"There are 4 main arguments against water fluoridation:
There have been many government sponsored reports - U.S., England and Canada - which have reviewed the various aspects of fluoridation and all have questioned the practice. Even UNICEF, the health arm of the United Nations, warns of fluoride's negative effects.
Unfortunately, most dental professionals have a difficult time accepting that new medical and scientific understanding often change what we held to be true decades earlier. This is just human nature.
Dennis Mountjoy, a California Assemblymember, sponsored AB1565, a bill which required fluoride compounds to tested and approved for safety and effectiveness. Unfortunately, his colleagues thought his idea was too radical! They believed our children's health was a secondary consideration when confronted by industry lobbyists. [read his letter]
Several environmental groups are also on record as opposing fluoridation due to its impact on plants and animals, including people.
The Center for Children's Health and the Environment, a part of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, demonstrates the relationship between exposure to toxic chemicals and childhood illness.
"Of the thousands of synthetic chemicals on the market, relatively few have been tested for safety. And even fewer have been tested in combination with other chemicals. For our health, for our childrens health, such testing should be in place for all chemicals." - Center for Children's Health
One of the arguments by those advocating fluoridation is that it's needed to help the poor kids. The latest report by the Surgeon General, "Oral Health in America" (May 2000) stated "..80 percent of Medicaid kids don't receive dental care because few dentists take Medicaid." Perhaps the money used to fluoridate could be better used to subsidize dental care.
Delta Dental, the largest dental insurance company in California advocates fluoridation and gives grants to cities to who fluoridate. In our local area, we estimate they given away over $1 million. In what can only be considered a hypocritical action, Delta Dental advocates fluoridation but won't pay for any dental repair work caused by fluorosis.
in a new devious twist, the American Dental Association, acting like teenage
hackers, bought the domain name "www.fluoridealert.com" and
"www.fluoridealert.net" to deceive web surfers away from fluoridation
opponents' website, http://www.fluoridealert.org. Instead, with a slip
of a "dot com," unsuspecting web surfersare tricked to the American
Dental Association's pro-fluoridation information.
Even the federal government is concerned about fluoridation. The U.S. Army Medical Command, MEDCOM, which is in chargeof the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in Washington, D.C. and three other major in stallations are concerned about fluoridating the water supply of Fort Detrick, Maryland. They contacted an acknowledged expert in neurotoxicity, Dr. Mullenix, and requested an expert opinion concerning fluoridation. Dr. Mullenix's revealing analysis stated that "fluoride exposures today are out of control," and ".. there are no advantages to water fluoridation. The risks today far exceed the hoped for benefit." Dr. Mullenix cites data from 18 clinical studies in her analysis.
A Toxicological Profile done by the Department of Health and Human Resources, revealed that certain people may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems. Other studies show some people do have an allergic reaction to fluoride.
Dr. Mullienix is not alone. Dr. James B. Patrick, a Harvard Ph.D and former NIH (National Inst. of Health) scientist, testified in front the U.S. Congress in 1982 about why most European nations reject fluoridation.
In Sweden the government sought the opinion of the Nobel Medical Institute, one of the most prestigious in the world. The Institute recommended against fluoridation, based largely toxicity, and Swedish water remains unfluoridated. In a similar manner the French government consulted the Pasteur Institute. That Institute strongly recommended against fluoridation and France also remains unfluoridated.
The respected magazine Newsweek, 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."
In 1992, Newsweek published another fluoride safety related article, "Is Science Censored?", a look at how political considerations influence what scientific studies get published.
A quote from the leading paid advocate for fluoridation,
Comments like these led the associate technical director for Consumers Union, Dr. Edward Groth, to conclude that
The University of California at Davis also has interesting things to say regarding the deceptive use of statistics to promote fluoride. [letter]
No fluoride advocate ever discusses how much fluoride is already being consumed in the food and beverages we drink. If they did, the truth would be known that we already consume excessive amounts of fluoride from our diets. The need for water fluoridation would be unnecessary.
For example, if you have cereal with milk and a Coke, you have overdosed on fluoride. You have exceeded the American Dental Association's recommended daily dose by over 130%.
If we examine an average elementary school lunch in a nonfluoridated community, we can get an estimate of how much fluoride our children are actually receiving. The facts clearly show an overdose of the "recommended" amount of fluoride in just one school meal.
In Ireland, the Chairman and six other councillors of the Kildare County Council took a urine test to check the current level of fluoride in their system after a lecture by a British expert discussed how we are already overdosed on fluoride. The test showed they had enough fluoride to cause medical concern even though their community isn't fluoridated.
In 1993, the Environmental Studies and Toxicology Board of the National Research Council (NRC) reported that fluoridation of municipal drinking water supplies may result in dental fluorosis in about 10% of the population. You have a 1 in 10 chance of experiencing tooth damage from water fluoridation!!
Even UNICEF, a United Nations organization, cautions that excess fluoride exposure negatively affects children's health. In their official position statement, they state, "But more and more scientists are now seriously questioning the benefits of fluoride, even in small amounts."
See what mild fluorosis looks like and then decide if it's o.k. for your children's teeth to be disfigured.
In 1993, the National Research Council stated African-American children experience twice the prevalence of dental fluorosis as white children and it tended to be more severe.
Fluoride advocates also don't want you to know that the chemicals used for fluoridation are not pharmaceutical quality, rather they are derived from the waste byproducts of fertilizer manufacturing. Unfortunately, they also contain heavy metals, such as lead and arsenic. Chemifloc Ltd., a fluoridation chemical manufacturer, clearly states this in a letter.
NSF, a corporation which developed drinking water standards stated the "most common contaminant in [fluoridated water] is arsenic" along with other significant contaminants, such as lead. The chemicals used for fluoridation exhibit similar toxicity as lead and arsenic but are permitted in 100x quantities.
Children exposed to lead at levels now considered safe scored substantially lower on intelligence tests, according to researchers who suggest one in every 30 children in the United States suffers harmful effects from the metal.
There is no safe level of blood lead, said Dr. Bruce Lanphear, lead author of the lead study presented Monday at the Pediatric Academic Societies annual meeting.
The New England Journal of Medicine reported that the vast majority of cancers (50%) are caused .. by environmental and behavioral factors such as chemical pollutants.
Here's an plant in Florida where fertilizer is processed and fluoride is created as a waste byproduct. Other plants are in Juarez, México. Even more interesting is the published description, by a large manufacturer, of various uses of this fertilizer byproduct, such as "Rust and Stain removal for textiles" and "Wood preservative"
The City of Palo Alto California, home of Stanford University, is well aware of the dangers of fluoridation. In Palo Alto's published water analysis, they also identify the source of fluoride, fertilizer manufacturer, and states that fluoridation damages water pipes [because it dissolves lead out of the pipes and/or solder joints]
Several states, including Nevada, have laws that identify chemicals used for pesticides. Included is sodium fluoride, a chemical used for water fluoridation.
The fluoride controversy isn't new. In 1997, the city of Natick Mass. considered the fluoridation of the town's water supply. In order to sort out conflicting claims, they commissioned a respected team of top scientists to analyze the data and make recommendations. The widely read analysis is known as the Natick Report. The panel of doctors and scientists made 12 very specific recommendations. In summary, the scientists "emphatically" recommended the water supply "not be fluoridated." Their analysis also concluded a host of other medical problems may ensue from artificially fluoridating the water.
In March 2000, Wilmington Massachusetts also reviewed both sides of the fluoridation issue and decided against it. The town's Board of Health cited many critical concerns in their five page summary.
The City of Auburndale Florida was so concerned about the health of workers handling fluoridation chemicals, they changed what they were doing.
Most recently, the York Report, a review of several hundred selected papers on fluoridation was published. Profluoridationists touted the report as "proving" fluoridation was safe. So misleading were their statements, that in an unusual step, the Chairman in charge of the York Report had to issue a statement a month later clarifying what was stated in the report, including "The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe."
Natick, Wilmington and Auburndale aren't alone. Over 80 cities have rejected fluoride since 1996, including Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Mtn. View California in 1985. This includes a number of towns which already were fluoridated.
In an 1998 fluoridation advisory vote in Mtn. View, a small town in northern California, population 75,000, the American Dental Association (ADA) spent over $50,000 in a political campaign to promote fluoridation. They paid almost $5 for every yes vote they received, an expensive campaign by any standards. Perhaps the money would be better spent towards subsidizing dental care for those who can't afford it instead of purchasing slick campaign brochures.
The ADA states fluoridation is 100% safe (if not swallowed). Dentists cannot give a professional opinion of the safety of fluoridated ingested water. The California Board of Dental Examiners recently issued a letter (Dec. '99) stating that "Effects of ingested fluoride is not within the purview of dentistry!!" Dentists can not give a professional opinion as to the safety of fluoridated water as they would be practicing medicine without a license.
Why doesn't your dentist warn you about the negatives? The ADA simply refuses to discuss any negatives of fluoridation with member dentists or the public and wants no public discussion.
According to Section 20 of the American Dental Association Code of Ethics, "Dentists' non-participation [ in fluoridation promotion] is overt neglect of professional responsibility." In recent years, several dentists who have testified on the anti-fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state dental officers. If a dentist speaks out against fluoridation, he could lose his license. This is professional and scientific censorship.
It's also impossible to discuss or debate any ADA member. They simply refuse to attend any town debate where fluoridation is the topic. Their strategy is not to expose the subject to common sense. When open minded people hear both sides, the ADA's arguments fall flat and fluoridation fails.
Perhaps this is why the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) retaliated against Dr. Marcus, an EPA Senior Toxicologist, by firing him in May 1992 for his scientific reports which recommended removing fluoride from drinking water. The EPA was sued and found by the Court to have destroyed key documents and lied about other evidence.
The best proof as to which side current science supports is to prove it in court with expert witnesses. There were three landmark cases adjudicated since 1978 in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Texas.
Testimony in the Texas case filled 2800 transcript pages and fully described the benefits and risks of water fluoridation. Judge Flaherty issued an injunction against fluoridation in the case, but the injunction was overturned on jurisdictional grounds but his findings of fact were not disturbed by appellate action.
Here's what Texas Judge Farris said was PROVEN in court.