The case against fluoride

i-f9a82a1b0a206a91e01b3866d8c02997-flouride.jpgAlthough I just play the role of a scientist on the internet, my father actually is one. As well as being a medical doctor, he is a retired professor of biophysics. I am telling you this because he has recently co-authored a book on a subject that might interest readers of ScienceBlogs: fluoridation of human water supplies. The book is entitled "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There" and you can read a detailed review of that book here [PDF].

At my request, he has written up a guest post outlining the arguments he and his co-authors make in much greater detail in "The Case against Fluoride" and says he will be checking the comments in case there are questions. So, without further ado, take it away Dad!

Guest post by James S. Beck

Participants in this blog will be familiar with at least one struggle between science and science-deniers in the context of a man-made disaster, where material interests and greed and reluctance to face responsibility and fear of legal liability all lie in the background. That’s the drama of climate change. Well, here’s another one for us: fluoridation of public water supplies. The science is perhaps simpler and the solution certainly is easier but the parallels are nevertheless striking.

This drama got its start in North America in the 1940’s after a big effort on the part of industries that were faced with costly law suits over illness and death, things apparently caused by their industrial use of fluorine-containing chemicals. The government of the United States was also involved in fluorine use in its enrichment of uranium for fission bombs. The public became involved unknowingly in 1945 with the beginnings of trials of fluoride as a preventive of dental caries (cavities). These trials were imposed on large cities in Canada, the US and New Zealand without consent of their inhabitants. The goal of some of the actors was prevention of cavities. The goal of the pushers seems to have been to make fluoride look harmless and beneficial, thus making legal challenges hopeless of success. But these trials were imposed without prior tests for safety or effectiveness and fluoridation of public water supplies was approved and promoted by the US Public Health Service in 1950 – half-way through these ill-conceived and incompetently executed trials. After that other government agencies and some professional associations quickly got on the bandwagon. Currently about two-thirds of the population of the United States is using fluoridated water. In Canada usage varies with province but overall less than 40% of the population has it. In Europe the practice has been refused and stopped to the extent that over 90% of the people do not have it.

A brief review of three critical questions about fluoridation follows.

Is fluoridation effective in reducing the incidence of dental caries (cavities)?

Fluoridation of public water supplies has been in effect somewhere in the world for seven decades now. Over that time the prevalence of dental caries has fallen in industrialized countries. This has been taken by many to indicate efficacy. But research has consistently shown that the decrease has occurred in countries without fluoridation to the same or greater degree as in those with fluoridation. Furthermore it is observed that in jurisdictions where fluoridation has been discontinued the incidence of caries has not risen. And studies comparing caries experience of cities fluoridated with cities not fluoridated have shown no difference, except where the nonfluoridated cities do better.

The answer to this first question is clearly no.

Is fluoridation safe?

The most obvious toxic effect has been dental fluorosis. In mild cases it appears as mottling discoloration of tooth surfaces. In moderate and severe cases it involves discoloration, pitting and weakening of the enamel and has serious consequences. The treatment of this condition costs tens of thousands of dollars per patient. Even if this effect were only cosmetic, it would have serious negative effects on a child’s or teenager’s life. Aside from dental fluorosis, evidence uncovered over the last two decades has shown an association of fluoride in drinking water with lower IQ in children. There are over twenty published studies showing this association. In laboratory studies of animals and of aborted human fetuses an association with abnormalities of cells of the brain has been found. Also it has been shown that fluoridation is associated with high levels of lead, a known neurotoxin, in the blood of children.

And there’s more, including, but not limited to, the following:

  • Fluoride intake is a cause of impaired thyroid function. Indeed fluoride was once used medically to suppress thyroid function.
  • Deleterious effects on reproductive systems in humans have been found to be associated with fluoridation: in girls, early onset of menstruation; in men, low sperm counts.
  • We now have strong evidence of the association of osteosarcoma in boys and young adult males with fluoridation. Osteosarcoma is a bone cancer which is often fatal.
  • The possible incidence of bone fracture with fluoridation has been studied with mixed results. One of the strongest studies is presented in a paper by Li et al. published in 2001 which shows a rising prevalence of hip fracture correlated with a rising intake of fluoride starting with concentrations comparable with those used in fluoridation in North America. And this is just one example that suggests that hip fracture is caused by fluoridated water.
  • Fluoride adversely affects kidneys.
  • Two recent studies have shown adverse effects on the heart and the aorta.

Ironically, this multiplicity of demonstrated and possible toxicities has actually been cited by some proponents of fluoridation as discrediting the arguments of opponents. That tactic appears as an assertion that opponents are scaremongers, that nothing would cause so much trouble for so many body systems. But these effects of fluoride are not so surprising to anyone who recognizes that the element fluorine is the most reactive chemical element and that it reacts with many components of the human body. For example, fluoride has been used in thousands of laboratory investigations as an inhibitor of enzymes, the proteins that catalyze (facilitate) biochemical reactions. It is also well known that fluoride, in combination with other elements such as aluminum and with components of cell membranes, disrupts the normal signalling across the membanes of hormones and other messengers that activate or moderate cellular functions. Really, the multiple toxicities are to be expected rather than dismissed because there are so many.

All of this is backed up by scientific reports in peer-reviewed journals. I recognize that there are well educated proponents of fluoridation including scientists, physicians and dentists, but in my experience they have never offered evidence of safety or efficacy that stands up to careful scrutiny.

So the answer to the second question, "Is it safe?", is clearly no.

Is fluoridation ethical?

Given the evidence that fluoridation is ineffective and that it is unsafe, the question of ethicality is easily answered in the negative. But even if it were effective, it would not be acceptable for the following reasons.

It is unethical to administer a substance or procedure to a person without the consent of that person, consent informed by a qualified professional who must answer questions from that person and who must inform the recipient of the reasons for the administration and of possible side effects. Such consent has never been sought from, much less given by, those whose tap water is fluoridated.

It is unethical to administer a substance or procedure that has not been approved by a qualified body. Dosage and/or intensity must be monitored and controlled and the effects on individuals must be monitored by a qualified professional (control of concentration in water does not control amount per unit body weight consumed by an individual). The recipient must be able to stop the administration at will. These are simple precepts of medical ethics, precepts clearly not adhered to in the case of fluoridation.

In short the substances used to fluoridate drinking water (mostly hexafluorosilicic acid) have not been tested or approved for use in humans; the dosage is not controlled; individual consent has not been obtained; the effects on individuals are not monitored; individuals can not stop the administration.

Fluoridation of public water supplies fails on all these ethical requirements.

For more information on this issue, such as which city water supplies are fluoridated and how you can get involved can be found at the Fluoride Action Network.

[Update: references for this book can be found here:, sorry this was not offered initially]

292 thoughts on “The case against fluoride

  1. Sid, dear, some of us know enough about rodent biology to understand the fact that they do not have identical responses to every test substance. Sometimes they need more, in order to show a proportional response to humans. Sometimes it is the same. Sometimes it is less, because they have a higher sensitivity to the substance in question, or do not metabolise it well. It is very specific to the substance in question. That is why I said, in my response, that the statement was specifically with regard to fluoride (and common fluoride compounds).

    I will look up the reference to see if you are correct, thank you for the detail. The rest of your post is largely incoherent, but in bits simply wrong. But what do I know, maybe kids don’t get regular dental cleanings at dentists’ offices where you live. Here they do, it is recommended for twice a year. They did when I was living in the US, as well. But hey, like I said, maybe they don’t where you are.

    @Mike: Sid Offit is a dedicated anti-vaccinationist who usually trolls Respectful Insolence. What he just posted here is really very typical.


  2. Sid:

    As I suspected. The reference you gave discusses the scaling factor for therapeutic pharmaceuticals where a difference in human/animal response is suspected, but not known or where it is not well understood. It does not refer to fluoride compounds, where it looks to me as if extensive testing of blood sera levels and bone surface and bone interior have all been done in order to assess absorption, and it seems to be the case that absorption of it is much of a muchness in all mammals.

    So. I renew my request to Paul Connett — if he is aware of specific protocols which describe fluoride absorption in rodents, on which he bases his statement that they need 5-10x human dose to reach the same blood serum level, I would really love to know details.


  3. Mike@253. I don’t know how you can advise anyone to talk about science when your posts give no hint that you know anything about science even if you are the top “water quality professional” in Ruritania for all I know. Have you made a single serious scientific statement, quoted one scientific paper? You can’t even understand what Sid Offit meant about DDSs even though he made it clear enough I’d have thought. If you tried the link he gave, maybe you couldn’t figure out why it didn’t work exactly as given (hint: typo). So here it is. It confirms what he said. Enjoy. J Public Health Dent. 2007 Summer;67(3):140-7.
    Knowledge and use of fluoride among Indiana dental professionals.
    Yoder KM, Maupome G, Ofner S, Swigonski NL.

    And you don’t appear to understand that original papers, reviews and books play different necessary roles and don’t always need to be written by the same people.

    Do you ever get around to actually reading any books? It’s simpler to find reasons not to that’s for sure, and you seem to have a lot else to do. Hint: save time, follow the sensible punaise example and go back to lurking.

    La punaise


  4. Luna_the_cat @234,236
    Of the two papers you think were missed, McDonagh et al is the famous so-called York report which everyone on both sides of the debate regularly quotes/misquotes to bolster their point of view.

    The Stephen et al paper is a real lemon. I don’t know whether you have had a chance to read the whole paper rather than just the abstract. There are problems.

    1. Beware the percentage scam. The headline 96% reduction in caries has a nice high geewhizz factor. If you unscramble the garbled mess that is Table 3 it turns out that decayed, missing or filled deciduous teeth in 5-6 year olds (the categories are not distinguished) number 3.21+/-3.11 in the control community and 0.13+/-0.35 in the fluoridated three. That is a worthwhile reduction IF (big if, which I’ll come to) it is due to fluoridation. But it hardly has the impact of 96%. Almost all papers quote their caries reductions in percents. It is not exactly a lie, but it is a kind of trickery when you are dealing with small numbers. They also refer to the difference between 0.96 and 0.00 carious tooth surfaces, out of 128 in a child’s mouth, as a reduction of 100%: wow.
    2. Not a problem, but note that differences are smaller and more irregular in the permanent teeth of older children.

    3. Now the real problem and it’s a biggy. They claimed that the fluoride-exposed (F) and control (NF) communities were “socioeconomically similar” in rural Morayshire, without giving any supporting detail. You live nearby and confirm that the communities look similar, though this puzzles me since Buckie+Portessie (Postcode AB56 1) is an industrial town of 8,000 or so people and the other places are small villages with a total population little more than half that. I have been looking at the relative demographic and socioeconomic data for the period of the study and they reveal large differences between the F and NF communities in almost every parameter you can think of: income, life expectancy, social class composition, educational level of workforce, car ownership, proportion of children living in single-parent or welfare-dependent homes, etc, etc. All of these show that the NF control community of Buckie/Portessie was substantially poorer and less privileged than the three F villages and hence, as wide experience has shown and the authors acknowledge, likely to have poorer dental health. So much for the authors’ claim of similarity. Worse still – and the authors must surely have been aware of this – Buckie/Portessie’s children apparently had exceptionally poor dental health even by Scottish standards, as evidenced by one of the highest dental hospital admission rates in the country – 3 times the national average.

    In short, the Buckie/Portessie area provided an absurdly inappropriate baseline for assessing any effect of fluoridation on the wealthier communities and, as a result, no valid conclusions can be drawn from the paper.

    The socioeconomic data are available online from ScotPHO (Public Health Information for Scotland), and demographics (I haven’t said anything about that, but there are also big differences in population make-up) from Scottish Census Results Online. Let me know if you have trouble finding them. The amount of detail is amazing.

    Some very large studies that have been published during the last 20 years or so, mostly by people with a stated pro-fluoridation bias, show little difference in the permanent teeth, some so little that it might reasonably be called trivial.
    You may like to look at some of the following if you aren’t already familiar with them.
    J. A. Brunelle and J. P. Carlos, “Recent Trends in Dental Caries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation,” Journal of Dental Research 69 (1990): 723–27
    A. J. Spencer, G. D. Slade and M. Davies, “Water Fluoridation in Australia,” Community Dental Health 13, suppl. 2 (1996): 27–37
    D. Locker, Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation: An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report, prepared under contract for Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health First Nations and Inuit Health Branch, Health Canada (Ottawa: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, 1999),
    H. Cohen and D. Locker, “The Science and Ethics of Water Fluoridation,” Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 67, no. 10 (2001): 578–80 34.
    J. M. Armfield and A. J. Spencer, “Consumption of Nonpublic Water: Implications for Children’s Caries Experience,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 32, no. 4 (2004): 283–96.
    A. Komárek, E. Lesaffre, T. Härkänen, et al., “A Bayesian Analysis of Multivariate Doubly-Interval-Censored Dental Data,” Biostatistics 6, no. 1 (2005): 145–55.
    J. J. Warren, S. M. Levy, B. Broffitt, et al., “Considerations on Optimal Fluoride Intake Using Dental Fluorosis and Dental Caries Outcomes—A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Public Health Dentistry 69, no. 2 (2009): 111–15.

    Can you remind me about the protests you say occurred when fluoridation was mooted for the UK way back? I can’t recall anything about them or even that they existed (Of course I know about the recent circus in Southampton).



  5. @punaise

    You can’t even understand what Sid Offit meant about DDSs even though he made it clear enough I’d have thought.

    I understood perfectly, thank you. He inferred that because they are not aware that considerable (and real) discussion regarding topical vs systemic efficacy is occurring…fluoride must be what…bad?

    On which I call bullshit. I’ll leave it to you to sort out the logic.

    Have you made a single serious scientific statement, quoted one scientific paper?

    From @249: “I’ll leave the dozens of gov’t, health, and water agencies in this and other countries to do the pro- papers (which they have).”

    Spewing references is, as we all know, is a time-honored blog tactic. I have read many of them. If you, or anyone else is interested in finding them, teh Google awaits.

    And you don’t appear to understand that original papers, reviews and books play different necessary roles and don’t always need to be written by the same people.

    If they have an original thought, an important addition to the scientific literature, then an advertisement on a relative’s blog, couching a bag of spaghetti-throwing half-truths, is a poor choice for an outlet. These are presumably seasoned scientists. WTF? Is there a reason that a proper paper wasn’t the goal of their interest? I won’t wait on pins and needles for an answer.

    I write a lot, and I read a lot, and I lurk a lot. And when I see content about which I have personal, professional knowledge which comes wrapped in sensationalist, fear-mongering hyperbole, I call bullshit. I would hope that you would do the same.



  6. Oh dear. Just when we thought you were doing a great job of putting down the pseuds, you go and fall for the old “It’s family” scam and get a load of woo dumped on your (mostly) impeccable blog. Why not follow up with a guest post by Christopher Monckton, just to even things up a bit [/sarcasm]


  7. Micklem: Unfortunately I have a lot of things (real work stuff) that I need to do this weekend, so I need to be brief; but a few quick responses which I would be happy to revisit at leisure.

    Simplest first — there were some very vocal and vitriolic protests at water fluoridation plans in Scotland in 2003 (see, for example, ), and I seem to remember the previous protest being around 1990, although I can’t dig up news stories from then and have to admit I wasn’t paying close attention. Perhaps I was extrapolating from Scotland to all of the UK in an unwarranted fashion, but certainly we’ve had that reaction in the public of Scotland, and the Green party have done their best to fan those flames where they can in England, much shame to them.

    Second, re. the Morayshire paper — I have in-laws living in Portknockie (if you aren’t sure where that is, I suggest Google maps) and my husband and I love the north coast and stay at their house whenever we can — I can assure you, I haven’t just “seen” the area, I’ve walked it, shopped it, got to know its local drunks, got to know its local folk music groups (there are some good ones), listened to local whinging about local papers and politicians, etc. etc. As I mentioned, Kinloss is distinguished by its RAF base — which skews education and employment statistics, but does not contribute much at all to the local population of children (it is not a family base) — and Findhorn is distinguished by its famous hippie (now really ex-hippie) community which is very prosperous and skews education and employment statistics, but again not so much the children; outside of these little islands, the communities are indeed very well matched. Burghead, very well matched, except obviously for absolute population and numnber of manufacturing jobs. You point about % being squishable or stretchable is well enough made, but actually, the straight numbers do speak volumes.

    Now, I haven’t time at the moment to read your list of references in every detail, but a quick search amused the heck out of me.

    J. A. Brunelle and J. P. Carlos, “Recent Trends in Dental Caries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation,” Journal of Dental Research 69 (1990)

    Children who had always been exposed to community water fluoridation had mean DMFS scores about 18% lower than those who had never lived in fluoridated communities. When some of the “background” effect of topical fluoride was controlled, this difference increased to 25%. The results suggest that water fluoridation has played a dominant role in the decline in caries and must continue to be a major prevention methodology.

    A. J. Spencer, G. D. Slade and M. Davies, “Water Fluoridation in Australia,” Community Dental Health 13, suppl. 2 (1996)

    Results from Australian oral epidemiological studies consistently support the accumulated evidence on the effectiveness of water fluoridation. This includes recent evidence that lifetime exposure to fluoridation is associated with average reductions of 2.0 dmfs and between 0.12 and 0.30 DMFS per child compared with non-exposed children. Water fluoridation has been found to reduce socio-economic inequalities in caries, reducing the differential between high and low socio-economic status groups by approximately 1.0 dmfs and 0.2 DMFS per child. … Community water fluoridation continues to be the most effective and socially equitable measure for caries prevention among all ages by achieving community-wide exposure to the caries preventive effects of fluoride.

    Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation: An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report, prepared under contract for Public Health Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health First Nations and Inuit Health Branch
    — A bit more complex than the cherry-picked quotes in the conclusion that are extensively used on fluoridealert and other anti-fluoridation sites. Includes things like

    The quality of the evidence provided by these recent studies of the effectiveness of water
    fluoridation is, in general, rather poor. Nevertheless, in spite of weak designs,
    methodological flaws and the publication of studies showing no significant differences in caries rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, the balance of the evidence does suggest that in many locations water fluoridation is associated with a reduction in rates of dental decay. This conclusion is strengthened by the findings of the few studies that are more robust in methodological terms.


    However, these studies reported that caries rates are highest of all in children from low socioeconomic groups living in non-fluoridated communities. Moreover, the absolute difference in dmft/s or DMFT/S scores between populations living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities is consistently larger in lower SES children than in higher SES children

    (So, better studies needed? Sure. Lack of benefit? Not so much.)

    J. M. Armfield and A. J. Spencer, “Consumption of Nonpublic Water: Implications for Children’s Caries Experience,” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 32, no. 4 (2004)

    There are concerns that the consumption of unfluoridated bottled and tank water may put children at increased risk of developing caries.

    Multivariate modelling revealed a significant positive relationship between deciduous caries experience and consumption of nonpublic water, even after controlling for the age and sex of the child, SES and residential location.

    CONCLUSION: Recommendations are made for the addition of fluoride to bottled water, especially with regard to the oral health of younger children.

    A. Komárek, E. Lesaffre, T. Härkänen, et al., “A Bayesian Analysis of Multivariate Doubly-Interval-Censored Dental Data,” Biostatistics 6, no. 1 (2005)
    –Came to a firm conclusion that fluoridation doesn’t help with caries, but Jesus wept, you pick on the Morayshire study and then put forward this? Talk about limited, biased and weak! “Our analyses will be limited to the caries experience of the four permanent first molars (teeth number 16, 26, 36, 46 in European dental notation) … it was decided to measure fluoride-intake by the degree of fluorosis on some reference teeth. [that is, not by access to fluoridated water]” Yeesh.

    J. J. Warren, S. M. Levy, B. Broffitt, et al., “Considerations on Optimal Fluoride Intake Using Dental Fluorosis and Dental Caries Outcomes—A Longitudinal Study,” Journal of Public Health Dentistry 69, no. 2 (2009)

    While the present study was longitudinal and went to extensive efforts to account for multiple fluoride sources, it relied on periodic parental reports of fluoride use and ingestion which may not have been completely accurate. In addition, some potential sources of fluoride ingestion, such as fluoride mouthrinses and gels or professional fluoride applications, were not assessed in a way to yield concentrations and amounts of fluoride ingestion. In addition to these limitations, the study was conducted in one area of the United States with a sample that was not representative of any defined population. In part because of the longitudinal study design, those who remained in the study until the dental examinations at age 9 years tended to be from higher income families than those who dropped out of the study. Lastly, there were missing data, so the means reported were based on variable numbers of respondents for each time point. [my emphasis]

    In addition to the study’s limitations, there are a few cautions in interpreting the study results. First, most of the fluorosis was mild or very mild (3 percent of fluorosis cases were “severe” as defined by FRI score 3) and generally not of much esthetic concern. Similarly, most of the children with caries had relatively few decayed or filled surfaces.

    Despite the limitations, the study provides the only recent, outcome-based assessment of the “optimal” fluoride intake, and as such, it appears that while the generally accepted range of 0.05 to 0.07 mg F/kg bw may still be associated with caries prevention, it may not be optimal in preventing fluorosis.

    So, in other words, the groups most likely to have benefited from water fluoridation were likely not a part of this study, but nevertheless the authors believed there to be a benefit to a level of water fluoridation, though they pointed out accurately that setting the optimal level of fluoridation was tricky.

    …And so on, and so forth. Honestly, I have to go do other things now. But I have to wonder: what exactly are you trying to prove, here?

    I renew my request for Paul Connett to answer the questions I asked, please.

    I have to admit, I am becoming less and less impressed with this whole thing.


  8. There was a blockquote fail on that last paper. All the paragraphs between “While the present study was longitudinal…” and “So, in other words …” were actually from the paper itself.


  9. @Luna

    To paraphrase Jerry McGuire, “They had you at social equitability”

    and generally not of much esthetic concern.

    I’m glad these clowns feel empowered to judge what is of esthetic concern to others


    Are you not understanding the concept that fluoride-induced delayed eruption is a confounding variable ignored in the studies you highlight?


  10. Sid, I very much doubt that you have read these studies, at all. That might be a thing to try before you make assertions about them. Although, given your general level of comprehension, to be honest it probably wouldn’t make much difference.


  11. Finally, a website that practices truth in advertising. “Ill Considered”, indeed.
    I’ll take my fluoride-tainted precious bodily fluids to other climate websites like RC and Open Mind where I can get climate info free from Coast-to-Coast woo. Very disappointing.


  12. Sweet jesus; when both Sid Offitt and “Doctor Smart” show up in a thread on your side, you know you’re in trouble.

    I think this thread is becoming moribund. Let’s let it.

    But, Coby: what you have here is a big steaming pile of opportunity — honestly. I think you should be getting insight out of this.

    You took a position backing someone you like, respect and admire, your father. You obviously consider your father to be an intelligent man. The question is, do you stick with personal loyalty to an idea which obviously means a lot to him, or do you take on board the criticisms, and perhaps do a little reading around of your own to look at what is on PubMed (never a bad idea), and reconsider the possibility that it really is what the mainstream science says it is?

    At this point, I don’t doubt that attacks on this fluoride idea (and against the intelligence of the people who see a malevolent conspiracy here) probably feel like attacks against you, personally, and your dad (in some cases, it does descend to something indistinguishable from that, too). And the thing which feels right to do, in fact the automatic thing that people do under circumstances like this, is to look for evidence to support the position that you had committed to, and to find ways to nitpick, devalue or rationalise away the stuff that looks like it directly contradicts that position. The fact is, as well, the longer you value an idea for the stronger you entrench yourself in its defense, whether you intend to do that or not.

    You’ve had several posts on how on earth Judith Curry could have gone so far off the rails in dealing with the climate ‘debate’, especially given her education and qualifications and background and (one would have thought) intelligence. This ought to give you some insight. Is it any more understandable, now? How incredibly difficult it is to re-evaluate and back down after you’ve committed to something, even if that something ends up contradictory to the bulk of evidence available and rests on what is essentially a conspiracy theory?


  13. Luna 259. Thanks for the ‘protests’ ref. I do remember the Scottish discussion. You say that there were “very vocal and vitriolic” protests. Neither the article you cite nor any of the links I followed from it mention anything of the sort, though they mention several thousand written submissions. No doubt there were vocal protests too; what’s wrong with that? Vitriolic? Doubtless a few people yelled and ranted about Hitler, Stalin, concentration camps and the gulag. Overall I’d say it was a reasonably calm democratic process and the proposal failed because there was cross-party opposition to it in the Scottish parliament, not just the Greens. The dental profession was disappointed, but has reacted well, finding other more logical ways to reduce caries in vulnerable populations such as parts of Glasgow. In an earlier post (#234) you stated: “I can address one question, which I think was implicated in ‘why was the US one of only a few countries to introduce water fluoridation’, which is ‘why, when there is evidence of benefit, has the UK *not* introduced water fluoridation.’ The answer to that is relatively simple: they tried, and the protests matched the burning of GM test crops in their ferocity.” So are you now withdrawing this? As far as I am aware, it is a fantasy..

    The Morayshire paper. Easy to understand that you love the north coast of Moray, but what have your cultural and touristic impressions got to do with whether Buckie is a suitable control population?? If it comes to a choice between them and official detailed socioeconomic data relating to the actual period of the study, I have to prefer the latter. Sorry, no disrespect to you.
    You say that the controls are valid; the data say unequivocally that they are not.

    You partly explain the disparity yourself by mentioning the RAF base at Kinloss. (There is another nearby at Lossiemouth.) These two bases dominate the immediate local economy. Just look at the current local anxiety about the impending closure of Kinloss. The official body Highlands and Islands Enterprise has estimated that the base supports 2341 jobs and contributes £68million to the local economy annually; the figures for Lossie are 3370 and £90million,

    It is just a pity, from the point of view of Stephen et al’s paper, that the fluoridated communities are very close to the bases and hence are wealthier than most other rural communities, while Buckie is much further away and probably benefits less. Irrespective of fluoride, one would expect these places to have better dental health. I don’t want to bad-mouth this small local study or its hard-working authors, but unfortunately all these factors rob it of any significance as it stands. As it happens, they arrived at much the same picture for deciduous teeth as most of the large studies.

    The papers that amused you. Your life must be one big laugh. It would be better to read them rather than jumping to judgement with short quotes from skimmed abstracts. You seem to be trying to score points off me, but I can read too and know perfectly well what is in those abstracts. Perhaps it’s just standard don’t-try-to-fool-me-I’m-far-too-smart forum-speak. Almost all these papers are by avowed supporters of fluoridation and I thought you might be interested to observe the disconnect between the “conclusions’ that praised the fluoridation programme and the actual results, showing very small or absent benefits, that they obtained from thousands of subjects. I won’t waste my time and everyone’s else’s with a lot of details, but:
    1. In Brunelle & Carlos, 18% means a caries reduction of 0.6 of a permanent tooth surface out of 128 in the mouth. The percentage scam again. Big deal innit? They don’t see fit to put that in the abstract, so you probably wouldn’t have known. Yiamouyiannis 1990 (a fluorosceptic) analysed the same data at a whole tooth rather than tooth surface level and you can access that through He found no significant effect on the permanent teeth. The deciduous teeth showed some benefit, but remember that any benefit to the deciduous teeth is bought at a price, since fluorosis of the permanent teeth is induced by ingesting fluoride in the very early years of life.

    2. Look at Spencer et al’s figures: 2.0 less dmfs and 0.12-0.30 less DMFS due to fluoridation. So they were able to report that fluoridation worked. Fine, but ask yourself: is the difference worth the expense, the additional dental fluorosis, a lifetime’s accumulation of F in the skeleton and very possibly other serious problems, albeit let us say unproven? Please tell: I am listening. Later (2006) they called for fluoridated bottled water on even slenderer grounds, including NO significant effect on DMFS.

    3. Locker 1999

    Obviously it’s more complicated than any short quotes can convey! – it’s quite a long report. Why do you object to the quotes on FluorideAlert? They are non-contentious and reflect what the CDC and other other official pro-fluoride organizations say. Also that website offers you access to the entire report, which unsurprisingly is painted not in black and white but various shades of grey. Locker was a proponent of fluoridation, but (unusually) not dogmatically so. He wrote thoughtfully. I wish he were around to update his report, but unfortunately not.

    4. Komarek 2005. LOL. Feel free to read and understand the paper and THEN rubbish it.

    5. Warren et al 2009. Fluorosis. Percentages again. 3% percent of “severe” fluorosis more or less brushed aside: tiny minority… Well, let’s keep it simple and imagine that just 1% have severe (probably includes “moderate” in other classifications) fluorosis. 1%? Who cares about that? Go figure: that’s 10,000 cases of moderate/severe fluorosis for every million people drinking fluoridated water, 50,000 in the UK. Have you ever seen moderate-severe fluorosis? You don’t want it in your mouth. The British Fluoridation Society, which exists to promote fluoridation, agrees that 3% is about right (p.24 of the following pdf}:

    Click to access 3%20dental%20fluorosis.pdf

    H S Micklem



    ATLANTA — Fluoride in drinking water — credited with dramatically cutting cavities and tooth decay — may now be too much of a good thing. Getting too much of it causes spots on some kids’ teeth.

    A reported increase in the spotting problem is one reason the federal government will announce Friday it plans to lower the recommended levels for fluoride in water supplies — the first such change in nearly 50 years.

    About 2 out of 5 adolescents have tooth streaking or spottiness because of too much fluoride, a surprising government study found recently. In some extreme cases, teeth can even be pitted by the mineral — though many cases are so mild only dentists notice it.

    Health officials note that most communities have fluoride in their water supplies, and toothpaste has it too. Some kids are even given fluoride supplements.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is announcing a proposal to change the recommended fluoride level to 0.7 milligrams per liter of water. And the Environmental Protection Agency will review whether the maximum cutoff of 4 milligrams per liter is too high.

    The standard since 1962 has been a range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams per liter.

    The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that the splotchy tooth condition, fluorosis, is unexpectedly common in kids ages 12 through 15. And it appears to have grown much more common since the 1980s.

    “One of the things that we’re most concerned about is exactly that,” said an administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly before the release of the report. The official described the government’s plans in an interview with The Associated Press.

    The government also is expected to release two related EPA studies which look at the ways Americans are exposed to fluoride and the potential health effects. This shift is sure to re-energize groups that still oppose it.

    Read more:


  15. it’s glaringly evident from reading this article and the comments below it that the “pro” fluoride camp has been outclassed and out-argued by the authors of the book. every one of their criticisms of the authors’ data and sources has been smashed to pieces just in this comment thread, yet as elsewhere on the internet, media, and in politics, the “pro-” group responds with comeents that make no sense.
    for example, “we acknowledge that fluoridation causes increased fluorosis rates where it has been introduced. but according to the ADA or the CDC,there is no eveidence that it accumulates in human tissue.”


    they’re so stuck on the idea that anti-consensus arguments equal quackery, that they don’t even realize how much like quacks they sound.


  16. #270 not to be confused with the other “mike” several comments above. i’ll be “mike2”, i guess.

    another thing carefully avoided, or “vigorously brushed aside” by the pro-camp is the issue of the source of the fluoride used for water fluoridation- (often) unrefined hydrofluorosilic acid from the wet scrubbers of the smokestacks of phosphate fertilizer plants. a quote from the USGS mineral commodities survey, 2007: (similar numbers quoted in more recent years as well)

    “An estimated 47,000 tons of fluorosilicic acid (equivalent to about 83,000 tons of 92% fluorspar) was recovered from phosphoric acid plants processing phosphate rock. Fluorosilicic acid was used primarily in water fluoridation, either directly or after processing into sodium silicofluoride.”

    that IS a big deal. what would they do with this substance otherwise? i don’t know why more of the pro-folks don’t find this disturbing. and what of the co-incidence of the invention of the fluoride recovery devices (“wet scrubbers”) and the introduction of water fluoridation?

    seems as if before these devices were introduced, the industries emitting waste fluoride into the air were causing a lot of collateral damage to the crops, livestock, and people around them. (or, actually it doesn’t just seem that way, that is what happened).

    and then suddenly with the wet scrubbers, they have all this unrefined waste fluoride, highly toxic, which they would have had to pay a great deal to dispose of, but co-incidentally that was around the same time water fluoridation was introduced?

    that REALLY sounds fishy to me.


  17. let’s hear some of the “scientist” bloggers here address that issue, rather than arguing about the banal minutiae of the studies regarding the safety of fluoride(about which the authors of the book have ruined your credibility)…


  18. “let’s hear some of the “scientist” bloggers here address that issue”

    No, we don’t need to hear any more Pepsi-science thank-you. Like aspartame, the science-substitute sounds so good, most couldn’t tell the difference in a blind A-B test.


  19. just as i thought. push it aside, call me a quack, and presto! the source- issue evaporates! good thing there are people out there like the authors, who are actually changing policy through their work.


  20. Lead, arsenic and radionuclides are in the hydrofluorosilic acid added to most fluoridated water in the U.S. They are not healthy in any amount. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a maximum contaminant level goal of zero for them. A few minutes of research will confirm this. If you want to pollute your brain and body with every glass of water and cup of coffee you drink with lead, arsenic and radionuclides then go ahead but don’t make the rest of us.


  21. It astonishes me that certain individuals, who have commented on this article, do not even have the basic professional courtesy of reading the book in question before criticising both the authors and the book. One of the authors has even offered the book for free, yet there is still a refusal to read it. The authors have asked for nothing more than a professional, referenced, written response to their work – and in turn have been met with a disgraceful barrage of immature, unprofessional sniping. If you are so confident that their work has no merit, then read, review, and front up to debate the authors properly! If you don’t want to read the book, then you have no right to criticise it; and even less right to question the professionalism of the authors! And, for what it’s worth, my doctor – who holds a MBBS(Hons.) degree – has a copy and proudly keeps it on his desk as as a reference work. As a result, he filters all tap water in his clinic and no longer recommends the consumption of fluoridated water. He also met Dr. Connett personally earlier this year, and was highly impressed with Dr. Connett’s professionalism, knowledge and integrity. Dr. Connett’s book changed his position on fluoridation from Pro to Anti.


  22. Since WHEN did drinking lead, arsenic, mercury, aluminum in ANY amount, along with the industrial waste grade chemicals of sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, Fluorosilic Acid ever become SAFE?

    Read this:

    Then BOTHER to READ Professor Paul Connett’s book.

    You might be considered useful to this debate AFTER doing these two fundamental actions (ie. Actually READ the book, before you spit lies and vitriole). Until then, the ‘Pro Fluoride’ bunch are just regurgitating the same tired old garbage they’ve spouted to keep their personal pockets lined and people fooled.

    Little babies deserve better than a soup of heavy metals pumped into their bloodstream and traversing the blood brain barrier. And everyone else too.

    The vitriole and fear-mongering towards one well written, extremely well referenced book, shows the power the Truth has to shine on the lies of ignorance.


  23. Favourite comment of the whole blog:

    ” just as i thought. push it aside, call me a quack, and presto! the source- issue evaporates! good thing there are people out there like the authors, who are actually changing policy through their work. “


  24. Let’s cut the cackle and get straight to the point which is water fluoridation is alleged to reduce tooth decay; but it doesn’t.

    Research reveals there is no clinically significant benefit from water fluoridation when fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities are compared.

    The differences claimed – that are always expressed as percentages because that makes fluoridation look like it works – are so infintisimally small that they generally represent only a small portion of one tooth surface.

    So if it doesn’t work, why is fluoridation being forced on communities?

    Please Google ‘Osmunson’ at this link and study the graph that shows that good teeth are related to a higher income not water fluoridation.


  25. RE: Water fluoridation chemicals –

    Despite many attempts by researchers to acquire the evidence from health authorities that the industrial-grade silicofluoride chemicals used to fluoridate water supplies have been adequately tested for safety for long-term ingestion by humans, they have been unable to do so. The chemical manufacturers (such as Incitec Pivot Limited) have also failed to provide this data, instead shifting the issue to third parties, who in turn cannot provide the data, thus maintaining a cycle of “oh, we don’t have it, try those guys; maybe they have it… oh, no, we don’t have it; ask these guys… and so on.” Here are some quotes and links below that shed some light on the issue:

    “Hydrofluorosilicic acid is recovered from the smokestack scrubbers during the production of phosphate fertilizer […] Fluorosilicates have never been tested for safety in humans. Furthermore, these industrial-grade chemicals are contaminated with trace amounts of heavy metals such as lead, arsenic and radium that accumulate in humans […] Long-term ingestion of these harmful elements should be avoided altogether.”

    The EPA admits to having no studies on the long-term Health Effects of Silicofluorides:

    Further reading:

    Dr. Connett et al cover the silicofluoride issue in The Case Against Fluoride ( ISBN: 9781603582872 ). See: pp. 16–22

    Also see:

    Click to access 343-161.pdf

    Potential effects of extremely low doses of toxins on the brain:


  26. There’s are two obvious answers…#1. I have a right to determine what goes down the gullet, and into my body, and I don’t want fuoride, which totally invalidates all claims, arguments, conjectures, research papers, rebuttals, theories, abstracts, metaphysical postulations, the end.
    #2, why add to water, for good or Ill, why add to water?


  27. This thread is full of win. The more I research fluoride, the more I’m exposed to the dogmas and litanies of the pro- and anti- camps, its becoming fairly clear that the benefits of fluoride aren’t nearly as clear cut as has been commonly stated, while there the potential for inadvertent harm to multiple body systems is quite real, before we even get to residual trace lead, arsenic and radium from the industrial grade source.

    In light of the study by Luke relating fluoride to the calcification of the pineal gland, the claims about the Nazi’s and Soviet’s adding fluoride to the water of their prison camps to keep prisoners docile start to seem, not quite as far fetched as one might like.


  28. Just out of interest, what problem would be associated with the calcification of the pineal gland? Excessive scepticism about Homeopathy, perhaps? An overwhelming urge to reject irrational beliefs?


  29. Vince Whirlwind: You muppet! The pineal gland is a calcifying tissue. It naturally produces calcium hydroxyapatite crystals. Fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland, because fluoride has strong affinity for calcium. Fluoride deposition results in suppression in the function of the pineal gland. One consequence of this is reduced melatonin output, which leads to early onset of puberty.


  30. Announcment of new film “The Great Culling: Our Water” Filmmakers are Chris Maple and Paul Wittenberger. Alex Jones and G. Edward Griffin and selling and promoting this film.

    Dr. Laura Pressley Film did a review of “The Great Culling: Our Water” as well as Gary O. Pittman Film a former phosphate mining supervisor in Florida
    Chris and Paul would really appreciate you checking out their film “The Great Culling: Our Water” and would love to have you promote their film.

    This is a link to the first 33 min of the movie for you to watch “The Great Culling: Our Water”.

    Film reviews:

    Link to purchase your copy of “The Great Culling: Our Water”:

    More info about “The Great Culling: Our Water”.

    Thank you for checking out “The Great Culling: Our Water”!


  31. With all these kind of issues and disagreements the only solution to all these talks and rants is to really have a final results on what’ll be the effect of the flouride in our health as the primary user and/or absorber of it. Me and my dentist in Longview,TX actually agreed that as long as there’s no specified and fixed decision regarding the use of flouride we can still manage using it since we are accustomed in using it and as dentist he also thinks that it is also beneficial cause this is one of the substance they are using in cleansing the teeth.


  32. Water is for everyone. Fluoride is not.

    41% of American children have dental fluorosis.

    China stopped fluoridation due to lower IQ in its Children.

    Fluoride is extremely toxic.

    The sooner its discontinued the better.


  33. I appreciate the thoroughness and good humor of Dr. Connett and Dr. Beck in their replies on this thread, who absolutely kicked the asses of pompous nitpickers who, lacking the science to rebut their claims and questions, consistently resorted to a puerile smear campaign that backfired in their faces. They sure showed us all what they are made of!


  34. I’m aware this is ancient at this point, but I came across this debate tonight as part of a search and one thing really struck me as being missed in all the skeptical commentary both on the two scienceblogs involved and on the exposure/effect blog:

    If James Beck and Paul Connett are, in fact, scientists who have extensively studied the issue of fluoridation for the past 14 years, why did they make their case against the scientific consensus in a book marketed to the general public rather than as a scientific research paper in an appropriate peer-reviewed publication? Is that not itself a strong sign of crankdom?


  35. Hi Jarandhel,

    I will suggest an answer to your question, if I may put possible words into J. Beck’s and P. Connett’s mouths: they are advocating for policy based on existing science. Presumably, they feel that the research already exists to support their position, it is time to change public policy not study it some more.

    Putting aside the correctness of that position, it does seem reasonable.



  36. I also just stumbled across this while searching for info on fluoride, and I would really like to know what happened to the links that are supposed to give sources/references:
    Both lead to nothing:
    “The page you are looking for doesn’t seem to exist.”

    I assume these links worked originally because no one seems to have brought this up yet (and I’m sure many would have), so I’m wondering if there are updated links with the sources. Or maybe there is some other temporary issue causing this problem.

    [Hi Chas. I have notified relevant people, hopefully those pages will be restored. Yes, they were there at the time…]


  37. This is the tip of the iceberg – I’ve been doing more independent UNPAID research and the conflicts of interest in the fluoridation dogma are absolutely staggering – all the fluoridation lobby are all intertwined through all levels of government – no wonder no one can get it stopped.

    As this book states: The Case Against Fluoride How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT IT IS ALL ABOUT POLITICS !!!!

    Many are asking the question, what if there WAS someone in Australia ethical and independent enough to demand that a Forensic Analysis of ‘water fluoridation’ be undertaken, covering everything to do with all water fluoridation right throughout Australia since water fluoridation was first commenced/forced on the population in 1953 in Beaconsfield, Tasmania.
    I guarantee the entire population would be ‘staggered and gobsmacked’ at the extent and amount of Taxpayers money wasted on this forced water fluoridation which has and continues to chronically poisoning the population, our pets, other animals, all life and our environment.
    Some of us are already shocked just to see just some of the costs from Queensland’s dumping/disposal of this hazardous waste costs they call ‘water fluoridation’- the staggering costs of the infrastructure of the ‘water fluoridation poisoning plants’ – it’s appalling and atrocious.
    Some say ‘No wonder Queensland alone has a water grid bill of $10.5 BILLION’ and the people are ‘paying for it with cumulative harm to their long term health and safety rom consuming, eating (as it’s all through the food chain and we’re bathing in) these hazardous waste pollutants and co-contaminants they call ‘fluoride’ and we’re paying for it big time with our shrinking wallets with the ever increasing unacceptable high charges and costs for the supply of the S6/S7 poisons and the repair and/or replacement of the poison dosing equipment and other maintenance associated with the running of these Poison Plants called ‘water fluoridation’.
    Of course, how many people are trusting and gullible and believe it when the the Fluoridation Lobby continue with their Mantra ‘safe and effective’ – well many think this should be illegal for them to make these claims and feel that this is not only absolutely deceptive and misleading but totally untrue as no safety data exists whatsoever !

    Health Canada No safety studies – Health Department Canada, also push this chronic poisoning on their population >

    Masters/EPA Letter No Safety Data >

    Brisbane and surrounding areas, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast etc., ‘fluoridated’ commencing Dec. 2008 and ‘water fluoridation schemes’ continuing from then on all throughout Queensland, thanks to the then Premier Madam Anna Bligh (and Her Mandate and the cosy Association with the ADA and AMA writing to her asking her to mandate water fluoridation in view of the Councils not doing so of their own volition and with the ‘Private Member’s Bill’ by DENTIST & then Opposition Leader John Paul Langbroek) who wanted us all ‘fluoridated’.
    See: UNDER FOI – this is what they did to fluoridate/pollute Queensland
    The ADA asked for $200,000 and received $220,000 from Anna Bligh’s Health Minister, Stephen Robertson to promote ‘fluoridation’ and their colleagues at the AMA sent a letter to Dr. Jeannette young, Chief Health Officer Queensland Health extract from FOI :-

    “The AMA believes the ‘strategic approach’ referred to in your letter must be for Government to mandate water fluoridation throughout the State. The approach to encourage individual councils to adopt fluoridation of their own volition has failed.”
    end extract

    Many allege that this is tantamount to ‘conspiring’ to ‘mandate’ ‘water fluoridation’ and the Australian Government should immediately and irrevocably ban all ‘water fluoridation’.
    These letters from ADA and AMA form part of this Report and can be accessed on the link hereunder – referred to page 88/89.
    Download Full Report >

    In addition see:-
    Extract: 2 Policy
. 2.1 Water Fluoridation The Australian Dental Association recommends :
    2.1.5 That Governments must adopt water fluoridation as part of Health Policy and actively promote its introduction, where it is feasible, as a public health measure.
    Full document: ADA: “Governments MUST adopt water fluoridation as part of Health Policy and actively promote its introduction, where it is feasible, as a public health measure.”

    Click to access Policy%20Statement%202.2.1%20Fluoride%20Use.pdf

    WHY DO THE ADA (and AMA) HAVE THE POLITICAL AND MEDIA POWER AND CLOUT TO CONTINUE CHRONICALLY POISON A NATION? After decades of water fluoridation first commencing in 1953 we are in dental crisis and chronically diseased; why do you think the ADA, AMA and their associates/interests continue with this Fluoridation Fraud which is not safe and not effective.

    Comment: Dentists, Doctors and others in politics with personal agendas or any associations/associates’ agendas and their influence on politics and media, is a cancer in politics and has to be stopped and those revolving doors from corporations/industries to Governments also stopped for all time.

    Many allege that the Corporate sponsorships/partnerships of our Dental Schools etc., in our Universities has led to serious conflicts of interest which has led to complete loss of integrity, ethics, independence and Scientific Integrity.
    In addition, we have established, that there appears to be no one in Authority, no Independent Body whatsoever, who is prepared to look into ‘The Fluoridation Machine’ and it’s Dogma. Perhaps someone may investigate this soon due to the rampant and seemingly out of all control Corruption through the Australian Political Arena.
    The Revolving Doors from Corporations/Industries to all levels of Government have prostituted research and science and left ethics, integrity and honor in tatters.

    Independent Commission Against Corruption The investigations stretch deep into many Australian political parties. Comment: Tip of the Iceberg – With the Levels of corruption, just imagine what we have not heard about and probably never will. And I say that with the extensive involvement from all levels of Government and our Universities in The Fluoridation Dogma, that there is no one to complain, except the unpaid Independent Researchers and Activists trying to get someone to listen.


    Dennis Stevenson,  a former Parliamentarian and Member of the ACT Legislative Assembly ‘Fluoridation Inquiry’ (1989-91)
    The majority of inquiry members would not report the scientific, medical, dental and court evidence received in worldwide submissions proving that fluoridation causes disease, deaths, tooth decay and is useless and environmentally destructive. Dennis put this evidence in a 177 page Dissenting Report, part of this major government report, but longer than the 131 page section which attempted to suppress the evidence.

    For over 100 years, science and medicine have understood the poisonous nature of fluoride. In the 1930’s and 40’s, giant US companies, e.g. ALCOA, were sued for millions of dollars due to toxic fluoride waste escaping from factory smokestacks killing crops and livestock. ALCOA’s owners (Mellon) figured that if people could be persuaded fluoride isn’t poisonous but is good for teeth, profits could be protected. So, to introduce water fluoridation, they hired the brilliant ‘father of propaganda’ Edward L. Bernays. Joined later by other fluoride polluting industries (e.g. nuclear) and the multi-billion dollar sugar, toothpaste, confectionary and soft drink industries, they became strong financial supporters of dental associations that promoted fluoridation. One such support group, the Dental Health Education & Research Foundation (DHERF) was founded in Australia in 1962. Its Governors, Members and donors comprised key representatives from Coca-Cola, CSR, Kelloggs, Colgate-Palmolive, Wrigleys, Arnotts, Scanlens, Cadbury Schweppes, etc.
    The following 12 points require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense:….

    Former NIH (National Inst. of Health) Scientist Opposed to Fluoride Statement by James B. Patrick, Ph.D. at the Joint Congressional Committee on Health and Appropriations Against the Inclusion of Fluoridation in the Preventive Health & Health Services Block Grant, Held August 4, 1982.
    Dr. Patrick earned his B.S. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard University majoring in chemistry. His experience as Antibiotics Research Scientist was with the National Institute of Health and Lederle Laboratories.
    Dr. Patrick is Senior Professor and Chairman of the Department of Chemistry, Mary Baldwin College, Stauton, Virginia, 1967 to date. He is author of 28 technical papers and holder of 7 U.S,. patents.
    “A number of scholarly volumes and numerous technical articles have been written showing the biochemical and toxicological hazards of deliberately exposing the population to continuous dosages of such a potent chronic toxin as fluoride.
    It is a scientific disgrace that a well organized lobby of the American Dental Association ever managed to stampede American legislators into ignoring the highly technical but very cogent objection to fluoridations.  


    Dr. Phillip R.N. Sutton, Formerly Academic Associate and Senior Research Fellow, Department Oral Medicine and Surgery, Dental School, University of Melbourne, Author of  The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation (1996): “We are all affected by this potentially dangerous fraud:  The convincing of Governments and people generally that it is ethical, safe and beneficial to medicate, compulsorily, many millions of people throughout their lives with small but uncontrollable doses of a cumulative and very toxic substance because of the notion that it reduces the prevalence of dental decay. All this, although neither its safety nor any scientifically-proved reduction in the number of decayed teeth has been demonstrated.”

    Letter and References explaining why the United States Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) Scientists are opposed to the fluoridation of public water supplies.
    See also:
    Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy, National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280, before The Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water, United States Senate, June 29, 2000

    EPA scientists take action against EPA for failing to protect public health – Important scientific and technical considerations were ignored when the Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL) for fluoride was set(1986 Amicus Brief).

    The need for a Code of Ethics at the EPA became critical. Without an enforceable code of ethics with sanctions, the distortion of truth caused by the pressures of politics would continue.
    Why U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scientists opposes artificial water fluoridation


    Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D. Director Senior Scientist
    Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis
    Custom Applications in Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment
    Dr. Thiessen served on the subcommittee of the National Research Council’s Committee on Toxicology that authored “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards” (NRC 2006). Dr. Thiessen served as a consultant to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements for the preparation of “A Guide for Uncertainty Analysis in Dose and Risk Assessments Related to Environmental Contamination” (NCRP Commentary No. 14, 1996). She has also served as a reviewer for several Nuclear Regulatory Commission reports or drafts, including NRC’s draft report “Radiological Assessments for Clearance of Equipment and Materials from Nuclear Facilities” (NUREG-140, 1999).

    Dr. Phyllis Mullenix – Neurotoxicologist
    Almost immediately following her dismissal, Dr. Mullenix said, the Forsyth Institute received a quarter-million dollar grant from the Colgate company.
    Coincidence or reward?

    Her findings clearly detailed the developmental effects of fluoride, pre-and postnatal. Doses administered before birth produced marked hyperactivity in offspring. Postnatal administration caused the infant rats to exhibit what Dr. Mullenix calls the “couch potato syndrome”–a malaise or absence of initiative and activity. One need only observe the numerous children being dosed with Ritalin as treatment for their hyperactivity to draw logical correlations. Following her dismissal, the scientist’s equipment and computers, designed specifically for the studies, were mysteriously damaged and destroyed by water leakage before she could remove them from Forsyth. Coincidence?

    Dr. Mullenix was then given an unfunded research position at Children’s Hospital in Boston, but with no equipment and no money–what for? “The people at Children’s Hospital, for heaven’s sake, came right out and said they were scared because they knew how important the fluoride issue was,” Mullenix said. “Even at Forsyth they told me I was endangering funds for the institution if I published that information.””It has become clear to such as Dr. Mullenix et al, that money, not truth, drives science–even at the expense of the health and lives of the nation’s citizens.”


  38. I am pro Fluoridation. We need even more Fluoride than is in the water now. Add more Fluride, in addition to the Potassium bromate that replaced potassium iodate, the Iodine will be displaced at a greater rate from your body resulting in hypothyroidism that your doctor will mistakenly treat with exogenous thyroid. (That is if the potassium bromate does not give you thyroid cancer first. This will be beneficial for me because I own stock in every company that makes exogenous thyroid replacement medication.

    Oh, you did not know that the majority of the US population is Iodine deficient. Our Iodine comes from the meager 150 mcg the FDA recommends per day from the table salt that we are told is harmful for our blood pressure.

    Don’t believe me Take 50 mg of Ioderal and do a standard 24 hour urine for iodine. You should recover 90 percent in that collection. Anything less and you are iodine deficient.

    Additionally, let’s put Prozac, lithium, Valium, Cipro, and any other agents that people own stock in.

    There is a very funny book called a Cool Million by Nathaniel West that lampoons the Horatio Alger myth. Its protagonist is slowly dismantled piece by piece. At one point after being put in prison, the prison dentist extracts all his teeth that rationale…preventative dentistry. He will never get dental caries.

    Mother government, or should I say, mother corporation, must take care of us because we can’t take care of ourselves.


  39. EPA calls fluoride as a class 4 developmental neuro toxin. EPA scientists do NOT support water fluoridation, although the leadership does.. All I see from those arguing against what the CDC says with respect to fluoride working topically, NOT systemically, and all I see from people saying that the safety and effacy of the enzyme killer called fluoride has been proven, when there is no science to back that up…

    All I see are people suffering fluoride exposure. And what I know, is that given its IQ damaging potential, and its apathy inducing potential, fluoride is a unique toxin that helps create its own supporters by the physiological damage it causes in our bodies and our minds. All I see is cognitive dissonance.

    Science is clear. Connet understands fluoride far better than any other person in this blog, likely better than any other person on the planet. Most of the world does NOT use water fluroidation. Most of the world brushes their teeth with it, topically just as the CDC says it works.

    I pity the fools, and have nothuing but contempt for the demagogues. The person above who calls herself a RN should have her license yanked for gross negligence. She lied, and then made a medical recomendation based on that lie.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s