking the fluoridated water, they begin to develop crippling defects in their hands and feet.

“Due to the excess fluoride content in drinking water, the calcium intake is not absorbed in the body, causing disabilities and deformities,” said Dr Amit Shukla, a neurophysician.

“Sijara, a 35-year-old woman who is also afflicted, said the problem started around 30 years ago and gradually gripped the entire village,” reports Express India. “Now, you hardly find a person without the deformities. People in the village die at a relatively young age,” added Sijara whose three sons also have physical deformities.”

Government doctors have denied that fluoridation of drinking water is to blame, but have refused to test the water, insisting such tests are “not necessary”.

Meanwhile, in the village of Pavagada, 180 km from Bangalore, children are going blind after being diagnosed with Lamellar Congenital cataract — a condition wherein the eye lens are damaged.

“Alarmed by the pattern in eye diseases among children in Pavagada taluk and the increasing cases of blindness, Narayana Netralaya, in collaboration with Narayana Hrudalaya and Shree Sharada Devi Eye hospital and Research Centre in Pavagada, has begun one of the largest studies on eye disorders involving 29,800 children,” reports the Times of India in a piece entitled, Blinded by tradition and fluoride in water.

The doctors attribute the child blindness to two factors – consanguineous marriages and the “fluoride content” of the drinking water.

Christopher Bryson’s widely acclaimed book The Fluoride Deception includes dozens of peer-reviewed studies showing that sodium fluoride is a deadly neurotoxin that attacks the central nervous system and leads to a multitude of serious health problems. This fact has been covered up by a collusion of government and industry who have reaped financial windfalls while illegally mass medicating the public against their will.

Perhaps the most notable study was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D., a highly respected pharmacologist and toxicologist, who in a 1995 Forsyth Research Institute study found that rats who had fluoride added to their diet exhibited abnormal behavioral traits.

A 2008 Scientific American reportconcluded that “Scientific attitudes toward fluoridation may be starting to shift” as new evidence emerged of the poison’s link to disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland, as well as lowering IQ.

“Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities,” reported Scientific American’s Dan Fagin, an award-wining environmental reporter and Director of New York University’s Science, Health and Environmental Reporting Program.

The Scientific American study “Concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid — the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism.”

The report also notes that “a series of epidemiological studies in China have associated high fluoride exposures with lower IQ.”

“Epidemiological studies and tests on lab animals suggest that high fluoride exposure increases the risk of bone fracture, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly and diabetics,” writes Fagin.

Fagin interviewed Steven Levy, director of the Iowa Fluoride Study which tracked about 700 Iowa children for sixteen years. Nine-year-old “Iowa children who lived in communities where the water was fluoridated were 50 percent more likely to have mild fluorosis… than [nine-year-old] children living in nonfluoridated areas of the state,” writes Fagin.

The study adds to a growing literature of shocking scientific studies proving fluoride’s link with all manner of health defects, even as governments in the west, including the UK, make plans to mass medicate the population against their will with this deadly toxin. Most Americans already drink artificially fluoridated water.

In 2005, a study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health found that fluoride in tap water directly contributes to causing bone cancer in young boys.

“New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – between the ages of 10 and 19,” according to a London Observer article about the study.

Based on the findings of the study, the respected Environmental Working Group lobbied to have fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

Cancer rates in the U.S. have skyrocketed with one in three people now contracting the disease at some stage in their life.

The link to bone cancer has also been discovered by other scientists, but a controversy ensued after it emerged that Harvard Professor Chester Douglass, who downplayed the connection in his final report, was in fact editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

An August 2006 Chinese study found that fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions.

Growing opposition to fluoridation of water supplies in light of this evidence is contributing to a scaling back of water fluoridation programs, with voters in places like Mount Pleasant calling for the amount added to be reduced.

With awareness about sodium fluoride on the increase, the establishment is now moving to demonize anyone who raises the issue as a dangerous lunatic. In an official press release today,the Fluoride Action Network slams “recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.”

As we wrote earlier this month, Keith Olbermann sardonically attacked Nevada primary winner Sharron Angle for speaking out against water fluoridation, “because she thinks the fluoride might be poison.”

Amidst his sophomoric jibes, Olbermann failed to explain why, if fluoride isn’t a poison as he claims, the word “toxic” is written on the packaging of bags of sodium fluoride that are dumped into the water supply of many Americans.

Sodium fluoride is a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972. In addition, toothpaste manufacturers are required by law to include the following text on their products, “If you accidentally swallow more than used for brushing, seek professional help or contact a poison control center immediately.”

“FAN’s website has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective,” states the press release. “In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children.” On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.”

Watch a lecture on sodium fluoride presented by Dr. Phyllis Mullenix Ph.D below.


– Fluoride is a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry and it’s also a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972.

– Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUoride).

– USAF Major George R. Jordan testified before Un-American Activity committees of Congress in the 1950’s that in his post as U.S.-Soviet liaison officer, the Soviets openly admitted to “Using the fluoride in the water supplies in their concentration camps, to make the prisoners stupid, docile, and subservient.”

– The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany’s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride’s supposed effect on children’s teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: “The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben” by Joseph Borkin.)

– 97% of western Europe has rejected fluoridated water due to the known health risks, however 10% of Britons drink it and the UK government is trying to fast track the fluoridation of the entire country’s water supply.

– In Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg fluoridation of water was rejected because it was classified as compulsive medication against the subject’s will and therefore violated fundamental human rights.

– In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water.

– Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluoridated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

Click here to find out if your water supply is poisoned with deadly fluoride.


One crippled village, two theories

Bahariya (Allahabad) Just 30 kms from Allahabad, in the village of Gaudiyan, residents are facing a very piquant problem. Of the 200-odd villagers, around 135 have bone deformities, making them physically handicap.

A majority of residents belongs to Fakir community who don’t own agriculture land and earn their livelihood by playing bands during wedding ceremonies. They belong to BPL category and only a handful of the 30-odd families have been issued NREGS job card and health cards.

“At the time of birth, the children are normal but after some years they develop bone defects, particularly in hands and legs,” said 35-year-old Mohd Nazim, who is also suffering from such deformities.

The reason behind this unique phenomenon, however, is debatable.

A private doctor, who also conducts social work in the area, termed it as a case of skeletal fluorosis. “Due to the excess fluoride content in drinking water, the calcium intake is not absorbed in the body, causing disabilities and deformities,” said Dr Amit Shukla, a neurophysician.

A team of government doctors, who visited the village on Tuesday, gave an altogether a different reason.

According to the medical team, the physical deformities have been caused by “acute malnutrition, poverty and absence of basic amenities like proper drinking water, medical facility and sanitation.”

“These do not appear to be caused by excess of fluoride in water,” said Dr Rajendra Kumar, Epidemic Control Officer (Allahabad district) who headed the four-member team of the doctors that visited the village.

On asked whether the team had conducted any test of the water of the village, Kuvmar said it was “not necessary”. “The problem is deficiency of vitamin D, calcium, iron and hyperthyroidsim, caused by acute malnutrition,” he added.

The only source of water in the village is a handpump, which too has been out of order for the last two months. The residents of the village, now, go to a nearby village to collect water.

“Out of the 30 families, only five have BPL cards and health cards. We don’t have lands to till. We don’t have job cards to get work under NREGA. In any case, most can’t work because of the physical disability,” said Mohd Jameel.

Sijara, a 35-year-old woman who is also afflicted, said the problem started around 30 years ago and gradually gripped the entire village. “Now, you hardly find a person without the deformities. People in the village die at a relatively young age,” added Sijara whose three sons also have physical deformities.



Blinded by tradition and fluoride in water

SEETHALAKSHMI S, TNN, Jun 20, 2010, 04.06am IST

PAVAGADA (TUMKUR DISTRICT): Ramya was a bubbly child and attended school till she was four. That was two years ago, when her vision began to deteriorate until she completely lost sight in both eyes.
The little girl began to withdraw and sit quietly the whole day in her home in Pavagada, 180 km from Bangalore. Playing, meeting friends — everything came to a standstill. She was diagnosed with Lamellar Congenital cataract — a condition wherein the eye lens are damaged.
Ditto with 13-year-old Syed Wasim who can only hear what the teacher says in the classroom. Retina degeneration set in and the boy lost his vision completely. There are children in this taluk with the same disorder, like Lakshmi who is active till 6pm. After that, she confines herself to her room and cuts herself from the world, doesn’t speak to anyone because she cannot see anything after dusk. The practice of marrying close relatives (consanguineous marriage) coupled with high fluoride content in water and Vitamin A deficiencies is ruining the lives of children of this taluk.
Worse, parents wait till the child is nine years old to get her examined by a doctor. “By then it is too late and the damage is done. It is crucial to treat any eye disorder early and during the first few years of life. If left untreated, it cannot be set right at a later stage,’’ says Dr K Vasudha, head, paediatric opthalmology, Narayana Netralaya, Bangalore.
Alarmed by the pattern in eye diseases among children in Pavagada taluk and the increasing cases of blindness, Narayana Netralaya, in collaboration with Narayana Hrudalaya and Shree Sharada Devi Eye hospital and Research Centre in Pavagada, has begun one of the largest studies on eye disorders involving 29,800 children. “When we noticed an unusual trend in the disorders, we realized it must be a local problem. We’re studying the root cause of the high incidence of child blindness. It could be multiple factors — fluoride content, consanguineous marriages, etc.’’ medical director of Narayana Netralaya Dr K Bhujang Shetty told STOI.


The Fluoride Deception [Hardcover]

The Fluoride Deception


Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats.

Mullenix PJ, Denbesten PK, Schunior A, Kernan WJ.

Toxicology Department, Forsyth Research Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA.


Fluoride (F) is known to affect mineralizing tissues, but effects upon the developing brain have not been previously considered. This study in Sprague-Dawley rats compares behavior, body weight, plasma and brain F levels after sodium fluoride (NaF) exposures during late gestation, at weaning or in adults. For prenatal exposures, dams received injections (SC) of 0.13 mg/kg NaF or saline on gestational days 14-18 or 17-19. Weanlings received drinking water containing 0, 75, 100, or 125 ppm F for 6 or 20 weeks, and 3 month-old adults received water containing 100 ppm F for 6 weeks. Behavior was tested in a computer pattern recognition system that classified acts in a novel environment and quantified act initiations, total times and time structures. Fluoride exposures caused sex- and dose-specific behavioral deficits with a common pattern. Males were most sensitive to prenatal day 17-19 exposure, whereas females were more sensitive to weanling and adult exposures. After fluoride ingestion, the severity of the effect on behavior increased directly with plasma F levels and F concentrations in specific brain regions. Such association is important considering that plasma levels in this rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm F) are similar to those reported in humans exposed to high levels of fluoride.



Second Thoughts on Fluoride ( Preview )

New research indicates that a cavity-fighting treatment could be risky if overused

By Dan Fagin

  • Researchers are intensifying their scrutiny of fluoride, which is added to most public water systems in the U.S. Some recent studies suggest that overconsumption of fluoride can raise the risks of disorders affecting teeth, bones, the brain and the thyroid gland.
  • A 2006 report by a committee of the National Research Council recommended that the federal government lower its current limit for fluoride in drinking water because of health risks to both children and adults.

Long before the passionate debates over cigarettes, DDT, asbestos or the ozone hole, most Americans had heard of only one environmental health controversy: fluoridation. Starting in the 1950s, hundreds of communities across the U.S. became embroiled in heated battles over whether fluorides—ionic compounds containing the element fluorine—should be added to their water systems. On one side was a broad coalition of scientists from government and industry who argued that adding fluoride to drinking water would protect teeth against decay; on the other side were activists who contended that the risks of fluoridation were inadequately studied and that the practice amounted to compulsory medication and thus was a violation of civil liberties.

The advocates of fluoride eventually carried the day, in part by ridiculing opponents such as the right-wing John Birch Society, which called fluoridation a communist plot to poison America. Today almost 60 percent of the U.S. population drinks fluoridated water, including residents of 46 of the nation’s 50 largest cities. Outside the U.S., fluoridation has spread to Canada, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and a few other countries. Critics of the practice have generally been dismissed as gadflies or zealots by mainstream researchers and public health agencies in those countries as well as the U.S. (In other nations, however, water fluoridation is rare and controversial.) The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention even lists water fluoridation as one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century, alongside vaccines and family planning.




Plans for fluoride ‘in all water’


Only 11% of the population have fluoridated water

Ministers are planning to allow fluoride to be added to all drinking water in England and Wales it is being reported.

The move is being considered to help reduce tooth decay among children in "deprived" areas, according to The Sunday Times.

Such a measure would prove controversial as critics fear fluoride could be linked to increased risks of cancer, hip fractures, kidney trouble and birth defects.

But the government has previously insisted there is no evidence to support claims of health risks from adding chemicals to drinking water.

To medicate the whole population against their will is not the way to deal with tooth decay

Jane Jones
National Pure Water Association

Only about 11% of the population currently receive fluoridated water.

Health authorities may get powers to increase fluoridation in drinking water rather than water companies under amendments to the Water Bill later this month, according to the paper.

It says it has seen a letter from health minister Hazel Blears and environment minister Elliot Morley dated in April to Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, in his role as chairman of the domestic affairs Cabinet committee.

The letter read: "Those who remain adamantly opposed would be able to use water filters that remove fluoride or buy bottled drinking water."

It went on: "Experience of oral health promotion projects shows that it is much harder to establish regular tooth-brushing in deprived areas, because of the costs of toothpaste and, perhaps, because of the less ordered lifestyles lived by families."

‘Nanny state’

It said the minority who opposed the move should not be allowed to stop fluoridation by continuing to insist on more research.

Cabinet members may be allowed a free vote on the issue, according to the paper.

The campaign director of the National Pure Water Association, Jane Jones, said: "There will undoubtedly be a huge row about the renewed proposal to add fluoride to the drinking water on a wide scale in the UK.

"This is nanny statism. It is outrageous.

"To medicate the whole population against their will is not the way to deal with tooth decay."

The Green Party is also among those opposing such a move.

Health spokesman Martyn Shrewsbury said: "The general trend in the world is against fluoridation.

"It’s quite incredible that Tony Blair would want to fluoridate Britain".

He said this proposal would be against medical ethics as a patient must give consent to medication under the European Convention of Human Rights.

Mr Shrewsbury also argued there was no proof that fluorinated water reduced the risk of tooth decay comparing fluoridated Gateshead with non-fluoridated Liverpool saying that they had the same level of tooth decay.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said last September Ms Blears had stated a report on fluoridation by the Medical Research Council contained "nothing to suggest any reason why water fluoridation should not be considered as a public health measure in areas where dental health remains a serious problem".

Ian Wylie, chief executive of the British Dental Association, said: "It’s tragic that, in 2003, there are still children as young as five having most or even all of their teeth removed under general anaesthetic as the result of tooth decay.

"Water fluoridation is a positive step in narrowing the health inequalities that currently exist.

"Targeted water fluoridation is the one public health measure that would cause the largest improvement in the oral health of those in greatest need.

"The BDA strongly supports any change that would allow the introduction of water fluoridation, after full consultation and with the agreement of the local community."



Fluoride water ’causes cancer’

Boys at risk from bone tumours, shock research reveals

Fluoride in tap water can cause bone cancer in boys, a disturbing new study indicates, although there is no evidence of a link for girls.

New American research suggests that boys exposed to fluoride between the ages of five and 10 will suffer an increased rate of osteosarcoma – bone cancer – bet-ween the ages of 10 and 19.

In the UK, fluoride is added to tap water on the advice of bodies such as the British Dental Association. The Department of Health maintains that it is a cost-effective public health measure that helps prevent tooth decay in children.

About 10 per cent of the population, six million people, receive fluoridated water, mainly in the Midlands and north-east, and the government plans to extend this, with Manchester expected to be next. About 170 million Americans live in areas with fluoridated water.

The increased cancer risks, identified in a newly available study conducted at the Harvard School of Dental Health, were found at fluoride exposure levels common in both the US and Britain. It was the first examination of the link between exposure to the chemical at the critical period of a child’s development and the age of onset of bone cancer.

Although osteosarcoma is rare, accounting for only about 3 per cent of childhood cancers, it is especially dangerous. The mortality rate in the first five years is about 50 per cent, and nearly all survivors have limbs amputated, usually legs.

The research has been made available by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a respected Washington-based research organisation. The group reports that it has assembled a ‘strong body of peer-reviewed evidence’ and has asked that fluoride in tap water be added to the US government’s classified list of substances known or anticipated to cause cancer in humans.

‘This is a very specific cancer in a defined population of children,’ said Richard Wiles, the group’s co-founder. ‘When you focus in and look for the incidence of tumours, you see the increase.

‘We recognise the potential benefits of fluoride to dental health,’ added Wiles, ‘but I’ve spent 20 years in public health, trying to protect kids from toxic exposure. Even with DDT, you don’t have the consistently strong data that the compound can cause cancer as you now have with fluoride.’

Half of all fluoride ingested is stored in the body, accumulating in calcifying tissue such as teeth and bones and in the pineal gland in the brain, although more than 90 per cent is taken into the bones.

MPs who have recently voted against fluoridation proposals in Parliament include Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, and Michael Howard, the Conservative leader.

Anti-fluoride campaigners argue that the whole issue has become highly politically sensitive. If health scares about fluoride were to be recognised in the courts, the litigation, especially in the US, could be expected to run for decades. Consequently, scientists have been inhibited from publicising any adverse findings.

The new evidence only emerged by a circuitous process. It was contained in a Harvard dissertation by Dr Elise Bassin at the Harvard School of Dental Medicine. The dissertation, completed in April 2001, obviously had merit because Bassin was awarded her doctorate.

However it has not been published. Environmental organisations were repeatedly denied access to it, and even bodies such as the US National Academy of Sciences could not get hold of a copy. Eventually two researchers from the Fluoride Action Network were allowed to read it in the rare books and special collections room at Harvard medical library.

Bassin told The Observer her work was still going through the peer-review process, and she hopes that it will then be published.

Dr Vyvyan Howard, senior lecturer in toxico-pathology at the University of Liverpool, has studied the new material.

‘At these ages the bones of boys are developing rapidly,’ he said, ‘so if the bones are being put together abnormally because fluoride is altering the bone structure, they’re more likely to get cancer. It’s biologically plausible, and the epidemiological evidence seems pretty strong – it looks as if there’s a definite effect.’

There is at present no understanding as to why males should be affected rather than females.

A Department of Health spokesman said that the latest evaluation of research in the UK had identified no ill effects of fluoride.




Harvard professor investigated in fluoride research flap

Associated Press/Denise Lavoie | July 15 2005

BOSTON –Harvard University is investigating an allegation that a dentistry professor downplayed research showing an increased risk of bone cancer for boys who drink fluoridated tap water.

Chester Douglass, who heads Harvard’s Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, received a $1.3 million grant in 1992 from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to conduct a study of fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, a rare form of bone cancer.

Douglass’ 1992-1999 study found that the odds of having osteosarcoma after drinking fluoridated water were "not statistically different" from those who drank non-fluoridated water.

But Elise Bassin, a doctoral student who Douglass supervised, reported in her 2001 thesis that boys who drink fluoridated water appear to have an increased risk of developing the bone cancer. Her findings were based on some of the same people used in Douglass’ study.

The Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., filed an ethics complaint against Douglass last month after discovering that Douglass cited Bassin’s research in his final grant report. In it, he said her work supported his claim that there was no significant risk from fluoridated water, even though Bassin had found a strong link between fluoride levels in tap water and an increased osteosarcoma risk for boys.

Richard Wiles, senior vice president of the environmental group, also said there is a conflict of interest between Douglass’ research and his position as editor-in-chief of The Colgate Oral Health Report, a quarterly newsletter funded by Colgate-Palmolive Co., which makes fluoridated toothpaste.

"It’s safe to say that he appears to be one of the leading members of the fluoride apologists group of scientists," Wiles said. "Clearly, the fluoride-using industry, the dental industry, has an interest in the image of fluoride as being a healthy, good thing."

A woman who answered the phone on Wednesday at Douglass’ office said he was on vacation and unavailable for comment.

Harvard Medical School spokesman John Lacey said the school will work with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences to review Douglass’ research.

"The Harvard School of Dental Medicine takes all allegations of misconduct seriously and has a standard system for reviewing allegations of research impropriety. The school is assembling an inquiry committee to review the questions raised concerning the reporting of this work," the school said in a statement.

Christine Bruske, a spokeswoman for NIEHS, said the institute is reviewing the letter it received from the Environmental Working Group alleging "scientific misconduct" by Douglass.

Bassin declined to comment when reached at her home Wednesday.

Her thesis has not yet been published and is not available to the public. The environmental group, which obtained Bassin’s thesis, cited excerpts in a letter to sent to Douglass last month.

"Among males, exposure to fluoride at or above the target level was associated with an increased risk of developing osteosarcoma," Bassin wrote. "The association was most apparent between ages 5-10 with a peak at 6 to 8 years of age."

Douglass’ study looked at men and woman of all different ages who drank fluoridated tap water. Bassin looked at the boys and girls used in Douglass’ study and verified fluoride levels in tap water for each year of the child’s life.

"She found the strongest association ever between fluoridated tape water and bone cancer among boys," said Wiles.

Fluoridation of tap water in the United States began in the 1950s and was seen as an effective way to fight tooth decay.

Controversy over the practice began to grow in the 1970s after a study found a high incident in bone structure defects in Newburgh, N.Y., one of the first communities in the country to fluoridate its water, when compared with the rate in the non-fluoridated town of Kingston, N.Y.

A study completed in 1991 by the U.S. Public Health Service found that the rates of osteosarcoma were significantly higher among males under 20 who lived in fluoridated communities than in communities with non-fluoridated water.

Several other major studies have reached the opposite conclusion, including a 1995 study by the New York State Department of Health that found fluoride exposure does not increase the risk for childhood osteosarcoma.

Wiles said the Environmental Working Group is not opposed to fluoridated toothpaste because most of the fluoride in toothpaste has contact with the teeth and is not ingested. He said when fluoride is ingested through tap water, it can stimulate growth at the end of bones, where osteosarcoma occurs.

"I think the industry realizes that the public may not make the distinction," Wiles said. If fluoride gets a big black eye in tap water then the public is going to wonder about this fluoride in my toothpaste."



New Research: Fluoride Damages Children’s Liver and Kidneys (NYSCOF)

PRNewwire | August 23 2006

Fluoride in drinking water damages children’s liver and kidney functions, according to a new study in "Environmental Research"(1), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF).
Xiong and colleagues write, "Our results suggest that drinking water fluoride levels over 2.0 mg/L can cause damage to liver and kidney functions in children." Further, dental fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) can be an indicator of kidney function harm, they report.

Researchers grouped 210 Chinese children (aged 10 – 12 years old) by drinking water fluoride levels (averaging 0.76; 1.47; 2.58; and 4.5l mg/L). Dental fluorosis rates, respectively, were 15%, 41%, 79% and 94%.

Blood serum and urine samples revealed:

— fluoride levels increased as water fluoride levels increased

— liver and kidney enzymes elevated, indicative of liver or kidney
damage, in children drinking water with over 2mg fluoride per liter.

— liver function can be damaged without dental fluorosis

"Dose-effect relationship between water fluoride levels and damage to liver and kidney functions in animals has been reported," the authors write. However, this is one of the few to do so in humans. The liver and kidneys are especially susceptible to fluoride toxicity, they write.

Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President says, "2 mg fluoride daily is very often exceeded from food, beverages, pharmaceuticals, and dental products. Clearly this is more evidence showing fluoridation is not only harmful, but unethical and immoral," says Beeber.

To prevent crippling skeletal fluorosis, the Environmental Protection Agency set 4 mg/L as the maximum fluoride contamination of drinking water. But this doesn’t protect all Americans from all of fluoride’s adverse effects, according to a recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) fluoride panel(2)

After reviewing hundreds of studies over 3-1/2 years, at least three scientists on the NAS panel recommend water fluoride levels be lowered well under 1 mg/L — the current level dentists claim is optimal to reduce cavities, and deliberately added to public water supplies.(3)

"Fluoridated water is also linked to thyroid dysfunction, bone damage and cancer in humans — even at 1 mg/L," says Beeber. "Americans are guinea pigs for the country’s failed fluoridation experiment."

More information about fluoride’s adverse kidney effects here:

Contact: Paul Beeber, Esq., 516-433-8882,

Paul Connett, Ph.D, Retired Chemistry Professor Emeritus and

Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network, 315-379-9200









Debate about addition of sodium fluoride to Mount Pleasant water continues

By Ryan Taljonick || June 23, 2010
  • Editor’s note: This is the second in a series about fluoride in the water of Mount Pleasant.

The Mount Pleasant City Commission’s decision to temporarily reduce the amount of sodium fluoride added to the municipal water supply has not gone without controversy.

Some of the commissioners themselves disagree with the decision.

“I think when the people voted to put fluoride in the water, they wanted it in a proportion that will reduce tooth decay,” Vice Mayor Bruce Kilmer said. “I think we should take it back to a vote of the people and not (reduce fluoride levels) on our own.”

However, Commissioner Kathleen Ling, head of the Fluoride Task Force that made the recommendation to the commission, emphasized the commission’s decision was within the boundaries of the 2005 fluoride ballot language.

The 2005 ballot language regarding fluoride levels states, “the Commission by resolution shall have the authority, from time to time, to change the proportions thereof.”

Ling said she assumes the amount of fluoride added to the water supply will be temporarily reduced from 0.7 parts per million, or milligrams per liter, to somewhere between 0.4 and 0.5 ppm. Mount Pleasant’s natural occurrence of fluoride in the water is 0.4 ppm.

Water fluoridation has been a hotly contested issue for the city commission and Mount Pleasant voters for years, Ling said.

The history

In 1997, voters decided to continue adding sodium fluoride to the water supply.

In 2003, a petition circulated requesting the city commission change the way the water plant operates. However, the commission refused to include the proposal on the 2003 ballot because the petitioned language, if voted in, would have violated state and federal regulations by preventing the addition of required compounds used to render water safe and clean.

The petitioners took the City to Circuit Court, where the judge ruled the ballot language could be revised and placed on the ballot in 2004.

Fluoride supporters felt the ballot language was not precise on the 2004 ballot, but the ballot passed, stating any substances added to municipal water must first be approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration, which has not approved sodium fluoride for ingestion.

“The people who supported fluoride felt the 2004 ballot proposal did not make it clear that people were banning fluoride,” Ling said.

As a result, another petition was formed in 2005 forcing the fluoride issue back to the ballot, this time to put fluoride back in the water.

The 2005 fluoride vote passed, requiring the total amount of fluoride in the municipal water to equal 1 ppm, which falls within the American Dental Association’s recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm.

However, in March 2006, just four months after the vote passed, the National Research Council released a report which said the Environmental Protection Agency needed to do a reassessment to determine what level of water fluoridation would protect all individuals exposed to the water. The NRC report detailed several adverse health effects that may be linked to the ingestion of fluoride, including dental and skeletal fluorosis, bone cancer and adverse neurological effects.

The task force

The commission voted to wait for the ongoing EPA study to be concluded before considering increased water fluoridation.

Shortly after the release of the NRC’s findings, the ADA announced in November of 2006 fluoride should not be mixed with reconstituted baby formula and infants should not consume fluoridated water.

As a result, Mayor Jim Holton requested the formation of a fluoride task force to investigate and research the effects of fluoride ingestion.

“Year after year we get information pro and con for adding fluoride to our water system,” Holton said. “To help put this issue to bed, or attempt to, I asked Commissioner Ling if she could develop a committee to study the pro’s and con’s of fluoride and report back to the commission so we could become better educated on the subject.”

Holton and Ling said the fluoride decision ultimately rests in the hands of the voters.

“This is a temporary recommendation,” Ling said. “From the beginning the assumption of the task force has been that if we ultimately recommend to end fluoridation all together, that we would ask the city commission to put it on the ballot. Before a final decision is made, this will be voted on.”




Political Mischaracterization of Fluoridation Opposition Dismays Scientists

CANTON, N.Y., June 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Scientists representing the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) strongly object to recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid’s Nevada re-election campaign.

"Fluoridation opposition is science-based and growing," says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, who has co-authored the upcoming book, "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There." Co-authors are James Beck, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of medical physics at theUniversity of Alberta in Calgary; and Spedding Micklem, DPhil, professor emeritus at Edinburgh University.

"We have spent many years investigating water fluoridation and the toxicity of fluoride and we are dismayed that commentators are willing to repeat, without verification, pro-fluoridation statements that disparage scientists and citizens who oppose the practice," says Connett. 

"FAN’s website  has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective," says Connett.  "In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children."  On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."

"The majority of countries do not fluoridate or have ended the practice, including 98% of Western Europe, and yet, according to WHO statistics, their tooth decay rates are no different than those in fluoridated countries," Connett states.

The FAN website has an online DVD of 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriate medical practice.  These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride’s toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists.

According to Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson, fluoridation is an "obsolete" practice that "is against all principles of modern pharmacology."  FAN’s site also has a listing of over 2800 scientists and professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.

The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now concede that fluoride’s predominant action on the tooth is topical, not systemic, as it works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Both groups admit that using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula elevates the risk of dental fluorosis and they advise using very low or non-fluoridated water to lessen the risk.  Pediatricians rarely inform parents of this advice.

"Topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are readily available. It makes no sense to expose the whole body to this toxic substance or force it on people who do not want it," says Connett.

According to Connett and other scientists, "Fluoridation is reckless as there is clear science indicating that fluoride has the potential to damage human bones, kidneys, thyroid and to lower children’s IQs."

Connett concludes, "Fluoridation promoters have painted themselves into a corner and cannot find a face-saving way out. But citizen awareness and opposition is growing rapidly and instead of ridiculing those who oppose fluoridation, responsible commentators should educate themselves about this 60 year controversy and urge a more rational discussion of the issue."

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network




Olbermann Slams Tea Party Senate Candidate For Voting Against Water Fluoridation


It is now considered crazy to think sodium fluoride is poison even though, you know, it is

Steve Watson
Friday, Jun 11th, 2010

MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann has slammed a Tea Party Senate candidate who won a key primary victory this week, intimating that she is crazy because she believes sodium fluoride, a deadly poison, is poisonous.

In yet another example of an anti-establishment candidate scoring a decisive victory, Tea Party-backed Nevada Republican Sharron Angle came from behind to win the State primary on Tuesday and earn the right to challenge incumbent Harry Reid for a place in the Senate.

In a similar vein to the backlash against Rand Paul following his Kentucky win last month, Democrats have suggested that Angle’s win is a good thing because she will be an easier opponent for Reid come November due to her "extremist" views.

Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent noted that Reid will seek to "use her own words to paint her as, well, a complete whackjob."

Olbermann began the tirade against Angle on Wednesday, during a segment of his show as he announced "Conventional wisdom was that Sue Lowden’s come-from-ahead defeat to Tea Partier Sharron Angle would hurt Senator Harry Reid. Turns out Ms. Lowden was the sensible one."

Calling Angle "cartoon-like", Olbermann criticized Angle’s affiliation with the Oath Keepers, the military and law enforcement activist group that pledges to uphold state’s rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Despite the fact that since 9/11, the U.S. has officially been under a state of emergency, and the vast erosion of civil liberties in the form of legislation such as the Patriot Act, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act, to name but a few, Olbermann suggested Angle was farcical for having concerns that Martial Law could be used to suspend the Constitution and effectively turn American cities into internment camps:

"Two months ago Ms. Angle said she was a member of the Oath Keepers, a group preparing itself not just for government internment camps, but for the day that somebody issues a ‘order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.’" Olbermann sardonically read from his autocue.

Olbermann clearly considers such concerns ludicrous now Obama is in office, but just a few years ago he was decrying the death of Habeas Corpus under president Bush, explaining to his viewers that any American citizen could effectively be arrested and locked away forever without trial. A google search yields articles and videos of Olbermann’s well placed concern.

The hope and change America has since experienced has clearly alleviated such worries in Keith’s mind, and he now considers the same concerns stupid and laughable.

This is a clear example of how the phony left/right political paradigm works. For eight years Olbermann campaigned against the increasing tyranny Americans were subject to. Despite the fact that none of the freedom stripping legislation enacted under Bush has been repealed by the Obama administration, everything is seemingly fine now the Democrats are back in power.

Olbermann also described as farcical Angle’s views that the Income Tax is unconstitutional and her concern that oil should not be nationalized in the wake of the BP disaster.

Olbermann saved his best attempted smear for last, however, chuckling his way through the sentence:

"Ms. Angle also voted against fluoridizing (sic) the water, because she thinks the fluoride might be poison."

Watch the video via Raw Story:

What a crazy kook, to think that sodium fluoride, the stuff that comes in bags with a skull and cross bones on, labeled "TOXIC", is a poison!

Note, we are not talking about calcium fluoride – which is naturally occurring and not added to water because it is INSOLUABLE.

How "extremist" it is to believe that a waste by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry, a Part II Poison under the UK Poisons Act 1972, is a poison – stupid Sharron Angle. Stupid crazy Sharron Angle – she must be racist for thinking that.

Well, there’s no doubt that Angle will be roundly defeated by Reid in November… Oh no wait, she already has an 11-point lead over the Senate Majority Leader. Perhaps the American people are actually aware that poison is not good to drink after all Mr Olbermann.


10 Facts about Fluoride
Fluoride Action Network | Printer-Friendly Version

1) 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water . This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals theright to choose, or refuse, fluoride.

2) Fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water for the purpose of medication (to prevent tooth decay). All other treatment chemicals are added to treat the water (to improve the water’s quality and safety – which fluoride does not do). This is one of the reasons why most of Europe has rejected fluoridation. For instance:

In Germany, "The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compulsion medication."

In Belgium, it is "the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services."

In Luxembourg, "In our views, drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way."

3) Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and ’50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).

According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride’s "predominant effect is posteruptive and topical" (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.

4) Fluoridated water is no longer recommended for babies. In November of 2006, the American Dental Association (ADA) advised that parents should avoid giving babies fluoridated water (3). Other dental researchers have made similar recommendations over the past decade (4).

Babies exposed to fluoride are at high risk of developing dental fluorosis – a permanent tooth defect caused by fluoride damaging the cells which form the teeth (5). Other tissues in the body may also be affected by early-life exposures to fluoride. According to a recent review published in the medical journal The Lancet, fluoride may damage the developing brain, causing learning deficits and other problems (6).

5) There are better ways of delivering fluoride than adding it to water. By adding fluoride to everyone’s tap water, many infants and other at-risk populations will be put in harm’s way. This is not only wrong, it is unnecessary. As western Europe has demonstrated, there are many equally effective and less-intrusive ways of delivering fluoride to people who actually want it. For example:

A) Topical fluoride products such as toothpaste and mouthrinses (which come with explicit instructions not to swallow) are readily available at all grocery stores and pharmacies. Thus, for those individuals who wish to use fluoride, it is very easy to find and very inexpensive to buy.

B) If there is concern that some people in the community cannot afford to purchase fluoride toothpaste (a family-size tube of toothpaste costs as little as $2 to $3), the money saved by not fluoridating the water can be spent subsidizing topical fluoride products (or non-fluoride alternatives) for those families in need.

C) The vast majority of fluoride added to water supplies is wasted, since over 99% of tap water is not actually consumed by a human being. It is used instead to wash cars, water the lawn, wash dishes, flush toilets, etc.

6) Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.

Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses atttainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:

a) Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)
b) Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)

c) Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)

d) Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as "biologically plausible." Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)

e) Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)

7) The industrial chemicals used to fluoridate water may present unique health risks not found with naturally-occurring fluoride complexes . The chemicals – fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride – used to fluoridate drinking water are industrial waste products from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Of these chemicals, fluorosilicic acid (FSA) is the most widely used. FSA is a corrosive acid which has been linked to higher blood lead levels in children. A recent studyfrom the University of North Carolina found that FSA can – in combination with chlorinated compounds – leach lead from brass joints in water pipes, while a recent study from the University of Maryland suggests that the effect of fluoridation chemicals on blood lead levels may be greatest in houses built prior to 1946. Lead is a neurotoxin that can cause learning disabilities and behavioral problems in children. (20-23)

8) Water fluoridation’s benefits to teeth have been exaggerated. Even proponents of water fluoridation admit that it is not as effective as it was once claimed to be. While proponents still believe in its effectiveness, a growing number of studies strongly question this assessment. (24-46) According to a systematic review published by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, "The magnitude of [fluoridation’s] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance." (36)

a) No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & unfluoridated countries.While water fluoridation is often credited with causing the reduction in tooth decay that has occurred in the US over the past 50 years, the same reductions in tooth decay have occurred in all western countries, most of which have never added fluoride to their water. The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. Yet, according to comprehensivedata from the World Health Organization, their tooth decay rates are just as low, and, in fact, often lower than the tooth decay rates in the US. (25, 35, 44)

b) Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to earlier findings, five studies published since 2000 have reported no increase in tooth decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. (37-41)

c) Fluoridation does not prevent oral health crises in low-income areas. While some allege that fluoridation is especially effective for low-income communities, there is very little evidence to support this claim. According to a recent systematic review from the British government, "The evidence about [fluoridation] reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable." (45) In the United States, severe dental crises are occurring in low-income areas irrespective of whether the community has fluoride added to its water supply. (46) In addition, several studies have confirmed that the incidence of severe tooth decay in children (“baby bottle tooth decay”) is not significantly different in fluoridated vs unfluoridated areas. (27,32,42) Thus, despite some emotionally-based claims to the contrary, water fluoridation does not prevent the oral health problems related to poverty and lack of dental-care access.

9) Fluoridation poses added burden and risk to low-income communities. Rather than being particularly beneficial to low-income communities, fluoridation is particularly burdensome and harmful. For example:

a) Low-income families are least able to avoid fluoridated water. Due to the high costs of buying bottled water or expensive water filters, low-income households will be least able to avoid fluoride once it’s added to the water. As a result, low-income families will be least capable of following ADA’s recommendation that infants should not receive fluoridated water. This may explain why African American children have been found to suffer the highest rates of disfiguring dental fluorosis in the US. (47)

b) Low-income families at greater risk of fluoride toxicity. In addition, it is now well established that individuals with inadequate nutrient intake have a significantly increased susceptibility to fluoride’s toxic effects. (48-51) Since nutrient deficiencies are most common in low-income communities, and since diseases known to increase susceptibility to fluoride are most prevalent in low-income areas (e.g. end-stage renal failure), it is likely that low-income communities will be at greatest risk from suffering adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. According to Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, a member of the National Research Council’s review of fluoride toxicity: “I would expect low-income communities to be more vulnerable to at least some of the effects of drinking fluoridated water." (51)

10) Due to other sources, many people are being over-exposed to fluoride .Unlike when water fluoridation first began, Americans are now receiving fluoride from many other sources* besides the water supply. As a result many people are now exceeding the recommended daily intake, putting them at elevated risk of suffering toxic effects. For example, many children ingest more fluoride fromtoothpaste alone than is considered “optimal” for a full day’s worth of ingestion. According to the Journal of Public Health Dentistry:

"Virtually all authors have noted that some children could ingest more fluoride from [toothpaste] alone than is recommended as a total daily fluoride ingestion." (52)

Because of the increase in fluoride exposure from all sources combined, the rate ofdental fluorosis (a visible indicator of over-exposure to fluoride during childhood) has increased significantly over the past 50 years. Whereas dental fluorosis used to impact less than 10% of children in the 1940s, the latest national survey found that it now affects over 30% of children. (47, 53)

* Sources of fluoride include: fluoride dental products, fluoride pesticides, fluorinated pharmaceuticals, processed foods made with fluoridated water, and tea.

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation
Updated April 12, 2004

by Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617

1) Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth without fluoride.

2) Fluoridation is not necessary. Most Western European countries are not fluoridated and have experienced the same decline in dental decay as the US (See data from World Health Organization in Appendix 1, and the time trends presented graphically at ). The reasons given by countries for not fluoridating are presented inAppendix 2.)

3) Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed Missing and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle and Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface! There are 128 tooth surfaces in a child’s mouth. This result was not shown to be statistically significant. In a review commissioned by the Ontario government, Dr. David Locker concluded:

"The magnitude of [fluoridation’s] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance" (Locker 1999).

4) Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,1997,2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).

5) There have been numerous recent reports of dental crises in US cities (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, New York City) which have been fluoridated for over 20 years. There appears to be a far greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and income level than with water fluoride levels.

6) Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde, 1998) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia 1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002 and Ekanayake 2002).

7) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged the findings of many leading dental researchers, that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC. Thus, you don’t have to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. As the benefits of fluoride (if any exist) are topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense, for those who want to take the risks, to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, there is no reason to force people (against their will) to drink fluoride in their water supply. This position was recently shared by Dr. Douglas Carnall, the associate editor of the British Medical Journal. His editorial appears in Appendix 3.

8) Despite being prescribed by doctors for over 50 years, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved any fluoride product designed for ingestion as safe or effective. Fluoride supplements are designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride as ingested daily from fluoridated water (Kelly 2000).

9) The US fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e. to lower dental decay rates while holding down dental fluorosis (mottled and discolored enamel), a condition known to be caused by fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its mildest form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). A major US survey has found 30% of children in optimally fluoridated areas had dental fluorosis on at least two teeth (Heller 1997), while smaller studies have found up to 80% of children impacted (Williams 1990; Lalumandier 1995 and Morgan 1998). The York Review estimates that up to 48% of children in optimally fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms and 12.5% with symptoms of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).

10) Dental fluorosis means that a child has been overdosed on fluoride. While the mechanism by which the enamel is damaged is not definitively known, it appears fluorosis may be a result of either inhibited enzymes in the growing teeth (Dan Besten 1999), or through fluoride’s interference with G-protein signaling mechanisms (Matsuo 1996). In a study in Mexico, Alarcon-Herrera (2001) has shown a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in children.

11) The level of fluoride put into water (1 ppm) is up to 200 times higher than normally found in mothers’ milk (0.005 – 0.01 ppm) (Ekstrand 1981; Institute of Medicine 1997). There are no benefits, only risks, for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (this is an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).

12) Fluoride is a cumulative poison. On average, only 50% of the fluoride we ingest each day is excreted through the kidneys. The remainder accumulates in our bones, pineal gland, and other tissues. If the kidney is damaged, fluoride accumulation will increase, and with it, the likelihood of harm.

13) Fluoride is very biologically active even at low concentrations. It interferes with hydrogen bonding (Emsley 1981) and inhibits numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978).

14) When complexed with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with many hormonal and some neurochemical signals (Strunecka & Patocka 1999, Li 2003).

15) Fluoride has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in a variety of cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993 and Mihashi 1996). Recent studies have also found a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997 and Joseph 2000).

16) Fluoride forms complexes with a large number of metal ions, which include metals which are needed in the body (like calcium and magnesium) and metals (like lead and aluminum) which are toxic to the body. This can cause a variety of problems. For example, fluoride interferes with enzymes where magnesium is an important co-factor, and it can help facilitate the uptake of aluminum and lead into tissues where these metals wouldn’t otherwise go (Mahaffey 1976; Allain 1996; Varner 1998).

17) Rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water, using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta amyloid deposits which are characteristic of Alzheimers disease (Varner 1998).

18) Aluminum fluoride was recently nominated by the Environmental Protection Agency and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences for testing by the National Toxicology Program. According to EPA and NIEHS, aluminum fluoride currently has a "high health research priority" due to its "known neurotoxicity" (BNA, 2000). If fluoride is added to water which contains aluminum, than aluminum fluoride complexes will form.

19) Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and exposure alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). Rats dosed prenatally demonstrated hyperactive behavior. Those dosed postnatally demonstrated hypoactivity (i.e. under activity or "couch potato" syndrome). More recent animal experiments have reported that fluoride can damage the brain (Wang 1997; Guan 1998; Varner 1998; Zhao 1998; Zhang 1999; Lu 2000; Shao 2000; Sun 2000; Bhatnagar 2002; Chen 2002, 2003; Long 2002; Shivarajashankara 2002a, b; Shashi 2003 and Zhai 2003) and impact learning and behavior (Paul 1998; Zhang 1999, 2001; Sun 2000; Ekambaram 2001; Bhatnagar 2002).

20) Five studies from China show a lowering of IQ in children associated with fluoride exposure (Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Li 1995; Zhao 1996; Lu 2000; and Xiang 2003a, b). One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g. 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency.

21) Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) showed that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997).

22) In the first half of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (over active thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). With water fluoridation, we are forcing people to drink a thyroid-depressing medication which could, in turn, serve to promote higher levels of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the population, and all the subsequent problems related to this disorder. Such problems include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.

It bears noting that according to the Department of Health and Human Services (1991) fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities is estimated to range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day, which is a range that actually overlaps the dose (2.3 – 4.5 mg/day) shown to decrease the functioning of the human thyroid (Galletti & Joyet 1958). This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism in the United States (in 1999, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid, which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid). In Russia, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water.

23) Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa , mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation by Chemical & Engineering News, "Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed" (Hileman 1988). Few if any studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis – CDC, 2002) is related to our growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. The causes of most forms of arthritis (e.g. osteoarthritis) are unknown.

24) In some studies, when high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a HIGHER number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). The cumulative doses used in these trials are exceeded by the lifetime cumulative doses being experienced by many people living in fluoridated communities.

25) Nineteen studies (three unpublished, including one abstract) since 1990 have examined the possible relationship of fluoride in water and hip fracture among the elderly. Eleven of these studies found an association, eight did not. One study found a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, as a quarter of those who have a hip fracture die within a year of the operation, while 50 percent never regain an independent existence (All 19 of these studies are referenced as a group in the reference section).

26) The only government-sanctioned animal study to investigate if fluoride causes cancer, found a dose-dependent increase in cancer in the target organ (bone) of the fluoride-treated (male) rats (NTP 1990). The initial review of this study also reported an increase in liver and oral cancers, however, all non-bone cancers were later downgraded – with a questionable rationale – by a government-review panel (Marcus 1990). In light of the importance of this study, EPA Professional Headquarters Union has requested that Congress establish an independent review to examine the study’s results (Hirzy 2000).
27) A review of national cancer data in the US by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) revealed a significantly higher rate of bone cancer in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover 1991). While the NCI concluded that fluoridation was not the cause, no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found bone cancer rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies have failed to find this relationship (Mahoney 1991; Freni 1992).

28) Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system – it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a, b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002 and Zakrzewska 2002). While studies conducted at the FDA have failed to find reproductive effects in rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), an epidemiological study from the US has found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 or more ppm fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), and 2 studies have found a reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996 and Barot 1998).

29) The fluoridation program has been very poorly monitored. There has never been a comprehensive analysis of the fluoride levels in the bones, blood, or urine of the American people or the citizens of other fluoridated countries. Based on the sparse data that has become available, however, it is increasingly evident that some people in the population – particularly people with kidney disease – are accumulating fluoride levels that have been associated with harm to both animals and humans, particularly harm to bone (see Connett 2004).

30) Once fluoride is put in the water it is impossible to control the dose each individual receives. This is because 1) some people (e.g. manual laborers, athletes, diabetics, and people with kidney disease) drink more water than others, and 2) we receive fluoride from sources other than the water supply. Other sources of fluoride include food and beverages processed with fluoridated water (Kiritsy 1996 and Heilman 1999), fluoridated dental products (Bentley 1999 and Levy 1999), mechanically deboned meat (Fein 2001), teas (Levy 1999), and pesticide residues on food (Stannard 1991 and Burgstahler 1997).

31) Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not being asked for their informed consent prior to medication. This is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of western Europe has ruled against fluoridation (see appendix 2).

As one doctor aptly stated, "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’ It is a preposterous notion."

32) While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from central government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way — does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it’s against that neighbor’s will)?

33) Some individuals appear to be highly sensitive to fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967, Waldbott 1978 and Moolenburg 1987). In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Can we as a society force these people to ingest fluoride?

34) According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993), and other researchers (Juncos & Donadio 1972; Marier & Rose 1977 and Johnson 1979), certain subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects; these include: the elderly, diabetics and people with poor kidney function. Again, can we in good conscience force these people to ingest fluoride on a daily basis for their entire lives?

35) Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein poor diets) (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998). Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While being at heightened risk, poor families are less able to afford avoidance measures (e.g. bottled water or removal equipment).

36) Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for poor families. The real "Oral Health Crisis" that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.

37) Fluoridation has been found to be ineffective at preventing one of the most serious oral health problems facing poor children, namely, baby bottle tooth decay, otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992 and Shiboski 2003).

38) The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000, see Appendix 3 for commentary).

39) The US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed (McClure 1970)!

40) Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999). This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987).

41) Despite the fact that we are exposed to far more fluoride today than we were in 1945 (when fluoridation began), the "optimal" fluoridation level is still 1 part per million, the same level deemed optimal in 1945! (Marier & Rose 1977; Levy 1999; Rozier 1999 and Fomon 2000).

42) The chemicals used to fluoridate water in the US are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they come from the wet scrubbing systems of the superphosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these chemicals are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000).

43) These hazardous wastes have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. The assumption being made is that by the time this waste product has been diluted, all the fluorosilicic acid will have been converted into free fluoride ion, and the other toxics and radioactive isotopes will be so dilute that they will not cause any harm, even with lifetime exposure. These assumptions have not been examined carefully by scientists, independent of the fluoridation program.

44) Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000) show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children’s blood. Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the child’s developing brain, this is a very serious finding yet it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries.

45) Sodium fluoride is an extremely toxic substance — just 200 mg of fluoride ion is enough to kill a young child, and just 3-5 grams (e.g. a teaspoon) is enough to kill an adult. Both children (swallowing tablets/gels) and adults (accidents involving fluoridation equipment and filters on dialysis machines) have died from excess exposure.

46) Some of the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists and at least 14 Nobel Prize winners are among numerous scientists who have expressed their reservations about the practice of fluoridation (see appendix 4).

47) The recent Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology, Dr. Arvid Carlsson (2000), was one of the leading opponents of fluoridation in Sweden, and part of the panel that recommended that the Swedish government reject the practice, which they did in 1971. According to Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history…Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy" (Carlsson 1978).

48) While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they cannot defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the US Environmental Protection Agency (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, "Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view" (See appendix 5).

In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that "the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues" (Martin 1991).
49) Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Most recently, Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain; and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.

50) The Union representing the scientists at US EPA headquarters in Washington DC is now on record as opposing water fluoridation (Hirzy 1999). According to the Union’s Senior Vice President, Dr. William Hirzy:

"In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is, the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with it are so small – if there are any at all – that requiring every man, woman and child in America to ingest it borders on criminal behavior on the part of governments."


When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, invested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a fifty year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.

It is like a question from a Kafka play. Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth?

For those who would call for further studies, I say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. This folly must end without further delay.


Further arguments against fluoridation, can be viewed at Arguments for fluoridation can be found at and a more systematic presentation of fluoride’s toxic effects can be found at


I would like to acknowledge the help given to me in the research for this statement to my son Michael Connett and to Naomi Flack for the proofreading of the text. Any remaining mistakes are my own.

APPENDIX 1. World Health Organization Data

DMFT (Decayed, Missing & Filled teeth) Status for 12 year olds by Country


More than 50% of water is fluoridated

Zurich, Switzerland
Water is unfluoridated, but salt is fluoridated

No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation

No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation

No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation

UK (England & Wales)
11% of water supplies are fluoridated

More than 50% of water is fluoridated

No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation

No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common

More than 50% of water is fluoridated

No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation

No water fluoridation or salt fluoridation

New Zealand
More than 50% of water is fluoridated

No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common

No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common

No water fluoridation, but salt fluoridation is common

Data from WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden

APPENDIX 2. Statements on fluoridation by governmental officials from several countries

Germany: "Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication." (Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999).

France: "Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations." (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August 25, 2000)

Belgium: "This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services." (Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000).

Luxembourg: "Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs." (Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000).

Finland: "We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need." (Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000).

"Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of "force-feeding" was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water." (Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.)

Denmark: "We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated." (Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999).

Norway: "In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated." (Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000).

Sweden: "Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown." (Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000)

Netherlands: "From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn." (Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000).

Northern Ireland: "The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland." (C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000).

Austria: "Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria." (M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000).

Czech Republic:"Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered as follows:

(a) uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)

(b) unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)

(c) unethical ("forced medication")

(d) toxicologically and phyiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor." (Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999).

APPENDIX 3. Statement of Douglas Carnall, Associate Editor of the British Medical Journal, published on the BMJ website ( ) on the day that they published the York Review on Fluoridation.

See this review on the web at

British Medical Journal, October 7, 2000, Reviews, Website of the week: Water fluoridation

Fluoridation was a controversial topic even before Kubrick’s Base Commander Ripper railed against "the international communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids" in the 1964 film Dr Strangelove. This week’s BMJ shouldn’t precipitate a global holocaust, but it does seem that Base Commander Ripper may have had a point. The systematic review published this week (p 855) shows that much of the evidence for fluoridation was derived from low quality studies, that its benefits may have been overstated, and that the risk to benefit ratio for the development of the commonest side effect (dental fluorosis, or mottling of the teeth) is rather high.

Supplementary materials are available on the BMJ ‘s website and on that of the review’s authors, enhancing the validity of the conclusions through transparency of process. For example, the "frequently asked questions" page of the site explains who comprised the advisory panel and how they were chosen ("balanced to include those for and against, as well as those who are neutral"), and the site includes the minutes of their meetings. You can also pick up all 279 references in Word97 format, and tables of data in PDF. Such transparency is admirable and can only encourage rationality of debate.

Professionals who propose compulsory preventive measures for a whole population have a different weight of responsibility on their shoulders than those who respond to the requests of individuals for help. Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply (see and for the two viewpoints).

Douglas Carnall
Associate Editor
British Medical Journal

APPENDIX 4. List of 14 Noble Prize winners who have opposed or expressed reservations about fluoridation.

1) Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry, 1939)
2) Arvid Carlsson (Medicine, 2000)
3) Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry, 1929).
4) Walter Rudolf Hess (Medicine, 1949)
5) Corneille Jean-François Heymans (Medicine, 1938)
6) Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood (Chemistry, 1956)
7) Joshua Lederberg (Medicine, 1958)
8) William P. Murphy (Medicine, 1934)
8) Giulio Natta (1963 Nobel Prize in Chemistry)
10) Sir Robert Robinson (Chemistry, 1947)
11) Nikolai Semenov (Chemistry, 1956)
12) James B. Sumner (Chemistry, 1946)
13) Hugo Theorell (Medicine, 1955)
14) Artturi Virtanen (Chemistry, 1945)

APPENDIX 5. Quotes on debating fluoridation from Dr. Michael Easley, Director of the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research, and one of the most active proponents of fluoridation in the US (Easley 1999). Easley’s quotes typify the historic contempt that proponents have had to scientific debate.

"A favorite tactic of the fluorophobics is to argue for a debate so that ‘the people can decide who is right.’ Proponents of fluoride are often trapped into consenting to public debates."

"Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view."

"Like parasites, opponents steal undeserved credibility just by sharing the stage with respected scientists who are there to defend fluoridation"; and,

"Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of practice."


Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) (1993). Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F). U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Public Health Service. ATSDR/TP-91/17.

Allain P, et al. (1996). Enhancement of aluminum digestive absorption by fluoride in rats. Research Communications in Molecular Pathology and Pharmacology 91: 225-31.

Arnold HA. (1980). Letter to Dr. Ernest Newbrun. May 28, 1980.

Awadia AK, et al. (2002). Caries experience and caries predictors – a study of Tanzanian children consuming drinking water with different fluoride concentrations. Clinical Oral Investigations (2002) 6:98-103.

Bachinskii PP, et al. (1985) Action of the body fluorine of healthy persons and thyroidopathy patients on the function of hypophyseal-thyroid the system. Probl Endokrinol (Mosk) 31: 25-9.

Barnes GP, et al. (1992). Ethnicity, location, age, and fluoridation factors in baby bottle tooth decay and caries prevalence of Head Start children. Public Health Reports 107: 167-73.

Barot VV. (1998). Occurrence of endemic fluorosis in human population of North Gujarat, India: human health risk. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 61: 303-10.

Bayley TA, et al. (1990). Fluoride-induced fractures: relation to osteogenic effect. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research5(Suppl 1):S217-22.

Bentley EM, et al. (1999). Fluoride ingestion from toothpaste by young children. British Dental Journal 186: 460-2.

Bhatnagar M, et al. (2002). Neurotoxicity of fluoride: neurodegeneration in hippocampus of female mice. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 40: 546-54.

Bigay J, et al. (1987). Fluoride complexes of aluminium or beryllium act on G-proteins as reversibly bound analogues of the gamma phosphate of GTP. EMBO Journal 6: 2907-2913.

Bigay J, et al. (1985). Fluoroaluminates activate transducin-GDP by mimicking the gamma-phosphate of GTP in its binding site. FEBS Letters 191: 181-185.

Brunelle JA, Carlos JP. (1990). Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation. Journal of Dental Research 69(Special edition): 723-727.

Bryson C. (2004). The Fluoride Deception. Seven Stories Press, New York.

Burgstahler AW, et al. (1997). Fluoride in California wines and raisins. Fluoride 30: 142-146.

Carlsson A. (1978). Current problems relating to the pharmacology and toxicology of fluorides. Journal of the Swedish Medical Association 14: 1388-1392.

Carnow BW, Conibear SA. (1981). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride 14: 172-181.

Caspary WJ, et al (1987). Mutagenic activity of fluorides in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutation Research 187:165-80.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2002). Prevalence of Self-Reported Arthritis or Chronic Joint Symptoms Among Adults — United States, 2001. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 51: 948-950.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2001). Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 50(RR14): 1-42.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1999). Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 48: 933-940.

Chen J, et al. (2003). Selective decreases of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in PC12 cells exposed to fluoride. Toxicology183: 235-42.

Chen J, et al. (2002). [Studies on DNA damage and apoptosis in rat brain induced by fluoride] Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 36 :222-224.
Chen YC, et al. (1997). Nutrition survey in dental fluorosis-afflicted areas. Fluoride 30(2):77-80.

Chinoy NJ, Narayana MV. (1994). In vitro fluoride toxicity in human spermatozoa. Reproductive Toxicology 8:155-9.

Chinoy NJ, et al. (1991). Microdose vasal injection of sodium fluoride in the rat. Reproductive Toxicology 5: 505-12.

Chinoy NJ, Sequeira E. (1989). Effects of fluoride on the histoarchitecture of reproductive organs of the male mouse.Reproductive Toxicology 3: 261-7.

Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17.

Colquhoun J. (1997) Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41: 29-44.

Connett M. (2004). Fluoride & Bone Damage: Published Data. Submission to National Research Council (NRC).

Connett, P. (2000). Fluoride: A Statement of Concern. Waste Not #459. January 2000. Waste Not, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617.

Czerwinski E, et al. (1988). Bone and joint pathology in fluoride-exposed workers. Archives of Environmental Health 43: 340-343.

Dambacher MA, et al. (1986). Long-term fluoride therapy of postmenopausal osteoporosis. Bone 7: 199-205.

De Liefde B. (1998). The decline of caries in New Zealand over the past 40 Years. New Zealand Dental Journal 94: 109-113.

Department of Health & Human Services. (U.S. DHHS) (1991). Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride, Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs. Department of Health and Human Services, USA.

DenBesten, P (1999). Biological mechanism of dental fluorosis relevant to the use of fluoride supplements. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 27: 41-7.

De Stefano TM. (1954). The fluoridation research studies and the general practitioner. Bulletin of Hudson County Dental Society February.

Diesendorf M.(1986). The mystery of declining tooth decay. Nature 322: 125-129.

Ditkoff BA, Lo Gerfo P. (2000). The Thyroid Guide. Harper-Collins. New York.

Easley, M. (1999). Community fluoridation in America: the unprincipled opposition. Unpublished.

Ekambaram P, Paul V. (2001). Calcium preventing locomotor behavioral and dental toxicities of fluoride by decreasing serum fluoride level in rats. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 9: 141-146.

Ekanayake L, Van Der Hoek W. (2002). Dental caries and developmental defects of enamel in relation to fluoride levels in drinking water in an arid area of sri lanka. Caries Research 36: 398-404.

Ekstrand J, et al. (1981). No evidence of transfer of fluoride from plasma to breast milk. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed). 283: 761-2.

Elbetieha A, et al. (2000). Fertility effects of sodium fluoride in male mice. Fluoride 33: 128-134.

Emsley J, et al (1981). An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Journal of the American Chemical Society 103: 24-28.

Fein NJ, Cerklewski FL. (2001). Fluoride content of foods made with mechanically separated chicken. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 49: 4284-6.

Feltman R, Kosel G. (1961). Prenatal and postnatal ingestion of fluorides – Fourteen years of investigation – Final report.Journal of Dental Medicine 16: 190-99.

Fomon SJ, et al. (2000). Fluoride intake and prevalence of dental fluorosis: trends in fluoride intake with special attention to infants. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 60: 131-9.

Franke J, et al. (1975). Industrial fluorosis. Fluoride 8: 61-83.

Freni SC. (1994). Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 42: 109-121.

Freni SC, Gaylor DW. (1992). International trends in the incidence of bone cancer are not related to drinking water fluoridation. Cancer 70: 611-8.

Galletti P, Joyet G. (1958). Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology 18: 1102-1110. http://www.

Gerster JC, et al. (1983). Bilateral fractures of femoral neck in patients with moderate renal failure receiving fluoride for spinal osteoporosis. British Medical Journal (Clin Res Ed) 287(6394):723-5.

Ghosh D, et al. (2002). Testicular toxicity in sodium fluoride treated rats: association with oxidative stress. Reproductive Toxicolology 16(4):385.

Gray, AS. (1987). Fluoridation: time for a new base line? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 53: 763-5.

Grobleri SR, et al. (2001). Dental fluorosis and caries experience in relation to three different drinking water fluoride levels in South Africa. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry 11(5):372-9.

Guan ZZ, et al (1998). Influence of chronic fluorosis on membrane lipids in rat brain. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 20: 537-542.

Gutteridge DH, et al. (2002). A randomized trial of sodium fluoride (60 mg) +/- estrogen in postmenopausal osteoporotic vertebral fractures: increased vertebral fractures and peripheral bone loss with sodium fluoride; concurrent estrogen prevents peripheral loss, but not vertebral fractures. Osteoporosis International 13(2):158-70.

Gutteridge DH, et al. (1990). Spontaneous hip fractures in fluoride-treated patients: potential causative factors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5 Suppl 1:S205-15.

Hanmer R. (1983). Letter to Leslie A. Russell, D.M.D, from Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, US EPA. March 30, 1983.

Hedlund LR, Gallagher JC. (1989). Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride.Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 4: 223-5.

Heller KE, et al (1997). Dental caries and dental fluorosis at varying water fluoride concentrations. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 57: 136-143.

Hileman B. (1989). New studies cast doubt on fluoridation benefits. Chemical and Engineering News May 8.http://www.fluoridealert .org/NIDR.htm

Hileman B. (1988). Fluoridation of water: Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years.Chemical and Engineering News. August 1: 26-42.

Hirzy JW. (1999). Why the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation. Press release from National Treasury Employees Union. May 1.

Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs US Public Health Service. pp F1 -F7.

Inkovaara J, et al. (1975). Prophylactic fluoride treatment and aged bones. British Medical Journal 3: 73-4.

Institute of Medicine. (1997). Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride. Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes, Food and Nutrition Board. National Academy Press.

Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: Johansen E, Taves DR, Olsen TO, Eds. Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293.

Joseph S, Gadhia PK. (2000). Sister chromatid exchange frequency and chromosome aberrations in residents of fluoride endemic regions of South Gujarat. Fluoride 33: 154-158.

Juncos LI, Donadio JV. (1972). Renal failure and fluorosis. Journal of the American Medical Association 222: 783-5.

Kelly JV. (2000). Letter to Senator Robert Smith, Chairman of Environment and Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, August 14, 2000. http://www.fluoridealert .org/fda.htm

Kilborn LG, et al. (1950). Fluorosis with report of an advanced case. Canadian Medical Association Journal 62: 135-141.

Kiritsy MC, et al. (1996). Assessing fluoride concentrations of juices and juice-flavored drinks. Journal of the American Dental Association 127: 895-902.

Kishi K, Ishida T. (1993). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride in great ape cells. Mutation Research 301:183-8.

Kour K, Singh J. (1980). Histological finding of mice testes following fluoride ingestion. Fluoride 13: 160-162.

Kumar A, Susheela AK. (1994). Ultrastructural studies of spermiogenesis in rabbit exposed to chronic fluoride toxicity.International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies 39:164-71.

Kumar JV, Green EL. (1998). Recommendations for fluoride use in children. NY State Dental Journal 64: 40-7.

Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5.

Kunzel W, et al. (2000). Decline in caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in former East Germany.Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-389.
Kunzel W, Fischer T. (1997). Rise and fall of caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking water. Caries Research 31: 166-73.

Lalumandier JA, et al. (1995). The prevalence and risk factors of fluorosis among patients in a pediatric dental practice.Pediatric Dentistry 17: 19-25.

Levy SM, Guha-Chowdhury N. (1999). Total fluoride intake and implications for dietary fluoride supplementation. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 211-23.

Li L. (2003). The biochemistry and physiology of metallic fluoride: action, mechanism, and implications. Critical Reviews of Oral Biology and Medicine 14: 100-14.

Li XS. (1995). Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence in children. Fluoride 28: 189-192.

Lin FF, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang.Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter Vol. 7. No. 3.

Locker D. (1999). Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation. An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report. Prepared for Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care.

Long YG, et al. (2002). Chronic fluoride toxicity decreases the number of nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in rat brain.Neurotoxicology and Teratology 24: 751-7.

Lu XH, et al. (2000). Study of the mechanism of neurone apoptosis in rats from the chronic fluorosis. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 19: 96-98.

Luke J. (2001). Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal gland. Caries Research 35: 125-128.

Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildord.

Mahaffey KR, Stone CL. (1976). Effect of High Fluorine (F) Intake on Tissue Lead (Pb) Concentrations. Federation Proceedings 35: 256.

Mahoney MC, et al. (1991). Bone cancer incidence rates in New York State: time trends and fluoridated drinking water.American Journal of Public Health 81: 475-9.

Mann J,et al. (1990). Fluorosis and dental caries in 6-8-year-old children in a 5 ppm fluoride area. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 18: 77-9.

Mann J, et al. (1987). Fluorosis and caries prevalence in a community drinking above-optimal fluoridated water. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 15: 293-5.

Marcus W. (1990). Memorandum from Dr. William Marcus, to Alan B. Hais, Acting Director Criteria & Standards Division ODW, US EPA. May 1, 1990. http://

Martin B. (1991). Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate. SUNY Press, Albany NY.

Massler M, Schour I. (1952). Relation of endemic dental fluorosis to malnutrition. Journal of the American Dental Association44: 156-165.

Masters R, et al. (2000). Association of silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology 21: 1091-1099.

Masters RD, Coplan M. (1999). Water treatment with silicofluorides and lead toxicity. International Journal of Environmental Studies 56: 435-449.

Matsuo S, et al. (1998). Mechanism of toxic action of fluoride in dental fluorosis: whether trimeric G proteins participate in the disturbance of intracellular transport of secretory ameloblast exposed to fluoride. Archives of Toxicology 72: 798-806.

Maupome G, et al. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.

McClure F. (1970). Water fluoridation, the search and the victory. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington DC.

McDonagh M, et al. (2000). A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination,. University of York, September 2000.

Meng Z, Zhang B. (1997). Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in lymphocytes of workers at a phosphate fertilizer factory. Mutation Research 393: 283-288.

Mihashi,M. and Tsutsui,T.(1996). Clastogenic activity of sodium fluoride to rat vertebral body-derived cells in culture. Mutation Research 368: 7-13.

Moolenburgh H. (1987). Fluoride: The Freedom Fight. Mainstream Publishing, Edinburgh.

Morgan L, et al. (1998). Investigation of the possible associations between fluorosis, fluoride exposure, and childhood behavior problems. Pediatric Dentistry 20: 244-252.

Mullenix P, et al. (1995). Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicology and Teratology 17: 169-177.

Narayana MV, et al. (1994). Reversible effects of sodium fluoride ingestion on spermatozoa of the rat. International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies 39: 337-46.

Narayana MV, Chinoy NJ. (1994). Effect of fluoride on rat testicular steroidogenesis. Fluoride 27: 7-12.

National Research Council. (1993). Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy Press, Washington DC.

National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF). (2000) Letter from Stan Hazan, General Manager, NSF Drinking Water Additives Certification Program, to Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Committee on Science, US House of Representatives. July 7.

National Toxicology Program [NTP] (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C. The results of this study are summarized in the Department of Health and Human Services report (DHHS,1991) op cit.

O’Duffy JD, et al. (1986). Mechanism of acute lower extremity pain syndrome in fluoride-treated osteoporotic patients.American Journal of Medicine 80: 561-6.

Olsson B. (1979). Dental findings in high-fluoride areas in Ethiopia. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 7: 51-6.

Orcel P, et al. (1990). Stress fractures of the lower limbs in osteoporotic patients treated with fluoride. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 5(Suppl 1): S191-4.

Paul V, et al. (1998). Effects of sodium fluoride on locomotor behavior and a few biochemical parameters in rats.Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 6: 187–191.

Pinkham, JR, ed. (1999). Pediatric Dentistry Infancy Through Adolescence. 3rd Edition. WB Saunders Co, Philadelphia.

Public Health Service (PHS). (1993). Toward improving the oral health of Americans: an overview of oral health status, resources, and care delivery. Public Health Reports 108: 657-72.

Retief DH, et al. (1979). Relationships among fluoride concentration in enamel, degree of fluorosis and caries incidence in a community residing in a high fluoride area. Journal of Oral Pathology 8: 224-36.

Riggs BL, et al. (1990). Effect of Fluoride treatment on the Fracture Rates in Postmenopausal Women with Osteoporosis.New England Journal of Medicine 322: 802-809.

Rozier RG. (1999). The prevalence and severity of enamel fluorosis in North American children. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 59: 239-46.

Schnitzler CM, et al. (1990). Bone fragility of the peripheral skeleton during fluoride therapy for osteoporosis. Clinical Orthopaedics (261): 268-75.

Seholle RH. (1984). Preserving the perfect tooth (editorial). Journal of the American Dental Association 108: 448.

Seppa L, et al. (2000). Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Research 34: 462-8.

Shao Q, et al. (2000). [Influence of free radical inducer on the level of oxidative stress in brain of rats with fluorosis].Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 34(6):330-2.

Shashi A. (2003). Histopathological investigation of fluoride-induced neurotoxicity in rabbits. Fluoride 36: 95-105.

Shea JJ, et al. (1967). Allergy to fluoride. Annals of Allergy 25:388-91.

Sheth FJ, et al. (1994). Sister chromatid exchanges: A study in fluorotic individuals of North Gujurat. Fluoride 27: 215-219.

Shiboski CH, et al. (2003). The association of early childhood caries and race/ethnicity among California preschool children.Journal of Public Health Dentistry 63:38-46.

Shivarajashankara YM , et al. (2002). Brain lipid peroxidation and antioxidant systems of young rats in chronic fluoride intoxication. Fluoride 35: 197-203.

Shivarajashankara YM , et al. (2002). Histological changes in the brain of young fluoride-intoxicated rats. Fluoride 35: 12-21.

Singh A, Jolly SS. (1970). Fluorides and Human Health. World Health Organization. pp 239-240.

Singh A, et al. (1963). Endemic fluorosis: epidemiological, clinical and biochemical study of chronic fluoride intoxication in Punjab. Medicine 42: 229-246.

Sprando RL, et al. (1998). Testing the potential of sodium fluoride to affect spermatogenesis: a morphometric study. Food and Chemical Toxicology 36: 1117-24.

Sprando RL, et al. (1997). Testing the potential of sodium fluoride to affect spermatogenesis in the rat. Food and Chemical Toxicology 35: 881-90.

Sprando RL, et al. (1996). Effect of intratesticular injection of sodium fluoride on spermatogenesis. Food and Chemical Toxicology 34: 377-84.

Stannard JG, et al. (1991). Fluoride Levels and Fluoride Contamination of Fruit Juices. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry16: 38-40.

Stecher P, et al. (1960). The Merck Index of Chemicals and Drugs. Merck & Co., Inc, Rathway NJ. p. 952.

Steelink C. (1992). Fluoridation controversy. Chemical & Engineering News (Letter). July 27: 2-3.

Strunecka A, Patocka J. (1999). Pharmacological and toxicological effects of aluminofluoride complexes. Fluoride 32: 230-242.

Sun ZR, et al. (2000). Effects of high fluoride drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice. Chinese Journal of Epidemiology 19: 262-263.

Susheela AK. (1993). Prevalence of endemic fluorosis with gastrointestinal manifestations in people living in some North-Indian villages. Fluoride 26: 97-104.

Susheela AK, Kumar A. (1991). A study of the effect of high concentrations of fluoride on the reproductive organs of male rabbits, using light and scanning electron microscopy. Journal of Reproductive Fertility 92: 353-60.

Sutton P. (1996). The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation. Lorne, Australia: Kurunda Pty, Ltd.

Sutton P. (1960) Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. Second Edition.

Sutton, P. (1959). Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Melbourne University Press. First Edition.

Teotia M, et al. (1998). Endemic chronic fluoride toxicity and dietary calcium deficiency interaction syndromes of metabolic bone disease and deformities in India: year 2000. Indian Journal of Pediatrics 65: 371-81.

Teotia SPS, Teotia M. (1994). Dental caries: a disorder of high fluoride and low dietary calcium interactions (30 years of personal research). Fluoride 27: 59-66.

Teotia SPS, et al. (1976). Symposium on the non-skeletal phase of chronic fluorosis: The Joints. Fluoride 9: 19-24.

Tsutsui T, Suzuki N, Ohmori M, Maizumi H. (1984). Cytotoxicity, chromosome aberrations and unscheduled DNA synthesis in cultured human diploid fibroblasts induced by sodium fluoride. Mutation Research 139:193-8.

Waldbott GL, et al. (1978). Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma. Coronado Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas.

Waldbott GL. (1965). A Battle with Titans. Carlton Press, NY.

Wang C, et al. (2000). Treatment Chemicals contribute to Arsenic Levels. Opflow (a journal of the American Water Works Association). October 2000.

Wang Y, et al. (1997). [Changes of coenzyme Q content in brain tissues of rats with fluorosis]. Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi 31: 330-3.

WHO (Online). WHO Oral Health Country/Area Profile Programme. Department of Noncommunicable Diseases Surveillance/Oral Health. WHO Collaborating Centre, Malmö University, Sweden. http://www.whocollab.

Williams JE, et al. (1990). Community water fluoride levels, preschool dietary patterns, and the occurrence of fluoride enamel opacities. Journal of Public Health Dentistry 50: 276-81.

Wu DQ, Wu Y. (1995). Micronucleus and sister chromatid exchange frequency in endemic fluorosis. Fluoride 28: 125-127.

Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94.

Xiang Q. (2003b). Blood lead of children in Wamiao-Xinhuai intelligence study. Fluoride 36: 138.

Zakrzewska H, et al. (2002). In vitro influence of sodium fluoride on ram semen quality and enzyme activities. Fluoride 35: 153-160.

Zhai JX, et al. (2003). [Studies on fluoride concentration and cholinesterase activity in rat hippocampus]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi 21: 102-4.

Zhang Z, et al. (2001). [Effects of selenium on the damage of learning-memory ability of mice induced by fluoride]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 30: 144-6.

Zhang Z, et al. (1999). [Effect of fluoride exposure on synaptic structure of brain areas related to learning-memory in mice] [Article in Chinese]. Wei Sheng Yan Jiu 28:210-2.

Zhao XL, Wu JH. (1998). Actions of sodium fluoride on acetylcholinesterase activities in rats. Biomedical and Environmental Sciences 11: 1-6.

Zhao LB, et al (1996). Effect of high-fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride 29: 190-192.

Zhao ZL, et al. (1995). The influence of fluoride on the content of testosterone and cholesterol in rat. Fluoride 28: 128-130.

Ziegelbecker R. (1970). A critical review on the fluorine caries problem. Fluoride 3: 71-79.

The 19 studies on the possible association of hip fracture and fluoridated-water.

a) Studies Reporting an Association between fluoridated water (1 ppm fluoride) & hip fracture.

1 a) Cooper C, et al. (1990). Water fluoride concentration and fracture of the proximal femur. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 44: 17-19.

1 b) Cooper C, et al. (1991). Water fluoridation and hip fracture. JAMA 266: 513-514 (letter, a reanalysis of data presented in 1990 paper).

2) Danielson C, et al. (1992). Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population. Journal of the American Medical Association 268: 746-748.

3) Hegmann KT, et al. (2000). The Effects of Fluoridation on Degenerative Joint Disease (DJD) and Hip Fractures. Abstract #71, of the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society For Epidemiological research, June 15-17, 2000. Published in a Supplement of American Journal of Epidemiology P. S18.

4) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1992). The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older; a national ecologic study." Annals of Epidemiology 2: 617-626.

5) Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1990). Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture: US white women aged 65 years and olders.JAMA 264(4): 500-2.

6 a) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1995). Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly. JAMA 273: 775-776 (letter).

6 b) Jacqmin-Gadda H, et al. (1998). Risk factors for fractures in the elderly. Epidemiology 9(4): 417-423. (An elaboration of the 1995 study referred to in the JAMA letter).

7) Keller C. (1991) Fluorides in drinking water. Unpublished results. Discussed in Gordon, S.L. and Corbin, S.B,(1992) Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis International 2: 109-117.

8) Kurttio PN, et al. (1999). Exposure to natural fluoride in well water and hip fracture: A cohort analysis in Finland. American Journal of Epidemiology 150(8): 817-824.

9) May DS, Wilson MG. (1992). Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Unpublished data, discussed in Gordon SL, and Corbin SB. (1992). Summary of Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fracture on Bone Health. Osteoporosis International 2:109-117.

b) Studies reporting an association between water-fluoride levels higher than fluoridated water (4 ppm+) & hip fracture.

Li Y, et al. (2001). Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride in drinking water on risks of bone fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 16: 932-9.

Sowers M, et al. (1991). A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure. American Journal of Epidemiology 133: 649-660.

c) Studies Reporting No Association between water fluoride & hip fracture:

(Note that in 4 of these 8 studies, an association was actually found between fluoride and some form of fracture – e.g. wrist and hip. See notes and quotes below.)

Cauley J. et al. (1995). Effects of fluoridated drinking water on bone mass and fractures: the study of osteoporotic fractures.Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 10: 1076-86.

Feskanich D, et al. (1998). Use of toenail fluoride levels as an indicator for the risk of hip and forearm fractures in women.Epidemiology 9: 412-6.

While this study didn’t find an association between water fluoride and hip fracture, it did find an association – albeit non-significant 1.6 (0.8-3.1) – between fluoride exposure and elevated rates of forearm fracture.

Hillier S, et al. (2000). Fluoride in drinking water and risk of hip fracture in the UK: a case control study. The Lancet 335: 265-2690.

Jacobsen SJ, et al. (1993). Hip Fracture Incidence Before and After the Fluoridation of the Public Water Supply, Rochester, Minnesota. American Journal of Public Health 83: 743-745.

Karagas MR, et al. (1996). Patterns of Fracture among the United States Elderly: Geographic and Fluoride Effects. Annals of Epidemiology 6: 209-216.

As with Feskanich (1998) this study didn’t find an association between fluoridation & hip fracture, but it did find an association between fluoridation and distal forearm fracture, as well as proximal humerus fracture. "Independent of geographic effects, men in fluoridated areas had modestly higher rates of fractures of the distal forearm and proximal humerus than did men in nonfluoridated areas."

Lehmann R, et al. (1998). Drinking Water Fluoridation: Bone Mineral Density and Hip Fracture Incidence. Bone 22: 273-278.

Phipps KR, et al. (2000). Community water fluoridation, bone mineral density and fractures: prospective study of effects in older women. British Medical Journal 321: 860-4.

As with Feskanich (1998) and Karagas (1996), this study didn’t find an association between water fluoride & hip fracture, but it did find an association between water fluoride and other types of fracture – in this case, wrist fracture. "There was a non-significant trend toward an increased risk of wrist fracture."

Suarez-Almazor M, et al. (1993). The fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in two Canadian communities. American Journal of Public Health 83: 689-693.

While the authors of this study conclude there is no association between fluoridation and hip fracture, their own data reveals a statistically significant increase in hip fracture for men living in the fluoridated area. According to the authors, "although a statistically significant increase in the risk of hip fracture was observed among Edmonton men, this increase was relatively small (RR=1.12)."




The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

Red Flags Weekly

November 28, 2002

The Absurdities of Water Fluoridation

by Paul Connett, PhD

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 these chemicals have been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched.

For over 50 years US government officials have confidently and enthusiastically claimed that fluoridation is "safe and effective". However, they are seldom prepared to defend the practice in open public debate. Actually, there are so many arguments against fluoridation that it can get overwhelming.

To simplify things it helps to separate the ethical from the scientific arguments.

For those for whom ethical concerns are paramount, the issue of fluoridation is very simple to resolve. It is simply not ethical; we simply shouldn’t be forcing medication on people without their "informed consent". The bad news is that ethical arguments are not very influential in Washington, DC unless politicians are very conscious of millions of people watching them. The good news is that the ethical arguments are buttressed by solid common sense arguments and scientific studieswhich convincingly show that fluoridation is neither "safe and effective" nor necessary. I have summarized the arguments in several categories:

Fluoridation is UNETHICAL because:

1) It violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medication.
2) The municipality cannot control the dose of the patient.
3) The municipality cannot track each individual’s response.
4) It ignores the fact that some people are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects than others. Some people will suffer while others may benefit.
5) It violates the Nuremberg code for human experimentation.

As stated by the recent recipient of the Nobel Prize for Medicine (2000), Dr. Arvid Carlsson:

"I am quite convinced that water fluoridation, in a not-too-distant future, will be consigned to medical history…Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication – of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day – to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy."

As stated by Dr. Peter Mansfield, a physician from the UK and advisory board member of the recent government review of fluoridation (McDonagh et al 2000):

"No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice: ‘Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay. ‘ It is a preposterous notion."

Fluoridation is UNNECESSARY because:

1) Children can have perfectly good teeth without being exposed to fluoride.
2) The promoters (CDC, 1999, 2001) admit that the benefits are topical not systemic, so fluoridated toothpaste, which is universally available, is a more rational approach to delivering fluoride to the target organ (teeth) while minimizing exposure to the rest of the body.
3) The vast majority of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, but has been equally successful as the US, if not more so, in tackling tooth decay.
4) If fluoride was necessary for strong teeth one would expect to find it in breast milk, but the level there is 0.01 ppm , which is 100 times LESS than in fluoridated tap water (IOM, 1997).
5) Children in non-fluoridated communities are already getting the so-called "optimal" doses from other sources (Heller et al, 1997). In fact, many are already being over-exposed to fluoride.

Fluoridation is INEFFECTIVE because:

1) Major dental researchers concede that fluoride’s benefits are topical not systemic (Fejerskov 1981; Carlos 1983; CDC 1999, 2001; Limeback 1999; Locker 1999; Featherstone 2000).
2) Major dental researchers also concede that fluoride is ineffective at preventing pit and fissure tooth decay, which is 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children (JADA 1984; Gray 1987; White 1993; Pinkham 1999).
3) Several studies indicate that dental decay is coming down just as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated industrialized countries as fluoridated ones (Diesendorf, 1986; Colquhoun, 1994; World Health Organization, Online).
4) The largest survey conducted in the US showed only a minute difference in tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was not clinically significant nor shown to be statistically significant (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990).
5) The worst tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our largest cities, the vast majority of which have been fluoridated for decades.
6) When fluoridation has been halted in communities in Finland, former East Germany, Cuba and Canada, tooth decay did not go up but continued to go down (Maupome et al, 2001; Kunzel and Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel et al, 2000 and Seppa et al, 2000).

Fluoridation is UNSAFE because:

1) It accumulates in our bones and makes them more brittle and prone to fracture. The weight of evidence from animal studies, clinical studies and epidemiological studies on this is overwhelming. Lifetime exposure to fluoride will contribute to higher rates of hip fracture in the elderly.
2) It accumulates in our pineal gland, possibly lowering the production of melatonin a very important regulatory hormone (Luke, 1997, 2001).
3) It damages the enamel (dental fluorosis) of a high percentage of children. Between 30 and 50% of children have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth in optimally fluoridated communities (Heller et al, 1997 and McDonagh et al, 2000).
4) There are serious, but yet unproven, concerns about a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young men (Cohn, 1992), as well as fluoridation and the current epidemics of both arthritis and hypothyroidism.
5) In animal studies fluoride at 1 ppm in drinking water increases the uptake of aluminum into the brain (Varner et al, 1998).
6) Counties with 3 ppm or more of fluoride in their water have lower fertility rates (Freni, 1994).
7) In human studies the fluoridating agents most commonly used in the US not only increase the uptake of lead into children’s blood (Masters and Coplan, 1999, 2000) but are also associated with an increase in violent behavior.
8) The margin of safety between the so-called therapeutic benefit of reducing dental decay and many of these end points is either nonexistent or precariously low.

Fluoridation is INEQUITABLE, because:

1) It will go to all households, and the poor cannot afford to avoid it, if they want to, because they will not be able to purchase bottled water or expensive removal equipment.
2) The poor are more likely to suffer poor nutrition which is known to make children more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; ATSDR 1993; Teotia et al, 1998).
3) Very rarely, if ever, do governments offer to pay the costs of those who are unfortunate enough to get dental fluorosissevere enough to require expensive treatment.

Fluoridation is INEFFICIENT and NOT COST-EFFECTIVE because:

1) Only a small fraction of the water fluoridated actually reaches the target. Most of it ends up being used to wash the dishes, to flush the toilet or to water our lawns and gardens.
2) It would be totally cost-prohibitive to use pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride (the substance which has been tested) as a fluoridating agent for the public water supply. Water fluoridation is artificially cheap because, unknown to most people, the fluoridating agent is an unpurified hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizer industry.
3) If it was deemed appropriate to swallow fluoride (even though its major benefits are topical not systemic) a safer and more cost-effective approach would be to provide fluoridated bottle water in supermarkets free of charge. This approach would allow both the quality and the dose to be controlled. Moreover, it would not force it on people who don’t want it.

Fluoridation is UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROMOTED. For example:

1) In 1950, the US Public Health Service enthusiastically endorsed fluoridation before one single trial had been completed.
2) Even though we are getting many more sources of fluoride today than we were in 1945, the so called "optimal concentration" of 1 ppm has remained unchanged.
3) The US Public health Service has never felt obliged to monitor the fluoride levels in our bones even though they have known for years that 50% of the fluoride we swallow each day accumulates there.
4) Officials that promote fluoridation never check to see what the levels of dental fluorosis are in the communities before they fluoridate, even though they know that this level indicates whether children are being overdosed or not.
5) No US agency has yet to respond to Luke’s finding that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland, even though her finding was published in 1994 (abstract), 1997 (Ph. D. thesis), 1998 (paper presented at conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research), and 2001 (published in Caries Research).
6) The CDC’s 1999, 2001 reports advocating fluoridation were both six years out of date in the research they cited on health concerns.


The proponents of water fluoridation refuse to defend this practice in open debate because they know that they would lose that debate. A vast majority of the health officials around the US and in other countries who promote water fluoridation do so based upon someone else’s advice and not based upon a first hand familiarity with the scientific literature. This second hand information produces second rate confidence when they are challenged to defend their position. Their position has more to do with faith than it does with reason.

Those who pull the strings of these public health ‘puppets’, do know the issues, and are cynically playing for time and hoping that they can continue to fool people with the recitation of a long list of "authorities" which support fluoridation instead of engaging the key issues. As Brian Martin made clear in his book Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate (1991), the promotion of fluoridation is based upon the exercise of political power not on rational analysis. The question to answer, therefore, is: "Why is the US Public Health Service choosing to exercise its power in this way?"

Motivations – especially those which have operated over several generations of decision makers – are always difficult to ascertain. However, whether intended or not, fluoridation has served to distract us from several key issues. It has distracted us from:

a) The failure of one of the richest countries in the world to provide decent dental care for poor people.
b) The failure of 80% of American dentists to treat children on Medicaid.
c) The failure of the public health community to fight the huge over consumption of sugary foods by our nation’s children, even to the point of turning a blind eye to the wholesale introduction of soft drink machines into our schools. Their attitude seems to be if fluoride can stop dental decay why bother controlling sugar intake.
d) The failure to adequately address the health and ecological effects of fluoride pollution from large industry. Despite the damage which fluoride pollution has caused, and is still causing, few environmentalists have ever conceived of fluoride as a ‘pollutant.’
e) The failure of the US EPA to develop a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in water which can be scientifically defended.
f) The fact that more and more organofluorine compounds are being introduced into commerce in the form of plastics, pharmaceuticals and pesticides. Despite the fact that some of these compounds pose just as much a threat to our health and environment as their chlorinated and brominated counterparts (i.e. they are highly persistent and fat soluble and many accumulate in the food chains and our body fat), those organizations and agencies which have acted to limit the wide-scale dissemination of these other halogenated products, seem to have a blind spot for the dangers posed by organofluorine compounds.

So while fluoridation is neither effective nor safe, it continues to provide a convenient cover for many of the interests which stand to profit from the public being misinformed about fluoride.

Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. As with the case of mercury amalgams, it is difficult for institutions such as the American Dental Association to concede health risks because of the liabilities waiting in the wings if they were to do so.

However, difficult as it may be, it is nonetheless essential – in order to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm – that the US Government begin to move away from its anachronistic, and increasingly absurd, status quo on this issue. There are precedents. They were able to do this with hormone replacement therapy.

But getting any honest action out of the US Government on this is going to be difficult. Effecting change is like driving a nail through wood – science can sharpen the nail but we need the weight of public opinion to drive it home. Thus, it is going to require a sustained effort to educate the American people and then recruiting their help to put sustained pressure on our political representatives. At the very least we need a moratorium on fluoridation (which simply means turning off the tap for a few months) until there has been a full Congressional hearing on the key issues with testimony offered by scientists on both sides. With the issue of education we are in better shape than ever before. Most of the key studies are available on the internet and there are videotaped interviews with many of the scientists and protagonists whose work has been so important to a modern re-evaluation of this issue.

With this new information, more and more communities are rejecting new fluoridation proposals at the local level. On the national level, there have been some hopeful developments as well, such as the EPA Headquarters Union coming out against fluoridation and the Sierra Club seeking to have the issue re-examined. However, there is still a huge need for other national groups to get involved in order to make this the national issue it desperately needs to be.

I hope that if there are RFW readers who disagree with me on this, they will rebut these arguments. If they can’t than I hope they will get off the fence and help end one of the silliest policies ever inflicted on the citizens of the US. It is time to end this folly of water fluoridation without further delay. It is not going to be easy. Fluoridation represents a very powerful "belief system" backed up by special interests and by entrenched governmental power and influence.

Paul Connett.

All references cited can be found at

Fluoride Action Network | 802-338-5577 |



IQ Studies:

See the 23 published studies reporting an association of reduced IQ with high fluoride exposure.

The water fluoride levels in these studies range from 0.88 – 9.4 ppm.

• NEW: Submissions to US EPA on the urgent need to revise the fluoride drinking water standard
Paul Connett, PhD, Director, Fluoride Action Network
Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD, SENES Oak Ridge, Inc., Center for Risk Analysis

The State of Public Health in Norway 2010 – new report published. NOTE: NORWAY HAS NO WATER FLUORIDATION. "Dental health among children and adolescents is on the whole good. In 2008, close to 80 per cent of all 5-year-olds and almost 50 per cent of 12-year-olds did not have any history of dental decay. The numbers have been increasing steadily over the past 25 years."

• NEW ZEALAND: The towns of Kaitaia and Kaikohe voted no to fluoridation

• NEBRASKA: On May 11 there were 7 referenda held on fluoridation in Nebraska. Results so far: five of 7 communities voted NO. They were: Crete 59-41%; Dakota City 52-48%; Franklin 69-31%; Norfolk 58-42%; and Wahoo 66-34%. The results from Alliance are not in yet, and Gretna passed fluoridation by 6 votes.

• CANADA: On May 4 the Gatineau city council (Québec) voted 16-2 against fluoridation.

• May 11: Dr. Mercola’s latest comments on fluoride.


DVD: Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation

Featuring a Nobel Laureate in Medicine, three scientists from the National Research Council’s landmark review on fluoride, as well as dentists, medical doctors, and leading researchers in the field, this professionally-produced 28-minute DVD presents a powerful indictment of the fluoridation program. The DVD also includes four special features including Dr. Bill Osmunson’s acclaimed statement on fluoride. A great resource for anyone involved in the issue. To order the DVD, click here.

• DVD in great box for $7 each = $35 + postage
• DVD in plain box for $3 each = $15 + postage
• To order email FAN

PROFESSIONALS’ STATEMENT: 2,804 Medical, Scientific, and Environmental Professionals Calling for End to Fluoridation Worldwide

June 22, 2010: U.S. signers (A-MN-Z) and International signer:
• 421 Nurses (RN, MSN, BSN, ARNP, APRN, LNC, RGON)
• 386 PhD’s – includes DSc (Doctor of Science); EdD (Doctor of Education); DrPH (Doctor of Public Health)
• 378 DC’s (Doctor of Chiropractic, includes M Chiro)
• 328 MD’s (includes MBBS)
• 266 Dentists (DDS, DMD, BDS)
• 132 ND’s (Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine)
• 72 Lawyers (JD, LLB, Avvocato)

See Professionals’ Statement: PDF | HTML | in French | in Italian | in Spanish

If you are a professional, add your name to the Statement.
Not listed above, but included, are: pharmacist, veterinarian, water treatment worker, etc.

TAKE ACTION! Sign the Online Message to Congress!

• Iceland’s Eyjafjallajökull volcano erupted on March 20 and April 10, 2010.
"… Professor James Curran, director of science and strategy at Sepa [Scottish Environment Protection Agency], said: "The greatest environmental concern from volcanic ash, and the most significant risk to grazing livestock, would be fluoride content in ash deposits." April 17, 2010: The Press Association (UK). Volcano ash cloud risk ‘minimal’

April 15, 2010: Soluble fluoride on volcanic ash and scoria from the eruption on Fimmvörðuháls [area between the glaciers Eyjafjallajökull and Mýrdalsjökull in southern Iceland].

Soluble fluoride on ash surface: mg F pr. kg ash (ppm).
1. (pH 6.45) Fluoride 92 ppm (Leached in the laboratory. Fluoride and pH of leachate measured in the laboratory).
2. (pH 5.66) Fluoride 112 ppm (Fluoride and pH measured in meltwater).
3. (pH 5.55) Fluoride 112 ppm (Fluoride and pH measured in meltwater).
Source: Institute of Earth Sciences, Nordic Volcanological Center

Testing April 1 & 2, 2010. Remote sensing gas measurements on eruptive fissures at Fimmvörduháls: The flux of HF from the eruption was ~30 tonnes per day.
Source: Gas composition and flux report

Background on fluoride dangers from volcanic emissions
Latest News
Daily updates on the quality of air in cities across Europe

• April 12, 2010: TIME Magazine Lists Fluoride among the Top Ten Common Household Toxins

April 16, 2010: Fluoridation: Quebec vs. Ontario. "Ontario has the country’s highest rate of adding the tooth-enamel-strengthening chemical into municipal supplies, while Quebec has one of the lowest, with practically no one drinking fluoridated water. But surprisingly, the two provinces have very little difference in tooth-decay rates…" See full report in the Toronto Globe & Mail.

• China’s sodium fluoride used for water fluoridation causing problems nationwide.
— April 21, 2010: MASSACHUSETTS – Chairman: Water is completely safe. "…Of 132 municipal water systems in Massachusetts, 44 receive fluoride from China... Mr. Fisher said Somerset has been putting fluoride in its water supply since 1969 and said it does come from China. He said the only two countries that sell fluoride to the United States are China and Japan…"
— April 13, 2010: LOUISIANA – A state Senate committee advanced legislation (SB 638) to forbid the purchase of fluoridation chemicals from China.
— March 19, 2010: Hudson MA: discontinues use of Chinese fluoridation chemical
— March 11, 2010: MA: Chinese fluoride In Mass. water raises concern
— Jan 25, 2010: Amesbury MA: Feds note fluoride problems
— Jan 19, 2010: Amesbury MA: Town halts use in water supply, seeks solutions

US EPA requests Public Comments and/or Information on National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Comments due May 28.

Use non-fluoridated water when making infant formula – see video by Doug Cragoe

• November 2009: Researchers find an association between fluoridation and premature births in Upstate New York. See study & news release from the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.



March 8: Video of CBS-TV in Atlanta report; Dangerous Fluoride (alsotranscript)

Law firm seeking contact with anyone, particularly parents of children, who has dental fluorosis,

EU Documents on Fluoride (see list)

Derogation on the Drinking Water Directive 98/83/EC – April 16, 2010
SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks)
This short report presents conclusions that are alarmingly ill-informed. SCHER is expected to release its report on the use of fluoride in drinking water on May 18.

Dr. Phillip Michael’s June 2, 2009, comments on fluoridation submitted on behalf of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment

• Nov 27, 2008: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released its "scientific opinion" on the safety of adding Sodium monofluorophosphat to food, albeit adding: "The safety of fluoride itself, in term of amounts that may be consumed, is outside the remit of this Panel." On the same day EFSA also approved Calcum fluoride "for nutritional purposes to food supplements."
Submission to EFSA from Dr. Vyvyan Howard on January 21, 2009
The Alliance for Natural Health in the UK is calling for an inquiry of EFSA because of their approval of a "toothpaste toxin for use in food supplements."
EFSA’s Summary & Opinion on Calcium fluoride

• Fluoridated "Nursery® Water" – Notice of Class Action and Proposed Settlement.

• Dec 7, 2009: New Jersey Senate Health Committee approves state-wide mandatory fluoridation
NJ: A state at risk of mandatory fluoridation
Mandatory state laws on fluoridation
Fluoride-Adjusted Public Water Supplies in New Jersey

• See video (Part 1 and Part 2) of the Austin Environmental Board (Texas) meeting of Dec 2. Also see Fluoride Free Austin site and newspaper report of the meeting.

• Responses to Health Canada report: Fluoride in Drinking Water (comment period ended Nov 27, 2009).
Kathleen Thiessen, PhD
Paul Connett, PhD, for Fluoride Action Network
Carole Clinch’s Response and Omissions.

Earth Day roots trace back to a killer ‘fluoride fog
"The Donora Smog that killed residents of a Pennsylvania town in 1948 was the first in a series of environmental disasters that led to today’s environmental consciousness… Between Oct. 26 and Halloween night of 1948, a weather pattern contained air pollution from various sources, particularly the Donora Zinc Works smelting facility, over the Washington County town. Twenty people asphyxiated and half of the people in the town of 14,000 became ill.  Cathy Milbourn, air quality spokeswoman for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, said the "fluoride fog" was one of the key events that prompted a cry for pollution control legislation. The Donora Smog gained national attention on Walter Winchell’s radio show. "That supposedly triggered the first Clean Air Act," she said. "It’s been said that if the smog lasted another day, it would have killed 1,000 instead of 20."…

• AUSTRALIA: On Dec 4, a letter was sent to Victoria’s Health Minister calling for the resignation of mandatory fluoridation proponent Dr. John Carnie, Chief Health Officer for the province. See the letter (html or pdf), with nearly 200 signatures, that the Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura sent to the Health Minister.

• 2 more victories in Nebraska. On Nov 10 the communities of Wisner &Yutan voted NO to fluoridation. Last year both communities voted yes to fluoridation but complained that the wording of the referendum was confusing. They got the right to a second vote and this week both communities reversed their vote. On Sept 17, Wakefield, Nebraska, voted NO to fluoridation.

See all contributions from the American Dental Association (ADA) to US Congressional representatives in 2008. See also the ADA’s press releasethanking Congressman Mike Simpson (R-ID) for sponsoring — and the House of Representatives for passing — a resolution on May 12, 2009, congratulating the ADA on its 150th anniversary. Simpson received $10,250 from the ADA in 2008.

• Sept. 29: JADA study proves fluoridation is money down the drain by the New York State Coalition Against Fluoridation.

• Sept. 26: New video, Fluoride in Water, Heath Effects and Dangersfocused primarily on the phosphate industry that supply silicofluorides as fluoridation agents.

• CALIFORNIA: “Fluoride and its salts” are one of 5 chemical categories selected for review by the California Prop 65 Cancer Hazard Identification Committee.  See submissions.

• July 21, 2009: Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada: City Council says NO to fluoridation. "While [City Councillor] Giertuga said calls and emails from the public were three to one against flouridation, Mayor Lynn Peterson said it was more like 10 to one…" Read more

• MISSISSIPPI: University of North Carolina students credited with getting mandatory fluoridation in MIssissippi for communities with a population of 2,000 or more. "A team of graduate stud in the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health’s department of health policy and management has helped convince the Mississippi state legislature…" Read more

• NEW: Chloramine + Lead Pipes + Fluoride = Contaminated tap water. See latest from the Environmental Working Group

SULFURYL FLUORIDE UPDATE: EPA selected sulfuryl fluoride for aregistration review and and has released several new documents, including a new Human Health Risk Assessment for public comment.

• See FAN’s Submission to EPA on August 24, 2009

On June 10, Dow AgroSciences petitioned EPA for a 3-year Experimental Use Permit for a first-time use of sulfuryl fluoride as a pre-plant fumigant.
• See FAN’s submission of July 10.

The Sierra Club organized a sign-on petition to EPA to deny the permit on the basis that sulfuryl fluoride has 4,780 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide.

— July 13: Dow Pitching New Pesticide That Doubles as an Extraordinarily Potent Greenhouse Gas (Press release from Pesticide Action Network)

Dog food contaminated with levels of fluoride above EPA’s legal limit for humans. Study from the Environmental Working Group.

Great Lakes United resolution of May 20 supports the end of water fluoridation. GLU is an international coalition dedicated to preserving and restoring the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River ecosystem. GLU is made up of member organizations representing environmentalists, conservationists, hunters and anglers, labor unions, community groups, and citizens of the United States, Canada, and First Nations and Tribes. Part of the resolution reads:

Therefore be it resolved that Great Lakes United supports the United States Environmental Protection Agency unions (US EPA Unions), Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) statements and professionals world-wide that the practice of artificial drinking water fluoridation be terminated.

• July 11, 2008: CDC’s latest (2006) list of populations-by-state with fluoridated drinking water.• 2006 – CDC’s U.S. Water Supply Statistics

April 7 on Warning: Never Swallow Regular Toothpaste

• April 12: Doctors ‘struggling to cope’ with upsurge in hip fractures, The Sunday Times (Ireland)
• April 19: Letter published in response from Professor Vyvyan Howard.
Note: In 1960, the Irish Parliament (the Dail) passed the Health (Fluoridation of Water Supplies) Act. This mandated that fluoride be added to the public water supplies. Fluoridation began in 1963 and 73% of the population of Ireland drink fluoridated water.

• Feb 26: Background to the unanimous decision to fluoridate Southampton UK (and nearby communities) – The Feb 26th decision was made by the South Central Strategic Health Authority even though their own surveys reported 72% of people in the affected areas were opposed and that Hampshire County Council, where Southampton is located, opposed the scheme. At the 11th hour, on Feb 20, critical documents were released to the public.  Among them were scientific critiques by Bazian Ltd. which were significantly flawed. See also FAN’s Feb 26 press release and letter to the Board Members of the South Central SHA; also see updated UK press coverage on FAN’s NewsTracker.

Feb 26: Fluoridation Gamble Fails the Test of Time, by FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD. Published in Republic Magazine.

• Feb 20. Kathleen Thiessen’s submission to ATSDR’s Health Assessment of fluoride releases from Oak Ridge, TN. This is the most succinct and up-to-date review of fluoride releases from the K-25 and S-50 units at the Oak Ridge Reservation.

• Jan 22, 2009: American Diabetes Association receives Formal Notice of Failure to Warn and Responsibility to Amend Incorrect Public Statements.Letter sent by from Dan Stockin of The Lillie Center on behalf of the millions of people with diabetes and the millions more with pre-diabetes.

Georgia water worker fired for refusing to purchase and add fluoride to water system
• Dec 17, 2008: Press Release from The Lillie Center
• Dec 2, 2008: US EPA Union letter (pdf) to the Commissioners of the Water Utility
• Nov 20, 2008: Termination of Employment letter and more


• Sept 2008: Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment opposes fluoridation

• July 11, 2008: CDC’s latest (2006) list of populations-by-state with fluoridated drinking water.• 2006 – CDC’s U.S. Water Supply Statistics
184,028,038 = U.S. Population Receiving Fluoridated Water
265,794,252 = U.S. Population served by Community Water Systems
299,398,484 = U.S. Population

Nov 20: Hampshire County Council (UK) votes against fluoride plan
Nov 18:

Fluoride a health risk, doctors’ group says
End water fluoridation, professor says
Nov 13:
Test Valley Borough Council (UK) votes 26 to 10 against fluoridation
• Nov 2, 2008: Southampton, England: Fluoride – is it a crooked ballot? By Julian Lewis, Conservative MP for New Forest East.
• Oct 1, 2008: Are we poisoning our babies and children with fluoride?

• June 9, 2008: American Water Works Assoc. warned not to remove or destroy evidence for water fluoridation injury legal actions• June 3, 2008:Kidney Foundation admits: kidney patients should be notified of potential risk from fluoride and fluoridated drinking water

• Feb 20, 2008: Scientific Consensus Statement on Environmental Agents Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Fluoride is identified as a chemical of "significant concern." The Statement is in pdf format and takes about a minute to download. It was released February 20, 2008 – see press release.

Fluoride: Top 10 Scientific Developments of 2007

• EWG: Major Infant Bottled Water Company Provides Misleading & False Information About Benefits of Fluoridated Water

Second Thoughts About Fluoride
– Scientific American, January 2008

Critics raise red flag over fluoride in tap water – Toronto Globe & Mail, Nov 23, 2007

• Nov 8, 2007: Martin Sheen: Fluoridation "Hard to Swallow"

• PENNSYLVANIA: Proposed mandatory fluoridation bill HB 1649

ISLE OF MAN: Nov. 20, 2007, debate between the Director of Fluoride Action Network and the Chair of the British Fluoridation Society

Did the National Kidney Foundation leave millions at risk by failing to warn about fluoride?

VICTORY: Alaska’s Capital City Votes a "Resounding" NO to Fluoridation


Pro-fluoride campaign nets $151,623 – Juneau Empire
Keep Juneau’s water fluoride-free – Juneau Empire
Another doctor against fluoride in the water – Juneau Empire
What I learned on the Fluoride Study Commission – Juneau Empire
Fluoridation: Why Europe matters – Juneau Empire

CALIFORNIA: Fluoride in Southern California Tap Water: Children are overexposed (also see EWG Press Release)

August 13, 2007: CDC faces ethics charges for failure to warn the public on fluoride’s risks

The Ethics Complaint

Press Release from the Lille Center, Inc.

ALERT: Fluoride Warning Issued for Infants

Water District Urged to Warn Parents of Infant Risk Mothering Magazine: New Fluoride Warning for InfantsFormula, fluoride can discolor children’s teethAmerican Dental Association’s "e-gram alert" Fluoride & Babies Don’t Mix, Say ADABackground re: Fluoride & Infants VIDEO: Fluoride: Friend or Foe? VIDEO: Study: Fluoride possibly harmful to infantsVIDEO: Dental Experts: Too Much Fluoride Is Bad For Babies

VIDEO: Parents Warned Against Fluoride in Water

TAKE ACTION! Ask Wal-Mart to Stop Selling Fluoride Water to Infants

VICTORIES! More Communities Throwing Out Fluoridation

FLUORIDE/BONE CANCER: "Professor’s Fluoride Scandal Stinks"

FOX 25 Investigative Report (part 1)FOX 25 Investigative Report (part 2) Did Harvard Ethics Investigation Break the Rules?Dr. Samuel Epstein’s letter in Harvard CrimsonFAN’s Statement on Harvard Investigation

Harvard Grads Criticize University’s Investigation

MEDIA: Boston Herald | WebMD | Metro West Daily | Harvard Crimson | FOX 25 Report |Associated Press | Wall Street Journal | Online Lawyer Source | Washington Post | MSNBC

NRC REPORT: Safe Drinking Water Standards for Fluoride "Should be Lowered"

READ IT FREE ONLINE AND/OR BUY ITFAN: Press Release | Excerpts from Report |Relevance to Fluoridation

MEDIA: Portland Tribune | Wall Street Journal | Chemical & Engineering News | Science | USA Today | Metro West Daily News | HealthDay | LA Times | NY Times | ABC News

MEDIA: FAN Conference Featured in American Chemical Society magazine– Chemical & Engineering News, September 4, 2006

Background on 2nd Citizens’ Conference on Fluoride

FAN’s Interview witih Dr. Kathleen Thiessen

PROTECTING OUR FOOD: The Campaign Against Sulfuryl Fluoride

EXCLUSIVE: Water Fluoridation "Obsolete" According to Nobel Prize Scientist

Anti-Fluoridation Song: Get it Out!
Written and performed by Alex Wilson in Burlington VT.
Click here for words to song
(Burlington was fluoridated in 1952. Alex wrote this in 2005.)

EPA Fluoride Docments

flouride, fluoridation, flouride, flouridation, flouride,




Oral Health Data Systems
My Water’s Fluoride
Safe, effective prevention of tooth decay for people of all ages: Know if your water is optimally fluoridated.

My Water’s Fluoride allows consumers in currently participating states to learn the fluoridation status of their water system.

The best source of information on fluoride levels in your water system is your local water utility. All water utilities must provide their consumers with a Consumer Confidence Report that provides information on a system’s water quality, including its fluoridation level. The state drinking water administrator or state oral health program also should be able to help you identify the fluoride level of your drinking water.

Optimal fluoride levels recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service and CDC for drinking water range from 0.7 parts per million (ppm) for warmer climates to 1.2 ppm for cooler climates to account for the tendency for people to drink more water in warmer climates.

 United States Map


United States Map
American Samoa | Guam | N. Mariana Islands |
Palau | Puerto Rico | Virgin Islands

Search by Water System Name


Beginning With Containing

Search by Water System ID


Beginning With Containing

This page was last reviewed by CDC on October 28, 2008. The data presented are the most recent provided by the state.

Oral Health Home | Contact Us
CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z
Privacy Policy | Accessibility

United States Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Division of Oral Health