"Most men can seldom accept even the most obvious truth
if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions
which they proudly taught to others, and which they have woven,
thread by thread, into the fabric of their own lives." – Tolstoy
References, Links, and Further Discussion
to John D. MacArthur's 2008 report
Don't Be Takin' Fluoride
1) "A child-sized toothbrush covered with a full strip of toothpaste holds approximately 0.75 - 1.0 g of toothpaste, and each gram of fluoride toothpaste, as formulated in the United States, contains approximately 1.0 mg of fluoride." (CDC, MMWR, Vol. 50/No. RR-14, Aug. 17, 2001)
The CDC then cautions parents and caregivers of children under six years to "place no more than a pea-sized amount (0.25 g) of toothpaste on the toothbrush, brush the child's teeth (recommended particularly for preschool-aged children) or supervise the toothbrushing, and encourage the child to spit excess toothpaste into the sink to minimize the amount swallowed."
The required warning on fluoride toothpaste labels.
Water fluoridated at 1 ppm (parts per million) has 1 mg of fluoride per liter (34 fluid ounces), so 8.5 ounces or about a cup of tap water has the same 0.25 mg dose of fluoride that's in a pea-sized dab of toothpaste. (For water fluoridated at 1.2 ppm, 7 ounces has 0.25 mg of fluoride. At 0.7 ppm, 12 ounces.)
Fluoride in Tap Water, a short video by Dr. Bill Osmunson, clearly conveys the dosage reality check.
Bernays knew it didn't matter how much a doctor actually knows, and still today most white-coated advice about fluoride is merely a repetition of the sales pitch doctors and dentists themselves had been indoctrinated with.
"The very same professionals and institutions who told us that fluoride was safe said much the same about lead, asbestos or DDT, or persuaded us to smoke more cigarettes." – Christopher Bryson
But when health professionals or organizations actually do a reality check, they invariably stop supporting or endorsing water fluoridation, as the American Kidney Foundation recently did. (See the press release and watch a video that details the risks of fluoride for kidney patients.)
In his 2000 testimony to the Oregon Senate Health & Human Services Committee, House Representative Alan Bates, a physician, said it was a revelation to him that fluoridation might in fact be a problem: "I have been unsuccessful at this point to tell you that fluoridation is absolutely safe in our society....The difficulty that I've had in the last week gaining good outcome data has been a bit of a surprise to me....I hate to admit that after all these years, we've been touting fluoride without having good background from it that we've all personally checked out."
Now a State Senator, Dr. Bates has continued to review the latest scientific studies and is clearly opposed to water fluoridation.
Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, has given us a detailed explanation, "Why I am now officially opposed to adding fluoride to drinking water."
In 1943, the American Medical Association warned: "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons....The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1 part per million or more of fluorine." (JAMA, Sep. 18, 1943)
In its October 1944 magazine, the American Dental Association editorialized: "Our knowledge of the subject certainly does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in community water supplies. We do know that the use of the drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter."
The above citations are from The Fluoride Deception (page 299, footnote 21). Watch an interview with author Christopher Bryson.
When NIDR statisticians Brunelle & Carlos analyzed data collected in the late '80s from more than 39,000 U.S. school children, they concluded, "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."
DMFS = Decayed, Missing, and Filled permanent tooth Surfaces. Children aged 5-17 years have at least 100 tooth surfaces in their 24 to 28 teeth, and as many as 140 if all biting-surfaces are included (but Brunelle & Carlos failed to specify a number).
In Table 6 (shown below), that 18% difference for all ages was found by dividing 0.60 (3.39 minus 2.79) by 3.39. But 18% is very misleading, which is obvious when looking at the similarly calculated result for five-year-olds. A mere 0.07 tooth surface is considered a 70% difference!
2a) In 1939, the U.S. Department of Agriculture claimed: "Fluorine interferes with the normal calcification of the teeth during the process of their formation....It is especially important that fluorine be avoided during the period of tooth formation, that is from birth to the age of 12 years...when water containing even as little as 1 part per million is used." (Yearbook of Agriculture, p. 212)
3) "Particularly good examples of blatant statistical misconduct were found in the Public Health Service reports. The announced opinions and published papers favoring mechanical fluoridation of public drinking water are especially rich in fallacies....Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics....The students see through them straightaway, and are afforded great amusement." (Hubert A. Arnold, PhD, Department of Mathematics, University of California, Davis, 1980)
4) "Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation," Journal of Dental Research 1990;69 (Special Issue); Page 723-727, J.A. Brunelle and J.P. Carlos, Epidemiology Branch, National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), National Institutes of Health.
|
TABLE 6
MEAN DMFS OF U.S. CHILDREN WITH PERMANENT TEETH BY AGE AND WATER FLUORIDATION EXPOSURE |
|||
|
Life-long Water Fluoridation
Exposure
|
No Water Fluoridation
Exposure
|
||
|
Age
|
Mean DMFS*
|
Mean DMFS*
|
Percent Difference
|
|
5
|
0.03
|
0.10
|
70
|
|
6
|
0.14
|
0.14
|
0
|
|
7
|
0.36
|
0.53
|
32
|
|
8
|
0.64
|
0.79
|
19
|
|
9
|
1.05
|
1.33
|
21
|
|
10
|
1.64
|
1.85
|
11
|
|
11
|
2.12
|
2.63
|
19
|
|
12
|
2.46
|
2.97
|
17
|
|
13
|
3.43
|
4.41
|
22
|
|
14
|
4.05
|
5.18
|
22
|
|
15
|
5.53
|
6.03
|
8
|
|
16
|
6.02
|
7.41
|
19
|
|
17
|
7.01
|
8.59
|
18
|
|
All Ages
|
2.79
|
3.39
|
18
|
| * All means adjusted to age and gender distribution of total U.S. population ages 5-17. | |||
For an accurate and more realistic interpretation, compare healthy undecayed teeth. Using the conservative total of 100 tooth surfaces, fluoridated kids had 97.21 undecayed surfaces. Unfluoridated kids had slightly less, 96.61. Dividing the same 0.60 difference by either number results in only a 0.6% difference in healthy teeth attributed to fluoridated water – well within any margin of error (which Brunelle & Carlos also failed to specify). When calculated based on 140 tooth surfaces, this is reduced to a 0.4% difference.
Looking at it another way, if one person had $97.21 in spending money while another had $96.61, would that 60 cents be called an 18% difference?
"Here is an appropriate analogy: an individual weighs 300 pounds and studies show that while on Diet A, he will lose two pounds, while Diet B will help him lose four pounds. That means Diet B is 100% more effective than A. However, if all goes well, the individual will still weigh 296 pounds." (Brian D. McLean, BSc, DDS, "Motherhood, Apple Pie and Fluoridation")
Thus, fluoridation's flagship claim of an 18% reduction in tooth decay is 30 times higher than the insignificant 0.6% improvement in oral health shown by the data.
As reported by Chemical & Engineering News: "An analysis of national survey data collected by the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) concludes that children who live in areas of the U.S. where the water supplies are fluoridated have tooth decay rates nearly identical with those who live in nonfluoridated areas." ("New Studies Cast Doubt on Fluoridation Benefits," Bette Hileman, May 8, 1989)
See the detailed analysis of this National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren done by John A. Yiamouyiannis, PhD, who first exposed NIDR's statistical spin.
4a) The NIDR report by Brunelle & Carlos is the only significant epidemiological study for the effectiveness of water fluoridation cited (footnote #98) in the CDC's most comprehensive fluoride document, "Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States," Aug. 17, 2001.
And it's still the government's best rationale for fluoridation. On March 6, 2008, Dr. William Bailey, DDS, MPH (Dental Officer for CDC's Oral Health Division) cited Brunelle & Carlos when a Fairbanks, Alaska council member asked him for "the best study that you can come up with that's recent." (Read a comprehensive critique of Dr. Bailey's statements by the Fluoride Action Network.)
Similar results showing that more water fluoridation is associated with more tooth decay were found two decades later. (See References #10 & #15.)
Surgeon General David Satcher endorsed the 2000 Report Card, saying its "findings support what we found nationally in the surgeon general's report." (USA Today, Oct. 9, 2000) Yet despite the lack of correlation between fluoridation and tooth decay, a year later Satcher claimed "community water fluoridation has been the cornerstone of caries prevention in the United States." (His often-cited Surgeon General Statement).
Sales Pitch: "Since 1950, U.S. Surgeon Generals have committed their support for community water fluoridation."
Reality Check: Fluoride promoters like to wave the surgeon-general flag, hoping we will stand up, salute it, and do as they've done – not question authority, especially when it's America's White-Coat-in Chief. But as spokesperson for the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), the Surgeon General has to rave about water fluoridation. "PHS has historically been the principal source of funds for fluoride research; but ever since June 1950, PHS has been officially committed to and responsible for promoting fluoridation. Thus, the agency has a fundamental conflict of interest." ("Voices of Opposition have been Suppressed since early days of Fluoridation," Bette Hileman, Chemical & Engineering News, Aug. 1, 1988)
Also, as the Union of EPA Scientists has pointed out: "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 deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems." (A Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, U.S. Public Health Service, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, April 1993)
Christopher Bryson reported in The Fluoride Deception (p. 224) that following the introduction of fluoride into city waters, "Newburgh's heart-disease rate was found by researchers to be one of the highest in the United States....Heart disease also doubled just five years into the nation's other early fluoridation experiment, in Grand Rapids, Michigan." (For more about Newburgh and Kingston NY, see Reference #18.)
A huge red flag was raised in 2001 when a study revealed that "sodium fluoride causes dramatic endothelial cell barrier dysfunction." (Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, 2001 Dec;281(6):L1472-83) With such high rates of cardiovascular disease in the United States, how can the medical community continue to ignore fluoride's adverse effects on endothelial cells that line blood vessels?
"The amount of the fluoride contained in the water used for mixing infant formula may influence a child's risk for developing enamel fluorosis." (CDC, www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm)
In 2006, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected any health claims for bottled fluoridated water marketed to infants.
The National Research Council reported in 2006 that the level of fluoride in mothers' milk in a nonfluoridated community is only four parts per billion. That means water fluoridated at 1 ppm has a 250-times higher concentration of fluoride than breast milk! ("Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards," page 40, Table 2-6. See Reference #32.)
What's more, nature has mechanisms to protect the developing brain.
Even when a mother's fluoride or lead intake is elevated, her breast milk is extremely low in these two neurodevelopmental toxins.
"There is a kind of physiological 'barrier' which largely prevents fluoride from entering breast milk, even when the mother is on a relatively high fluoride diet. This barrier could have evolved to protect the developing infant in environments which have naturally higher than average fluoride levels....One wonders what the massive unnatural overdose of fluoride is doing to bottle-fed infants, particularly since it is now known that breast-fed infants remove fluoride from their bones and excrete more fluoride than they ingest." ("Fluoride: New Grounds for Concern," Mark Diesendorf, BSc, PhD, The Ecologist, 1986)
"Even among a population of women with relatively high lifetime exposure to lead, levels of lead in breast milk are low." – Dr. Adrienne S. Ettinger ("Levels of Lead in Breast Milk and Their Relation to Maternal Blood," Environmental Health Perspectives, June 2004 and American Journal of Epidemiology, Jan 2006)
Nationally, the CDC says "approximately 8 million persons received water with sufficient naturally occurring fluoride concentrations." (Populations Receiving Optimally Fluoridated Public Drinking Water – United States, 1992-2006, July 11, 2008)
Why do we never hear about the better oral health they're supposed to have? The failure of naturally fluoridated water to reduce cavities must not be ignored, because this unscientific assumption was the original rationale for artificially fluoridating drinking water. It was based on cherry-picked anecdotal (and falsified) observations, plus "a hunch" by H. Trendley Dean, a dentist working for the U.S. Public Health Service in 1939. Dean later later became the first director of the NIDR and held a senior position with the American Dental Association. (See The Fluoride Deception, Chapter 6, "How the Manhattan Project Sold Us Fluoride.")
"The dental investigators who came to our [Hereford, Texas] County, some fifteen years ago did, in my opinion, make a serious mistake when they gave fluorine the credit for our good teeth, and overlooked the quality of food grown in our rich, well mineralized soil....Why use a poison, when correct food will maintain our bodies free from diseases and tooth decay? It is hellish and non-American to put poison in city water supplies and force citizens to drink it." (George W. Heard, DDS, March 5, 1954)
12) Dental researchers no longer recommend fluoride supplements, but DHS hasn't gotten the message and continues to unnecessarily increase the toxic burden on children by feeding fluoride tablets to tens of thousands of students in 250 elementary schools across the state, even though DHS's "King Fluoride School-Based Tablet Program" is a failure according to the agency's own standards. (Reference #17 discusses poison warnings for the King Fluoride tablets.)
Ironically (cruelly), the fluoridation sales pitch exploits (abuses) poor children whose nutritional deficiencies the CDC says make them more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. For example, The Bulletin editorial calling for mass medication said, "According to a 2002 oral-health survey of Oregon children in grades one through three, poorer kids have almost three times as much untreated tooth decay....The state, through mandatory fluoridation [should] assume some responsibility for the dental health of such children."
On August 17, 2001, the CDC reported: "Populations believed to be at increased risk for dental caries are those with low socioeconomic status or low levels of parental education, those who do not seek regular dental care, and those without dental insurance or access to dental services....The burden of disease now is concentrated among certain groups and persons. For example, 80% of the dental caries in permanent teeth of U.S. children aged 5-17 years occurs among 25% of those children." (MMWR, Vol. 50/No. RR-14)
On November 30, 2001, the CDC said, "Recent data suggest that approximately 90% of caries in permanent teeth of children occur in tooth surfaces with pits and fissures." (MMWR, Vol. 50/No. RR-21) This limitation is crucial, because it's well known in the dental world that fluoridated water is largely ineffective at preventing 'pit and fissure' decay.
So based on the government's own data, the question is: How efficient and effective is artificial fluoridation if 0.15% of the water reduces 10% of tooth decay by 18% in 25% of children?
But tooth decay rates in preschool-age children increased by 16%: from 24% (data collected between 1988 and 1994) to 28% (between 1999 and 2004), per a CDC report cited by The Bulletin. ("Tooth decay on rise for kids across U.S., rampant in Central Oregon," May 6, 2007. [Note: "Rampant" turned out to be anecdotal scare tactics.])
During this decade in Oregon and Washington, increased rates of water fluoridation between 2000 and 2006 were also accompanied by increased cavity rates in children:
Oregon's water fluoridation rate increased 59% (from 17.2% to 27.4%). This was accompanied by an 11% increase in tooth decay for first to third graders (from 57% to 64%*). – 2007 Oregon Smile Survey, page 9
*66.3% according to the CDC, as of January 4, 2011,
The good news: Kids in non-fluoridated Portland were nearly 23% less likely to have a cavity; had 43% less untreated tooth decay; and were 83% less likely to need urgent dental treatment. – 2007 Oregon Smile Survey, page 12
Washington's water fluoridation rate increased 53% (from 41.0 to 62.9%). This was accompanied by a 5% increase in children's tooth decay (from 56 to 59%). – Table 6 of the 2005 Smile Survey Summary
More bad news: Kids living in fluoridated King County had a nearly 7% increase in caries experience.
Thus, as previously shown by the CDC's most extensive study on the effectiveness of fluoridation (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990), more water fluoridation is associated with more tooth decay. (See Reference #5.)
Update – August 2010: The CDC has published fluoridation stats for 2008. Most changes were minor: seven states increased fluoridation by 2-6 percentage points; six states decreased fluoridation by 2-6 percentage points.
The only large increase was California (from 27% in 2006 to 59% fluoridated in 2008). The biggest decreases were Kansas (from 65% to 45%), Louisiana (from 40% to 28%), and New Jersey (from 23% to 14%).
In 2008, the percentage of Americans receiving fluoridated water increased to 72.4%.
Reality Check: Orange juice cartons don't warn us to call a Poison Control Center if we swallow more than one serving. And vitamin labels don't warn us to call a Poison Control Center if we swallow more than one tablet a day. But the "King Fluoride School-Based Tablet Program" run by Oregon Department of Human Services (DHS) does. It strongly warns school personnel:
"NEVER double up on fluoride tablets if you miss one day....Should you forget one day, do NOT under any circumstances give students two tablets the next day to make up for the lost day. Give only one tablet per participating student per day.... In the event that a child takes more than the recommended dose of fluoride, call the Poison Control Center." (EMPHASIS in the DHS document: "Implementing the Fluoride Tablet Program")
Those tablets for younger students contain 0.5 mg of fluoride, the same amount of fluoride in about two cups of fluoridated tap water.
QUESTION: If it's poisonous for a child to swallow two fluoride tablets in one day, then WHY IS IT NOT POISONOUS for the same child to swallow four cups of fluoridated water per day?
Even the U.S. Public Health Service admits "there is no conclusive evidence that fluorine or any of the fluoride compounds are essential for human homeostasis or growth....Fluoride is no longer considered an essential factor for human growth and development." Human breast milk has a 250-times lower concentration of fluoride than fluoridated water. See Reference #9 and "Is Fluoride a Nutrient?"
Dr. Hirzy of the EPA Union of Scientists (see Reference #31) also dispelled another cornerstone of the fluoridation sales pitch that claims success in the first cities to be fluoridated: "In 1998, the results of a fifty-year fluoridation experiment involving Kingston, New York (unfluoridated) and Newburgh, New York (fluoridated) were published. In summary, there is no overall significant difference in rates of dental decay in children in the two cities, but children in the fluoridated city show significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than children in the unfluoridated city." See also "1945 Human Experiment Predicts Current Fluoride Ill Effects," by Sally Stride, Jan. 22, 2008.
Dental fluorosis among U.S. school children has increased by nearly 50% since 1987. See "Fluorosis on the Rise According to New U.S. Survey."
When fluoridation began in the 1940s, the "optimal" level of exposure to fluoride for (assumed) dental benefits was determined to be 1 mg/day. Even at that exposure level, 10% of the population was expected to suffer dental fluorosis based on the rough estimation that individuals drank one quart of water per day. At that time, other sources of fluoride were scarce.
By 1991, however, fluoride had so permeated the water and food chain that even children living in unfluoridated communities were being overdosed – averaging 0.95 to 2.30 mg of fluoride per day according to a "Review of Fluoride Benefits and Risks" by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1991), which said "chronic low-grade fluoride poisoning" occurs if a child's daily fluoride intake is between 2 and 8 mg/day for the first eight years of life (p. 44).
People not convinced that swallowing a daily dose of poison is good for them are being rear-ended by fluoride that's increasingly back-doored into their food and beverages. This should be called the pitchfork effect, but spin doctorates in the U.S. Public Health Service call it the halo effect when beverages and food processed in fluoridated areas are consumed in nonfluoridated areas. (CDC, MMWR, Vol. 50/No. RR-14, Aug. 17, 2001)
See examples of how much fluoride is already in our food and beverages.
Adding insult to injury, research shows that dental fluorosis is a cause of tooth decay.
"With dentists' fees rising far faster than inflation and more than 100 million people lacking dental insurance, the percentage of Americans with untreated cavities began rising this decade, reversing a half-century trend of improvement in dental health....Despite the rise in dental problems, state boards of dentists and the American Dental Association, the main lobbying group for dentists, have fought efforts to use dental hygienists and other non-dentists to provide basic care to people who do not have access to dentists." ("Boom times for U.S. dentists, but a care gap for Americans," New York Times, Oct. 11, 2007)
In 1999, the CDC admitted that its long-held "belief" was wrong that fluoride prevented caries by being incorporated into enamel during tooth development to result in a more acid-resistant mineral. Instead, "laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children."
As for swallowing fluoride, the same CDC report states: "The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is... not likely to affect cariogenic activity."
"Fluoride is only beneficial to the dental enamel when applied topically. When fluoride is ingested, it actually weakens the inner structure of the teeth, making them more brittle. Don't forget the ADA and the AMA are trade organizations. They make a lot of money endorsing drugs, including fluoride. These are not bodies of research scientists." (Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS, Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry at the University of Toronto, who was a member of the National Research Council committee. See Reference #32.)
Since nearly a century now, the bacterium that causes tooth decay has been known, so why is there still no antibiotic or vaccine? Instead, to deflect attention from their failure to cure the disease of tooth decay, the dental-public-health establishment relentlessly drills the myth of fluoridation into the public mind – as if trying to absolve themselves by washing their hands in fluoridated water.
Meanwhile, "the American Dental Association and PHS also have actively discouraged research into the health risks of fluoridation by attacking the work or the character of the investigators...whose research suggests possible health risks from fluoridation." ("Voices of Opposition have been Suppressed since early days of Fluoridation," Chemical & Engineering News, Bette Hileman, Aug. 1, 1988) Read other examples of "Suppression of Scientific Dissent on Fluoride's Risks and Benefits."
Also, the ADA focuses on selling use of its seal of approval, thereby promoting such products as candy-flavored toothpaste that increases the amount of fluoride kids swallow – further worsening the epidemic of dental fluorosis. The CDC warns:
"Fluoride toothpaste contributes to the risk for enamel fluorosis because the swallowing reflex of children aged <6 years is not always well controlled, particularly among children aged <3 years. Children are also known to swallow toothpaste deliberately when they like its taste...Children aged <6 years swallow a mean of 0.3 g of toothpaste [0.3 mg of fluoride] per brushing and can inadvertently swallow as much as 0.8 g [0.8 mg of fluoride]. ("Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States," CDC, Aug. 17, 2001)
See The Fluoride Debate, Anita Shattuck's excellent resource that juxtaposes ADA's arguments with comments from independent scientists who have examined fluoridation with an open mind.
Update – December 2010: The protective shield fluoride forms on teeth is up to 100 times thinner than previously believed. It's only 6 nanometers thick. It would take almost 10,000 such layers to span the width of a human hair. The researchers question whether a layer so thin, which is quickly worn away by ordinary chewing, really can shield teeth from decay. (Does fluoride really fight cavities by 'the skin of the teeth?')
Reality Check: As reported by Chemical & Engineering News: "The economic benefits of fluoridation appear to have been exaggerated....When the actual costs of dental care delivered in similar cities are compared, residents of fluoridated cities seem to reap no economic benefit from fluoridation." ("Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years," Bette Hileman, Aug. 1, 1988)
The 1983 source of that dollar-a-year nonsense is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, cited by the CDC: "The results of the National Preventive Dentistry Demonstration Program conducted by The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation indicate that, 'At an estimated cost of less than $1 per child per year, fluoridation remains society's least expensive and most effective caries preventive measure.'"
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has given tens of millions of dollars to Oral Health America, the fluoridation group that put out the Oral Health Report Cards.
25) The Martin family all suffered from bleeding gums, serious digestive and liver problems, a strange asthma-like exhaustion, and pains in their bones. The young daughter's ankles clicked when she walked.
Dr. Ronald Hunter explained that by hunting enzymes, fluorine compounds were the natural enemies of humanity: "The enzymes in the cells help the cell to nourish itself and to keep ticking over, which is the process of life. Now, fluorine compounds are such deadly poisons that they go directly for that property of the cell, and they destroy the enzyme process." (The Fluoride Deception, Chapter 13, "Showdown in the West: Martin vs. Reynolds Metals")
"Environmentalists are often unaware that since World War II, fluoride has been the most damaging poison spilling from factory smokestacks and was, at one point during the Cold War, blamed for more damage claims against industry than all twenty other major air pollutants combined" – including the notorious 1948 air disaster in Donora, Pennsylvania which jump-started the U.S. environmental movement. – Christopher Bryson (Introduction, "A Clear and Present Danger")
The Fluoride Deception reveals Kellogg's role in the 1950s when Edward Bernays was selling fluoridation as a public-health initiative. "The Committee to Protect Our Children's Teeth had powerful links to the U.S. military-industrial complex, and to the efforts of big industrial corporations to escape liability for fluoride pollution." The committee's goal was to break the back of the anti-fluoridation movement by winning in New York. (Chapter 12, "Engineering Consent")
Fifty years later, Kellogg was still funding organizations pumping out fluoridation propaganda using Bernays' tried-and-true strategy of citing authorities, most notably, the White-Coat-in-Chief Surgeon General. See Oral Health Report Cards.
It's foolhardy to allow state legislators, city council members, or even voters – no matter how well informed they may be to – mass prescribe a drug via public water supplies where access and dosage cannot be controlled.
There is even a federal law prohibiting the medication of our drinking water:
"No national primary drinking water regulation may require addition of any substance for preventive health care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water."
This is a provision in the U.S. Safe Drinking Water Act [Section 1412 (b)(11)] and in U.S. Code Title 42 [Chapter 6A (Public Health Service), Subchapter XII (Safety of Public Water Systems), Section 300g-1(b)(11)]
Despite this law, a federal agency – the CDC's Division of Oral Health – actively promotes water fluoridation at the state level: a waste of government resources and taxpayer money.
"NSF International (National Sanitation Foundation International) is a private corporation with fluoridating chemical industry representatives on their board," says Paul Connett, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, and Executive Director of Fluoride Action Network (FAN). "The incredible thing is that when one pursues the ultimate question of who can vouch for the safety of water fluoridation and the fluoridating chemicals used, one is eventually led to NSF International.
"One of the things that the law requires NSF International to do is to provide the toxicological studies, which demonstrate the safety of the chemicals added to water. When recently asked to provide this information for the silicofluorides by officials in Southern California, the NSF refused, claiming that they didn't have to because they were a private corporation!"
Reeves was Chair of the AWWA Standards Committee on Fluorides. The Vice-Chair worked for Lucier Chemical Industry (a major supplier of fluorosilicic acid) and the Secretary worked for Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp.
The EPA said: "In regard to the use of fluorosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluorosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available." (Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, EPA, March 30, 1983)
Sales Pitch: "Fluoride is a naturally occurring substance. It is the 13th most abundant element on the earth. It's even in sea water."
Reality Check: "Do not drink sea water." (See Fluoridation for Dummies, Chapter 3: "Impaired Intelligence Causes Water Fluoridation.")
In Thurmont, Maryland, "Lead levels in town water have decreased significantly since town officials stopped adding fluoride." (The Frederick Post, Feb. 3, 1994) Thurmont then voted to officially ban the use of fluoride.
The opposite effect occurred in Lebanon, Oregon whose tap water contains more lead after fluoridation began in 2001.
"The only effect Lebanon has noticed since then was that its required annual household water tests showed more contamination with lead than before. City Administrator John Hitt said that adding fluoride apparently changed the water chemistry enough to cause more lead to be leached from pipes in some houses dating from before the 1960s....If there's been a reduction in tooth decay – the goal of fluoridation – nobody has reported it, Hitt said." (Albany Democrat-Herald, Feb. 24, 2005)
After six years, Lebanon dentists were still making excuses. One said, "Maybe at 20 years you'll see results." Another thought it would take "many generations." ("Town awaits results of water project," The Associated Press, April 16, 2007)
Exposure to lead is not just a problem for kids. It affects us all. There's evidence of a direct link between prenatal and early-childhood lead exposure and increased risk for criminal behavior later in life." ("Childhood lead exposure associated with criminal behavior in adulthood," PLoS Medicine, May 27, 2008)
Lead and Heart Disease
Men with the highest bone lead levels were more than eight times as likely as those with the least lead in their bones to die of ischemic heart disease caused by blocked arteries." – Dr. Marc G. Weisskopf (Circulation, Sep. 22, 2009)
"It is estimated that mild mental retardation and cardiovascular outcomes resulting from exposure to lead amount to almost 1% of the global burden of disease." – Environmental Research 94 (2004) 120-133
ACTION ALERT: If your community's drinking water is about to be fluoridated, it would be wise to get your household water tested for lead (and copper, a risk factor for dementia) before and after fluoridation begins. This will add to research that proved fluoridation chemicals in various combinations with chlorinating chemicals increase the release of lead from brass plumbing fixture in homes. (R.P. Maas & S.C. Patch, "Effects of fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from leaded-brass parts," NeuroToxicology, Sep. 2007)
As reported in Scientific American ("Second Thoughts about Fluoride," Dan Fagin, Jan. 2008): "The NRC committee concluded that fluoride can subtly alter endocrine function, especially in the thyroid – the gland that produces hormones regulating growth and metabolism. Although researchers do not know how fluoride consumption can influence the thyroid, the effects appear to be strongly influenced by diet and genetics. Says John Doull, professor emeritus of pharmacology and toxicology at the University of Kansas Medical Center, who chaired the NRC committee: 'The thyroid changes do worry me.'"
Well they should worry him. Fluoride depresses thyroid function and exacerbates iodine deficiency, which in mothers is the world's major cause of preventable mental retardation.
Also, a new study found that in subjects with an underactive thyroid, "the likelihood of coronary heart disease, heart-related death, and death from any cause was higher by 20 percent." (Annals of Internal Medicine, May 20, 2008)
The personal and societal health consequences of thyroid dysfunction alone are so enormous that even if water fluoridation is found to increase thyroid problems by a mere 0.01%, it would have to be the smoking-nail-gun that permanently seals the fluoridation coffin.
Dr. Alan Bates, now an Oregon State Senator, said "the NRC report is highly relevant to the issue of water fluoridation since it details a broad range of scientific studies linking very low concentration fluoride exposure to adverse health impacts ranging from increased bone fractures and neurological damage to impacts on the immune and reproductive systems." (Letter to Colleagues, April 20, 2007)
The NRC recommended that EPA "should update its risk assessment of fluoride to include new data on health risks and better estimates of total exposure." This will require EPA to examine all the health effects reviewed by the NRC and determine at what doses these effects occurred, then apply an appropriate margin of safety which will protect the whole population. Two years later, however, the EPA has still not begun the health-risk assessment.
5) See Table 9 of the Brunelle & Carlos, NIDR study. Even though region III (the Midwest) was America's most fluoridated region (74%), kids living in its fluoridated communities actually had worse tooth decay than kids in that region's unfluoridated communities.
6) Press release: "OHSU dental school hopes poor report card will be a wake-up call," Nov. 22, 2000
7) Oregon kids had the same or lower cavity rates than kids in 19 other states, 14 of which had more water fluoridation. Twenty-seven states had "incomplete" records. In other words, their populations were being dosed with fluoride, even though state health departments didn't know if it was doing any good.
8) The Bulletin editorial board members seem to believe they're qualified to recommend our drinking water be used as a drug-delivery system. "Sure, Central Oregon should be grateful for its clean water. But the stuff could be even better." ("Now how about fluoride?" May 5, 2004) Never mind that studies estimate about 1% of people have an allergic reaction to fluoride.
9) The FDA admits it has no evidence that ingesting fluoride is safe or effective in preventing cavities. See the FDA's letter to Congress confirming the agency has not approved the drug fluoride.
9a) "Infants less than one year old may be getting more than the optimal amount of fluoride (which may increase their risk of enamel fluorosis) if their primary source of nutrition is powdered or liquid concentrate infant formula mixed with water containing fluoride....If using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride." (Interim Guidance on Reconstituted Infant Formula," American Dental Association, Nov. 9, 2006)
10) 2007 Oregon Smile Survey, Oregon Department of Human Services. (See also Reference #15.)
11) According to the Oregon Dental Association, Oregon has 35 water systems with natural levels of fluoride considered optimal for protecting teeth." ("Tooth decay on rise for kids across U.S., rampant in Central Oregon," The Bulletin, May 6, 2007)
13) Chart prepared by Dr. Bill Osmunson. See his other chart comparing fluoridation and tooth decay with access to dental care.
Assuming kids even drink tap water, let's say Billy knocks back one quart a day. In Bend, for example, the daily per-capita water use is 158 gallons, therefore Billy's one quart is 0.15% of those 632 quarts attributed to him. That means 99.85% of the fluoride-delivering water misses the human target it was intended to medicate. Instead, Billy's 157.75 gallons just contaminate the environment.
14) The CDC posts data for the percentage of third-grade schoolchildren with caries experience and the percentage with untreated tooth decay (Update: in 42 states as of January 4, 2011).
15) For some strange reason, the CDC does not correlate rates of tooth decay with water fluoridation. Separate from its tooth-decay data, the CDC posts the Fluoridation Status of all 50 states between 1992 and 2006. During this time, the percentage of the U.S. population "served by community water systems received optimally fluoridated water" increased by more than 11% (from 62.1% in 1992 to 69.2% in 2006.)
which means there was a 16% increase in tooth decay rates
from 2002 to 2008 in Oregon.
Rates for untreated tooth decay in Oregon increased by 60%:
from 22.1% in 2002 to 35.4% in 2007.
16) See examples of "Cavity Crises in Fluoridated Cities & States."
17) Sales Pitch: "Water that has been fortified with fluoride is similar to fortifying salt with iodine, milk with vitamin D, orange juice with vitamin C or breads with folic acid." – American Dental Association (from their page "FluorideAlert.COM," the domain name they acquired in order to deceive people trying to access the Fluoride Action Network website, FluorideAlert.ORG.) The dental trade union's web page (when it works) is a pantload of white-coated lies.
18) "According to a study by the National Institute of Dental Research, 66 percent of America's children in fluoridated communities show the visible sign of overexposure and fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis. That result is from a survey done in the mid-1980s, and the figure today is undoubtedly much higher." (Statement of Dr. J. William Hirzy before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water, June 29, 2000)
19) "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 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." (Dr. Geoffrey Smith, Dental Surgeon, New Scientist, May 5, 1983) See "Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons."
20) Applied topically via toothpaste, fluoride poisons Streptococcus mutans bacteria that convert sugary foods into tooth-decaying lactic acid. Fluoride does not work systemically if we swallow it (as assumed a half century ago). See "Fluoride & Tooth Decay: Topical Vs. Systemic Effects."
21) See compelling research about tooth fracture in "Water fluoridation intervention: dentistry's crown jewel or dark hour" (Fluoride, Oct-Dec 2007) by Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, whose short video clearly explains some common-sense concerns about the risks vs. benefits of swallowing fluoride.
22) Sales Pitch: "The average cost for a community to fluoridate its water is estimated to range from approximately $0.50 a year per person in large communities to approximately $3 a year per person in small communities. For most cities, every $1 invested in water fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs." – American Dental Association
23) See chart of CDC data for tooth loss compared to fluoridation rates in 49 states.
24) Read the OHSU dental school's press release about the 2000 Oral Health Report Card.
26) In federal appeals court, lawyers for Reynolds aluminum submitted a booklet they told judges contained "statements of one medical and scientific expert after another, all to the effect that fluorides in low concentrations present no hazard to man." The booklet was from the Committee to Protect Our Children's Teeth which was funded by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
27) Before getting a prescription to buy fluoride for consumption, the CDC says your doctor must first determine "a complete fluoride history" to include all your sources of fluoride (www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/other/spplmnt_schdl.htm).
27a) The Director of EPA's Office of Science and Technology said: "In the United States, there are no Federal safety standards which are applicable to drinking water additives, including those intended for use in fluoridating water....EPA assisted in establishment of voluntary product standards at NSF International...by a consortium of representative from utilities, government, manufacturers and the public health community." (Tudor T. Davies, letter to George C. Glasser, April 2, 1998)
28) "All of the fluoride chemicals used in the U.S. for water fluoridation – sodium fluoride, sodium fluorosilicate, and fluorosilicic acid – are byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry," said Thomas Reeves, the CDC's water engineer responsible for overseeing the U.S. fluoridation program. (Letter to Dr. Connett, Jan. 23, 2001)
29) When Tacoma, Washington temporarily ceased water fluoridation during a 1992 drought, lead levels in the town's water dropped from 32 to 17 parts per billion. (Tacoma Public Utilities letter to Dept. of Health, Dec. 2, 1992)
30) "For every age/race group, there was a consistently significant association of silicofluoride treated community water and elevated blood lead." (R.D. Masters & M.J. Coplan, NeuroToxicology, December 2000) The Dartmouth researcher also said: "Data from numerous studies show that, taking economic, social and racial factors into account, where silicofluorides are used, children absorb more lead from the environment, and there are higher rates of diseases and behavioral problems associated with lead poisoning (including hyperactivity, substance abuse, and violent crime)."
"While adults absorb around 10-15% of an ingested quantity of lead, this amount can increase to 50% in infants and young children. This lead is then absorbed into the bone where it can remain for up to 30 years... gradually released into the blood and circulates throughout the body. It interferes with enzymes and affects many systems, including the central nervous system." – Dr. Alan Emond (Archives of Disease in Childhood, Sep. 17, 2009)
31) Why EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation: "Topical fluoride (e.g. fluoride in toothpaste) is the only significantly beneficial way in which that substance affects dental health. However, if the concentrations of fluoride in the oral cavity are sufficient to inhibit bacterial enzymes and cause other bacteriostatic effects, then those concentrations are also capable of producing adverse effects in mammalian tissue, which likewise relies on enzyme systems. This statement is based not only on common sense, but also on results of mutation studies show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower-order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated toothpaste."
32) The National Research Council (NRC) report, "Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of Environmental Protection Agency's Standards," researched the various health effects from exposure to fluoride, including (chapter titles):
33) Three of the twelve NRC committee members (including experts on the brain and endocrine system) have gone on record saying the NRC report is relevant to water fluoridation. (See Professionals' Statement Calling for an End to Water Fluoridation.)
