Read the back of your toothpaste – fluoride IS poison. if there’s doubt – GET IT OUT!

What is put into our water is not the element that occurs naturally in nature called fluoride. What they put into our water is called fluorosilicic acid, which is actually a toxic waste product produced in the smokestacks of phosphate plants. If they weren’t selling this substance to cities, they would have to pay a lot of money to have it handled as an environmental hazard and buried in EPA-approved landfills. It is illegal to take this fluorosilicic acid and bury it in the ground or dump it in rivers or streams in this country, but it is perfectly legal to sell it to cities that drip this known poison into the water supply with the intended purpose of it being ingested by human beings. I am sick of having no other option other than to bathe my children in poisoned water. I am sick of lugging heavy glass gallons of water home every other day – simply because I have to buy clean water elsewhere..the water that I pay for..the water that pours from my kitchen sink is poisoned.

This awesome review sums it up far better than I can:

They call them “wet scrubbers” – the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer. 

In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled.

Today, with the development of sophisticated air-pollution control technology, less of the fluoride escapes into the atmosphere, and the type of pollution that threatened the survival of some communities in the 1950s and 60s, is but a thing of the past (at least in the US and other wealthy countries).

However, the impacts of the industry’s fluoride emissions are still being felt, although more subtly, by millions of people – people who, for the most part, do not live anywhere near a phosphate plant.

That’s because, after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country. Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation.

Don’t believe me? Here is a letter written by former EPA Deputy Administrator  , Rebecca Hamners, that clearly admits where the fluoride that pollutes our water comes from


and just in case you cant read what this letter says..

In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them” – Rebecca Hanmer, EPA, 1983

*ohhh I see..somehow the same stuff that pollutes the environment becomes ok after it is added to the water that we drink and give to our children.

Another EPA official, Dr. J. William Hirzy, the current Senior Vice-President of EPA Headquarters Union, recently expressed a different view on the matter. According to Hirzy:

If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant. That’s amazing… There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.

Read just a few of these quotes..the following statements are all quotes from the National Research Committees scientific review of EPA standards on water fluoridation.

Cognitive Effects

Several studies from China have reported the effects of fluoride in drinking water on cognitive capacities. Among the studies, the one by Xiang et al. (2003a) had the strongest design. This study compared the intelligence of 512 children (ages 8-13) living in two villages with different fluoride concentrations in the water. The populations were not exposed to other significant sources of fluoride, such as smoke from coal fires, industrial pollution, or consumption of brick tea. Thus, the difference in fluoride exposure was attributed to the amount in the drinking water. Using the combined Raven’s Test for Rural China, the average intelligence quotient (IQ) of the children in Wamiao  (the high fluoride area. if you read the whole study then it will give you trying my best to keep this short) was found to be significantly lower (92.2 ± 13.00; range, 54-126) than that in Xinhuai (100.41 ± 13.21; range, 60-128) (the low fluoride area). The IQ scores in both males and females declined with increasing fluoride exposure. Pg 205-206

A study conducted by Lu et al. (2000) in a different area of China also compared the IQs of 118 children (ages 10-12) living in two areas with different fluoride concentrations in the water (3.15 ± 0.61 mg/L in one area and 0.37 ± 0.04 mg/L in the other). The children were lifelong residents of the villages and had similar social and educational levels. Urinary fluoride concentrations were measured at 4.99 ± 2.57 mg/L in the high-fluoride area and 1.43 ± 0.64 mg/L in the low-fluoride area. IQ measurements using the Chinese Combined Raven’s Test, showed significantly lower mean IQ scores among children in the high-fluoride area (92.27 ± 20.45) than in children in the low-fluoride area (103.05 ± 13.86). Of special importance, 21.6% of the children in the high-fluoride village scored 70 or below on the IQ scale. For the children in the low-fluoride village, only 3.4% had such low scores. Urinary fluoride concentrations were inversely correlated with mental performance in the IQ test. [wow..that mean that the more fluoride a child had in their urine..the lower their IQ wow] Qin and Cui (1990) observed similar negative correlation between IQ and fluoride intake through drinking water” pg 206

Zhao et al. (1996) also compared the IQs of 160 children (ages 7-14) living in a high-fluoride area (average concentration of 4.12 mg/L) with those of children living in a low-fluoride area (average concentration 0.91 mg/L). Using the Rui Wen Test, the investigators found that the average IQ of children in the high-fluoride area (97.69) was significantly lower than that of children in the low-fluoride area (105.21). The investigators also reported that enamel fluorosis (discoloring of the teeth) was present in 86% of the children in the high-exposure group and in 14% of the children in the low-exposure group and that skeletal fluorosis was found only in the high-exposure group at 9%.” pg 206-207

Another Chinese study evaluated fluoride exposure due to inhalation of soot and smoke from domestic coal fires used for cooking, heating, and drying grain. Many of the children exhibited moderate to severe enamel fluorosis [remember in the last study ^^ how 86% in high fluoride areas had enamel fluorosis compared to 14% in the low fluoride area?]. The average IQ of 900 children (ages 8-13) from an area with severe enamel fluorosis was 9-15 points lower than the average IQ of children from an area with low or no enamel fluorosis. Urinary fluoride concentrations were found to be inversely correlated with IQ, as measured by the China Rui Wen Scale for Rural Areas, and were monotonically related to the degree of enamel fluorosis.” Pg 208

After recording the data, the authors go on to say:

The significance of these Chinese studies is uncertain.. Despite this, the consistency of the collective results warrants additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence in populations that share similar languages, backgrounds, socioeconomic levels, and other commonalities.

Side personal note: this was published in 2006. No studies have been conducted in the US to follow up on this. Does anyone else not think that these findings are important? WHY haven’t they done a follow up study? WHY is the fluoride program more important to our government than our children? Why are people not alarmed that there have been multiple studies completed that had the same the results: the more fluoride – the lower the IQ. Are people not concerned that fluoride could be hindering the future success of entire generations?

They go on to say,

It should be noted that many factors outside of native intelligence influence performance on IQ tests. One factor that might be of relevance to fluoride is impairment of thyroid gland function (see Chapter 8 for more on thyroid issues). For example, hypothyroidism produces tiredness, depression, difficulties in concentration, memory impairments, and impaired hearing. In addition, there is some evidence that impaired thyroid function in pregnant women can lead to children with lower IQ scores (Klein et al. 2001).

Personal side note: we are damaging children’s IQs two different ways now. I will just share this one quote on fluoride and thyroid disease. Is is from chapter 8..there is a lot of reading and studies to look at on this connection.

An effect of fluoride exposure on the thyroid was first reported approximately 150 years ago. In 1923, the director of the Idaho Public Health Service, in a letter to the Surgeon General, reported enlarged thyroids in many children between the ages of 12 and 15 using city water in the village of Oakley, Idaho ); in addition, the children using city water had severe enamel deficiencies in their permanent teeth. The dental problems were eventually attributed to the presence in the city water of 6 mg/L fluoride, and children born after a change in water supply (to water with <0.5 mg/L fluoride) were not so affected..” pg 225 [turn off the fluoride and the problems stop!]

Mental and Physiological Changes

There are numerous reports of mental and physiological changes after exposure to fluoride from various routes (air, food, and water) and for various time periods (Waldbott et al. 1978). A number of the reports are, in fact, experimental studies of one or more individuals who underwent withdrawal from their source of fluoride exposure and subsequent re-exposures under “blind” conditions. In most cases, the symptoms disappeared with the elimination of exposure to fluoride and returned when exposure was reinstated. In some instances, when the fluoride was given in water, this procedure was repeated several times under conditions in which neither the patient nor the provider of the fluoride knew whether the water contained fluoride. Also reported are instances when fluoride-produced symptoms occurred when people moved into a community with fluoridated water but disappeared when the individuals moved to a nonfluoridated community.

Spittle (1994) reviewed surveys and case reports of individuals exposed occupationally or therapeutically to fluoride and concluded there was suggestive evidence that fluoride could be associated with cerebral impairment. A synopsis of 12 case reports of fluoride-exposed people of all ages showed common sequelae of lethargy, weakness, and impaired ability to concentrate regardless of the route of exposure. In half the cases, memory problems were also reported. pg 208-209

the next things documented are truly scary for any mother to think about.

adding sodium silicofluoride  or fluorosilicic acid (this is what is in my public water supply) to drinking water has been reported to increase the accumulation of the neurotoxicant lead in the body (Masters and Coplan 1999; Masters et al. 2000). This association was first attributed to increased uptake of lead (from whatever source) caused by fluoride. However, enhanced lead concentrations were found only when the water treatments were made with a fluorosilicate and in children already in a high-lead exposure group.” Pg 209

Personal side note: I am skipping around a bit here but what I want to show you now, ties in to what is mentioned fluoride increases a childs exposure to toxins. This awesome article explains..

silicofluorides, as obtained from the scrubbers of the phosphate industry, contain a wide variety of impurities present in the process water – particularly arsenic and possibly radionuclides. While these impurities occur at low concentrations, especially after dilution into the water, their purposeful addition to water supplies directly violates EPA public health goals. For instance, the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for arsenic, a known human carcinogen, is 0 parts per billion. However, according to the National Sanitation Foundation (see this link for document ), the addition of silicofluorides to the water supply will add, on average, about 0.1 to 0.43 ppb, and as much as 1.6 ppb, arsenic to the water.

Ok getting back to the EPA fluoride document..

Immune System

There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune responses. The question is what proportion, if any, of the population consuming drinking water containing fluoride at 4.0 mg/L on a regular basis will have their immune systems compromised? Not a single epidemiologic study has investigated whether fluoride in the drinking water at 4 mg/L is associated with changes in immune function. Nor has any study examined whether a person with an immunodeficiency disease can tolerate fluoride ingestion from drinking water. (no studies done..this was published in 2006)

Epidemiologic studies should be carried out to determine whether there is a higher prevalence of hypersensitivity reactions in areas where there is elevated fluoride in the drinking water. If evidence is found, hypersensitive subjects could then be selected to test, by means of double-blinded randomized clinical trials, which fluoride chemicals can cause hypersensitivity. In addition, studies could be conducted to determine what percentage of immunocompromised subjects have adverse reactions when exposed to fluoride in the range of 1-4 mg/L in drinking water. More research is needed on the immunotoxic effects of fluoride in animals and humans to determine if fluoride accumulation can influence immune function. It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors that produce the immune system cells. Pg 303( studies have been done)

Reproductive and Developmental

“NaF (sodium fluoride..think toothpaste) caused lessened fertility rate when normal cycling female mice were mated with treated mice.  Significant recovery in sperm count, sperm motility, and fertility rate was observed after withdrawal of treatment for 2 months”. Pg 183

“Sperm maturation process was affected, leading to decline in cauda epididymal sperm motility and viability. Significant reduction in fertility rate and cauda epididymal sperm count.” Pg 183

Structural and metabolic alterations and reduced activity of the enzymes in sperm resulted in a significant decrease in sperm count and poor fertility rate. Cessation of NaF treatment for 30 days did not bring about complete recovery. pg 184

“Implantation sites and viable fetuses were significantly reduced in females mated with males that had ingested NaF” pg 184

“There was inhibition of lactation in rats with chronic fluorosis, as measured by slower rates of body weight gain in pups and lower amount of milk suckled in 30 minutes compared with control pups.” Pg 185

“Significant reductions in body weight, feed consumption, absolute uterine weight, and number of implantations (pregnancies). Significantly higher incidence of skeletal and visceral abnormalities. pg 185

“Significant decline in fertility attributed to decreased sperm motility and count.” Pg 186

“Decline in fertility related to reduced sperm motility and count and changes in morphology and metabolism. No recovery after withdrawal for 30 days from treatment.Pg 189

Human Studies

“In an ecological study of U.S. counties with drinking-water systems reporting fluoride concentrations of at least 3 mg/L (Freni 1994), a decreased fertility rate was associated with increasing fluoride concentrations.” Pg 192

“There is wide variation with some correlation between fluoride concentration in maternal serum and cord blood, indicating that fluoride readily crosses the placenta.. Therefore, potential toxicity to the developing embryo and fetus in the setting of high maternal ingestion of fluoride has been a concern evaluated in both animal and humans.” Pg 193

“In this ecological study, there was an association between decreasing total fertility rate and increasing fluoride concentrations in most regions.” Pg 195

“Two small studies have raised the possibility of an increased incidence of spina bifida occulta in fluorosis-prone areas in India” pg 196

  • Study 1: “Blood fluoride concentrations of children were 0.9 ppm and 1.1 ppm. Serum fluoride concentrations ranged from 1.6 to 1.9 ppm. Of    30 skiagrams of the lumbosacral region, 14 (47%) showed spina bifida occulta” pg 200
  • Study 2: “A total of 22 (44%) of the 50 children in the study group, and 6 (12%) of the children in the control group revealed spina bifida occulta in the lumbosacral region. Proportion of children with spina bifida occulta in fluoride-rich areas was 44%.” Pg 201

“The possible association of cytogenetic effects with fluoride exposure (see Chapter 10) suggests that Down’s syndrome is a biologically plausible outcome of exposure.” Pg 197

Link to epa fluoride summary:

For anyone that has made it to this point..i have a question for you. Even if all of this evidence was wrong…is it still worth the risk just to “prevent cavities?” Most of Europe doesn’t fluoridate their water and tooth decay and cavity rates are the same as in the US. We need to stand up and demand that this poison is taken out of our water. This isn’t a conspiracy. Everything you just read came from a scientific review of the EPA’s standards for fluoride in our drinking water. The government is aware of how toxic this stuff is. GET IT OUT OF OUR WATER. If people want to take fluoride then let them buy it and administer it themselves. STOP FORCE MEDICATING SOCIETY with a substance that is a well known TOXIN. If enough people called city hall tomorrow or went down to city hall things would eventually change. It is time we demand change. It is black and white! Fluoride is poison and if even if it wasn’t..if one study showed that it could hurt our children then it shouldn’t be in our water. I urge you to call city hall your representative or congressmen. Our voices have got to be heard on this issue…WHEN IN DOUBT – GET IT OUT!

What is really scary is that despite 50 years of water fluoridation, the EPA has no chronic health studies on silicofluorides. All safety studies on fluoride to date have been conducted using pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride, not industrial-grade silicofluorides. Just look at the EPA correspondence below

                          fluoride no studies

Fluoride is a hazardous waste. It is against the law to dump the same chemicals into the ocean or waterways because it will kill the marine life..yet they dump it into the water that we are to consume and give to our children. Some side effects of fluoride exposure are – lowered IQ, thyroid disease, bone disease, cancer, dental fluorosis, a weakened immune system.

Mabye this expains why the following countries have such things to say about fluoride as,

Austria: Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.” SOURCE: M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000.

Belgium: “This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.” SOURCE: Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000.

Denmark: “We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.” SOURCE: Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999.

Finland: “We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” SOURCE: Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000.

**for more statements on fluoride from other governments look here 

Well if we take the fluoride out of our water we will all start to get cavities..i can just hear someone saying this now. are some quick facts:

  • Most developed nations do not fluoridate their water. In western Europe, for example, only 3% of the population consumes fluoridated water.
  • While 25 countries have water fluoridation programs, 11 of these countries have less than 20% of their population consuming fluoridated water: Argentina (19%), Guatemala (13%), Panama (15%), Papa New Guinea (6%), Peru (2%), Serbia (3%
  • ), Spain (11%), South Korea (6%), the United Kingdom (11%), and Vietnam (4%).
  • Only 11 countries in the world have more than 50% of their population drinking fluoridated water: Australia (80%), Brunei (95%); Chile (70%), Guyana (62%), Hong Kong (100%), the Irish Republic (73%), Israel (70%), Malaysia (75%), New Zealand (62%), Singapore (100%), and the United States (64%).
  • In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population.
  • There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
  • There is no difference in tooth decay between western nations that fluoridate their water and those that do not.



all it would take is enough people to get angry..and that switch would turn.

my thoughts on why God doesnt like fluoride

An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge. – proverbs 18: 15

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.. – Hosea 4:6

this weekend was wonderful. my parents, my brother and his family, and my family went to myrtle beach for a family vacation. now, i am not going to say that it was all peaches and splendidly creamy..WOW, the beach becomes a whole new playing field when children are involved. All the diapers, sunscreen, bottles and baby whatnot that has to be dragged around makes that sun and sand a bit more annoying. needless to say, we still had a great time and I really enjoyed getting to take a break. Spending time with my family is something that, in the past, I have loathed..but now, it is something that I treasure.

In past K (i wont say my whole last not trying to get killed by some internet crazy person) family vacations things have sometimes been a say the least. The last big vacation that we took.. my brother and I ended up having a full blown fight at a rest stop. We were almost home..and that last bathroom stop proved to be our breaking point. My dad had to pull the van over to the side of the rest stop exit ramp so me and Lee could duke it out. The scene of me and Lee rolling around on the ground is something that brings my family great laughter now..but still, the same scenario could very much so happen again. that same spirit of who gets the remote..or who gets to sit in the good chair can still come out when there are siblings involved no matter how old you are.

everything went smoothly as possible during our vacation..until today at lunch. We all met for lunch right before parting ways to go home. For a brief moment my brother and I almost got into it. Thankfully, we worked it out and a disaster was avoided. Throughout the whole vacation, everywhere that we actions of avoiding water with fluoride was obvious and unavoidable. Fluoride is not good for us. I will flat out say it..I really dont care what people think of me because I know that if they did their own research they would most likely come to the same conclusion. Now you may have different opinions on it..but., most likely, you probably dont have an opinion on it at all.  I mean who thinks about fluoride? who cares? ummm..this girl does. im not really sure why my brother and I butted heads about it today..but,I guess that my opinionated ways just got a little annoying to him. (i am not surprised by this because I am pretty obnoxious) I dont even remember how it started..but, I got upset because members of my family were saying things that belittled my opposition to fluoride.. things that I took as trying to make me feel stupid for going the extra mile to drink water that was fluoride free. What upset me was really not the fact that they did not agree..what upset me was the fact that they so easily brushed off  about something that I feel so strongly about..something that I want them to know as well, for the benefit of their health. The fact that so many people do not care about something as obviously negative and medically wrong as the forced medication that our government pushes upon us through putting fluoride (a drug) into our water is something that drives me insane..and my family not supporting my feelings is just hard for me to swallow.  Family is supposed to be a support system..and it just upset me that I could not even be taken seriously by the only people in this entire world who i have to really fall back on. Now, dont get me family loves me, that is something that I do not question. I just wish that they would believe me enough to take my viewpoint into consideration instead of joking about it at my expense. One thing my brother ( who i really do love dearly 🙂 said to me today was, “have you come to this conclusion by doing more research than watching one video.” I can understand were he is coming from because fluoride being in our water is something that most of us do not question. I mean, it is in our water because the powers that be put it there. Well tonight.. as I searched around trying to figure out how I could make my viewpoint a little more relevent I found exactly what I was looking for. I have sent my family emails containing my findings and I hope that what I sent will be enough to cause concern so that they will do some serious research on their own.  Hopefully it will make sense to you as well.

His divine power has given us everything we need for life.. – 2 peter 1:3

All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made.  In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – john 1: 3-4

But my God shall supply all your need according to his riches in glory by Christ Jesus – Philippians 4:19

How wonderful is breast milk? Breastmilk is a miracle substance that even modern science cannot copy. God created breast milk..that is why science cannot duplicate it. Science cannot touch God. Do you know that human breastmilk contains a very small amount of fluoride? The fact that the body of a nursing mother filters fluoride from reaching her milk speaks volumes to me..I would hope it would to any christian who understands that all good things come from God. God isn’t going to hurt us. As a study published by the US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health (click here for the article) says..

“The mean concentration of fluoride in breast milk obtained from 32 women consuming drinking water that contained < 0.16 ppm was 0.004 ppm, whereas breast milk obtained from 112 women consuming drinking water containing 1 ppm reportedly was 0.009 ppm.8 Similar levels of fluoride concentrations of breast milk and colostrum (0.008 ppm) have been reported by Spak et al.1 However, Spak et al1 found no significant difference in breast milk fluoride concentrations of mothers living in areas with low and high drinking-water fluoride concentrations.”

so what does that show us? No matter how much fluoride that a nursing mother may consume.. her body will filter it and keep it away from her breastmilk. Some may say that fluoride naturally occurs in nature so it is from God..however, the chemicals in our water are not the element that naturally occurs in the Salt Lake Tribune shares in the following..what is in our water is by no means natural..

“Even the Davis County residents who voted for water fluoridation two years ago should be happy that opponents are close to forcing the issue back onto the ballot this fall. The additive most people assumed they would be getting — the pharmaceutical-grade sodium fluoride found in toothpaste, pills and dental treatments — is not the stuff flowing from taps today in the county’s southern end. Instead, the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District took a more economical path and bought fluorosilicic acid. Those who had visions of sterile white laboratories when they voted for fluoride weren’t thinking of fluorosilicic acid. Improbable as this sounds, much of it is recovered from the scrubbing solution that scours toxins from smokestacks at phosphate fertilizer plants. Water fluoridation has turned a tremendous hazardous waste disposal expense into a multimillion-dollar profit for fertilizer manufacturers”

if that isnt enough..will you please allow me to go on and share more about the dangers it may cause. this is from an article I found on PRNewswire. The second link at the bottom of the this entry will take you to the article if you would like to read the entire thing.

The research team reports, “It is important to be aware of this serious problem and avoid the use of toothpaste and items that contain fluoride, particularly in children as they are more susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride.” (1)

“Fluoride can be toxic by ingesting one part per million (ppm), and the effects are not immediate, as they can take 20 years or more to become evident,” they write.

Most fluoridating U.S. public drinking water suppliers add fluoride chemicals to deliver 1 ppm fluoride (equal to about 1 milligram per quart) intending to benefit teeth and not to purify the water.

“Fluoridation clearly jeopardizes our children and must be stopped,” says attorney Paul Beeber, President, NYSCOF.  “We can actually see how fluoride has damaged children’s teeth with dental fluorosis; but we can’t see the harm it’s doing to their brains and other organs. No U.S. researcher is even looking,” says Beeber.

Valdez-Jimenez, et al. describe studies that show fluoride induces changes in the brain’s physical structure and biochemistry which affects the neurological  and mental development of individuals including cognitive processes, such as learning and memory.

“Fluoride is capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, which may cause biochemical and functional changes in the nervous system during pregnancy, since the fluoride accumulates in brain tissue before birth,” they write.*

Animal studies show fluoride’s toxic brain effects include classic brain abnormalities found in patients with Alzheimer’s disease, Valdez-Jimenez’s team reports.

A different research team (Tang et al.) reported in 2008 that “A qualitative review of the studies found a consistent and strong association between the exposure to fluoride and low IQ.” (Biological Trace Element Research)  (2)

In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council’s (NRC) expert fluoride panel reviewed fluoride toxicology and concluded, “It’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” And, “Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.” (3)

On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the “Top Ten Common Household Toxins” and described fluoride as both “neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed.” (4)

Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., was the first U.S. scientist to find evidence that fluoride damages the brain. She published her animal study in a respected peer-reviewed scientific journal in 1995 (5) and then was fired for doing so.(6)

Vyvyan Howard, M.D., Ph.D., a prominent fetal toxicologist and past-President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, said that current brain/fluoride research convinces him that we should stop water fluoridation.

Many communities have stopped or rejected fluoridation in the past several years  – the most recent is Fairbanks, Alaska.  This year, seven New York City Council Members co-sponsored legislation to stop fluoridation in NYC. are you starting to see anything wrong with this picture..or at least seeing this as something to feel some concern about? All that said, the only point that I wanted to make here..was that God created our bodies to remove fluoride from what we feed our children. Does that say anything to you? I am so passionate about all this because I truly believe that this stuff is hurting our bodies..our God given temples. The list goes on and on about why this stuff is not good for us but I will just end this with some links and you can do some research on your own if you feel the need to do so.

He draws up the drops of water, which distill as rain to the streams; the clouds pour down their moisture and abundant showers fall on mankind. -Job 36: 27-28 (50 reasons to oppose fluoride)—avoid-use-in-children-124299299.html (info on the fluoride cover up) (risks and benefits) (what doctors are saying about fluoride)–more-scientific-evidence-against-water-fluoridation

my thoughts on fluoride

This post will just share some different articles that I have found on the dangers of fluoride. Many people, myself included.. until just recently, never think twice before filling  a glass up with water from the tap and taking a big ole swig of it. I know we are so blessed to live in a country that water is so convenient when, at this very moment, there are millions of people walking great distances and struggling just to have dirty contaminated water to drink..but that is a different tragic matter all together. I am trying not to be ungrateful for the blessings I have.. for some reason or another God decided that I should be born into a country that is blessed with I am thankful, but I am also entitled to be upset because my family and I are being unethically medicated without choice.  I am not going to write much..i am just going to share some information from articles. This is obviously my opinion and in no way am I forcing anyone to read this..but staying informed on a matter that numerous studies have shown to be harmful is least it is to me. My main objections to fluoride are simple..the water i pay for is full of the toxic by-product of the fertilizer and aluminum industry (not the naturally occurring fluoride that many think is in their water).. even after 50 years of research, the FDA still rates it an “unapproved drug” is illegal to dump the SAME chemicals that fluoridate our water into the ocean (if something is too harmful to fish..why the heck is it ok for my children to be exposed to it!)…and finally even if it is beneficial to teeth (which if you read below you will see some of the most recent findings that show the supposed benefits of fluoride are untrue) I should be given the choice to take it..dont worry about my teeth..theyre MY teeth! I am tired of spending money on gallons of water just so my family wont be exposed to fluoride. Please dont automaticly close your mind to this just because of what youve been told. Do your own research and please let me know your thoughts below.

The following is from an article that you can find here

Updated August, 2011 

By Paul Connett, PhD and other members of the Fluoride Action Network (including James Beck, MD, PhD, Michael Connett, JD, Hardy Limeback, DDS, PhD, David McRae and Spedding Micklem, D.Phil.)


Fluoridation is the practice of adding a fluoride compound to the public drinking water supply ostensibly for the purpose of fighting tooth decay. The levels used range from 0.6 to 1.2 milligrams of fluoride ion per liter (or parts per million, ppm). The practice began in the U.S. in 1945 and was endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) in 1950. Very few countries have adopted this practice to any significant extent. Only eight countries in the world have more than 50% of their populations drinking artificially fluoridated water (Australia, Colombia, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the U.S.). In Europe, only Ireland (with 73% of the population fluoridated), the U.K. (10%) and Spain (10%) fluoridate some of their water supplies. In the U.S., about 70% of the population is drinking fluoridated water – that is approximately 200 million people and about half the number of people drinking artificially fluoridated water worldwide. Some countries have areas with high natural fluoride levels in the water. These include India, China and parts of Africa. In these countries measures are being taken to remove the fluoride because of the health problems that fluoride can cause.

Fluoridation is a bad medical practice

  1. Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classifies fluoride as a drug when used to prevent or mitigate disease (FDA 2000). As a matter of basic logic, adding fluoride to water for the sole purpose of preventing tooth decay (a non-waterborne disease) is a form of medical treatment. All other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do.
  2. Fluoridation is unethical. Informed consent is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of Western Europe has ruled against fluoridation. With water fluoridation we are allowing governments to do to whole communities (forcing people to take a medicine irrespective of their consent) what individual doctors cannot do to individual patients. While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule. Put another way: Does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it is against that neighbor’s will)?
    • The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health or vulnerability. According to Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology and one of the scientists who helped keep fluoridation out of Sweden:

    “Water fluoridation goes against leading principles of pharmacotherapy, which is progressing from a stereotyped medication — of the type 1 tablet 3 times a day — to a much more individualized therapy as regards both dosage and selection of drugs. The addition of drugs to the drinking water means exactly the opposite of an individualized therapy” (Carlsson 1978).

  • Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (National Research Council [NRC] 1993; Institute of Medicine [IOM] 1997, NRC 2006). No disease has ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. It has never been shown that ingested fluoride is needed to produce decay-free teeth. Not a single biological process has been shown to require fluoride. On the contrary there is extensive evidence that fluoride can interfere with many important biological processes. Fluoride interferes with numerous enzymes (Waldbott 1978). In combination with aluminum, fluoride interferes with G-proteins (Bigay 1985, 1987). Such interactions give aluminum-fluoride complexes the potential to interfere with signals from growth factors, hormones and neurotransmitters (Strunecka & Patocka 1999; Li 2003). More and more studies are indicating that fluoride can interfere with biochemistry in fundamental ways (Barbier 2010).
  • The level in mothers’ milk is very low. Considering reason #6 it is perhaps not surprising that the level of fluoride in mother’s milk is remarkably low (0.004 ppm, NRC, 2006). This means that a bottle-fed baby consuming fluoridated water (0.6 – 1.2 ppm) can get up to 300 times more fluoride than a breast-fed baby. There are no benefits (see reasons #11-19), only risks (see reasons #21-36), for infants ingesting this heightened level of fluoride at such an early age (an age where susceptibility to environmental toxins is particularly high).
  • Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride they ingest each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006).
  • No health agency in fluoridated countries is monitoring fluoride exposure or side effects. No regular measurements are being made of the levels of fluoride in urine, blood, bones, hair, or nails of either the general population or sensitive subparts of the population (e.g., individuals with kidney disease).
  • There has never been a single randomized clinical trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized studies are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”
  • Swallowing fluoride provides no (or very little) benefit
    • Benefit is topical not systemic. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply.
    • Fluoridation is not necessary. Most western, industrialized countries have rejected water fluoridation, but have nevertheless experienced the same decline in childhood dental decay as fluoridated countries. (See data from World Health Organization presented graphically in Figure 1).

    Tooth Decay Trends

    • Fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. The largest survey ever conducted in the US (over 39,000 children from 84 communities) by the National Institute of Dental Research showed little difference in tooth decay among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities (Hileman 1989). According to NIDR researchers, the study found an average difference of only 0.6 DMFS (Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surfaces) in the permanent teeth of children aged 5-17 residing their entire lives in either fluoridated or unfluoridated areas (Brunelle & Carlos, 1990). This difference is less than one tooth surface, and less than 1% of the 100+ tooth surfaces available in a child’s mouth. Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004). None of these studies have allowed for the possible delayed eruption of the teeth that may be caused by exposure to fluoride, for which there is some evidence (Komarek 2005). A one-year delay in eruption of the permanent teeth would eliminate the very small benefit recorded in these modern studies.
    • NIH-funded study on individual fluoride ingestion and tooth decay failed to find a significant correlation. A multi-million dollar, U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) -funded study (Warren 2009) found no relation between tooth decay and the amount of fluoride ingested by children. This is the first time that tooth decay has been investigated as a function of individual exposure as opposed to mere residence in a fluoridated community.
    • Tooth decay is high in low-income communities that have been fluoridated for years. Despite some claims to the contrary, water fluoridation cannot prevent the oral health crises that result from rampant poverty, inadequate nutrition, and lack of access to dental care. There have been numerous reports of severe dental crises in low-income neighborhoods of US cities that have been fluoridated for over 20 years (e.g., Boston, Cincinnati, New York City, and Pittsburgh). In addition, fluoridation has been repeatedly found to be ineffective at preventing the most serious oral health problem facing poor children, namely “baby bottle tooth decay,” otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992; Shiboski 2003).
    • Tooth decay does not go up when fluoridation is stopped. Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased but has generally continued to decrease (Maupomé 2001; Kunzel & Fischer, 1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000; Seppa 2000).
    • Tooth decay was coming down before fluoridation started. Modern research (e.g., Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997) shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced in Australia and New Zealand and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized (see Figure 2). Many other factors influence tooth decay.

    Number of Decayed Teeth Per Child

    Figure 2. The number of decayed teeth in 5-year olds in New Zealand, over the period 1930-1990. The percentage of the population drinking fluoridated water and the percentage of the total toothpaste sold containing fluoride are shown on the right hand axis (Colquhoun, 1993).

    • The studies that launched fluoridation were methodologically flawed. The early trials conducted between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960, 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean’s (the father of fluoridation) famous 21-city study from 1942 (Ziegelbecker 1981).

Children are being over-exposed to fluoride

  • Children are being over-exposed to fluoride. The fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e., to lower dental decay rates while limiting the occurrence of dental fluorosis (a discoloring of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its very mild form) to 10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). In 2010, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 41% of American adolescents had dental fluorosis, with 8.6% having mild fluorosis and 3.6% having either moderate or severe dental fluorosis (Beltran-Aguilar 2010). As the 41% prevalence figure is a national average and includes children living in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, the fluorosis rate in fluoridated communities will obviously be higher. The British Government’s York Review estimated that up to 48% of children in fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms, with 12.5% having fluorosis of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000).
  • The highest doses of fluoride are going to bottle-fed babies. Because of their sole reliance on liquids for their food intake, infants consuming formula made with fluoridated water have the highest exposure to fluoride, by bodyweight, in the population. Because infant exposure to fluoridated water has been repeatedly found to be a major risk factor for developing dental fluorosis later in life (Marshall 2004; Hong 2006; Levy 2010), a number of dental researchers have recommended that parents of newborns not use fluoridated water when reconstituting formula (Ekstrand 1996; Pendrys 1998; Fomon 2000; Brothwell 2003; Marshall 2004). Even the American Dental Association (ADA), the most ardent institutional proponent of fluoridation, distributed a November 6, 2006 email alert to its members recommending that parents be advised that formula should be made with “low or no-fluoride water.” Unfortunately, the ADA has done little to get this information into the hands of parents. As a result, many parents remain unaware of the fluorosis risk from infant exposure to fluoridated water.

Evidence of harm to other tissues

  • Dental fluorosis may be an indicator of wider systemic damage. There have been many suggestions as to the possible biochemical mechanisms underlying the development of dental fluorosis (Matsuo 1998; Den Besten 1999; Sharma 2008; Duan 2011; Tye 2011) and they are complicated for a lay reader. While promoters of fluoridation are content to dismiss dental fluorosis (in its milder forms) as merely a cosmetic effect, it is rash to assume that fluoride is not impacting other developing tissues when it is visibly damaging the teeth by some biochemical mechanism (Groth 1973; Colquhoun 1997). Moreover, ingested fluoride can only cause dental fluorosis during the period before the permanent teeth have erupted (6-8 years), other tissues are potentially susceptible to damage throughout life. For example, in areas of naturally high levels of fluoride the first indicator of harm is dental fluorosis in children. In the same communities many older people develop skeletal fluorosis.
  • Fluoride may damage the brain. According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” In a review of the literature commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fluoride has been listed among about 100 chemicals for which there is “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). In total, there have now been over 100 animal experiments showing that fluoride can damage the brain and impact learning and behavior. According to fluoridation proponents, these animal studies can be ignored because high doses were used. However, it is important to note that it takes 5-20 times more fluoride to reach the same plasma levels in rats as reached in humans (Sawan 2010). In fact, one animal experiment found effects at remarkably low doses (Varner 1998). In this study, rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water (the same level used in fluoridation programs), using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta-amyloid deposits which are associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Other animal studies have found effects on the brain at water fluoride levels as low as 5 ppm (Liu 2010).(For a complete listing of these studies.
  • Fluoride may lower IQ. There have now been 24 studies from China, Iran, India and Mexico that have reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. One of these studies (Lin Fa-Fu 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g., 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency. In the absence of iodine deficiency, another research team (Xiang 2003a,b) estimated that fluoride may lower IQ at 1.9 ppm, while a recent preliminary study (Ding 2011) found a lowering of IQ in children drinking water at levels ranging from 0.3 to 3 ppm. The authors of this latter study reported that for each increase of 1 ppm fluoride measured in the urine there was a loss of 0.59 IQ points. None of these studies indicates an adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking artificially fluoridated water from this affect. According to the National Research Council (2006), “the consistency of the results [in fluoride/IQ studies] appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” Except for an early and small IQ study from New Zealand (Shannon et al., 1986) no fluoridating country has investigated the matter for themselves.
  • Fluoride may cause non-IQ neurotoxic effects. Reduced IQ is not the only neurotoxic effect that may result from fluoride exposure. At least three human studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired visual-spatial organization (Calderon 2000; Li 2004; Rocha-Amador 2009); while three other studies have found an association between prenatal fluoride exposure and fetal brain damage (Han 1989; Du 1992; Yu 1996).
  • Fluoride affects the pineal gland. Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) show that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis, Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997). Consistent with Luke’s findings, one of the earliest fluoridation trials in the U.S. (Schlesinger 1956) reported that on average young girls in the fluoridated community reached menstruation 5 months earlier than girls in the non-fluoridated community. Inexplicably, no fluoridating country has attempted to reproduce either Luke’s or Schlesinger’s findings or examine the issue any further.
  • Fluoride affects thyroid function. According to the U.S. National Research Council (2006), “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function.” In the Ukraine, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water. In the middle of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). According to a clinical study by Galletti and Joyet (1958), the thyroid function of hyperthyroid patients was effectively reduced at just 2.3 to 4.5 mg/day of fluoride ion. To put this finding in perspective, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS, 1991) has estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities ranges from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day. This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the United States and other fluoridated countries. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease. In 2010, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid (sodium levothyroxine) which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid.
  • Fluoride causes arthritic symptoms. Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis (a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa), mimic the symptoms of arthritis (Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation published in Chemical & Engineering News, “Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed” (Hileman 1988). Few, if any, studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis – CDC, 2002) and other fluoridated countries is related to growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. Even when individuals in the U.S. suffer advanced forms of skeletal fluorosis (from drinking large amounts of tea), it has taken years of misdiagnoses before doctors finally correctly diagnosed the condition as fluorosis.
  • Fluoride damages bone. An early fluoridation trial (Newburgh-Kingston 1945-55) found a significant two-fold increase in cortical bone defects among children in the fluoridated community (Schlesinger 1956). The cortical bone is the outside layer of the bone and is important to protect against fracture. While this result was not considered important at the time with respect to bone fractures, it did prompt questions about a possible link to osteosarcoma (Caffey, 1955; NAS, 1977). In 2001, Alarcon-Herrera and co-workers reported a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in both children and adults in a high fluoride area in Mexico.
  • Fluoride may increase hip fractures in the elderly. When high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a higher number of fractures, particularly hip fractures (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, often leading to a loss of independence or a shortened life. There have been over a dozen studies published since 1990 that have investigated a possible relationship between hip fractures and long term consumption of artificially fluoridated water or water with high natural levels. The results have been mixed – some have found an association and others have not. Some have even claimed a protective effect. One very important study in China, which examined hip fractures in six Chinese villages, found what appears to be a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001) offering little comfort to those who drink a lot of fluoridated water. Moreover, in the only human epidemiological study to assess bone strength as a function of bone fluoride concentration, researchers from the University of Toronto found that (as with animal studies) the strength of bone declined with increasing fluoride content (Chachra 2010). Finally, a recent study from Iowa (Levy 2009), published data suggesting that low-level fluoride exposure may have a detrimental effect on cortical bone density in girls (an effect that has been repeatedly documented in clinical trials and which has been posited as an important mechanism by which fluoride may increase bone fracture rates).
  • People with impaired kidney function are particularly vulnerable to bone damage. Because of their inability to effectively excrete fluoride, people with kidney disease are prone to accumulating high levels of fluoride in their bone and blood. As a result of this high fluoride body burden, kidney patients have an elevated risk for developing skeletal fluorosis. In one of the few U.S. studies investigating the matter, crippling skeletal fluorosis was documented among patients with severe kidney disease drinking water with just 1.7 ppm fluoride (Johnson 1979). Since severe skeletal fluorosis in kidney patients has been detected in small case studies, it is likely that larger, systematic studies would detect skeletal fluorosis at even lower fluoride levels.
  • Fluoride may cause bone cancer (osteosarcoma). A U.S. government-funded animal study found a dose-dependent increase in bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in fluoride-treated, male rats (NTP 1990). Following the results of this study, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed national cancer data in the U.S. and found a significantly higher rate of osteosarcoma (a bone cancer) in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover et al 1991a). While the NCI concluded (based on an analysis lacking statistical power) that fluoridation was not the cause (Hoover et al 1991b), no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found osteosarcoma rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies of varying size and quality have failed to find this relationship (a summary of these can be found in Bassin, 2001 and Connett & Neurath, 2005). There are three reasons why a fluoride-osteosarcoma connection is plausible: First, fluoride accumulates to a high level in bone. Second, fluoride stimulates bone growth. And, third, fluoride can interfere with the genetic apparatus of bone cells in several ways; it has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage, and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in both cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993; Mihashi 1996; Zhang 2009). In addition to cell and tissue studies, a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans has also been reported (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997; Joseph 2000).
  • Proponents have failed to refute the Bassin-Osteosarcoma study. In 2001, Elise Bassin, a dentist, successfully defended her doctoral thesis at Harvard in which she found that young boys had a five-to-seven fold increased risk of getting osteosarcoma by the age of 20 if they drank fluoridated water during their mid-childhood growth spurt (age 6 to 8). The study was published in 2006 (Bassin 2006) but has been largely discounted by fluoridating countries because her thesis adviser Professor Chester Douglass (a promoter of fluoridation and a consultant for Colgate) promised a larger study that he claimed would discount her thesis (Douglass and Joshipura, 2006). Now, after 5 years of waiting the Douglass study has finally been published (Kim 2011) but in no way does this study discount Bassin’s findings. The study, which used far fewer controls than Bassin’s analysis, did not even attempt to assess the age-specific window of risk that Bassin identified. Indeed, by the authors’ own admission, the study had no capacity to assess the risk of osteosarcoma among children and adolescents (the precise population of concern). For a critique of the Douglass study, click here.
  • Fluoride may cause reproductive problems. Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system – it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a,b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002; Zakrzewska 2002). In addition, an epidemiological study from the US found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 ppm or more fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), two studies have found reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Susheela 1996; Barot 1998), and a study of fluoride-exposed workers reported a “subclinical reproductive effect” (Ortiz-Perez 2003). While animal studies by FDA researchers have failed to find evidence of reproductive toxicity in fluoride-exposed rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), the National Research Council (2006) has recommended that, “the relationship between fluoride and fertility requires additional study.”
  • Some individuals are highly sensitive to low levels of fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967; Waldbott 1978; Moolenburgh 1987). In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Many individuals have reported suffering from symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, rashes and stomach and gastro intestinal tract problems, which disappear when they avoid fluoride in their water and diet. Frequently the symptoms reappear when they are unwittingly exposed to fluoride again (Spittle, 2008). No fluoridating government has conducted scientific studies to take this issue beyond these anecdotal reports. Without the willingness of governments to investigate these reports scientifically, should we as a society be forcing these people to ingest fluoride?
  • Other subsets of population are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. In addition to people suffering from impaired kidney function discussed in reason #30 other subsets of the population are more fluoride’s toxic effects. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993) these include: infants, the elderly and diabetics. Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g., calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodine deficiencies and protein-poor diets. See: Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998).

No Margin of Safety

  • There is no margin of safety for several health effects. No one can deny that high natural levels of fluoride damage health. Millions of people in India and China have had their health compromised by fluoride. The real argument is about whether there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses that have been shown to cause harm in published studies and the total dose people receive consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and non-water sources of fluoride. This margin of safety has to take into account the wide range of individual sensitivity expected in a large population (a safety factor of 10 is usually applied to the lowest level causing harm). Another safety factor is also needed to take into account the wide range of doses to which people are exposed. There is clearly no margin of safety for dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010) and based on the following studies nowhere near an adequate margin of safety for lowered IQ (Xiang 2003a,b; Ding 2011); lowered thyroid function (Galletti & Joyet 1958; Bachinskii 1985; Lin 1991); bone fractures in children (Alarcon-Herrera 2001) or hip fractures in the elderly (Kurttio 1999; Li 2001). All these harmful effects are discussed in the NRC (2006) review.

Environmental Justice

  • Low-income families penalized by fluoridation. Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition, and thus more likely to be more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects, are the poor, who unfortunately, are the very people being targeted by new fluoridation programs. While at heightened risk, poor families are least able to afford avoiding fluoride once it is added to the water supply. No financial support is being offered to these families to help them get alternative water supplies or to help pay the costs of treating unsightly cases of dental fluorosis.
  • Black and Hispanic children are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. According to the CDC’s national survey of dental fluorosis, black and Mexican-American children have significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis than white children (Beltran-Aguilar 2005, Table 23). The recognition that minority children appear to be more vulnerable to toxic effects of fluoride, combined with the fact that low-income families are less able to avoid drinking fluoridated water, has prompted prominent leaders in the environmental-justice movement to oppose mandatory fluoridation in Georgia. In a statement issued in May 2011, the Rev. Andrew Young, a colleague of Martin Luther King, Jr., and former Mayor of Atlanta and former US Ambassador to the United Nations, stated:

“I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist…My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation.” (see: Halt-to-Water-Fluoridation)

  • Minorities are not being warned about their vulnerabilities to fluoride. The CDC is not warning black and Mexican-American children that they have higher rates of dental fluorosis than Caucasian children (see #38). This extra vulnerability may extend to other toxic effects of fluoride. Black Americans have higher rates of lactose intolerance, kidney problems and diabetes, all of which may exacerbate fluoride’s toxicity.
  • Tooth decay reflects low-income not low-fluoride intake. Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for low-income families. The highest rates of tooth decay today can be found in low-income areas that have been fluoridated for many years. The real “Oral Health Crisis” that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.

The largely untested chemicals used in fluoridation programs

  • The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they largely come from the wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry. These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these silicon fluorides are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000). Arsenic is a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level. This one contaminant alone could be increasing cancer rates – and unnecessarily so.
  • The silicon fluorides have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. Proponents claim that once the silicon fluorides have been diluted at the public water works they are completely dissociated to free fluoride ions and hydrated silica and thus there is no need to examine the toxicology of these compounds. However, while a study from the University of Michigan (Finney et al., 2006) showed complete dissociation at neutral pH, in acidic conditions (pH 3) there was a stable complex containing five fluoride ions. Thus the possibility arises that such a complex may be regenerated in the stomach where the pH lies between 1 and 2.
  • The silicon fluorides may increase lead uptake into children’s blood. Studies by Masters and Coplan 1999, 2000, 2007 show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children’s blood. Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the developing brain, this is a very serious finding. Nevertheless, it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries. This association received some strong biochemical support from an animal study by Sawan et al. (2010) who found that exposure of rats to a combination of fluorosilicic acid and lead in their drinking water increased the uptake of lead into blood some threefold over exposure to lead alone.
  • Fluoride may leach lead from pipes, brass fittings and soldered joints. Maas et al (2007) have shown that fluoridating agents in combination with chlorinating agents such as chloroamine increase the leaching of lead from brass fittings used in plumbing. While proponents may argue about the neurotoxic effects of low levels of fluoride there is no argument that lead at very low levels lowers IQ in children.

Continued promotion of fluoridation is unscientific

  • Key health studies have not been done. In the January 2008 issue of Scientific American, Professor John Doull, the chairman of the important 2006 National Research Council review, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards, is quoted as saying:

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 top 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.

The absence of studies is being used by promoters as meaning the absence of harm. This is an irresponsible position.

  • Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published (see chapters 9 and 10 in The Case Against Fluoride for the significance of this PHS endorsement for the future promotion of fluoridation). Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science.
  • Review panels hand-picked to deliver a pro-fluoridation result. Every so often, particularly when their fluoridation program is under threat, governments of fluoridating countries hand-pick panels to deliver reports that provide the necessary re-endorsement of the practice.

In their recent book Fluoride Wars (2009), which is otherwise slanted toward fluoridation, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr concede this point when they write:

There is one anti-fluoridationist charge that does have some truth to it. Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the costs and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favor of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together reports by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1941, 1944 and 1954; the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, 1971, 1977 and 1993; the World Health Organization in 1958 and 1970; and the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 are rife with the names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous.

The most recent examples of these self-fulfilling prophecies have come from the Irish Fluoridation Forum (2002); the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2007) and Health Canada (2008, 2010). The latter used a panel of six experts to review the health literature. Four of the six were pro-fluoridation dentists and the other two had no demonstrated expertise on fluoride. A notable exception to this trend was the appointment by the U.S. National Research Council of the first balanced panel of experts ever selected to look at fluoride’s toxicity in the U.S. This panel of twelve reviewed the US EPA’s safe drinking water standards for fluoride. After three and half years the panel concluded in a 507- page report that the safe drinking water standard was not protective of health and a new maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) should be determined (NRC, 2006). If normal toxicological procedures and appropriate margins of safety were applied to their findings this report should spell an end to water fluoridation. Unfortunately in January of 2011 the US EPA Office of Water made it clear that they would not determine a value for the MCLG that would jeopardize the water fluoridation program (EPA press release, Jan 7, 2011. Once again politics was allowed to trump science.

More and more independent scientists oppose fluoridation

  • Many scientists oppose fluoridation. Proponents of fluoridation have maintained for many years— despite the fact that the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists—that the only people opposed to fluoridation are not bona fide scientists. Today, as more and more scientists, doctors, dentists and other professionals, read the primary literature for themselves, rather than relying on self-serving statements from the ADA and the CDC, they are realizing that they and the general public have not been diligently informed by their professional bodies on this subject. As of July 2011, over 3700 professionals have signed a statement calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide. This statement and a list of signatories can be found on the website of the Fluoride Action Network (see: A glimpse of the caliber of those opposing fluoridation can be gleaned by watching the 28-minute video “Professional Perspectives on Water fluoridation” which can be viewed online at the same FAN site.

Proponents’ dubious tactics

  • Proponents usually refuse to defend fluoridation in open debate. While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they usually refuse to defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the U.S. EPA (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, “Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view” (Easley, 1999). In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that, “the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues” (Martin 1991).
  • Proponents use very dubious tactics to promote fluoridation. Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain (Mullenix 1995); and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Many dentists and even doctors tell opponents in private that they are opposed to this practice but dare not speak out in public because of peer pressure and the fear of recriminations. Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific and ethical grounds.


When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, vested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a sixty-year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials and dental leaders have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.

Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth?

While fluoridation may not be the greatest environmental health threat, it is one of the easiest to end. It is as easy as turning off a spigot in the public water works. But to turn off that spigot takes political will and to get that we need masses more people informed and organized. Please get these 50 reasons to all your friends and encourage them to get fluoride out of their community and to help ban this practice worldwide.

The following article was written by a doctor and can be found here

I regularly get asked questions about the dangers of fluoride and water fluoridation (often misspelled as flouride and flouridation). In fact, one of my employees was recently speaking with me about the sodium fluoride drops his daughter’s pediatrician had prescribed.

In response to the questions and concerns, I’ve put together this article which is loaded with information about fluoride (flouride), symptoms of fluoridation, and the dangers of consuming fluoride.

I hope this helps answer your questions!

  • The fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug”. The proper use of any drug requires an understanding of how much is too much. Since fluoride is already in many foods and beverages, an estimated total intake of existing fluoride amounts is imperative. Research shows fluoridation is unnecessary since we’re already receiving 300% or more of the American Dental Association’s recommended daily amount.#
  • The chemicals used for fluoridation are not high purity, pharmaceutical quality products. Rather they are byproducts of aluminum and fertilizer manufacturing and contain a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All proven to be carcinogens.#
  • Newsweek Magazine advised the public that “political decisions [about fluoridation] were at odds with expert advice” and “fluoride from your tap may not do much good-and may cause cancer.” Then, in 1992, Newsweek published another fluoride safety related article, “Is Science Censored?, a look at how political considerations influence what scientific studies get published.”#
  • The first noticeable signs of excessive exposure to fluoride in contaminated water, air, and food products include discolorations of the enamel. Dental fluorosis during tooth growth and loss of dentition in adulthood are two consequences of chronic intoxication with fluorine compounds. Abnormalities in mineralization processes affect by and large the osteoarticular system and are associated with changes in the density and structure of the bone presenting as irregular mineralization of the osteoid.*
  • Children’s sodium fluoride anti-cavity supplements were never found safe or effective by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).They were never even tested.So why are these prescription drugs allowed despite no FDA approval? Because fluoride supplements were “grandfathered in” before the 1938 law was enacted requiring drug testing.So, products on the market before 1938 were presumed safe by the FDA who allowed grandfathered drugs to be sold without any testing. Once a drug is on the market for any reason, doctors can use them to treat any disease or condition.Sodium fluoride was on the market pre-1938, but not to stop cavities and not for any medical reason. Sodium fluoride sold as a rat poison.

    So, in effect, the FDA says – since sodium fluoride safely and effectively killed rats before 1938, the FDA considers it is safe to give to little children to prevent tooth decay.From a 1951 American Dental Association brochure:
    “There is no proof that commercial preparations such as tablets, dentifrices, mouthwashes or chewing gum containing fluorides are effective in preventing dental decay. Unfortunately such preparations are being offered to the public without adequate scientific evidence of their value.”*

  • 97% of western Europe has chosen fluoride-free water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Scotland, Sweden, and Switzerland. (While some European countries add fluoride to salt, the majority do not.) Thus, rather than mandating fluoride treatment for the whole population, western Europe allows individuals the right to choose, or refuse, fluoride.^
  • Contrary to previous belief, fluoride has minimal benefit when swallowed. When water fluoridation began in the 1940s and ’50s, dentists believed that fluoride needed to be swallowed in order to be most effective. This belief, however, has now been discredited by an extensive body of modern research (1).According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride’s “predominant effect is posteruptive and topical” (2). In other words, any benefits that accrue from the use of fluoride, come from the direct application of fluoride to the outside of teeth (after they have erupted into the mouth) and not from ingestion. There is no need, therefore, to expose all other tissues to fluoride by swallowing it.^
  • Ingestion of fluoride has little benefit, but many risks. Whereas fluoride’s benefits come from topical contact with teeth, its risks to health (which involve many more tissues than the teeth) result from being swallowed.Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion have been associated with doses attainable by people living in fluoridated areas. For example:
    • Risk to the brain. According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Animal studies conducted in the 1990s by EPA scientists found dementia-like effects at the same concentration (1 ppm) used to fluoridate water, while human studies have found adverse effects on IQ at levels as low as 0.9 ppm among children with nutrient deficiencies, and 1.8 ppm among children with adequate nutrient intake. (7-10)
    • Risk to the thyroid gland. According to the NRC, fluoride is an “endocrine disrupter.” Most notably, the NRC has warned that doses of fluoride (0.01-0.03 mg/kg/day) achievable by drinking fluoridated water, may reduce the function of the thyroid among individuals with low-iodine intake. Reduction of thyroid activity can lead to loss of mental acuity, depression and weight gain (11)
    • Risk to bones. According to the NRC, fluoride can diminish bone strength and increase the risk for bone fracture. While the NRC was unable to determine what level of fluoride is safe for bones, it noted that the best available information suggests that fracture risk may be increased at levels as low 1.5 ppm, which is only slightly higher than the concentration (0.7-1.2 ppm) added to water for fluoridation. (12)
    • Risk for bone cancer. Animal and human studies – including a recent study from a team of Harvard scientists – have found a connection between fluoride and a serious form of bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in males under the age of 20. The connection between fluoride and osteosarcoma has been described by the National Toxicology Program as “biologically plausible.” Up to half of adolescents who develop osteosarcoma die within a few years of diagnosis. (13-16)
    • Risk to kidney patients. People with kidney disease have a heightened susceptibility to fluoride toxicity. The heightened risk stems from an impaired ability to excrete fluoride from the body. As a result, toxic levels of fluoride can accumulate in the bones, intensify the toxicity of aluminum build-up, and cause or exacerbate a painful bone disease known as renal osteodystrophy. (17-19)^