This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health."
Fluoride has been shown to adversely effect the central nervous system, causing behavioural changes, increased hip fractures and reproduction problems."
The evidence against the safety of this public health policy will keep mounting and never disappear again. My ignorance of fluoride in the beginning was a matter of chance. If you ignore this evidence today, it will be a matter of choice.”
It’s time that this practice, which began with The Manhattan Project, be revealed for what it truly is: a travesty against the health of the public.“
As an active researcher of environmental toxicology and children’s health I was once a believer in the value of adding fluoride to water. Then I became acquainted with David Kennedy, DDS, and he presented information about fluorosis and introduced me to FAN and scientific research. I was appalled by my lack of understanding and knowledge about fluorides and their impact on health. We should be protecting the public from systemic exposure to this toxin and not adding it to public water supplies.“
I have had considerable experience with this issue. A book I co-authored “Healthy Teeth for Kids” condemns fluoride. Our newsletter the Holistic Dental Digest PLUS continues to inform the public on fluoride’s dangers and as Past-president of The International Academy of Preventive Medicine, I’m very familiar with the ‘politics’ of the problem.”
Fluoridation of our water supply impacts the young and poor disproportionately more since the young often obtain it in higher concentrations than adults and the poor can`t afford the Reverse Osmosis filtration required to remove it.”
Over the past few years I have become increasingly enlightened and alarmed by this insidious practice and I am likewise enlightening colleagues as opportunities present themselves.”
I have found that the most important factor to keep the teeth and the whole body healthy is to stay alkaline. When the saliva is acidic, that is when problems start. Fluoride is a toxic compound that I do not recommend in our water.”
I have been a chiropractor for over 30 years and followed this subject for that length of time. I have two sons who are also chiropractors and we teach all our patients that this is poor public health policy. Water fluoridation policy seems to be another good example where profit and politics outweigh science and public well-being.”
It works better applied directly to teeth. Anybody who wants it can have it applied at their visit to the dentist. It is medication without consent when put in drinking water.”
E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects."
The health risks from fluoridation to the brain, bones, thyroid, and kidneys far outweigh any benefits to teeth. It is unethical to force exposure to fluoridation chemicals on entire populations without consent.”
I am against all fluoridation in water. It causes more harm than good. There’s a lot of research that reveals the fact there is no need to put fluoride in water. We have to stop all fluoridation.”
I have found no compelling evidence that it helps with anything in the human body.”
I oppose fluoridation in the water as it is bad for people's thyroid and also has other medical issues.”
As a Dental Hygienist, I think that it should only be allowed topically.”
Fluoride is harmful and people should have the option of choosing whether they are exposed to this toxin.”
Water fluoridation was founded on the faulty premise that fluoride ingested systemically during tooth development (ages 0-8 years old) would strengthen teeth and make them resistant to decay and would cause dental fluorosis in about 10% of youth. The scientific consensus is now that the cariostatic effect of fluoride is topical and that swallowing fluoride during dental development years causes mottled enamel in about 58% of adolescents, according to the most recent NHANES survey.”
It’s really an irony that the American Dental Association (ADA) relies on old, outdated “science” to support its pro fluoride position, and then has the nerve to say that we use “junk science.” I believe that the ADA is now about as professionally corrupt as it can get. The ADA is an embarrassment to real research scientists.”
When I acted as health consultant for the British Columbian government, I was presented the case for fluoridation by civil servants in the health department and I supported the practice. When, however, I examined the scientific literature for myself, I was appalled that I had been taken in by such a one-sided presentation. I have now studied the fluoride literature and have attended International Conferences of the ISFR for the past 15 years and condemn the practice of water fluoridation without reservation.”
I run an organization for people with cancer. — We are concerned about the use of fluoride in our drinking water. One concern is the heavy metal content of the highly contaminated industrial waste fluoride used in fluoridation. Cadmium for example, has already been implicated in the development of breast cancer. The other heavy metals are also cause for concern. We believe that people with suppressed or depressed immune systems (those under conventional cancer treatment, or those with cancer), are being adversely affected. We think future studies, when these areas are targeted, will demonstrate this.”
That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man."
We should notice the fact that only 1% of fluoride added into the drinking water would be drunk by the community people and about 99% would flow away into the environment. I have read the NRC report on “Fluoride in Drinking Water” published in 2006 and I am very concerned about the adverse health effects identified at low fluoride levels.”
It’s hard for me as a career EPA scientist to reconcile my Agency’s justifiable pride in its accomplishments in protecting public health and the environment with statements like the one made in 1984 by then Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Rebecca Hanmer in which she, on behalf of EPA, endorses dumping the toxic and corrosive industrial waste product fluosilicic acid (sic) into America’s drinking water systems as a cheap fluoridating agent. For EPA in this way to play the “good federal soldier” promoting the national policy of water fluoridation at the cost of the Agency’s soul is a repulsive Faustian bargain I want no part of.”
“The German Association of Gas and Water Employers (which was asked to put fluoride into water supplies) prepared a detailed report in 1975 considering all then available evidence. After analyzing the data, supported by 485 references, they rejected fluoridation on 8 counts concluding that water fluoridation was: foreign to nature, unnecessary, unsatisfactory, illegal (according to 2 basic German laws), irresponsible, harmful to the environment, uncontrollable and inefficient. [Dokumentation zur Frage der Trinkwasser-Fluoridierung, DVGW Schriftenreihe, Wasser, Nr. 8, 1975]. – Nothing has changed, but since 1975 there has been more evidence of the ineffectiveness of water fluoridation in preventing tooth decay and of much harm it causes to human and animal health, as well as to the environment.”
I recently served on a city council appointed by the mayor to study the issue of fluoridation. Based on 2 years of studying the literature and closely examining the 2006 NAS/NRC report, the council persuaded the Assembly members of Juneau (Alaska) to remove fluoride from the city water. My particular interest was the effect of fluoride on IQ. Recent Chinese studies show a significant reduction of IQ in children drinking water with high natural fluoride levels (compared to children in low fluoride communities). Fluoride is also very bad for thyroid function; hyperthyroidism (Graves disease) used to be treated with fluoride, but this treatment was abandoned because of it being too toxic.”
As a nationally recognized whistleblower to lead in drinking water and a drinking water treatment chemist, I observed the addition of HFSA increased lead leaching into drinking water from lead service lines. Also a survivor of lifetime fluoride consumption including on the job with fluoride fumes at the water treatment plant with much harm from fluoride toxicity improving with fluoride avoidance. I have dental fluorosis with veneers, hyperparathyroidism, hypothyroid with calcified nodules, total hip replacement with ashed bone at 1500 ppm F, kidney stones, acute pancreatitis, osteoarthritis, GERD, enlarged heart, phleboliths, multiple misplaced calcifications including at the interosseous membrane of the forearm. Neurologic symptoms etc. Most all symptoms lessened with F avoidance.n
Unless our Society smartens up, the perils associated with fluoridation will accrue until the human cost becomes unacceptably high, i.e. when facts can no longer be ignored, denied or refuted. I see the situation as analogous to the once common practice of using Asbestos to fire-protect steel structures, which was eventually outlawed when the HIGH associated human costs became evident.”
Fluoridation goes on today regardless of demonstrated adverse human health consequences. It must be stopped – but we will have achieved a true landmark victory for human health and the well-being of our planet only when all harmful fluoride pollution has been eliminated.”
Because I was never given the opportunity to consent to this treatment.”
It is unnecessary and has harmful side effects.”
There are far better ways to help teeth without poisoning the water supply.”
Marginal benefit in exchange for significant risk is the sine qua non of gross disproportionality…the stronger the scientific evidence of risk of harm, the greater the gross disproportionality.”
I have first hand observations of individuals who suffer from fluoride. One woman has deep bone pain from just bathing in fluoridated water.”
I am not in a medical field or an environmental field but I do have a PhD and am well versed on the subject of fluoridation and know what a dangerous practice it is.”
The former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association said he often received telephone calls from irate AMA members and letters from state medical societies and AMA officers "threatening political action against the editor and the Journal for publishing what offended them ideologically, or more likely imposed on (physicians') ability to earn money."
As one of John Colquhoun’s supervisors for his PhD on fluoridation, I am glad to add my name to the Professionals’ statement calling for an end to fluoridation. The evidence strongly suggests there is no benefit from systemic (as opposed to topical) fluoride. The harm from fluoridation is real, at least with dental fluorosis; and the evidence for other, more harmful side effects is worrying enough that, in the absence of significant benefit, fluoridation should be stopped.”
UK national data from 2003 indicate that 20% of the UK population (only 10% fluoridated) already consumes more fluoride than the UK Department of Health considers safe.”
Fluoridation causes dental fluorosis, which is associated with lowered IQ and thyroid gland interference. Fluoridation chemicals are contaminated with arsenic and trace radionuclides, which contribute to the carcinogenic potential of tap water. The benefit is only about one tooth saved per person from dental decay after a lifetime of fluoridation so the benefits are miniscule compared to the known harm fluoridation causes.”
A key link between this issue and my work is one of producer responsibility or, rather, the lack of it. This is another example where an industry has figured out a way to eliminate their responsibility for the waste they make, in a way that evidently has major ramifications. We should ask a Congressional Hearing to apply the precautionary principle to the use of the phosphate fertilizer industry’s contaminated silicon fluoride waste as an additive to municipal water supplies.”
I have been in this battle since 1968. It is utterly strange that while fluoridation is scientifically as outdated as the idea that the earth is flat, it is still going on in parts of the world and still propagated. Fluoridation was forbidden in our country in 1976 by law, and since the 1980s even in the constitution, thanks to a new article for the protection of human integrity (I helped bring that article in). We must hope that, while madness may occur during a certain period, in the end a sane attitude will be restored.”
Although I support proper public health measures, I have serious misgivings about the fluoridation of public water supplies. I am strongly against forcible medication when there is a logical, safe, targeted alternative. Fluoride supplements are available by prescription, so parents may administer fluoride in a controlled way – something that cannot be said for fluoridated water supplies, since concentrations vary and are subject to human error. Overdosing can and does occur. No one really knows exactly how much each child is getting since it depends very much on how much an individual child drinks and how much fluoride he or she is getting from swallowed toothpaste and foods and drinks, aside from the fluoridated water supply. There is now evidence that fluoride intake is associated with an increased incidence osteosarcoma. This alone should give us pause.”
By request of David Kennedy, DDS and subsequently John L. Wilson, Jr., MD, the board of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) was queried as to their desire to back the Professionals’ statement calling for an end to the use of fluoridation in drinking water. The board voted unanimously to support this opposition. The AAEM has passed a resolution of its own that follows this line of thought on fluoride use in water. We applaud the efforts of the Fluoride Action Network in helping to bring an end to the longstanding, ill conceived and poorly documented toxic exposure citizens of the US impart on themselves by drinking treated water.”
I am proud to tell you that our water district led the fight to get fluoride out of Northeast Harbor’s water. The result was that in a local referendum we won by 229 to 42 votes and we became the first community in Maine to stop fluoridation. We would like to help other communities in Maine get it out”
First of all, it is an obvious and flagrant violation of medical ethics because it constitutes medication without consent. Second, I am a professional research scientist, have spent quite some time going through the literature on the subject, and am absolutely shocked by the dishonesty of the people promoting the practice.”
Even the original wartime studies, which claimed to prove that water fluoridation reduced dental caries, were so flawed in their design that no editor of today’s medical journals would publish them. No study since has provided grade A evidence that ingested fluoride reduces tooth decay by any significant amount.”
When I studied fluoridation as a Civil Engineering student 52 years ago, very little was taught about the health effects of fluoride. In my opinion, those ‘professionals’ who advocate fluoridation of the public water supply as ‘safe and effective’ when the whole body of scientific evidence shows it is neither, should lose their professional license and should NOT be shielded from civil suits or criminal liability where fluoridated water causes damage.”
Referring to many articles by different authors (e.g. Niloufer Chinoy, Anna Strunecka and Rudolf Ziegelbecker) there is no room for deliberately distributing a highly problematic substance like fluoride over the whole country by water fluoridation.”
In my opinion, fluoride is worsening the problems arising from the lack of micronutrients and antioxidants in Western diets! We were lucky in Europe and especially in Germany that fluoridation was never widely accepted. Even those cities which decided to apply water fluoridation years ago, like Basel in Switzerland, have since stopped it”
We should have clean drinking water and water treatment plants should provide this, not attempt to be our pharmacy.”
The chemical rule is to deal with poisons at dilutions of 1/10th or 1/100th. The 2006 NRC ruled that 4 ppm was unsafe, and noted there was no valid science of ANY level as safe. Consequently, the assumption would be that "safe" was somewhere below 0.4 ppm or even 0 .04 ppm.
I have fought against water fluoridation in Israel and beyond since 2002. It has been clear for many, many years that in the handful of fluoridated countries that fluoride is a “protected pollutant.” I signed the original 2007 Professional's Statement. At the time I worked in the Medical Laboratory for diagnostic tests and research, Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. I have since retired but I continue to fight for sanity in the battle against this outdated and risky practice.”
A dentist in Jerusalem known to me personally finds one to two cases of children with fluorosis of the teeth per week, stating it is a systemic effect and means that fluoride is accumulating in their bones. Not all dentists are aware of this condition and frequently mis-diagnose it. Time to cease water fluoridation! (Unknown to many is that the toxic waste of the Negev fertilizer industry is used to fluoridate our drinking water, which includes traces of arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead and radioactive particles that are known carcinogens.”
Malaysia is still adding fluoride to its public drinking water system. The fluoride level recommended by the Ministry of Health Malaysia is 0.5 – 0.9 mg/L. Some states in Malaysia had stopped artificial fluoridation of drinking water in the wake of higher cases of dental fluorosis amongst the population. We want an end to fluoridation of our drinking water considering its neurotoxicity and other health impacts.”
I am sure my old friend, the late John Colquhoun, BDS, M Phil, Dip Ed(Syd), M. Phil(Auck), PhD of Auckland, New Zealand would have loved to have joined this august company. He is probably remembered by many dentists in New Zealand as a profluoride advocate. However, in 1981, after a world study tour, he discovered the error of his ways and spent the remainder of his life strongly opposing fluoridation.”
As a scientist and risk management consultant, I have read the science and reviewed the evidence regarding water fluoridation and fluoride intoxication. As a published author who has also undertaken risk assessment of fluoride intake I am aware that you cannot control the dose of exposure when you contaminant the public water supply with this toxin. Evidence suggests that Fluoride works topically in reducing dental caries but ingesting fluoride is harmful to the body, the soft organs including the brain, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs and immune system. I do not consent to mandatory fluoridation both on scientific and ethical grounds. It is a flawed policy that needs to stop immediately. The science is clear, fluoride is a neurotoxin, a metabolic and enzymatic poison and it should not be ingested, particularly by pregnant women or infants or persons who are susceptible to its toxic effects such as individuals who are iodine deficient, chloride deficient, individuals with kidney disease or compromised immunity.”
“Since 1969 I have analyzed numerous respected, fundamental fluoridation experiments on which the WHO and those who promoted fluoridation around the world, rely. My investigations involved studies of both natural and artificial fluoridation – including water fluoridation as well as other fluoridation methods. I have looked at these from both a mathematical-statistical and a scientific point of view. In all these cases the differences in dental caries were verifiably caused by other factors than fluoride including statistical artifacts, inappropriate selection and manipulation of the data. Not in one single case could a caries reducing effect of fluoridation be scientifically and credibly proven. The “benefits” of fluoridation measures asserted by dentists, dental organizations and public health services are the results of scientifically impermissible conclusions drawn from these experiments and studies. Part of these alleged “benefits” are even fudged.”
I was shocked to find out that around 50% of the Newcastle population (population = 365,000) have degrees of Chronic Fluoride Toxicosis (i.e. dental fluorosis). I also have a letter from a former Primary Trust Chief Executive which states that it is not my right to receive fluoride-free water. I could not believe that a professional in such a position could make such a crass statement.”
Fluoride has detrimental effects on the health of pets that are supplied with fluoridated water. Fluoride affects the functionality of their thyroid gland and subsequently hormonal status. Our renal patients are negatively affected by this addition. I am concerned about fluoride uptake into bone. There is scant pet animal research in this area, however I suspect similar levels of fluoride in dog and cat joints is contributing to pain, inflammation and disease. Many pet owners are unaware of the impact this unnecessary addition to their pets vital water supply is having on their pets overall health. It must end.”
…thyroid disorder during pregnancy is a danger to both mother and baby. For mothers, the risks include preeclampsia… For babies, the risks include preterm birth, decreased mental abilities, thyroid disorder and even death.”
“It's not healthy.... It's not a vitamin.... It's not needed in the human body.... It's IMMORAL!”
I have seen obvious symptoms of fluoride illness in my own children [gastrointestinal/ fluorosis/bones] which began several months after I was advised to give them fluoride tablets and fluoridated toothpaste when very young. The illnesses were mysterious and took a long while to diagnose. They are still slowly recovering from childhood exposure to fluoride even though many years have passed and one still has elevated fluoride in her blood. Since my early nursing days, I have always been totally against using any poison that isn’t necessary for good health and this opinion has been dramatically reinforced by our family experience.”
My daughter bought me toothpaste with fluoride and I hadn't realised but my doctor picked up on a difference. My thyroid readings had jumped up and I had to have a higher dosage of thyroxine. No need to tell you the toothpaste went straight into the garbage bin where fluoride should be, or what masquerades as fluoride.”
The purpose of water quality standards is to provide the best possible quality of water, not the worst permissible. In public health measures, the issue is not what is technically feasible but what is legally permissible; fluoridation is in violation of EU law and Article 3 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.”
I have been actively fighting fluoridation for 20 years while witnessing with horror its ghoulish consequences. Most memorable was the early death of an honest citizen suffering from polychondritis for whom fluoride was absolutely contraindicated. The shameful panorama of ignorance and pain that is linked to fluoridation must be put to a hasty end.”
My area of expertise is in recycling and I can’t imagine a worse example of recycling than the use of the hazardous scrubbing liquor from the fertilizer industry to fluoridate our water.”
..supporters of fluoridation have had an unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light," and that organized dentistry has lost "its objectivity - the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion."
In Harlem, NY, which has been fluoridated for 32 years, "There's more dental decay among these kids; we see the beginning of inflamed gingivitis in their mouths."
I have been actively fighting fluoridation for 20 years while witnessing with horror its ghoulish consequences. Most memorable was the early death of an honest citizen suffering from polychondritis for whom fluoride was absolutely contraindicated. The shameful panorama of ignorance and pain that is linked to fluoridation must be put to a hasty end.”
My 18 years of experience as a dentist have showed me that eating habits and oral hygiene are the key factors to prevention of dental decay. My examination of the literature regarding water fluoridation has convinced me that even though the intention behind this practice is good, the risks largely exceed the potential benefits (that appear to be much lower than expected initially)… It is unsafe for many people; it can harm babies that are bottle fed and it can make it worse for individuals with impaired thyroid function. Toxins are very abundant in our environment and we need to reduce them whenever it is possible, so adding a known toxin to water makes no sense.”
It is unnecessary to add this chemical to the water supply. It does not treat water, and what benefit it may have is administered ineffectively at uncontrolled dosage in the wrong method. Most fluoridated drinking water does not even enter a human's mouth--possibly 99%. It's flushed down the toilet, watered onto a lawn, washed onto a car, or flows down the drain with the dishwater and the laundry water. Thus, it becomes an environmental waste, as wastewater treatment plants do not remove fluoride.”
In my view, the three most telling arguments against fluoridation are: — 1) governments shouldn’t do to everyone what a doctor cannot do to anyone, i.e. force an individual to take medication without their consent.” — 2) The level of fluoride in mother’s milk is so low (0.004 ppm), i.e. 250 times lower than the typical level added to water (1 ppm). If you believe in fluoridation you are essentially saying that nature screwed up on what a baby needs for healthy nutrition. — 3) The concession by the CDC that fluoride’s predominant action is topical. — If it works on the outside of the tooth why on earth expose the whole body to this known toxic substance by putting it into the drinking water? Thus, when one learns that there is little decent science demonstrating that ingested fluoride is reducing tooth decay and there is a growing body of evidence that there are many health concerns, it not only adds scientific weight to these three very basic common sense and ethical arguments, but makes this practice even more preposterous.”
The initial safety trial for sodium fluoride was declared a success years before the safety trial was to end, rendering the public in effect subjects of an informal human subjects research experiment without their consent. The artificial fluoridation additives used in the USA are over 90% silicofluorides(hfsa or its sodium salt), for which no safety studies have ever been conducted given the assumption the fluoride ion fully dissociates as with sodium fluoride. However, the pH of the stomach is 1.5-3.5 and studies have called into question that the fluoride ion fully dissociates, posing different toxicological effects than with sodium fluoride. Use of silicofluorides with chloramine in municipal water has been linked to increased uptake of lead from lead-brass pipes. At the inception of artificial water fluoridation, sodium fluoride was used, which was known to the public as a popular rodenticide and pesticide. In recognition of sodium fluoride’s poisonous nature, the FDA requires a warning label on fluoridated toothpastes not to swallow the fluoride and to call the poison control hotline for help if fluoride is swallowed.”
I am the Board President of Consumers for Dental Choice. Our mission is to abolish the use of mercury in dental fillings. We, like the Fluoride Action Network, fight parallel battles with the ADA, state dental associations, state regulatory boards, the FDA and NIDCR. We hope for the good fortune of having someone like Christopher Bryson write a book about our story. As a lawyer, I believe that there is a fundamental human right to water and that that right is impaired when government usurps our constitutional right to self determination by force-feeding the population with a drug that FDA refuses to regulate (as it refuses to regulate mercury amalgam dental fillings). I also have a 4-year-old granddaughter with diabetes insipidius. It causes her to be very thirsty and to drink large quantities of water as her medication wears off between doses (as much as two quarts in an hour). Of course her parents have household bottled water. But there are many people who cannot afford to buy water to avoid the dangers of tap water.”
I have actively opposed compulsory fluoridation for over 40 years. As a lawyer, I am only too well aware of how our individual freedoms are being continually threatened and eroded – and the freedom to refuse unwanted medication is one of the most important freedoms we enjoy. A totalitarian measure like fluoridation sets an extremely dangerous precedent, and opens up an avenue which we should simply not go down. The effect of fluorides on tooth enamel, and the effect of ingesting a cumulative enzyme poison, may well be a dental and a medical question respectively for the experts, but whether to use public water supplies for conveying medication to all consumers, irrespective of their needs and wishes, is an entirely ethical question, on which the opinion of the lowestpaid, least-educated manual worker should carry just as much weight as the most highly-qualified president of the Medical and Dental Professions. They are all waterconsumers and should all have an equal say in what poisons or medication they ingest.”
As a professional chemist I spent the final 11 years of my career at the City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department in the Environmental Monitoring division. Unfortunately, without public consent, our water has been fluoridated here in Port Angeles, WA since early 2005, and even though two initiatives met the qualifications for a vote, the City Council and Washington Dental Services filed a lawsuit to stop the vote and the court agreed. — For me, the argument is simple — it is unethical to medicate people without their consent (and especially to use the public water system to do it!), and it’s criminal to use the public water supplies as a dumping ground for industry’s toxic waste. To pay them for the privilege is really a travesty. One doesn’t even need to go further than these issues, but the research evidence for serious health implications is very convincing. Too many ‘medical professionals’ and people in power suffer from the ‘my mind is made up–don’t confuse me with the facts mentality.’” — Diana L. Estberg, PhD, Chemistry, retired, Port Angeles, WA
The cause of dental caries is not fluoride deficiency, but the consumption of candy, soft drinks, and other fermentable sugars, which stick to the teeth and nourish the Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacilli which elaborate the organic acids that erode the dental enamel. Over-consumption of these empty calories is most prevalent among the same underprivileged children who not only have the highest caries incidence, but the highest obesity rates as well. Adding fluoride to the water does not solve either problem but since ~99% of the fluoride added to municipal water will never reach anyone’s teeth, water fluoridation would be a spectacularly inefficient strategy, even if it worked, and posed neither toxicological nor ethical concerns.”
The sad irony here is that the FDA, which does not regulate fluoride in drinking water, does regulate toothpaste and on the back of a tube of fluoridated toothpaste … it must state that “if your child swallows more than the recommended amount, contact a poison control center.” — The amount that they’re talking about, the recommended amount, which is a pea-sized amount, is equivalent to one glass of water. — The FDA is not putting a label on the tap saying don’t drink more than one glass of water. If you do, contact a poison center… — There is no question that fluoride — not an excessive amount — can cause serious harm.”
In Lakeview Park, we are fortunate to have 3 deep wells which don’t even need chlorination and are, of course, not fluoridated. I have been opposed to fluoridation since 1964. I am also opposed to mercury in dental fillings and vaccinations. I had 16 (4 under gold crowns) and had them properly replaced with composite fillings in May 1991 and chelation detox by a naturopath. I was headed for Alzheimer’s disease but my health store owner friend sold me “Its All In Your Head” by Hal Huggins, DDS, MS which motivated me to go to a toxic-free dentist.”
After careful study of the recent NRC/NAS report that concluded that EPA’s standards for fluoride in drinking water lack an ample margin of safety, and having been informed by my colleague Dr. Thiessen about the weak epidemiological evidence for health benefits contrasted with the real potential for detrimental health impacts in highly sensitive individuals exposed to fluoride in public drinking water supplies, I support the worldwide effort to end water fluoridation. We need a renewed effort to make the public, the scientific and medical establishment, public health officials, local communities and national leaders aware of the issues surrounding ubiquitous fluoridation of public drinking water supplies.”
Our organization, the Society for Orthomolecular Health-Medicine, took a position against fluoridation in 1996 . The claims of the pro-fluoride political establishment are deceptive and unscientific. At a time when the whole world is concerned about carbon dioxide pollution, it is incredible that our public health officials are still in denial about the proven environmental and medical dangers of fluoridation. How unscientific can you get. And since when does the medical profession abandon its traditional vow: “first, do no harm.” The risk benefit ratio of fluoride is almost never discussed in medical circles. Unbelievable–except that Western Medicine is also in denial about the primary importance of nutrition in maintaining health and treating disease. Also unbelievable!”
It's a toxic waste product of many types of industry; for instance, glass production, phosphate fertilizer production and many others. They would have no way to dispose of the tons of fluoride waste they produce unless they could find some use for it, so they made up this story about it being good for dental health. Then they can pass it through everyone's bodies and into the sewer." [A novel approach to toxic waste disposal--just feed it to the people and let their bodies "detoxify" it]. "It is a well-coordinated effort, to keep it from being declared for what it is - a toxic waste."
For the last 15 years I have carried out research showing what damage fluoride accumulation can do to human teeth and bones. At the same time, it is obvious that the benefit of fluoridation is next to nil. After spending 3 years on the US National Research Council panel reviewing the damage that fluoride can do to other tissues, I am even more convinced that fluoride should be banned as a systemic drug (which includes water fluoridation) and classified as a prescription drug for topical use on teeth that only dentists can prescribe.”
The Nuremberg Code (1947) sets out certain basic principles that must be observed in order to satisfy moral, ethical and legal concepts, and its first point clearly defines “informed consent.” The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. Despite subsequent endorsements of the informed consent principle, entire populations continue to be exposed to a long list of environmental chemicals, including fluoridated water, pesticides and chemicals in food, without informed consent. In addition, seldom are patients advised of risks, however small, from medical X-rays, fluoroscopes and CT scans, all without informed consent. So the problem is universal, but fluoride is the only chemical that treats 2/3 of the U.S. population!”
As Senior Engineer in Water and Sewer Dept of municipal public works utility, I first began studying fluoridation when tasked with preparing the technical specifications for fluorosilicic acid (FSA) for the utility's purchasing contract for fluoridation chemicals. I then learned that arsenic invariably occurs as a contaminant in measured concentrations in virtually all tanker truck shipments of FSA to the municipality's two drinking water treatment plants. The two plants serve about a half-million people, and began fluoridation in 1953. Deliberately adding a chemical contaminated with arsenic, which has an EPA assigned Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of zero, is a violation of the spirit and intent of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the SDWA on the basis that the added arsenic, a known carcinogen, is diluted to a concentration below the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level, thereby passing regulatory compliance requirements. Meanwhile, in our city, Dental fluorosis, seen as patchy paper-white patchy enamel defects on front teeth, is commonplace among young and old alike in lifetime residents.”
From a human nutrition perspective, Fluoride is not required for any purpose. It is not a nutrient. Sure, when applied topically Fluoride does seem to have a positive effect in delaying the onset of decay. In NZ the average dietary intake of Fluoride is at least 2 mg daily via the food supply alone (not including fluoridated water), a lot more if you're a tea drinker. There is simply no need to have it added to our water supply any longer.”
I have seventeen years professional experience as a metallurgist and have worked in laboratories for much of this time. Anyone who has worked in a laboratory is trained that hydrofluoric acid is the most dangerous substance that you can come across in the laboratory. In my current position, I have also come across fluorosilicic acid and it is just as dangerous and, I might add, quite costly to dispose of. I help design alloys to resist wear & corrosion in the Mining & Fertiliser Industries; fluoride-containing liquors are extremely corrosive. When fluoride is present in the liquor for an application, the alloy has to be so much more corrosion resistant. It’s no secret.”
When comparing countries, states, or counties, dental decay rates are similar regardless of fluoridation status. With little or no benefit, any cost is unacceptable. The huge increase in dental fluorosis (a third of US children now impacted) no doubt contributed to the ADA and CDC recommending infants not receive fluoridated water. — Warnings for other subgroups will undoubtedly follow. Fluoridation promoters try to brush off dental fluorosis as simply a cosmetic concern, however, appearance alone has led many to seek cosmetic corrections which can have a per person life time cost of over $100,000. Dental fluorosis is just one of many public health risks from fluoridation. Fluoridation is one of the 20th century’s greatest public health mistakes and must be stopped.”
The Quebec Public Health Authority claimed officially on their internet site that there were 27,000 scientific studies supporting fluoridation. When we confronted them on this figure, they admitted that they did not have a list of those studies and and that they were unable to supply any valid source on which they based their declaration. Thus, the Quebec Public Health Authority’s claim constitutes a scientific fraud.” The York review (McDonagh et al., 2000) could find only 3,246 studies (both for and against) and only 214 of these met their scientific criteria.”
I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great IG Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years` research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine--any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."
As someone completing a Master’s degree in pharmacy, it surprises me greatly as to how some health care professionals can exempt fluoride from a central ethical principle of medicine. It is this: for any drug or medical procedure, people as consumers must be made aware of the risks. I find it truly intolerable that we are mass-medicating our population without their sound understanding and consent on this matter.”
“I have seen three patients with fluoride sensitivity, not toxicity, as even minute exposures flared their symptoms. Two had severe inflammatory arthritis without deformity when seen. They were so sensitive that they could not be where fluorinated water was used nor around many of the other common sources of fluoride or fluorinated compounds. The third gentleman developed his sensitivity when a fluoride bomb exploded in the gun racks he kept in the barn. He had been advised to keep the bomb there to protect his guns from thieves. Unfortunately, he suffered from many chemical sensitivities before this. This fluorine/fluoride exposure appeared to have expanded his sensitivity to fluorine and chemical compounds containing it. — His symptoms included joint and muscle pain, fatigue and shortness of breath. All three of these patients had been forced to retire to northern Michigan where they could obtain a home with tap water from the Great Lakes or from a well that had not been treated and on an acreage to give them a buffer zone from others who used fluorinated products. They have to live a life isolated from any sources of fluoride which has led to their own isolation caused by this severe sensitivity. We call it a sensitivity but this term inadequately describes the degree of disability caused by fluoride when one is sensitized to it.”
Compulsory artificial water fluoridation infringes our constitutional right to bodily integrity and is not the narrowest, least restrictive means to achieve the goal of reduced dental decay. When the deliberate contamination of our water supplies with fluoride began, fluoridated toothpaste was not available. Now, over 95% of toothpaste sold contains fluoride. Moreover, about 99% of fluoridated water does not go into human mouths, but rather to industrial, agricultural, or domestic use. Fluoride dental products could be provided to those who desire it in a more appropriate and narrowly directed way. Fluoride is indiscriminately imposed on the public regardless of individual issues taken into consideration, which can be critical for those with, for example, kidney disease who cannot clear fluoride from their bodies as effectively and therefore reach higher bodily concentrations of fluoride before others. Once ingested, 50% of fluoride lodged into the hard tissues of the body and continues to bioaccumulate over a lifetime, which means elderly are at higher risk for skeletal fluorosis as they continuously bioaccumulate fluoride from chronic ingestion over a lifetime. Recently, many studies have strengthened the evidence that fluoride lowers IQ and is correlated with ADHD and cognitive deficits. Indeed, fluoride is identified as a known developmental neurotoxin by the Lancet.”
The excerpt below is from an article I wrote in 1997, entitled ‘Fluoride: Risks and Benefits? Disinformation in the Service of Big Industry.’ Nothing that has happened since has led me to weaken these assertions but rather to reinforce them, especially the publication of Chris Bryson’s brilliant book, ‘The Fluoride Deception.’ — ‘There is evidence that both individual and institutional fluoride promoters have stacked the deck, manipulated experimental results, suppressed evidence that spoke against their view, and victimized or smeared those who spoke out against them. When old ways and knowledge are increasingly found to be based on false premises, incompetence, bias and worse, it is important to re-examine the old claims, and to take account of the growing body of research that show they are at best equivocal and at worst completely opposite to the truth, and based on vested interest. — Fluoride promotion often proceeds with no understanding of the scientific method and sometimes without even the ability to perform simple arithmetic. The most important US Congress-mandated study (NTP, 1990) in recent times on the suspected connection between fluoride and cancer was subjected to a series of Public Health Service review stages that successively downgraded the results from the original independent laboratory study to the point where they were declared “equivocal” and largely ignored. The proven association of fluoride and water fluoridation with increased hip fractures and reduced bone quality has been denied or downplayed. Many other lines of investigation have been ignored or not followed up in an open-minded manner. — Medical ethics, morality, economics, legal and political issues have not deterred fluoride promoters in their efforts. Indeed, the problem has been declared a legislative matter, rather than under the jurisdiction of courts of law which might introduce such notions as ethics and reasonableness. The main beneficiaries from fluoride use are the big industries that find a profitable outlet for their otherwise embarrassing toxic byproducts. It is time for change.’
Having been a wet-fingered hygienist for over four decades, I have been on both sides of this fence. We were not taught any downsides to fluoridation in hygiene school and I went to debates about fluoridation when first out of college. I was on the pro-fluoridation side. But when in my masters program, the biochemistry instructor said, “All biochemists know that if you want to denature proteins in the lab, you use fluoride.” — All enzymes are proteins and enzymes make possible all of the work done in our bodies for our survival. It doesn’t make sense to risk fluorosis, thyroid issues, and a possible increased risk of osteosarcoma in adolescent males, in order to prevent a cavity or two in a lifetime! It is not a good trade-off in my book! Systemic use has not proven effective anyway. — As a guardian of oral health and a grandmother, I feel there should be a ‘right-toknow’ for patients and parents whenever fluoride is used or recommended. There are contraindications for many, especially to those with heart or kidney issues. There is no dosage regulation for something so toxic and especially risky for those of small body size…our children, petite women, and our pets.” Healthcare workers are professionals who are given the responsibility to safeguard the health of the population, according to scientific evidence, not according to the politics of healthcare. “Let the truth be known!”
When I was working as a naturopath in fluoridated Melbourne, patients reported adverse effects from the newly fluoridated water. But I was told by Victorian state health officials that there was no evidence of side effects from fluoridated water. However, repeated medical testing confirmed the side effects. Government doctors then said they didn’t believe the tests were right. — When they were asked to do their own tests, after evaluating the patient, one government doctor was still able to refuse doing the proposed test ironically by pointing to the risk to her health if they tested her with fluoridated water! The Victorian government seems more intent on protecting Victoria’s Fluoridation Act, than the health of Victoria’s citizens. When government and their dental advisors see scientific truth about fluoride as the enemy, our health care system is badly compromised.” – See Australian TV report on fluoride with Philip
Since 1980, I’ve taught water/wastewater courses to treatment facility operators. Eight years for the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the remainder with the Environmental Training Institute (ETI), which I founded in 1987. In that time I have trained more than 20,000 water/wastewater operators throughout Canada. One aspect of drinking water treatment training has included the topic of water fluoridation as a unit treatment (additive) process. Teaching emphasis was placed on delivery equipment, dosage/residual measurement and fluoride handling safety. — My first negative impression of fluoride was made in 1984 when reviewing phytotoxicology samples of injured plant species to airborne emissions. The plants were used as bio-indicators to measure downwind impacts of fluoride generating industries. I’ve lectured that fluoride compounds pose huge health risks for water treatment operators who handle the concentrated bulk forms of the chemicals. Where fluoridation exists operator fluoride exposures are casually monitored. I have visited many treatment facilities and fluoride handling systems often have fugitive emissions of fluoride dusts or vapours. This is evidenced by the accelerated corrosion of metal fixtures and frosted, etched glass on the inside of fluoride room windows. My primary objection to fluoridation has been with chronic exposures of workers. — Anecdotally, operators have recounted to me that operators who were poisoned due to on the job fluoride overexposures had to retire due to continued poor health and often died within a few years of retiring. Some operators develop fluoride sensitivities which prohibit them from fluoride handing duties for their remaining careers. Many operators would like fluoridation processes removed from the treatment train. Few seem to like working with fluoride feedstocks. For these reasons, I’ve quietly urged waterworks operators and managers to reconsider the validity of the whole fluoridation process. — For years, I had not given the original reasoning behind water fluoridation much thought, mainly due to inconclusive or contradictory data. Two years ago one of my students who had been a local councilor for the Town of Cobalt, Ontario, brought to my attention that he had successfully stopped the Town from continuing it’s fluoridation practice. He identified new evidence to me and challenged me to learn more. In doing so, I had stronger reasons for disliking the fluoridation process. Learning about fluoride’s politics as documented by Christopher Bryson in the ” The Fluoride Deception” was the last straw. — Drinking water fluoridation remains an insidious scheme to dispose of toxic industrial wastes. The practice (water fluoridation) has been spun, and marketed to an unwary public and then codified by unwitting lawmakers for mandatory dosage into a trusted commodity (water). I choose to no longer perpetuate this travesty.”
The World Health Organization’s guideline level for fluoride of 1.5 mg/L categorically exceeds the level that has been shown, by a significant and growing body of scientific evidence, to cause harm, or a risk of harm, in humans. For any other environmental contaminant, a significant safety margin between the Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Level and the guideline level is set using internationally recognized principles of risk assessment and management. Why have these methods, extensively used by the WHO in other areas, been ignored in the case of fluoride? Additionally, the WHO and other health authorities need to recognize the different toxicological and pharmaco-kinetic profiles of natural versus synthetic fluorides. Finally, why is it that water-treatment fluorides are not licensed as medicinal products when they are added to drinking water for the specific purpose of disease (dental caries) treatment, and such intention for disease treatment or prevention is the basis of all legal definitions of what constitutes a medicinal product?”
Stay tuned for even more quotes from professionals. In the mean time, please share these quotes via social media using the Facebook Share icon at the top of this page to share this entire collection of quotes, or use the Twitter icon embedded in each box to share an individual quote. There are some amazing quotes worth sharing and they are growing every week.
A printer-friendly document is also available in PDF format above.
Please encourage your professional friends and colleagues to sign our PAF Statement (Professionals Against Fluoridation).