There is nothing natural about fluoride used in fluoridation. A naturallly occuring form of fluoride, calcium fluoride, is present in some rocks and is 100x less toxic that the artificial forms of fluoride created from manufacturing by-products. Calcium fluoride is never used in fluoridation. A naturally occuring substance still doesn't make it safe. Children's bones are still deformed from calcium fluoride, take a look.

EPA Scientists Take Stand Against Fluoridation
July 1997. The EPA scientists, engineers and attorneys who assess the scientific data for Safe Drinking Water Act standards and other EPA regulations have gone on record against the practice of adding fluoride to public drinking water. (letter)

The National PTA (Parents Teachers Association) advises parents to evaluate the total fluoride intake to avoid overdosing children.

The National Academy of Science fluoride data was challenged by scientists in January of 1999 for "fudging" the results of studies to make fluoride appear to be beneficial.

The American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry (Aug 1998) is now warning that "children with educated parents who typically have better oral hygiene practices are at risk for fluorosis."

Delta Dental, one of California's largest dental insurance companies, heartily endorses fluoridation and has even donated over $100,000 towards fluoridation efforts. Unfortunately, they refuse to pay for any tooth damage due to fluorosis because of their recommendation! Look at what mild fluorosis and moderate fluorosis looks like.

The Consumers Union organization demands a retraction from a fluoridation zealot who continues to misrepresent their views on fluoridation. (letter)

Children's cavity rates dropped by 50% during the 35 years prior to fluoridation and continue to decline. Check out this chart and see the non-effectiveness of fluoridation. A basic improvement in dental hygene, tooth brushing and regular checkups, should get the credit.

Here's a list of roach insecticides which used fluoridation chemicals as their main active ingredient.

Pro-fluoridationists in California often cite a study, "California Oral Health Needs Assessment" (1994) as proving the effectiveness of fluoridation. Unfortunately, this so-called scientific study was never subjected to peer review as every credible scientific paper is. Here's why:

This Oral Health Needs Assessment showed that the worst tooth decay occurred in Asian-American children in Head Start programs for the poor; 45 percent suffered from baby bottle tooth decay, a severe form of early childhood tooth decay. The study pointed out that these children lived in fluoridated communities.

But how can fluoridation be sold to city officials when poor children with the highest tooth decay rates already have fluoridated water? Simple!

The authors of the study omitted the above information from a sales brochure they created to push fluoridation. Cited instead was the 40 percent of baby bottle tooth decay in Hispanic Head Start for poor children who live in non-fluoridated areas.

Why the desperate manipulation of data to achieve their predetermined conclusion?

It's obvious science is NOT on their side. This is why they resort to name calling and emotional propaganda like "do it for the unfortunate poor children" rather than relying on solid scientific evidence to push their agenda.

Both the California Dental Association (CDA), and the American Dental Association, (ADA) have successfully argued in court that they are not responsible for any harm that may result from their recommendations.

The FDA calls fluoride an "unapproved drug" and states there are no drinking water [i.e. safety] standards for additives used to fluoridate water. Would you use or give any drug to your children without knowing it's been proven safe and effective?

Even the EPA calls fluoride "a contaminant."

Colgate-Palmolive, having been sued numerous times and has paid for injuries (fluorosis), caused by their toothpaste.

In an obvious slip, the Journal of the American Dental Association also revealed dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas. This data is confirmed by the California Dept of Health Services who pays more for dental work in fluoridated communities.

Fluoridation a financial hazard to the electronics industry who relies on pure water. Lucent Microelectronics states it will probably cost them $5M to remove fluoride from the water they buy from the city.

Organic Chemist for Shell exposes dangers

Natick Mass. adds fluoridation WARNING to water bills.

EPA Senior Toxicologist fired over negative fluoridation report. Judge Clarke ruled that the EPA “retaliated” against Dr. Marcus, Senior EPA Toxicologist, by firing him in May 1992 for his scientific reports which recommended removing fluoride from drinking water.

2 Court cases which cite dangers of fluoride

Chemistry Texbook describes negatives of fluoridated water

Chronic Fluoride Toxicity Syndrome - from the work Fluoridation the Great Dilemma