Home Page Known About Fluoride   Upper Intake Level   Toothpaste Warning   Interferes with Brain   Fetal Vulnerability   Neurotoxicity Needs to Be Known   Amniotic Fluid   Crazy Advice   Fluoride Drugs   Premature Birth   Infant Mortality   Life Decay Fluoridation 'Science'   Endorsementality   Bogus Sales Pitch   CDC's Irrationale   EPA's Pollutant   PHS's Debunkery The Book   Contents   Author Memes to Use

Public Health Service's Irrationale for Swallowing Fluoride Fluoridation began based on a dental survey in the 1930s, but the data was later debunked, showing NO relationship between fluoride in water and tooth decay in children. The original rationale for artificial water fluoridation was based on a survey in the 1930s of 21 cities in four states by H. Trendley Dean, a PHS dentist. Based on his "hunch" that fluoride prevented dental caries, Dean presented data suggesting that fluoride naturally in local water supplies apparently correlated with fewer cavities in children. Dean's findings were much criticized for their scientific method but became the foundation for justifying the implementation of artificial water fluoridation in 1945. Dean later admitted under oath that his studies in those 21 cities did not even meet his own criteria. [Bryson C. The Fluoride Deception. Seven Stories Press. 2004. Chapter 3, notes 74,75.] In 1981, the Austrian statistician Rudolph Ziegelbecker analyzed all of Dean's studies (Dean had omitted data from 26 states) plus all other published studies involving rates of dental caries in areas where the drinking water contained natural fluoride. The research involved more than 48,000 examined children in North America and Europe. The data showed that fluoride in water was not associated with less cavities: "The prevalence of dental caries in children aged 12 to 14 from 136 communities with drinking water containing 0.15–5.8 ppm fluoride shows no relationship with the concentration of fluoride naturally in drinking water." Today there is no evidence of any better oral health in the eight million Americans the CDC said are served by community water systems that have "sufficient naturally occurring fluoride concentrations." [CDC 2008] On the other hand, Dean was correct about increased dental fluorosis, as Ziegelbecker's analysis confirmed: "It is evident that the incidence of 'mottled enamel' is positively correlated with the concentration of natural fluoride in drinking water." From 1986 to 2004, the prevalence of mild dental fluorosis in US adolescents (aged 12–15) more than doubled, from 4.1% to 8.6%. Moderate and severe dental fluorosis nearly tripled. [CDC 2010] "Dental fluorosis, no matter how slight, is an irreversible pathological condition recognized by authorities around the world as the first readily detectable clinical symptom of previous chronic fluoride poisoning. To suggest we should ignore such a sign is as irrational as saying that the blue-black line which appears on the gums due to chronic lead poisoning is of no significance because it doesn't cause any pain or discomfort." – New Scientist (1983) More Fluoride is Absorbed from Artificially Fluoridated Water The degree of absorption of any fluoride compound after ingestion is correlated with its solubility. The readily water-soluble industrial fluorides (sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride, fluorosilicic acid) used to artificially fluoridate drinking water are rapidly and almost completely absorbed, in contrast to low-soluble natural compounds such as calcium fluoride. The fluoride that is absorbed into the bloodstream arises chiefly from public water supplies. [European Food Safety Authority 2013, Sauerheber 2013] "The solubility of fluoride correlates generally with the degree of toxicity." – Merck Manual Ultimately, the fluoride ion is the culprit. Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry "Toxicological profile for fluorides, hydrogen fluoride, and fluorine" (2003): "The fluoride ion is the toxicologically active agent." (page 29) "Some existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein, and people with kidney problems." (page 162) Fluoridation is the Worst of Both of My Professions Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH Director of the Fluoride Action Network For about 25 years as a dentist I promoted water fluoridation. When I read the research for myself, the evidence was like a knee in the gut. Not only is the research low quality, but numerous vital scientific questions have not been answered. Fluoridation is based on assumptions, not science. My Public Health profession is a pack of sheep, faith-based rather than science-based. Faith, trust and unquestioned loyalty are drilled into us in school. The Public Health profession are like soldiers without a leader and refusing to question policy. Fluoride pushers assume we all drink about the same amount of water. They assume we don't get much fluoride from other sources. They assume no one is chemically sensitive and everyone's kidneys are working just fine. They assume any combination of chemicals will not increase fluoride's risk. They assume we all would give our consent, if we would just trust them. They assume fluoride goes in the mouth with a direct pipeline to the teeth bypassing all other tissues. They don't even know how much fluoride in the tooth is advantageous. Excess fluoride exposure causes over a trillion dollars a year damage to our health. I do not know of any public health action which would provide greater health improvement and save more money than simply turning off the fluoride pumps. Ethics, science and economics say "turn the fluoride pumps off." Fluoridated water's multiple correlations with life decay make a far more compelling case to halt fluoridation, than its single correlation with tooth decay did to start fluoridation in 1945.