Judge Rules Fluoride IS Neurotoxic in Fluoride Lawsuit

In a May 12 ruling, federal Judge Edward Chen put on hold the lawsuit requesting fluoridation be banned based on fluoride’s adverse neurological effects until 3 new studies are peer-reviewed, 2 of which preliminarily show fluoride’s harm, according to InsideEPA.com. He also awaits the conclusion of a US National Toxicology Program analysis of fluoride which, in draft form, declared "…fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.”

As of June 2021, 69 of 77 human fluoride-IQ studies found a reduced IQ among children with higher fluoride exposure.  Very strong evidence shows that fluoride damages both the fetal and infant brain at the levels used to artificially fluoridate water. Additionally, over 400 animal, cell and human studies link fluoride to neurological effects.

Unnecessary and unnatural fluoride chemicals are added to 73% of US water supplies in a failed attempt to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.

Federal Case No. 17-CV-02162-EMC, challenging water fluoridation safety, was brought by several environmental groups and individuals led by Food & Water Watch and the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).  Plaintiffs argue that fluoride is neurotoxic to children and should not be added to water supplies, which would effectively end artificial water fluoridation.

Instead of using fluoridation-promoting government officials to vouch for fluoridation safety, EPA hired employees from the consulting firm, Exponent Inc., Some call Exponent a "Science for Hire" firm which “…routinely bend conclusions to the needs of clients.”  The cost to the taxpayers = approximately $350,000. 

A recent expose' revealed that EPA "scientists are afraid of retaliation for trying to implement TSCA the way Congress intended, and they fear that their actions (or inactions) at the direction of management are resulting in harm to human health and the environment.”

Despites repeated claims that fluoridation is safe, fluoridation-promoting government and dental agencies could provide no proof of safety regarding fluoride's effects to the nervous system.   

Representatives for EPA, CDC and FDA could not provide, in their testimony, any scientific studies showing fluoridation is safe. All agreed fluoride has no benefits prenatally. 

EPA admits that fluoride is a chemical with "Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity," but is haggling over the exact levels while our children pose as lab rats in this ongoing experiment. EPA's current safe water fluoride contaminant levels are set to protect against bone and teeth damage; but fail to consider fluoride's proven neurological effects.

The experts who testified for plaintiffs include: 

Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D. a risk assessment scientist at Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

   

Dr. Thiessen testified that “The animal data on fluoride neurotoxicity are consistent with the epidemiological data in showing a risk of cognitive deficits at doses of fluoride ingested from fluoridated water.”

A Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Phillipe Grandjean is on the faculty of Harvard University and the University of Southern Denmark. He’s received multiple awards throughout his long career for his research on the effects of environmental toxins affecting children and has also been recognized for his advocacy in protecting future generations from the effects of neuro- and developmental toxins.

 

Dr. Grandjean testified that "… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development."

Dr. Howard Hu, from the University of Washington’s School of Public Health, has led international research teams investigating the environmental, nutritional, social, and epi/genetic causes of chronic disease and impaired child development in the USA, Mexico, India, China, and elsewhere around the world.

 

Dr. Hu advises pregnant women and infants to avoid fluoride ingestion to assure normal brain development (Journal of Pediatrics “Current Best Evidence,” July 2020). He wrote, "Fluoride is not essential for growth and development, a cautious step could be avoidance of fluoridated products and water by women during pregnancy and by infants during the first 6 months of life."

Dr. Lanphear is on the faculty at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, where his research focuses on preventing common diseases and disabilities in children, as well as quantifying the impact of risk factors to children’s health including exposures to heavy metals and chemicals.

An Op-Ed by Dr. Lanphear; Linda Birnbaum, PhD, Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and Christine Till, PhD, co-author of the JAMA-Pediatrics research article “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada”  reported:

 

“Mounting evidence suggests fluoride may be hampering brain development and reducing kids' IQ. The US needs to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children.” 

JAMA Pediatrics Journal editor Dimitri Christakis, MD, said. “I would advise them [pregnant women] to drink bottled water or filtered water because it is not a particularly odious thing to do and actually does reduce the risk,” in a discussion of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride/IQ study. 

Fluoridation was declared safe for 75 years. “Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent,” write Till and Green in “Controversy: The evolving science of fluoride: when new evidence doesn’t conform with existing beliefs.” Till and Green both advise pregnant women to avoid fluoride. 

Dr. Till's youtube presentation about her research which garnered intense scrutiny before being published in JAMA-Pediatrics is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp3L_jwJtio 

EPA scientists, in a recent research paper, write "Fluoride was observed to have the greatest increase in impacting cognitive ability and it is often reported to affect memory and cause cognitive deficits."  (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 2020)  

EPA scientists, in a recent research paper, write ""Fluoride was observed to have the greatest increase in impacting cognitive ability and it is often reported to affect memory and cause cognitive deficits."  (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, July 2020)  

Recently, An Australian legislator/PhD who read every official government fluoridation report, mostly from the WHO, Australia, UK and the US, says all of the reports assumed fluoridation safety.  She was shocked to discover the actual data doesn't support that assumption. 

More on the fluoride lawsuit here: https://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/

 

                                                            END 

Fluoridation: A 75-Year-Old Blunder

January 25, 2020 -- Seventy-five years ago, dentists convinced government officials to experiment on every Grand Rapids, Michigan, resident without individual informed-consent to prove that (not if) dosing the municipal water supply with untested sodium-fluoride chemicals would decay-proof children’s developing teeth. The experiment failed; but it spread across the country anyway.

Today, tooth decay is an epidemic among Grand Rapids' children.

"The typical child that comes in to us between 3 to 8, 9 years old and they could have anywhere from 3 to 20 cavities," said Dr. Darren Riopelle of Smile One who sees it first hand as a pediatric dentist. "It's a disease. If it's one tooth, it spreads to all the other teeth," reported WZZM

Last year more than 3,000 children in the Grand Rapids area had full mouth rehabilitation surgery under general anesthesia, they reported.

Planned to last 15 years, the 1945 Grand Rapids/Muskegon study ended prematurely after 6 ½ years.  Teeth of most children born into the experiment hadn’t even erupted yet. Muskegon, the planned non-fluoridated comparison city began fluoridating its water in 1951; thereby, negating the experiment. Fluoridationists changed the intent of the study,  further politicizing the experiment, by claiming water fluoridation reduced tooth decay in Grand Rapids by 65% in the 6 1/2 year experiment but failed to share the evidence that rates declined in non-fluoridated Muskegon concurrently.

Additional flaws are detailed In the book “Fluoridation - Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials.”

Even the CDC admitted in 2001 that "Despite the strengths of early studies of the efficacy of naturally occurring fluoride in community drinking water, the limitations of these studies make summarizing the quality of evidence on community water fluoridation as Grade I inappropriate.”

An American Dental Association (ADA) news release admits, “many communities did not wait for the studies to be completed before starting their own fluoridation efforts.  By 1950, [fluoridation] had the full support of the ADA.”  Pressured by some Wisconsin dentists, the US Public Health Service recommended fluoridation in 1950, first; then the ADA and the American Medical Association followed.   All without safety evidence.

Grand Rapids citizens’ health was untested. But Newburgh NY’s healthy schoolchildren were examined in another 1945 human fluoridation experiment, also cut short prematurely. Newburgh school-kids suffered more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation after 10 years (Journal of the American Dental Association, 1956). These findings were dismissed.

Pre-schoolers, adults and brain effects weren't examined.  Now 400 studies point to fluoride's neurological effects.

In 1951, those Wisconsin dentists strategized (“Proceedings 4^th annual conference of state dental directors”) on how to sell fluoridation using  misinformation and misdirection e.g. “We have told the public it works, so we can’t go back on that.” And “those research people, they can’t get over their feeling that you have to have test tube and animal research before you start applying it to human beings.”

Edward Bernays, the father of public relations, promoted fluoridation, consulting on strategy for the National Institute of Dental Research. “Selling fluoride was child’s play,” Bernays told the author of The Fluoride Deception. Bernays said citizens trust medical authority so he indoctinated doctors to believe in fluoridation without providing valid science and they, in turn, would and did pass that information to their patients, media and legislators - who failed to fact-check.  Modern day fluoridation PR flacks do the same. 

“Rational voices of opposition were suppressed from the start, reported Chemical & Engineering News in 1988. Science justified those fears. Fluoride isn’t a nutrient or required for healthy teeth, as early fluoridationists theorized and has serious side effects, rendering fluoridation unnecessary and harmful.

Valid criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Newsweek and ABC-TV.

Harvard Public Health Magazine reported in 2016 that "The [highly respected] Cochrane report also concluded that early scientific investigations on water fluoridation (most were conducted before 1975) were deeply flawed. “We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in … 97 percent of the studies,” the authors noted. 

Likewise, Dr. John Doull, toxicologist and chairman of the 2006 National Research Council's Fluoride Panel which reviewed fluoride toxicological studies told an investigative journalists writing for Scientific American:

     “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

Even earlier than that, a  National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel convened to evaluate tooth decay research and reported in  2001

"... the (NIH) panel was disappointed in the overall quality of the clinical data that it reviewed.  According to the panel, far too many studies were small, poorly described, or otherwise methodologically flawed" (over 560 studies evaluated fluoride use).

It seems not much as changed, The Journal of the American Dental Association just reported in 2020 that  abstracts published in dental journals don't always correctly reflect the actual research.

"Approximately one-third of the 75 RCT [Randomized Controlled Trials - the gold standard in research] abstracts published in high-impact dental journals in 2015 with nonsignificant outcomes presented with some form of spin, irrespective of funding type and journal impact factor."

Dental and other groups are celebrating fluoridation, ignoring strong fluoride/brain links,100 years of damning fluoride/kidney  ; thyroid research and evidence that cavity experience and inequities increased in the last 20 years despite widespread fluoridation contributing to US children’s fluoride-damaged teeth (fluorosis)

                                                    END 

Fluoride From a Rock????

America's chief fluoridationist, dentist Howard Pollick, told the San Diego City Council that fluoride comes from a rock. This is true.  But the reason it is taken out of the rock is because it is so toxic that animals fed the stuff died. So, instead, its fed to humans. The following explanation of how and why that happens was put together by Chris Gupta.

Here is a bit of history that illustrates why they feed us hydrofluorosilcic acid in our water. Show this to those who ask why should the authorities slow poison us!

"One of the main reasons for processing the raw phosphate rock for agricultural purposes is because of the fluoride content mainly in the form of fluorosilicates/silicon tetrafluoride.

Back in the early part of the 20th century when industrial farming was first starting-up, they did many experiments on cheap mineral supplements for animals to keep costs down and profits up.

Raw, powdered phosphate rock was the first choice because of the abundance and it was dirt-cheap. Bone meal was the second choice, but it was more expensive because it had needed cooking in ovens (calcining) at high temperatures before the animals could digest it properly.

When the animal nutrition researchers did the first experiments with the powdered phosphate rock, the animals started to get sick. The cow�s milk was drying-up, and there was a high rate of calf stillbirths.

It was really knocking the pigs health for a loop many of them became so sick, they just quit eating, quit breeding, and the researchers said they seemed to give up the will to live.

Well, as for the chickens, they just up and died after eating food supplemented with the raw phosphate rock.

They knew that fluorides were toxic and determined that it was the fluorides, but in later experiments, they found that it wasn't just any type of fluoride, but the fluorosilicates* that were doing most of the damage. They used sodium fluoride (like what they use in toothpaste) and sodium fluorosilicate to compare the poisonous effects on the farm animals, and found that the sodium fluorosilicate was a much more effective poison. Another reason for processing the raw phosphate rock is that the fluoride content is also enough to be toxic to many agricultural crops the raw rock will actually inhibit the growth of crops. Some plants like gladiolas will just wilt will die when fertilized with raw phosphate rock because of the fluoride content.

* Also known as hydrofluorosilcic acid. 

The outcome of those early studies strongly suggested that using raw phosphate rock as a cheap fertilizer or animal mineral supplement is not the way to go if you wanted to make a profit and have healthy plants and animals."

Extracted form the book: "Phosphate Fluorides - Toxic Torts" By Gary O. Pittman (page 26)

For more see: Earth Island Journal - Special Feature: "Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection." It was an expose about how America�s public drinking water is fluoridated with pollution scrubber liquor from phosphoric acid processing. This is must read! (Note: Investigative Journalist, George Glasser, wrote this several years ago when Florida was virtually the only source of fluoridation chemicals. Now, countries with proven lax safety standards such as  Mexico and China are supplying the US  with its phosphate fertilizer waste to be used for fluoridation.)

Fluoridation Chemicals Endanger Workers

New Book: "Fluoride Phosphates Toxic Torts," by Gary O. Pittman  

   Gary Pittman gave up his life for his job. 

That wasn’t Gary’s plan when he started working at Occidental Chemical Corporation’s phosphate plants.  He just wanted to make a decent living and provide for his family.  Occidental offered the best pay and best benefits for a high school graduate.

Gary was exposed to 100’s of toxic chemicals with only a hard hat and safety glasses for “protection.” So it’s no surprise that he and many of his co-workers developed debilitating chemical-induced diseases. Most workers were uneducated. Some could barely read and write, Gary says.  They were no match for Occidental’s highly-paid corporate lawyers. But Gary refused to back down and pursued a personal injury lawsuit (toxic tort litigation) against Occidental with several co-workers.

Gary paints a bleak picture of what’s inside the plants – the noise, the smell, the darkness, the boot-eating acids. It’s what you would imagine that Hell would look like, Gary says.

Occidental may have protected themselves legally. But ethically, it stinks as badly as the sulfuric acid stench permeating the plants. However, the one deadly chemical all employees were exposed to didn’t have a smell – fluoride – yes, the stuff they put on your teeth and into your drinking water in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay.

   Fluoride, in the form of fluorosilicates or silicon tetrafluoride, is a toxic contaminant of the phosphate rock. These fluorides must be removed to make safe fertilizer and animal feed products.

Gary says, when researchers fed raw powdered fluoride-containing phosphate rock to farm animals, cows’ milk dried up and had high rates of calf stillbirths.   Pigs quit eating and breeding. Chickens died almost instantly.

And to avoid killing animals and plants surrounding the factory, fluorosilicates must be captured or scrubbed out of air emissions. This captured and contaminated waste product is sold unpurified to fluoridating communities.

Gary writes, “When we had to clean the pollution scrubbers, most of us went home with acid burns and coughing up blood.” 

“Once inside those vessels and scrubbers, we had no respirators, and had to breathe that stale, moist acidic air all shift. Sometimes, workers would fall ill with flu-like symptoms, the older workers called it ‘chemical pneumonia,’” writes Gary.

“I remember one time when they assigned me the task of cleaning the filter hood on the pollution scrubber. Powdery fluorosilicate dust was everywhere. As we were cleaning, the dust covered us. It was very hot - 100 to 120 degrees - and we were sweating profusely. When the fluorosilicate dust mixed with the perspiration, it formed acid on the skin and blistered us if we didn't wash it off in time. We were breathing those dusts, too. They didn't give us respirators,” Gary writes.

The pollution scrubbers’ fluorosilicates contain heavy metals such as lead and mercury and radionuclides including radium-226, radon-222 and uranium-238. 

An autopsy of a man who died from several minutes exposure to concentrated fumes at a phosphate fertilizer plant revealed a coating of silica on his lungs. The cause of death, however, was fluorine poisoning, reports Gary.

A dentist speaking at a San Diego City Council meeting, when asked where fluoridation chemicals comes from, answered “from a rock.” He wasn’t lying.  He just didn’t tell the whole truth.

Some fluoridation promoters soften fluorosilicates image by calling them  “co-products” as if the phosphate fertilizer industry made the stuff on purpose. Whatever it’s called, fluorosilicates have never been safety tested in animals or humans.  Yet, it's dumped as is into about 70% of US public drinking water supplies and given a stamp of approval by organized dentistry and its followers.

Gary’s story reveals the horror of working in an industry that provides the chemicals of modern living and how poorly the workers were treated by their employer whose main concern was money. Most of us have no idea how we indirectly put lives in peril. Maybe Gary’s book will get people thinking about it – especially those who endorse, promote or legislate fluorosilicates into our public water supplies. 

Maybe the US phosphate fertilizer industry has improved worker conditions. But now, unbelievably, China, Mexico, Japan and Belgium are selling us their phosphate fertilizer waste fluorosilicates.

China has a history of selling us products with unwanted and/or toxic ingredients. Chinese fluorosilicates have already clogged up water systems in the US.

Organized dentistry, both inside government and out, and the officials they influence have a moral, ethical and maybe legal responsibility to know what toxins are in all fluoridation chemicals, where they come from and whose lives were endangered by handling them. They all need to read this book.

Support Gary's Work:   

http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/phosphate-fluorides-toxic-torts/15739397

Dentists Protect Fluoride Instead of Babies

For Babies, Fluoride is Nothing to Smile About

Almost half of US children have fluoride-discolored teeth (dental fluorosis). So, health officials advise avoiding mixing fluoridated water into infant formula. But New Hampshire dentists, not only fought against publicizing such efforts but, glorified fluoride instead. 
 

The New Hampshire Dental Society (NHDS)  lobbied against  required formula/fluoride warnings  on water bills (1) then promoted fluoride with a new website and press release conspicuously excluding infant warnings.

Fluoride is added to water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay.  There is no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth and bones. 
 

Fluoride is also present in all infant formulas, according to  Dr. Howard Koh,  Assistant Secretary for Health, US Department of Health and Human Services, Koh says, “…tooth enamel formation occurs from birth until about 8 years old. This is also the time when dental fluorosis may occur with excess fluoride consumption...low-fluoride bottled water [should] be used for routinely reconstituting infant formula.”  (2)

Similar warnings have been made by the Centers for Disease Control, American Dental Association, Academy of General Dentistry, Mayo Clinic, Health Canada, Vermont Dep’t of Health, Minnesota Dental Association, Delta Dental, Environmental Working Group and many fluoride researchers. But new parents and pediatricians, who see more babies than dentists, are rarely informed.

According to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), the NHDS and the NH Oral Health Coalition “claimed that they supported educating parents about infant exposure to fluoride, but believed that the  notice should be given only in the doctor’s office, and not be placed on water bills where they claimed it could ‘scare’ water customers.”

NH Legislators suggested that the bill be re-introduced in 2012, and require warning notices on annual consumer confidence reports.  New Hampshire dentists agree, reports FAN. So why didn’t they incude this information on their “Fluoride Facts” website? Maybe the rest of their fluoride "facts" aren't so factual either.

“Exposure to excessive consumption of fluoride over a lifetime may lead to increased likelihood of bone fractures in adults, and may result in effects on bone leading to pain and tenderness,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency. (3)

Dental fluorosis afflicts more than 41% of adolescents, reports the CDC.  We don't know if these fluoride-overdosed children have weakened bones because no such studies have been done. 

Other health defects linked to fluoride have also not been studied in fluoride-overdosed children such as lower IQ, thyroid dysfunction, irritable bowel syndrome, arthritis. Absence of evidence shouldn’t be misinterpreted as absence of harm.

HHS recently lowered recommended water fluoride levels to 0.7 ppm because they acknowledge US children are fluoride overdosed. However, it makes more sense to stop fluoridation entirely to protect our children from further fluoride abuse to satisfy the politics of organized dentistry.

Fluoride never was FDA safety-tested for human ingestion. FDA regulates fluoridated toothpaste as a drug for topical application which requires poison warning labeling. The EPA regulates fluoride as a water contaminant and air pollutant. The CDC does not do original fluoride research. The CDC's Oral Health Division is hired to promote fluoridation.  The American Dental Association represents the best interests of fluoride manufacturers.

According to a study in The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology ”Fluorosis has some hormonal, gastrointestinal, hematological, skeletal, renal, respiratory, cardiovascular, immunological, neurological and development side effects.”

Public water supplies should not be used to dispense fluoride drugs to the entire population.  People need to take back their water supply from Organized Dentistry and demand their legislators side with  science which shows ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and harmful to health.

Dentists prefer to treat the water of low-income people rather than their teeth.  80% of dentists refuse Medicaid patients.  100 million Americans don’t have dental insurance.  US children have died from the consequences of untreated tooth decay and the inability to find a dentist willing to treat them.  Our emergency rooms are flood with people in dental pain costing the tax payers thousands of dollars which an $80 filling could have prevented.

Dentists need to be mandated to treat more low income people – either for free, on a sliding scale or accept government sponsored insurance.  If not, they need to step aside and allow Dental Therapists to do the job. We know dentist love mandates because they are behind virtually every fluoridation mandate in this country.

References:

1)  Dental leaders in Dover tout economical benefits of fluoride

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110325/GJNEWS_01/703259936

2) 

Government Perspectives on Healthcare

    HHS:  Proposed Guidelines on Fluoride in Drinking Water

    A Commentary By Howard K. Koh, MD, MPH

    http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738322

3) http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm#three

Confronting the Myths of Water Fluoridation Promoters

The following are excerpts adapted from the recently-released book, The Case Against Fluoride by Paul Connett, PhD; James Beck, PhD; and H. S. Micklem, DPhil (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2010) from an excerpt published in its entirety on the truth-out website

Proponents of fluoridation have made a number of claims that have been effective with an ill-informed public. Let’s take a look at them.

Claim 1: Fluoride is “natural.” We are just topping up what is there anyway.

There is nothing “natural” about the fluoridating chemicals. They are obtained largely from the wet scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry. The chemicals used in most fluoridation programs are either hexafluorosilicic acid or its sodium salt, and those silicon fluorides do not occur in nature. What is more, under international law they cannot be dumped into the sea.

Claim 2: Fluoridation is no different than adding iron, folic acid, or vitamin D to bread and other foodstuffs.

There is a world of difference:

1. Iron, folic acid, and vitamin D are known essential nutrients. Fluoride is not.
2. All of those substances have large margins of safety between their toxic levels and their beneficial levels. Fluoride does not.

3. People who do not want those supplements can seek out foods without them. It is much more difficult to avoid tap water.

Claim 3: The amount of fluoride added to the public water system, 1 ppm, is so small it couldn’t possibly hurt you.

Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignificant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.

Claim 4: You would have to drink a whole bathtub of water to get a toxic dose of fluoride.

Here again, proponents are confusing a toxic dose with a lethal dose—that is, a dose causing illness or harmful effect as opposed to a dose causing death. Opponents of fluoridation are not suggesting that people are going to be killed outright from drinking fluoridated water, but we are suggesting that it may cause immediate health problems in those who are very sensitive and, with long-term exposure, persistent health problems in others.

Claim 5: Fluoridated water is only delivered to the tap. No one is forced to drink it.

Unfortunately, that is not a simple option, especially for families of low income who cannot afford bottled water or expensive fluoride filtration systems. Even those who can afford alternatives cannot easily protect themselves from the water they get outside the home. Fluoridated tap water is used in many processed foods and beverages (soda, beer, coffee, etc.). 

Claim 6: Fluoridation is needed to protect children in low-income families.

This is a powerful and emotional argument. However, it ignores the fact that poor nutrition is most prevalent in families of low income, and the people most vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects are those with a poor diet. Thus, while children from low-income families are a special target for this program, they are precisely the ones most likely to be harmed. Moreover, some of the many distressing newspaper accounts of children suffering from tooth decay in low-income areas located in cities that have been fluoridated for over thirty years. In fact numerous state oral health reports indicate the continued disparity in tooth decay between low-income and high-income families, even in states with a high percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water.

Claim 7: Fluoridation has been going on for over sixty years; if it caused any harm, we would know about it by now.

Such statements would start to be meaningful only if fluoridated countries had conducted comprehensive health studies of their fluoridated populations. Most have not. Only a few health studies have been performed in the United States, most many years ago; very few health studies have been performed in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the UK; and none has been performed in Colombia, Ireland, Israel, or Singapore (all coun tries with more than 50 percent of the population drinking fluoridated water).

Claim 11: Every major dental and medical authority supports fluoridation.

Here we return to the dubious nature of endorsements not backed up by inde pendent and current reviews of the literature. Many of the major associations on the list frequently cited by the American Dental Association endorsed fluoridation before a single trial had been completed and before the first health study had been published, in 1954.

Claim 12: When fluoridation is stopped, tooth decay rates go up.

There now have been at least four modern studies showing that when fluo ridation was halted in communities in East Germany, Finland, Cuba, and British Columbia (Canada), tooth decay rates did not go up.

Claim 13: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is effective.

On the contrary, the UK’s York Review was able to identify very few studies of even moderate quality, and the results were mixed.

Claim 14: Fluoridation reduces tooth decay by 20–60 percent.

The evidence for fluoridation’s bene fits and found is very weak. Even a 20 percent reduction in tooth decay is a figure rarely found in more recent studies. Moreover, we have to remember that percentages can give a very misleading picture. For example, if an average of two decayed tooth surfaces are found in a non-fluoridated group and one decayed surface in a fluoridated group, that would amount to an impressive 50 percent reduction. But when we consider the total of 128 surfaces on a complete set of teeth, the picture—which amounts to an absolute saving in tooth decay of a mere 0.8 percent—does not look so impressive.

Claim 15: Hundreds (or thousands) of studies demonstrate that fluoridation is safe.

When proponents are asked to produce just one study (a primary study, not a governmental review) that has convinced them that fluoridation is safe, they are seldom able to do so. Apparently, they have taken such assurances from others at face value, without reading the literature for themselves. The fact is, it is almost impossible to prove conclusively that a substance has no ill effects. A careful and properly controlled study may show that, under the conditions and limitations of the investigation, no harm is apparent. A hundred such studies may permit a considerable degree of confidence—but in the case of fluoridation, very few studies have even been attempted. As fluoride accumu lates progressively in the skeleton and probably the pineal gland, studies need to extend over a lifetime. Meanwhile, fluoride at moderate to high doses can cause serious health problems, leav ing little or no margin of safety for people drinking fluoridated water. 

Claim 16: Opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications.

Some opponents of fluoridation do not have professional qualifications (of course); many do. Many highly qualified doctors, dentists, and scientists have opposed fluoridation in the past and do so today. Currently, over 3,000 individuals from medicine, dentistry, science, and other relevant professions are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Furthermore, many opponents without professional qualifications have educated themselves on the science relevant to fluoridation and are qualified to evaluate many aspects of it.

Claim 17: Opponents of fluoridation get their information from the Internet.

No one denies that plenty of rubbish appears on the Internet. But just because a published study can be found using the Internet does not invalidate it. In fact, scientists now do much of their reading of the scientific literature online. The Fluoride Action Network maintains a Health Effects Database on its Web site, which provides citations, excerpts, abstracts, and in some cases complete pdf files of many published studies. Proponents would do well to read some of these papers, rather than trying to dismiss them because they are available online.

Claim 18: There is no evidence that fluoride at the levels used in fluoridation schemes causes any health problems.

There are three weaknesses to this argument. First, it does not make clear that fluoridating countries have done few basic health studies of populations drinking fluoridated water. Absence of studies does not mean absence of harm. Second, just because a study is conducted at a higher water fluoride level than 1 ppm does not mean that it is not relevant to water fluoridation. Toxicologists are nearly always extrapolating from high-dose animal experi ments to estimate safe doses for humans. In the case of fluoride, we have the luxury of a large number of human studies conducted in countries with moderate to high levels of exposure to naturally occurring fluoride. What is required here is a “margin-of-safety” analysis to see if there is a sufficient safety margin between the doses that cause harm and the doses likely to be experienced in fluoridated communities. In our view, there is not. And third, it is not true that there is no evidence of ill effects from fluoride at present levels of fluoridation.

Claim 21: Skeletal fluorosis is very rare in fluoridated countries.

It is difficult for promoters of fluoridation to deny that high natural levels of fluoride have caused severe bone damage in millions of people in India, China, and several other countries. However, proponents insist that skeletal fluorosis is a rare occurrence in countries with artificial fluoridation like the United States. What they really mean by this is that the crippling phase (stage III) of this condition is rare in the United States; they fail to recognize that the earlier phases (stage I and stage II) are associated with pains in the joints and bones, symptoms identical to the early symptoms of arthritis, a condition that affects many millions of adults in the United States.The 2006 NRC review recommends that stage II skeletal fluorosis be considered an adverse effect: “The committee judges that stage II is also an adverse health effect, as it is associated with chronic joint pain, arthritic symptoms, slight calcification of ligaments, and osteosclerosis of cancellous bones.” No fluoridating country has undertaken a study to see if there is a relationship between fluoridation and arthritis.

The complete chapter can be found here: 

http://www.truth-out.org/confronting-myths-water-fluoridation-promoters65562?print

How Lead Gets into Fluoridation Chemicals

Fluoride and Lead by Frances Frech

Originally presented at a State Lead Commission hearing in
Hannibal, Missouri in 1994

All of the fluoride products used in the artificial fluoridation of water are contaminated with lead and arsenic. (Frech  received the evidence from Margaret Stasikowski, an official with the EPA, in the form of copies of pages from Water Chemicals Codex, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1982. This is confirmed by the 2019 fact sheet produced by NSF International, the private company that regulates fluoridation chemicals.)

The lead contamination is considered the most serious so we'll deal with that one rather than with both substances. Lead is creating the most concern today we'll go into the arsenic angle in a later paper.

So How does the tainting occur? In the matter of the fluosilicates (such as hydrofluosilicic acid); the most commonly used fluoride substances in community water systems, this is the story:

The fluosilicates are the by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry. In the manufacture of this kind of fertilizer, phosphorus is obtained from phosphate rock, which has to be broken down with sulfuric acid.(1) Fluorine occurs naturally in combination with the phosphates.(2) In these two facts lie the keys to the presence of lead in the fluosilicates.

Step One: Sulfuric acid is prepared by either of two ways, the lead chamber process(3) or the contact method.(4) In its purest form (made by the contact method) it is used in pharmaceuticals; in its lowest grade (produced by the lead chamber process) it is used by the fertilizer industry.(5) It is also frequently recovered for re-use, but this form is too impure for any purpose except the manufacture of fertilizer, for which it is quite suitable.(6)

In the lead chamber process purification is carried out only to the extent of removing substances that could clog the machinery.(7) Of the common metals, only lead is resistant to cold sulfuric acid in concentrations up to 100%. But in hot acid the resistance is up to about 70%.(8) The lead chamber type uses heat (about 600 C) and isn't cooled during the process. That's why a certain amount of lead is leached during this procedure.

If a pure product is needed, the contact method is used, but it's more expensive, more complicated. In the making of fertilizer, however, a pure grade is not necessary. After all, neither fertilizer nor its by-products were intended for human consumption.

Step Two: Fluorine, which is a highly reactive element capable of joining with any other element except oxygen, is able to leach lead from the contaminated sulfuric acid. In the past hydrofluosilicic acid was simply neutralized and discarded. The picking up of lead wouldn't have been a problem. But eventually it was decided that the acid, being already in solution, would be better, simpler to use, and less expensive than sodium fluoride.(9) The lead contamination, apparently, was forgotten (if, indeed, it had ever been noticed.)

Another way in which fluoridation contributes to lead in the water is through its action on whatever lead pipes may still be in existence in older homes. Any lead pipes would be old lead. These are ordinarily covered by a protective coating made by the lead itself which is impervious to diluted acids (as all of them would be in water.) Water acts slowly on lead, forming lead hydroxide, but the action is slight if the water contains carbon dioxide or carbonates or sulfates which interact with lead to form these protective coatings.(11) It's interesting that the lead pipes in Roman aqueducts, 2000 years old, are still in such good shape the numbers and letters engraved on them are clearly legible.(12)

In fluoridated water, though, it's a different matter. Fluorine can and does destroy the protective coatings; it can and does leach lead.

A pediatrics textbook published in 1964 (13) noted that the incidence of lead poisoning had been rising in certain metropolitan areas in Eastern United States. The blame was laid on old lead paint flaking from walls and woodwork. But most of the lead chips were old before 1964; some children chewed them long before then. But a new source of lead had arisen--unnoticed: The fluoridation of water, with lead-contaminated fluoride, a substance also capable of leaching lead from the pipes. Although there were scattered places fluoridating throughout the nation, larger numbers of eastern metropolitan communities were doing so.

Today one in nine children under the age of six is said to have unacceptably high blood lead levels (14) - As many as 500,000 US children under age six (2017) - even though lead paint was banned in 1978 and hadn't been used extensively since the 1950's!) Lead in gasoline has been phased out, and lead solder hasn't been permitted on copper tubing since 1986. 

The EPA says that lead stabilizes in five years. So except for fluoride use, any pipes, whether of lead or lead-soldered, should not now be hazardous. The most revealing statistics, though, are the high blood lead levels in 400,000 newborns each year. Newsweek in its article on lead and the threat to children (15) said that pregnant women passed this toxic substance to their unborn children by eating, drinking, or breathing it. But even though pregnant women do sometimes have weird cravings, it's not likely more than a tiny percentage would be chewing paint chips, nor would a significant number of them be engaged in renovating old houses. The lead is in the water--and in foods and beverages prepared with the water.

The EPA estimates that 10-20% of the lead in children comes from the water.(16) That agency, which knows of the lead contamination of fluoride products, insists the amount is too small to be of regulatory concern. What they have overlooked, though, is that it concentrates in the body tissues, and over time, would add up to quite a lot. In addition, it becomes concentrated in products processed with the water. The 10-20% directly from the water can easily become three or four times as much.

The EPA lists as health problems caused by lead the following conditions: Interference with formation of red blood cells, anemia, kidney damage, impaired reproductive function, interference with Vitamin D metabolism, impaired cognitive performance, delayed neurological and physical development, elevations in blood pressure.(17) The agency also suggests lead my be a carcinogen, possibly causing kidney tumors and lymphocytic leukemia.(18) Furthermore, it's a known scientific fact that lead poisons the bone marrow.(19) Surely, then, it would be prudent to avoid even "a little bit of lead," assuming that's all fluoridation contributes.

But the evidence shows it's much more than that. Let us tell you a tale of two cities--Tacoma, Washington, and Thurmont, Maryland. Both of them saw significant decline in lead levels only six months after fluoridation was stopped. (In Tacoma, that was due to equipment problems, in Thurmont, it was a temporary ban by the city council.) Tacoma registered a drop of nearly 50% (20); in Thurmont it was 78%.(21) To the best of our knowledge, no other explanations were offered. In Thurmont the ban is now permanent.(22) and still not fluoridated in 2022. In Tacoma (re) started in 1994.

We have more points to add. As we've already mentioned, the EPA says that lead may be implicated in causing leukemia. A booklet published by the Leukemia Society in 1987 noted that chemicals which damage the bone marrow can cause leukemia. The Book of Popular Science, 1974, pointed out that bone marrow is poisoned by lead. (23) Are we to believe, then, nothing is wrong with putting a little bit of lead into the water (from which it will also enter, more concentrated, food and beverages prepared with the water?)

The EPA permits lead-contaminated fluorides to be added; they do not require it. Thus, any community, anywhere, could halt the program any time, with the consent of its citizens, who surely would consent if given the facts.

Lead-tainted fluorides are waste products mainly of the aluminum and phosphate fertilizer industries, largely from US companies. But we've learned that in some communities sodium fluoride imported from Japan or sodium silicofluoride from Belgium are used. Neither of these nations fluoridates its own water supplies. (24) (Don't you get the feeling we're in the same category as a Third World country becoming a toxic waste dump for others?)

In conclusion, there's still the matter of lead being leached from old pipes. Anyone who argues that fluoridation had nothing to do with it will have to explain those well-preserved lead pipes from more than 2000 years ago in unfluoridated Roman water.

The following is from the Fluoride Action Network

More recently, water departments have confirmed that the addition of FSA [Fluorosilicic acid] can increase the acidity of water, which in turn makes the water more corrosive.

In San Francisco, water treatment engineers found that the addition of FSA to the city’s soft water reduced the pH from 9 to less than 7.5. (Wilczak 2010) Because of this, San Francisco added additional caustic soda to the water to bring the pH back to non-corrosive levels.

Similarly, in Thunder Bay, Canada, the addition of FSA was found to reduce the pH of the city’s soft water (from 7.54 to 7.27), nearly tripling the rate of lead leaching from pipes.

“The Thunder Bay drinking water is corrosive by nature. Addition of fluoridating agents to the water, especially fluorosilicic acid would increase this tendency and hence increase lead levels at the consumer tap. The use of an anti-corrosion agent, such as sodium hydroxide as demonstrated in this experiment, would be needed to counteract this effect.” (Vukmanich 2009)

Further: 

Fluoridation Can Leach Lead from Pipes, Even in Non-Acidic Water; is Linked to Elevated Blood Lead Levels in Children and Fluoride Can Increase the Uptake & Toxicity of Lead - References here: https://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoridation_flint_lead/

REFERENCES (for Frances Frech:

(1) Book of Popular Science, Grolier, Inc., 1974, Vol.7, 63.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 167-169.
(4) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 7, 62.
(5) Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1957, Vol.21, 545.
(6) Ibid., 545.
(7) Ibid., 546.
(8) Ibid., 545A
(9) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 7, 63-64.
(10) Encyclopedia Americana, 1945, Vol. 1, 456.
(11) Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1957, Vol.1, 715.
(12) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 39.
(13) Textbook of Pediatrics, Nelson WS, MD, WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia,London, 1964, 1557.
(14) Newsweek, "Lead and Your Kids," July 15, 1991.
(15) Ibid.
(16) Ibid.
(17) Federal Register, Bol. 56, No. 110, June 7, 1991, 264.
(18) Ibid., 265-70.
(19) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3, 74.
(20) Letter from the Tacoma Public Utilities, Dec. 2, 1992.
(21) Fluoride Report, newsletter, April, 1994, 5.
(22) Ibid.
(23) Book of Popular Science, Vol. 3,74.
(24) Letter from Tacoma Public Utilities, May 22, 1992.
(25) Kansas City STAR, April 19, 1994.