In most areas of the United States since the 1950s, fluoride has been added to the water supply to reportedly help keep teeth healthy despite it being proven to cause neurological, hormonal and skeletal damage.

I believe that enough information has been out for many decades proving just how bad drinking fluoride is.

More than 90 percent of the world doesn’t fluoridate their municipal water supplies, yet a minority of countries continue its use.

The Food and Drug Administration classifies the mineral fluoride as a drug, not a nutrient.

To be classified as a nutrient, the substance needs to be necessary for life. When fluoride is taken out of a person’s diet, no ill-effects appear.

Proponents of water fluoridation say the drug is dentist recommended. But when ingested, fluoride has an effect on all the tissue in the body, so only taking advice from a dentist and not other doctors such as a neurologist or orthopedist seems like a bad idea.

Dentists are not licensed to administer drugs that are not related to dentistry. They can only perform procedures that are within their field. The daily ingestion of a drug which affects all the tissue in the body is not within a dentist’s field of expertise just like doing open heart surgery isn’t either.

Saying that water fluoridation is dentist recommended is like saying water fluoridation is plumber recommended.

Prescriptions to drugs are only given to individuals, not entire populations.

It is against the law for a doctor to write a single prescription for multiple people, and it is against the law to not allow informed consent when prescribing a drug to an individual.

Adding fluoride to municipal water supplies not only takes out consent, but it takes out the ability to control just how much of the drug is consumed by an individual because people drink different amounts of water.

That is why it’s surprising to me that it is legal to drug everyone drinking municipal water in the name of good teeth without consideration for the brain and muscles.

The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to regulate water fluoridation by requiring municipalities that choose to fluoridate their water supplies to not exceed four parts per million due to the ill health effects that fluoride causes, such as tooth discoloration and other problems.

This is why it is so dangerous for a child to ingest a tube of fluoridated toothpaste. It can be fatal.

With how important people’s brains, muscles, and thyroids are versus their teeth, the damaging drug fluoride should be removed from all municipal water supplies.

(8) comments

MJL77


I recently learned that the tap water in my county does not participate in the mandatory mass medication of the populace via drinking water with added fluoride.
Years ago, after learning that fluoride in the North American drinking water supplies is considered to be a neurotoxin according to hundreds of worldwide studies (with some especially damning ones in the top peer-review medical journal The Lancet), I began to filter my tap water to avoid this substance that is considered to be on par with some of the most notorious environmental toxins out there.

So I was both pleasantly surprised – and a bit confused – to learn that my county is exempt for the mass medications because of naturally occurring fluoride in the water in my region. This naturally raised some questions – namely, what is the difference between naturally occurring fluoride, and man made synthetic fluoride?

Naturally Occurring Fluoride – Calcium Fluoride (CaF2)
The natural version of fluoride is known as calcium fluoride (CaF2), which is naturally found in soil. While still not something you want in abundance in your water, is not that harmful to us. Calcium fluoride is considered the “least toxic” and in some cases “relatively harmless”, and that’s because of its high insolubility.

Moreover, calcium is a well-known antidote for fluoride poisoning. In nature, an antidote often naturally exists in combination with a poison, making the poison less toxic to the body.

Therefore, low levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the water supply is not generally cause for concern.

Synthetic Fluoride Additives – Sodium Fluoride (NaF)
The synthetic industrial version of fluoride that is added to public drinking water is called sodium fluoride (NaF). This industrial version is a synthetic toxic waste known to cause cancer.

The term “fluoride” is a cover-up name for many of the toxic chemicals that make up fluoride, including lead, arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, fluorosilicic acid and even radioactive materials. The pure form of sodium fluoride is so toxic that by just consuming a small volume of it could kill you. There is enough fluoride in one tube of toothpaste to kill two small children. This is why fluoridated toothpastes have warning labels on them and fluoride-free toothpastes do not.

Sodium fluoride is even more toxic than certain forms of rat poison – in fact, sodium fluoride is one of the main chemicals in pesticide, insecticide and fungicide for this very reason.

As described at PreventDisease.com:

The fluoride added to 90% of drinking water is hydrofluoric acid which is a compound of fluorine that is a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing.

Hydrofluoric acid is used to refine high octane gasoline, to make fluorocarbons and chlorofluorocarbons for freezers and air conditioners, and to manufacture computer screens, fluorescent light bulbs, semiconductors, plastics, herbicides, and toothpaste.

chris

Once again we get someone who spends 5 minutes on an activist site and is an expert, Now and again we actually see someone who has done proper research and presents a quality discussion on the subject. It is a shame this is not one of those times.
All we have here is a personal view, with no valid evidence to back up and opinion stated. In fact most of the comment is not correct, and I am sure pople with A little bit of knowledge on the subject will have a field day with this view

jerseygal65

Familiar, trite, oppositionist arguments widely circulated on the internet, usually not far from sales ads for water filtration systems. Would be comical if the health of the underserved populations in communities weren't at stake.

As a grad student finishing my MPA with health policy emphasis and my thesis on fluoridation, I spent two years poring over peer-reviewed scholarly articles as well as fear-mongering propaganda. Fluoride is all around us in nature, and optimizing its levels to provide the best drinking water possible is the ethical path towards social justice and improved population health.

Advanced societies seek to protect all citizens, and the greater good can trump individual preference on important health issues in particular. This public health tactic is tried and true. I marvel at the arrogance of amateur pseudo-scientists who proclaim to know more than the AAP, CDC, and a host of science and health professionals. Poor children in non fluoridated communities suffer needlessly. I have seen it. For shame.

Janet Nagel

Dentists place a lot of stock in the fact that the research they cite in support of fluoridation is peer-reviewed. What does that mean? It means that the research design and conclusions have been reviewed and approved by other dentists. In the present professional climate how many dentists are likely to find any shortcomings in research that concludes that fluoridation is effective? Or to accept research that raises questions about the safety or effectiveness of fluoridation? As the editors of the scientific journal Nature pointed out in 2006, “Scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.”

Other science, reviewed by toxicologists and epidemiologists and dating back at least three decades links fluoridation to health risks. For example, the EPA received evidence from the National Toxicology Program linking fluoridation to two types of cancer in 1990. In all other instances of such evidence EPA procedure is to lower the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) by a factor of 10. In the case of fluoride that would have been from 4.0 ppm to 0.4 ppm. But that would have placed the MCLG below the recommended concentration for fluoridation. So for political, not scientific, reasons the EPA administrators overruled their scientists and refused to lower the MCLG.

SSlott

The following are but a few of the countless, peer-reviewed scientific studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of the public health initiative of water fluoridation. At a cost of less than $1 per person, per year for fluoridation, with no adverse effects, there is no other dental disease preventive measure that even approaches the cost-effectiveness of fluoridation.


1)  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2925001/
Results 
Children from every age group had greater caries prevalence and more caries experience in areas with negligible fluoride concentrations in the water (<0.3 parts per million [ppm]) than in optimally fluoridated areas (≥0.7 ppm). Controlling for child age, residential location, and SES, deciduous and permanent caries experience was 28.7% and 31.6% higher, respectively, in low-fluoride areas compared with optimally fluoridated areas. The odds ratios for higher caries prevalence in areas with negligible fluoride compared with optimal fluoride were 1.34 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29, 1.39) and 1.24 (95% CI 1.21, 1.28) in the deciduous and permanent dentitions, respectively. 

------Community Effectiveness of Public Water Fluoridation in Reducing Children's Dental Disease
Jason Mathew Armfield, PhD

2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23550501 

CONCLUSIONS: 
Children with severe dental caries had statistically significantly lower numbers of lesions if they lived in a fluoridated area. The lower treatment need in such high-risk children has important implications for publicly-funded dental care. 

------Community Dent Health. 2013 Mar;30(1):15-8.
Fluoridation and dental caries severity in young children treated under general anaesthesia: an analysis of treatment records in a 10-year case series.
Kamel MS, Thomson WM, Drummond BK.
Source
Department of Oral Sciences, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, School of Dentistry, The University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.


3). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23488212 

CONCLUSIONS: 
The survey provides further evidence of the effectiveness in reducing dental caries experience up to 16 years of age. The extra intricacies involved in using the Percentage Lifetime Exposure method did not provide much more information when compared to the simpler Estimated Fluoridation Status method. 

-----Community Dent Health. 2012 Dec;29(4):293-6.
Caries status in 16 year-olds with varying exposure to water fluoridation in Ireland.
Mullen J, McGaffin J, Farvardin N, Brightman S, Haire C, Freeman R.
Source
Health Service Executive, Sligo, Republic of Ireland. joej.mullen@hse.ie

4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8500120 

Abstract 
The effectiveness of fluoridation has been documented by observational and interventional studies for over 50 years. Data are available from 113 studies in 23 countries. The modal reduction in DMFT values for primary teeth was 40-49% and 50-59% for permanent teeth. The pattern of caries now occurring in fluoride and low-fluoride areas in 15- to 16-year-old children illustrates the impact of water fluoridation on first and second molars. 

----Caries Res. 1993;27 Suppl 1:2-8.
Efficacy of preventive agents for dental caries. Systemic fluorides: water fluoridation.
Murray JJ.
Source
Department of Child Dental Health, Dental School, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.


5). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23252588 

CONCLUSIONS: 
Data showed a significant decrease in dental caries across the entire country, with an average reduction of 25% occurring every 5 years. General trends indicated that a reduction in DMFT index values occurred over time, that a further reduction in DMFT index values occurred when a municipality fluoridated its water supply, and mean DMFT index values were lower in larger than in smaller municipalities. 

----Int Dent J. 2012 Dec;62(6):308-14. doi: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2012.00124.x.
Decline in dental caries among 12-year-old children in Brazil, 1980-2005.
Lauris JR, da Silva Bastos R, de Magalhaes Bastos JR.
Source
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. jrlauris@fob.usp.br


Steven D.Slott, DDS

SSlott

Now, that's truly comical......Janet Nagel who believes peer- review to be unnecessary for scientific literature, and who never...ever.....is able to provide any valid evidence to support her opinions........agrees, and sees nothing wrong, with this conglomeration of garbled nonsense. Why am I not surprised......

Janet Nagel concurs. With an endorsement like that, no other refutation is necessary.


Steven D. Slott, DDS

Janet Nagel

All excellent points, Sean Miller. Your argument will convince most reasonable people. However, folks like Steven D. Slott, DDS, are not reasonable. They are too deeply indoctrinated to be able to recognize that fluoridation is illegitimate shotgun dentistry, that it is unethical, unprofessional, ineffective and unhealthy.

It seems that a lot of less adamant folks support fluoridation because they've heard over and over for decades that science supports it. The rub is that science actually doesn't support it. But many dentists and public officials continue to claim that it does, which is a disservice to us all.

Thanks, Sean Miller, for stating what should be obvious to any thinking person.

SSlott

Hmmm, interesting article. Let's take a look to see what actual truth may exist here....

1. "In most areas of the United States since the 1950s, fluoride has been added to the water supply to reportedly help keep teeth healthy despite it being proven to cause neurological, hormonal and skeletal damage."

Oops, nope, no truth in this one. In the entire 69 year history of the public health initiative of water fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects. Not a one.

2. "More than 90 percent of the world doesn’t fluoridate their municipal water supplies, yet a minority of countries continue its use."

Hmmm, debatable. From a recent newsletter of the New Zealand National Fluoride Information Service:

"Countries with widespread water fluoridation programmes include Australia, the United States of America, Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Spain, Israel, Brazil, Brunei, Chile, Argentina, Colombia, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia. Countries with limited water fluoridation programmes include Vietnam, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, and South Korea."

"It is estimated that 39.5 million people around the world have access to naturally fluoridated water at the optimal level although variations from one community to another over time make it difficult to calculate an accurate total."

The reasons other countries may or may not fluoridate their water systems is myriad, few, if any, related to concerns with safety or effectiveness. Bottom line is that the "concern" about what other countries may or may not do, is nothing more than one in a long list of 'red herrings', put forth by antifluoridationists. It is irrelevant to that which is done in the U.S. in the best interests of our citizenry.

3. "The Food and Drug Administration classifies the mineral fluoride as a drug, not a nutrient."

EUREKA!! Finally a truth!! But..... alas, the only reason for this claasification by the FDA is simply due to the addition of fluoride as a therapeutic rather than as a disinfectant. Purely a matter of policy. The FDA actually has no authority over optimal level fluoride added to water. As the EPA has full regulatory authority over all mineral additives to water, such as is fluoride, it is the EPA which oversees fluoride water additives to public water systems, not the FDA. If fluoride at the optimal level was indeed a drug, as antifluoridationists so very, very desperately want it to be, the FDA would control it, not the EPA.

4. "To be classified as a nutrient, the substance needs to be necessary for life. When fluoride is taken out of a person’s diet, no ill-effects appear."

Hmmm, maybe a bit of truth there, but....alas, totally irrelevant. Optimal level fluoride is added to water in order to help prevent human disease. Chlorine is added to water to help prevent human disease. Ammonia is added to water to help prevent human disease. Vaccines are administered to help prevent human disease. 74.6% of the United States has no problem with this. It is a mystery why the small yet very vocal antifluoridationist factions seem to want to pump up the "nutrient" question into a MAJOR CONCERN!!! ......and why it is only fluoride about which they are all in such angst over whether it may not be an essential nutrient. Wonder?.....could that be yet one more 'red herring' added to the list?

5. "Proponents of water fluoridation say the drug is dentist recommended. But when ingested, fluoride has an effect on all the tissue in the body, so only taking advice from a dentist and not other doctors such as a neurologist or orthopedist seems like a bad idea."

Nope, nothing but 'red herrings' here. Fluoride at the optimal level is not a "drug". It is simply a mineral identical to that which has existed in water since the beginning of time.

Strange, too, that with the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare....which includes over 100 highly respected healthcare and healthcare related organizations, the past 5 U.S. Surgeons General, the United States Public Health Service, the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public health, the EPA and the CDC......all fully supporting the public health initiative of water fluoridation, while there is not one, single, solitary, organization, of any respect, which opposes it.....it would seem that this initiative is not exactly simply "taking advice from a dentist".

6. "Dentists are not licensed to administer drugs that are not related to dentistry. They can only perform procedures that are within their field. The daily ingestion of a drug which affects all the tissue in the body is not within a dentist’s field of expertise just like doing open heart surgery isn’t either."

NOW you tell me?? For 32 years I have been under the impression that I am authorized by the DEA, and licensed by my state, to prescribe the full range of medications as are physicians! I guess I need to notify the DEA, and my state dental board of this grievous error they have made with us dentists!!! Hmmm, wonder if the DEA will give a refund for all those renewal fees I've had to pay through the years.....


And too, all these years I've been under the mistaken idea that the head is connected to the rest of the body, and that any of the treatment and surgical procedures performed on the head and neck by dentists, affect the entire body!! Silly me!!! Wonder if brain surgeons, opthalmologists, and ENT physicians are aware of this disconnect between the head and the rest of the body.....

And....all those drugs and medications which I have prescribed throughout the past 3 decades, ONLY affect the teeth, nothing else??? Their effects are somehow blocked by a barricade in the neck or something?? All those hours spent in dental school and continuing education courses in the study of chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, biochemistry, physiology, histology, and anatomy....were unnecessary, since the effects of everything we do are blocked at this miraculous gate in the neck???

7. "Saying that water fluoridation is dentist recommended is like saying water fluoridation is plumber recommended".

Hmmmmm, I like my plumbers. They do outstanding work for which I have the utmost respect!

8. "Prescriptions to drugs are only given to individuals, not entire populations."

Fluoride at the optimal level is not a "drug" simply a mineral identical to that which humans have been ingesting in their water since the beginning of time. So, this comment really doesn't seem to fit anywhere in a discussion of water fluoridation. Maybe the author here got confused and meant this comment to go in his rant against vaccines, or the one against that ridiculous theory that the earth is round...

9. "It is against the law for a doctor to write a single prescription for multiple people, and it is against the law to not allow informed consent when prescribing a drug to an individual."

Again with the prescription stuff. He must have been falling asleep or someting. It's odd how he keeps mixing up "drugs", "prescriptions", "informed consent", the practices of other countries, and who knows what else in with..........water fluoridation?

10. "Adding fluoride to municipal water supplies not only takes out consent, but it takes out the ability to control just how much of the drug is consumed by an individual because people drink different amounts of water."

Again with the "consent" thing..... Wonder if his community requires that every citizen has to give "consent " for chlorine and the numerous other things they routinely add to his water. Maybe that's where he gets this idea. Or....I wonder.....since fluoride has always existed in drinking water, should nature be requiring "informed consent"? Hmmm, wonder how that would work? Sign a consent form at church, or something?

Oh! And the "dose", thing! Yet another on the massive list of 'red herrings'! Water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter. Thus for rvery one liter of water consumed, 0.7 mg fluoride is ingested. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources, 75% comes from water and beverages. The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit of fluoride intake for adults, from all sources, before any short or long term adverse effects will occur, is 10 mg. From a little elementary math, it looks like that before this daily upper limit could be even approached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride. So.....it seems that the "uncontrolled dose" thing is not really an issue at all.

Wonder why antifluoridationists seem to be constantly wringing their hands and working themselves into a tizzy over something that is not really an issue at all? Strange mindset, that bunch....

11. "That is why it’s surprising to me that it is legal to drug everyone drinking municipal water in the name of good teeth without consideration for the brain and muscles."

There he goes with the "drug" thing again. He really should concentrate a bit better in order to stay focused on relevance.

WOW!!!! It would surprise me, TOO, if it were legal to drug everyone drinking municipal water!!! I don't really think it is legal to "drug" an entire water system, but that's irrelevant to fluoridation, anyway

12. "The Environmental Protection Agency has moved to regulate water fluoridation by requiring municipalities that choose to fluoridate their water supplies to not exceed four parts per million due to the ill health effects that fluoride causes, such as tooth discoloration and other problems."

As Andy Griffith used to say..."this just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser"...

So, it appears that the EPA doesn't really regulate fluoridated water, it is just now "moving" to do so, and that the 4.0 ppm primary MCL that the EPA must've have mistakenly thought that has been its long time mandated maximum level of fluoride that is permitted in ANY drinking water........is really just some figure they recently plucked out of the air which only applies to those who choose to fluoridate, cause the EPA is concerned about all these "ill health effects" that antifluoridationists have been scurrying around for 7 decades trying to attach to fluoridated water...with zero success. Well, I wouldn't think that the EPA is a regulatory agency that would be concerned with non-existant effects, but...who knows....

13. "This is why it is so dangerous for a child to ingest a tube of fluoridated toothpaste. It can be fatal."

Again, EUREKA!!!! Another truth! That makes two of them, now! Toothpaste contains 1200-1500 times the fluoride concentration of fluoridated water. So...yes! he is correct! It IS "so dangerous for a child to ingest a tube of fluoridated toothpaste". But, just out of curiosity.....why would a child want to eat a whole tube of toothpaste, anyway? Is the author serving it to them for dinner or something?

14. "With how important people’s brains, muscles, and thyroids are versus their teeth, the damaging drug fluoride should be removed from all municipal water supplies."

Yep, no argument there. People's brains....even the one fourth of a brain existing in some people who will remain nameless......muscles, and thyroids are definitely important. But that doesn't really have anything to do with his very curious last claim that fluoride should be removed from municipal water supplies. Maybe he's planning on giving his reason for that claim in his next entertaining piece of fiction.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.